Senator MASON (Queensland) (17:30): The Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 is a bill you would expect from this Labor government. There are no surprises there. It is a government that still has not learned any lessons. This government still believes as of today that you can address issues of cost of living—and Senator Collins is right, cost of living is a big issue—by giving a cash handout. Senator Jacinta Collins: It is cost of education. Senator MASON: that is a cost of living—by giving a cash handout, a sugar hit. That somehow addresses cost-of-living pressures. We on this side know that does not address cost-of-living pressures. The cost-of-living pressures will only go down when the costs of government go down. I am not too good at budget papers but I did have a look at Budget Paper No. 1, statement 10, page 6. I realised that in fact, despite all the rhetoric, the percentage of GDP on this budget, a so-called horror budget, is higher than any other budget Mr Swan has delivered. It was 23.4 in 2008-09, 22 in 2009-10, 21.6 in 2010-11 and 22.3 in 2011-12, and the estimate for 2012-13 is 23.8 per cent of GDP. In other words, the budget keeps getting bigger, as does the cost of government. A sugar hit, a cash handout, goes nowhere near addressing cost-of-living pressures. All this in a time supposedly of austerity. The only thing this government can grow is the size of government. That is okay; I concede that this government takes its model from western Europe, countries that have been running in western Europe since World War II, and thank God we have not had Labor governments with the same frequency as they have had social democratic governments in western Europe; otherwise we would have the same problem. The only reason Australia does not suffer the shocking budget deficits and systemic debt that western Europe does is that conservative governments in this country won about two out of every three elections since World War II. In western Europe they have won about one out of every three. That is the difference, and that explains the enormous difference in the budget scope for this country. I do not know how many times I have had to remind the Senate that every time Labor leaves government it leaves Australia further in debt. This is the golden rule, the indelible ink of the Australian Labor Party. Ever since 1901, ever since John Christian Watson's first government in 1904, every time Labor has been in government and has lost, Australia is further in debt. This is the golden rule of Australian politics: the Australian Labor Party always leaves Australia further in debt. There has never been one exception since Federation. Labor always says that jobs are in its DNA. The golden rule of Australian politics is this: Labor always leaves this country further in debt. There has not been one exception since 1901. The DNA of the Australian Labor Party is debt; it always has been and always will be. My friend Senator Cormann raised before the issue of intergenerational debt. The problem with social democratic parties is that they believe that it is kind and gentle and fair to get subsequent generations to pay the debt of current generations. The Australian Labor Party believes it is okay to ask future generations to pay the debts of current generations, that it is okay to spend money on overpriced school halls. The hard thing is for the government to spend money and get good value. That is the hardest possible thing for a government. This lot has never managed that. Ever since 1901, when Labor loses office Australia is always further in debt. It has always been so and it always will be. When I was reading the budget projections I came across a graph. I am not very good at budget papers—I was not very good at economics—but something caught my eye and I was somewhat startled by Budget Paper No. 1, statement 3, on page 21. At the top of the page it says: On current projections the underlying cash surplus is expected to reach 1 per cent of GDP in 2017-18, the same year as projected in MYEFO. Listen to this. This is the killer sentence: Net debt is projected to return to zero in 2020-21. Let me repeat it very slowly: Net debt is projected to return to zero in 2020-21. And in Budget Paper No. 1, chart 2, page 22, there is a graph which shows Australia returning to zero net debt in 2021, in about nine years time, when I suppose the member for Dobell will be the Prime Minister. Who, including the Australian Labor Party, thinks that in 2021 there will be no net debt? What are the chances that in eight or nine years time the Australian Labor Party, if they remain in government, will return Australia to no net debt? Does anyone believe that? Does the government even believe that? I suspect not. The reason is this: the best guide for future performance is always past performance. What do we know about the Australian Labor Party and debt? Ever since Federation, every time Labor leaves office Australia is further in debt. Every time this lot gets in, when it leaves the next generation has more debt to pay off, more interest to pay off—as