Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

The challenge of government is to make sure that you take the nation’s long-term economic interests first and foremost as the necessary underpinnings, not just for the stability of the overall economy but to deliver the best set of circumstances for families, for people who are doing it tough out there in the general community. That is why what we have determined is an approach to budget management that has as its cornerstone a $22 billion surplus. That is the hallmark of economic responsibility. It also embraces within it a determination to ensure that those families—that is, working families, families under financial pressure, working Australians, those doing it tough—have the level of support from government that can assist them to deal with all of those cost-of-living pressures. On top of that is the determination for there to be a nation-building budget—unapologetically a nation-building budget—whereby we invest in this nation’s long-term needs, and, rather than turn our back on health and hospitals, to invest in them by establishing a $10 billion health and hospitals reform fund. On top of that we have an $11 billion fund for education investment both for our TAFEs and for our universities and, on top of that, a $20 billion fund, a Building Australia Fund, to do something about the overall state of this nation’s economic infrastructure, including those suffering from urban congestion. These are the hallmarks of responsible economic management: ensuring that you have a decent budget surplus, making sure that what you can do for working families is sustainable and honours your pre-election commitments to do so, and, on top of that, investing in the country’s long-term economic future.

I will tell you what the hallmark of economic irresponsibility is: to conduct a $22 billion raid on the surplus and then, on top of conducting that $22 billion raid, to turn around and say, ‘We don’t know where the money’s coming from;’ to turn around and say, ‘We haven’t actually costed our budget reply;’ to turn around and say, when asked where the $22 billion comes from, ‘We don’t really know; it might come from the surplus.’ Spokesperson after spokesperson has said, ‘Well, we are not actually sure where this $22 billion is going to come from.’ Let me tell you what $22 billion adds up to in terms of economic irresponsibility. It adds up to this: $22 billion worth of further pressure on overall inflation and therefore, as a consequence, $22 billion worth of further pressure on activity in the economy, which leads through to interest rates, which affect working families. We on this side of the House understand the ingredients of responsible economic management. Those opposite understand full well, it seems, the ingredients of irresponsible management. They cannot make up their mind on inflation, they cannot make up their mind on means-testing, they cannot make up their mind on whether or not there is an economic case for reducing government spending, and they cannot make up their mind on whether or not they are going to have a 5c excise reduction because they are split down the middle on that. Above all, they have absolutely no capacity to deliver on any of the above, and they had 12 years in office to do so.

See this speech in context