|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-10-09 15:34:19
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of [amendments (1) and (2)](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1) moved by Greens Senator [Christine Milne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate).These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration._Background to Bill_On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media [here](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html). ) This was following the August 2013 [Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook](http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-2013) which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See 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) (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127).)References- The majority voted in favour of [amendments (1) and (2)](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1) moved by Greens Senator [Christine Milne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
- These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).
- Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration.
- _Background to Bill_
- On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media [here](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html). ) This was following the August 2013 [Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook](http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-2013) which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.
- The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See 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) (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127).)
|
|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:31
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1 amendments (1) and (2)] moved by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate Christine Milne].These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. ''Background to Bill''On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html here].
) This was following the August 2013 [http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-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.The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5127_ems_dfe1d5b2-bd7c-424c-afc8-efdd37c905b1/upload_pdf/388079.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf explanatory memorandum] (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127 here].)References- The majority voted in favour of [amendments (1) and (2)](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1) moved by Greens Senator [Christine Milne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
- These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).
- Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration.
- _Background to Bill_
- On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media [here](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html). ) This was following the August 2013 [Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook](http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-2013) which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.
- The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See 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) (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127).)
- References
|
|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:57
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1 amendments (1) and (2)] moved by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate Christine Milne].
- These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).
- Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration.
- ''Background to Bill''
On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.[1] This was following the August 2013 [http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-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.- On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html here].
) This was following the August 2013 [http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-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.
The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".[2]- The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5127_ems_dfe1d5b2-bd7c-424c-afc8-efdd37c905b1/upload_pdf/388079.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf explanatory memorandum] (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127 here].)
- References
* [1] Read more about this in the media [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html here].* [2] See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5127_ems_dfe1d5b2-bd7c-424c-afc8-efdd37c905b1/upload_pdf/388079.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf explanatory memorandum] (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127 here].
|
|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-03-05 12:33:52
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1 amendments (1) and (2)] moved by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate Christine Milne].
- These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).
- Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration.
- ''Background to Bill''
- On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.[1] This was following the August 2013 [http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-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.
- The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".[2]
- References
* [1] Read about this amendment in the media [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html here].- * [1] Read more about this in the media [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html here].
- * [2] See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5127_ems_dfe1d5b2-bd7c-424c-afc8-efdd37c905b1/upload_pdf/388079.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf explanatory memorandum] (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127 here].
|
|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-03-05 12:32:50
|
Title
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration of House of Representatives Message- Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Removing debt limit
Description
<p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p> <p>I am glad that we are coming to the end of this matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p> <p>If you keep speaking, I'll keep speaking.</p> <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p> <p>No, I don't want to provoke Senator Wong any further. The only point I want to make in relation to what Senator Cameron has said is that we are not following the Tea Party, the Nordic model or any other model. We are going to do this the Australian way and we are going to do it by promoting people who have a go while giving other people who need it a fair go. That is the Australian way, Senator Cameron, and that is reflected in what we are doing here today.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p> <p>The question is that Senator Milne's amendments be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p> <p>Mr Chairman, I ask that you put amendments (1) and (2) separately to the remainder, given that I indicated in my contribution just now that the opposition intends to vote differently on those two sets of amendments. I will take some advice from Senator Milne or the Clerk through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I think amendments (1) and (2) relate to the substantive removal of the debt limit-and we have made our position clear on that-and amendment (3) relates to the transparency arrangement, the additional reporting, and we propose to support that amendment. If the Clerk could clarify that, I would appreciate it.</p> <p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) moved by Senator Milne be agreed to.</p> <p></p> <p>The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Milne, (3) on sheet 7451, be agreed to.</p> <p>Question agreed to.</p> <p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield, as amended, be agreed to.</p> <p></p> <p>Bill reported with amendments.</p> - The majority voted in favour of [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-12-05.44.1 amendments (1) and (2)] moved by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate Christine Milne].
- These amendments were introduced to remove the debt limit, rather than simply raise it to $500 billion (which is what the bill was originally introduced to do).
- Since the majority voted in favour of this amendment, it will now by attached to the bill and returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration.
- ''Background to Bill''
- On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.[1] This was following the August 2013 [http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/PEFO-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.
- The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".[2]
- References
- * [1] Read about this amendment in the media [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html here].
- * [2] See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5127_ems_dfe1d5b2-bd7c-424c-afc8-efdd37c905b1/upload_pdf/388079.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf explanatory memorandum] (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5127 here].
