Irelands debt = $2.3 trillion which will take a generation to pay down.

Australia's debt = $247 billion which will be paid off in the next ten years.

There is no comparison. A more active story would be to call for a intergenerational future fund for people being born now.

Julie you should be advocating Constitutional changes that prevents Govt's from creating Debt burden on future generations.

Debt's a Mad Cow Disease afflicting ALP Politicians .

Very few politicians are willing to consider the effect of the
increasing cost of energy and its direct effect on growth.
Please get a grip on the mirage that is being projected by the shale
oil and gas promoters in the US.
It has very little future and will not hold down oil prices.
Our growth is expected to repay our debt, but the cost of energy will
increasingly eat into our GDP, leaving nothing for debt repayment and
interest payments.

It must be understood by politicians that this is not a temporary
condition but is permanent.
For goodness sake read some of the easily available information on
what really amounts to a Ponzi scheme with shale oil & gas.
It is already showing signs of failing.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-20/don-t-fall-for-the-shale-boom-hype-chris-martenson-interview

Cheryl, over the next year our debt will increase, as the incompetents remain in charge.

During the ten years thereafter, when the current vandals are gone, and we have competent government, the debt will be paid off.

It is only through Gillard’s corrupt manipulation of the democratic process, that we have had this depredation of our economic security inflicted on us.

It would be enlightening to know precisely how she corrupted Oakeshott and Windsor to turn on their own electorates, and support her unelected incompetent disaster of a government, headed by our first communist PM..

OLO continues to provide Julie Bishop with a forum for Coalition propaganda. It cannot be pretended that she is offering an "opinion" because her opinions operate in a largely fact free environment. I suppose that we should be grateful that it is not another bland set of generalities on foreign policy, but her grasp of economics is if anything even worse.

There are some very good commentaries available on issues such as debt, the proper response of government to recession, reform of the tax system, etc but one looks in vain on OLO for such analysis. It really is an insult to our intelligence to respond to the many critical economic issues facing Australia with ill-informed assaults on current economic policy and wholly unbelievable claims that the Coalition will miraculously make it all right again.

Leo Lane: you really need to take something for your condition.

James, what is needed are weekly columns from people like Lowenstein and Carr to offset the overwhelming, suspect propaganda offered by Bishop and Singer.

What is missing is balance and this problem could be so easily overcome.

More balance would really put OLO on the top of Australian forums!

James O'Neill and David G

By balance you two mean stacking OLO with loony left rants.. there are plenty of such comments on OLO already. Bishop is entitled to push the Liberal party view and her comments her certainly not extreme or simple propaganda as other posters have suggested.. whether you actually agree with them or not is another matter..

OLO is one of the few websites in Aus with genuinely mixed and diverse opinions, so you will occasionally find articles you disagree with. Sad but true.

@Curmudgeon. It is a curious world view that you have if you see opinion divided into either those you obviously favor such as Ms Bishop's views on the one hand and "looney left rants" on the other. I neither subscribe to most of what Ms Bishop has to say nor to what you are pleased to call the looney left.

There is, and this may come as a surprise to you, a range of opinions on a spectrum. My complaint was that OLO persists in giving space to people like Ms Bishop who are singularly I'll informed on the topics they choose to write on, or the blatantly ignorant and biased such as David Singer.
Both insult our intelligence. While I agree that OLO provides a valuable site that does not preclude it from being better. My simple suggestion was that it begins with better contributors.

Cheryl, if you look more closely you will find the $247 billion is only
one part of the government debt.
I think it is mainly accumulated budget deficits.
To that has to be added the outstanding Aus Govt bonds, NBN costs and
some other off the books debts, such as unfunded super liabilities.
From other reports I have seen the total is some $700 + billion.

Hi Bazz, nope total Gov debt is $247B.

'Debt burden' is a loaded term. Debt is not always perilous as the Coalition would make it. It depends on what 'debt' has achieved in economic terms such as during the GFC. The money could have been better managed in some of this government's programs but that is another side-story.

