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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for consistency in Government policy to rebuild confidence in the Australian economy.

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—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleagues for their support. Thank you for being here and staying and being attentive throughout the course of my matter of public importance. A little earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition was asked what it would mean should the Labor Party swap leaders from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd. He reflected that it would be like swapping from Burke to Wills, both of whom failed on their journey. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the death of both Burke and Wills, who were declared to be dead on the same day, for historical purposes, by the Victorian government 149 years ago, never let it be said that we are not the party mindful of history. We are. We are mindful of the fact that Burke and Wills failed on their journey, but indeed they were captivated by a heroic ambition, and that was to cross the continent.

Sadly, the modern-day Burke and Wills, the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, possess neither the ambition nor the courage to be able to deliver something so grandiose as a good government. Australians deserve a good government. They deserve a competent and consistent government. The Australian economy, which is enjoying the very best terms of trade in 150 years, deserves strong leadership. And yet over the last four years the Burke and Wills of modern-day Australian politics have completely misled the Australian people. They have on so many occasions said one thing but delivered the absolute opposite. They have made grandiose claims but have never been able to back them up with reality.

I have compiled a list. It is just a short list, covering 100 separate issues! As I have less than 13 minutes, I will select but a few to remind my colleagues of the inconsistency of the modern-day Labor Party over the last four years. For example, we recall that in 2007 the Labor Party promised to cut the bill for consultants substantially as part of their budget savings. And yet over the following two years they spent over $1 billion on consultants. They said they would build a broadband network for $4.7 billion. They have had a $30 billion blow-out. They said they would simplify the GST paperwork for small business. The shadow minister would appreciate that. They promised BAS easy in 2007, and then they scrapped it in 2009. What about the trade training centres, my colleague the shadow minister for education? They promised 2,650 trade training centres. But they have delivered one. And how could we forget Peter Garrett, the former minister for the environment? He promised to take Japan to the International Court of Justice to stop whaling. Of course, that never eventuated either. With Fuelwatch—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad my colleague here is so obsessed with Fuelwatch—rather uncomfortably obsessed with Fuelwatch for a while. Fuelwatch was promised because according to former Prime Minister Rudd it would bring down petrol prices. Alas, not only did Fuelwatch fail but the petrol commissioner quit after just four months—another failure. The government then said they would take over public hospitals in mid-2009. They failed to do that. They said they would deliver 36 GP superclinics and they have only delivered 11.

They promised one regulation in, one regulation out. I understand the total number of new regulations since Labor was elected exceeds 10,000. How many have been abolished?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A handful. There are 220 for each one.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two hundred and twenty new regulations for every one that they have abolished. Remember they said they would establish a department of homeland security? It was never delivered. They said they would have an independent election debate commission. That was never delivered. What a grandiose claim computers in schools were. There has been a $1.2 billion blowout and they have not delivered a computer on every desk. With childcare centres the former Prime Minister promised to end the double drop-off. They promised 260 childcare centres. They delivered just 38 and then they had the Minister for Sport announce they were not going to continue with the program.

With private health insurance, the former Prime Minister gave an ironclad guarantee to the Australian people he would not touch private health insurance. Then he had a backflip and wanted to introduce a means test. Of course, speaking of means tests, the Labor Party said they would not touch the baby bonus, but of course they touched the baby bonus. They had their little socialist mitts all over the baby bonus and that was the end of it.

The minister at the table, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, knows this one because she has contributed to it: the Commonwealth public bureaucracy. The Labor Party promised they would cut the red tape and cut the bureaucrats. Since they were elected 20,000 extra public servants have been employed in Canberra.

But there is more. There is a set of steak knives coming down the path. The government said it would not touch employee share schemes and then it had an on-again, off-again attack on employee share schemes. I forgot about this next one. The government promised green incentives, including a $50 green rewards card. I completely forgot about that but so did Labor. It was never delivered. Then there was GROCERY choice. You remember old Swanee used to have a list of a basket of goods from the local Franklins that he would take out each week. He would say how hard Australians were doing it. He said, 'We're going to bring down those grocery prices because we're going to watch them.' GROCERY choice, promised in 2007, was abandoned in 2009. They promised there would be no cap on the bank deposit guarantee 12 days before they introduced one.

Then they said they would impose no new taxes. This is perhaps the most breathtaking of their broken promises. They promised no new taxes and now, after four years, Labor have introduced or increased 19 taxes. The most substantial backflips have been on the things that matter most to the Australian people, and that is where it hits their hip pocket.

The government said that they needed for moral purposes to have an emissions trading scheme. It was the greatest moral challenge of our time. Then they broke that commitment. Even worse, the leaders behind that broken commitment were the now Prime Minister and the now Deputy Prime Minister. So I can understand the grim face of the member for Griffith when he walks into this chamber each day and has to suffer the fact that it is the now Prime Minister who sits near the dispatch box, because she was the lady who advised him to dump the emissions trading scheme. It was the then Deputy Prime Minister who advised him to dump the emissions trading scheme. So he is wondering: how does that work? Not only does the policy come back, but these guys get promoted after they misled me.

This indicates that there is a continuum in relation to this mob, which is that they need to impose a tax where they see a problem. When they see the problem of alcohol consumption by young people, in comes an alcopops tax. When they see that the Australian car industry is doing it tough, they increase the tax on luxury cars. When they see that the health system is suffering because there is not enough money going into it, they try to impose additional costs on private health insurance. When the government see that the mining industry is driving business investment—it has gone from 15 per cent of every dollar invested in Australia 10 years ago to nearly 60c in every dollar now—what do the government do? They whack a tax on it.

Of course, when it comes to carbon emissions, the government's great big solution to that is to whack another tax on it. But of all the new taxes, of all the insidious acts of this government, I truly believe that the one that most riled the Australian people was when the Prime Minister asked the Australian people to give generously for the flood victims in Queensland. After they donate money, organise community fund­raisers, have telethons—after Australians go out of their way to give whatever discretionary sums they have available to help their mates in Queensland—what does the government do? It whacks a tax on it. No wonder the Australian people are so cynical, because this means that now the Australian people do not trust their Prime Minister and their Treasurer.

