Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

In this matter of public importance debate today, I think it is important to first to put on the record what the opposition has actually said about this economic package and that is, as has already been announced and stated, that the opposition supports this government’s package. However, that does not mean that we do not have significant concerns about Australia’s economic outlook. It does not mean that we do not have significant concerns about the continuing economic fallout of the global financial crisis. It does not mean that the opposition cannot ask questions of the government.

What makes our concerns even more worrying is the behaviour of this government and the behaviour in particular of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. One has to ask the question: why are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer being so evasive with information? One has to ask the question: what is it that they have to hide? Why are they giving the Australian people the impression that they have something to hide?

On the one hand, the Prime Minister says on national television that he wants to level with the Australian people, that he wants to be fair dinkum, that he wants to go into the confidence of the Australian people. But then on the other hand he behaves in a way that is evasive and secretive. He behaves in a way that says: ‘How dare you ask me a question! How dare you ask me to explain the government’s thinking or the government’s rationale!’ You have to ask yourself the question: why would the Prime Minister and the Treasurer be so secretive about information? Today during question time we witnessed a rolled gold example of the way this Prime Minister treats the parliament. We saw firsthand his view of question time. I want to take the opportunity to remind Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, that at two o’clock when the parliament sits we have this thing called question time, and in question time it is almost inevitable that the Prime Minister and the government will get questions. That is the purpose of question time.

The Prime Minister needs to get it right in his head. He needs to come to grips with the fact that when he comes into the House at two o’clock he is going to be asked some questions. I know that he is offended by that, but I would ask the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, who is in the chamber and who I have some regard for, if he could please coach the Prime Minister in this regard and speak to the Prime Minister about the need to actually answer the questions. I certainly do not want to see the parliament get to the stage to which it got under Prime Minister Keating, where only on certain days would the Prime Minister actually come into the chamber during question time.

I asked a question: why won’t the Prime Minister release the economic advice he has been given? It is a simple question. Why won’t he answer the question? There are questions like: what forecasts for our economy have the Prime Minister and the government relied on in constructing this $10 billion economic package that they announced yesterday? I think that is a simple, legitimate question that we ask on behalf of the people of Australia: why won’t the Prime Minister release that information? What forecasts has the Prime Minister relied on in formulating the announcement of this package yesterday? Why be evasive? Why be secretive? Why not be fair dinkum with the Australian people?

The key point I want to make today in this MPI is that I think that something is not quite right. There is something not quite right with what this government is saying and what this government is doing. I think that what we are seeing from the government and what we are hearing from the government is not actually what is going on in the government. Something does not quite add up with this government’s behaviour in this government’s announcement. I believe that, in terms of the government’s rationale for this announcement and its underlying thinking, the logic is not quite right. On the one hand, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are out there in the media today saying that this is the right thing to do, it will not increase inflation, it is economically responsible, they have acted decisively and the budget is going to stay in surplus. In other words, on the one hand this is a package that they have announced in the midst of a crisis, and on the other hand they say, ‘Don’t worry about the crisis because everything is going to be just fine. It’s not going to impact on inflation, it’s not going to impact the surplus and it’s not going to impact any other government spending programs that have been announced. Everything is just going to go along swimmingly.’

What I think is interesting about the government’s logic is that the government would have us believe that everything changed last weekend. This is the point: whilst the Treasurer was swanning around Washington, DC, swanning around and undertaking his various media opportunities, everything changed. Everything changed last weekend. This financial crisis apparently, according to the government, has not been swelling for months and months and months, it has not been on the horizon for months and months and months, because everything changed just last weekend. Two weeks ago in the parliament it was all about keeping a $22 billion surplus locked up, but last weekend everything changed. What I think is interesting is recalling the words of the member for Higgins. The member for Higgins, months and months and months ago, said that there was a financial tsunami coming our way across the globe, but this government only realised that last weekend in Washington, DC. All of a sudden we have got this change.

Remember what I said: the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said there is no impact on inflation and the budget surplus will be fine. Let me read to you what the Prime Minister said in this place on 3 June:

The cornerstone of the government’s fight thus far has been our $22 billion budget surplus. Again I would say to those opposite—

that being the opposition—

that, as they consider their votes in this place and in the other place on the budget measures, if they continue with their proposed plan to conduct a $22 billion raid on the budget surplus, its consequences will be to put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates.

So, on 3 June the Prime Minister said it is very important to lock up the $22 billion budget surplus, for it not to be eroded, for it not to be attacked, because if you do that it will put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, but yesterday the government took half of its budget surplus away, but that is not going to put upward pressure on inflation. How can the Prime Minister on 3 June talk about keeping the $22 billion wrapped up, keeping it safe from attack and say, on the one hand, that that is the best way to not put pressure on inflation or interest rates and then, in the space of a couple of months, they raid their own budget surplus by over half and say, ‘Don’t worry, that won’t put inflation up; that won’t have any impact on interest rates’? In other words, if the opposition says anything about the use of the budget surplus, that is bad and up goes inflation and up go interest rates, but if the government spends half of it in one year then inflation is fine and interest rates are fine.

On 5 June the Prime Minister said:

The core element of our budget … is a $22 billion surplus. Those opposite stand, by contrast, for a $22 billion raid on the surplus …

He said his logic was simple. He said:

… if you allow public spending to escape, if you allow public spending to run riot—

and this an important point—

… you therefore contribute to public demand—

and up go interest rates again.

Yesterday’s announcement is about increasing public demand, but do not worry, because, according to Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, and Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, inflation will be fine, the budget will stay in surplus and everything will be fine. (Time expired)

See this speech in context