Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

Earlier in the week, when the Prime Minister said that this year parliamentary time would be devoted to debating the economy, the Leader of the Opposition channelled Dirty HarryClint Eastwood—and said, 'Make my day'. They have been running away from an economic debate during question time ever since. They have brought out case after case of what they consider to be issues of interest to the people of Australia and they are nothing but fear and smear.

They are nothing but fear and smear because the coalition is terrified of a proper debate about the Australian economy, including about budget surpluses. We know why because this week the coalition was in a fog of confusion about their commitment to bring the budget back to surplus. We heard from the shadow Treasurer just now that when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement before the last election about bringing the budget back to surplus, he did not have the benefit of the numbers at that time. What the opposition leader said was, 'We will bring the country back into surplus in 2012-13.' There was no qualification. He did not say, 'We will try; it depends on the state of the books.' It was unqualified that the coalition would bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13.

This week, however, out of this fog of confusion, it has become clear, as the fog lifts, that the coalition has no intention of ever in the foreseeable future bringing the budget back to surplus—let alone if they were given the opportunity to do so in 2012-13. They have walked away from that promise and now blame the official budget figures for doing so. The fog started earlier this week on Monday, when the shadow finance minister was asked about bringing the budget back to surplus and he replied, 'Well, it just depends.' This was the first qualification. Then the shadow Treasurer, thinking that he still had the backing of the Leader of the Opposition, very bravely said, 'As we have said, we would get to surplus next year; we would get to surplus in 2012-13.'

So the shadow Treasurer repudiated the shadow finance minister—that was on Tuesday. But, on the same day, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House said: 'When we get back to power, we will be in a better position to say when our first surplus will be delivered.' So he is walking away from the commitment by the shadow Treasurer and siding with the shadow finance minister. But there is more! On the same day, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Well, let's see what the real figures are.' So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition joins the shadow finance minister and the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber in saying, 'Let's see what happens; it all depends.'

The shadow Treasurer would have been thinking, 'Well, I will get the backing of my leader, because it was my leader who said, before the last election in an unqualified way, that we would bring the budget back to surplus.' But, no, the opposition leader came out just yesterday and said, 'We will get back to surplus as quickly as possible.' He absolutely left the shadow Treasurer stranded in that fog of confusion.

The reason they cannot get back to surplus is simple: they have a $70 billion funding hole. We heard the coalition just now, through the shadow Treasurer, saying, 'Oh, it is Labor which is talking about a $70 billion funding hole.' But, on 12 August last year, the shadow Treasurer said, 'Therefore, finding $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion is about identifying waste and blah, blah, blah.' He referred to the number, the $70 billion. The shadow finance minister backed him up on that occasion. He did not desert the shadow Treasurer. He said, 'The $70 billion is an estimate of the sort of challenge that we will have.' Out of the mouths of the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister come these words: '$70 billion'.

Then the Leader of the Opposition, worried because the cat was out of the bag, said, 'Well, this $70 billion is a fanciful figure; it has been plucked from the air by government ministers and I am surprised you are retelling it to me.' He said that on 25 August. The shadow finance minister was then on the spot as a result of the opposition leader saying, 'This is a myth; it is a Labor creation.' The shadow finance minister was asked, 'Is it a furphy?' and he said, 'No, it is not a furphy; we came out with that figure.' So there it is—the $70 billion funding hole reaffirmed by the shadow finance minister. The shadow Treasurer was then asked, 'You are happy to recommit to that idea of $70 billion in savings?' and the shadow Treasurer replied, 'It is not a figure that I use.' The words came out of his own mouth, but then he tried to walk away from them.

On Friday night on Lateline, the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber, crying like a baby against alleged bias in the interview—the problem was that he absolutely botched it—talked about how the coalition having $70 billion worth of spending cuts was Labor Party spin. It came from the shadow Treasurer and from the shadow finance minister and he says it is Labor Party spin! Then, on Q&A on Monday this week, the shadow Treasurer said: 'There is no $70 billion hole. I have never said it and I am not saying it now. It is just a myth, a Labor creation and a figment of people's imagination.' Then he was put under pressure, because you cannot scurry away on Q&A, and he said, 'Okay, I should not have said any figure.' He had to admit that he had said there was a $70 billion funding hole, because the tape was there, the transcripts were there and the records were there. He was joined by the shadow finance minister in saying they have a $70 billion funding hole.

That takes us to this problem. This is why they cannot get back to surplus—they have this huge set of unfunded commitments. When you have that, you either slash services—we heard from the member for Mayo what they would be: age pension, childcare services and all of the social spending which is vital to the social fabric and to supporting the disadvantaged in this community; the member for Mayo said that they are the areas which should be targeted—or you do not return to surplus. We know that they will do one or the other and, from the debacle this week, it is clear they are not going to return to surplus if they are elected to government. They have basically said that. They have said it as clearly as you could possibly expect them to. Indeed, Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said that it was 'an extravagant promise'. That is what he said today. The whole idea of a return to surplus is an extravagant promise.