|
|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-12-19 13:54:36
|
Title
Description
- <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p> <p>I am glad that we are coming to the end of this matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p> <p>If you keep speaking, I'll keep speaking.</p> <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p> <p>No, I don't want to provoke Senator Wong any further. The only point I want to make in relation to what Senator Cameron has said is that we are not following the Tea Party, the Nordic model or any other model. We are going to do this the Australian way and we are going to do it by promoting people who have a go while giving other people who need it a fair go. That is the Australian way, Senator Cameron, and that is reflected in what we are doing here today.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p> <p>The question is that Senator Milne's amendments be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p> <p>Mr Chairman, I ask that you put amendments (1) and (2) separately to the remainder, given that I indicated in my contribution just now that the opposition intends to vote differently on those two sets of amendments. I will take some advice from Senator Milne or the Clerk through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I think amendments (1) and (2) relate to the substantive removal of the debt limit-and we have made our position clear on that-and amendment (3) relates to the transparency arrangement, the additional reporting, and we propose to support that amendment. If the Clerk could clarify that, I would appreciate it.</p> <p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) moved by Senator Milne be agreed to.</p> <p></p> <p>The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Milne, (3) on sheet 7451, be agreed to.</p> <p>Question agreed to.</p> <p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield, as amended, be agreed to.</p> <p></p> <p>Bill reported with amendments.</p>
|
|
senate vote 2013-12-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-12-19 13:52:23
|
Title
Bills — Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration of House of Representatives Message- Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I asked a question of Senator Sinodinos, I think, on Thursday, which I do not believe he had the opportunity to respond to. I asked about what the Australian Greens had actually obtained in terms of debt reporting. I made the point that a substantial amount of the information to which Senator Milne referred is already available on the public record either in the budget papers, in the monthly financial statements issued by the Minister for Finance or in the weekly update on the Australian Office of Financial Management website. I wonder if he could advise the Senate of what additional information the Australian Greens have actually obtained as a result of the agreement with the Treasurer.</p> <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p><p>What the debt statement will be doing is consolidating information that, as Senator Wong mentions, is available in a number of places. As part of this, it will also be including, as I understand it, the within-year peak in debt, which can fluctuate, as we have mentioned before; the value of Commonwealth stock and securities, including their market and face value and their value as a proportion of gross domestic product; the total expected interest expenses relating to the stock and securities; and a breakdown by maturity and interest payments of the stock and securities on issue at the time of the report. Importantly, these debt statements will not be issued just at the time of the Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook or the budget; they would be issued—and hopefully this would be a rare occurrence—every time there is an increment of $50 billion or more since the last budget, MYEFO, PEFO or additional statement in the actual face value of Commonwealth stock and securities on issue. There will be quite a comprehensive amount of information provided between the MYEFO, the PEFO and other statements, if that is necessary. This is not just about what is provided at one particular time; it is providing information over a period as required. As I said before, I hope we do not necessarily need to provide many debt statements. We would aspire to report increasingly over the next few years to this chamber and the other place about our progress in getting deficits and debt under control.</p><p>We are also considering additional transparency around government sector reporting; analysis on the manner in which the states and territories report their budget statements, including the reporting of their government enterprises; how such reporting may apply to Commonwealth budget reporting; and whether the additional reporting creates any commercial-in-confidence issues for Commonwealth public non-financial corporations. The advice on the feasibility of this analysis will be provided in early 2014. The Treasury will also consider additional reporting of the public financial corporation sector, which may need to take into account the special circumstances of the Reserve Bank. We will also consider whether there would be enhanced transparency if each MYEFO debt statement were to include details of the public non-financial corporation and public financial borrowings.</p><p>Furthermore, in the <i>Intergenerational report</i> we would retain a dedicated section on the environment, including climate change and the effect of these policies and their impact on the Australian economy and Commonwealth budget. But there will be more extensive consultation with the Australian Greens on the scope of what could be included within that section. In part, in answer to the senator's question, it is a consolidation of some existing information and an expansion of that information in particular areas and, importantly, as part of this process, we are also looking to make our reporting more comparable with state and territory reporting in a number of areas. I am particularly interested in what we will be doing on the <i>Intergenerational report</i> and the expanded reporting on the environment and climate change, as well as the effect of these policies and their impact on the Australian economy and the Commonwealth budget.</p><p>Another change in the interests of transparency going beyond what is done at the moment is that we will set out the reasons for the increase in debt, including the extent to which the increase was caused by lower than expected revenue, higher than expected spending, capital purchases and/or grants to state and territory governments for infrastructure. The expansion of reasons for the increase in debt—if there is an increase in debt, of course—will allow us to have a more informed and, dare I say, interesting debate around the uses and abuses of debt. I think that will be very important going forward. We are going into a period where Australia is going to have to improve its productivity—double the rate of productivity growth, as income per head will not increase as strongly as it has been—so the challenge is to improve our productivity and competitiveness. As part of that, we need to make sure we are investing in the right sort of infrastructure. That means having a more informed debate about the use of funding for infrastructure. One complication as we go forward and provide greater transparency in the provision of this information will be the extent to which there is private financing of infrastructure and how that will be recorded in any statements where there is a public component. That is more of a footnote at this time.