Senator Joyce said today, more and more interest for the next generation. So much for equity. This government always talks about equity, as do the Greens. What about intergenerational equity? What about generations paying for their own welfare rather than the current generation's? They never talk about intergenerational equity; it is always about fairness at the moment. It is very easy to spend public money but very hard to spend it well. I need not have worried, because in 2021 we are all going to be back to no net debt, in eight years time. But just in case I am wrong—and some might think I am being cynical, and you know, Acting Deputy President, I am not a cynic, but just in case—the government has raised the debt ceiling to $300 billion. Just in case, the debt ceiling has been raised from $250 billion to $300 billion. Senator Joyce: You can never be too careful. Senator MASON: That is right. As Senator Joyce says, you cannot be too careful, because we would not want the government to start borrowing more money now, would we? They have never done that before in Australian history, have they? No. Every time they leave office they leave Australia further in debt. As my colleagues said this afternoon in this debate, the real reason this legislation is being rushed forward, as Senator Cormann put it eloquently before, is to fudge the figures, the sleight of hand, the dodgy budget figures, to bring forward the spending so it does not operate next financial year and upset the government's surplus. That is the truth. Senator Joyce: That couldn't be! Senator MASON: No; that is the truth. Secondly, it is to distract families from the imposition of the carbon tax on 1 July. I tell you what: this sugar hit will not have any impact compared to the ongoing and systematic impact of a carbon tax. This government wants to somehow distract Australian families from the cost of the carbon tax. It was funny last night listening to the Treasurer, Mr Swan; I was listening in my room, and I think the phrase 'carbon pricing' was used once. Is that right? I think that is right. Carbon pricing was mentioned once by Mr Swan in his budget address. And yet that is truly the elephant in the room. Senator Cormann: It is the centrepiece. Senator MASON: That is the centrepiece, as Senator Cormann has just interjected. On the government's own figures, it is nearly a $25 billion tax over the forward estimates. So this is not some minor issue; this is all about cost of living. This schoolkids bonus will not come anywhere near touching cost of living over the long term, not at all. The great tragedy for our nation is that this government has decided to introduce a carbon tax—the world's largest carbon tax, as Senator Joyce always reminds me—in a country with a comparative advantage in the export of energy and minerals. I cannot imagine any country actually unilaterally imposing in effect a tariff on itself to make its goods and services more expensive. I cannot imagine what is even worse: a country such as Australia, with a comparative advantage in the export of energy, doing it. My colleagues no doubt are tired of me saying this; they have heard me make this argument so often. My colleagues say that the great dishonesty was the Prime Minister's not warning Australians that she would introduce a carbon tax. Sure, that was dishonest, but I think the greater lie, the far more worrying lie, is this: the government has always argued that, irrespective of what any other nation on earth does, the unilateral imposition of this carbon tax by our country is in our national interest. That to me is the greatest lie of all. This lot have said from the beginning, following Professor Garnaut's report, that, irrespective of what any other nation on earth does—even if no other nation prices carbon—it is in our national interest to price carbon. Senator Cormann: To have the world's largest carbon tax. Senator MASON: Indeed, to have the world's largest carbon tax. That might be madness for a country in western Europe that does not export energy and minerals, but, for a country with a huge comparative advantage such as Australia, it will have an enormous impact on the cost of living and the cost of our exports over the forward estimates and over the next generation or two. That to me is the great failure in public policy of the Australian Labor Party and this Labor government. That is the great failure. Okay, the Prime Minister was dishonest, but that is only half the dishonesty. The dishonesty is to impose this tax on our people, on the Australian people, when other nations are not doing it, and in any case arguing that its unilateral imposition is in the interests of Australians. That to me is the greatest farce, the greatest lie, of all. The carbon tax is being imposed in a world where Greece is in turmoil. I understand they have even had communists and neo-Nazis being re-elected to parliament in Greece. That is helpful, isn't it! And, in France, there is a new socialist President who is against austerity. That no doubt will help the stock market and help western Europe get back to normal! Even