Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a very sad day in this parliament when the man who would be the Treasurer of this country has 20 minutes to address the serious economic circumstances that we face in this country and spends that time lamenting nothing more than the fact that, were he Treasurer, he would have nothing left to privatise. He spent the rest of the time ridiculing the economy and the country with which, were he Treasurer, he would be out there attempting to strike a trade and economic relationship. The people in my electorate would be very sad indeed if they were to witness this debate. They would be sad but not surprised because they saw a Liberal Premier in New South Wales come to office promising not to privatise the Port Kembla harbour, but the very first thing they did when they came into office was to privatise the Port Kembla harbour, an asset worth well in excess of $100 million, and give nothing more than $10 million back to the local community. Is it any wonder that the would-be Treasurer of Australia, a member of that very same party, stands here and seriously suggests that, if he could, he would sell the National Broadband Network off for $1? In fact, he would rather give it away. This is from the man who would like to be Treasurer of this country.

We have some good news in this country. It is good news for Australia but bad news for people who hate good news, such as those on the other side of the House. We are growing as an economy, and that marks us off as one of the few countries in the world that can say that. We are growing at around three per cent on trend. Indeed, our economy, the Australian economy, has pulled itself through the worst recession in the world in over 100 years and it is now 13 per cent bigger than it was in 2004. This on its own is nothing short of a miracle. But when you add on top of that the fact that over that self-same period an additional 850,000 new jobs have been created it is no wonder that when people get off the plane at Mascot airport they ask, 'What are you guys doing in Australia? We've come here to learn because you guys must be doing something right and we envy your economy. We envy the economic circumstances that you have here in Australia.'

I was tempted to describe the economics proffered by those on the other side as 'bonehead economics' or 'Flintstone economics', but that would be wrong because bones have weight. There has been absolutely no weight and no substance to the contribution that has been given by each of the three speakers in this debate so far. They would have you believe that the only right thing for a government to do is sit here and deliver a surplus, year in and year out, no matter what the economic circumstances are. It does not take a year 7 economics student to work out that if your economic recipe for this country is to deliver a surplus no matter what the economic circumstances are, if your promise to the Australian people is that you will deliver a surplus year in and year out no matter the economic circumstances, your promise to the Australian people is twofold. Firstly, you are promising to tax them more than you need to because, if you are a government that consistently collects more revenue than you are spending, you are a government that is consistently taxing the Australian people more than you need to. Is that the sort of economic recipe that they would have for this great country of ours? The second thing they are promising is to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. If as a government you are proposing to deliver a surplus no matter what the economic circumstances are, you are promising to do precisely the wrong things at the wrong time in the economic cycle while taxing the Australian people more than you need to. It is little wonder that we hear that from those on the other side and the man who would be Treasurer of this country because they wear the gold medal for the highest taxing government in this country’s history, at 24.2 per cent of GDP in 2004-05.

Those opposite have spoken for well over 40 minutes in contributing to this debate. Is it any wonder that the one report they did not mention is a recent report from the International Monetary Fund which has belled the cat? It has said that the Howard government was the most profligate, the highest spending government, in the nation’s history. It was the most reckless-spending government in this nation’s history. When the economy was raining gold bars, what that government should have been doing was addressing some of the long-term problems, the long-term issues, that we have in this country. As members from the National Party would often lament, it should have been spending more on infrastructure, more on roads. It is a source of great embarrassment to those in the National Party that this government has spent more on roads and more on rail—more on critical infrastructure—than the coalition ever did when it was in government. That is a source of great embarrassment to every single National Party member who sits on the other side of the House.

If you reject bonehead economics such as those offered by the other side and you are committed to doing the right thing, then you ensure, at the time in the economic cycle when the government needs to act to support jobs and growth, that you stimulate the economy. If that means going into deficit, then that is the right thing to do. As the economy starts to recover, you start to pull back on spending—and that, indeed, is exactly what this government has done.

We are looking at stimulating, with targeted expenditure, those areas of the economy that need assistance but pulling back on some of those longer term spendings and expenditures which are going to create structural problems over the long term. That is why we have delivered $130 billion worth of structural savings to the budget—indeed, over $16 billion since the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. That is the right thing to do. You will not hear that from the economic lightweights on the other side. All they can do is crack jokes about how much they would like to privatise the assets of this country, or denigrate our great trading partners, the people they would like to strike up an economic relationship with.

Deputy Speaker, you will hear a lot of whinging from those on the other side about government spending. But when they go back to their electorates they are talking about the projects they wish the government would fund. The longest line in my electorate is that of Liberal Party councillors and Liberal Party supporters who are knocking on my door saying, 'Whatever you do, you've got to stop that Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, from tearing up the NBN; and for God’s sake can you ensure that it turns up to my business, to my house, to my school before that bloke ever sits on this side of the House.' The longest line in any electorate office will be the line of Liberal Party people who are pro the NBN—people who want to see the NBN rolled out in their neighbourhood, to their business, to their school, to their university. They will not be talking about these sorts of things in their electorate, but when they come here to Canberra these are exactly the sorts of things that they are saying the government should be doing.

I have spoken about spending on infrastructure. Is it the investments such as we are proposing to create a revolution in our school education system that they want us to axe? Is it the funds we have set aside for regional development in this country that they want us to axe? I heard the previous speaker say that the minerals resource rent tax has delivered only $125 million in the last six months. That is $125 million more than it would have collected if those opposite were in office, and I can tell you it would go a long way to delivering much needed infrastructure projects in my electorate. The tax is actually working in exactly the right way. It collects more revenue as company profits increase and less revenue when they do not. These are the sorts of things that a government will do if it is not wedded to the sort of bonehead economics of those on the other side of the House.

We are talking about taxation and we are talking about revenue and expenditure. As we go into the next election those on the other side of the House will go to their electorates promising tax cuts for the wealthiest, tax increases for the poorest and pension cuts for people who can least afford it. This is the sort of bonehead economics that they are so wedded to. They do not look beneath the talking points. They are following the empty slogans of their leaders. But the facts do not lie: low unemployment, trend growth, an economy which is the envy of the rest of the world and public finances in good shape, as every respected commentator will testify. These are the sorts of things we should be doing if we are serious about economics in this country.

See this speech in context