Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to provide leadership on the economic and financial challenges facing Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is facing a crisis of confidence. The level of consumer and business confidence in this country has hit record lows, and the lack of confidence is in the ability of the Rudd Labor government to deal with the challenges faced by this nation. Rarely has a government come to office promising so much and delivering so little, and the crisis of confidence that this country is facing stems directly from a lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister and his senior ministers. Of course, the Prime Minister is not in the parliament this week—he has left on an overseas trip. Yet the issue is not about how many times the Prime Minister goes overseas or what he does when he is overseas. The fact is that his priorities are such that he would rather be addressing the United Nations than be here in Australia taking charge of the challenges that face this nation.

Australian pensioners could be forgiven for being very disappointed in the Prime Minister for failing to be in parliament this week, when the issue of an increase in the single age pension was debated in the Senate; the Senate expressed its will and supported the opposition’s proposal to increase the single age pension by $30 a week. But the Prime Minister chose to be overseas. And then, when the coalition gave the government the opportunity today to show some leadership on an issue that is causing great distress to pensioners across Australia, the government rejected that opportunity. The government is very good on reviewing and inquiring, and on having a green paper and a white paper and commissions and forums and summits, but inaction is absolutely no substitute for the kind of leadership that this country craves.

People could also be forgiven for assuming that this Prime Minister has a slight touch of the delusions. He actually is rather deluded about his place in the world. His attempts to place himself at the centre of all global issues are as embarrassing as they are pathetic. On the eve of his trips overseas—and this is now the pattern of behaviour we have come to expect from this Prime Minister; he has done this on the eve of each of his 10 trips overseas in the 10 months that he has been Prime Minister—he announces some grandiose scheme, designed to capture the headlines and the early morning news, that places him at the forefront of global initiatives. Forget the G8 or the major countries of the world—the Prime Minister of Australia takes the lead!

But what is he really doing? Just think about the example where he announced, on the eve of one of his overseas trips, that Australia would take the initiative on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. He announced that former minister Gareth Evans was going to lead the global initiative. Well, that went down like a lead balloon, didn’t it. And have we heard any more of that initiative? Not a word. Then, of course, remember how the Prime Minister was going to take Japan to the International Court of Justice over whaling? He was going to lead the world in the charge against whaling. What happened to that global initiative? What happened to the case against Japan—to be prosecuted no doubt by the minister for the environment? It has just sunk without a trace.

Then, of course, the Prime Minister recently announced the establishment of a $100 million global clean coal initiative, where Australia is again going to lead the world. Well, I suspect that that will share the same fate as all the others. But I think the piece de resistance must be this: on the eve of one of his trips to Japan, he announced—with just a couple of hours notice; he managed to cobble this idea together in a couple of hours—that he would create and establish a European-Union-style Asia-Pacific union. He was going to rearrange the Asia-Pacific architecture. He forgot to consult? No, he did not forget to consult! He is so deluded, and his ego is so out of control, that the Prime Minister thinks it is diplomatic to announce a rearrangement of the Asia-Pacific architecture in advance of a trip to Japan, without having the diplomatic skills to pick up the phone and discuss it with other leaders in the region. Is this the best we can expect from a middle-ranking bureaucrat from the department of foreign affairs who now finds himself in the position of Prime Minister? It is a worry. And the Australian people are greatly concerned about these announcements of grandiose schemes where he is going to lead the world and then we hear nothing more. Would this be because he is just seeking a cheap headline and refuses to deal with the domestic issues that are facing people in their everyday lives back here in Australia?

Why is it that the Prime Minister had no difficulty at all in making announcements about a $35 million injection to the Toyota corporation, while he was in Japan, to build a car in Australia that they were going to build anyway, which took Toyota by surprise—they did not know what they were going to do with the money because they were going to build the car anyway—and yet this Prime Minister cannot make an announcement while he is in New York on a $30-a-week increase for Australia’s pensioners?

I guess we should be grateful for small mercies. I guess we should be grateful that, on the eve of this trip to the United Nations—and this is why the trip was planned: the trip was planned for the Prime Minister to take centrestage at the UN General Assembly so he could make a speech at the millennium development forum, with no lesser world leaders than Scarlett Johansson, Missy Higgins and Colin Firth—he did not announce the Australian Global Initiative to End World Poverty by 2010! He is just going to introduce an emissions trading scheme by 2010, but he is not yet going to end world poverty! I have likened him to Don Quixote. He is delusional in his sense of grandeur and his tilting at windmills. We find that when he gets back to Australia there is no mention of these grandiose plans—they just disappear into thin air.