Conversely there is no point in having a huge surplus as Howard did while letting infrastructure run down and queues in hospitals grow.

The Future Fund was a good idea but could have been further expanded to include partial offset for the ageing population as well not just public service pension commitments.

If the Coalition (and ALP for that matter) is concerned about ageing populations don't encourage the idea of economic growth as being wholly dependent on population growth or that unfettered growth and consumerism is then goal

The argument that Politicians constantly hide behind is that Australia's debt to GDP is relatively low compared to major economies in the world.

This must be attacked at its core! In the state of the GFC and massive international monetary crises Australia cannot afford to take on debts..in fact we must be paying off debt with substantial budgetary spending cuts..it is absurd that we argue about a balanced budget ..when we should rather be arguring about how much surplus we need to be allocating to repaying debt..realive international debt is a furfy! Look at Australia in an absolute sense to sort out our future for generations to come.

I do think Julie Bishop and Libs need to go much furher when they say

'That is why the Coalition is committed to paying off Labor's debt so that the young people of today will not face tomorrow higher taxes, reduced services and lower standards of living'.

This is now much easier said than done, although i am not defending Labor.

Looking back thru the posts we seem to accept manufactured funds that can be exploited at will ?

Aw shucks. She stopped, just when it was getting interesting.

"That is why the Coalition is committed to paying off Labor's debt so that the young people of today will not face tomorrow higher taxes, reduced services and lower standards of living."

Left hanging, as it were, on our fiscal cliff of mystery...

So please, Ms Bishop, send Graham the missing piece, that explains how the Coalition will achieve this.

The two options are exactly the same as for every other country, including the United States. You can a) increase taxation or b) reduce government services. Which is it to be?

Or perhaps there's another way that we haven't thought of yet, the Bishop solution...

What's that Skippy? Tony's in trouble? Quick, let's get help...

Cheryl, you just cannot ignore these other debts.
They are real money and have to be repaid and interest is due on them.
They are government debt, even if some are reflected back to the Reserve Bank.

They will not go away, they are real and someone will come knocking.

David G
I think we are getting a very balanced debate..no suspect propaganda. Just the sad facts re Labor's inability to properly repay our balooning debt, likely 10-15Bn 2013 Budget deficit( leading Australian institutional economists) which excludes previously mentioned off balance sheet debts eg unfunded superannuation liabilities etc and Labor's economic mismanagement and inability to manage within Australia's means. Can't hide from reality and the sad facts.

The Howard government paid off the previous Government debt-big deal!
As I recall the Sydney Harbour Bridge took 75 years to pay off without any affect on NSW budgets.

What Bishop does not mention is that, apart from this debt and the Future Fund, the previous government did very little. No infrastructure,reduced University education and health funds not to mention the obscene handouts to the greedy beginning the era of entitlement still around today.

Howard had the benefit of the huge boom/bonanza taxes of the mining boom added to his 'never' GST.

You forgot to add that the Future Fund is also there to pay the pensions of overpaid politicians!

Is Oz too big to manage effectively ?
Take NSW its about the same size as Germany , why is Germany so productive and so well organised politically what have they got that we lack ? Cut loose from the dead hand of Australia "Canberra" would NSW become a "Can Do Country" ?
How about VIC & SA combining what a hoot!
And all the people who can't figure it all out can migrate to Tassie make it compulsory and slowly die out.

Gazzaboy..yes the Howard governments repayment of Labor's debt was a very big and responsible deal. Thank God they did then..imagine where we'd be today if they hadn't!

Finance 101 basics is you spend on useful assets such as bridges and infrastructure that is an ASSET and goes to the country's on book balance sheet as an asset to correspond with the debt incurred. Not on pink batts, overspending on schools, computers schools can't use, UN Security Council seat, installation of solar panels and green energy which is ridiculously expensive relative to lower cost forms of energy systems.

This excludes all the off balance debt and accounting fiddling that Labor uses to defer additional expenses to futrure years.

