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

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister again to the latest Sensis survey showing that business confidence in his government has collapsed. I quote the survey, which states: ‘The federal government is now the least supported government by small and medium enterprises in Australia.’ Why is it, Prime Minister, that business now considers your government the worst in Australia, even worse than that of Morris Iemma?

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

The national government is responsible for fiscal policy and, through the agency of the Reserve Bank, for monetary policy. It follows as a logical consequence of that that, when you are going through difficult global and national economic times, the national government will be held accountable. We accept responsibility for that; there are no two ways about that.

But can I also draw the honourable member’s attention to some other data which he did not seem to want to emphasise today, and that is data on the private capital expenditure index. According to the ABS data today, the private capital expenditure capex rose by a stronger than expected 5.7 per cent in the June 2008 quarter to be 8.1 per cent higher than a year ago, following a revised one per cent increase in the March quarter. I would ask this question: why is it that, when there is positive economic data out there, those opposite find no reason to embrace that in their argument at all? They may have a passing interest in talking this economy down, a process begun early this year by the member for North Sydney and continued by the member for Wentworth, with the selective selection of ABS data which happens to be out.

There are challenges facing the international economy and there are challenges facing the domestic economy. I would draw honourable members’ attention to the fact that, internationally, six of the seven major economies in the OECD—those of the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Germany, France and Japan—have in the last six months generated either zero growth or negative growth in a particular economic quarter. That is actually what is happening in the global economy. Therefore, the roll-on consequences of contracting growth globally, and with our principal economic partners, is going to have an effect here. But, again, those opposite, apart from acting as political predators or, as some would say, as political vultures on the question of the current state of the global economy, should be asking the practical question, the real question, which is: what are you going to do about it?

The first discipline is responsible economic management through a $22 billion budget surplus to give us a buffer for the future. What is the response on the part of those opposite? ‘How do you tear that surplus apart?’ If they were to embrace that course of action through the Senate, it would do compound the problems left to us by the member for Higgins. It would compound the overall pressure on public demand to the extent that it would make it less likely that we would see interest rate reductions in the future—and that is what the economy needs.

Secondly, you deal with the substantial and continuing economic reform agenda with the government, which has one organising principle: boosting long-term productivity growth. The productivity growth agenda forms the core of this government’s economic reform agenda, anchored in an education revolution, anchored in an infrastructure revolution and anchored in a program of business deregulation. Those opposite allowed these three areas of reform to gather dust on the shelves. We have a plan for the future; those opposite simply have an excuse for the past.