The coalition have no problem at all with the Prime Minister travelling overseas. We expect our leaders to be in touch with world leaders. We expect them to pick up the phone when they are about to announce the establishment of a European union in Asia. We expect them to have contact with the leaders around the world. We expect them to observe and experience what is happening in the rest of the world. But what benefits have come to Australia from the Prime Minister’s 10 overseas trips in 10 months? Can we name a benefit that this country has received? The pensioners certainly have not received a benefit. The pensioners today have been rebuffed by the government, who have failed to show leadership and refuse to admit that they are wrong on the issue of pensions. That is another failing of the government: they refuse to admit they are wrong, even in the face of the most compelling evidence.

Take Fuelwatch. Remember how the government—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to get to GroceryWatch. Remember how the government when in opposition promised to reduce petrol prices? They promised pensioners, motorists and householders that they would do something to bring down petrol prices. Petrol prices have gone through the roof since they were elected to government. And what has the government’s response been? Have they shown any leadership at all? No. What they did was appoint a petrol commissioner, who, during his very short tenure, admitted that he had no powers at all.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member—He just walked away.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He walked away from it; I do not blame him. He walked away from the flawed Fuelwatch scheme. Fuelwatch was essentially a website to inform motorists about the cost of petrol. There are already websites that do that. You do not have to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in order to set up a website to give them information they can already access. But the government refuses to admit that this was just a stunt, and it has backfired.

Then of course we had GroceryWatch. The government having promised pensioners and householders that they would bring down the price of groceries, we have seen grocery prices soar. What was the government’s answer? Another website—yet this time the website contains information that is a month old. You do not even get up-to-date information. Instead of going to the postbox and getting the leaflets from the supermarket that set out the specials and the prices, or going to your supermarket and getting the current daily prices, you log on to the government’s website and you find information that is a month old, has no reference to specials—and most Australians look for specials when they are going to their supermarkets—and avoids supporting the independent retailers in Australia. What it does is it backs Coles, backs Woolworths and ignores the small independent grocers in this country.

It is so flawed, so out of touch and so out of date that it is embarrassing for the government. Yet have we seen any leadership? A true leader would stand up and say: ‘Okay, I’ve made a mistake. That was a waste of taxpayers’ money. We’ll put an end to it now.’ There is nothing that is in the least bit salvageable about this GroceryWatch website, apart from the fact that the Assistant Treasurer obviously taps into it every day to make sure that it gets enough hits to keep the little monitor ticking over. That is a real concern with the government: they will not admit they are wrong. And they are so incompetent when it comes to the handling of the serious financial challenges that are facing this country.

I just want to touch on the subject of short selling—not in itself, because of course it is not an issue that affects people day to day, but because it is such an important response to the international financial crisis. It is illuminating to see how botched the government’s response has been to the question of putting a ban on short selling. Let me take you through a chronology because then you will appreciate how incompetent this government has been in its response to the international financial crisis—its inability to respond under pressure. On Wednesday last week, 17 September, the US Securities and Exchange Commission adopted some new rules requiring that short sellers and their broker-dealers deliver securities by the close of business on the settlement date—in other words, to stop short selling—and they imposed penalties for the failure to do so. The following day, Thursday, 18 September, in the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Authority agreed to introduce new provisions to the Code of Market Conduct to prohibit the active creation or increase of net short positions in publicly quoted financial companies. Then, on the morning of 19 September, reports began to emerge from the United States that the Securities and Exchange Commission intended to temporarily ban short selling. That was being reported in the media by Friday morning Australian time.

In contrast to the measured approach of the SEC in the United States and the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom, the Rudd government dithered. They were like rabbits caught in the spotlight. You see, not a few weeks ago the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law stressed that the Rudd government would not ban short selling. To give you an idea of how in touch the Prime Minister was on this important issue of banning short selling to stem the impacts of the international financial crisis, in a press conference on 19 September the Prime Minister referred to his Assistant Treasurer, Chris Bowen, who is sitting at the table, being in consultation with the finance industry on short selling. He identified the minister at the table, the Assistant Treasurer, as the person in the government who was working on a proposal with the financial industry about the future of short selling. He said that was the man. Then he said:

… as far as short selling is concerned I draw your attention to what Chris Bowen has been doing already and this was well ahead of the developments of the last week or so.

Mistake! That was not Chris Bowen at all. What happened to the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, who was apparently handling this? Doesn’t that tell you about the Prime Minister’s grasp on what is going on in his government? In the face of one of the greatest financial crises that the United States has faced, that is having impacts across the world, the Prime Minister does not even know—he has no idea—which one of his ministers is actually handling this issue.

