House debates
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008; Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2006-2007; Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2006-2007
Second Reading
11:21 am
Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
My friend and colleague from Western Australia, the member for Canning, asks me how much we owe today. This is perhaps a very good comparison that we should draw to the attention of our electorates. We in fact owe nothing. We owe nothing because there is no net government debt because this government has made all the tough decisions over the last decade to pay off the completely irresponsible management of the economy by the Labor government in the previous decade. Here we are being slandered by the opposition and absolutely defamed by them after 10 years of hard slog, 10 years of making the tough calls, 10 years of being forced to cut back on services to pay off $96 billion of debt, with a prosperous economy, with a capacity to contribute to the services and the welfare of the Australian people, with some remarkable and wonderful initiatives and some forward-looking policies. That is very significant and something that should be taken to the people of Australia.
I will continue to do that in the Ryan electorate because the support of my constituents, their votes and their vote of confidence in me are not things I take for granted, as no member of the coalition should in their own electorate. It is a shame that time is getting away from me in this debate because I am very proud to be a member of this government and to boast of the economic skills of our leadership team. Unfortunately, doing that has taken time away from me to talk about the specifics of this budget’s policies, but I want to make sure I talk about some of them because they are very important. As the member for Ryan, where the University of Queensland is located in the suburb of St Lucia, I want to draw to the attention of my constituents a very significant government announcement on budget night, and that was of course the initiative to implement the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Some $5 billion has been allocated for the establishment of that fund. This is education policy at its very best—a real education revolution. This fund will ensure that a very strong, well-resourced higher education sector will come into being for the students of the future. It is a very practical measure; it will make a very big difference. That $5 billion is in the bank, locked up to ensure that once the good times are over there will still be a strong education sector to keep Australia globally competitive once our economy confronts some challenges in the international community. If Labor comes to office it is almost certainly guaranteed that at least the university sector will have $5 billion locked in the bank. The interest payments on that can be contributed to vital university infrastructure and assets; as well, it can be leveraged to make a difference to the final amounts that can be spent in the universities across the country. It will operate in a very similar way to the Future Fund; indeed, this fund’s investments will be managed by the Future Fund’s Board of Guardians as a separate fund. I want to quote the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, John Hay AC. He says: ‘Costello and the education minister, Julie Bishop, deserve real praise for this initiative.’ Of course, John Hay is not necessarily a man known to praise this government’s initiatives, so for him to make that comment is indeed very instructive.
Regrettably, I only have several minutes left in this debate and yet I have so much more to talk about, which is a great shame. One thing I want to draw to the attention of the people of Ryan relates to unemployment. At the end of the day, unemployment figures make a difference to the economic security of individual Australians and of their families. Again I want to draw an analogy with football or State of Origin rugby league. I hope the member for Canning appreciates this; if he has been to Brisbane he will know what I am talking about. I know that Ryan constituents will understand the picture I paint as a way of illustrating the very positive impact this government has had on the employment landscape of our country. Since 1996, when we came to government, more than two million Australians have found jobs. For those in the Ryan electorate and in the wider Brisbane city, this represents 40 Suncorp Stadiums filled to capacity. Suncorp Stadium takes 52,000 people; 40 times that number comes to two million people. So 40 State of Origin games—40 Queensland victories over New South Wales—represents two million people. And of course many Ryan constituents will be among those two million people who have secured jobs in the last 10 years. So you can visualise 40 Suncorp Stadiums of people as the number who have found employment in the last 10 years. Or if you happen to be a Victorian living in the Ryan electorate—I know many Victorians have moved up to the great state of Queensland—the equivalent would be filling the MCG on grand final day 20 times. The MCG takes 100,000 people, 20 times 100,000 is two million people, so imagine 20 MCGs worth of people able to secure jobs. When you pause to think about it, that is a remarkable figure: one in 10 Australians have had the opportunity of gainful employment, thanks to the economic management of the Howard government.
In conclusion, I am pleased to commend the budget delivered by the Treasurer and the Howard government to the people of Ryan and to encourage them to keep in focus the key aspects of living in Australia—economic security and family security. If you have a mortgage and are paying it off, it is so important to keep that at the forefront of your thinking when it comes time to choose a government at the next election. I know that there is a lot of talk about the federal Labor Party having good polling figures, but I just ask the people of Ryan and the wider Australian community to ask themselves a question: why take a risk? Rudd equals risk. He is an unknown and untested quantity. He has only been in the parliament since 1998. He has never been a minister and, at the end of the day, it is just not worth the risk. (Time expired)
No comments