Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Hunter and, more broadly, the Australian Labor Party, especially when the member for Hunter spent a great deal of his time talking about economics 101. Those of us on the government benches always take great interest whenever the Australian Labor Party try to lecture this government on economics 101. The Australian Labor Party, as a testament to their fundamental and comprehensive understanding of economics, left our country with $96 billion of debt, an unemployment rate that reached 11 per cent—one million unemployed Australians—and interest rates that required servicing at 17 per cent or 18 per cent. Yet, despite this track record of the Australian Labor Party, the member for Hunter comes into the chamber and says: ‘Economics 101 says that this government has made all these mistakes. We’re not doing this right; we’re not doing that right.’ So, fundamentally, we should in some way be listening to the advice that comes from the Australian Labor Party rather than looking at our government’s track record.

In rising to speak to the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Tax Reduction and Improved Depreciation Arrangements) Bill 2006 I am pleased to highlight to the opposition the strength of this government’s performance on taxation. I have been, as the member for Hunter outlined, a strong advocate within government for tax reform. I am proud of my advocacy in calling for there to be reduced levels of both corporate and personal taxation. I am also proud of the fact that the Treasurer has listened to calls that I and others have made. In the budget the Treasurer delivered some $37 billion worth of tax cuts. In large part, this is because of his own leadership when it comes to ensuring that the Australian economy remains strong and, at the same time, ensuring that the Australian people enjoy those benefits. (Quorum formed)

We see the Labor Party’s form: once again, the Australian Labor Party comes in and starts lecturing with its dodgy Labor economics but then, when the government comes in to reinforce the efforts it has made to keep the Australian economy strong, the reaction of the Australian Labor Party is to suddenly call a quorum. I am not surprised that the Australian Labor Party feels it necessary to call a quorum because it is very clear that the Australian Labor Party would rather keep a cap on its very bad track record when it comes to economic management and try to prevent a government member from highlighting our track record.

I would like to turn back to comments that the member for Hunter made. The member for Hunter, who is a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, made reference to the fact that the tax cuts that were announced by the Treasurer were, to use his words, ‘long overdue tax cuts that the Australian Labor Party supported’. Indeed, we have seen the Labor Party say that, unlike in previous years, they are not going to vote against these tax cuts. But then, shortly thereafter, the member for Hunter said, ‘We shouldn’t be having these tax cuts, because they are placing undue pressure on interest rates.’ So, on the one hand, the member for Hunter says they support these long overdue tax cuts but, on the other hand, the member for Hunter says: ‘These tax cuts are going to put upwards pressure on interest rates. We shouldn’t be having these tax cuts.’ So we see once again the flip-flop of the Australian Labor Party, trying to argue one way and then in the very next breath trying to argue the other way.

I would remind the member for Hunter, because he sits on the House of Representatives economics committee, that the Reserve Bank governor when he last appeared before the committee made it very clear under questioning by the member for Rankin that tax cuts that kept the budget surplus between one and 1½ per cent of GDP would not place undue pressure on monetary policy. The Reserve Bank governor himself made it very clear that tax cuts would not place pressure—

See this speech in context