If you were to waste that same money on cheque handouts willy nilly, excessive royal commissions, consultants, lawyers handouts..that all goes to expennse..leads to a massive shortfall and budget deficit which leads to increased borrowings and debts rather than have that surplus available to pay off Labor's debt.

Not surprising the current decline in the Australian econonomy when you can count the number of current Labor Ministers when any sort of financial or business experience.

Suggest it be mandatory that any Minister have at least run a small business in Australia before being elected to their position.

If you want to learn about history and economics see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI This is the story behind the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. L Frank Baum wrote this at the height of the 1890's Depression with a purpose.

In 1873 the elites removed all the silver money from Western economies and replace it with their gold.Since they had most of the gold,they assumed most of the wealth.We here in Aust had also a shortage of money and used Spanish coins and even Rum as a currency.

In the book Dorothy had silver slippers and the yellow brick road represented the slavery of gold since the elites dictated the price of money.

L Frank Baum accompanied William Jennings Brian in his pursiut to become US President.He was known as the "Lion" for his public speaking prowess against the gold bugs.In his book Brian was the Cowardly Lion.

The Tin Woodman represented the factory worker who needed oil or the liquidity of money to move.The Scarecrow represented the seemingly ignorant farmer,but he too knew what really mattered.

The Wicked Witches of the East and West reprented JD Rockerfeller and JP Morgan ,the two major banks in the USA at that time.They were defeated by water,again liquidity which represented money.Dorothy had the sercet of her freedom at her feet ie the sliver slippers which the Wicked Witches lusted after.

So see 'The Secret of Oz' above and know what needs to be done.

New money which represents our increases in productivity should not be created AS DEBT BY PRIVATE BANKS.This means they own us and our Govts totally.

Both our major parties are servants to this banking cartel that assumes wealth and creates nothing of tangible worth.

The Reserve Bank of Australia should be creating new money for our banks so we pay less tax and have less debt.

Surprise, surprise, but not really, there is a report in todays press of an IMF study which found that Howard was the most irresponsible big spender in Australian history.

Come on Daffy BS baffels brains but your BS lacks credibility.

Daffy,

It is ironic how the the IMF claims that Howard had the most prolifigate spending when there was record low unemployment, record budget surpluses, and, record low taxes, and record economic growth.

Apparently the billions spent by Juliar wasted on school halls etc, and the hand outs that were supposed to be use to lower company tax, were not wasteful?

Sorry, but it does not cut the mustard.

SM That debt went a long way keeping us away from the depression that much of the world is in.
Abbott wants to create his own depression paying down debt in three years. The fourth year is spent trying to patch his image up so he can be elected again. To late he has already got the ars.
Why not over 10 years, and avoid depression.
Middle class welfare, won't win elections.

Daffy,

With Howard being the profligate spender as stated, one has to wonder how he managed, despite this, to turn a labour governments deficit which he inherited into an undeniable surplus. The present government inherited a robust and booming economy, and have turned this into an all time record deficit which our children will inherit.

You may not be concerned about this, but many of us are.

The younger generation are content to pay high credit interest to have instant gratification, while we older and wiser ones know it is not good fiscal management, and in the long run will cost them dearly.

I view this present government as setting an extremely bad example to these young people with their let's live on credit policy. Tomorrow will come!
So, do we bury our heads in the sand and allow debt to increase, or do we realise that it has to stop, and we'll have to bear the austerity needed to reverse this.
As I see it, these are the only two options.

Costello put the cogs in place for the debt reduction before Howard was there. Howard just rode on the mining boom.

Every so often, a real gem appears.

>>The present government inherited a robust and booming economy, and have turned this into an all time record deficit which our children will inherit<<

That IS funny. And a little sad.

Which rock have you been hiding under, worldwatcher?

Does the acronym GFC mean absolutely nothing to you? And if you have heard about it, do you actually know what it stands for? And if you know what it stands for, do you have the faintest clue what it means? And the impact it has had on the US, Europe, China etc., and world trade in general?

Clearly, not.

