Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When we think about words, we have to recognise that they have power. They articulate a point, a proposition, and sometimes they can define a person. Let's think about the word 'hypocrite' and what it means. The opposition went to the last election on a platform of wanting $387 billion of new taxes and then had the temerity and the gumption to come into this place, after the government had been elected on that platform, and say the government should cut taxes. A hypocrite would make that argument. Somebody who lacks any substance or any economic understanding would go into the public domain and argue that case and then come into this place and argue the reverse. The power of words matters. A hypocrite will get up and make those arguments.

Today we have a motion that has been put forward by the member for Fraser. He has done so having gone to the last election, his first election, arguing that the solution to Australia's economic challenges is a massive new set of taxes that undermines confidence in the housing market, undermines investment in the future building of Australia and undermines the disposable income of Australian retirees. Funnily enough, he comes into this place and, going off the verbal diatribe the member for Fraser gave just moments ago, apparently the solution now is to cut taxes! Continuing he has a background in economics, he either lives up to the definition of certain words or he just says what he thinks is necessary at the time to make an argument but there is no sense of core belief or conviction.

He verballed the Reserve Bank governor when he appeared before the economics committee. The member of Fraser is a member of that committee and I am the chair. When the Reserve Bank governor came before that committee he outlined that what monetary policy can achieve can be exhausted, that it is not a lever within itself. But at the last hearing of the economics committee—I can't even remember if the member for Fraser was still there—when it was put to the RBA governor, 'Are you arguing for more and more fiscal stimulus versus actual structural reform,' he said he was arguing for the latter.

The problem the member for Fraser has is that the Labor Party's only solution for structural reform is to impose new taxes. That's what they took to the last election, that's what they took to the previous election, it's what they took to the one before that and the one before that, because in the end they have no sense of vision or purpose.

The fundamentals of the Australian economy show that it is resilient against global headwinds. We shouldn't underestimate the challenge that we face around coronavirus and the impact on global supply chains and the like. We shouldn't underestimate the economic challenges we face because of other countries lowering their interest rates. Australia has to manage and meet those challenges to make sure that our exports are competitive. We've suffered drought and bushfires. But, despite all that, we have millions more people employed in the Australian economy today than there were when we were first elected to government—about 1½ million since we first came to office, an increase of 13.2 per cent. At every point that the government have faced economic challenges outside our control, we've met them through rational policy that informs and promotes investment in the Australian economy, by doing things like cutting taxes—yes, we have definitely done that, despite the best efforts of the member for Fraser and many of the acolytes on the other side of the opposition benches—and we want to continue to invest in those types of measures so that we continue to build the strength of the Australian economy.

If only the opposition would come on that journey. If only they would take to the next election a platform for structural reform and cutting taxes. Of course, we have no idea what they're going to take to the next election or even what they're going to prosecute in this term of parliament, as they jump around deciding what their targets are going to be. Apparently they're now going to abolish whole sectors of the economy but not admit to it. But the choice we face now and the Australian people face now is whether or not we continue the leadership we need to make sure we have a strong economy into the future—and it doesn't rest on the opposition benches.

See this speech in context