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 failure of the Government to confront Australia's immediate economic challenges.

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

It is certainly a significant and interesting day today. Today the IMF released a report that was unexpectedly bearish about the Australian economy and about the global economy, and Euromoney magazine handed out a number of awards, including an award to the current Treasurer. I have been encouraged by the opposition and a few journalists to offer my generous congratulations to the Treasurer—a Treasurer who is more like Steven Bradbury than he is Peter Costello. I thought: 'Euromoney magazine. I should first check the previous recipients of the award.' Over the last few years we have had two Slovakian ministers, a Serbian, a Nigerian and a Bulgarian. In 2001 there was a Pakistani finance minister. That is quite an extraordinary one, that one. Then there was Poland, Russia, Denmark and the United States. I thought, 'Well, that's not any basis upon which I could give my endorsement to the Treasurer.' So I thought I would go to the Labor Party. I came across the ringing endorsement of the previous winner of the Euromoney finance minister of the year. I quote from Euromoney magazine, which says:

When Euromoney sought comment from the only other Australian ever to have received our award, the famously flinty Keating's instinctive reaction was to tell us "to just f*** off" and "I couldn't give a f***", while curtly offering what appeared to be travel advice, suggesting we visit some place called "buggery".

That was Paul Keating. I have censored this, because I note down the bottom it says:

If anyone wants that information, that is where you can go and get the approval to use Paul Keating's own words in relation to that matter: Mr Hunt at euromoney.com.

I wonder whether I should give congratulations to a Treasurer who inherited $45 billion of net assets in the bank and has now turned that into a net debt of $145 billion.

Opposition members: Shame!

Should I give him congratulations?

Opposition members: No!

Should I give the Treasurer congratulations—a man who inherited a $22 billion surplus and now has a $22 billion deficit? Should I?

Opposition members: No!

Should I praise a Treasurer who has presided over the fastest peacetime accumulation of government debt in Australia's history? Should I?

Opposition members: No!

Should I praise a Treasurer who has not in four years run a budget surplus?

Opposition members: No!

Should I praise a Treasurer who introduced or has announced 19 new or increased taxes?

An opposition member: How many?

Nineteen.

Opposition members: No!

Should I praise a Treasurer who has presided over the most wasteful spending spree in Australia's history—the man who handed out $900 cheques to people who were dead, asking them to stimulate the Australian economy? Should I praise a Treasurer who oversaw a blow-out in the Pink Batts program and a blow-out of billion dollar proportions in the school halls program? Should I praise a Treasurer for his great work in doubling the cost of computers in schools?

Opposition members: No!

No. Should I praise a Treasurer who has turned a $4 billion broadband network into a $39 billion broadband network? Should I praise a Treasurer who wants to introduce a carbon tax?

Opposition members: No!

Should I praise a Treasurer who wants to introduce a mining tax?

Opposition members: No!

Should I praise the most incompetent Treasurer Australia has ever had?

Opposition members: No!

This is a Treasurer who is the Steven Bradbury of finance ministers. The difference is he is skating on Peter Costello's skates. That is what he is doing. He is a man who has come through. He is a survivor. That is all he is. He is not a reformer. He is desperately clinging to the title of 'reformer'. He is not a reformer. It is not reform to have had five different positions on climate change and the pricing of carbon. He is not a reformer to have had four different versions of a mining tax. He is not a reformer. He is not a reformer to have had had three different policies in 48 hours during the financial crisis on just how much of people's deposits should be guaranteed by the Commonwealth government. He is not a Treasurer that engenders confidence. He is not a Treasurer that has the AA, AAA—whatever it might be—standard that we would expect of someone running a AAA economy. He is not someone who is ever countenanced in the list of potential Labor prime ministers. In fact there was a survey recently of the top 10 candidates to be the leader of the Labor Party and—you know what?—in that 10 they had Bob Brown and Malcolm Turnbull and they didn't even have Wayne Swan. Why? Because everyone knows that this is a Treasurer who is good at surfing—surfing the hard work of everyday Australians. He is a Treasurer that is committed to lots of spin and heroic statements. He is not a Treasurer that engenders confidence, that builds confidence, in the Australian economy. He is not someone that you would follow over the top in a great battle when the whistle is blown. He is not that man. I would say to you the challenges are significant. This Treasurer said in this House in his last budget speech that it was vitally important for Australian pensioners and Australian home owners to have a budget surplus in 2012-13. You can imagine how he has become a figure of ridicule, for in a few short months since then he has changed that iron-clad commitment to a budget surplus to variations of an objective, an expectation, a determination, a plan and a guiding principle, and then this morning, speaking to an audience around Australia, he said he was going to give it his best shot. This is not a Treasurer that is going to inspire confidence. He is not a Treasurer that will bring the budget back to surplus. He might promise a surplus in 2012-13, but the test will be whether he will deliver.

This is a Treasurer who said when it came to the carbon tax that it would be budget neutral—$4.5 billion more in costs than the revenue raised over the next three years. Oops, that's an Ian Thorpe moment. Even now it is emerging that his much lauded mining tax, which the Treasurer had the hide in this place to claim as great reformist policy, is turning into a dog's breakfast, because he and the now Prime Minister, together with the member for Batman, formed a partnership—a trio partnership—to negotiate with just three miners, BHP, Rio and Xstrata, immediately before the last election. Is that what a commendable Treasurer would do—form a partnership to enter into a secret negotiation with BHP, Rio and Xstrata that left all the mid-tier miners behind, that left hundreds of miners behind? Is that the work of a competent Treasurer? He has had numerous versions of the mining tax. Now he has got a problem, because he has got Western Australia and New South Wales syphoning the royalties out of his own mining tax revenue.

