House debates

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Questions without Notice

Economy

2:01 pm

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am not surprised by the fact that industrial relations did not form part of his first question today. Those who observed his press conference just now will be wondering what, in fact, the opposition’s policy on industrial relations is, as of five past two this afternoon.

The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about the impact of the government’s economic stimulus strategy on employment. I refer to the fact that in the most recent national accounts Australia was still able to generate positive growth in consumption of 0.1 per cent for the December quarter—against a G7 average decline of something like 0.4 per cent. I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that consumption is critical because of its impact on the retail sector. It represents 57 per cent of demand in the economy. The retail sector generates 1½ million Australian jobs. If consumption and retail are doing okay in Australia, there is a positive impact on jobs. Therefore, the impact of our stimulus strategy is of direct relevance to those people employed in that sector, which represents 14 per cent of the Australian workforce.

The figures show that retail trade rose by 3.8 per cent in December 2008 and then grew by a further 0.2 per cent in January. Contrast that performance with, say, Canada, where it fell by 5.4 per cent in December; the US, where it fell by three per cent in December; Japan, where it fell by 1.9 per cent in December; Germany, where it was down by nearly one per cent in December; and New Zealand, where it fell by one per cent in December. I draw to the honourable gentleman’s attention that Westfield, a large owner of shopping centres in Australia, saw an increase in sales of 2.5 per cent in December 2008. Their stores in the US saw falls of 14 per cent and the UK was down three per cent. I could draw the honourable member’s attention to what Michael Luscombe, the CEO of Woolworths, had to say. In talking about the impact of the economic stimulus strategy, he said on 28 February:

… we saw it in the basic commodities and that’s been made pretty public. I would think there’s a little bit more legs in it, and there’s no doubt that the timing of the next one which is around March/April is probably about the right time for the next one to come on.

The Leader of the Opposition needs also to reflect on comments by others about the impact of the stimulus strategy. Deutsche Bank, through its chief economist, said: ‘Retailers were bolstered by the cash-bonus-inspired strength in sales, and they responded in January by’—wait for it—‘retaining higher than usual post-Christmas staff levels’. I also refer to comments by the ANZ senior economist, Katie Dean, who believes that the government’s stimulus package worked to retain jobs in January, in tandem with aggressive interest rate cuts. Michael Blythe, the Commonwealth Bank chief economist, said:

Policy is working in Australia. Lower interest rates and the first-home owners grant have lifted housing activity, and the pick-up in retail sales suggests the Government’s cash handouts have worked.

So you have the chief economists from the Commonwealth Bank, the ANZ Bank and Deutsche Bank, as well as leaders in the Australian commercial sector, from Woolworths, all pointing to the relative positive impact of December’s economic stimulus strategy on jobs and on overall sales; yet the only person who seems to be disputing its impact on jobs and sales is the Leader of the Opposition.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition why, when he asks a question on this, the question is premised on the assumption that the opposition is opposed to this particular measure. When this was announced at the end of last year, the Leader of the Opposition said that he, the opposition, would be supporting it. On 14 October, when we released this, he said, ‘We are not going to argue about the composition of the package or quibble about it. It has our support.’ That was in October last year.

Comments

No comments