Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Fraser proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, namely:

The failure of the Government to ease financial pressures on Australian families.

I therefore call upon those honourable 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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for choosing my suggestion. The Prime Minister has declared that this year there will be a debate on the economy. Despite her best endeavours to close question time on Tuesday and to curtail debate yesterday, we want to have a debate on jobs and the economy. The job I want to talk about is not her job, even though that seems to be the preoccupation of most of the parliamentary Labor Party members and many others. I want to talk about the jobs of everyday Australians. Labor has not delivered on jobs. The Treasurer promised on budget night last year that his budget was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. In fact, he claimed in the budget papers that the budget itself would help to create 500,000 jobs in the following 12 months. He also claimed, by the way, in the budget that he would have a $22 billion deficit. Of course, neither has eventuated. In fact, as he admitted to Fran Kelly on Radio National just a few days ago, on 30 January:

KELLY:

In terms of the positives though, the Government positively forecast half a million new jobs over the next few years to be created. Given the zero jobs growth last year, are you still confident that that figure holds, that it can be achieved?

TREASURER:

Well, certainly we will do less than that ...

Of course they will do less than that. For the first time in 20 years, last year there was no jobs growth in Australia. In fact the jobs news is likely to get worse, given the Roy Morgan employment index and, obviously, the reported news about job losses. Since the beginning of January more than 2,000 job cuts have been announced. At this point I remind the minister at the table, the Minister for Trade, of the comments by the Prime Minister in relation to job losses. This is a very important set of words from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce:

These are powerful, economy-wide transformations, perhaps best thought of as 'growing pains'.

Just as the Labor Party said when Prime Minister Howard alluded to the fact that families 'have never had it so good', so too will this Prime Minister regret job losses at every stage being defined simply as her own words: growing pains. Is it growing pains for Westpac, who announced 400 job losses just a few days ago, for the Royal Bank of Scotland, with 200 job losses, and for ANZ, with 1,000 job losses within the next six months? These are the Prime Minister's 'growing pains'. Holden will lose 100 jobs, Toyota will lose 350 jobs—but that is just growing pains. BHP will lose 155, Reckitt Benckiser 190, Manildra 70, Norsk Hydro 150, Tomago Aluminium 100, Thales 50, Don Smallgoods 31 and Macquarie Group 1,000 around the world. This is just 'growing pains' according to our Prime Minister.

But growing pains were never meant to hurt this much, and that is the problem. No matter how high the challenge of the increasing cost of living, everyday Australians cannot meet it at all without a job. And the only job this Prime Minister is concerned about is her own, because we know that when she announces job programs they do not work. There is no better example than the Jobs Fund Infrastructure Employment Projects Program. It was set up more than 12 months ago—$150 million and not one job. When asked a simple question today by the Leader of the Opposition about aluminium jobs, what was the Prime Minister's response? 'Well, we've got a $3½ billion fund.' The bottom line is that the only way to create jobs is to have prosperity. The only way to create jobs is to have a growing economy. The only way to create jobs is to give employers an incentive to make money and therefore to spend money to continue to grow. That is the only way you create jobs. We did it; we know. After we left government in 2007, in February 2008—just a few months later, the lag indicator of unemployment—unemployment was just four per cent. That was on top of a budget surplus. That was on top of money in the bank. We left them with the most robust employment indicator Australia had seen in 30 years, yet somehow they are taking pride today in an unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent with a falling participation rate.

The government see that as a great moment of signature achievement. They keep comparing us to Spain or Greece or Italy or a range of other countries—perhaps Ireland would get a mention—all countries where the unemployment rate is well into the double digits, instead of comparing us to the fastest players out there. We are a nation of aspirational people. We want to aspire to be the best. So when we talk about the Asian Century let us compare ourselves to those economies. Do not compare us to Europe and the United States in order to make us look good, because they are no longer our competition. The Asian Century is real. Therefore, we must compare ourselves with the fastest runner in the field because we are a nation that wants to win. We have always wanted to win. Whether it be in sport, the arts or anything else, we want to be the best in the world, and I would encourage the government to start addressing the fact that we have to compare ourselves to the best.

