Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let us take a look at the real indicators. Let us begin with wealth in Australia. Since this government has been in office in the last 10 years, the level of household real net wealth has doubled from $2 billion to $4.6 billion. In the last seven years of the Hawke-Keating government, the growth in wealth in Australia amounted to a measly 2.9 per cent. Let us take a look at household debt. For every $1 of debt households have, they have more than $6 in total assets and almost $2 in financial assets. This is an indication of a well-managed economy. If we ask the question, ‘Do we take responsibility for the management of the Australian economy,’ what test ought we to use? From my way of thinking, it is a simple one: are Australians better off? The answer is clearly yes. Let me give you an example. A couple with children where one partner is earning 100 per cent of average wages and one is earning 33 per cent of average wages, which is not an uncommon phenomenon these days where both parents are working, would have a real disposable income of $64,000, which is a real increase of 31 per cent since we have been in office. In simple terms, that means that the first $51,800 that that couple earns is effectively tax free.

The tax-free threshold across the board is $6,000 but, when you look at the policies that we have introduced to assist families and families with children—the member for Prospect is leaving the chamber; what a shame; he cannot handle it—the very people who he has just said are worse off are the same people who are benefiting from the policies that we have put in place to enhance the income and standard of living of families, including those living in greater Western Sydney, where the members for Lindsay and Macarthur live. We see the hopes and aspirations of those people recognised by the policies of this government, as distinct from the people across the chamber, who saw no growth in their prospects and no aspirational growth in what they thought they could achieve for their children. And they have the hide, when debating a question which relates to interest rates and taking responsibility for the management of the economy, to say that the policies of this government have somehow been to the detriment of people who live in Western Sydney.

Let us look at a couple of other things that are relevant to this debate. Let us look at interest rates. Over the 10 years of this coalition government, the home mortgage interest rate averaged 7.15 per cent versus an average under the previous Labor government of Hawke and Keating of 12.75 per cent. I reckon that indicates that we are very much better off. If you want to look at the interest rate for small business, you have an average rate under us of 8.8 per cent versus an average under Labor of 14.25 per cent. As I said, the test in this debate is: are Australians better off? The answer is yes. People well remember that interest rates under Mr Keating were 17 per cent for home mortgages, 22 per cent for small business and some as high as 29 per cent. Don’t we remember the terrifying words of Mr Keating that he would ‘juggle the levers’? He juggled them all right; he sent thousands of people tumbling into an abyss of despair, many of whom were small business people who could have withstood a correction at any time. But the levers were juggled by that economic genius Mr Keating and small businesses that could have withstood a correction were tipped into the abyss of despair.

At the time of that abyss of despair, the member for Prospect would have been about 19 years old. He may not remember the impact of those disastrous policies, but I will tell you what: the vast majority of his electors will well and truly remember the impact of those policies. And he has the temerity to come in here and say that this government does not take responsibility for the good management of our economy. We do take that responsibility, and we take it by showing that the average Australian is better off under our sound management than they were under Labor.

Let us look at some other indicators—unemployment, for example. Unemployment is now at a record low since 1974. Unemployment figures are at 4.8 per cent, with many electorates having almost full employment, with unemployment rates as low as 1.8 per cent. We have seen the long-term unemployment rate dramatically reduced, with people being assisted back into the workplace. We have seen realistic policies put in place—for example, the introduction of the Job Network to assist people to get back into jobs. And when people get into jobs it starts to restore their self-esteem. The number of families that have no member of the family working has diminished. These are very positive things that build the strength of a nation.

We have seen, however, as the Prime Minister pointed out in question time, a very disturbing factor. He pointed out to us that the problem with home prices and the new entrants to the home market is the fact that the cost of land has increased in the period from 1973 to 2003 by a staggering 700 per cent. Why is this so? Because we have seen a change in policy. We have seen a change in the way land is released. When a developer goes to develop land the cost of the infrastructure and of providing many amenities for a subdivision are put back onto the developer and passed on to the purchaser before that purchaser then engages someone to build the home. Over that same period the increase in building costs has been just over 40 per cent. How, in this day and age, when you see the reforms that were brought in by this government with our new tax policies, when we brought in the GST and gave all that money to the states, guaranteeing them a growth tax, is it that they so mismanaged their states that they have not been able to release land that is affordable?

The member for Prospect said that the release of land would not help the process. The point is that it is not the release of land per se; it is the release of land and the amenities and infrastructure that accompany it that are presently eschewed by the state governments, and they pass it on to be paid by the purchasers themselves via putting the cost onto the developer. Once again the member for Prospect, who really did not feel the impact of the bad management of the Hawke-Keating government because he was too young, wants to tell us at this great age of wisdom that he believes that simply releasing land was what the Prime Minister was talking about, when it clearly was not.

I would like to point out, just while we are dealing with the good management that we have given to Australia as a whole, that with our new tax policy reforms—getting rid of the wholesale sales tax and putting in the GST—the result for the states has been that they are virtually awash with money. In 2005-06 the GST revenue for New South Wales was $10.94 billion. That was a windfall of $160 million. That was $160 million above and beyond what they could have anticipated if we were still in the business of the premiers coming to Canberra and asking for financial assistance grants.

Queensland received $7.96 billion, adding a windfall of $664.9 million. Yet Mr Beattie still cannot, as we heard in question time today, manage to keep maternity wings available in hospitals across Queensland. We hear the stories of people who cannot access hospitals for life-saving operations, and yet he got a windfall of $665 million from the Commonwealth government and still cannot provide for the state. We are talking in this debate about the Australian government taking responsibility for the management of the economy. Well may some of the state treasurers do the same thing. Perhaps at the election on Saturday Queenslanders can put a good statement about how they feel about Mr Beattie’s management of that state and the management of the money that comes from the federal government. To put that into perspective, New South Wales, for instance, has a total budget this year of $41 billion, and $20 billion of that budget came directly from the Commonwealth government. We have a major problem: it is called vertical fiscal imbalance. It means that state governments are spending money which they do not have to raise, and it results in bad decision making.

Back to this strict interpretation of today’s debate—do we take responsibility for the management of this economy? Yes, we do. Do we take responsibility for the fact that Australians are wealthier than they have ever been, that the economy is stronger than it has ever been and for the fact that we have put surpluses in place in budgeting as part of that management system? Do we take responsibility for the fact that families are so much better off because of our family assistance programs? Yes, we do. This is a proud government and it is proud of its record. It takes responsibility for the movement in interest rates because it knows that we do it better than Labor ever did, can or would do in the future. (Time expired)

See this speech in context