|
representatives vote 2013-11-13#11
Edited by
Natasha Burrows
on
2013-11-18 10:23:09
|
Title
Bills — Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration in Detail- Bills - Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration in Detail
Description
<p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$500", substitute "$400".</p>- Background to Bill
- On 22 October 2013 the Abbott government announced that they will raise the debt ceiling (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html) from $300 billion to $500 billion. This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.
- In the explanatory memorandum (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5127_ems_dfe1d5b2-bd7c-424c-afc8-efdd37c905b1/upload_pdf/388079.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf) for this legislation it was noted that this increase was to 'provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget'.
- Summary of debate in Parliament
- * Labor MP Chris Bowen stated that they support an increase in the debt cap, but the limit be $400 billion, not $500 billion. Bowen talked about Treasurer Hockey's refusal to release the incoming Treasurer's brief, the mid-year economic statement and a letter from the Reserve Bank relating to the granting of $9 billion.
- * National MP George Christensen criticised the Labor governments for the increasing level of debt since 2008.
- * Labor MP Anthony Albanese criticised the Abbott government for objecting to infrastructure projects.
- * Liberal MP Steven Ciobo criticised the former Labor government.
- * Greens MP Adam Bandt supports the amendment to increase the debt cap to $400 million. He stated that the Greens would like information on what the Abbott government would spend the money on.
- * SOMEONE MP Alex Hawke stated that a buffer was necessary and therefore the debt ceiling should be increased to $500 billion. He criticised the Labor government for creating this problem.
- * SOMEONE MP Ed Husic criticised the Liberal MPs for campaigning on budget emergencies and against debt during the election campaign but wanting to increase the debt ceiling in parliament. He also criticised the Abbott Government for not releasing the treasures brief, stating that the Opposition only supports a increase to the debt ceiling to $400 billion unless the Treasurer can justify an increase to $500 billion.
- * SOMEONE MP Bert Van Manen criticised the Opposition for increasing the level of debt when they were in government. HE stated that this bill was about the coalition government getting their finances in order.
- * SOMEONE MP Andrew Nikolic criticised the former government for reckless spending and stated that the increase in the debt ceiling was 'redressing the failure of the former government'.
- * Independent MP Bob Katter stated that although he would not be able to vote on the legislation (as he was not in parliament for the vote in the evening) he supports the legislation.
<p>This bill just passed the House. The Labor Party supported it. Unlike the Liberal Party in 2009 and 2012, we will support an increase in the debt cap. That is the responsible and measured thing to do. The Prime Minister erroneously claimed that the Liberal Party did not vote against increases in the debt cap. He did it in question time today. He misled the House in his first question time as Prime Minister, an inauspicious start. But the Labor Party takes a more sensible and mature approach. We have approved the increase in the debt limit. But we do have an amendment, which I have moved. The amendment is that we only authorise an increase in the debt cap of $100 billion. That is not a small or a trifling amount of money. It is a significant increase.</p><p>Let the member for Moncrieff or the Treasurer say here at the dispatch box that that would not be enough to get them through December. Would it be enough to get them through December? Of course it would—unless the budget has deteriorated more than the Treasurer has let on, or unless he is planning more giveaways, like the ones he has made since he became Treasurer, like the grant to the Reserve Bank of $9 billion. The Treasurer claims that the Reserve Bank asked for that. The Treasurer claims that the Reserve Bank asked for $8.8 billion. I asked him to release the request. He refused. I FOI'd the request. The Treasury refused to release it under FOI. We have moved in the Senate that the Senate demand the release of the document. If that passes the Senate, the Treasurer will be obliged to release the letter. He says that he would love to. If he would love to, he could release it. If he has nothing to hide, he could release the letter from the Governor of the Reserve Bank that says, 'Please give me $8.8 billion this year.' He says that he would like to release it. He could release it, but he has not and he will not, unless he is forced to.</p> <p class="speaker">Ed Husic</p><p>Along with the incoming Treasurer's brief.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>He could release the incoming Treasurer's brief. It was released in 2007. It was released in 2010—and not just the incoming Treasurer's brief, but the incoming government brief. I got an incoming Treasurer's brief not that long ago. But this Treasurer is refusing to release his. That is part of the culture of secrecy of this government.