It was Kevin Rudd at a press conference on 29 February 2008 who said:

Trust is the key currency of politics …

Little did he know that he would become a devalued currency. He would become the peso of the Pacific as soon as trust became the key currency of politics. But it goes further, because in down time at night, when I am suffering a little bit of insomnia, what do I turn to? I turn to the words of the current Prime Minister. I dug out these words from the current Prime Minister on 10 May 2005:

… the Labor Party is the party of truth telling.

I believe the words still stand. Come on, Bill, rush to her defence!

The government is so inept that, when the Prime Minister took the job in the night of the long knives, with barely a year to go, she said:

I asked my colleagues to make a leadership change, a change because I believed that a good government was losing its way.

The good government that was losing its way is now a bad government that is still losing its way. The bad government that is still losing its way is having an impact on the confidence of the Australian people. The bad government which has lost its way is now causing so much concern to Australian consumers that, according to latest Westpac-Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment Index, confidence fell to the lowest level in two years last month. So we have unemployment falling, we have economic growth improving, we have the best terms of trade in 140 years, and everyday Australians have less confidence than they did two years ago in the wake of the financial crisis.

Do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is reflected in the fact that Australians are cocooning themselves, wrapping themselves in a security blanket, afraid of the instability coming out of Canberra. Household savings have increased to 11½ per cent of disposable income, a level not seen since the global financial crisis back in 2007-08. Australians are wrapping themselves up. Their discretionary spend is down remarkably, and why? Because of the incompetence of this government, because of the inconsistency of this government, because of the fact that this government cannot hold a policy from midnight to dawn. It cannot even hold a prime minister from midnight to dawn, let alone hold a policy from midnight to dawn. This is a government that has no trust. It does not trust itself, so how can it expect the Australian people to trust it? How can it expect the Australian people to believe what it says?

Mr Shorten interjecting—

And here we have the chief spear chucker.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honourable members will direct their remarks through the chair, and that includes the Assistant Treasurer.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have the man sharpening his knives. There is one person who pays a visit to Shortie's house every week, and that is the knife sharpener. He comes around for 20 bucks a knife, and he sharpens them up for old Billy, because Billy and his mate Paul Howes are just waiting for the moment. They are waiting for the moment, just as they did with Prime Minister Rudd. When he was not looking, along came the knives. So too it comes again. Once an animal has blood on his teeth, he will have the blood again. It is easy to kill twice; it is hard to kill once. But the Assistant Treasurer has done it, and the Australian people know it.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Assistant Treasurer will have his go shortly.

Honourable members interjecting—

The member for North Sydney will be heard in silence.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to competence, when it comes to consistency, when it comes to truth, when it comes to honesty, when it comes to personal integrity, the Australian people have identified the Labor Party as missing all of that. They have identified that the Labor Party is without leadership. It is not consistent. It is not honest. It is not genuine.

In some parts of Australia, they refer to it as bovine defecation. In other parts of Australia they call it bullshit. It is the fact that this mob do not tell the truth, and if they do not tell the truth they cannot expect the Australian people to believe in them. If they do not trust each other, how can the Australian people trust them? If they do not have a consistent plan for the nation, how can they expect the Australian people to trust them? (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I entered this place being an optimist and I am always optimistic that Mr Hockey will say something of substance. I will not give up, even though we did not hear anything in the last 15 minutes to sustain my optimism. In fact, when I was looking at some of the great Joe Hockey comments in politics, I realised that he added to the list last night at the CEDA dinner. Mr Hockey was the guest star speaker at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. In a question-and-answer session, with Mr Hockey perhaps after dinner in a moment of veritas, or truth, he was asked about his greatest regret in politics: 'Mr Hockey, what's your greatest regret in politics?' There were 200 people there to hear it, 200 witnesses. When he was pressed for an honest answer, Mr Hockey hesitated—and obviously I cannot do his avuncular, hail-fellow-well-met style—and said, 'Not pushing John Howard harder to go.' There is the Liberal Party: no consistency. They pretend to be one thing and yet they do another thing.

The people listening to parliament may or may not be aware of what the process of a matter of public importance is. It is an opportunity for the opposition to debate a matter of the day, a topic of the day. The topic which the opposition were raising and which they said they wanted to debate was consistency in financial management, so I thought I would prepare and speak to the topic, as opposed to perhaps doing the more ad hominem personal attacks beloved of some in the opposition, the low-rent behaviour which we saw yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition when we had the visiting Prime Minister of New Zealand—the first time ever that we have had the Prime Minister of New Zealand on the floor of parliament. We saw that our Prime Minister spoke appropriately. She did not try and score any points off the opposition, because sometimes in politics the moment is greater than the individuals. We had the Prime Minister of New Zealand here in part to recognise the work we have done after their terrible tragedies in Christchurch. Our Prime Minister understands, as does the government, that sometimes you have to suspend the verbal hostilities and the jousting and say, 'The whole nation is on display.' So she spoke, presented the case for Australia and recognised New Zealand's fundamental importance to Australia. But then the Leader of the Opposition came to his feet. We in the government did not think he would, but we sort of half expected that he would not fail to disappoint, and he in fact did disappoint us when he started having a crack at the government in front of the visiting Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Some people in politics say that it should always be winner take all; it does not matter what you do, whatever it takes, you just have to win the argument at all costs. But the government is not informed by that sort of low-rent politics. We think that we have to encourage Australians to not be afraid of the future—and this is one of the big things, when we look at consistency in this political debate at the moment, that the opposition are not interested in. They want to scare the Australian public. They are not interested in consistent economic debate. So I would like to present for the benefit of the House and, indeed, those who listen to parliament some propositions about what the Gillard government is actually doing in terms of consistent economic management. Let me start off with the fundamentals, the economy—a topic the opposition do not always come to in question time. What has happened since the global financial crisis is that we have seen a very big hit from 2008 on on Commonwealth revenues. In other words, the Australian economy felt the effects of the global financial crisis. Obviously from Ireland to Greece to Portugal to Europe and North America we have seen terrible effects where there has been a massive downturn in economic activity. We saw the collapse of Lehman Bros, the big bank in New York, on Wall Street. That has had repercussions throughout the Western world. Australia was not immune. Corporate profits were terribly hit in 2008 and 2009 and indeed we still feel some of the after-effects now. That is one of the challenges this government has had to contend with, the largest economic dislocation since the Great Depression.