But it got worse. Not only did the Prime Minister have no idea; the government had three—now four—positions on the issue of short selling, day by day. They had one position on Friday, then, whoops, they had not gone far enough, so they had another position on Sunday—after the Leader of the Opposition had been on the Laurie Oakes program, coincidentally. Then they managed to come up with another position—’Whoops, that’s gone too far.’ What is going on within the government? It is a failure of leadership on the part of the government. (Time expired)

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this MPI because it provides another opportunity to discuss the economic and financial crisis facing the world, and the government’s response to it, although I must say it does surprise me that the shadow Treasurer lodged this MPI on the economic and financial issues facing the nation and waited until the last couple of minutes of her allotted 15 minutes before she chose to talk about them. Before she chose to talk about the economic and financial crisis facing the world, she spent 10 of her allotted 15 minutes taking cheap pot shots at the Prime Minister’s travel and cracking undergraduate jokes at the expense of the Prime Minister. The shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition talk about bipartisanship when it comes to economics and the financial crisis facing the world, and then the shadow Treasurer spends 10 minutes of her allotted time on the MPI—lodged by the shadow Treasurer—ignoring the financial crisis and the financial turmoil facing the world.

The government, of course, regards the financial turmoil facing the world with some seriousness. We regard the current events as being quite serious. We regard the failing of the world’s 18th largest company, the failing of a company as well known and as famous as Lehman Brothers, and the takeover of Merrill Lynch, as having implications for Australia, as having important implications for the world financial markets. The opposition talk about bipartisanship, but when they get this opportunity to talk about the challenges facing Australia and the appropriate policy responses, the alternative Treasurer of this nation takes cheap political pot shots about the Prime Minister’s travel and cracks undergraduate jokes. That is not going to do much for the shadow Treasurer’s economic credibility when all is said and done.

We can look at the financial crisis facing the world and the response of the Australian government, and we can look at the response of the opposition. We believe that one of the important responses that the opposition can provide if they are really interested in bipartisanship is to pass the federal government’s budget through the other house. In May the government substantially increased the size of the budget surplus to 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product, to put downward pressure on inflation and give the Reserve Bank the flexibility they need to deal with the inflationary problems in this nation. We all know why that was necessary, and of course just last week we saw the release of the Treasury advice to the former Treasurer that the IMF was concerned about the expansionary nature of the previous Treasurer’s fiscal policy. The Treasury was warning that the expansionary approach of the previous Treasurer would add to inflationary pressures and that the IMF shared that concern.

I would suggest to the shadow Treasurer, if the shadow Treasurer wants to be taken seriously about leadership, if the shadow Treasurer wants to be taken seriously about bipartisanship, if the shadow Treasurer wants her economic credibility to be respected, that the shadow Treasurer show some leadership and encourage the Liberal Party to pass the budget in the Senate, to pass the savings and revenue measures so important to ensuring we have the flexibility to deal with the financial crisis facing the world. Stop playing populist games, support the budget passing the Senate and support the important fiscal reforms that the government has embraced.

Another thing that is required here in these troublesome times is the promotion of confidence—confidence of the international markets in Australia and confidence domestically. Confidence has fallen in Australia, it is true, to 1990s levels, just as it has fallen in every country in the world, despite the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. Despite the valiant attempts of the new alternative Treasurer to ignore the fact that confidence has fallen to 1992 levels in every comparable country, we have seen confidence fall.

There are two areas that are important, as I say—confidence domestically and confidence internationally. It is important that the economic decision makers in the United States and other major nations, both in the public sector and in the private sector, understand the soundness of our economy, the soundness of the fundamentals, the importance of our terms of trade and the importance of the fact that, of the 12 of the 100 major banks in the world with AA ratings, four are located here in Australia. It is important that the Prime Minister take this opportunity to communicate with those leaders.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, want to take cheap political pot shots about this. We saw the Leader of the Opposition on Sunday, on the Laurie Oakes program, say this:

The question is he is spending more time overseas than any Prime Minister in our history. He’s spending more time overseas than his own foreign minister. Have we elected a prime minister or a prime tourist? That’s the question.

I would make two observations to the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy. The first is: show a bit of leadership. The second is: show a bit of honesty. If the Leader of the Opposition seriously wants to go on national television and claim that the Prime Minister travels more than any Prime Minister in history, he might want to explain to the Australian people why this Prime Minister has been overseas for 43 days this year when Prime Minister Howard was overseas for 64 days in 2002, 60 days in 2003 and 65 days in 2005. They claim that this Prime Minister spends more time overseas than any of his predecessors—except for the last one perhaps.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says: ‘What about the first year? What about 1996?’ It is true. Prime Minister Howard stayed home more in 1996. He had to stay home to replace his ministers, who kept resigning—nine in the first year and three by the time that the government had been in office for nine months. So if we want to talk about prime ministers staying home, perhaps he had different reasons to stay at home.