</p><p>We have moved an amendment that would give the government a $100 billion increase in the debt cap. That would see it through and allow for the net debt to peak and allow for a buffer. The last figures before the Australian people, which the Treasurer quoted today, were released by me. This Treasurer has refused to release a mid-year economic statement. We saw the Prime Minister again mislead the House today when he said, 'We'll release it in December like you did.'</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>I would remind the member for McMahon that he is getting perilously close to a disorderly statement, and I would ask him to return to the subject matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>Thank you, Madam Speaker. With respect, the release of the MYEFO is very related to the subject matter before the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>I was referring to your statement about misleading. That was perilously close.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>The Prime Minister said today that the previous government released MYEFOs in December, and that is an incorrect statement. It was not released once in December under the previous government—not once—contrary to what the Prime Minister asserted in the House today. The Treasurer could justify this increase in the debt limit by releasing his mid-year economic forecast, which is in effect a mini budget. It would reflect his decision to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank. It would reflect his decision to reverse tax changes made by the previous government in relation to tax integrity as part of the G20 agenda, which Australia will soon chair. It will reflect his decision to give a tax break to individuals with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts—good people who have worked hard but to whom it is not a priority to give a tax break in the view of the Labor Party but apparently it is a priority in the view of those opposite, the government and the Treasurer.</p><p>All these things will be reflected in the mid-year economic forecast—the Treasurer's mini-budget. So when the member for Moncrieff, representing the Treasurer—who has not bothered to turn up to sum up this very important bill—says, 'It's Labor's debt', well, the Labor Party fully acknowledges that the debt limit needed to be increased. That was acknowledged in the pre-election economic forecast. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">George Christensen</p><p>Congratulations are in order for the opposition. The dog of a debt that Labor birthed, fed and nurtured with the Greens is just about nearing maturity. Having force-fed what was a little puppy with a steady stream of record deficits for six years, Labor and the Greens watched their dog of a debt outgrow its doghouse four times, from a debt ceiling of $75 billion in 2008 to $200 billion in 2009, and from $250 billion in 2011 to $300 billion in 2012. And the member for McMahon talked about being responsible and measured with this amendment. Well, it is their irresponsible spending that has led to the near immeasurable debt that this country is going to be in. They raised the debt limit by 300 per cent in four short years. And their dog of a debt is now even outgrowing that. They abandoned it on the doorstep of this new government, ringing the bell and running away. Well, congratulations: your puppy is moving into a $500 billion doghouse. And they sit opposite pointing the finger at the size of the doghouse needed to house their dog of a debt, deliberately oblivious to their own heinous budget crimes. The opposition should stand back in awe of the sheer size of their success and proudly say, 'This is Labor socialism at work'—created by reckless Labor-style socialism and nourished by true socialist economic ignorance.</p><p>The previous Labor government made it clear where their sights were set, holding up Greek debt as the model to which they aspired. Every time those opposite came in here, they said, 'Our debt isn't as bad as Greece's.' They established these boundaries of acceptability for socialist-inspired debt. They spread the field to give themselves more room—room for bigger government; room for more bureaucracy, more welfare and more handouts; room for more failed policies to be paid for by the taxes of hardworking families and by saddling future generations with this huge tax burden.</p><p>If you keep spending like there is no tomorrow, as those opposite did while they were in government, tomorrow will always come, because someone—some day—has to pay the debt off. And that someone is the taxpayer. Today's taxpayers are already being hit up for more than $200 million a week just to pay the interest on Labor's legacy of debt. Every month that goes by, $1 billion worth of taxes are wasted to service Labor's debt. So, in the month of January, we could have completely funded the Mount Isa to Townsville rail corridor upgrade and all the scheduled Bruce Highway safety upgrades—in just one month. But we cannot, because we have to spend that money on servicing Labor's debt. In February we could have funded the upgrade of the Warrego Highway between Helidon and Morven in just one month, but we cannot, because we have to service Labor's debt. In March we could have done the Swan Valley bypass, but we cannot, because we have to service Labor's debt. In the month of April, we could have done the inner-city regional bike network as well as the capacity improvements and expansions of the Metro commuter rail network in New South Wales, but we cannot do it in that month because we have to spend money servicing Labor's debt. In the month of May we could have done Western Sydney bus and road upgrades as part of the North-West integration package, but we cannot in that month, because we have to service your debt. In the month of June we could have done the improvements to the Dandenong rail capacity, but we cannot, because we have to spend that money servicing Labor's debt. In July through to November, in fact, we could have done the Brisbane cross-river rail project and the entirety of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, but we cannot, because all that money is going to servicing Labor's debt. And then we could have had December off, because we would have done it all, but we cannot, because Labor's debt needs to be serviced.