That was not, by the way, a Party political broadcast. I think this government is one of the weakest I have ever had the misfortune to have experienced. But still, to cast stones in that particular direction is plain daft - particularly as the Coalition has never, at any stage, offered a remotely workable alternative plan. In fact, all they have done is sit on the sidelines and chirp. No doubt secretly hugely grateful that they didn't have the problem on their plate. I hate to think where we would be if the grinning blimp had had control over the economy...

Julie Bishop has just enunciated what the next election will be all about. She is setting the tone for the election. In the coming months Abbott will re-inforce the coalition strategy. Positive policy, spending cuts and reduction of Canberra workforce.

The lefties here have used the defence the Gillard Government will use.

Three points:

The Government defence is not credible.
The Government will be defending.
Abbotts policies are and will be positive, funded and realistic.

-

Julianutter: the devil as always is in the detail. Of the three final points you make, what are the details exactly. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that Bishop, Hockey, Abbott et al have said so far inspires the remotest confidence and would lead any rational person to think they had the answers to anything.

If you have read Bishop's periodic contributions to OLO you would have less confidence. About the only sure thing one would know about the Coalition's foreign policy for example, is that they will faithfully carry out their instructions from Washington. This is not to say that Labor are any better, and I agree with Pericles that they would have to be one of the worst governments inflicted on Australia in a very long time. I don't mean that in a purely economic sense because the GFC made policy incredibly difficult and on balance, some spectacular fiascos notwithstanding, they did a reasonable job, as several international assessments have made clear.
Abbott will have to do more than prance around in speedos or a hard hat to persuade me to preference his lot anywhere single digits.

579

You forget to mention that most of Labor's tenure has seen tax returns 4 times higher from mining than Howard ever saw.

Mining saved Australia from the recession, Labor had little to do with it.

Pericles,

Well aware of the GFC and it's ramifications throught the world.
Also aware that with our dollar so high, without the mining sector we cannot compete with other economies on manufacturing unless we go offshore. But this is one small component of the overall GFC.
I would hazard that you will not agree with the theory that without our major exports of coal and mining we would probably be in the same boat as the countries you mentioned.
As part of the global economy, with such a large deficit it is possible anyway that we are now on the way to joining them.

It is impossible to discuss the GFC thoroughly on this Forum. There are just far too many factors involved.

However I assure you I am not hiding under a rock, and so far have heard nothing which encourages me to think more optimistically about our present or near future financial situation.

At this stage one can only present personal views on the present, and guesses for the future. Which is why we have this Forum for an exchange of ideas, and to provoke thought on a wide variety of subjects - preferably politely.

The study found that in broad terms Australia's government debt has been falling since 1932, when it peaked at 98 per cent of gross domestic product. Across all levels of government it is currently just above 20 per cent after climbing since the global financial crisis.
The budget balance has been broadly stable for half a century.
The key finding is that Australia has few examples of economic recklessness compared with other developed nations. Canada's government debt peaked at 143 per cent of GDP in 1946, Japan's reached 233 per cent in 2011, Israel's hit 284 per cent in 1984.
New Zealand recorded government debt of 226 per cent in 1933 and a budget deficit of 7.5 per cent of GDP in 1995.
Developed nations were generally at their most prudent before World War I and during the 1990s, the study finds.
They were generally their least prudent during the mid-1970s and in some cases after the global financial crisis.
The IMF
10 years study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession.
The number of spending decisions worth more than $1 billion climbed from one in the first Howard budget to nine in the last. The proportion of savings measures fell from one-third of budget measures at the start of the Howard era to 1.5 per cent at the end.
In its final year in office, the Coalition boosted the AusLink national roads program by $2.3 billion and announced grants for water conservation and water buybacks worth $10 billion over 10 years.

Of course no mention by Ms Bishop of the broader context that has in large part created this debt burden; namely the limits to economic growth. And by failing to acknowledge said limits Its difficult to see how either of the party's will be able to enact policies to ameliorate the debt burden. More likely we will just lurch from crisis to crisis for decades to come.

Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has expressed alarm at the size of Australia's national debt.
Mr Beazley today told the NSW state Labor Conference at Sydney's Town Hall that Australia's $425 billion foreign debt was a risk to the economy and called for more investment in training and infrastructure.
"Over the long term no economy can sustain a mix of spiralling debt and slowing growth," he said.
"I believe John Howard and Peter Costello are taking us to the edge of the debt cliff.
"I fear Australia's credit card is nearly maxed out."
Mr Beazley said Australia would be unable to compete with emerging economies like China and Singapore without investment in education and training.
"For an unprepared country these are fearsome global competitors with low labour costs and vast economies of scale," he said.
"One thing is for certain - without investment in infrastructure and skills we cannot compete against the hundreds of millions of low paid workers at our doorstep."

Total debt of Aust.$ 2.15 trillion. Commonwealth debt $262 billion + State Govt $ 179 billion. Total Govt debt $441 billion.Housing debt $1.3 trillion.Our GDP $1.2 trillion.

We are not the miracle economy and Wayne Swan is not the world's greatest treasurer.The reasons why we are in so much debt are we sold off all our state banks and the commonwealth bank that used to create some of the money for our growing economy.

We used to deal in cash but now we live on credit/debit cards and far less cash is now created by our own Govts.

We have little industry here that produces consumerables. Thus we import nearly all manufactured products.Only the mining boom saved us but now that is coming to an end.

The RBA should at least create our inflationary money of 3% since this means we are losing value of our labour and pension funds.This could reduce our taxes by $36 billion per yr or provide debt free infrastructure.

It is mathmatically impossible to reduce debt when our productivity + inflation is expressed as debt.This means that the harder we work so must there be more money,but that money comes as debt mostly via inflated housing properties.

Currently people are reluctant to borrow even at low rates so this means less money for our economies,higher unemployement and no growth.The treadmill of debt has our economies chasing their tails and it can only end in collapse.

We must return to Govt Banks and get the RBA creating at least some of our credit.

James O'Neill,

yeah yeah yeah we've heard all your labor mantra before. Nobodies listening to it anymore.

Many people are completely disengaged. You are wasting your time.

'In the coming months Abbott will re-inforce the coalition strategy. Positive policy, spending cuts and reduction of Canberra workforce.'

You'll see the positive detail then.

Add to that the messes created by NSW Labor, Williamsen, Slipper, Thompson and Gillard's AWU, that the coalition won't have to raise because the police, courts and other enquries will highlight ...
well you get the idea. There's no need for Abbott to raise any negatives. Those sagas are there for all to see.

There should be hung all around parliament:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero, 55 BC.

So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years

Fair point, M007.

>>...evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years<<

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a magnificent orator, no doubt about that. But he was not an economist. The closest he came to the complexities of finance was as quaestor in Western Sicily, an administrative, rather than fiscally-oriented post.

Quoting him as an authority on government debt is about as convincing as a relying upon the financial musings of Julie Bishop.

Oh, right.

Barnaby Joyce, then?

Well at least Barnaby Joyce is an accountant.
I think we more of accountancy than economists.

Bazz very true. Me too.

I had a good laugh when a while back a leading CEO of a major bank in Australia was heard to comment: "The only time we only make money is when I take the opposite view to my economists." Give us good accountants any day to help repay the debt burden on future generations.

@julianutter:"labor mantra"? Once again confirmation that you occupy a parallel universe. I actually agreed with Pericles that the present government were one of our worst ever.

Do you actually read what people write or is the fact of a comment other than your own sufficient for you to leap into ill-informed blathering of your own viewpoint, entirely free of facts or reason?

Blathering ... really.

Typical, just because I have a stutter ... really I am offended at your insensitivity to my speech defect. Mind you that's quite typical of the personal attack style of Labor ... isn't it? Maybe with Roxon's proposed nannyism I'll be able to sue you.