This government stared the issues in the face. We said, 'Okay, on the best economic advice we have got we need to stimulate the economy, we have got to guarantee the security of the banks, we have got to make sure that people have some money to spend to help stimulate the retail economy, we have got to make sure people are in work.' That is why we have done the greatest expenditure on the school system, on the primary schools of Australia, that we have ever seen. Through the stimulus package combining with our education agenda, what we have seen this government do and continue to do as new facilities open up is for the first time in 40 or 50 years we are seeing resources being built in the schools of Australia which are as good as the homes that Australians live in. What an important message about the priority of education, the fundamental uplift in quality of education, sent by our Prime Minister when she was education minister to say that we know we have got to keep people in work, we know there are thousands of tradespeople all around Australia who are affected by the downturn, the global financial crisis to which I was referring. What our Prime Minister did was say, 'Enough is enough. We have to make decisions,' as did the whole of the government. We have seen now something like 9,000 projects started and many completed and many to be completed in the near future. What we have also seen is a message sent to the children of Australia from their parents, the taxpayers, and the government of Australia that we think education is important. We want children to be educated in facilities which are as good as the homes they live in, sending an important message about education.

When I talk about how we have coped with the financial crisis and the consistent economic management of the Labor government, we have to recognise what we have done to get our finances back into shape. It is a little-known story that the reduction in Commonwealth tax revenue had a massive impact. Imagine if you are a business in Australia and instead of having 100 per cent of the revenue you had for any number of years it is down to 83 per cent of the revenue but you still have to carry on 100 per cent of the functions and more. That is what we have been doing. Yet we have seen the fastest turnaround on record in terms of getting the budget heading towards being back in the black. The opposition conveniently like to state when they trail their usual rhetoric against the government that in fact the global financial crisis was just a hiccup. Let us not forget what the Leader of the Opposition said on 12 March 2009. He said, 'We are against the government's stimulus package.' Let us not forget that the opposition opposed the stimulus package consistently and now they are trying to resist us getting the budget back into the black.

It is not just getting the budget back into the black which is important. We understand that having a surplus in the budget is important to withstand future ups and downs of economic life on this globe of ours. Australia is an island geographically but we are not disconnected from what happens in the rest of the world. That is why we have been working so hard to reduce our debt. Let us put this debt debate in context. The opposition like to say, 'We are low-taxing and the government is high-taxing.' But the numbers actually contradict that myth. The opposition when they were in power had the mining boom mark 1 and an increase in financial surpluses and they just spent the money.

We have had the privilege of coming to office but at a time when revenues are down. We have had to continue the functions of government and we have had to borrow money to carry out the functions of gover­nment, and to carry out the reconstruction work after the natural disasters. It has not just been the global financial crisis; we have seen cyclones and floods, we have seen the bushfires in Western Australia. We have seen a massive set last summer of terrible climatic events. Billions of dollars of infrastructure have been wrecked and lost. So what we have to do is make hard decisions to find the money to help Queenslanders get back on their feet and other people who are flood affected get back on their feet by making sure the roads get repaired, the bridges get repaired, the railways get repaired, making sure that people have the opportunity to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.

So we have consistently managed through an extreme set of economic circumstances, and at the same time we have got the mining boom. You have got a trifecta of events. You had the global financial crisis, you had the terrible climatic events and then we have also seen the mining boom mark 2, which has been a great outcome for people working in the mining sector and the construction sector related to mining and for people providing services to mining. But the whole Australian economy is not receiving the benefits in the same way. We have certainly seen massive capital expansion in the mining sector. We are seeing good rates of pay and we are seeing that jobs in the mining sector are going very well, but at the same time our dollar has gone up—we have a very high Australian dollar. So the mining boom is having good and negative effects. The rest of the world is interested in our currency, especially as America is depressed in terms of the value of its dollar. So we have sections of the Australian economy that trade with the rest of the world—be it inbound tourism, domestic tourism, parts of retail, regional parts of Australia—who are doing it a lot harder than other parts of Australia. This government is determined that we spread the benefits of the mining boom to all.

The opposition like to have a bet each way on this issue. On the one hand they do not like our Commonwealth mineral resource rent tax but they like it when the West Australian Premier increases tax on mining. I think this smacks of double standards. Why is it that a Liberal tax is a good tax but a Labor tax is a bad tax? I can tell you why: because there is a lack of intellectual consistency.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The state owns the minerals.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson says the state owns the minerals. Do you know who I think owns the minerals? The Australian people—West Australians, Queenslanders, Australians. I respect the fact that the member for Dawson has been elected but he is a new member in this place and what he should understand is that a lot of Australians do not actually think that these resources belong to just one company or several companies. Companies operate under a licence and, when you use finite resources, they are gone. What is left after that? I admire Australian mining companies. I have dealt with many of them. I admire multinational mining companies, maybe not as much as the member for Dawson but I accept they are very important in the Australian economy. What I also know is that when they move on they move on. I have worked as a union rep in Townsville and when the company moves on there is not a lot of love left after they have gone. We on this side know that a mining boom does not last forever. In an uneven economy we want to spread the prosperity of the mining boom. So, what are we going to do? We are going to decrease company tax for all 2½ million businesses in Australia, and not just look after the mining sector.

