David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Hansard source

The minister points out that perhaps that is too complex. It has troubled the member for North Sydney to come to an appreciation of that. The real figure that we need to look at is expenditure as a percentage of the economy, as a percentage of GDP. In 2012-13, spending as a percentage of GDP will be 23.5 per cent. Across the forward estimates, we will be containing expenditure to below 24 per cent of GDP.

That represents the longest sustained period of maintaining expenditure below 24 per cent of GDP at any time since the early 1980s.

Compare the record of the Howard-Costello government with what we are doing now and what we are proposing to do for the coming four years. They were big spenders. They spent a lot more as a percentage of the economy than what we are doing. Perhaps the best indication of how tight a fiscal operation this government is running is that the opposition has not been able to propose a single savings measure. The Leader of the Opposition came in for his budget in reply speech—not a single savings measure. The shadow Treasurer went to the National Press Club—not a single savings measure.

If the government was as bloated as these people would have you believe—if there was so much fat to cut—surely they could come forward with a single measure. Instead of coming forward with spending cuts, all they tell the Australian people is that they will take away some of those revenue sources. It is worth also having a look at the other side of the budgetary equation. It is one thing to look at what you are spending. We have already established that. Look at what we are spending as a percentage of the economy. We are spending less today than at any time through that previous government. Over a sustained period we have not been able to contain expenditure growth to the extent that we are doing now, not since the early 1980s.

If you have a look at what is happening on the tax front, we are collecting tax at a lower percentage of GDP today than at any time under the previous government. Tax is 22.1 per cent of GDP. The amount of tax we are collecting is less today than at any time under the previous Howard-Costello governments. That is a fact you do not often hear, but it is a fact. They say that they want to repeal certain revenue sources such as the mining tax. When we first proposed a mining tax they said, 'We're opposed to the mining tax so we're opposed to every single one of the expenditure measures connected to it.' That is what they said. They came in here and they said to the 2.7 million small businesses in Australia, 'You don't deserve a tax cut. We'll vote against a tax cut for you.' And they did vote against tax relief for the 2.7 million small businesses in this country. Fancy that—a Liberal opposition. Menzies would roll in his grave. The party of business—that is what they would like to pretend. They came into this place and they said to 2.7 million small businesses around Australia, 'We're not going to give you tax relief. We'll vote against it.' And they did. When it came to a company tax cut, they said, 'We're against that as well.'

They said back then that they were against the expenditure measures that were connected to the mining tax. We went into the budget and said, 'There's no point persisting with this company tax cut until we can secure a consensus in the parliament. We'll work through the business tax working group to deliver a cut to the company tax rate, but we won't keep pushing this one if we can't get the support in the parliament. If the Liberal Party want to stand side by side with the Greens and deny businesses a tax cut then we'll find a better way to spread the benefits of the mining boom.' So we have.

We continue to invest in superannuation. I am not sure what the latest is on that side. They came out and said they would support retaining the increases in superannuation, but they have been a bit quiet on that recently. They are still opposed to investing in infrastructure, presumably, even though that money will be spent. On investing in small business tax relief, they came into the parliament and voted against the instant asset write-off. Yet small businesses all around the country will be lining up to take advantage of it from 1 July. When we announced that we would spread the benefits of the mining boom to families right across this country through an increase in family tax benefit part A and a supplementary allowance, they came forward and said they would support it. At least, that is what they said in the first instance.

We heard so much about this principled position that they could not support cuts to the company tax rate or the instant asset write-off because they did not support the tax that funded it. Now, all of a sudden, they support the expenditure but do not support the tax. So how are they going to pay for it? They have a $70 billion black hole and it just keeps getting bigger. The only announcement you could remotely describe as having any substance in the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech was a spending measure. He did not have a price tag but it was a spending measure. The $70 billion crater—he is out there with his shovel digging it—is getting bigger and bigger. The capacity to dig craters of this nature could only add to our efforts as far as fielding the mining boom and extracting more resources in parts of this country.

This is a government that is low taxing—22.1 per cent of GDP—lower than at any time under the previous government. This is a government that, when it comes to expenditure as a percentage of GDP, will be containing expenditure over a sustained period at lower levels than in the early 1980s. On both fronts we are lower taxing and lower spending than the previous government. The member for North Sydney came in here today and had the hide to start lecturing this government about expenditure and where expenditure cuts should be made. If it is that easy a job he should be able to come forward and announce one or two expenditure items that he thinks need to be made.

Have a look at what this government has already done. We have already achieved, in this budget alone, $33.6 billion worth of savings measures. That adds to the savings measures we achieved previously. We have made $100 billion worth of savings measures over the last four years. If you think you can still find additional savings measures, come forward and identify them. You hear those on the other side talk about the precarious nature of the Australian economy. What a load of rubbish! We understand that there are challenges in various parts of this economy, but look at the underlying fundamentals of the economy. We have low unemployment, at 4.9 per cent. We have contained inflation. We have growth at levels that the rest of the advanced world could only dream of and a record pipeline of investment. We have a strong economy. But we want to spread the benefits of the boom and that is why we have announced a range of measurements in the budget that will ensure the benefits of the boom are being spread.

Those opposite want to come in here and lecture people about debt. Our net debt is to peak in 2011-12 at 9.6 per cent of our GDP. They talk about us overburdening the country with debt.

Opposition members interjecting—

The member opposite says 'What was it when you came in?' Well, there was this thing called the global financial crisis. And do you know what? We stood up to the challenge and we invested in supporting jobs.

Mr Robb interjecting—

The member for Goldstein says that they wasted money. I will tell you what: if it were left up to him, hundreds of thousands of Australians would have been out of a job. We would have gone into recession. Instead, we were one of the only advanced economies in the world to avoid recession.

There is no excuse for these people—no excuse for the member for Goldstein. At least the Leader of the Opposition's excuse was that he slept through the debate on the response to the global financial crisis. He did not come in here. At least he can say, 'I didn't vote against the government's package to stimulate the economy.' He can say that. He can put his hand on his heart and say, 'I didn't vote against the stimulus package,' because he did not. He was asleep in his office and did not come in on the most important debate that this parliament has dealt with for half a century.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

See this speech in context