Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (15:45): I commend the previous speaker on what was a riveting contribution to Hansard! Well done! I was approached earlier on today to speak on this matter of public importance: 'The Government’s plan to allow itself to run up unlimited debt.' Dr Chalmers: Do you want me to read the big words to you? Mr BUCHHOLZ: You're kidding! You talk about letting us run up unlimited debt, but what the House forgets is that there is a bill before the House that would enact the stopping of unlimited debt. It was introduced into the House— Mr Champion: Half a trillion dollars! Mr BUCHHOLZ: There you go! Let Hansard show that we just got an interjection from the other side of the House saying that it was for half a trillion dollars. May I inform the interjector that there is an enormous amount of difference between 'unlimited' and half a trillion dollars. How is it that you are struggling with the concept of 'unlimited,' which is open-ended? Let me take you back to the concept of 'unlimited'. Why is the country in such a fiscal mess? We hear comments of such absurdity from the other side, not understanding the concept of unlimited. Who got left with the mess? Previous speakers on the other side spoke about GrainCorp, Qantas and the recapitalisation of the RBA. We understand what it is like to be on the other side. We were in opposition and we made a point of opposing— Mr Snowdon: Everything! Mr BUCHHOLZ: No, not everything. We made a point of opposing the previous government for not keeping their promises. We opposed the then government— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ: Let the Hansard show that comments from the other side came across that we 'opposed everything'. We opposed your broken promises. If your interpretation of everything you did was a broken promise, let the record show that. You made the point— Mr Stephen Jones: Have you run out of material? Mr BUCHHOLZ: No, I have got much, much more. Member for Throsby, you have now fallen foul on opposing every single thing that we promised. We promised through the campaign that we would get rid of the carbon tax. That is not something that we just pulled out of our back pocket. We said we were going to oppose the carbon tax; you are opposing it. We said we were going to oppose the mining tax; you guys are opposing it. We said we were going to oppose TPVs; they are not going through. You have struggled with the education debate. But I want to get back to the current debt. You knew that this debt ceiling needed to be shifted. The entire government knew that it needed to be shifted. The evidence of that was in an interview with the previous Treasurer and, by all accounts, a great Treasurer! He was 'Treasurer of the Year,' and he cannot get a start on your frontbench. On Wednesday, 15 May, there was an interview with the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, member for Lilley, with Neil Mitchell of 3AW in Melbourne. Neil Mitchell very simply asked: Will whoever wins the next election need to raise the debt level? That was the question asked. The response from the then Treasurer was: That will be a matter for them. The government knew. I have been challenged in my own electorate. I want to get this on the record and I did it the other day on the television. I have been challenged in my electorate on the points made by the other side of the House. We said we wanted to bring down debt. Why is it then that one of our first acts in getting into government was to increase the debt ceiling? The simple fact of the matter is that the ongoing expenses are still yet to hit our MasterCard. If we liken it to a family budget, the expenses that Labor have racked up have still yet to hit. We have sat in this House for no fewer than eight days since the election. It is unthinkable to suggest that the key policy issues that we have brought before this House, which are still waiting to be ratified by the Senate, have had any budgetary impacts. The additional revenue limit is needed to substantiate the extra increase of expenditure that the opposition ran up. It is the opposition's debt, you own it and we will make sure that we pay it back.