The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that the Prime Minister spends more time overseas than the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is a slight technical problem: that is completely false. The Prime Minister has been away for 43 days and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been away for 67 days. If you want to be taken seriously when it comes to economic credibility—or if you want to be taken seriously when it comes to credibility full stop—you might start by levelling with the Australian people and telling the truth instead of telling fibs to Laurie Oakes on the Sunday news.

The opposition says it is not really important that the Prime Minister spend his time overseas; it is not important that he spend his time in New York. But this was not the view of the then shadow Treasurer in April. He said:

The security, the mortgages, the homes, the jobs of Australians depend in large measure on the international developments coming out of the United States of this credit crisis, so it was important for me as Shadow Treasurer to come here and discuss that with the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and of course with the Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Don Kohn and other senior officials and political figures here.

The member for Wentworth seems to think it is more important for the shadow Treasurer to be in touch with what is happening in the United States than it is for the Prime Minister of the nation. As Laurie Oakes said, he has never been very good at covering his innate modesty—but that does take it to new levels.

Of course we also need to boost confidence here in Australia. That is not helped when the member for North Sydney, with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition, questioned in this House last week the viability of Australia’s health funds—private health insurance. How irresponsible can you be at this particular time in our economic development? The member for North Sydney, with the express approval of the Leader of the Opposition, questioned the viability of our health funds. It is hard to get more irresponsible than that.

If the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy want to get involved in bipartisanship, they can start by repudiating the member for North Sydney and reinforcing the fact that there was no substance, no evidence and no possible basis for the allegations he made in the House last week—because confidence is important when it comes to the Australian economy.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when she finally got to the substance of her MPI, in the last couple of minutes, dealt with the matter of short selling. I was glad that she commented on short selling because it is an important matter. With the greatest respect, can I submit that we have seen quite a bit of sophistry from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when it comes to short selling. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has alleged that the government has changed its position. Of course, that is quite wrong.

My Treasury colleague Minister Sherry said some time ago that the government had no intention of legislating to ban naked short selling—and that remains our intention. In fact, the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law has today released the draft legislation relating to the disclosure of short selling. As is the case with other countries, ASIC, as the independent regulator, has moved, over the weekend, to deal with naked short selling and short selling more generally. When conditions come down, ASIC will assess the situation and may determine that it is appropriate to remove the current halt on short selling. The government are taking the responsible step of preparing for that outcome with the release today of the draft legislation which my colleague Senator Sherry flagged some time ago. So the government continue to act responsibly and work with our regulators while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sits on the sideline taking pot shots. The financial markets and the financial commentators will comment on her credibility when it comes to such matters.

While I am on the economic credibility of the alternative Treasurer of the nation and the financial markets, my attention was drawn to her comments yesterday—not the comments that have received some recognition in question time but some other comments she made in reply to the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. My attention has been drawn to these comments because there are financial commentators in this nation and members of the financial services industry who are already shaking their heads at the shadow Treasurer’s lack of economic literacy and economic credibility. This is what the shadow Treasurer said yesterday:

It is symptomatic of a government … that says it wants to promote Australia as a financial services hub and then reduces withholding tax for foreigners.

The shadow Treasurer said there was a contradiction between promoting Australia as an international financial services hub and reducing the withholding tax on distributions for foreigners. I am not sure who the Treasurer thinks we should be a financial services hub for if it is not for foreigners. Perhaps we should be a financial services hub for ourselves! We already are that. The whole idea is to promote Australia as an international financial services hub. The shadow Treasurer, the alternative Treasurer of this nation, says that cutting the withholding tax is contradictory to promoting Australia as a financial services centre. There are many others who would beg to differ—and they do not sit on this side of the House or that side of the House. They do not sit in the House at all. John Stewart, the Managing Director and CEO of NAB, said in relation to the government’s withholding tax cut:

I think it will make a big difference, it’s a vote of confidence for the fund management industry. Because he’s spoken about moving from 30 to his low 7.5.

The Investment and Financial Services Association—the new shadow Treasurer might get around to talking to them—are strong supporters of the government’s measures. This is what they say:

The announcement goes beyond our expectations. It sends a very positive signal to the financial services sector and will enhance our industry in the Asia Pacific region. It will also encourage more young people to enter the industry.

Stephen Dunne, the Managing Director of AMP Capital Investors, said:

Reducing the withholding tax for foreign residents will strengthen Australia’s competitiveness as an international investment centre.

Jeremy Duffield, the Managing Director of Vanguard, said:

This single initiative delivers a vital fillip to Australia’s credentials as a regional investment centre, allowing our local industry to attract greater capital inflows through a sharpened competitive edge.

Peter Verwer, the Chief Executive of the Property Council, said:

The Government has shown its commitment on a crucial election promise that will reduce the withholding tax rate in line with our global competitors.