'...because the GFC made policy incredibly difficult and on balance, some spectacular fiascos notwithstanding, they did a reasonable job, as several international assessments have made clear.'

That James is the Labor mantra.

You repeated it and accused me of not actually reading what people write. Are you in fact the real blatherer?

Or did you forget you wrote that.
Or are you into the typical denial of Gillard and her bunch of fools? ie always denying what they say.

You leftie fools with your slippery elaborate deceptions really do make me laugh. Roll on the election James.

As the AOFM annual report also noted, “the government has highlighted its commitment in the last two budgets to maintaining a liquid CGS market and it will continue to monitor the size of the market in relation to liquidity considerations.”
So despite which side wins the next election, despite the overblown rhetoric from some about the rise in gross government debt and working on the reasonable assumption that we are set to get a run of budget surpluses, gross debt will rise.
The more pertinent question is what the government will do with all the money it raises from issuing bonds that it doesn’t need. A nice problem for any government to have

The purpose of the Australian Government Future Fund is to fully fund the future superannuation payments of public servants, which currently come from the federal budget.
In March 2007 the opposition Labor Party announced it would withdraw A$2.7 billion from the Future Fund to finance a broadband initiative across Australia if it won the 2007 election; this proposal prompted government ministers to proclaim that Labor intended to "raid" the Future Fund for their own means.[2]
Labor later indicated that the use of any funds from the Future Fund towards a national high speed broadband network will have to comply and meet all requirements of any commercial investment. This included producing a commercial rate of return on the invested funds, with all profits being returned back into the Future Fund allowing further investment.
In the 2008–2009 Australian Government Budget, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan announced that the Future Fund would manage three new funds established by the Government:[3]
• Building Australia Fund – An infrastructure fund to improve and create major infrastructure projects (including road, rail, ports and broadband) with an initial allocation of A$20 billion. At 30 September 2011, it was valued at A$7.9 billion, an increase of A$2.5 billion on the previous's value.[4]
• Health and Hospitals Fund – A health infrastructure fund to provide increased spending on hospitals, medical equipment etc. with an initial allocation of A$10 billion. At 30 September 2011, it was valued at A$4.31 billion.[4]
• Education Investment Fund – A fund to provide capital investment in higher education and vocational education and training, with an initial allocation of around A$11 billion; including A$6 billion from the Higher Education Endowment Fund, of which it absorbs. At 30 September 2011, it was valued at A$4.89 billion.[4]

• Mr Keating accused Mr Costello of presiding over the growth of Australian debt abroad from $129 billion in 1996, to $705 billion in 2007.
• ''The Future Fund is all about national savings, yet, during Costello's period as treasurer, national savings were so depleted,'' he said.
• ''Costello was a policy bum of the first order who squandered 11 years of economic opportunity.''

579,

Whatever drivel you try and post, the results are indisputable.

Howard came to power in 96 when Labor left a record deficit of over $90bn and in 2007 left no federal debt and tens of billions in the bank.

Juliar/Krudd came to power in 2007 with tens of billions in the bank, and in 5 short years of economic vandalism left record deficts and a debt greater than $170bn.

What do we have now, but Whine Swan quietly ditching his cast iron promise to produce a surplus, and Juliar committing the country to tens of billion of additional annual spending with no possibility of funding it other than from borrowings.

You miss a key point, Shadow Minister.

The Howard/Costello years were notable for the ability of the government to extract from the pockets of every Australian a whack of taxation, that allowed those coffers to be filled to the brim. We, collectively, put the money in the bank, not "the government". Their task was to make the extraction as unnoticeable as possible.

And simply because this was a period of global prosperity, the average punter did not notice the government's hand constantly lightening their wallets. It is not quite such a simple trick to pull off today, in the world's slightly more straitened circumstances.

You seem to think that increased taxation of businesses and the individual is somehow preferable to borrowing. Could you tell us, perhaps, how addressing the impact of the GFC by adding to the citizenry's tax burden would have improved the situation.

Sheesh, and I thought it was the Socialists who loved taxation more, obviously it is you conservatives.

