Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can you confirm that Labor has added over $9.4 billion of off-budget spending over the next four years, totalling off-budget spending of $87.1 billion, up from Treasury's forecast of $78 billion, and, if so, how does this spending reflect the Albanese government's commitment to budget repair?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

To have that question on a day—or is it the day after? I'm sorry, the days are merging together—when we see the Financial Review headline that you are going to add more money to off-budget spending by putting the multibillion-dollar, expensive, slow and risky nuclear scheme spend off budget is really quite extraordinary.

Your question to me is: 'We don't like off-budget spending, but don't mention the $600 billion for an expensive, slow-to-build, risky nuclear scheme.' Senator Ruston, I could answer your question by pointing out that debt was $149 billion lower in 2023-24 than was forecast at the election, and that has saved Australians around $80 billion in interest costs. I could point that out to you. But I'm also saying to you: don't come in here and ask a question about off-budget spending when you are proposing—should you win government—to add $600 billion to the off-budget spend for a nuclear scheme which will deliver four per cent of Australia's electricity at the most expensive cost to Australians. That's a genius question and a genius scheme.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that it? Economist Chris Richardson stated that student debt should not be treated 'off budget', since it was a loss-making enterprise for government, and stated:

From the viewpoint of the Australian public, something should only go off budget if it's commercial. Student loans just aren't …

How do you justify using off-budget spending as a way to hide your spending splurge from the Australian public?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm a little confused by the question about student debt. Certainly, student debt features in the debt figures. I wasn't aware—and I might be wrong—that there had been a change in the accounting treatment of student debt. But what would I say to you is that I'm not sure that Mr Richardson's question—if you have correctly said that, it probably applies to both sides of politics. But what I would say to you is, if the test is commerciality, if the test is that it should be commercial spending, how do you propose to make sure that your nuclear spend could even be funded off budget? I mean, $600 billion—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the proposition, colleagues: that an uncommercial venture—and if there ever were a definition of an uncommercial venture, it's Peter Dutton's risky nuclear scheme—can't be funded off budget. How are you going to fund it? (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly didn't do economics. Independent analysis indicates an estimated $54.8 billion headline deficit this financial year, some $21.3 billion worse than the underlying deficit of $33.5 billion, due to your excessive off-budget spending. Doesn't this prove that your self-congratulatory back-patting rhetoric is not only misleading but also false and that, as we leave 2024, the Albanese Labor government has now abandoned any attempt to really rein in the budget?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer to that, Senator, is no, and we've sort of moved from off budget to the UCB and then back to debt figures in that question. And I note that Senator Hume didn't ask that question; you might ask why! I think she would have framed it perhaps in a way that was more reflective of the budget parameters. But what I would say to you, Senator Ruston, is that we saw the debt figures when we came to government. We saw the deficit figures when we came to government. We also saw the 'Back in black' mugs—remember them? What I would say to you is that we've seen a couple of surpluses, debt being paid down and less interest being paid by Australians.

It is the case that we are in a challenging economic environment. What we will not do is deal with that by cutting wages, by cutting Medicare and by funding an expensive nuclear gamble off-budget. (Time expired)