in the United States, there are enormous difficulties. The Western world is facing enormous economic challenges, and this lot believe it is in our national interest to unilaterally impose a carbon tax to make our industry less competitive. They believe that, even when the rest of the world is in turmoil, it is in our national interest to impose unilaterally a carbon tax to make our industry, our employees, our workers, less competitive. That is a great argument, isn't it! No other nation on earth buys that argument. The only people that buy that argument are the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. No-one else buys that argument, and somehow the Australian people have to suffer because of it. No-one other than the Australian Labor Party and the Greens believes that you can unilaterally impose this carbon tax and it will be in our national interest. They know it will drive up the cost of our exports, they know it will make our industry less competitive and they will do it, irrespective of what any other nation on earth does. That to me is the greatest lie in this debate over the last 2½ years, by far. What is the answer to the cost-of-living pressures that will follow on from the carbon tax? What is the government's answer? The government's answer to the cost-of-living pressures is a schoolkids bonus. Senator Joyce: That'll fix it! Senator MASON: Yeah, that'll fix it! If the government gives you a schoolkids bonus, that will somehow address the cost-of-living pressures on families. Yeah, that'll fix it! Great! That is the Australian Labor Party's very cunning public policy. Isn't that wonderful! As if somehow Australian families will benefit sufficiently from that. We know electricity prices have gone up by 60 per cent in the last five years. A sugar hit, a schoolkids bonus, will not match that. But of course this government has not got anything else to proffer. It is the old story: flash a bauble, flash a bit of tinsel, flash anything—take the minds of the electorate off the pain, grab the cash and all the problems will go away. Well, they will not. The Australian people are alive to what Labor is up to. It did take a while, but they are now. This carbon tax is toxic. The cost-of-living pressures that it will bring are considerable, and the Australian people know, no matter what compensation—such as this schoolkids bonus—is offered, it will not address the fundamental problem, and that is this: the carbon tax will make Australian industry less competitive. That is it in a sentence. It will make Australian industry less competitive. Costs must go up. It will make our exports more expensive. It will make us less competitive in relation to the rest of the world. That is a fact. And they are doing it to a country which is built on exporting energy. Why would you do that? Why would you make it harder for a kid to get a job? Why would you do that? Why would you make it harder for our exporters to export? Why would you do that? Well, this lot have done that. That has been the outcome of their policies. After all this time debating the carbon tax—God, it seems like forever; two or three years—we are still debating it, and our side will never give up. The carbon tax is wrong, and no schoolkids bonus will answer that. No sugar hit is ever going to wipe away the stain of a tax that makes Australia a less competitive country, that makes it harder for our kids to get jobs. We will never, ever let the Labor Party get away with it. I know the legislation has gone through, but, when we get in, we will take it back. As Mr Abbott says, if necessary we will go to a double dissolution. We will do whatever we do not because it is the Labor Party's legislation but because the carbon tax is not in our national interest. This lot have never, ever made the case that the carbon tax is in the national interest. That is a debate they lost. They won the election on a lie, and the debate in this chamber was lost by the Labor Party. They could never, ever justify the fact that the prices of our goods would go up and Australia would become less competitive. No amount of compensation, no schoolkids bonus, no other shiny, flashy baubles, will ever— Senator Jacinta Collins: On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I have allowed the senator some wide latitude, but the point does need to be made that these measures are not a carbon tax compensation measure. I ask you to bring him to the point or to be relevant to the motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stephens ): There is no point of order. Senator MASON: This is not a schoolkids bonus budget measure; this is a carbon tax offset. That is what this is. This is to somehow distract Australians and make them think, 'We have a generous government which gives us this money for the cost of schoolkids.' Let me conclude with one final point. No matter what compensation they give, no matter how many schoolkids bonuses they give, this pernicious tax will make it harder for Australian kids to get jobs, will make it harder to export and will lead to a fall in our standard of living.