|
representatives vote 2013-12-09#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-03-05 14:27:31
|
Title
Bills — Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013; Consideration of Senate Message- Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the question re: removing the debt limit
Description
<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>The House will now consider the Senate's further amendments. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the Senate's further amendments together.</p> <p class="speaker">Steven Ciobo</p>- The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-12-09.116.1 motion] to put the question, which means that it can now be voted on.
- The [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-12-09.116.11 question] was that the further Greens amendments be agreed to.[1] This question was subsequently voted on and agreed to without division, which means that the House agreed with the Senate that the debt limit should be removed altogether.
- ''Background to Bill''
- On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.[2] 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".[3]
- References
- * [1] A copy of the Greens amendments is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5127_amend_ae47c3de-1b77-40bd-b1e5-513a6b7e47ec%22 here].
- * [2] 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].
- * [3] 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].
<p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the further amendments, including an amendment of the title, be agreed to.</p><p>Madam Speaker, if you ever needed a more clear demonstration of how the Australian Labor Party have dealt themselves out of this debate, of how the Australian Labor Party have lost any credibility at all when it comes to this debate, then you just saw it when the Greens and the two Independents walked to this side of the chamber. By walking from there to this side of the chamber, they demonstrated that they were willing to put economic orthodoxy on the table. It stands in contrast to the new economic fringe dwellers, which is the Australian Labor Party.</p><p>I have heard members of the Australian Labor Party claim repeatedly that they could not understand why the debt ceiling of more than $400 billion needed to go. They did not understand why there needed to be a debt ceiling of $500 billion, which was of course the first call that the coalition made. The reason—and it is really not that complicated—is that, as was attested to by members of the Australian Labor Party, peak debt under Labor was forecast to reach $370 billion. We know from the tabled Australian Office of Financial Management minute that you need a $60 billion buffer. Let me go very slowly through it for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party: 370 plus 60 equals 430. I will break it down again: 370 plus 60 equals 430. So there you go, Madam Speaker, there is the great riddle that the Australian Labor Party cannot work out.</p><p>When the Australian Labor Party say with their hands on their heart, 'Oh, we only want it to go up to $400 billion,' let them now understand why. It is because 370 plus 60 equals 430. So I say to the Australian Labor Party that is the reason your $400 billion was nothing other than a political gimmick and that is the reason we walked away from it. When we could not get any agreement from the Australian Labor Party, we spoke to the Greens—and guess what? The Greens were the sensible ones who were willing to recognise the best way forward and what was clearly in Australia's national interest.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Steven Ciobo</p><p>I now hear Labor members opposite repeatedly making remarks, 'But that's not until 2016.' The extraordinary thing is that Labor still does not get it. They still think it is acceptable to simply kick the can down the road.</p><p class="italic">Mr Danby interjecting—</p><p class="italic">Mr Sukkar interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>The member for Melbourne Ports will desist. The member for Deakin will also desist.</p> <p class="speaker">Steven Ciobo</p><p>Labor still thinks it is acceptable to say: 'We'll deal with that down the track. We don't want to deal with it now.' I say to members of the Australian Labor Party that that might be how Labor governs but that is not how the coalition governs. That is not our approach. We are not prepared to kick the can down the road. We want to deal with the issue once and we want to deal with it in a way that provides certainty to the economic markets and that does not invite in the kind of Tea Party politics that the Australian Labor Party so warmly embrace.</p><p>I never really thought that the member for Melbourne Ports would necessarily be someone who would embrace Tea Party politics, but he is. Like all the members of the Australian Labor Party, he is willing to jeopardise Australia's national interest on short-term political opportunism. So, for that reason, we were willing to talk to anybody else who was willing to put the national interest first. Lo and behold, the Greens were willing to put Australia's national interest first—and that stands in contrast to the Labor Party.</p><p>What the Senate has proposed and what we have agreed on with the Greens is a number of measures to enhance transparency around government debt reporting in the budget papers—in particular, there will be a debt statement published in every budget, in every Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and in every pre-election economic and fiscal outlook. In addition, the debt statements will include information about Commonwealth stock and securities on issue at the time of the report for the financial year to which the report relates and for the following three financial years; the value of the Commonwealth's stock and securities, including the market and face value and their value as a proportion of GDP; the total expected interest expenses relating to the stock and securities; and a breakdown by maturity interest payments of the stock and securities on issue at the time of the report. An additional debt statement would also be published should debt increase by $50 billion or more since the last debt statement or additional statement was made.</p><p>The amendments that have been put forward are good amendments. The Senate recognises these amendments in a spirit of putting Australia's national interest first, of advancing our national interest and of providing certainty and stability, which stands in contrast to the juvenile approach that we have seen from the Australian Labor Party.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>What an extraordinary contribution from the member for Moncrieff. We have heard it about four times already in this debate. Frankly, taking a lecture from those opposite, particularly from the member for Moncrieff, on political obstruction and opportunism is like taking a lecture from Ronnie Biggs on train safety. It really is. Their approach in the 43rd Parliament was to say no to everything. Even when it was consistent with their own policy, they said no to everything. They said no, whether it was about assisting the government to find savings through measures like putting an indexation on the private health insurance rebate—they talk about debt; well, they could have done some things when we were in government to assist in dealing with the issue of debt—or whether it was, as the member for Melbourne Ports has pointed out so many times, their belligerent approach when it came to the people transfer agreement with Malaysia. So taking a lecture from those opposite on the issue of obstructionism is really a little bit too much to take.