Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to add my congratulations to the Treasurer for yet another excellent budget. This document is further evidence of strong, disciplined economic management by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. This government has run an extremely prudent fiscal policy, in stark contrast to the record that Labor has and continues to display at all levels of government. Let us have a look at the rhetoric of the Labor Party and compare that with their so-called economic management and that displayed by the Howard government.

Labor attempt to say that the government has been the recipient of a lucky set of economic circumstances that have resulted in the excellent economic conditions now present in the nation. In their view, clearly, if we had just sat around doing nothing, as they would have done, then the conditions that now apply would have applied under their do-nothing policy. Let us analyse this lucky set of circumstances. First, the set of circumstances we inherited from Labor certainly were not too flash. We had an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent; it is now 4.4 per cent. We had interest rates of well over 10 per cent; they are now around six per cent. We had a high level of industrial disputation; 547,000 hours were lost in 1995 compared with 132,600 hours lost in 2006. We had an inflation rate around eight per cent; it is now around 2.5 per cent. And, just to add to this terrible heritage left by Prime Minister Keating, we had a $96 billion debt. The interest bill for this debt alone came to around $8.5 billion per annum, a staggering amount. In short, the Labor heritage was a disastrous one.

To remedy this heritage, this government put in place a policy agenda which ensured that our economy turned the corner and became the prosperous economy that it now is. What was the response of the Labor Party to the policy initiatives introduced by this government? Given that they now claim to be fiscally and economically responsible, indeed economically conservative, you would think that all of these policy initiatives would have been accepted by them with alacrity. Not so. The opposition, true to the term, opposed all of the measures that we wanted to introduce in order to set up the prosperous society we live in. Later, I will touch further on how Labor are now saying that they will adopt our economic policies.

How about Labor’s view that we have inherited a fortunate set of circumstances—circumstances that have led to our time in the economic sun? In October 1997, there was the Asian economic meltdown. Who remembers Nasdaq and the dotcom crisis of 2000, which led to recession in many parts of the world? Yes, we sure were lucky in the early part of this government’s tenure as far as the world economic situation was concerned, weren’t we? What were we doing during that time? We were having balanced budgets or budget surpluses, reducing inflation, reducing unemployment and increasing wages. However, this did not come about by sitting on our backsides with our minds in neutral. No, we did what was required, which meant hard work, hard thinking and making tough decisions—something that is anathema to those opposite.

Maybe we just fell on our feet in the early part of this century and the good economic performance of this government was largely the result of a brilliant confluence of world strategic and economic situations. Once again, the record indicates that nothing could be further from the truth. September 11 2001 is a date which is firmly fixed in the minds of the majority of the planet’s inhabitants. The US and many other nations had recessions, but not Australia. But surely things were fine after that. In 2002 there was SARS, which went into the second half of 2003, severely damaging tourism, which had already been damaged by the collapse of Ansett Airlines in March 2002. This period also saw conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as many Australians killed in Bali in 2002.

We had the bombing of the Australian Embassy, Jakarta, in 2004. What was happening in Australia in terms of our economic and social performance? Lower interest rates, more jobs, lower unemployment, increasing wages and lower taxes—yes, we also had reducing tax rates. In addition, we continued to pay off Labor’s debt. In 2005 Bali was bombed again, as well as London being bombed. The drought that had started a few years previously showed no signs of abatement at that stage. This, remember, has been the worst drought since Federation. What was the government doing? Finishing paying off Labor’s debt, increasing employment, reducing unemployment and ensuring higher wage outcomes and continuing low interest rates, lowering taxes and setting up the Future Fund. We also put in place a workplace relations system that has significantly added benefits to all Australians—lower unemployment, higher wages, lower industrial disputation and very flexible working conditions, which have been fantastic for lifestyle changes among workers who desired these more flexible working arrangements. What has Labor’s response been to the required changes in legislation? To oppose them.

