Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (15:38): One of the things I always like to wake me up in mid-afternoon in this place is a lecture from the Australian Labor Party about how to manage the economy. I come from a Labor household, believe it or not. I grew up in a Labor parish—Catholic—in the fifties. I have said before in this place that if my dad could he would punch his hands through his coffin lid and mark the box: 'I'm Labor, whoever the candidate is.' But that was that Labor, and now we have this Labor; and to be lectured by you on economic management is absolutely offensive in my view. I am on a unity ticket with Senator Hanson in relation to the reflection she had on your responses to this very responsible legislation. This problem has to be fixed. We have a $320 billion debt. It belongs to us. It belongs to everyone on the floor. It belongs to the people up in the gallery. It belongs to all the people out in the country. There is no nefarious thing at the bottom of the garden that owns the debt. It is our debt. It is a national debt and it will impact on us. It impacts on us now. When these good people go to borrow money for their homes they are paying nearly three-quarters up to one whole point, of interest because they are competing for money that the Labor government had borrowed over a very short period of time. When the Labor Party to came into government the debt was zero, there was $60 billion in the Future Fund, which has now grown enormously under the very competent management of people like Peter Costello, a former very well respected member in the other place. Those opposite really do think that this debt is going to evaporate. They really do think that these structural deficits, where we are borrowing something like $40 billion a year, $1 billion a week, to pay debt and to pay for things that we cannot afford in this nation, things that were left on the balance sheet of the nation, that went unfunded. They are important things in some instances, mind you. The national disability scheme is one of them. We should have put that in place 50 years ago, not five years ago, but no-one put anything on the other side. We want to restructure education, do all of these monstrously wonderful things and throw on at them, kick buckets and buckets, but there was no money left in the forward estimates by the Labor Party when government transitioned to us. What the good people of this nation know—particularly those who are in my age group, because we have watched it over 30 and 40 years—is that Labor comes to power and Labor does some good work on occasions. I can say that there are things this nation has now that it would not have if it was not for the Labor Party. But every single time they had just with the plastic out and go for years and run up enormous debts, and the people out there very concerned about it. They understand basic economics. They understand that you cannot spend more than what your income is. So what happens is that after a while they get alarmed and they put our government in to bring the debt back down. After a few terms they get a bit tired, the belt is a bit tight for them with the austerity measures, and they groan, 'Gee, Howard's a good operator. Gee, Howard's done well for the economy. Gee, Howard and Costello have put this nation in a very strong position.' What do they do? They nod off; they are not thinking, and they put the Labor Party back in, and they have a credit card in each hand and up the bill goes again Senator Gallagher: And a GFC! Senator O'SULLIVAN: I will tell you now, I look back and I do not understand how you could run up a $300 billion debt in six years, despite thousands of dollars being given to people. Clive Palmer has declared that he got one of the cheques for $900. Clive Berghofer in my community—net worth $300 million—got a cheque, and then some pink batts up in the roof and a whole host of other things. What I say to you people is: I join the unity ticket with One Nation here. Do not lecture us on matters of the economy. You are absolutely hopeless. You are hypocritical. You cannot count. You need to take your shoes and socks off every day and run a toe up for every billion dollars of repayment on debt, which could have been spent in our electorates on hospitals, education, defence—a whole range of things. Do not come in here an lecture me, today or any other day. Senator KETTER: After that unedifying contribution from Senator O'Sullivan I cannot leave that diatribe unaddressed. Senator O'Sullivan, it is unfortunate that you are leaving the chamber at this point, but I think it is important for you to understand that when the IMF did a study in 2013 about which were the most wasteful periods for government spending in the 50 years to 2013, it found that it was two periods of the Howard government that were the periods of the most profligate spending in Australia's history in that 50-year period. It was former Prime Minister Howard, when the rivers of gold were running in at the peak of the mining boom, who was spending hand over fist. At the end of former Prime Minister Howard's period of government, when he was again spending hand over fist to overcome the electoral poison that was WorkChoices at the time, the IMF also identified that as a period of government that was profligate in its spending. It was needlessly wasteful spending. So I am not going to sit here and listen to Senator O'Sullivan's contributions, which paint a picture that Labor governments have been economically irresponsible. That is not true. The period of spending post the GFC by the Rudd government was not identified by the IMF as profligate spending. I think that needs to be said to place the economic position of the Labor government on the record. I am grateful that Senator Hanson is in the chamber to hear that. I encourage her to look at that IMF report. The information provided by Senator Brown in her question to Senator Brandis illustrates the twisted priorities of this government. Senator Brandis claimed that he had explained the need for these cuts and he said that they are essential for budget repair. This is plain wrong. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to budget repair. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to preserving Australia's AAA credit rating. Budgets are about choices, and this government, time and time again, makes the wrong choices: cuts to pensioners, cuts to single parents and cuts to low-income families. First, if the government was really serious about budget repair, they should abandon their plans for the $50 billion corporate tax cut. Handing out cash to big businesses—like the Commonwealth Bank with its $4.9 billion half-year profit, which was announced yesterday—amounts to corporate welfare. I understand that about $7 billion of that $50 billion corporate tax cut would end up in the pockets of the four major banks. Labor stands ready to work with the government to repair the budget in other ways, such as looking at reforming negative gearing and reforming capital gains tax concessions. Labor has demonstrated its willingness to work with the government to repair the budget, for example, in the omnibus savings bill last year. But budget repair has to be done in a way that is fair. That is the Labor way. This latest bill, which cuts money for pensioners, single parent families and 1½ million people across the board, is not fair. The government's calls for budget repair are hollow. The recent budget update shows that deficits have blown out by $10 billion over the forward estimates, and, since their first budget, the deficit for 2017-18 has blown out tenfold from $2.8 billion to $28.7 billion. I noted Senator Hanson's contribution and I am somewhat heartened by the fact that, in her opening comments, she indicated that there was speculation about what the position of One Nation would be. I encourage One Nation to have a look at these cuts more closely and I would ask them to stand with Labor to protect pensioners, to protect young people and to protect the—(Time expired)