</p><p>This bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013, is an extraordinary bill, which is why members on this side of the House cannot support it. It is extraordinary that the members on that side of the House would be speaking in favour of it, because, not three months ago, they were all standing in front of billboards and waving pamphlets around, saying, 'We will reduce the debt.'</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Leigh</p><p>Where is the debt truck now?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>Where is the debt truck now? The government members have gone from being the party of no debt to the party of no debt limit. I cannot understand why they are willing to stand there and speak in favour of this bill. It is Buzz Lightyear economics: 'To infinity and beyond!' We are all looking for Woody to make an appearance in this debate! They have only got themselves to blame. They would like to sheet home all of the blame to us on this side of the House, when we did the right thing by the country and we did the right thing by the parliament during the global financial crisis. Yes, we were willing to put the budget into the red to ensure that businesses stayed open and that people stayed in work. It was the right thing to do by the economy. It was the right thing to do by the nation. We got no assistance from those opposite, yet they come in here and complain to us about obstruction.</p><p>We might be able to take them a bit more seriously if, when they came back into government, they had done the right thing by the budget. But what was their first act? What was their first act when they came back into government? It was to give an $8 billion gift to the Reserve Bank. That is right—an $8 billion gift to the Reserve Bank, no strings attached. Yet they come in here and they complain about debt. Well, there is a fair bit of debt that was racked up on their own watch. They have only got themselves to blame.</p><p>From looking at what is in the chute, we believe the debt is actually going to get worse. What have the government's first acts been, on regaining the treasury bench? They have given a tax hike to low-superannuation earners and a tax cut to high-superannuation earners—an increase for high-superannuation earners. They have denied themselves a revenue stream. They like to take the fun out of the minerals resource rent tax, which is a growth tax: the tax increases when profits increase and decreases when profits are flat. But one of their first acts in government is to bring a bill into parliament to reduce the government's capacity to raise revenue in the future. It would seem that, if you want a tax cut in this country today, you have to own a mine. You can see where their priorities are. In fact, if you want help with your school expenses, your name has to be George Brandis. You can see where their priorities are and who they are looking after.</p><p>Those opposite puff up their chests and talk about the great deal that they have been able to do with the Greens. You can see how tough those negotiations must have been, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta! 'Dear Senator, I'm here; I want to ensure that we have no brakes on debt into the future, no debt limit.' You can imagine that that negotiation went on for weeks and weeks! We on this side of the House oppose the legislation. It is the right thing to do by the country.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Leigh</p><p>In August this year, the then opposition leader, Mr Abbott, launched a stinging attack on the Greens political party. He said they had 'fringe' economic policies. When asked about his decision to put the Greens party last in all Liberal preferences, he said he was making a 'captain's call'. Mr Abbott said:</p><p class="italic">There is a world of difference between the Greens and as far as I'm aware just about everyone else who is contesting this election … because everyone else in this campaign supports economic growth and supports a more prosperous economy.</p><p>He was then asked, if he disliked the Greens so much, whether it had been a mistake to preference the Greens over Labor in 2010, thereby ensuring that the current member for Melbourne won that seat. Mr Abbott waved his hands and said:</p><p class="italic">That was then, this is now.</p><p>And 'that was then, this is now' is a good summation of where we have ended up in this debate. Back then, the Greens were 'fringe economic dwellers' that were on the extremes of Australian politics. Now we see the Greens literally sitting on the front benches in a division moments ago. Back then, if debt was the problem, more debt was not the solution. Now it turns out that an uncapping of the debt limit is exactly what Australia needs; the right medicine for Australia is unlimited debt! We are seeing what I think is best summed up in the words of Mr Abbott himself:</p><p class="italic">… a litany of betrayals, of broken promises, of disappointed hopes …</p><p>If, before the election, the then opposition had gone to the people and said, 'We think that the real problem is debt and our policy is going to be to strike a deal with the Greens to remove the debt limit,' I think people would have voted a little differently.</p><p>Of course, it is not the only broken promise that we have seen from this government. They have been in office for only a matter of months, but already we have seen them break their promise to bring down a budget update within 100 days. We might not have needed to have this debate at all if that promise had not been broken by the Treasurer—if that 100-day limit had not been broken. We are now pushing into December, a period well beyond where Labor ever went in releasing the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We have seen the government breaking their pledge that no public servants would be fired, breaking their pledge that there would be no adverse changes to superannuation arrangements, breaking their pledge to the schoolchildren of Australia that they are on a unity ticket in education and breaking the pledge that there would be a boat buyback. It is passing strange that just before the election Mr Abbott said, in an interview with the doyenne of the Press Gallery, Michelle Grattan:</p><p class="italic">… you should move heaven and earth to keep commitments … and only if keeping commitments becomes almost impossible could you ever be justified in not keeping them … And I suspect the electorate would take a very dim view even in those circumstances.</p><p>Let us apply Mr Abbott's test to what has happened today. Is it impossible not to keep the opposition's pledge to bring down debt? Not at all. The Labor Party would have been very happy to support a $400 billion debt cap which allows a $30 billion buffer in 2016-17, when debt is expected to peak. But, if the government believes that the situation has changed—if they believe that debt is peaking higher—then they can bring down the budget update and be very clear with the Australian people about what has shifted. Has the $9 billion to the Reserve Bank—the thimble and pea trick which says, 'We'll give you $9 billion now so that we can pull out a bigger dividend later—had an impact? Has the $17 billion of tax cuts to mining billionaires and big polluters had an impact on the budget? It is important that the people of Australia are not put in the position of Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey suggesting that this is somehow Labor's debt. The people of Australia are entitled to see whether the budget has deteriorated in this government's time in office. We have seen disappointing consumer confidence numbers out today suggesting that all is not well under this government. We have seen closed economy decisions on foreign investment— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|