We want to make sure that superannuation goes up from nine to 12 per cent, because we think it is important that when people retire after working for 40 years they have enough money to retire on.

Wyatt Roy interjecting—

I know that that is not a big issue for the member for Longman. He will have a distinguished career in life, I have no doubt. But what I do know is that if you are baby boomer, born at some time between 1945 and 1965, you may work for 30 or 40 years but chances are you will not have had the chance in many cases to save enough money to retire. Whilst we do have the safety net of the age pension, which this government has increased—

Wyatt Roy interjecting—

I know the age pension does not worry the member for Longman, but it worries a lot of other people in his electorate.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Longman is obviously not in his seat.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want to make sure that our people have adequate retirement incomes. This is a very important issue. We want to use the mining tax to replace forgone Commonwealth revenue as we provide the opportunity for Australians to have money put aside in superannuation savings, which are taxed at a lower rate than they otherwise would be.

Let me also tell you why I think we are consistent and those opposite are not. Any member of parliament elected before 2004 gets what they call a defined benefit scheme. Very nice. I wasn't elected then, but very nice for those who have got it.

Opposition members interjecting—

Indeed, there would be several opposite who can sympathise with this point. But if you were elected after 2004 you get 15 per cent super, which is a very generous deal. What I do not like is that those opposite would vote for Australians at large to get only nine per cent. My view is that if it is good enough for us it is good enough for the people. If it is good enough for members of parliament, we need to lift super. All point-scoring aside, I know that there would be plenty on the opposition side who would think that there is a case there.

Let me be clear: we are consistent. We have invested in education.

Opposition members interjecting—

I know that when people are embarrassed they sometimes laugh to hide their embarrassment. I think we have just seen a little bit of a laboratory experiment from those opposite.

We are seeking to consistently manage this economy. Another problem that we are consistent on is that we know climate change is real. We heard the Prime Minister of New Zealand say that he thinks climate change is real. We have had all the scientists from around Australia come to visit Canberra and they think climate change is real. The problem is that those opposite are run by a gentleman, Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, who has the intellectual curiosity of an Inquisition monk. He is not greatly interested in the science. Although, at different times the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has said that a carbon tax is a good idea and at other times he has supported an emissions trading scheme. Certainly, when he realised that he might have a third of the caucus to back him to knock of Malcolm Turnbull, he was then prepared to go very hardline right wing—very hardline and very right wing.

Then we had the shadow Treasurer, who entertained us so jovially before. He said that what you think about climate change is a matter of conscience. I love that.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Honourable members will not interject from outside their seat.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the attention of the House to this matter. We are consistent, the coalition are not. We are determined to manage this economy for the long term and not the short term. We are focused on the best interests of Australians, not tomorrow's headlines in the newspapers.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this matter of public importance we have just been treated to another lecture from the high moral ground by the Assistant Treasurer—as he leaves the chamber—defending the failure of this government: their failure on trust and their failure on competence. He might leave the chamber, just as he leaves every single issue of importance in his portfolio.

The Assistant Treasurer said the Australian public should not be scared about the future. The Australian public are scared about the Gillard government. They are scared about what they are doing and what they will do if they get the chance. This matter of public importance goes to the heart of the failure of this government. Australians are losing confidence because of this government. They are losing confidence because this has proved to be an incompetent government and because this government cannot be trusted. Those members opposite—the Assistant Treasurer has departed the chamber—will stand here and defend 3½ years of utter incompetence. It is incompetence on a scale we have not seen before.

Policy failure and policy debacle from this government are like matchbox cars: there are a million of them. You start at the beginning, as the shadow Treasurer did, and you move through each budget and each announce­ment. Every announcement they have made of any scale has either blown out or not been delivered. The shadow Treasurer mentioned the computers in schools—$1.2 billion, I think he said.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A wonderful program.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A wonderful program, says the parliamentary secretary. A wonderful program not delivered and with a $1 billion-plus blowout. Building the Education Revolution had a $1.7 billion blowout and waste in every corner of the country. More than $1 billion here and $1.7 billion there; waste all over the country. But these $1 billion and $2 billion figures are just rounding errors to those opposite.

The Assistant Treasurer has only been a minister for a short period of time. But let's give him one thing: he has caught on very quickly to this litany of incompetence. He gave us another speech from the high moral ground—he almost needs an oxygen tank, he is up so high. But it has not taken him long to fit in with the incompetence of this government. We did not hear one thing from the Assistant Treasurer about competent administration. We did not hear one squeak from him to acknowledge failure on behalf of this government. It is that very failure in policy delivery that is making the Australian public so nervous about this government and about economic circumstances in Australia. He was here today on this matter of public importance and he could have addressed one of the issues for which he is responsible. A week ago he woke up to a front page of the Financial Review that showed the luxury car tax is being rorted. Those behind me will remember that the luxury car tax, which has existed for some time, was massively increased by this government from 25 to 33 per cent in 2008. You would think it would be pretty obvious that when you massively increase a tax like that the incentives for would-be rorters to evade it would increase correspondingly. So what steps did the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, take to ensure enforcement was beefed up to deal with what was obviously a heightened risk with the higher tax rate that those opposite brought in? Apparently none. What follow-through was there? Apparently none.

As those behind me will readily agree, the Treasurer's ignorance and incompetence leading to another policy debacle is not really news—situation normal from the Treasurer, Mr Swan. But what about the bloke who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the tax office, the Assistant Treasurer, who was here before during this debate and has now departed from the chamber? It is seven days since this story appeared. Seven days ago the Assistant Treasurer woke up to the front page of the Financial Review and discovered he has a rupture in the luxury car tax the size of the tear in the side of the Titanic. And what has he got to say about it? Absolutely nothing. For seven days he has said nothing. We can only assume he has done absolutely nothing. We do not know what he plans to do about it, but we can assume from the past actions of this government that his first step, in the tradition of this government, will be to do absolutely nothing. He will hope it goes away, just like the Prime Minister hoped the Building the Education Revolution debacles would go away.