That is not the work of a good Treasurer. How could a good Treasurer, under any circumstances, agree to put set-top boxes in pensioners' homes at a cost that is greater than a new television set? How could a Treasurer agree to that? How could a Treasurer sit idly by with waste and mismanagement across the entire government, with blow-outs in deficit, with blow-outs in taxes and with changes in policy that have left Australians bewildered, confused and in economic terms cocooning. They are cocooning because they are increasingly nervous about the future. This is not a Treasurer whom we are proud of that would strut the world stage, talking up all of our great initiatives here in Australia. This is not a Treasurer who has laid down a plan for our economic destiny which gives business confidence to go out and employ more people. This is not a Treasurer of whom Australia could be proud. This is a Treasurer who has found himself surfing the challenge of the financial crisis with tens of billions of dollars in the bank—the best banking system in the world. He has been fortunate, as have we all, to have a Reserve Bank that has been able to move monetary policy quicker than others because the transmission factor into Australian home loans is greater than most other Western countries.

Australians expect more of their government than is being delivered by this government. They expect an economic plan. They expect a government that when it says something it means it, that when it means something it does it. The government should be trusted by the Australian people. This government is not trusted by the Australian people. Reading the Euromoney magazine endorsement of the Treasurer, I thought to myself: why aren't there any ringing third-party endorsements? There are none. Not even Saul Eslake has given a ringing endorsement of the performance of this Treasurer. Why not? Because everyone knows it has been the combined effort of the Australian people, like the people in the gallery here, everyday Australians who work hard and make sacrifices to try to improve the lot of their families. They are the people who have done the heavy lifting. They are the people who deserve the award. From our perspective, Australia deserves a government it can trust, a government that is not confused and a government that does not make promises it cannot deliver.

Now the Treasurer is about to give a ministerial statement on the tax summit—a tax summit that has been forced upon him by the three Independents, a tax summit that he has now so constrained in its deliverance that everyone knows that nothing is going to come out of it. He is now going to do that on top of the Henry tax review, the great review, the landmark review, that made 138 recommendations. This Treasurer had the deep courage to accept 2½ recommendations.

Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that does not come up with a new thought-bubble policy every 24 hours. They deserve a government that is consistent, a government that has a Treasurer who understands what he is saying. On numerous occasions my colleagues and I have asked this Treasurer simple questions such as: how many companies will be affected by the carbon tax? On Wednesday he said 1,000 and on Thursday he said 500. We went looking for the 500 missing Australian companies. We looked in the dispatch box—they were not there. We looked under the table—they were not there. We looked in the TV sets. We looked everywhere for 500 companies that within 24 hours went missing—the 500 biggest polluters, as they call them. Do you know what we discovered? It is now 400, because the Treasurer revised his own figure about those people impacted by his own tax.

Let us be very clear: Australia does face some significant economic challenges on the road ahead. Europe is looking anaemic; the United States is struggling to inflate its economy. It still has a high level of unemployment. Perhaps commodity prices will come down, as the IMF has suggested. In that case, as I identified in the government's own budget papers, a four per cent variation in the terms of trade will completely wipe out any chance of a budget surplus. That will be the symbolic moment when it is proven that this government does not keep its word, that this is a Labor Party that does not live within its means. It is a Labor Party that is more concerned about its own jobs than about the jobs of everyday Australians. It is a Labor Party that is more concerned about protecting unionists than protecting our country. I say to you: the reason why we do not offer our heartfelt congratulations to this Treasurer is because the Treasurer is the member for Lilley.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was the least graceful performance in the history of this parliament. It began by insulting a number of nations with whom we have relationships. It moved on to tell the same sordid year-7 joke about female genitalia that goes on in a boys school. It went on to that and it did not get better. You do not lift yourself up by dragging other people down. The fact is: when Paul Keating won the award as the world's best Treasurer, the then opposition showed grace and congratulated him—in an act of decency, in an act of maturity and in the national interest. What those opposite have shown yet again today is that they are incapable of that. Whilst the Treasurer was showing leadership in protecting Australians from the impact of the global financial crisis, the shadow Treasurer's main concern was the noise of the leaf blower outside his office in Parliament House. He was not engaged in the big issues, he was not concerned about jobs. When the economic stimulus plan was put before this parliament, the Leader of the Opposition was literally asleep. He could not drag himself down to vote on those bills.

Let us have a look at what our record is and why it is that the Treasurer has been recognised—not just on his own behalf but on behalf of all Australians, Australian business and Australian working families. He has been recognised because of all Australians' resilience and for Australians' determination to say: 'No, we won't give in to pessimism and negativity. We will ensure that we work issues through in the interests of our national economy and in order to secure the future for ourselves, our kids and our grandkids.' This is what Euromoney magazine had to say today:

… the careful stewardship of its treasurer, Wayne Swan, has played a key role in making it the best-performing economy among the world’s richer developed nations.

… his work as treasurer is acknowledged as much for what didn't happen to Australia on his careful four-year watch, economic Armageddon in the trail of the 2007-08 sub-prime meltdown, which he confronted in his first year of office, as for what he positively did: positioning Australia to power through the new crisis looming from abroad.

This is the position which the Australian economy is in. We avoided recession—unlike seven out of our top 10 trading partners, who fell into recession. While the world was shedding millions of jobs, we created 750,000 jobs, including 200,000 jobs because of our economic stimulus plan. The Australian economy has grown by over five per cent since the GFC, while many other advanced economies are yet to return to their pre-GFC output levels. Australia's financial systems have remained secure and stable amid the worst effects of the crisis because we introducing bank guarantees. Remember how quickly we acted? We did not wait, we acted—criticised by those opposite at each and every stage along the way. Australia's net debt will peak at 7.2 per cent of GDP compared with 80 per cent of GDP for other G7 economies. We have put in place $100 billion in savings across all budgets. Unemployment in Australia is at 5.3 per cent—half of what it is in the United States. We are in an envied budget policy position. We have record terms of trade and hundreds of billions of dollars in our investment pipeline.