When it comes to the cost of living, the Labor Party must be held to account. Over the four years of Labor, headline inflation has averaged 2.9 per cent. Under the coalition it averaged 2.4 per cent. More telling has been the cost of essential services under Labor. In just four years electricity has gone up 60 per cent, gas has gone up 36 per cent, water and sewerage have gone up 58 per cent. They are the things that people have to buy every day. It is not discretionary spending. It is not a TV or even a second computer at home. These are the things people have to spend money on every day. Health care has gone up 19.5 per cent, education has gone up 23.8 per cent, insurance has gone up 31.6 per cent and basic foods like lamb have gone up 26.2 per cent. Fruit has gone up 39 per cent and of course rent, the one that many Australians cannot avoid, has gone up 24.6 per cent.

What is Labor doing to address that? They are introducing a carbon tax, and the carbon tax is going to increase the cost of everything. It is going to increase the cost of electricity, gas, water, health care and education. It is going to increase the cost of insurance. It will increase the cost of lamb and fruit, and it will increase the cost of rent because it is a tax on the way we live. It is a tax on energy, and as a nation we need energy to propel ourselves forward. The carbon tax is a tax on everything.

Why were many Australians disappointed that the Reserve Bank did not cut interest rates this year? I would say that was because what they are actually paying under Labor is higher than what they paid under us. Let us be very clear: this is a government that keeps using selective data as its basic input. The truth is, under the coalition the standard variable mortgage rate—the one that people actually pay—was 7.26 per cent on average; under Labor, 7.51 per cent on average, and even then that is after the cash rate of the Reserve Bank went down to three per cent, that is even when the economy had a negative quarter. Out of all of that, what people actually pay out of their pocket for a home mortgage is higher under Labor.

What is more dramatic than the typical home loan of $294,800 being $700 a year cheaper under us than it is under Labor? The big one is small business. For small business, the average rate under Labor is 10.23 per cent for an average small business unsecured overdraft. Under us it was 8.89 per cent. For a $200,000 overdraft the difference for a small business is $2,680 a year. It is a huge amount of money when they are thinking about increasing the work commitments of existing staff or employing another person part time.

For all the huff and puff of the Treasurer against the banks, on more than 50 occasions he has warned the banks to pass through the RBA cash rate change and he has been ignored on 50 occasions. In fact, I lie, because it was 51 occasions. I keep forgetting the last interest rate cut when his old mate at the National Australia Bank did not even pass it on in full. So over the four years of Labor, the spread between the Reserve Bank cash rate and the home mortgage and business borrowing rates has averaged 2.73 per cent, almost one per cent more than under the coalition.

Then we come to the deficit of debt. Let me be very clear: the coalition went to the 2010 election promising a surplus in 2012-13 and we did so based on the Treasury data that was released during the course of the election campaign. It is known as the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. All the other data that comes out of the government during the course of a parliamentary term is in fact the figures that belong to the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer—they are their figures. The only time you have a release of raw Treasury data, which is the starting gun for every debate about surpluses over the course of an election campaign, is during an election campaign itself with the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

When we had those numbers we quite rightly forecast that we would have had a surplus in 2012-13. We are as committed as ever to fiscal prudence. We are as committed as ever to smaller government. We are as committed as ever to giving Australians more control of their own money. But we cannot believe the Labor Party's own budget today, which was meant to be at first a $12 billion deficit, and then a $22 billion deficit, and after just six months it turned into a $37 billion deficit. If they manage to have a $15 billion blow-out in just six months when you have about trend growth, when you have the best terms of trade in 100 years, they are now asking us to believe that they are going to have the biggest fiscal consolidation in Australia in 60 years in just 12 months.