</p><p>So, every month that goes by, that money is wasted, and I say to those opposite: congratulations; your work is done, our country is broke, your party is the one that broke it, your party itself is broken, and your ideology is bankrupt. You have left this nation holding your massive dog of a debt, and we will fix it up. We will fix it up. This Liberal-National government will fix it up, because we have been here before and we have done it before. We will get this country back in business. We will actually cut the wasteful spending that you guys presided over, and we will cut the red tape that is strangling productivity, the red tape that you brought in over your lifetime in government. But we will not take responsibility for this record debt conceived by Labor, birthed by Labor and allowed to run rampant by Labor. This is Labor's debt that we are sorting out.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>That was an extraordinary proposition from one of a group of people who are learning that you cannot run a country with three-word slogans. That is what they did prior to the election. But now, today, we are seeing something very different. We are seeing something rammed through this parliament with just two hours of debate to increase the debt cap by $200 billion. Before the election, they said that there was an economic crisis. They said that there was a budget emergency. Today, what we see is that they actually have nothing to say in terms of MYEFO, nothing to say in terms of what the state of the budget is, but come in here and make absurd statements such as the previous speaker—I get them all confused; one of those North Queensland Nats—the member for Dawson has made. He is the bloke who we funded the Mackay ring road for and put money in the budget for and who has gone out there and campaigned against infrastructure spending. Then, in that contribution, he spoke about the things that the government could not do. Well, I will give him a big tip: the Dandenong rail, just like other rail in Melbourne, is necessary, but a precondition is the Melbourne Metro project. We have $3 billion in the budget for it, but they are ripping it out. Unless you fix the Melbourne Metro, you cannot do anything else. You cannot have an airport link, you cannot have a Dandenong extension. Similarly, unless you do the cross-river rail project in Brisbane you cannot satisfy the needs not just of people in Brisbane but also of the people of the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. It is a precondition.</p><p>Those on the other side have an ideological objection to funding any public transport because they believe, like Margaret Thatcher did, that, if you find yourself in your late twenties on a public bus then you consider your life to be a failure. That is the attitude that those opposite have towards public transport. Those opposite want to increase the debt by $200 billion, without putting an argument up, at the same time as they are making massive cuts to infrastructure projects, such as the cross-river rail and Melbourne Metro, and major cuts in important projects. Forty-eight hours before the election they put out their hit-list of infrastructure projects: projects like the Tourle Street bridge in Newcastle, and Bolivia Hill. These projects disappeared under the weight of their ignorance as to the need for future productivity investment. We see them wanting to increase the nation's credit limit up to $500 billion at the same time as they are making massive cuts, including to important infrastructure such as regional projects and local government projects.</p><p>As the minister for local government, in June this year I announced the next stage of the Regional Development Australia Fund: $150 million allocated, according to the Commonwealth grants formula, between $30,000 and $2 million to each and every local government area. So large councils, such as Blacktown and Newcastle, got more than the smaller councils, but every council benefited, with weighting particularly for regional councils and those in disadvantaged communities, which tend to be in regional Australia. The then spokesperson, now minister, went along—they were all happy to go along and speak to the Australian Local Government Association and say how fantastic all this was and how they supported local infrastructure. Now we are seeing them ripping this money away from local councils, even though the local councils have planned for these projects.</p><p>What we see from those opposite is absolute hypocrisy when it comes to this question. They are finding out that government is a bit more difficult than just saying, 'No, no, no', as they did when they were in opposition—just wrecking things. They actually have to build something now that they are the government.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|