We believe in a strong economy not as an end in itself but for what it does for people—for our people, for jobs, for working families and for communities. That is why we did not step back and say, 'This is too hard.' That is why we acted, and that is why we are continuing to act. We are building on the three-quarters of a million jobs that have been created under this government while the rest of the world has shed 30 million jobs. Treasury modelling shows that 1.6 million jobs will be created under a carbon price over the period to 2020. Just as the Hawke and Keating governments took the big, tough decisions to position the Australian economy by opening it up to competition and opening it up to the global economy, we are taking the courageous decision to make sure that we build an economy which can be strengthened in the carbon-constrained world which we face. The earlier you act, the cheaper it is and the more effective it is. Every single economist says that that is the case.

What do those opposite say? Not only do they criticise the policy but they then go after the economists, whether they be from Treasury, the Reserve Bank or the private sector. We have created some 130,000 new training places. We are addressing skills and infrastructure. They were warned 20 times by the Reserve Bank—20 separate warnings—about the constraints to our economic growth because of a failure to invest in skills and infrastructure. We are doing it, with 130,000 new training places. In infrastructure, we have doubled the roads budget. We have increased the rail budget by more than 10 times. We have rebuilt one-third of the interstate rail freight network.

We have committed more to urban public transport since we were elected in 2007 than was committed by all governments between Federation and 2007. We have transformed the way that the national government engages in infrastructure development. We created Infrastructure Australia to engage across the levels of government and directly with the private sector. It is a model which has been copied. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery—there has been created Infrastructure UK and a similar body in New Zealand, and other similar bodies are being considered and constructed now in France and other parts of Europe. Indeed, our Tory friends in New South Wales have created Infrastructure New South Wales, an acknowledgement that we have got the model right.

Through that, we have developed the first ever National Ports Strategy. We are developing the National Land Freight Strategy. The Friday before last, I announced the most significant reform to revitalise Australia's shipping industry in Australia's history—not by going back to a protectionist model but by going forward. We are making our shipping industry competitive with the world—making sure that we are a shipping nation, not just a 'shipper nation', as those opposite said. We are making sure we are participants, not just customers. That is the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House; we believe in engaging. We believe that with government working hand-in-hand in partnership with our people, Australia can continue to be a strong economy that is up there with the best in the world with whatever we do. That is why those opposite continue to talk down the economy.

The dismissal of Australia receiving the award that was given today is quite extraordinary. Of course, they are a bit sensitive over there; Peter Costello never got the award. But maybe that was just because he did not have good staff and advice. It is significant that Peter Costello did have some things to say about Mr Abbott. This is what Peter Costello said about the current Leader of the Opposition and his economic policy:

At one point when we were in government, he asked for funding to pay for telephone and electricity wires to be put underground throughout the whole of his northern Sydney electorate to improve the amenity of the area. He also wanted the Commonwealth to take over the building of local roads and bridges in his electorate.

We know that he also was a staffer. He worked for John Hewson. John Hewson said:

Tony is genuinely innumerate. He has no interest in economics and no feeling for it.

Indeed, that is the case.

We had in this House a considerable debate—12 hours and 20 minutes—over the Parliamentary Budget Office bill, because those opposite are determined to hide the fact that they have a $70 billion black hole, after they were found out with their $11 billion after the election. They do not want to be accountable. They run around the country making all sorts of promises—for roads, bridges, railways and paid parental leave schemes—but the starting point, they acknowledge, is $70 billion. It is much more. I will give them a tip: we are keeping the file of every commitment made by every one of their members. Their commitments to roads alone is in the order of $30 billion, on top of what they have said already. These are local one-off commitments trying to con the Australian people.

Even today when they had an opportunity to show a bit of grace, a bit of concern for the national interest, we have seen completely the opposite; they only have one thing to say: no. They say no to everything—except for Work Choices of course. I have said that the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is the vuvuzela of Australian politics. He walks around and he just says 'No, no, no,' to everything. Over a period of time that becomes simply annoying. True, it gets your attention, but people find it frustrating when they realise that there is only one note.

If Joe Hockey did not play kettle drums at school, I would be amazed—big, loud, full of air and empty. The emptier it is the louder it gets. We saw Mr Hockey last night standing up for five minute contribution after five minute contribution. It was him and the shadow finance minister arguing purely amongst themselves, trying to see who could be louder and who could throw more abuse across the chamber. For five hours they talked to each other. They have never actually picked up the little green book the Standing Orders, or the big green book the Houseof Representatives Practiceso they were not quite sure what had happened when we negated the adjournment. When we said to them, 'We are determined to get the Parliamentary Budget Office through', they eventually folded. Eventually, reality hit, except for the member for Mackellar, whom they forgot to tell—to widespread amusement from all. It was like that Japanese soldier on the island who did not know the war was over and was still waiting to have the fight. That is our member for Mackellar. They are a bit sensitive, of course. I would be sensitive too if the member for Mackellar was on the front bench and I had been put up the back.

The fact is that we have provided leadership for a strong economy that is the envy of the world. I had the privilege to attend the G20 meeting which was held in London. There, Australia is regarded as the envy of the world. One of the things that has been said by various organisations, including the IMF and the OECD, is that our economic stimulus plan was perfectly designed. They have also said that we are in a position of fiscal consolidation to return us to surplus. We on this side of the House have a serious economic policy and a serious plan for the nation; those on the other side only have relentless negativity.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pathetic performance that was from the Leader of the House. He has no record to defend and no government performance to speak about, so he resorted to personal insults and then stormed out of the parliament. I am going to be more gracious: I am going to recognise the superhero efforts of Australia's Treasurer. He managed to spend the nation's savings faster than a speeding bullet—the Treasurer's 'wreckonomics' are truly something to behold. He inherited a surplus, and he turned it into a deficit. We used to earn interest; now we pay interest. The man who effected these changes is the man we are honouring today. He achieved so little for our country that he is leaving behind a legacy of debt that generations will be required to repay.