…            …            …

The world property markets have copied our successful funds model but with lower tax rates and less red tape.

We have established that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no idea. The shadow Treasurer of this nation does not realise that cutting the withholding tax rate for foreigners actually encourages foreign investment in this country. The alternative Treasurer of this nation apparently thinks that it would actually be a good thing to continue with the world’s highest withholding tax rate. She thinks it would be a bad thing to embrace the government’s policy of having effectively the lowest withholding tax rate in the world. In her first ministerial statement as shadow Treasurer, in her first response to the Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer has shown that unfortunately she is completely and utterly not on top of the facts of her portfolio. She is completely and utterly failing to come to grips with the government’s economic policy. We have this time and time again from this opposition. We have an opposition which talks about leadership and about credibility, but it talks about what it cannot deliver. (Time expired)

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly support this matter of public importance today. This is all about the lack of leadership that Australia has. We have just heard this diatribe from the Assistant Treasurer. I was just mentioning to the member for Reid that he really should spend some time coaching the Assistant Treasurer, because, as we know, the Assistant Treasurer is the great branch stacker from the western suburbs of Sydney and obviously he has been spending even more time stacking his branches in recent times. He needs to go back and actually have a look at what the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, Senator Sherry, actually said about short selling. He did not say that he would not introduce legislation. What he said was that the government would not ban short selling.

The fact of the matter is that this country is experiencing a crisis of confidence and is without economic and financial leadership. When we talk about leadership, I think it is always instructive to look back at what Labor left the Australian people when the coalition came to office in 1996. We inherited the results of Labor’s leadership at the time. That leadership left us with a $10 billion budget deficit. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, net government debt was $96 billion and the Australian people were suffering under crippling unemployment, rocketing interest rates and high inflation. Now the Assistant Treasurer is walking out of the House. He does not want to hear the truth. He is not prepared to listen to the truth of the matter. He is off to stack some more branches in his electorate.

When we came to office, having been elected in 1996, rather than set up a committee, we showed true leadership. We repaid Labor’s $96 billion in debt, we returned budget after budget to surplus and of course we left a record of low unemployment rates that had not been seen in a generation. The fact is this Prime Minister has inherited economic surpluses of $110 billion over five years. Labor’s so-called leadership—and I do use the term very loosely—have inherited net assets of $45 billion—all as a result of the coalition’s economic leadership and reflecting the fact that more Australians are now employed than at any other time in our history. It is important to put this into context. When the coalition was in government, we did all of that despite the financial meltdowns and crises that gripped the world throughout our time in office and despite the regional environmental disasters that impacted on our friends to the north. The fact is our financial position in Australia is strong and robust, and we are the envy of the region and, in fact, the world.

Going to this matter of public importance, you have to ask yourself these questions. What has the Rudd government achieved in almost 12 months of office? What effective action has the Prime Minister taken to consolidate that strong economy, that robust economy, that we left him? Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to tell you: not much. But I can tell you what the Prime Minister has done. He has watched, he has watched, he has watched and he has travelled. This Prime Minister is not a Prime Minister of Australia; he is now Australia’s prime tourist. In fact, he has now become Kevin 747. He watches from his first-class plane seat or from his limousine and he ponders, he considers and he muses. He watches petrol prices, he watches grocery prices, he watches interest rates, he watches the cost of living, he watches inflation, he watches whales and, as we have heard today, he is watching the pension. He watches child care, he watches water, he watches state debt, he watches Asia, he is watching hospitals, he is watching teenagers’ teeth and health, he is watching schoolteachers, he has been watching Belinda Neal, he has been watching the republic and he has even been watching his weight lately. As a matter of fact, he has watched the lot of them. All he does is watch. But then he does have a lot to muse about as he is travelling overseas.

Since the Prime Minister has come to office he has announced 83 reviews; 17 committees, commissions or boards; 12 inquiries; 11 working groups; seven summits and 11 discussion papers. This Prime Minister does enjoy talking and we do know that he does like to ask himself questions and provide the answers. But he has also undertaken seven consultations and five audits—and that was only up until recently and in the last couple of weeks more have been added. So what does all of this achieve? Are we paying less for groceries? Are we paying less for fuel? What has been achieved as an outcome of the millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that this Prime Minister has spent on these limitless inquiries and commissions?

I have to say that I wish that all of this activity had achieved something and I really wish that there had been effective action by this government. But the sad reality is that this Prime Minister constantly gets confused. He gets confused between shuffling papers from one side of the table to the other, in question time, and doing something that is appropriate and actually undertaking action. But then I suppose we have to expect that from a Labor Party hack that has been working in Labor state governments for many years and has had to explain the appalling performance of Labor state governments for many years.

