Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. I know that she is concerned about a strong Australian economy and continuing prosperity. I am tempted to say that the answer to her question about the need for bipartisanship in economic reform is that it stops the asking of silly questions. The reasons for bipartisanship for economic reform are far deeper than that. First and foremost is that economic reform matters to the future prosperity of our nation. It matters to our productivity, which is so much a driver of future wealth. Economic reform is necessary to ensure that Australians have the skills and capacities they need in the workforce of today to drive innovation, to take the burden of red tape off the shoulders of business so that more effort can go into productive work rather than unproductive work. Economic reform is necessary to increasing labour force participation, because we know that, amongst the many contemporary challenges we face, one of them is the ageing of our society and the changing of the dependency ratio. Consequently, we cannot afford in the long term working-age adults of capacity being sidelined from the labour market because they lack the skills and capacity to participate in it.

Economic reform matters to the design and efficiency of markets. It matters to the competitive advantage for this country as we compete in the world. Of course, vital to that competitive advantage is to have the infrastructure of the 21st century—to have world-class infrastructure in roads, rail and ports but also to have world-class infrastructure through the National Broadband Network. Economic reform takes deep policy thinking. It takes leadership and it takes persistence. Inevitably, there will be setbacks along the way. But persistence pays, and we are a government that intends to be persistent.

I am asked about the importance of bipartisanship to economic reform. Given that economic reform is not easy, there is a choice for oppositions: choose to facilitate that reform or choose to stymie that reform. One way of stymieing reform is to come up with cheap, populist slogans to try to distract from the real debate. We have seen that from the shadow Treasurer over recent days whereby he has basically spruiked re-regulation of interest rates in a way that would hurt young couples and working families by ensuring that they would be unable to get a mortgage. That is what re-regulation of interest rates would mean.

I did this morning think for a brief moment that maybe the Leader of the Opposition was turning away from the foolish course of following the shadow Treasurer down the track of these kinds of economic adventurous policies, because on three occasions the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he backed the shadow Treasurer’s nine-point plan and on three occasions he determined not to do so. But later he rang in to a radio station to explain that he had not backed the nine-point plan because, ‘You know what it’s like in these doorstops, you’ve got a lot on your mind.’

See this speech in context