Who has awarded the Treasurer the title of Finance Minister of the Year? It was given to him by Euromoney magazine. One would wonder, with the state of the European economy, how the Europeans could presume to give advice to anyone in the rest of the world. With the European economy at the point of collapse—it is teetering on the edge—and with models of economic virtue such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal to use as examples, Euromoney magazine has decided that it is going to give out awards elsewhere around the world. You have heard from previous speakers the list of some of the Treasurers who have received this award in the past.

I will note some of the other awards that that Euromoney has handed out. For instance, in 2005, the award for the best investment house went to—wait for it—Lehman Brothers. In 2006, the awards for best investment house and best risk management in North America—that is, the US and Canada—went to Bear Stearns. So what kind of judge is Euromoney magazine? What does it know about these sorts of things? What is the record of the kinds of people it has recognised in the past? The reality is that our Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has got the gong, but the people are going to have to pay the bill.

Today, I will suggest a few other awards that I could give to our Treasurer for his performance over recent times. The first is 'the world's greatest spender'. The Treasurer managed to take a surplus budget and turn it into a deficit. The 'world's greatest Treasurer' has not produced a single surplus budget the whole time he has been in office. He inherited a surplus, but he soon threw it away—he squandered this legacy. What has he spent it on? The pink batts, the overpriced school halls and the millions of press releases—all talk and no action. We have just listened to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport talking about all he has achieved in the area of transport. But, although there have been a million press releases and he has announced the same project a dozen times, when you look around there are no new roads and no new ports. They are not there; they are just figments of his imagination. There is no Melbourne-to-Brisbane railway line and there are no nation-building projects—they just have not happened. In this area. This government has been all talk and no action—a spin machine—just as they have been in every other area. They are world-record holders at the spin machine, but they do not actually achieve anything.

I have a second award for our Treasurer: 'the world's greatest taxer'. There have been at least 19 new or increased taxes since he has been in office. It is an appalling list, and it covers almost everything in our lives. The list includes the alcopops tax, the changes to the employee share schemes, the new mining tax and an excise on LPG, which is an extraordinary new tax from a government that tries to parade its green credentials. It also includes the flood tax, the phasing out of the dependent spouse tax rebate, the deferral of the tax breaks for green buildings and the increases that have been announced just recently for the lowest tax rates, which will increase from 15 per cent to 19 per cent and from 30 per cent to 33 per cent. The government is selling those as tax cuts, if you please; yet they have raised these two tax rates, one or the other of which the majority of Australians pay. On top of all that, there is the horror of the big new carbon tax. The Treasurer has been the greatest taxer of all times, and he deserves the award of 'the world's greatest taxer'.

There is a third award that we might give to our Treasurer: 'the world's greatest wrecker'. Through his 'wreckonomics', he has closed many shops and caused many bankruptcies. There is also less manufacturing than there was. The Treasurer's economic policy has distributed despair across the country. Just recently I read in the Australian of a local businessman from Central Queensland, Kym Mobbs, who is closing his family hardware-manufacturing business after two generations. He is one of the small people. There are also the big people, such as OneSteel, who are deserting this country because they have been driven overseas by the economic policies of this government and 'the world's greatest wrecker'. There is less optimism and hope in this country than there was when this Treasurer came to office—fewer people believe they can make a success of their lives, and, of course, unemployment is on the way up. If I may refer to a local example, in my own electorate of Wide Bay, when the previous government left office the unemployment rate was 3.4 per cent, below the national average. We had worked hard over a long period of time to build the economy in areas where incomes and the participation rate are traditionally lower than in other parts of Australia. But we had the unemployment rate down to 3.4 per cent. Today, under this 'world's greatest wrecker', our unemployment rate is 12.7 per cent.

That is a disgrace, and the Treasurer does not even care. He is not prepared to do anything about it.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

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

Order! The Chief Government Whip is not in his seat.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the minister for regional development was handing out assistance to areas that needed support, there was not one cent for the area in Australia that has the highest rate of unemployment—not one cent.

Mr O'Dowd interjecting—

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

Nor is the member for Flynn.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has all been spent on Labor electorates as part of their slush funds and their rorts. This is the world's greatest wrecker.

This Treasurer does not deserve a knighthood. He deserves the 'dirty shovel on the doorstep award' because of what he has done to the Australian economy and the Australian people. He inherited the Howard-Costello era of a strong, resilient economy that was once the envy of the world. Despite being the heir to $45 billion in net assets, the Rudd-Swan and Gillard-Swan governments have managed to plunge this nation into $145 billion of debt. It is quite a feat for a Treasurer worthy of an award to build that kind of debt. A negative turnaround has put this country into the red. You may seek to blame the rotating door of prime ministers; the reality is that Treasurer Swan has been a pivotal character—the goose who broke the golden egg. He was handed the opportunities and he destroyed them.

But that is not all. It is getting worse; it is getting deeper. Every day we are out borrowing $135 million to pay for the excess of expenditure over income. That is not the way that we build a better future for our country. We are handing to the next generation debt and an interest bill big enough to be building new hospitals every year, building the roads that the Leader of the House just talks about and taking real action to make our country work again—not just paying for the waste, the mismanagement and the appalling lack of economic control of this government. This economic ineptitude has certainly been a disgrace. A $20 billion surplus has become a $55 billion deficit, and there is a lot more deficit yet to come. When will the 'world's greatest Treasurer' deliver his first balanced budget?

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

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

The member for Herbert!

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been promised a balanced budget for 2012-13. Something magic is going to happen in that year to sweep away all of the incompetence of the past! But lately there have been a few ifs and buts, ums and ahs. Now they are only going to give it their best shot. Their best shot will miss by miles, and we all know that. If you keep lowering the bar further and further, eventually you reach absolute bottom. That is where this government's hypocrisy is at its peak.

The United States was in trouble because of arguments about its credit limit. This government has had to raise its credit limit three times since it has been in office—and there has been an award to this Treasurer!—a failure for this country and an embarrassment to this country. Awards are totally inappropriate. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are called in here today to engage in a debate about the immediate economic challenges confronting Australia. We have sat through 20 minutes of diatribe from those opposite and not one policy proposition.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From Albo? What did Albo say?

