Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Sure. There was zero jobs growth last year. So when the Treasurer comes out and speaks about these jobs that are being created, when there is zero jobs growth then the same amount of jobs have been lost at the other end. It is a very simple formula to adopt. There were no jobs created in 2011. Since the beginning of January 2012, over 5,000 job losses have been announced, and many are at some of Australia's biggest employers, such as ANZ and Macquarie Bank. So I encourage people from the other side, from the government, when they get their lines delivered to them by ministers and they are saying that these jobs, jobs, jobs are there, to open up the front pages of the Australian or the Financial Review. Do not just take the coalition's word for it. Go and read about the thousands of jobs that are being lost while Labor is in government. When Labor claims interest rates have been lower under their watch, this is also not correct. On average, effective interest rates paid by some homebuyers and small businesses were lower under the coalition from 1996 to 2007 than they have been under Labor since the 2007 election. When I use these figures I am talking about the variable rate, the standard mortgage rate. Labor uses the indicative term of cash rate. The unfortunate thing about that is that no-one can borrow money at the cash rate. I cannot go in and borrow money for my new house or for a new car or for a new truck at the cash rate. So we use the variable rate. Under the coalition, the average standard variable mortgage rate was 24 basis points lower than under Labor. Under the coalition, from March 1996 to November 2007 the standard variable mortgage rate was 7.26 per cent. Under Labor, from 2007 to January 2012 it was 7.51 per cent. For the Treasurer, under a typical $300,000 mortgage the difference would represent savings of $720 a year or $60 a month. Under the coalition, the small business unsecured overdraft rate was 134 base points lower than Labor. So when we look at the average small business unsecured overdraft rate, under the coalition from March 1996 to November 2007 the unsecured overdraft rate was 8.89 per cent. With Labor in office from December 2007 to January 2012 it was 10.23 per cent. So for a typical small business unsecured overdraft loan of $200,000 the difference would represent a savings of $2,680 a year. That is $223 a month. The spread between the RBA cash rate and the mortgage home borrowings rate was significantly lower under the coalition. In November 2007 the spread between the RBA cash rate and the average standard variable mortgage rate was 180 base points but in January 2012 under a Labor government the spread was 305 points. In November 2007 the spread between the RBA cash rate and the average small business unsecured overdraft rate was 355 base points but in January 2012 the spread was over 600 base points.

Looking at the size of government, the government has chosen to use revenue to GDP as its yardstick for the size of government. But the more appropriate benchmark is the ratio of spending to GDP, because it is primarily the result of government policy. The coalition left spending at just 23.1 per cent of GDP. Under Labor, the ratio of spending to GDP blew out to 26 per cent. Spending under Labor will remain well above the coalition's benchmarks right through the forward estimates. I have the statistics here.

In the time that is available I would like to cover—well, I cannot because there are just too many. I have 19 new taxes that I want to speak to. I am not going to get enough time to talk about those. But I can talk about the deficit; I can basically bring that back to four record deficits. We can talk about the debt to GDP ratio—7.7 per cent. The government always makes the point that it is not a lot of money. Well, guess what. Debt is relative to your capacity to service the debt. So when you are running four structural deficits, and the only way you can service a debt is through surpluses, the chance of this government being able to service a 7.7 per cent GDP debt ratio is highly unlikely, especially when you look at the forecast for the net interest payments. The government is always keen to compare our net debt with other developed countries like Japan, USA, UK and Europe. These countries are all in economic difficulty. It is more appropriate to compare Australia with the fastest runners in the field, not the slowest. There are a number of developed and commodity exporting countries with balance sheets in the black, such as Chile, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Finland and Norway. Their figures are far more impressive than ours.

The productivity returns of the country at the moment are ordinary. With reference to Australia's credit rating, Australia's credit ratings are done by a comparative rating. Why is it that this government boasts about having a triple-A credit rating when there is debt we cannot service and no money in the bank? We had those factors when the coalition was in government. I look forward to the opportunity to speak again. (Time expired)

See this speech in context