The Assistant Treasurer ought to do something no other minister in the Rudd or Gillard governments have done—that is, take responsibility. He should come forward and actually own up to the mess they have created and candidly tell the Australian people how they are going to fix it. But of course whenever there is any criticism of this government those opposite just say it is a scare campaign. It is not a scare campaign; it is a truth campaign. Truth is an issue this government also has a great problem with. A guy at the local football club summed it up pretty well when he said, 'I don't know what frightens me more: when they try and implement a policy and muck it up or the anger it causes me when they break their word. I'm not sure which upsets me more.'

We have talked about the blow-outs and the incompetence. The Australian public are rightly angry about those and they know that this government cannot do better. This government cannot improve; its incomp­etence level is locked into its DNA. But this government is also fundamentally untruthful. We have seen it with the Prime Minister over and over again. Six days before the last election she said, 'There will not be a carbon tax under the government I lead', and a day before the election on the front page of the Australian was the very same commitment. That was not a commitment that came out of the blue. It was considered, it was calculated and she made that commitment knowing it not to be true.

The Treasurer seems to slip through a lot of this, but he said exactly the same thing. On 15 August he told Meet the Press that to suggest the government was moving towards a carbon tax was an 'hysterical allegation'—and that is exactly what they are doing. We have come to expect this from the Treasurer, and the public now know that this Treasurer is both incompetent and untrustworthy. The member for Griffith knows this well. We are coming up to the first anniversary of the member for Griffith's demise as Prime Minister.

Opposition members interjecting—

'Fundamental injustice day', said a colleague behind me. It is fundamental injustice day 2, the sequel, because the member for Griffith named the introduction of the goods and services tax as 'fundamental injustice day'. Three hundred and sixty-five days ago, a couple of days before the coup, the Treasurer was supporting the Prime Minister. The press tell us that the Treasurer still, in all that time, has not had a proper conversation with the foreign minister. It is getting on to the first anniversary. And he was such a loyal Treasurer! We are told by the press gallery in all the accounts of that night that this spineless Treasurer did not even have the courage to tell the then Prime Minister he was bailing on him. The Australian public knows someone like that cannot be trusted with the economy and the decisions— (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Parramatta I will remind members that it is disorderly to interject from outside their seats and, under standing order 64, it is disorderly to refer to other honourable members by their names. I was reluctant to interrupt the offenders on both sides of the chamber with respect to those two matters. I now give the call to the honourable member for Parramatta.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the previous two opposition speakers, one would not know we were talking about a matter of public importance involving consistency and confidence. In fact, I do not think the mover of the motion mentioned either of those two words. Instead, we got a rather low-level comedy routine from a man who pretends he is capable of being the Treasurer of this country. It is not surprising, because this is not an opposition that cares about confidence; it is an opposition that takes every opportunity to run scare campaigns to damage confidence.

This motion today on rebuilding confidence in the Australian economy is hypocrisy writ large. It is yet another stunt from an opposition without a single idea, an opposition that takes every opportunity to claim that the world will end at any moment. If that were right, the world would have ended several times in the last few months alone. The opposition exaggerates; it misinforms on a daily basis. The Leader of the Opposition goes on national tours to promote fear in any way he can to anyone he can, to weaken confidence and to provoke doubt.

And then they come in here and move a motion about consistency and confidence and, true to form, do not even bother to talk about it. The truth is that they do not want confidence in the Australian economy because it does not suit their political self-interest. Fear is the method they use. They undermine confidence. That is the game they play, and they play that game with the lives and welfare of Australians.

Then there is the word 'consistency' from this opposition—a motion about consistency from an opposition with a leader who is a self-proclaimed weathervane. He gets up every morning and decides his policy position based on which way the wind is blowing—the political wind, that is. They are consistent about one thing, and that is that they oppose everything and anything every single day. No matter what it is, they oppose it. Recently we even saw, when it came to the alternative fuels bill, that they opposed their own policy. It is opposition at all costs. From the masters of the scare campaign, from the masters of confusion and doubt, suddenly we have a motion about consistency and confidence. That, quite frankly, is a joke, and it is not surprising that they did not bother to speak on it.

The opposition has one more speaker to go. Maybe you can actually do it. Maybe you can actually address the motion you have moved in this House as a matter of such importance that we are spending an hour and a half debating it. The opposition has another 10 minutes to actually speak to it. It would take a serious change in the behaviour of the opposition and the attitudes of those opposite for anyone to take this motion seriously.

I would actually like to speak to this motion, because confidence and consistency are extremely important, and the government has been delivering sound, consistent policy. It has resulted in the positive economic outcomes that the shadow Treasurer referred to in his speech—in one of his more lucid moments. We have been delivering sound policy, but there is no doubt a sense of uncertainty out there and we do need to acknowledge that. The opposition are not causing it, but they are thrashing about in every way they can to try to find a way to exploit it for their own political benefit.

Let us acknowledge some of that uncertainty and what the most likely causes are. There was a global financial crisis a few years ago. I know the opposition try to pretend it did not happen—they do that every day—but it did happen. It was not the making of the government, but we weathered the storm as a nation better than did just about any developed country in the world. There is consistent talk still about problems in Europe—again, not a problem of the government's making and not related to Australian circumstances. There is unrest in the Middle East—again, something that makes people feel uneasy. We have had earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, cyclones and fires around the world, among our neighbours and in our own backyard, which have resulted in short-term increases in prices, particularly for food. But we are already, as a nation, rebuilding after those disasters. We are already out there rebuilding the roads, the rail, the schools, the public buildings and the homes.

There is a growing need to act on climate change. A new resources boom is on its way. Economic power around the world is changing. We have a strong dollar, putting pressure on manufacturing. These are times of change and readjustment and they can cause unease among people in our communities and around the country. What you do not do in times like this is run fake scare campaigns. You do not come out every day finding a way to exploit that uncertainty for your own political gain. You do not do that, members of the opposition. It is not the right thing to do, particularly when you know in your heart of hearts how well the economy is travelling. Again, we had acknowledgement from the shadow Treasurer just 20 minutes ago about that.