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

The honourable member for Herbert is warned!

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Instead we have been invited to listen to a diatribe—a mean, undignified, foul-mouthed contribution—

Mr Haase interjecting—

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

As is the honourable member for Durack!

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

from the shadow Treasurer—but not one policy contribution. This is at a time when the rest of the nation and many around the world are celebrating not only the great contribution that the Treasurer has made but the fact that Australia stands almost alone throughout the world as an economy that is in good shape. It is not an accident that the economy is in good shape; it is in good shape because of the contribution of the Treasurer and of the Australian Labor Party over the last four years.

It is beyond the capacity of the member for North Sydney or the humour-challenged Leader of the Nationals to say anything nice, but they are not the only people who have had something to contribute to this debate. I have in front of me some contributions from eminent economists and people around Australia and around the world who wish to put on record their congratulations to the Treasurer. The World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, had something nice to say. He said that to be named as Euromoney Finance Minister of the Year is a 'significant and deserved' honour and that under these tough economic conditions it is a 'tremendous achievement'. He said:

Australia's economic fundamentals are strong, strengthening Wayne Swan's global influence.

He continued:

This is the second time in the history of the awards that Euromoney's finance minister of the year has gone to an Australian treasurer—

the first time it went to another Labor Party Treasurer—

a demonstration that Australia has benefited from the continuity of effective, influential treasurers.

But there is more. The managing director of Wesfarmers said that it was a 'great recognition' for the Treasurer and a 'vote of confidence' in the Australian economy, which has remained strong and resilient through tumultuous economic times. These eminent Australians and economists found it within themselves to say something nice about the phenomenal contribution of the Treasurer, but not those foul-mouthed, mean-spirited, say-no-to-everything people across the chamber.

Internationally, the Treasurer's achievements have also been recognised. Jim Flaherty, the Canadian Minister of Finance, had this to say:

I want to congratulate my colleague Wayne Swan on his selection as Euromoney's Finance Minister of the Year. He was a key ally as we weathered the global recession and worked with our international colleagues to strengthen the global economy moving forward. Treasurer Swan has been a strong supporter of our work in support of strong, sustainable and balanced growth in the context of the G20 framework for growth.

Those opposite could not find it within themselves to say anything nice because it is not within their DNA. It is the Australian way that when an Australian is recognised—for example, when Cadel Evans or Sam Stosur make a contribution on behalf of Australia and they are recognised internationally—we put partisanship behind us and we have something nice to say. We congratulate those people, but those opposite do not. I rather suspect that if those opposite had information in their possession that Santa Claus believed in climate change they would be moving in this place to outlaw Christmas. That is how mean spirited they are. They have nothing positive to say. In 20 minutes worth of contribution on the challenges of the Australian economy there was not one policy proposition.

Let me inform the House that Australia stands almost alone amongst developing nations when you look at the state of our economy. We have unemployment levels below five per cent.

A government member: It is 20 per cent in Spain.

I am reminded by my colleague that there is 20 per cent unemployment in Spain. The unemployment level amongst European countries is around eight per cent. In the US it is north of 10 per cent. And we have an unemployment level of five per cent. It is the view of all on this side of the chamber that at five per cent it is still too high, and we are doing everything within our power to bring that down.

While we are on the subject of the state of our economy, let me talk about interest rates. Interest rates are one of the key factors which drive business confidence and one of the key things that affect every household in this country. The interest rates are still lower than they were when we took office. Investment is at record levels. With over $450 billion lined up—a pipeline of investment of over $450 billion over the next 4½ years—our economic outlook is good.

Whilst I am on the subject of the economic outlook let me say that we do not manage an economy soundly as an end in and of itself; we do it in the interests of ordinary working people—a factor sometimes lost on those opposite. They did not have it within themselves, when making their contributions in this chamber this week, to remark once that this is the week when pensioners will receive a $20 per fortnight increase in their pensions. We were able to do that because we have the interests of ordinary working people and pensioners at the forefront of our minds as we manage the economy. We have introduced a fully-funded paid parental leave scheme. We have introduced revolutionary reforms to ensure that families with kids at schools are able to get some assistance with their education expenses. We have introduced improvements to the research and development tax expenses. And we have doubled the rate of returns for those people struggling to put their kids in child care so that those people can attend work.

When we manage the economy we do it in the interests of ordinary working people, and these are things that we are able to deliver to them. We are alone in the world not because of an accident but because of the decisions the government took throughout the global financial crisis. So it is right and proper that we recognise the contribution of the Treasurer in that good economic performance.

When we contrast our policies, and the way we are managing our economy through some of the most difficult and challenging times, with those of the opposition we see that there is a stark contrast. We see on the other side of the chamber a group of people who are anti everything. We saw one of the most despicable displays in this chamber this week when the member for Mackellar got up in here and personally defamed a great Australian, the former head of Treasury, Ken Henry, and virtually accused him and other Treasury officials of corruption and dereliction of their duty—in the comfort of coward's castle. They would not step outside the chamber and say that; they used parliamentary privilege to do that. The only reason that they did that was that they bag everyone who gives them advice that they do not like.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's a repeat offender.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is right. I am reminded that she is a repeat offender. They are against Treasury because they do not like economists. They are out there bagging the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology because they do not like scientists. They are threatening to close down the Department of Climate Change because they do not like scientists or economists—and those are the people who work at the Department of Climate Change. And they did everything within their power to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office never got off the ground, because they do not want scrutiny. They do not want scrutiny because they know that if they have scrutiny it will expose a $70 billion black hole in their proposed budget. I have to say that, given the size of that black hole, the public servants at Geoscience Australia should be a bit scared! If they start exposing that black hole, they will probably want to close down Geoscience Australia as well—because anyone who disagrees with them is in peril.