They talk about a $70 billion costing hole—that is over four years. The Labor Party says it is going to do half of that in 12 months. They are miracle workers! If the miracle is to be performed then let us all have a look. Now we have the government saying, 'We will deliver a surplus next year.' The Prime Minister says, 'We will deliver a surplus.' The problem is that we will not know until September 2013 and I am prepared, as a betting man, to put a little bit aside. I suggest that the current Prime Minister is not going to be in that job in 2013.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you giving odds?

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

Give me odds, come on, give me odds. I will take the odds. The Labor member wants to give me odds and I am sure he can give me better odds than anyone else. Do you know why? If the Labor Party has a $15 billion blow-out in the budget deficit in just six months, how can they possibly be trusted to deliver a surplus in September 2013, let alone demanding that we commit to it. They cannot commit to it and they are in government. They are the ones with thousands of public servants and they cannot commit to it.

The problem the Labor Party has, as the member for Lyne said, goes to credibility. People no longer trust them at their word. They no longer trust the Labor Party at what it says. When they say they will not have a carbon tax, they have a carbon tax. When they say they will do something about poker machines, they do not do anything on poker machines. When the Prime Minister gave a commitment to the Greens about dental care, she then goes and breaks her word. She has broken her written word to the member for Denison. She has broken her spoken word to the Australian people. She has broken her solemn word to the member for Griffith about loyalty as Deputy Prime Minister. If you cannot trust them with their own words you cannot trust them with the economy. (Time expired)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier in the week, when the Prime Minister said that this year parliamentary time would be devoted to debating the economy, the Leader of the Opposition channelled Dirty HarryClint Eastwood—and said, 'Make my day'. They have been running away from an economic debate during question time ever since. They have brought out case after case of what they consider to be issues of interest to the people of Australia and they are nothing but fear and smear.

They are nothing but fear and smear because the coalition is terrified of a proper debate about the Australian economy, including about budget surpluses. We know why because this week the coalition was in a fog of confusion about their commitment to bring the budget back to surplus. We heard from the shadow Treasurer just now that when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement before the last election about bringing the budget back to surplus, he did not have the benefit of the numbers at that time. What the opposition leader said was, 'We will bring the country back into surplus in 2012-13.' There was no qualification. He did not say, 'We will try; it depends on the state of the books.' It was unqualified that the coalition would bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13.

This week, however, out of this fog of confusion, it has become clear, as the fog lifts, that the coalition has no intention of ever in the foreseeable future bringing the budget back to surplus—let alone if they were given the opportunity to do so in 2012-13. They have walked away from that promise and now blame the official budget figures for doing so. The fog started earlier this week on Monday, when the shadow finance minister was asked about bringing the budget back to surplus and he replied, 'Well, it just depends.' This was the first qualification. Then the shadow Treasurer, thinking that he still had the backing of the Leader of the Opposition, very bravely said, 'As we have said, we would get to surplus next year; we would get to surplus in 2012-13.'

So the shadow Treasurer repudiated the shadow finance minister—that was on Tuesday. But, on the same day, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House said: 'When we get back to power, we will be in a better position to say when our first surplus will be delivered.' So he is walking away from the commitment by the shadow Treasurer and siding with the shadow finance minister. But there is more! On the same day, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Well, let's see what the real figures are.' So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition joins the shadow finance minister and the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber in saying, 'Let's see what happens; it all depends.'

The shadow Treasurer would have been thinking, 'Well, I will get the backing of my leader, because it was my leader who said, before the last election in an unqualified way, that we would bring the budget back to surplus.' But, no, the opposition leader came out just yesterday and said, 'We will get back to surplus as quickly as possible.' He absolutely left the shadow Treasurer stranded in that fog of confusion.

The reason they cannot get back to surplus is simple: they have a $70 billion funding hole. We heard the coalition just now, through the shadow Treasurer, saying, 'Oh, it is Labor which is talking about a $70 billion funding hole.' But, on 12 August last year, the shadow Treasurer said, 'Therefore, finding $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion is about identifying waste and blah, blah, blah.' He referred to the number, the $70 billion. The shadow finance minister backed him up on that occasion. He did not desert the shadow Treasurer. He said, 'The $70 billion is an estimate of the sort of challenge that we will have.' Out of the mouths of the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance minister come these words: '$70 billion'.

