Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline why it is so important, when framing economic policy, to be in touch with the daily lives of Australian families?

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

I thank the member for his question. It is critical that the government achieves the right balance in framing economic policy. In framing the budget, we struck the right balance between getting rid of the reckless spending of those opposite and delivering a substantial $55 billion Working Families Support Package. We delivered tax cuts. We delivered an increase in the childcare tax rebate and we delivered an education tax refund. We also delivered an additional $500 bonus for age pensioners. That is very important—something that was not funded or provided by those opposite. We also boosted the utilities allowance by $400. We also put in place the Henry review, which will report no later than next February. We delivered a strong surplus because it is important at a time of international economic uncertainty to have a strong surplus.

Framing economic policy does demand responsibility with the nation’s finances as much as it requires compassion, and it requires empathy with those that are under financial pressure. Of course you can only have that compassion and empathy if you understand the everyday lives of the Australian people. Those opposite, the Liberals, have demonstrated no understanding of the financial pressures facing Australian families.

In the Treasury portfolio there are lots of facts and figures, and I would be the first to say that you cannot possibly know every single one, but there are some facts and figures which are very, very important. This morning the member for Curtin was full steam on radio; last evening the member for Curtin was full steam on radio. What we found was that she had no idea of one of the central facts that go to the heart of the financial pressures on Australian families and to the heart of the economic debate in this country. She did not know the official RBA cash rate. She got it wrong. No wonder those opposite found it so difficult to actually welcome the rate cut a couple of weeks ago. She did not understand that essential figure. It really says something about the Liberal Party when the Treasury spokesman does not know the official RBA cash rate. That is really something and it demonstrates how out of touch those opposite are with the financial pressures on Australian families.

It does not stop there. We have this ploy on pensions in the House today—a ploy from those opposite which leaves out two million pensioners. How could they do that? They say they understand—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 150 entitled ‘Amendments to bills during consideration in detail’. If the Treasurer is worried about someone being left out, let him amend our legislation; we will not mind.

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

I believe there was not a point of order.

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

It is not just that they left out two million pensioners; it just demonstrates they do not understand the financial pressures around the kitchen table. How could they possibly leave out disability support pensioners or carers? Shame on you—if you understand this problem, you have demonstrated that you cannot actually fix it. Those opposite do not understand the need for a long-term sustainable solution to this particular problem because they do not understand the everyday lives of Australian families. They are that far out of touch.

If you ever needed any evidence of how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition is from the everyday lives of Australian families, we heard it on Radio National this morning when the Leader of the Opposition was being interviewed by Fran Kelly. Fran Kelly asked him this question:

Malcolm Turnbull, the country needs to know which footy team you barrack for.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I, I, I have to confess I vote for, I vote for, I, um, support, um, Australian Rules, the Roosters.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. There is only one rooster in this chamber that we are aware of.

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

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Order! I would hope that the House has had its humour for the day. The Treasurer will bring his answer to a conclusion.

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

There are no roosters in the AFL Grand Final—there have been plenty of swans and there have been plenty of hawks, but there are no roosters. I would not be surprised if he was out there next congratulating Ricky Ponting on winning the Brownlow Medal.

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

Order! The Treasurer will conclude his answer quickly.

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

It is hard to imagine anyone more out of touch than the merchant of Venice over there.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: I hate to interrupt Bob Ellis’s material, but really this has got nothing to do with economic management and it demeans the House.

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I would implore the Treasurer to conclude his answer.

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

The question was about being in touch with the needs of Australian families. It is a very serious question. If you have no appreciation of the daily lives of Australian families, how can you frame economic policy to look after those families? If you do not understand what the official RBA cash rate is, how can you understand the financial pressures on Australian families? If you leave two million pensioners out of a proposal before the parliament, how can you claim to understand the financial pressures on pensioners? I am really saying here that, when the Leader of the Opposition goes out there pretending to be in touch with the people, what he demonstrated this morning is that he is a phoney when it comes to all of that—he is pretending to be something he is not.