While I am at it, we have seen this ridiculous display over the last fortnight where one of the duelling sections of the Liberal Party were going out to one section of the manufacturing industry and saying, 'We've got your interests at heart,' while in this chamber and in the editorial pages of the Australian we saw the member for Mayo saying that everything that we on this side of the House are trying to do to assist manufacturing is 'back to the future'. We are managing the economy in the interests of working people, and we are very proud of the contribution that we have been able to make. (Time expired)

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

Over the course of the last hour or so we have seen a chorus of congratulations from those opposite for the award given to the Treasurer by Euromoney magazine overnight—a chorus of congratulations that not even they believe; a chorus of congratulations that former Treasurer and former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, certainly does not believe. Those over there know in their heart of hearts that this award is a joke. The reason that they are protesting so loudly is that they know that—and that is confirmed in their actions.

The Leader of the House is known for his overstatement in this House, but I did not think it would be matched by the previous speaker, who said that this award was entirely due to the Treasurer's actions and the Australian Labor Party. The Australian economy is performing better than economies in Europe and North America because of the strength of our economy when we entered the global financial crisis. We entered that global financial crisis in the best possible shape. We entered it with our fiscal house more than in order. We entered it with our fiscal house in the best shape it had been in a generation.

The member who just spoke compared the Treasurer to Cadel Evans. I would like to compare him to Cadel Evans too. There was the Tour de France—and, I have to say, I am not a cycling freak, like some on this side of the House; my mode of travel is the car, I regret to say—and Cadel Evans rode for three weeks. He did the hard yards. Of course, as we know, at the end of the second-last day, because he was in front, by convention he had won the race. All he had to do was roll down the Champs Elysees the next day. He just had to stay upright. Are you getting the picture? Wayne Swan is the kind of person who would hop on the bike for the last day and claim credit for winning the race. That is the story of the Australian economy over the last 12 years.

If it were just that Euromoney magazine had looked at the Australian economy, saw a strong economy and made the mistake of assuming that the current Treasurer had something to do with it, that would be bad enough, but it is actually much worse than that, because the Treasurer of this country did everything with his colleagues opposite to prevent Australia getting into the strongest possible fiscal shape. Let's make no mistake about it.

Back in 1996, the Howard government inherited $96 billion of debt, a $10 billion budget black hole and an interest servicing cost on that debt of $8 billion every year. It set about paying off that debt by returning the budget to surplus. It took hard and difficult decisions. Every single measure in every budget was opposed by those opposite and opposed vigorously by the member for Lilley. The member for Lilley, if he had had his way with those opposite in this parliament, would have continued on the road of debt and deficit. They would have had the new government continue with annual budget deficits and they would have had that $96 billion net government debt continue to mushroom. That was their policy when they had been in government and it was their policy in opposition.

They opposed the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the Prime Minister, John Howard, and all of the ministers every single step of the way. They opposed fiscal consolidation every step of the way. They opposed the sale of Telstra, the provisions of which were used to pay down a huge portion of that net government debt. So, by the time the member for Lilley became Treasurer, because everything that he had stood for and everything that he believed in had been successfully opposed by the government in spite of him, he inherited the best fiscal position possible—not only a budget in healthy surplus, where he was looking at $20 billion surpluses rolling down the line at him as far as the eye could see, and not only no net government debt but, as previous speakers have pointed out, $45 billion in the bank. To give the Treasurer an award for the state of the Australian economy, which he had nothing to do with—in fact, if he had had his way, we would not be in this position—is like giving the prodigal son an award for fiscal restraint because he has only burned half the family's finances. That is the situation we find ourselves in today.

Some of those opposite mentioned Paul Keating and the fact that he won the same award. I will give Paul Keating this: he had done something in 1984 and 1985—he floated the dollar. He actually did something, whereas this Treasurer, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out, has never had a budget surplus. Even on the day this award is announced, he is wobbling on his promise of a budget surplus. He always has a promise of a budget surplus; it is just that he is always moving it further out into the future. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out in question time, this rock-solid promise has moved from an objective to an expectation to a determination to a plan to a guiding principle, and then this morning the Treasurer said he would give it his best shot. That is very worrying news because the Australian public know and those opposite in their heart of hearts know that the Treasurer's best shot is not good enough. This small projected surplus that he is now moving away from really sums up the Treasurer's complete economic and fiscal failure.

Today we had the IMF report released that the shadow Treasurer went through in some detail. Confronted with forecasts of a more difficult situation, the Treasurer's response is to compound that difficulty with the introduction of a carbon tax and a mining tax. If you just take the mining tax, which he plucked from the Henry review, announced in the days before last year's budget, he handcuffed pieces of expenditure to it. You look at the fiscal responsibility of that when we have record commodity prices, which everyone knows will not last forever—in fact, the real warning today is about such a small decline in the terms of trade; indeed, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out at the Press Club earlier this year, it is a decline of just four per cent—the small reduction in the terms of trade would plunge next year's budget into deficit. But he uses those record high terms of trade to fund, through his mining tax, ongoing expenditure year after year. So, when the revenue falls off, that expenditure will open up a hole in his budget. The Treasurer knows this. He knows that it is fiscally irresponsible. He knows that a mining tax, in the way he has put it forward, in any way, shape or form will harm not only the budget but our great economic strength. He knows that the carbon tax is going to make life economically difficult for Australia, acting ahead of the rest of the world. This Treasurer was not worthy of that award. Those opposite know it in their heart of hearts. The Australian public knows it because it lives with the consequences of his economic mismanagement. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on this matter of public importance on the economy. I am not the only one to reflect this but the days in this place tend to speed past. I had the sense that, even though we sped past yesterday, the events of last night will come back in two years time to haunt those opposite. Effectively, last night was about the opposition putting a line in the sand that they will return to. Through the 12 amendments that the opposition put forward and all their filibustering over the Parliamentary Budget Office, the line in the sand is that, in two years time when it comes to stepping up and delivering their election promises and having them costed, they will turn back to last night and say they refused from that point onwards to believe in the value of the Parliamentary Budget Office, therefore escaping scrutiny on their promises yet again.

