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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his Adelaide declaration, ‘We have done as much as we physically can to provide additional help to Australian families.’ Why has the Prime Minister given up on the job for Australian families after six months?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. When it comes to the budget measures, to which the member for Port Adelaide was just referring, we on this side of the House are proud of a budget which delivers for working Australians, for working families and for those doing it tough. It contains within it a $55 billion support package for working families. It contains additional payments for seniors and carers—payments additional to those provided in the Liberal Party’s last budget in this place. Of course, the measures that we put forward in the budget we are proud of. When it comes to the future we will continue to examine measures which will be able to support working families under financial pressure. We have always said that. That is in part why we have commissioned the Henry commission of inquiry to comprehensively review the tax and income system—comprehensively and for the long term, and to support working families.

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why Australia needs responsible economic management? Are there any obstacles to achieving this outcome?

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

I thank the honourable member for the question. When the government assumed office, and in framing this budget, we were faced with three big economic challenges: one, inflation in Australia running at a 16-year high, delivered to us as a courtesy, a parting gift, of the preceding government; two, a world financial crisis which the International Monetary Fund says is one of the most serious crises we have seen since the Great Depression; and, three, historic shifts in commodity prices, including a doubling of oil prices in the last 12 months. That is why it has been critical for the government to deliver a responsible budget. We are a government of responsible economic management. We believe in ensuring that we are budgeting for Australia’s long-term economic needs rather than for short-term political opportunism, which seems to have been the hallmark of those opposite.

What have we therefore delivered? One, a $22 billion budget surplus. That surplus is critical to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is the hallmark of what we have done. Beyond that, government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is now at its lowest level since 1989-90. Tax as a proportion of GDP has also gone down. This is a fundamentally responsible and conservative economic document designed to meet the economic challenges of our time.

Beyond that, the budget has sought to invest in Australia’s future. Investing in the future is a core requirement to ensure that the proceeds which have come into Australia per medium of the resources boom are not frittered away on consumption, as has been done by those opposite, but invested in long-term productive capacity. We have done that through, firstly, the Building Australia Fund to invest in infrastructure. Secondly, we have done that through establishing an Education Investment Fund of $11 billion to invest in the critical needs of our TAFE and university sectors, which have been crumbling in recent times. Thirdly, there is a $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund for the future to make sure that through reforms in that sector we deliver the best possible health system that Australia can support.

On top of that we have made sure that apart from investing in the future, apart from producing a responsible budget and putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates, we have also delivered on our commitments to working Australians, working families and those doing it tough. I referred in my earlier answer to a $55 billion support package for working families, including for the first time a $4.4 billion education tax refund to help mums and dads out there struggling with their school expenses. There is $750 a year for primary school kids and $1,500 a year for secondary school kids, and for identified education items there is an opportunity to come back and claim 50 per cent of those amounts. Of course, there are our additional payments for the childcare tax rebate, raising it from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Then there is our assistance in the housing affordability challenge facing so many Australians. Not only do we have for the first time a housing minister—there was not one under those opposite; we have housing policy because there was not one before, either. There is $2.2 billion of investment in housing affordability initiatives for working Australians.

Beyond that is the Making Ends Meet package. The budget delivered senior Australians an additional $900 compared with last year’s budget. Carers allowance and carers payment recipients will get up to $2,100 in addition to what they were provided in the last budget. Disability pensioners will receive an additional $500 towards the cost of living, in addition to the last budget.

The question asked whether there are threats to this. There are. That threat is summed up in three words: ‘the Liberal Party’. The challenge to Australia’s future economic policy lies in the Liberal Party—or, as it could now be described, ‘the many liberal parties’. As I look across the front bench I see many liberal parties represented there. It is difficult to choose which one we are responding to on any given day. Of course, their promise so far is to block the budget, to block budget revenues to the tune of some $22 billion. At a time when we are fighting inflation and fighting to put downward pressure on interest rates the response from the party of so-called responsible economic management is to say, ‘We’ll raid the surplus to the tune of $22 billion.’ This was a remarkable first step.

But there are three things that stand out about this overall budget position on the part of our opponents. These are of direct relevance to the country because the opposition controls the fate of the budget in the Senate. When we look at the raid on the surplus, nothing can be said of it other than what Saul Eslake said. He described it as a piece of economics which is ‘dopey, dopey, dopey’.

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

Mr Speaker, a point of order regarding the delivery of written speeches during question time—

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

Order! There is no point of order. The member for O’Connor will resume his seat.

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

I thank the member for O’Connor, including for his enlightened observations on Aboriginal policy at the door today. The second point about the opposition’s position on this budget and why it represents a threat to Australia’s long-term economic security is what it does in terms of the inflation challenge. The Leader of the Opposition does not think that there is any inflation crisis. We have had from those opposite a statement that in fact inflation is a fairy tale, a charade, and that there is no inflation crisis whatsoever. This flies in the face of the most fundamental precepts of economic responsibility.

The third thing you can say about the opposition’s posture on this budget is the fact that they do not agree with one another. They have at least two, if not three or four, different positions on petrol tax. They are divided on the question of means testing. They are divided on the question of whether you should means test the baby bonus. They are divided on the question of who should be the leader of the Liberal Party. The member for Wentworth wants to replace the member who is currently the leader of the Liberal Party. Then we have the member for Higgins, who thinks he might want to replace the member for Wentworth as the prospective leader of the Liberal Party. Then there is the member for Mayo, who may want to replace the member for Wentworth as shadow Treasurer before becoming the leader of the Liberal Party. We have a Liberal Party which is terminally divided. I say this to those opposite: there is a challenge of responsible economic management here.

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I call the member for Canning.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

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

The Minister for Resources and Energy is not helping.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it would be very obvious that the point of order is on relevance.

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

I call the Prime Minister.

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

Of course, in that list of prospective candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party we left out Hockey, Joe, who has added his name to the list over the course of the weekend.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I am sorry—the Manager of Opposition Business. I anticipate the interjections from those opposite.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is a requirement of members of this House to address members by their electorate name and when you try to—

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

Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Crean interjecting

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

The Minister for Trade will not encourage him. The Prime Minister knows that he is required to refer to members by their titles and he will return to the question.

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

Now we have these five candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party it will make an interesting season ahead. I can only imagine why those opposite are somewhat sensitive on this question today. My clear message to whoever leads the Liberal Party in three months time, six months time or nine months time—and I need to address these remarks in five different directions to make sure they hit the mark—is that this budget is a budget of responsible economic management and if those opposite are about to embark upon a course of action involving a raid on the surplus to the tune of $22 billion, an assault on the fundamental financial integrity of the budget of the Commonwealth of Australia, then be it on their heads what the consequences will be for them. Be it on your heads what the consequences will be for you.