Then the Leader of the Opposition, worried because the cat was out of the bag, said, 'Well, this $70 billion is a fanciful figure; it has been plucked from the air by government ministers and I am surprised you are retelling it to me.' He said that on 25 August. The shadow finance minister was then on the spot as a result of the opposition leader saying, 'This is a myth; it is a Labor creation.' The shadow finance minister was asked, 'Is it a furphy?' and he said, 'No, it is not a furphy; we came out with that figure.' So there it is—the $70 billion funding hole reaffirmed by the shadow finance minister. The shadow Treasurer was then asked, 'You are happy to recommit to that idea of $70 billion in savings?' and the shadow Treasurer replied, 'It is not a figure that I use.' The words came out of his own mouth, but then he tried to walk away from them.

On Friday night on Lateline, the Manager of Opposition Business in this chamber, crying like a baby against alleged bias in the interview—the problem was that he absolutely botched it—talked about how the coalition having $70 billion worth of spending cuts was Labor Party spin. It came from the shadow Treasurer and from the shadow finance minister and he says it is Labor Party spin! Then, on Q&A on Monday this week, the shadow Treasurer said: 'There is no $70 billion hole. I have never said it and I am not saying it now. It is just a myth, a Labor creation and a figment of people's imagination.' Then he was put under pressure, because you cannot scurry away on Q&A, and he said, 'Okay, I should not have said any figure.' He had to admit that he had said there was a $70 billion funding hole, because the tape was there, the transcripts were there and the records were there. He was joined by the shadow finance minister in saying they have a $70 billion funding hole.

That takes us to this problem. This is why they cannot get back to surplus—they have this huge set of unfunded commitments. When you have that, you either slash services—we heard from the member for Mayo what they would be: age pension, childcare services and all of the social spending which is vital to the social fabric and to supporting the disadvantaged in this community; the member for Mayo said that they are the areas which should be targeted—or you do not return to surplus. We know that they will do one or the other and, from the debacle this week, it is clear they are not going to return to surplus if they are elected to government. They have basically said that. They have said it as clearly as you could possibly expect them to. Indeed, Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said that it was 'an extravagant promise'. That is what he said today. The whole idea of a return to surplus is an extravagant promise.

That is what the agenda is—they have no intention of returning to surplus. In this fog of confusion, when the shadow Treasurer earlier in the week was asked, 'Will you return to surplus?' he channelled President Obama and said, 'Yes, we can.' But then the opposition leader came out and said, 'No, we cannot.' The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate then said, 'Anyway, it was an extravagant promise.'

What we have seen this week is smear and fear from the coalition—because they do not want us to make their day and have a proper debate about the economy. As soon as we engage on the economy, they revert to fear and smear. But we have seen, in this chamber and this parliament, a triumph of policy over fear and of substance over smear. That has been the performance of the Labor side, the government led by the Prime Minister. We will take on the great economic debates. This is important to the country's future.

Day after day those opposite come into question time trying to smear the government and create fear in the Australian community. The truth is that interest rates are going down because this government has created the capacity for the Reserve Bank to cut the cash rate. Do not ever rely on the coalition to make judgments about the state of the economy and the state of economic management—look at the ratings agencies whose job it is to do that. For the first time in Australia's history, all three ratings agencies give Australia a AAA rating. That was never achieved under the coalition; never achieved under the Howard government. When they come in here and finally engage in an economics debate, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, by trying to trash talk the economy and talk it down, we should look to the independent assessors, the three ratings agencies who rate us AAA. Our giving the Reserve Bank the capacity to reduce interest rates is the very reason we will bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13 and it is for that very reason that the coalition is running away from that—they know they cannot do it.