That is what the agenda is—they have no intention of returning to surplus. In this fog of confusion, when the shadow Treasurer earlier in the week was asked, 'Will you return to surplus?' he channelled President Obama and said, 'Yes, we can.' But then the opposition leader came out and said, 'No, we cannot.' The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate then said, 'Anyway, it was an extravagant promise.'

What we have seen this week is smear and fear from the coalition—because they do not want us to make their day and have a proper debate about the economy. As soon as we engage on the economy, they revert to fear and smear. But we have seen, in this chamber and this parliament, a triumph of policy over fear and of substance over smear. That has been the performance of the Labor side, the government led by the Prime Minister. We will take on the great economic debates. This is important to the country's future.

Day after day those opposite come into question time trying to smear the government and create fear in the Australian community. The truth is that interest rates are going down because this government has created the capacity for the Reserve Bank to cut the cash rate. Do not ever rely on the coalition to make judgments about the state of the economy and the state of economic management—look at the ratings agencies whose job it is to do that. For the first time in Australia's history, all three ratings agencies give Australia a AAA rating. That was never achieved under the coalition; never achieved under the Howard government. When they come in here and finally engage in an economics debate, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, by trying to trash talk the economy and talk it down, we should look to the independent assessors, the three ratings agencies who rate us AAA. Our giving the Reserve Bank the capacity to reduce interest rates is the very reason we will bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13 and it is for that very reason that the coalition is running away from that—they know they cannot do it.

The shadow Treasurer just came into the chamber and said that interest rates are higher now than they were under the coalition. It is unbelievable how they can come in here and say interest rates are higher than they were under the coalition. The Reserve Bank cash rate is now 4¼ per cent. It was 6¾ per cent under the coalition. And 4¼ per cent is less than 6¾ per cent. Then they say no, they meant the average variable rate—7.3 per cent now, 8.6 per cent under the coalition. So they cannot come in here and seek to mislead parliament by saying interest rates are higher under Labor. I remember very well the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, saying during the 2004 election campaign that interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under Labor, and that they would keep interest rates at record lows. What happened? There were 10 interest rate rises in a row. They want to air brush that out of history. They come in here and say that that never happened, interest rates did not rise under the coalition and they were lower under the coalition than under Labor. That is completely untrue.

I was heartened by one statement that the shadow Treasurer made during his presentation. He said we are now living in the Asian century. Wow, that is a revelation! Labor governments have been preparing for the Asian century since the mid-1980s when Bob Hawke undertook vital economic reforms, with the support of Treasurer Keating, to engage with the Asian economy because we realised we could no longer link our future with that of Europe. That was a pretty good punt; it was very visionary. It actually started back in 1972 when Gough Whitlam formally recognised the People's Republic of China. It is always Labor having the guts to make the big reforms. Now the coalition, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, decide to tell us we are in the Asian century. Welcome to the club!

What do the opposition do in relation to the Asian century? They adopt a trade policy that breaches the World Trade Organisation rules and invites retaliation against Australian manufacturing workers and Australian farmers. In relation to their anti-dumping policy, they say they will stick one-up China; they will implement a policy that definitely breaches the WTO rules, opening up our farmers and our manufacturing workers to retaliation by China and by other countries in our region. One day—this is hilarious—the shadow trade minister said, 'Look, Emerson and Labor ought to accelerate free trade agreement negotiations with China'. I thought that that was politics and you do get a bit of criticism from time to time. The next day, the opposition leader said it should be put on the backburner because China is not a democracy. He always repudiates the shadow trade minister.

Why wouldn't you repudiate the shadow trade minister? I admit that I have been critical of the member for Moncrieff because of how long it was since he last asked me a question. I can reveal today that the member for Moncrieff last asked me a question 806 days ago. But the shadow trade minister has never asked me a question—not one. In fact, today is her 500th anniversary—she can celebrate going 500 days without asking a question as the shadow trade minister. Every time she sticks her head up, the opposition leader knocks it off. He actually said the member for Kooyong knows something about foreign policy, and he said isn't it a relief to have someone on the coalition side that knows something about foreign policy.

Let us not have this feigned indignation and this concern for jobs. This is a coalition that said it would not have had a budget deficit during the global recession. It would have smashed jobs in this country and it would smash jobs again by taking half a billion dollars out of support for the car industry. It has no interest in that industry. The only political party that supports the working men and women of Australia is the great Australian Labor Party, and we will continue to do that while you support Gina Rinehart and do everything you can to smash jobs in this country through a reckless fiscal policy.

See this speech in context