We are in an excellent position as a nation to respond to the challenges that face us. We have the capacity within us as a people and we are in a very, very strong economic position. Australians can be confident about the future. We have strong jobs growth and business investment, and our public finances are the envy of the world. That shows that we are continuing to get the policy settings right. You do not get the policy settings right through times like this because you are incompetent, as the opposition would say, or because of inconsistency. In fact, it is quite the opposite. No other developed country in the world has steered its economy through the present financial times as well as this one has. That is acknowledged broadly.

Let me refer to a couple of other organisations and people around the world who confirm that. The IMF, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the global rating agencies have all backed the strength of our budget position and the strategy to return the budget to surplus. S&P said recently that Australia has exceptionally strong public sector finances, underpinned by low public debt and strong fiscal discipline. In response to the recent budget, S&P noted:

… the sound profile of Australia's public finances, which remain among the strongest of our peer group.

Moody's said that the budget demonstrates the government's determination to return to fiscal surplus and that our government debt remains among the lowest of all AAA-rated governments. So it seems that many respected agencies around the world will confirm that the Australian economy is travelling incredibly well, particularly given the extraordinary circumstances the world has faced in the last three years.

We saw the national accounts delivered on Wednesday. We saw a slight contraction in the quarter of about 1.2 per cent but one per cent growth across the year. It was encouraging to see the components of GDP, such as consumption, dwelling investment and business investment, growing in the first three months of this year. We have already seen a strong rebound in the economy in the monthly figures. Trade data shows that coal exports were up by almost 16 per cent over the past two months. Iron ore and metal shipments have gained 23 per cent. We saw a solid gain in retail sales in April, and we know from our own retail sector how important that is. In fact, it was the biggest monthly increase in 17 months. Australians can be confident about our strong fundamentals. Our economy is forecast to create around 500,000 jobs in the next couple of years, and an unprecedented pipeline of mining investment is on its way. In the last 12 months, prior to the budget, 258,000 Australians gained jobs.

We are consistent on this side of the chamber about the need to put a price on carbon. We went to the 2007 election committed to putting a price on carbon; we attempted to do that. If there is any inconsistency in this House about this it is from the opposition, who also went to the 2007 election promising to put a price on carbon, contrary to their calls now for a plebiscite to gauge public opinion. In spite of public opinion and public views at that stage, their own commitment to do it and our clear mandate to do it, they voted against it. There was no commitment then to the will of the people. There was no commitment at all when they voted against what was their policy position and something that we had a clear mandate to do.

We also went to the 2010 election with a commitment to pricing carbon. If members of the opposition who do not believe that do a little googling, in the last weeks of the campaign they will find copious newspaper articles where our commitment to price carbon in this term is made very clear. We have been consistent about that and we will deliver on that. We will deliver on pricing carbon because that is the only way to provide consistency—again, what this motion is about—and certainty to business in Australia so that they can move forward, make the investment decisions that they need to, set themselves up and begin the process of exploiting what is a worldwide move to a clean economy. That is consistency, and we could well do with the opposition finding a single position to stand on this for the good of the whole nation.

This is a motion about consistency and confidence, and I am proud to stand up here as part of a government that has delivered consistency in its policies. I am proud to stand up here as part of a government that has delivered a strong economy in what are some very difficult international conditions.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the shadow Treasurer for proposing this matter of public importance for discussion, because there certainly is an urgent need for consistency from this government so that we can restore confidence in the economy. But, sadly, what we heard from the member for Parramatta for over half of her speech was more of the same bleating, finger-pointing, whingeing and whining about the coalition and its policies, pointing to all of the problems and all of the uncertainty that this government, after almost four years and two prime ministers, still has not addressed. That only serves to highlight the absolute deficiency there is on the treasury bench in terms of consistent, well-thought-through policies.

We had the Assistant Treasurer before that with about seven of his caucus members. Boy, Bill, you are sure going to have to do the numbers a bit better—assassination day is coming up pretty quickly! He gave us some propositions on what the government is doing about the economy. They stared at the issues, he said. Well, that was about it. Overpriced school halls, pink batts, $900 money-for-nothing cheques that went to buying plasma TVs from China—none of this saved the economy. What a joke! Neither the Assistant Treasurer nor anyone in this government had anything to do with this country's economic rebound after the GFC. It was the mining industry and the agricultural industry that saved this country from recession, not pink batts and overpriced school halls. And aren't they doing their best to kill off those industries through, firstly, the taxes that the Assistant Treasurer talked about—the carbon tax and the mining tax? The words 'spread the wealth' that he used so liberally are just socialist code for ripping out the money that is being generated in productive regions like Mackay, Townsville, Central and North Queensland and WA and funnelling it off to Sydney, Melbourne and, not to forget, to fill in the ever-growing $107-plus billion worth of government debt that the Assistant Treasurer allowed to be ramped up to $250 billion when he came into this place in the dead of night with his amendment bills to the budget.

What inconsistency we have from the government on a range of different issues. I am going to highlight two of them. We have had this absolute stuff-up of a policy on the live animal exports front. We have seen in the last month just how reckless this inconsistent government is. There was a whole lot of finger-pointing going on after the nation witnessed the barbaric cruelty to Aussie bred cattle on Four Corners. Some blamed Meat and Livestock Australia, some blamed LiveCorp and some blamed the entire industry. But the reality is that a lot of the blame lies with this Gillard Labor government for its slow reaction and indifference to the issue.