Pericles,

Given that the Howard government steadily reduced tax rates, your statement is without foundation.

That they received more tax in spite of lowering taxes is because they grew the economy faster than anyone else over a similar period. The booming economy left companies and individuals with far more profit and money in their pocket, and the smaller tax rates still yielded higher tax yield.

Juliar and her economic vandals are happily reversing this trend with predictable results. Companies and individuals are making less profit, and the tax yield as a proportion of GDP has fallen.

Shadow Minister , pity but your wasting your time , trying to educate Goons is a futile exercise .

Tap-dancing is your forte, Shadow Minister, I have to admire that.

>>The booming economy left companies and individuals with far more profit and money in their pocket, and the smaller tax rates still yielded higher tax yield.<<

So Howard was responsible for the boom years of the global economy, was he? For the substantial growth of our major export markets? In the words of the prophet, yeah, right.

The fact that he was able to use this universal glow of prosperity to dip unnoticed into our wallets doesn't change the fact that he took more in taxes than he paid out in services.

Result: budget surplus, yes?

Or have you another method of achieving this outcome?

The tap-dancing part is the way you manage to sidestep-and-reverse-chasse the GFC choice that we faced: tax-and-spend or borrow-and-spend. If you have an alternative - such as a "let them eat cake" approach that allowed businesses to go bankrupt because, well, they deserve it for being so stupid, then please feel free to articulate it.

Pericles,

You have finally discovered the coalition's dastardly plan to get to surplus, keep spending less than income (especially on wasteful moronic schemes). If Labor learnt of this they could seriously challenge the coalition's economic supremacy.

A small portion of the debt is due to the GFC, the rest is due to Labor's incompetence.

Spot on Julie Bishop.Many people point out that Australias debt is quite low compared to other western nations. What they forget is that these same nations were already hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in debt even BEFORE the GFC hit. While Australias debt was virtually zero and we even had a surplus at that time. Cheryl says that we will pay off the debt in 10 years.Pray how will we do this with the current gov't in charge. In the last couple of years Mr Swann is on record as stating that our economy is booming yet he still cannot produce a surplus. If he cannot produce a surplus pray how is he going to pay off the debt ?. Sorry Mr Swann you can't have it both ways.
This gov't has no business nous. just look at the insulation scheme. Actually a great idea but completely botched by this incompetent gov't. As a result several decent working men are dead and everything had to be re-checked. Similarly with the schools programme. One school in Adelaide received an $80,000 toilet block despite the same school being slated for closure at the end of the year. This Labor gov't is spending like a drunken sailor with absolutely no thought for the future, only the next election.

Spot on, Shadow Minister.

>>Pericles, You have finally discovered the coalition's dastardly plan to get to surplus, keep spending less than income<<

Ah, but where I come from, we call that "income" by its more honest name: taxation. It's our money they take. Yours and mine.

As I said before, the Coalition's only workable plan to balance the budget is to increase taxation, or reduce expenditure. I doubt we can expect a platform of higher taxation to win the day, so...

Given that there are no more "make-work" schemes to exploit, which expenditure does the Coalition have in mind to target?

I fully expect the usual weasel-response "greater efficiency in the public service".

Go on. You know you can.

And one more thing. Only a politician could believe that governments are responsible for a booming economy...

>>...the Howard government... grew the economy faster than anyone else over a similar period<<

Business grows the economy, Shadow Minister. Governments only get in the way.

Except, of course, in China, where the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China takes a major role in boosting businesses.

Perhaps you have in mind something along those lines for us?

Pericles,

Considering Labor has expanded the public sector by nearly 8% and delivered no more services, there is a lot of fat that can be removed from the labor budget. This includes the bloated climate change dept that can be reduced to zero, and the people hired to look after the mining tax. Spending money does not necessarily equate to delivering services.

"Business grows the economy, Shadow Minister. Governments only get in the way." Precisely, Labor spends its time generating tens of thousands of new regulations and taxes that strangle business, the coalition does just the opposite.