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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the International Monetary Fund’s latest World economic outlook that the best fiscal stimulus is to give tax cuts or cash payments to individuals in preference to increased capital expenditure with its inevitable and often lengthy time lag?

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

On the question of tax cuts, as the honourable member would know, the government delivered in full on tax cuts not just for the coming financial year as of 1 July but for subsequent financial years as well—in fact, a $45 billion package of tax cuts. The problem with the opposition’s position on this is that they assume that there is something inherently wrong with nation building.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

That is the actual inference of the opposition Treasury spokesman’s question; otherwise, why would she ask it and why would those in the Senate be seeking to block the passage of the relevant legislation? It is because, in their heart of hearts, they actually do not believe in nation building. If that is not the case, why is that legislation being blocked in the Senate? I do not understand. If it is not the case then why was the attempt just made by the opposition Treasury spokesman to cast doubt on a nation-building agenda?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

I would suggest on the intervention from the honourable member who sits on the opposition front bench in defence of alcopops that, in a time of serious global financial crisis, unblocking the budget surplus in the Senate is of critical importance. I would suggest to those opposite that the responsible course of action is to ensure that the government has access to surplus funds to deploy for this country and to underpin our long-term economic growth. That is the responsible course of action. What we have on the part of those opposite is a very serious policy posture—namely, how to continue to provide a tax cut for a bunch of booze companies. I would suggest that that actually represents an alternative approach. Can I say to those opposite that the challenge is this: in these times of global economic crisis you are either responsible in putting aside a surplus in the first place and responsible in deploying that in support of long-term economic growth, or you take a short-term populist approach. Our attitude is clear cut. We will take whatever decisive action is necessary for the future of this economy. We will ensure that we will boost economic growth by supporting the national economy by necessary measures and by supporting the household economy as well. That is the right balance for the future, the national economy, the national infrastructure and the household economy as well.