Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, they can talk about the economy as much as they wish; we will be quite prepared to respond to every question, and in great detail.

The member for Hotham gave a detailed tirade on the performance of Labor in the 1990s, and I appreciate that that was a time of boom and bust and that it was not always a time when governments acquitted themselves well. At that time, it is true that there was productivity growth, but it was a very different period then. I do not recall a drought, as there is today, back in the 1990s. I do not recall a SARS crisis. I do not recall an Asian meltdown. I do not recall a tech bubble or anything like that. What I do recall is an economy that, since 1996, has performed extraordinarily well through some of the greatest external shocks that the world has seen, and in that time Australia has acquitted itself well.

There is no greater evidence of that than when we compare OECD economic performance and productivity against the benchmark, which at the moment is the United States. Comparisons through the OECD can be very harsh, and the opposition knows that well. Often, very tiny differences in economic performance can make it look like you are a long way down the list, and Australia sits proudly with wonderful economies like Japan, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and the UK—almost inseparable in our percentage gap of GDP below that of the United States. In front of us are only Denmark, Austria, Iceland, Switzerland, Ireland and Norway. These northern European economies are obviously very different from Australia. They are small, homogeneous and have a completely different economic provision base. In fact, most of them have very different welfare economies as well. So that handful of economies are the only ones that show a significantly greater productivity output per worker.

Of course, labour productivity is measured by subtracting the growth in your employment from the growth in your output. I think the mistake that is so frequently made by those on the other side of politics is to say that it is all about what the government does; it is all about how much the government is putting in. Obviously, the member for Hotham makes a compelling case for correlation—that at the time when productivity was growing very well, Labor just happened to be in power. But I have yet to be convinced that some of their policies actually had very much to do with it. I will agree that they made some important legislative decisions, but I also remind them that we supported the great majority of them.

That stands in stark contrast to what has happened in the last 10 years, where these smaller and smaller reforms that have built upon a base have not been supported by the other side. It has been a battle to get through the tiniest reforms, let alone the major ones, like workplace reform and the ports. These have been huge struggles. Support on bilateral agreements on trade has not been forthcoming, and that stands in great contrast to what happened when support was required from this side of the House while we were in opposition. That is frequently forgotten, given that it was 10 or 11 years ago, but an important point to make nonetheless.

I would like to reiterate the words of the previous speaker from this side, who pointed out just how strong our export performance is. Tempting as it is to simply subtract away imports and say there is a massive problem, I do not see a problem with small trade deficits, and many do not. Many do not see a problem with them if they are adequately serviced and it is not the government that goes into debt to fund them.

See this speech in context