The shadow Treasurer just came into the chamber and said that interest rates are higher now than they were under the coalition. It is unbelievable how they can come in here and say interest rates are higher than they were under the coalition. The Reserve Bank cash rate is now 4¼ per cent. It was 6¾ per cent under the coalition. And 4¼ per cent is less than 6¾ per cent. Then they say no, they meant the average variable rate—7.3 per cent now, 8.6 per cent under the coalition. So they cannot come in here and seek to mislead parliament by saying interest rates are higher under Labor. I remember very well the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, saying during the 2004 election campaign that interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under Labor, and that they would keep interest rates at record lows. What happened? There were 10 interest rate rises in a row. They want to air brush that out of history. They come in here and say that that never happened, interest rates did not rise under the coalition and they were lower under the coalition than under Labor. That is completely untrue.

I was heartened by one statement that the shadow Treasurer made during his presentation. He said we are now living in the Asian century. Wow, that is a revelation! Labor governments have been preparing for the Asian century since the mid-1980s when Bob Hawke undertook vital economic reforms, with the support of Treasurer Keating, to engage with the Asian economy because we realised we could no longer link our future with that of Europe. That was a pretty good punt; it was very visionary. It actually started back in 1972 when Gough Whitlam formally recognised the People's Republic of China. It is always Labor having the guts to make the big reforms. Now the coalition, at a quarter past four on a Thursday afternoon, decide to tell us we are in the Asian century. Welcome to the club!

What do the opposition do in relation to the Asian century? They adopt a trade policy that breaches the World Trade Organisation rules and invites retaliation against Australian manufacturing workers and Australian farmers. In relation to their anti-dumping policy, they say they will stick one-up China; they will implement a policy that definitely breaches the WTO rules, opening up our farmers and our manufacturing workers to retaliation by China and by other countries in our region. One day—this is hilarious—the shadow trade minister said, 'Look, Emerson and Labor ought to accelerate free trade agreement negotiations with China'. I thought that that was politics and you do get a bit of criticism from time to time. The next day, the opposition leader said it should be put on the backburner because China is not a democracy. He always repudiates the shadow trade minister.

Why wouldn't you repudiate the shadow trade minister? I admit that I have been critical of the member for Moncrieff because of how long it was since he last asked me a question. I can reveal today that the member for Moncrieff last asked me a question 806 days ago. But the shadow trade minister has never asked me a question—not one. In fact, today is her 500th anniversary—she can celebrate going 500 days without asking a question as the shadow trade minister. Every time she sticks her head up, the opposition leader knocks it off. He actually said the member for Kooyong knows something about foreign policy, and he said isn't it a relief to have someone on the coalition side that knows something about foreign policy.

Let us not have this feigned indignation and this concern for jobs. This is a coalition that said it would not have had a budget deficit during the global recession. It would have smashed jobs in this country and it would smash jobs again by taking half a billion dollars out of support for the car industry. It has no interest in that industry. The only political party that supports the working men and women of Australia is the great Australian Labor Party, and we will continue to do that while you support Gina Rinehart and do everything you can to smash jobs in this country through a reckless fiscal policy.

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

Those listening to the debate on the economy through question time and this matter of public importance would surely be amazed to hear the Prime Minister during question time and now the Minister for Trade lecture the Australian public and the opposition on surplus budgets. They would find that unbelievable. Only those opposite, only the minister and those behind him, could suspend their sense of reality on their budget record over the last four years, or over the last years of the Hawke and Keating government, enough to keep a straight face and lecture any member of the Australian public on budget surpluses. I say to members opposite that the more you engage in this ridiculous, unreal argument, the more you insult the Australian families who know that your debt and deficit, your fiscal irresponsibility, costs them dearly at the end of the day. The shadow Treasurer outlined in great detail your failure on jobs and outlined very eloquently your failed fiscal record.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey should know he needs to speak through the chair—I do not think I have had a debt crisis.

