Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The failure of the Treasurer to provide economic leadership.

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—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A few weeks ago, the member for Wentworth casually sauntered out into one of the courtyards here in Parliament House and he announced to the Australian people that he would be cutting down a first-term Prime Minister. What was the reason he gave to the Australian people for this move? He told us that Australia was not receiving the economic leadership we needed, and, hence, he needed to replace the Prime Minister. It was quite extraordinary: the putative Prime Minister was saying that the cabinet of the government he had been a senior minister in for two years was letting Australia down when it came to the economy. The Labor Party has been pointing this out for two years; we have been making that argument. Malcolm Turnbull, the now Prime Minister, made the argument, and the majority of the Liberal Party agreed with him. They had come around to the point of view that they were not giving Australia the leadership it needed.

What was the Prime Minister's answer to this question—his secret weapon on the economy? It turned out it was the member for Cook, his new Treasurer. This was his appointment to turn around the malaise in economic policymaking in Australia. Well, we finished today the first full sitting fortnight of the Turnbull government with the new Treasurer, and we have seen a performance over the fortnight that makes the old Treasurer look good. Who would've thought the member for Cook could make the member for North Sydney look on top of his brief! Who would've thought that he could make the member for North Sydney look like a paragon of competence in his first outing as Treasurer in the House! But he managed to do it. So it has been quite clear through this fortnight that, if the member for Cook is the answer, the Prime Minister has asked the wrong questions about the economy.

Firstly, let us look at the new Treasurer's performance when it comes to the budget. The whole raison d'etre of the Abbott-Turnbull government is to fix the budget. They told us they would get back to surplus, and that was the whole reason for their being elected. And one of the new Treasurer's first moves—right out of the blocks—as new Treasurer was to say: 'Australia does not have a revenue problem.' It was only a spending problem, he said. We have heard that before, because the member for North Sydney used to say that standing here and he used to say it standing on the other side as well, that Australia did not have a revenue problem. But then he came to office and he brought down a budget, and he brought in a GP tax, a petrol tax and a deficit levy—all revenue measures. Yesterday, the former Treasurer gave his valedictory speech and he begged for high-income superannuation concessions to be reined in. He even called for reform of negative gearing. They would be revenue measures. The former Treasurer had worked out what the new Treasurer is yet to work out.

At question time we asked the new Treasurer: how much did revenue fall between the 2014 and the 2015 budgets? The answer could qualify as simply bizarre, because he came to the dispatch box to tell us about spending. That was his answer to a question about revenue. I will concede this: spending under this Treasurer is running at GFC levels—that is true. We concede that and we agree with that. But then the new Treasurer tells us that we should reduce spending to the same proportion it was in 2007 under the Howard government, which was 23.1 per cent of GDP. So from 25.9, which is high, to 23.1. That amounts to $45 billion a year in cuts that he says the nation needs to embrace. Let's consider just how big that would be. The age pension in the budget is $44 billion and he wants $45 billion worth of cuts. He could abolish the age pension. That would be one way to do it, and with this government you would not put it past them. They have already had a go at the pension, on several occasions. That just shows the magnitude of this Treasurer being completely out of his depth. No wonder he is confused about when they are going to get back to surplus.

We asked him when Australia would get back to surplus. Quite clearly, he thought it was a trick question. He was not happy to answer that question, because he could not answer. We will forgive him that. You have some question times that are better than others. He was asked again on the Today Show, the next day, so he had 24 hours to think about this. In an interview which I think would be an equal tie with the Minister for Social Services for the biggest train wreck of the week, he told us that we will get back to surplus 'in the future when we get to that point'. That was his very detailed answer. It would not be in the past—he cleared that up; we will get to the surplus in the future. That is the new position of the Abbott-Turnbull government. We have had several. We were told there was going to be a surplus in the first year. That has been and gone, as has every year afterwards. Then we were told at the end of the forward estimates that it would be in four years. That is no longer the case. Then we were told it would be at the end of the decade. Then the former Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, said it did not really matter when we got back to surplus. Now the new Treasurer says, 'It does matter and we'll get there in the future at some point.' That is the fiscal strategy of the government.

