Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and further to his last answer and refusal to apologise. I refer him to the forecast loss of more than 134,000 jobs within the next year due to Labor’s high-taxing budget. On ABC this morning the Prime Minister referred to this as ‘a modest increase in unemployment’. How can the Prime Minister boast that this is a budget for families when 134,000 families will move from work to welfare in the next year? These are people; they are not on a balance sheet.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the roll-on consequences of 12 interest rate rises in a row is that they affect, over time, the economic performance of the economy. What we have seen as a consequence of the tightening of monetary policy off the back of lax fiscal policy from those opposite, going back year after year now, are the actions that have been taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia. That government—those opposite—had 12 years to act on the key capacity side constraints of the economy. They failed to do so. They created the environment whereby inflation, when we took over office, was running at a 16-year high. As a consequence of that, monetary policy settings have been adjusted by the Reserve Bank, and the consequence of that is that we have had an impact on real activity in the economy.

Can I say to those opposite that after 12 years of absolute neglect we now have them seeking to say that they have no responsibility whatsoever for the economic circumstances which this nation confronts in the year 2008, including the prospective impact on activity and employment. By contrast, what we have put forward is a responsible economic document based on a robust surplus, helping working families under pressure on the way through and, most importantly, investing in the future.

But we would all, in this place, be advantaged by one thing—and that is knowing where exactly the Liberal Party now stand. Are they in favour of further tax cuts? Are they in favour of a greater emphasis on government spending? Are they in favour of doing something about inflation? Do they support welfare reform? Do they support means testing? Or do we have to wait for the member for Wentworth to replace the current Leader of the Opposition to find out what the real policies are? Do we have to wait for the member for Higgins to replace the member for Wentworth, to replace the Leader of the Opposition, to know what the real policy settings are? It remains a mystery to the nation.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the response from economists to the Rudd government’s first budget?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the question, because the Rudd government’s first budget is a responsible budget—a responsible budget that builds a strong surplus. And there has been some favourable commentary from sensible analysts. So for the benefit of the House I thought I might run through some of that commentary. From Michael Blythe at the Commonwealth Bank:

The Budget ticks all the boxes in terms of the government’s medium-term fiscal strategy.

He went on:

The budget produces a larger surplus than the 1% of GDP projections with which the Coalition was comfortable. The emphasis has shifted from spending to savings. So, the ALP can now claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism.

And Mr Williamson from TD Securities said:

It looks to be a mildly restrictive budget, living up to the credo that they had of being an inflation-fighting budget ...

Rory Robinson from Macquarie Bank said:

It is a major restraint relative to the Whitlamesque five per cent growth estimated for this year—the Howard government’s final budget year.

He pinged them for very big spending! Of course, we have the shadow Treasurer’s former employer, Goldman Sachs; this is what they had to say:

After two years of notable conflict we finally have fiscal policy that is pushing in the same direction as monetary policy.

So I think it is pretty clear that the market thinks Tuesday night’s budget was a responsible budget. But what does the opposition have to say about this? The member for Wentworth fancies himself as an economic guru, so what does he have to say? This is what he had to say on budget night—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order as to relevance. The Treasurer was not asked to comment on the policy of the opposition.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will resume his seat.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On budget night the shadow Treasurer was asked this question by David Speers:

If you had been standing at the dispatch box tonight, would you have gone further with deeper spending cuts?

Do you know what the shadow Treasurer said? He said:

Look, I cannot comment on that.

The once great hope of the Liberal Party—but he could not comment on that, on budget night. The great white hope of the Liberal Party had nothing to say—no alternative framework, no suggestions for savings, no suggestions for fiscal policy whatsoever.

He was also asked on 14 May this question by Mr Neil Mitchell:

Is this your last budget as shadow Treasurer?

Mr Turnbull:

Well, we’ll see.

Yes, we will see! We will see whether the Liberal Party has an alternative economic framework tonight, because what is apparent from what they have had to say is that they are the party of high spending, high taxation and high inflation.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. I ask the Treasurer to table the full Goldman Sachs JBWere report so that we can read what Goldman Sachs really says, which is very—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will resume his seat. The only thing that the chair can do is ask whether the Treasurer was quoting from a document. Was the document confidential?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Is it in order for the shadow Treasurer to knock over the Leader of the Opposition on the floor of the House?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I note that that will be in the stats for points of order, and I remind the Leader of the House that it was stretching the use of points of order, as he was reminding the House. He should be very careful in future. The member for Wentworth.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the very unconfidential public report of JB Were on the budget.

Leave not granted.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now members on my left are denying themselves questioning time. The Leader of the Opposition.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister read the report in today’s Advertiser of Wayne and Rebecca Tanner, who have two children and earn just over $150,000 a year from working more than 80 hours a week, with a mortgage, school fees and cost of living pressures? Does the Prime Minister really believe that the Tanners are rich? What does the Prime Minister say to Mr Wayne Tanner, who believes that this high-taxing budget takes away an important Australian ethic, and that is the incentive to work?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I have not seen the article in question but I accept the honourable member’s rendition of it. The first thing to be said about the tax cuts introduced by the Australian government is that they flow to all families: $46.7 billion worth of tax cuts. Then if you go to the range of benefits that flow to people who, for example, may be eligible for family tax benefit A, you have got another 1.7 million Australian families. They of course benefit from family tax benefit A. They also benefit from the education tax refund. They also benefit from new entitlements which flow in the case of dental services to children—teenagers obtaining new dental services. But you see, Mr Speaker, overall what we believe is that in helping working families we must make sure that the economy is in first-rate working order. That means fighting the fight against inflation and making sure that you are not contributing to the lax fiscal policy which we inherited from our predecessors, and, secondly, bringing in tax cuts which flow to all Australian families. That is an important measure, including for all those families who may not be the beneficiaries of the particular measures which are contained in the income support measures brought in by the government.

This is a very difficult question in terms of $150,000 and obviously it is a very difficult question for those opposite. The member for Wentworth says it is a fair benchmark for means testing but the Leader of the Opposition says it is not. I would like to know where the Liberal Party stands on this.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may assist the Prime Minister if I seek leave to table the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser.

Leave not granted.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In view of that request, is this a union meeting or the Parliament of Australia?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will not resume his seat. He may as well go to the door; he is out for one hour. Reflections by way of interjection are something that is well and truly disorderly.

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.