Several months after the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, became aware of the footage of cruelty shown on Four Corners, the government finally reacted. And—would you believe it?—they got it right the first go. They did what should have been done as soon as they knew of the cruelty footage when Animals Australia made the minister aware of it. But, before Four Corners, we had the member for Page moving motions that were all but trying to shut down the live export industry. Then we had pressure from people like the member for Fremantle and the member for Wills, two people from those great cattle-grazing electorates of Fremantle and Wills, telling caucus and Minister Ludwig what was to happen—and that was that they were going to shut down the industry. So the government buckled. It was a shining case of inconsistency. The minister buckled by completely banning live cattle exports to Indonesia and, bizarrely, even to abattoirs that use the humane process of stunning. By doing so, the government have now firmly pointed the finger of blame at the entire cattle industry, because they are the only ones penalised by this decision. The government are refusing to compensate graziers, who stand to lose a multimillion dollar export market, instead saying that the MLA should pay when they were the only ones trying to improve practices in Indonesia. The MLA did not ban the live exports; the government did. They should compensate. Better still, they should show some consistency and some compassion for the farmers in North Queensland and reopen live exports to those Indonesian abattoirs whose practices are in accordance with international standards. This is people's lives we are talking about.

A lot of people in this room and around the country may have seen the email doing the rounds from Mr Scot Braithwaite. Scot is the nephew of a former member for Dawson, Ray Braithwaite. He has also been associated with the live export industry for decades, including being employed as a head stockman. I want to take a moment to quote a little bit out of Scot's email where he refers to abattoirs in Indonesia. He says:

One of these facilities is operated and owned by a large Australian pastoral house … The operation is run by a North Queensland man who, through his absolute dedication to excellence, has built a feedlot and slaughtering system that his company, the industry and himself can be very proud of. The system is closed, or the cattle are already killed through their own abattoir. They import 20,000 to 25,000 cattle a year. They have been doing this for the last five years. Why should they be shut down? For what reason could anyone justify closing this operation down, especially without even bothering to look at what goes on.

There are many other abattoirs in Indonesia like it. Why can't trade to those abattoirs be opened? These fakers claim that they are out to protect animals, and what do they do? They vote to remove Australia from the situation, which does nothing for the cattle from other nations or from Indonesia that are going to end up at the abattoirs that are not doing the right thing.

It has occurred to me that there is something missing from this blame game. They are quick to blame Australian farmers and the industry, but they have not said anything about the religion that actually inspires the torture of the cattle there. I find that very hypocritical. We have not heard the member for Wills, the member for Fremantle or the member for Page raise that issue. But they are very quick to sink the boot into the farmers regardless of the consequences.

If we want to have a look further at government inconsistency that is hurting our economy, then there is no greater example than the carbon tax fiasco. The whole country is waiting for some decision and consistency on this issue. The best consistency that we could get would be for the Prime Minister to stick to her election promise: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead.' The best consistency we could get would be for the Treasurer to stick to his election statements. Firstly, on Meet the Press on 15 August 2010, he said, 'What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.' And, secondly, on The7.30 Report on 12 August 2010, he was asked to rule out a carbon tax and said: 'We made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.' We could get some consistency from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and his department, which lists the first of six priorities in its corporate plan this year as being 'delivery of the Government's election commitments'. As I said, the election commitment of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer was that there would be no carbon tax. Perhaps they could give some consistency on this or change the corporate plan to say 'delivery of the Greens election commitments'.

The reality is that there are a couple of ways out of this inconsistency. The government could drop the tax, but I understand and we understand that that would be a very embarrassing thing to do and it would hurt the Greens feelings. So here is another clue for you. How about having a plebiscite? How about letting the people decide? But you will not do that because you are all about hypocrisy and not about democracy.

The Queensland Resources Council has done studies that suggest that in my region there are about half a dozen mines in the Bowen Basin, serviced by Mackay, that would be under threat. They say that worse still is the impact it would have on investment in mining and local industry. We have another view on this matter from the Minister for Resources and Energy, who said that 'no-one can rule out a mine or two closing' under the carbon tax. I wonder if he was saying, 'It is just a mine or two,' when those mines employ thousands of people whose families will suffer because this tax will rip away their jobs. The Mayor of Mackay, Mr Col Meng, described this tax as just another grab for money. He said:

I am very disappointed to say the least that we now have another tax. I'd see regional Australia as certainly going to be the people that bear the brunt of this tax … because transportation and fuel costs will go up … It's just another grab, another tax … and I can't say we are going to get value for money.

I could point to Mick Crowe from the local mining service company, who spoke against the carbon tax. I could point to the chairman of Mackay Canegrowers, Mr Paul Schembri, who thinks that the carbon tax is going to be a 'lead weight in the saddlebags of the sugar industry'. I could point to dozens of people in industries in my electorate. I could probably sit here for another 10 minutes and tell you of some of the other companies around the nation. But I have to say that the only thing consistent about this government is their ability to stuff things up. As a result the economy suffers, the people suffer and the whole nation suffers. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak on this matter of public importance. This MPI was proposed by the member for North Sydney, who has absolutely no clue when it comes to economics. I am pleased that today the shadow Treasurer has finally started to talk about economics, because we never hear him talk much about it. We know why. It is because numbers are not his strong point. Whether it is here, on the opposition front bench or in the party room, numbers are not his strong point. This is why he keeps on with this babble and rubbish. It proves once again that in the opposition you do not have to have a sharp mind. Just because you have a sharp tongue, it does not mean that you have a keen mind.

Today we have the wit from the member for Dawson. I would fair dinkum have to say that the member for Dawson ought to go and have a look at what he said. I tell you what: you have come close to being the most disgraceful thing I have ever seen in parliament.

An opposition member: Have you had a look at yourself?

Yes, I have, and I am quite proud to be up here not using xenophobic tactics or misogynistic tactics to blame everything.

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

Order! The member for McEwen will not respond to interjections from across the chamber.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should know not to go into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. I apologise.

Following the budget, the shadow Treasurer described the global financial crisis as nothing more than a hiccup. What an absolute insult to Australians who have lost their jobs or had their hours cut during what was known as one of the biggest economic downturns across the world. You have to ask the question: what would the member for North Sydney do? How would he have cured our economy during this so-called hiccup? Would he have instructed us to stand on our heads, hold our breath or maybe take a glass of water? In countries like Spain and Ireland unemployment is around 20 per cent due to the global financial crisis. But, according to those on the other side, that was just a hiccup. Twenty per cent of people unemployed!