The Treasurer is all talk when it comes to economic growth. He told us, 'You should be focused on economic growth like we are.' If you were the Treasurer in the Abbott-Turnbull government, would you be talking about economic growth? I do not think you would be boasting about the performance. Again, we asked the Treasurer: was growth for this financial year revised up or down in the Abbott-Turnbull government's last budget? We did not get an answer to that. He could have tabled a document or he could have tabled a graph of growth under the Liberal government. He could have tabled this graph showing growth going down under this government. He chose not to do that.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no adrenaline rush. We will get to confidence in a minute, the member for Fraser. He could have tabled that, but he did not. Is it any wonder that growth is down when confidence has been so down on this government's watch? Business and consumer confidence is down. Westpac's Consumer Sentiment shows consumer confidence remains down, even after the recent change of management, the coup, where the first-term Prime Minister was cut down by the member for Wentworth. It remains down by 12 per cent on the election. The index has been under 100 for 18 out of the last 20 readings, which means it is in negative territory. Confidence remains down because of the lack of confidence in the economic management of this government. The backbench showed lack of confidence in the economic management of the Abbott-Hockey government and the nation has lack of confidence in the economic management of the new Treasurer, and we are continuing to see that play out day after day.

We have had two years of failed leadership—two wasted years under the Liberal-National Party government. We were promised an adrenaline charge to confidence and all we have had is two wasted years. There has been two years of arrogance, two years of false starts, two years of missed opportunities and two years of prejudice and cuts, exactly the opposite of what the Australian people were promised. The performance has been so bad over two years that the government cut down their Prime Minister, because they were told that economic management was not up to scratch. That was the campaign pitch of the member for Wentworth: economic management has not been up to scratch and he said he had a new plan to fix it, and that new plan was the member for Cook. The new plan is not working either. Plan B turns out to be as much of a shocker as plan A. What we see is that the member for Cook is clearly not up to the job. The arrogance is there, the insults are there and the lack of confidence is there, but we do not have an economic strategy to promote growth and opportunity. We do not have an understanding of the budgetary pressures on Australian families, and we saw that play out with the sterling performance by the Minister for Social Services today.

I know I am meant to constrain my remarks to the Treasurer, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, but I am sure you will not mind if we point out for just a moment that this is a cabinet-wide problem. One of the most senior ministers in the government—the Minister for Social Services—is clearly not on top of his brief and is arrogantly lecturing to Australia's families and Australia's grandparents that they have to go back to work or they should put their 15-year-old in child care, bizarrely. No wonder the Treasurer thought he had a good day, because the Minister for Social Services finally got to his feet and finally the Treasurer looked like one of the more competent ministers in the Turnbull government.

In fairness, I do not hold the new Treasurer responsible for all the economic problems in this nation; the entire Liberal-National Party government of the last two years created these problems. The new Treasurer needs to be on top of his brief if he is going to get on top of the incompetence of the last two years. The new Treasurer needs to show that he has the empathy and the understanding of the issues. The new Treasurer needs to show that has an understanding of the full details of his portfolio if he is to turn around this mess, this two year mess of economic management, which sees growth down, confidence down, investment down, unemployment up, the deficit up and debt up. Can this Treasurer turn this around? Can this Treasurer fix the mess of the last two years? The evidence is in, and the answer is no.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that was electric. It was matched only by the enthusiasm of his own members sitting behind him for that monologue style of his—that very loud monologue, which I know the member for Hughes struggled to hear! So make it a bit louder next time and maybe the member for Hughes will pick up what you were saying. It is as if the shadow Treasurer has not received the memo about what is needed in the Australian economy, because he is talking in the same way that he has talked over the past two years, using the same old language the Australian people have indicated they do not want to hear any more.

They want to hear a government that is talking about promoting economic growth. The shadow Treasurer ridicules the concept of growth and why we need growth in the economy. But economic growth is at the core of this government's agenda. It is at the core of improving our way of life and improving our standard of living. It is a given fact, which the Prime Minister reiterates time and time again, that Australia cannot afford to stand still and that we must grow our economy, to provide the jobs and higher incomes and the greater prosperity and financial security that we all deserve.

When we sit through this kind of monologue from the shadow Treasurer—really just ranting at us for 10 minutes—it really is not very constructive in regard to how we are going to improve our economy and what we are going to do to improve our standard of living. This week we have been able to come to an agreement on free trade—finally, the Labor Party has been able to stare down their union friends and say that they want to support the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. They have said they are finally going to stand up in the face of the false advertising campaign the CFMEU is running around the country and say, 'We support free trade with China because it will produce jobs, growth and prosperity.' That did not cross the shadow Treasurer lips in his presentation about the economy. Why wouldn't he get up and raise the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the benefits we have worked together as a parliament to deliver to the Australian people?

The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, one of the first free trade agreements China has signed in the world, will be one of the great enablers of Australian prosperity for the 21st century. It will set up all of our children and grandchildren and it will deliver more jobs and prosperity than any other single measure taken by a government in Australia's history.

Yet, we did not hear one note of optimism cross the shadow Treasurer's lips in his presentation—not one hope, not one dream and not one ambition. There was just a simple memo from the past that he has not got the message from the Australian people that they expect better of this parliament and they expect a government that will deliver better in relation to the economy.

