Download Fragment

Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Page: 385

Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (15:47): I rise to take note of answers given by Minister Wong. It is noted from time to time that, unfortunately, the Senate and senators are not adequately consulted by our brothers and sisters in the House of Representatives, and it does seem that this is one of those occasions when the opposition Senate team did not get the memo from their team in the House of Representatives. You may not be aware of this, Senator Humphries, but your party, the coalition, is presently embarked on a process of crab-walking away from its own commitment to a surplus. You say that we are fighting our past; I say that you are fighting your present. But, from the Labor Party's point of view, no matter how hard any day gets we know we always have Joe Hockey working hard for us. As you would be well aware—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Feeney, before we go any further there are two matters. Please direct your remarks to the chair and refer to people in the other place by their correct name, title or by the salutation of mister.

Senator FEENEY: As this parliament is well aware and as has been discussed extensively in the public debate, the opposition's policy proposition is teetering on the brink of ridicule and destruction. I admire the courage of the opposition for dragging it in here for us to survey today. The opposition's very own documentation was leaked to the press and revealed the frenzied mutterings of its razor gang as they sought to come to terms with the fact that their very own future prescription for this country was $70 billion short.

Here we have the spectacle of Senator Humphries condemning us for a real surplus that is not large enough when the coalition's imaginary surplus is going to be $70 billion in the red. How is it that it is $70 billion in the red? That number deserves some study. It will cost the opposition $27 billion to axe the carbon tax. As part of that $27 billion expenditure we find the economic vandalism of those opposite exemplified by Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, recommending that Australian business neither purchase carbon permits nor participate in the scheme. Of course, $3.2 billion of that $27 billion will fund the opposition's direct action plan. It is a direct action plan which, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, was inspired by the public policy offerings of 1980s East Germany and 1970s Romania—a command economy model whereby Labor's market is swept aside so that the tsars of the coalition can sit in council and decide which of their friends around Australia receive plans and moneys to abate carbon.

But wait; that's not all! We find that there is $24 billion in the coalition's imaginary budget which is required to refund big polluters for carbon permits. It will be an extraordinary spectacle to see a future coalition government handing $24 billion back to the companies whose carbon emissions, the coalition tells us, its own policy is trying to abate. But we should not be too shocked at the spectacle of the coalition handing back government revenues to big polluters. In fact, $11.1 billion of a future coalition budget would be lost revenue because of the coalition's resolve to hand back moneys raised through the minerals resource rent tax. We will see the extraordinary spectacle of would-be Prime Minister Abbott handing a cheque for billions of dollars to some of the wealthiest people in Australia—in fact, as has been revealed recently, perhaps the wealthiest person on the planet. The Liberal Party insist that their resolve to hand back these moneys is a matter of virtue when every Australian can see that pulling $11 billion out of the federal budget to reward those who are already billionaires serves no public policy process and amounts to no public virtue. It is simply a dogmatic resolve by those opposite not to accept the moneys raised by the minerals resource rent tax and to zealously protect and preserve their friends. In addition to all of this, the coalition is maintaining its commitment to $8 billion in pledged tax cuts. How is it that those opposite have the gumption to come in here and dare cast aspersions on our real surplus when their own imaginary and shadow budget is $70 billion in the red? Of course the answer is: they dare not have their own numbers studied.

If they were to have their own numbers studied, then two possibilities reveal themselves. The first possibility is that these nonsensical utterances in opposition will not be honoured, that the $11 billion will not be handed back. That is, perhaps, what I hope for, but I cannot underestimate— (Time expired)