I know that the people of Australia and particularly the people of my electorate do not view the global financial crisis as a hiccup. It just illustrates the complete disregard that the Liberal Party has for the importance of job security to families across our country. We know too well that during the GFC the Liberal Party opposed stimulus funding, which helped to create and support new jobs, as well as investing in things like education. I am sure that the tuckshop raiders would be out there at the new school hall saying, 'How good is this? We are here getting our photo taken. It is something the Labor government has delivered.' Not one of you has ever got up and said, 'I tell you what, let's not put one of these in my schools.' How many times have you been out to schools and said: 'We shouldn't have this. Your kids don't deserve the best education opportunities. Your kids don't deserve 21st century facilities. We just think that what we are going through is a hiccup.'

An opposition member: You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am very ashamed to be up here talking about how many of the 210 schools in McEwen received brand-new buildings, brand-new classrooms, science and language learning centres! What did you get them? A flagpole—whoop-de-do. That is really going to give you the best education, sitting under a white piece of wood. We are actually out there delivering better teachers, better services and better facilities, to give every kid every opportunity. They will grow up, get an education and say, 'Gee whiz, how did we ever let those people over there into the 43rd Parliament? What were we thinking at that stage?'

Unlike the Liberal Party, we took the GFC seriously. We took action, rather than sitting there and just hoping it would go away, it would fade into the distance.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A bit like the National Party.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A bit like the National Party—but not all the National Party. Some are very good members for their electorates.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Of course. Mr Scott, the Deputy Speaker, is a wonderful member and I hope he is here for a long, long time to come and enjoys a good long parliamentary career.

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

The member for McEwen will—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop crawling?

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

The member for McEwen has the call and he should use his time to address the MPI before the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those opposite are a bunch of nay-sayers and it is becoming increasingly evident that the only preselection process for a Liberal Party candidate is to say no. Then you are guaranteed preselection, because that is all you need to do. You do not need to think of a policy, you do not need to think of a plan and you do not need to have an idea. You just say no and then hit your reaction plans.

If we had listened to that lot over there during the global financial crisis, over 200,000 Australians would now be out of work. But we did not. Instead, because we have policies, because we have plans and because we have ideas, we have created 700,000 jobs right across the country. If we had listened to the nay-sayers over there when it comes to job creation, we would have a massively high unemployment rate—double digits. But we did not. Because we have plans, because we have ideas and because we have that P word that they are so afraid of—policies—we have a steady 4.9 per cent unemployment rate. It is the lowest amongst developed nations in the world. That is something we should be very proud of. This government delivered jobs, which delivers incomes to families and allows the economy to keep going. Australia was saved from the GFC.

If we had listened to you when it came to stimulus funding in schools, 210 schools in McEwen would not have received new buildings or upgrades. They would not have received one cent. But we did not listen to you. We put the plans in place which kept jobs going, kept local economies stimulated and kept people in work. Now we have principals and teachers right across the electorate of McEwen saying that this program, Building the Education Revolution, has brought forward education and their school facilities by 20 to 30 years. That was done after 11 long, dark years of neglect in education by the former Howard govern­ment.

If we listen to the nay-sayers when it comes to putting a price on carbon, our economy, as the Productivity Commission has revealed, would drastically suffer. We quite often hear those opposite saying, 'But the Prime Minister said there would be no carbon tax before the election.' They should come in with the Australian dated 20 August. There was a great article written by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan titled 'Julia Gillard's carbon price promise'. I read this and I thought, 'What's going on here?' There is the Prime Minister saying before the election that she is 'prepared to legislate a carbon price in the new term'. In the new term—that is this term. She said:

I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism …

There you go. That is exactly what we are doing, and that was before the election. It was 20 August—before the election—in the Australian, the great newspaper that you all read and dream of. There it is in black and white. We are delivering exactly what we said before the election. But, of course, when you are sitting there saying, 'No, no, no,' you have no idea. You just cannot hear what goes on around this place.

The Liberal Party's message during the GFC was: 'If you are out of work, tough. Bad luck. You lost your job? Tough luck. You've had your hours at work cut? Tough luck. We will sit here and do nothing.' But they would have been happy, had they still been in government, to cut your working conditions, cut your wages and bring everyone down. That was the only policy they had during their last term in government. It is outrageous that those opposite did not take the struggles of working families seriously. We on this side of the House have a plan. We have a strong Treasurer with a plan to get the budget back into surplus, to create more jobs and a clean energy economy. Those opposite think that their little childlike three-word slogans will get us back into surplus.

But what is the member for North Sydney's excuse for his incompetence? Maybe it has to do with the fact that he cannot concentrate because someone used a blower vac or a lawnmower outside his window and it put him off. It left him in a space where he could not work. That is how frail and brittle he is. It shows that he is just not up to the job. But of course the member for Goldstein knows that. He is circling like a little shark. He is circling there, waiting to take the shadow Treasurer's job, and we know how confident he is. This is the man who went to the 2007 election saying, 'All these Labor Party candidates still work for the government, in breach of section 44 of the Constitution.' That lasted about 10 minutes, because once the press looked at it they found that his detailed research, his hours of energy and effort, were put into looking at websites that were out of date. He googled once and that was it. That is the extent of the ability of the financial mess that those members over there call their financial portfolio spokesman.

This motion is an absolute joke. Someone who has failed every single step of the way when it comes to doing numbers, doing the budget and doing finance policies and who has delivered absolutely nothing comes in and has a crack at our guys. Our Treasurer, as I said, has delivered a strong budget. We are delivering on all our election promises. It is all there in black and white.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Once again, that is evidence you do not listen. I think I just went through that and I know the tuckshop raiders up the back have no idea. (Time expired)

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

The time for this discussion has concluded.