Since coming to office, the Treasurer has been working very hard on a national platform for economic growth. That is what we are all about in the Turnbull government: working collaboratively with some of our most important partners, the states and territories, to deliver the growth and prosperity we need. What does this mean? There are a number of pillars the Treasurer talks about, and none of these crossed the shadow Treasurer's lips, either: having a tax system that is fit for purpose, and I think everyone in here understands what I mean when I say that; and, competition policy that encourages the states to undertake necessary and long-overdue microeconomic reforms that we all know we need. If the shadow Treasurer does not want to listen to me, he can listen to that great reforming Treasurer Paul Keating, who said in a famous answer given in this house:

I guarantee if you walk into any pet shop in Australia, the resident galah will be talking about microeconomic policy.

Well, perhaps the resident galahs in the opposition could listen to the great Paul Keating about microeconomic reform. It is certainly the intention of this government to work collaboratively with the states to ensure that, in collaboration with the states, microeconomic reform is at the centre of the Turnbull government's agenda. That means infrastructure, involving the private sector, assisting the government, and recognising that there are infrastructure shortfalls that cannot be funded by government alone. No government can commit the amount of capital required to deliver and meet the state and federal infrastructure challenges all over our country.

That is why this government brought in the asset recycling scheme. The shadow Treasurer said that the former Treasurer was no good. The asset recycling scheme, which is being enabled by every single state and territory is of course providing the capital from the federal government, providing the microeconomic reform, and delivering capital from the public and private sectors to enable infrastructure funding. As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have said time and time again this week in response to every negative question the Labor Party has thrown at us, when you want to fund something you have an obligation, a responsibility and an onus to tell the Australian people how you will fund that commitment. It is not 'somehow' or 'anyhow'. It is not an obscure request for detail. It is a vital component for any promise or commitment from any government or any serious member of this place or serious senior politician.

But the 'somehow' for Labor is always missing. So, when we talk about infrastructure in our national platform for economic growth, when we talk about funding the critical infrastructure shortfalls that our nation has, you have to be able to enable private sector capital, you have to be able to have public and private partnerships, and you have to enable asset recycling. That is what the Turnbull-Morrison government is doing.

Through our free trade platforms, we are also working very hard on exports and new markets. With the free trade agreements, whether it be with Korea, Japan or China, this is the government that has progressed and signed all of these deals. So, criticise it all you like. Speak with us about your ideas on the details. But it is the Abbott and Turnbull governments that have signed these agreements. It is the Turnbull government that every single day is speaking about the new opportunities in emerging markets in our region. It is the Turnbull government that is pursuing government of the 21st century that recognises the need to modernise our laws, our tax system and our federation so that we can take advantage of the free trade opportunities that exist in our region.

This week we saw that at the forefront of the government's agenda is a stronger financial system. We already have one of the strongest financial systems in the world. It is the case that the Howard-Costello years produced a strong financial system through world-leading prudential regulation of our economy, from APRA, which enabled our banks to be in the best place in the world in the lead-up to the most serious economic challenge that faced us, namely, the global financial crisis.

This week we saw a considered measured approach on the financial systems inquiry and the Murray inquiry response. We saw the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer outline in detail exactly how this government will ensure we have a very strong financial services system into the future. What is most pleasing about that is that, for once—and I recognise some of the shadow ministers opposite—we did not have the usual snarkiness that we saw from the shadow Treasurer in this debate today. We did not have the usual sniping and attacks. We had, again, a collaborative approach from the opposition and the government on this. They recognised that the government has made common-sense responses to common-sense recommendations about our superannuation system and our financial services system that will enable a strong financial services sector into the future. Never mind that they do not agree with us about very important matters like independent directors on super boards.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

I know you do not agree, but I note today that APRA is pushing to complete the journey on this to have a majority of independent members on superannuation boards. It is not the government's position, mind you; the government's position in legislation is to have just one-third of independent directors in place on superannuation boards—prudent management of superannuation funds. And yet the Labor Party opposes such a common-sense, middle-of-the-road approach.

Further to all of these points, a strong budget that maintains our AAA credit rating and responsibly allocates money to the key drivers of growth is vital to the national platform for economic growth that the Treasurer is implementing. Last of all, but not to be discounted—not to be dismissed, because it is a central focus of the Turnbull government and a central focus of the Treasurer in his approach to all of these economic matters and the national platform for economic growth—is innovation to stimulate an agile economy so we can meet the challenges and capitalise on the opportunities. What you will see in the national platform for economic growth is that innovative approach brought forward by government so that we have a government for the 21st century—the government that the Australian people want, that is agile, that is responsive and that is capable of taking up all of these opportunities in our region to ensure that we have jobs and growth.