I remember when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition he once asked the question, ‘Where will the buck stop?’ He said that the buck was going to stop with him. I thought to myself at the time, ‘That’s good, that’s a Leader of the Opposition that wants to take responsibility, that’s a Leader of the Opposition  that’s taking a mature approach.’ He said he wanted to see an end to the blame game, but what I find very interesting is that, whenever anything goes wrong, it does not matter what it is, it is generally the coalition’s fault or it could be the fault of global forces, the international credit crunch, OPEC, the Iraq war, even his own staff, the mining boom, alcohol companies, quite often oil companies, the solar panel industry, his own department, the Public Service, the drought, global warming, luxury car companies—the list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that the buck never seems to stop with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He cannot get within cooee of the buck, because it is always someone else’s fault or somebody else’s doing.

Australia is without leadership at a very uncertain time in our history. We are told by leading economists throughout Australia that the risk of Australia actually going into a recession is very high. There are economists saying that we have a prospect of going into a recession. Look at what is happening: household wealth has fallen, real wages have stagnated, prospects for employment do not look good. This government has projected in its budget that Australian working men and women will lose their jobs over the next 12 months. This government plans in its budget for Australian workers to be sacked. There are signs that the pace of domestic demand is slowing, and consumer and business confidence is at an all-time low.

When we talk about leadership, normally you expect leadership from a Prime Minister, you expect leadership from a Treasurer and you expect it from the whole government. But this is the Treasurer who said the day before the Reserve Bank of Australia was to meet to make a decision about interest rates that the genie was out of the bottle. What sort of economic leader would say the day before the Reserve Bank was going to meet that the inflation genie was out of the bottle? Leadership is about leading. It is all about doing what is right for Australians. It is about building confidence. It is about ensuring that Australians working out there today, tomorrow and tonight—those people on shiftwork tonight—have confidence. It is about giving them confidence in their future and their destiny. How on earth does Kevin Rudd expect Australians to go about their daily work when they do not have confidence in their government?

Australians themselves are making the necessary changes. They are making those changes because they know the government is not making the changes. The government is not showing the leadership that is needed. We are in a state of financial turmoil, and the best that the Australian Prime Minister can do is get on an aeroplane, go over to New York and go to yet another talkfest. There have been no outcomes from any trip he has done since he became Prime Minister of this country. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for lists for his contribution to the matter of public importance debate! I suggest to him that, while lists are a good way to fill a speech, they do not actually contribute terribly to the topic that the opposition obviously feels is significant enough for an MPI debate today. We have had 25 minutes of contribution from the other side and have had a great deal of personal vilification, a great deal of personal criticism, a touch of policy criticism and absolutely no outlining of a responsive, responsible opposition position on the future of the economy in Australia. In this debate about economic credibility, we are now facing an opposition who, if they would like to get some economic credibility, might then earn the right to call for some.

I suggest that people remember some of the debate leading up to the last election in this country. The member for Higgins, at that time the Treasurer, made a few comments in a few speeches about the fact that the economic clouds were gathering over Australia. Clearly at that time he had begun to understand that there were some real challenges facing the international economy. Indeed, the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration—some of my colleagues from the House sitting here and me—in August of last year called a national roundtable summit on the housing affordability and house-lending issue. At that time the chair of the committee, the then member for Cook—I see his successor is with us today—agreed that it was such a significant issue it was important for the House committee to have a look at it. It was a significant roundtable, well attended by regulators, bankers and insurers, where we had a discussion about the situation in Australia and the potential flow-on effects of what was rolling out in the subprime crisis in America. At the time the then member for Cook indicated that he was very much in the then Treasurer’s black books for allowing that roundtable to go ahead. What was clearly happening at that point in time—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t verbal him when he’s not here!

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, but the comment—that he had got a bit of flack for allowing that to go ahead—was made to many of us on that committee. The reality at that time was that it was clear, as the then Treasurer had intimated until he was pulled into line because it was not in line with the position the government was putting to the Australian people in the election, that there were significant economic clouds gathering over the international situation and that they may have implications for our country. That was in August last year. This situation has been developing over time.

What did we, in opposition at the time, do in taking a policy position forward to the election? We outlined the importance of addressing two factors that the Reserve Bank of Australia had been talking about for a long time in terms of what the Australian government needed to be doing to address the inflationary pressures in our country. They were education and skills, and infrastructure. In putting together a policy that we took to the federal election—later endorsed by the people of this nation—we had a platform for building the skills and education levels of our nation through the education revolution and for reinvesting in important infrastructure, unblocking those major arteries which feed the export potential of this nation. They were important initiatives around productivity and performance. They were endorsed and they were delivered.

