Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very happy to join in the debate on the Leader of the Opposition's MPI. The wording took me a little by surprise. 'The urgent need for a stable government to focus on the needs of all Australians'—how big, how lofty is that? They do have a track record over there. I know they want to be small 'l' liberals when it suits them, but they do have a track record. This debate is an opportunity to review a little bit of their track record.

The former coalition administration under John Howard had 12 years. Go to any economist and they will tell you that, over that 12-year period, the coalition seriously underspent on infrastructure. Instead of laying down the infrastructure we so desperately need to increase our productivity, over that period of time they did not invest in road, they did not invest in rail and they certainly did not invest in high-speed technologies such as the internet or the NBN. All those things were just futuristic to them. They thought that, if they put a bit of money in the piggy bank, that would satisfy the economy. They did not invest in the productive mechanisms which are so necessary for this country.

You only have to look at some of the other things they did—how they set about to save money. One of the things they did was slash $1 billion out of health. That is a matter of record. When they come in here and lecture us on health reform, they should remember that they have a record. They took money out of the system, as they did with education.

Those people in the gallery, particularly those with kids, know that the two biggest things in public policy which affect them and their families are health and education. The last Howard government, over their 12 years in office, slashed both of those areas of public expenditure. They decided to take money out of those areas—that is how they set about ensuring there was a surplus. How artificial was that? You take away investment in the productive mechanisms of growth, such as infrastructure; you take money out of education, which is so vital for equipping young people with the tools they need for the modern world; and you attack health.

So they do come to this debate with a track record, and I am happy to engage with them about that. The thing everyone remembers about the Howard government is something they did which they did not say anything about when they went to the 2004 election. Once they got in and had control of both houses of parliament, they brought in Work Choices. They decided they would take it out on working families. This was not the captains of industry they were impacting; this was people on award wages.

By introducing Work Choices after the election in 2004, they made it possible for the first time in this country's history for people to be paid less than award wages. In those days, I knew people who worked in small fabric shops and people who worked in foundries—people who were on award based wages. They were taking home less pay, getting less shift work—because that got cut as well—and their overtime was under threat. Those people were told that if they did not sign the contract they would not have a job. That is the opposition's track record. When they got challenged, these captains of industry who used these elements of Work Choices, their reasoning—and perhaps you should not blame them for it, although I do—was: 'Work Choices just made it legal, so we are acting legally. If we can pay people less, if it is legal to do that, we will.' They were very matter of fact about it. And they did pay people less. That is why people voted in droves against the last government. They saw what that government was doing to working Australians.

We have a $1.5 trillion economy. This economy is the envy of the modern world. Not only did we withstand the global financial crisis but we propelled ourselves through it. We have grown since then. Since the GFC, this economy has grown by 13 per cent. Compare that with the United States, which is still slowly coming out of recession; Japan, which has a 120 per cent sovereign debt ratio; or Europe, where the average rate of unemployment is in double digits and sovereign debt is in excess of 60 per cent. That is without even talking about Spain, Greece or Ireland, which are in severe recession, or Cyprus, which cannot afford to pay its debts. Those opposite should make those comparisons before they come in here and lecture us on the Australian economy.

Only recently we had representatives of the European parliament visit this place. It was interesting to hear what they had to say. They could not understand how we could be presiding over an economy which is the envy of the world—particularly the envy of Europe, including Britain—and be criticised for the running of it. One of the things they said to us was about what we have done with schools and investing in education. Not only did they note that we put money into building new classrooms and providing kids with the type of education they need to meet the challenges of the next century and beyond but they said, 'You kept people in employment but you are also going to get a productivity benefit as these kids grow and enter the workforce—having learned with the new, modern equipment, they will be more productive workers.' They thought that was a very innovative thing and one that should be emulated throughout European states. That is not bad. Bear in mind that those opposite—they are scurrying from the room—were at the same lunch being addressed by the same people and given the same talk, so this is something that is very bipartisan.

If you want to talk about where those opposite left this economy, interest rates were about 7½ per cent or something of that nature. Interest rates now, in terms of the cash rate, are down to three per cent. The average mortgage in my electorate is around $300,000. What this means for mums and dads in my electorate is a saving of over $100 a week. They have been about $5,000 a year better off since Labor came to power in 2007 because we have made sure that we put less pressure on interest rates than what those opposite did. Not only did we come through the global financial crisis but we kept inflation in check. We kept that genie in the bottle and therefore we have been able to deliver significant savings to mums and dads out there who are paying mortgages. They are saving that $100 a week.

That is just me looking at my own electorate. If you look at rating agencies, the three rating agencies in this country have rated the Australian economy with a AAA status. It is a rhetorical question but I will ask it: does anyone realise when that last occurred? The answer is never. This is the first time ever that the three rating agencies have given a AAA status to the Australian economy. When they want to come in here and lecture us about running an economy, perhaps they should think about what they have done, their past and their track record. It does not make for pleasant reading.

They also come with this political pitch that despite going out there and raging against the carbon price they are going to maintain the compensations associated with it. Is that the tripling of the tax-free threshold up to $18,000? Is that the compensation that is going to the mums and dads out there with kids? Is that the tax cut for everyone under $80,000? Mr Abbott is saying they are going to maintain it. Mr Hockey, on the other hand, is a little more grim about these things. Maybe he has checked the books and said: 'No we cannot do that. If there is no price on carbon then there is no reason for us to pay the compensation.'

Those opposite are trying to hoodwink the Australian public by coming along and, on one hand, telling us they are going to give us everything that we had and that they will not take anything off us but, on the other hand, saying that they are going to take away the carbon tax, they are going to take away the minerals resource rent tax and they are going to make sure that workers are looked after. What does that do for workers aspiring to 12 per cent superannuation to make sure they have some dignity in retirement?

I welcome the fact that this MPI was brought on. It does give us an opportunity not only to reflect on the virtues of the Australian economy but also to look at those who had charge of the Australian economy for 12 years. Look where they left it and look what we had to do to rebuild it.

See this speech in context