It was an absolutely shameful performance by those opposite, clearly designed to set them up for two years time when they will yet again dodge scrutiny and repeat what they did last year in the election when they turned their backs on the Costello legacy of the Charter of Budget Honesty. They turned their backs on the scrutiny and the mechanisms set up by then Treasurer Costello. They went to an election knowing, deep within their promises, that there was an $11 billion shortfall between what they planned to do and how they could deliver it. It was an $11 billion black hole called by the Treasury and in their full knowledge, as the member for Throsby rightly points out. When it was pointed out to them, what did they do? They attacked Treasury. They attacked the messenger for discovering what they knew they had and they refused to be upfront about it.

In this debate we had the amazing situation where the shadow Treasurer lectured us all on the need to be able to deliver on our promises when he had an $11 billion black hole and would not be able to deliver any promises that he put in if he were in government.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They couldn't deliver a pizza!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, they could not deliver a pizza. I thank the member for Banks for that interjection. They want to lecture us on economics. They picked up some unknown Liberal aligned accounting firm at the back of WA and relied upon them to cost their election figures. When that firm was tested as to how far they should go to back these promises, even that firm said, 'This is not an audit of their figures.' Even the shadow Treasurer stuffed up when he was confronted on that. He had not even read the fine print of their own costings. They used a firm that was not even known, instead of going through Treasury, instead of being able to hand over their costings and instead of being able to follow the Charter of Budget Honesty, and now they come in here and tell us that they are in a position to lecture us about economic challenges. The Leader of the Opposition was lecturing us on economic challenges when he was either snoozing or boozing while we voted on the stimulus package.

We often get these guys saying, 'You made the wrong call; we would have made it better.' Let us turn to what they had to say when they were challenged back last year. When greatness was thrust upon him the Leader of the Opposition needed to be able to come up with a response to the greatest economic challenge confronting advanced economies in 75 years. He was asked on the 7:30 Report what he would do. Chris Uhlmann said:

But you would have spent money as well.

This is the stimulus package. He continued:

The coalition actually backed the first stimulus package, didn't it?

The Leader of the Opposition said:

Yes, which was about a quarter the size of the second stimulus package, which we opposed.

Chris Uhlmann said:

But certainly that money was necessary, and it appears to have done the trick.

And here we go—this is what the Leader of the Opposition said in response to the greatest economic challenge in 75 years:

But at a high price. And if you look across the Tasman, New Zealand has done just as well, it seems, as Australia without going into anything like the same level of debt and deficit that we have.

New Zealand: lower growth, higher joblessness, higher inflation. The opposition's response to the GFC was to spend less and condemn us to lower growth and higher unemployment. They made that call. The man that occupies the Leader of the Opposition's chair made that call and was backed up by the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister. They made that call. They then say they are in a position to tell us about economic challenge.

Thankfully, we ignored their advice. What did we get for it? Through the work that we did, we are now in a position where we have higher growth and more people in work. It is believed 44 million jobs were lost in advanced economies. We managed to create over 750,000, close to 1,000,000. Defying what happened elsewhere, we did it. So we were able to have higher growth, more jobs, greater security and the world's greatest treasurer, who is walking in right now. And they cannot stand it.

And what else? Whenever they are tested further about what they should do, they beat their chests. In the aftermath of the natural disasters that affected Queensland we knew we had to act. We had to help Queenslanders out and we needed to find a way to fund that recovery. They said they would find $6 billion without having to put in a levy. They chastised us because we were there to stand up for Queenslanders, providing the money to help reconstruction and making the hard choice on a levy. And they said, 'We shouldn't help out Queensland that way; we shouldn't put in a levy.' They said, 'We'll find the money and we'll find the savings to be able to do this without a levy.' They said back in January: 'We'll get back to you. We'll let you know when it's coming.'

The end of January came and they still had no ability to find savings. Back to the parliamentary sittings, they still were unable to find any savings. They then outsourced their policy to some One Nation hacks sitting in some garage somewhere, and they worked out that the smart way to do that is to turn our backs on something our predecessors did. They picked up the simplest One Nation policy, which was to cut back the education support provided to Indonesia. That was their response. They could not find the savings.

They beat their chests, unable to do it, and again they come in here and talk about economic challenges. This is in a climate, mind you—the member for Throsby was right—where they had an opportunity to point out what economic challenges they deal with and were unable to. The shadow Treasurer not once added anything to identify the challenges. There is one global economic challenge right now, and it was called out by Richard Koo from the Nomura Research Institute, who reflected on the fact that the private sector, by addressing debt and cutting back spending the way it is, is putting big pressure on the global economy, and monetary policy simply will not cut it in the way that it did.

So monetary policy will not cut it in the way it once did and the economy is unstable. Their reaction? 'We're going to cut $70 billion out of the economy—puncture a huge hole in the economy.' On top of what we have been able to do to cut back spending, they would go even further. They would have three times the amount of consolidation that we have done, and they reckon they would do it. After, mind you, they could not find $6 billion, these geniuses reckon they will find $70 billion. When you cannot meet the first challenge, set the next one extraordinarily high.

At the end of the day, what gets me the most is this: they are only happy with bad news. They are only happy when people are suffering. They are only happy when jobless rates go up. They are only happy when growth goes down. They are only happy when the bad times come in. Those are the only times they cheer, the only times they have a smile on the face. They are a disgrace to economic policy. They should go away and actually work out what they think they should do and be able to do instead of coming here and lecturing us otherwise.

Congratulations to the Treasurer, by the way.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek the call for only a very short time—probably about a minute—to make three important points. First of all, this debate gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the Treasurer, while he is in the chamber, for the very significant recognition he has received today. Others have made that point already. In addition, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Hunter Valley Grammar School in my electorate. I ask members to make them feel welcome.