In the budget in May Labor put in place three major infrastructure investment funds through which the future growth and prosperity of this country could be assured. Not only did we do that but we increased and delivered a substantial budget surplus. I have certainly never heard anybody from the other side argue that a significant budget surplus is not an important factor in creating instability in a nation, particularly at a time when there is international turmoil.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Swannie delivered the surplus, did he?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do we now have from the opposition? A raid on that surplus. I find it quite amazing that those who tout themselves as fiscal conservatives, particularly the member interjecting, who, I would say, is as dry as they come economically, can sit here and say, ‘We are economically responsible, we are fiscally responsible, we are worried about the economic future of the country, yet we have not announced a single significant policy decision to contribute to that long-term economic stability.’ And, even worse, they say, ‘We’re going to raid the budget surplus; we’re not going to cost our proposals. When we do cost them, we get them wrong,’ and then, ‘We don’t think that was heading in the right direction; we had better dump our leader and put in another new leader who we are going to portray as an economic guru.’ Does he then come in and say, ‘We were heading in the wrong direction. We now need to be responsible. We have to drop all that populist claptrap that we have been going on with. We have to drop blocking the budget in the Senate, and we have to look like we are taking the issue of costing our proposals seriously and ensure we’re not raiding the budget surplus’? No, we do not get any of that. A week down the track and we have not had a word from the new leader about how he will take action to prove that he will be an economically responsible Leader of the Opposition. We have not heard a word.

We have had a continuation of the populist appeals, the populist lines, with no fiscal responsibility behind them, and then the opposition have the hide to come in here and say: ‘We can be all things to all people. We only have to name ourselves as economically responsible, we only have to get up in an MPI and criticise the Prime Minister, make lists and not outline an economic platform for the future.’ When those on the other side want to outline—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Union hacks!

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection from the member opposite. I would suggest that he take the time—we have known each other for a while—to read my biography. I take the member’s interjection that he is calling all members of the community who are members of a union ‘hacks’. I appreciate that contribution. At the end of the day, this is an opposition which want to put forward an MPI about economic credibility, while their own actions indicate they have absolutely none at all. What they need to understand is that there are a few things they actually could do which would be in the great tradition of their party, including supporting the budget measures in the Senate that will allow that budget surplus to stay in place. That would be a good and sensible start if they want to create some economic credibility with which to enter this debate.

The second thing is that the opposition need to understand that there are some real long-term challenges that we need to address in terms of the prosperity of our economy over the long term. Clearly, one of those is productivity. Productivity has stalled. It has stalled because we walked away from investing in the human capital of our nation and from understanding that, if you improve the education and skills levels of our communities, not only are they more productive but you do not create skills blockages, which have been occurring in my own area in the last week. Media reports have revealed that major projects and major businesses cannot get the skills they need. That has been a problem for a significant time and Labor have some policies in place to address that. When the opposition want to enter into a debate about the best way to deliver those policies then I think they will have some credibility.

The other area is infrastructure. Indeed, I sat on the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services. We brought down an excellent report—under the chair at the time, Paul Neville, the member for Hinkler—that outlined the major problems with rail infrastructure that needed to be addressed. One of the major requirements was the creation of a national coordinating infrastructure body. We heard it everywhere we went from every one of the major players in infrastructure. We have delivered on that. We are moving on it. We have a platform being delivered through the budget by the government for the future economic wellbeing of this country. All the opposition are doing is sniping and playing populist games. Until they get some credibility on economic issues they cannot expect to come into this place and be all things to all people and not be economically credible. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The world is facing very difficult economic times. The markets are nervous, business is nervous and consumers are nervous. What has happened—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’ve seen Swannie!

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; they have seen the Treasurer. Confidence in this country has evaporated. Why has it evaporated? It has evaporated because this government has failed to show leadership. It has fiddled and diddled and mucked around. It has reviewed, it has consulted. It has established committees—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s watched!

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has watched just about everything imaginable. The only thing it has not done is take concrete decisions and show leadership. Confidence is the glue which binds the operation of markets and our economy. Through its lack of leadership and its indecision, the government has presided over that very collapse in confidence. We need to look at the facts to see the degree to which confidence has actually fallen and the impact on our economy. Let us look at small business confidence. Small business confidence has fallen 57.4 points since the election of the Rudd government. This is the worst result in a Sensis survey since the survey started, in 1993. The Commonwealth Bank ACCI Business Expectations Survey for the June quarter shows the lowest level of business confidence since the survey began, in 1994. The ACCI Small Business Survey for the June quarter shows that small business conditions are at their worst since that survey began, in 1996. Sensis reported a perception amongst small businesses that federal government policies worked against them. That is what Sensis found when it consulted small business—unlike the findings of a raft of reviews. When it actually talked to small business, what did it find? It found that federal government policies were working against small business.