As can be seen, while we have had a minerals boom over the last few years, these years have not been a period of worldwide bounty and high economic growth. We have been the standout economy over this period. Labor tell us that things would have been as good with them, because they have now adopted a ‘me too’—or, in Austin Powers’s terminology, a ‘Mini-Me’—attitude. There are a few points that clearly demonstrate that this is arrant nonsense. First, there is Labor’s record of opposing all the changes that have made our economic high performance possible.

Labor members now have the view that they will adopt our economic policy and all will be well with their world of economic management. Unfortunately for them and for an Australian electorate that chooses to elect them, this is not true. Economics are not static and, by simply adopting and then not reforming our economy, we would move backwards. For instance, Australia performed well economically in the 1960s, but does anyone think that adopting the Menzian economic policy, successful as it was at the time, would lead to good economic performance today? The simple fact is: just to keep pace in the world today economically you need to move forward with reform. The economy is like a boat on a river: you need to have some forward momentum, which could also be called economic reform, just to remain stationary. To move forward on that stream requires real effort and skill. This is something that is beyond the ken of the Labor Party.

Do you think I am just pushing a scare story? Let us consider Labor’s economic performance at the state level as a guide to how they would be likely to perform federally given the same pro-union, pro-pattern bargaining proclivities. During the time that the federal government has paid off Labor federal debt and run budget surpluses, on a collective level the state Labor governments have run up multibillions of dollars of debt. They have been so inept in economic management that they have pushed housing prices up significantly through a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of supply and demand in their land release policies. They are in debt, in some cases approaching economic basket case status, despite this minerals boom which is supposedly the only reason we are prospering federally.

In fact, the Howard government legislated a GST for the express purpose of giving the states a growth tax. What a squandered opportunity by the states! What a complete and utter waste! In fact, the state Labor governments have been so delinquent in their responsibilities that we have had to initiate programs such as Investing in Our Schools to make up for state Labor neglect in fundamental infrastructure required by our children in education. Then, to add insult to injury, the state Labor governments rip off these schools by charging them an administrative fee for the privilege of having the Howard government pay for infrastructure that the state Labor government should have paid for. This is a disgraceful case of economic mismanagement. Yet the same people now want you to hand the reins of the federal economy to them so that they can do similar or worse damage.

Do you want to know what will happen if Labor get in federally? Not only will there be economic disaster so that social health and education programs will not be adequately funded but the GST rate can be increased with ease as well. I never thought I would be faced with a prospect of all state and federal governments having the same political persuasion, but we face the nightmare prospect of wall-to-wall Labor governments. I shudder at the thought. Imagine the untrammelled power of the unions. There is no clearer point of differentiation between the coalition and Labor governments, both state and federal, than this. The coalition policies are aimed at all Australians. Labor’s are always aimed at specific interest groups or those who can best assure the re-election of Labor. Who can forget the infamous Kelly whiteboard? It was a shining example of how Labor manages our money strictly in the interests of the Labor Party.

I have had many positive reactions from the constituents of Tangney to this budget. Many are families whose sons and daughters are in the process of entering the jobs market. The success of the coalition in producing historically low levels of unemployment is resulting in most of these young people not only being able to get a job but actually having a choice of jobs. Unemployment in Tangney in December 2006 quarter was an outstandingly low 2.3 per cent. This is a truly remarkable figure and a direct result of the economic policies of the federal government.

That is the record of coalition governments, and the 2007 budget is no different. As well as reducing Labor’s recession-driven unemployment levels, what else has the federal coalition done for businesses in Tangney? Many people in Tangney run small businesses, the sector for which the Labor Party has no understanding or interest. There are about 4,600 businesses in Tangney employing people. A vast majority employ fewer than 100 people, so the industrial relations reforms have been a godsend. These small businesses have been able to benefit by moving away from the union dominated one-size-fits-all system of compulsion beloved of Labor, and they are thriving. These are often family businesses in which people have put all their money to make a go of business and to create employment. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

See this speech in context