Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the progress of important inflation-fighting measures in the Senate?

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

I thank the member for his question. Through the budget, we have built a $22 billion surplus to fight inflation and put downward pressure on interest rates. The opposition, through their irresponsible actions up in the Senate, are trying to punch a huge hole in that surplus. Let us have a look at what they are blocking. They are blocking increasing the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, which will remove a tax slug on middle-income earners. That is what they are doing—effectively a tax increase. They are also politicking with the condensate measure, which could cost the budget $177 million in terms of delay; if blocked altogether, it could cost the budget to $2.5 billion. How irresponsible is that? Their delay on the luxury car tax threatens a $22 million hole from delay, but if it is blocked it will cost $555 million.

Something rare happened in the House last night. There was 10 minutes of economic responsibility from the Liberal Party. After seven months of irresponsibility, we had 10 minutes of responsibility last night. Last night they let through an important compliance measure to stop rorting in the welfare system. They were going to block it but, when we highlighted it, they were shamed into supporting it. Good on them—10 minutes in seven months is not bad!

Perhaps the member for Wentworth ought to convene another focus group. He can ask them what they want the Liberal Party to do. What would families want? They would want lower inflation. They would want lower interest rates. All of that is threatened by the actions of the Liberal Party in the Senate. We on this side of the House understand the importance of fighting inflation. We understand the importance of getting interest rates down. What the Liberal Party is doing in the Senate is pushing up inflation and interest rates. It has a chance this afternoon to stand up in the Senate and be responsible. Let this vital legislation through and send it down to the House so that the Australian people can get full responsibility from their government—a full attack on inflation, doing something about interest rates in the long term. The Liberal Party is completely irresponsible.

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 commitments to watching petrol prices, grocery prices, childcare prices, strikes and falling business and consumer confidence. I also refer the Prime Minister to the 135 committees and inquiries he has established in the first seven months of his government. Given that the Prime Minister and his government have blamed the coalition in 422 responses to the first 550 questions in the House this year, when will the Prime Minister accept responsibility and deliver action that is going to address the day-to-day concerns of everyday Australians?

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

Brendan, if I were you, mate, when it comes to watching, I would be watching my back! I would be watching my back very closely over the next few months. Up there, over there and even over here—you have been a bad boy, Joe!

The government makes no excuse for commissioning expert advice on future policy settings when we need it. My recollection is that it said in the set of annual reports tabled by the previous government at the end of last year that there were something in the order of 400 to 500-plus reports, inquiries and commissions undertaken by those opposite in the last financial year alone. That is an extraordinary number. So I would suggest to those opposite it is not abnormal for the executive in government to seek professional advice. We are in exactly the same category and we are doing that through commissions of inquiry and the like. For example, we make no excuse for the fact that in the 2020 Summit there was a national call for us, after 12 years of inaction, to work towards—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Robert interjecting

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

The member for Fadden is warned!

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

a seamless national economy, a seamless national market, and also to undertake the first root and branch review of Australia’s national taxation system in a quarter of a century. We make no apology at all for the fact that we have commissioned Ken Henry of the Treasury to undertake the Henry commission of inquiry. Our tax system—

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Simpkins interjecting

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

The member for Cowan was warned earlier. He will remove himself from the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Cowan then left the chamber.

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

our income support system and our retirement income system need a root and branch review for their long-term future. We make no apology for the fact that we have also commissioned external advice to assist us with the large, long-term policy reform process which emissions trading represents. A question was asked about why we are seeking this advice now. Those opposite did not use their 12 years in office to act productively on climate change. Rather, they swept the issue away, only to panic at five minutes to midnight and do a little bit on emissions trading and then walk away from it after the election. That is another reason why we have been required to commission external advice on various aspects of the emissions trading and climate change debate. We make no apology for the way in which we intend to govern. We make no apology for the fact that we are governing for Australia’s long-term future. We make no apology for the fact that our horizon for this country is very much what we can do for Australia in the decade ahead and not just in the week or month ahead or the next focus group ahead, as seems to be the preoccupation of the member for Wentworth. Instead, we will plan for Australia’s long-term future. We intend to govern for Australia’s long-term future. I would suggest that those opposite are very much anchored in the past.