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I again ask, because I noticed in the minister's answer there was quite a lot of information about consolidation of existing data already reported—for example, market and face value—if the minister can indicate what additional information on debt has been agreed with the Australian Greens which is not otherwise available in the budget papers, the Australian Office of Financial Management website or the monthly financial statements issued by the Minister for Finance. What do they get for this?</p> <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p><p>As I mentioned earlier, we are bringing together information in a way which makes it more accessible, including providing details in the budget, MYEFO and PEFO of government spending on climate change and the extent to which this spending has contributed to debt. That is also new information. But the point remains that, under the previous government, the opposition pressured the government of the day to provide more information around Commonwealth government securities on issue. I stand by what I have said before in terms of the comprehensiveness of what we are providing.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Furner</p><p>In respect of this particular matter that we are debating in the chamber this morning, we have to look back on the history of when we were in government and how we managed the economy, how we managed incentives to ensure people were employed and how we ensured that contractors and employers were in a position so that the economy never slipped into a void or into jeopardy. It certainly speaks volumes of the way we handled and managed the economy and debt in the past. We held a AAA rating, which should never be forgotten. In many circumstances, the now government tend to neglect that position, the fact that we put this country in good stead. Certainly, out of the eight leading countries in the world, we demonstrated our competence as a government when we were in power in that we did not allow our citizens to slip into a severe circumstance, as citizens of other countries throughout the globe did during the global financial crisis. As you would know, Chairman, when we sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade many ambassadors came along and appraised us about the manner in which we handled the global financial crisis when we were in government and also managed the debt in those circumstances. And we hear it quite often.</p><p>We know for a fact that the Liberal Party campaigned against debt before the election and now it is asking the parliament to increase the debt limit to half a trillion dollars. It is a substantial increase to lift the debt ceiling to that degree. We need to see some examples of why there is a need to do that. I note the Treasurer and the government at this point are refusing to demonstrate why there is a need to lift the debt ceiling to half a trillion dollars, without demonstrating some form of example by releasing MYEFO. That certainly would be an opportunity for us as the opposition, and no doubt the crossbenches, to consider a need to do that. But, at this point, if you treat this parliament with contempt, if you treat the citizens of Australia with contempt with regard to not demonstrating a need to do that, then we will have some difficulties in agreeing to this arrangement. The Treasurer must release these updated budget estimates and the impact of this budget blow-out—we have no doubt that there are issues behind what they are proposing—before we can really seriously expect the parliament to consider the debt limit legislation.</p><p>Reflecting back on the way we managed the global financial crisis, we were transparent: we went out there and explained to the then opposition and the public the reasons why we were spending this sort of money and the reasons why we had to stimulate the economy and ensure that people were not unemployed to a substantial degree. Certainly, when you look at what happened around the globe, you will see that, in many cases—for example, in the US—millions and millions of people lost their employment and their homes. We did not face those dire straits here. We managed the debt, we managed the global financial crisis and we stimulated the economy, ensuring that we were not in a position where people were unemployed and losing their homes. I certainly know from my experience going around to many school openings that that was one example of how we spent the money; there are many examples of how we spent the money. Contractors, builders and architects explained to me that if they had not had that injection of that sort of money they would have had to put off literally thousands of workers across the board. In hindsight, we did the right thing. We are asking the government now to demonstrate why there is a need to lift the debt ceiling. Be transparent and be upfront, and tell us why you need to lift the debt ceiling to half a trillion dollars.</p> <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p><p>I respect Senator Furner, but I disagree with him when he talks about the record of the previous government in managing debt. Part of the reason we have such a big focus on debt in Australia is precisely that the debt did go off. Debt has gone up over the last six years. The whole purpose of the debt limit being introduced in 2008, as I understand it, was to assure people that it would only go to a certain level and not beyond that. The fact that the then government had to come back to the parliament a number of times to raise the limit drew attention to the fact that the debt kept growing. So the limit in itself became, not intentionally but almost by accident, a target—a target that was met and then exceeded.</p><p>The whole debate that we have had about the $500 billion, I think, has now been put in its place by the measures we are talking about today by removing this ceiling, which is not the debate we need to have. The debate we need to have is over the quality of the measures that this government take to deal with increased deficits and debts. That is where the debate should be. That is where eminent economists like Ross Garnaut, Saul Eslake and others say the debate should be and that is where the debate will now be. It is very important to understand that this does not reduce the scrutiny of what might happen to debt over time; it increases the transparency of looking at debt and the reasons for the increase in debt. And, yes, it also potentially triggers a subdebate around the pros and cons of using debt for different purposes, and that is built into the transparency measures that the Greens have proposed here and to which the government have agreed. I think we are taking the economic debate several steps further.</p><p>In terms of budget policy, the debate should be on the quality of the measures, not on ceilings and limits per se. We will be increasing the transparency of the government's dealings on debt and I think that will be very important going forward. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook will be released in the very near future and, along with that, a debt statement. So we do not have to wait very long for all of that to happen. The reason the MYEFO has taken some time to do, apart from anything else, is that we have also been waiting for the September quarter national accounts. They were delivered last Wednesday. Forecasts and parameters are being revised in the light of those forecasts. So in the MYEFO, we will lay out the full scale of what we inherited, the measures we have taken to date—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>What are you hiding from?</p> <p class="speaker">Arthur Sinodinos</p><p>We are not hiding from anything—full transparency. Everybody will have the opportunity to argue whether they like the measures that are in there or not.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|