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

That is right, but you do bear some share of the blame, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not when I am in the chair. You need to withdraw that. You have been here long enough to understand the forms of the House.

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

You are right—not when you are in the chair. I withdraw.

The profligacy and the excess of those opposite—the higher debt and the higher deficits—have costs for Australian families. You have to give the Prime Minister top marks for spin and sheer gall. For those opposite to be lecturing on surplus budgets and on fiscal responsibility when none of them has ever been part of a surplus budget is absolutely ridiculous. Those of us on this side of the House are in no mood to be lectured by those opposite on balanced budgets—not by a political party that has run deficit after deficit every year it has been in office since 1990. If they were a football team they would have a perfect record for all the wrong reasons: zero out of 10. They would surely win the wooden spoon.

Let us have a close look at their record, since they are so interested in this subject. They are so interested in giving lectures and so uninterested in looking at their own record. But their own record is the only thing that matters to Australian families and small businesses. If we go back to 1990-91, we see a deficit of $400 million, rising to $12 billion the following year, to $18 billion the year after that as well as the following year and to $14 billion the year after that. Then—and this will sound familiar to my colleagues on this side of the House—in 1995 the then Labor government promised that the budget would return back to surplus—that it would miraculously turn back within one year. Back in those days, before the Charter of Budget Honesty—introduced by Treasurer Costello—the government did not release the fiscal outlook at the start of an election campaign. So right through that election campaign Labor insisted that the budget was still in surplus. Even those members opposite know about the infamous black hole that the Howard government encountered upon its election. The outcome for the 1995-96 budget was $11 billion.

That was the last six years of the Labor government—back-to-back deficits, helping pile up net government debt of $96 billion. That debt had a tangible cost. It cost $8 billion a year just to service that debt and not pay it off. That was $8 billion that was not spent on roads, schools or hospitals. Luckily, Australia then took a different path. By 1998 the budget was back in surplus and we started chipping away at the debt mountain. It took 10 years from 1996 until 'Debt-Free Day' in April 2006. By 2007, there was $45 billion in the bank as a buffer against the unforeseen. As a result, Australia was uniquely placed when the GFC hit in 2008. Imagine what Australia would have confronted if we had stayed on that path of deficit and debt for all those years—if we had stayed on the Labor path.

For this Prime Minister and Treasurer to claim credit for Australia's performance through the GFC, when it was the work that was done prior to that to prepare Australia against the unforeseen that was responsible, is absolutely shameless. It is like two second-string players appearing on the field during time on in the last quarter of a grand final and trying to convince people that they were responsible for all the match-winning moves. When it comes to economics, it would be embarrassing if it were not so serious.

If we look at the first four years of this Labor government, there is still no surplus. As the shadow Treasurer said, Labor's record has been deficit after deficit. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there has been $167 billion worth of cumulative deficits—$27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion. Then we come to the 2011-12 financial year. The deficit was supposed to be $12 billion—and this is an interesting point, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out. It was 'supposed to be', but what happened? The MYEFO in December 2010—about 15 months ago—pegged this financial year's deficit at $12 billion. Six months later, in the budget, we were told it would be $22.6 billion. Then, at the end of last year—another six months on—it was $37.1 billion. And the year ain't over yet. Those opposite have the hide to try to lecture on budget surpluses when, in the whole lifetime of one of the members on this side of the House, Labor has never delivered one.

The Treasurer is on some sort of Burke and Wills expedition. The government thinks it can airbrush away its own history over more than 20 years, but the public are very familiar with the debt story in Australia, because they have paid the price, over many years, for Labor's failure. It is always the failure of Labor's fiscal competence right here in Canberra that forces Australian families and small businesses to pay the price in their homes and their small businesses. They know in their hearts of hearts that a lack of competence here by this government is leading to a lack of economic confidence throughout Australian small businesses and Australian families. This is backed up in all the official publications that the minister, the Treasurer and his colleagues will never quote from in question time.

But the record of those opposite, for the last 21 years, is of nothing but deficit—