In November 2007 attitudes towards the Australian government’s policies were at 29 per cent. By August 2008 they had fallen to minus 28 per cent. And this federal government has the least support from small-and medium-sized enterprises of any government in Australia. That means that small business has even less confidence in this government than it does in the New South Wales state government, potentially the worst state government in Australia’s history.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A gold medal performance.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a gold medal performance in incompetent government. The September Sensis Consumer Report found that only 32 per cent of Australians are confident of their financial prospects for the year ahead. That is 29 points below what it was when the Prime Minister took office. Since November, Australia has had the largest drop in consumer confidence amongst all OECD nations and has the second lowest level of consumer confidence, behind Spain. The Prime Minister cannot pass the buck on this one. The other countries are in the same world environment; the other countries are facing the same types of challenges; but in Australia consumer confidence has dropped more than it has in other OECD countries.

AC Nielsen reports that the drop in consumer confidence for the first half of 2008 was almost twice as severe as it was in the rest of the world. Does that indicate that people have confidence in this government? Does it indicate that they have faith that this government is taking this country in the right direction? Clearly not. The Australian Industry Group’s Performance of Construction Index has dropped by over 16 points since December. The AIG Performance of Manufacturing Index has fallen 6.8 points since the election. The Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence Rating for September 2008 is 18.9 points below the September 2007 level.

Retailing is sluggish. Confidence has got up and left. That is because this government has failed to show leadership. It is all about committees and all about reviews; it is not about the sorts of policies that are needed to drive this country forward. This government is losing the confidence of the Australian people more and more, day by day. It has abandoned pensioners, as we have seen in the House today, just as it has abandoned small-and medium-sized business enterprises.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the member for Cowper should mention this, because just today the government has announced the concept design for the Coffs Harbour bypass in his electorate, which has gone on public display. A week ago we opened the Bonville bypass in his electorate, the same day that we announced the partners in the Ipswich Motorway upgrade. These are all good infrastructure projects that this government is delivering on. So I do not really understand what the member for Cowper is on about when he talks about this government doing nothing. We have heard a great dollop of personal vilification of the Prime Minister and almost nothing of what the opposition would do if they sat on this side of the House.

The reality is that the Rudd government is acting to secure the long-term future of this country. The Liberals are divided and shallow about this. We have had three leaders of the Liberal Party in the last 12 months and we have Hamlet, the member for Higgins, up the back there—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s like Banquo’s ghost.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

like Banquo’s ghost; that’s right—you think he is dead but he is an apparition lurking in the background. The reality is that the Rudd government is delivering on the education revolution. Access Economics has said that we could lift the wealth of this country by $9 billion if we could increase to 90 per cent the retention rates of our high schools. What happened for the 12 years of the Howard government? Year 12 retention rates flatlined to about 75 per cent. The reality is that this government is delivering on education, health and infrastructure, just as I mentioned to the member for Cowper opposite.

The Liberals really have no credibility when it comes to economics. They think it is 1975. It is not 1975.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you an economic conservative? You’ve been outed.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just get onto the Rudd government’s agenda; it might do you good. It is 2008. We have seen almost nothing in South-East Queensland—as the member interjects—where one in seven Australians live, an area that is growing all the time. What about infrastructure in South-East Queensland delivered by the Howard government? There is almost nothing. It is the Rudd Labor government that is delivering the infrastructure that has made such a difference to South-East Queensland and to economic development for the future of this country. That is the reality.

The opposition cannot duck and dodge the fact that they mismanaged the economy. The reality is that for the last few years, under their leadership, the government kept increasing public expenditure, putting pressure on inflation. There were interest rate rises year after year, which put pressure on working families, carers, pensioners and those who were doing it tough in my electorate and electorates around the country. That is the reality.

They thought that working families had never been better off. That was their mantra. But through their legacy we have seen that there was inaction, inertia and ignorance both nationally and locally—certainly in my electorate. That was the reality under the tutelage of the now opposition. There was flatlining of productivity, rising inflation, skill shortages, infrastructure bottlenecks and warnings from the Reserve Bank. But they did nothing. There was declining expenditure on public hospitals and health. The member for Warringah, the former Minister for Health and Ageing, let it out of the bag just before the election when he admitted that the Howard government had failed in that regard. And there was a disinvestment in education compared to our OECD partners.

The reality is that those opposite failed when it came to economic leadership in this country and—guess what?—the worst example of their economic leadership was Work Choices. They are still devoted to it and they are still disciples of it. We have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition still fanning the flames and talking about the wonders of statutory individual contracts. They are still talking about it. If they came back and she sat on that bench on this side and the Leader of the Opposition were sitting where the Prime Minister sits, they would bring Work Choices back and it would drive down the wages and terms and conditions of working people in this country. That is what would happen.

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

Order! The discussion has concluded.