Secondly and very importantly, I pick up on something the Leader of the Nationals said in the course of this matter of public importance that did not quite gel in my mind. He said that when they—those on the other side—were in government and the predecessor of the member for Higgins was the Treasurer the unemployment rate in Wide Bay was 3½ per cent but under this government it was now through 12 per cent. I am sure my colleagues will agree something is not quite right with that statement, so in the limited time available to me I did a little bit of research. I thank my staff for their assistance.

In 2006, which is a reasonable year to choose given that he said it was during their time in government, the unemployment rate in Wide Bay was in the high sevens. By June 2010, it was at seven. In July 2011, it was 6.8 per cent. So one wonders why this mob on the other side have increasingly low economic credibility in the broader electorate! Thank goodness, given what we have seen from the Leader of the Nationals today, the Labor Party is in government running the economy and we have the world's best treasurer doing it.

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

Is the member for Higgins seeking the call on the MPI?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am.

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

The member for Higgins has the call.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since we indulged the member for Hunter, I simply—

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

No, I did not indulge him. The MPI does not conclude until eight minutes past five. It will conclude otherwise earlier if there is no-one seeking the call. So I am calling the member for Higgins but remind her I did not give indulgence. I called the member because he stood.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand corrected. I would like simply to respond to one of the points that was raised by the member for Hunter. He spoke about the record and the legacy of the coalition government when we were in government. I remind the member for Hunter that we inherited from your side of the chamber $96 billion of debt. We inherited as well a $10 billion black hole. We had to pay back that $96 billion, and it was a very long, hard road to do that. We did it. And by the time you came into power in 2007 not only had we repaid the $96 billion of debt but we had also left for you a $20 billion surplus and we had invested in the future of all Australians by putting together the Future Fund, in which we had invested $45 billion.

This government, by contrast, has a very poor record. This government, by contrast, has delivered four deficits in its time in government. Every single budget that has been brought down by the so-called 'world's best Treasurer' has been a deficit—every single one of them. For the very first time ever we have had to increase our gross debt ceiling to $250 billion. Most Australians when they hear that figure are absolutely astounded. So we now have not only four deficits but also a deficit of around $50 billion. Net debt is up around $107 billion. The Treasurer, who keeps coming into this place and promising to deliver a surplus, is slowly working his way away from that promise. He is now coming up with every excuse in the book to walk away from his promise and is coming up with excuses as to why he will deliver a fifth deficit. The facts are very clear, the record is very clear and I would rather be on our side of the chamber than on theirs.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In briefly joining the debate on this matter of public importance, I endorse the comments of the member for Higgins. I particularly endorse her reference to the fact that this Treasurer has presided over four budget deficits. We continue to hear this promise, this plan, this 'give it my best shot' to return to surplus in 2012-13. Like the rest of Australia, I simply do not believe this Treasurer will be able to deliver a surplus.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have faith!

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite says I should have faith. People in Australia who are struggling with their costs of living are not interested in comments like 'You need to have faith.' They simply have lost faith in this Treasurer. I do not believe he has the capacity to ever deliver a surplus. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I am prepared to bet the Treasurer that he will not deliver a surplus at that time. I am not much of a gambler but I am prepared to take a wager.

If the Treasurer will take me up on my bet I am prepared to donate $1,000 to his favourite charity if he delivers a surplus in 2012-13—only if he is prepared to deliver $1,000 to my favourite charity if he does not get that surplus. I am happy to do that. That is the wager I put to the Treasurer, and I welcome him to take me up on that. The surf-lifesaving clubs in my community would love to receive $1,000, and I reckon it is a pretty safe bet. So I would encourage the Treasurer to take me on. If you cannot deliver a surplus in 2012-13 as promised, how about $1,000 to the surf-lifesaving clubs in my electorate and, if you can do it, I will give $1,000 to your favourite charity?

It is interesting that in these extraordinarily uncertain economic times the greatest idea, the great mark of genius from those opposite, is to hit the Australian economy with a carbon tax. We had the member for Hunter, who used to represent the workers of his electorate, and we had other regional MPs in this place talking about the carbon tax. We had the member for Hunter refer to the unemployment rate. If the member for Hunter and other regional MPs really want to see what will happen to the unemployment rate in Australia they should vote with this government on its carbon tax. Vote to hit the Australian economy with a carbon tax at an extraordinary period in global economic circumstances.

Only the Labor Party could come in here and lecture this side of the parliament about its economic credentials when it is about to vote to hit the Australian economy with a carbon tax. It will have a massive impact on the manufacturing sector, on the agricultural sector and on the power-generating sector. We keep hearing from those opposite that there are only 500 of the so-called big polluters who will pay this carbon tax. When will a single member of the Labor Party start showing some respect for those 500 big Australian companies that create enormous wealth and employment in our community and when will they desist from calling these companies Australia's 500 biggest polluters?

Every time a member opposite uses that phrase they are vilifying and offending the people who work in those companies. I know that from personal experience. In my electorate of Gippsland we have workers involved with the brown coal-fired power stations and with Australian Paper. I meet with the workers and I talk to them—members of the CFMEU, members of the ETU. They are so angry when they hear the Labor Party calling the companies they work for 'big polluters' because, by association, you are vilifying these honest hard-working people who are doing nothing more than going out and doing an honest day's work.

This party used to claim it represented workers. This party used to claim it was the champion of working families—we do not hear about working families any more. This party is out there vilifying them, saying they work for big polluters. Here is a bit of free advice to members opposite. If you are wondering why you are down to 26 per cent of your primary vote, at least some of it starts with the way you are treating these people with complete contempt. The way you are vilifying them, the way you are describing them as working for big polluters, is at least part of your problem. I challenge you to show them some respect.

I repeat my offer to the Treasurer. He is obviously not that keen on the bet, but I think he should give it some serious consideration. Treasurer, if you can deliver a surplus in 2012-13 my offer is to give $1,000 to your favourite charity. If you cannot deliver that surplus I encourage you to take me up on that wager by giving $1,000 to surf-lifesaving clubs in my electorate.

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

The discussion has concluded as no one is seeking the call.