It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about economic matters because it allows me to highlight the government's national platform for economic growth. It is the Treasurer's intention to make sure that this economic agenda is not derailed by negativity. It will not be derailed by the negativity of the shadow Treasurer. We must accept the good ideas when they come forward. Our aim is to put the ideas forward that will meet the challenges of the 21st century—to ensure that we have a tax system that is fit for purpose, to ensure that all Australians can work, save and invest, and to ensure that everything that we do as a government meets the needs of the 21st century and the modern changing economy.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ahead of an AFL game at the MCG, Michael Nuciforo and Robert Crocitti were driving around East Melbourne looking for a place to park. As they put it:

As we drove past parked car, after parked car, after empty space that required a parking permit … It then hit us. Wouldn't it be great if we could just knock on someone's door and ask to park at their place for a small fee? … The more we thought about it, the more it made sense … We don't need more parking spaces, we just need to utilise the parking spaces we already have.

Parkhound is one of the many sharing economy services that have emerged in Australia over recent years. Uber, Lyft and Sidecar are transforming transport for many Australians and offer the potential of dealing with traffic congestion. Victorian freeway speeds have dropped from 68 kilometres an hour to 45 kilometres an hour over the last decade as our roads have become increasingly choked. Airbnb offers the opportunity to better deal with the challenge of housing affordability. At the same time as we have house prices to incomes at record highs, we have 10 million spare rooms across Australia. Pawshake and PetCloud offer opportunities to have your pet looked after in a friendly home. Airtasker, Freelancer and Sidekicker offer opportunities to find someone who can help mow your lawn or, most popularly, put together some new IKEA furniture. GoGet and DriveMyCar offer chances to let people share cars rather than clogging up our cities with more vehicles. Vayable offer local tours. EatWith offer a home-cooked meal. Camplify, based in Newcastle, is a sharing economy service that recognises that the typical caravan and campervan owner only uses them three weeks a year. These services have, in many cases, been put together by Australian innovators and entrepreneurs—people like Chris Noone from DriveMyCar, Tristan Sender from GoGet and Justin Hales from Camplify.

Labor welcome the sharing economy, but we also believe the sharing economy should play by some basic rules. Today, along with Bill Shorten and Ed Husic, I announced Labor's sharing economy principles. Primary property is yours to share. When Australians use their own homes, cars or goods to deliver services, then rules and regulations specific to the sharing economy should apply. The new services should support good wages and working conditions, because there is nothing that Labor believes in more than making sure that workers get a fair deal. We believe there should be fair tax for everyone and that sharing economy services should pay their fair share towards supporting the government services that all of us enjoy. There should be proper protections for public safety and we must ensure that there is an environment that supports insurance. Access for all allows Australians with disabilities to benefit from sharing economy services such as UberASSIST, which provides opportunities for people with disabilities to access a disability accessible car. The new services should play by the rules, and those rules, once put in place, need to be firmly and appropriately enforced.

Labor came forward with these principles off the back of a discussion paper I announced in the National Press Club in March which garnered more than 500 submissions. We have moved on the issue of the sharing economy because the federal government has not. Just as Labor have taken up the challenge of policymaking in cities and in innovation, so too we are doing it in the sharing economy. You see this with other Labor governments across Australia. In the ACT, the Barr government is engaging with the regulatory structures surrounding Uber and ensuring that taxi drivers see a 75 per cent cut in their license fees and that ride sharing is appropriately regulated. In Victoria, the Victorian government is working with Airbnb to allow new opportunities in a disaster relief situation. Where people want to open up their homes and offer a free room to someone affected by a national disaster, Airbnb can facilitate that.

I would like to thank the CBR Innovation Network, which hosted us today—the founder, Sarah Pearson, the chair, Tony Henshaw, and the companies that we met today: Made For Me, HACT, The Creative Element, Dilkara and SolarBare.

The sharing economy offers great potential for Australian innovators. It also offers the chance to tackle big challenges such as congestion and housing affordability. We need to get the rules right, and that is why Labor is leading on the sharing economy. We believe the sharing economy can work for workers, for consumers and for taxpayers alike. If the government will not lead, Labor will.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding the economic leadership of the Treasurer, and do so with great pleasure. I thank the member for Fraser for that contribution—but I am not quite sure what topic he was talking about there, because the MPI is in relation to the Treasurer. It was totally off topic. We on this side of the House are very committed to a stronger economy. We are committed to running a surplus and committed to providing more jobs. I know that is foreign to the members opposite, particularly to the member for McMahon and the member for Rankin, who were responsible, with the member for Lilley, for something like six record budget deficits, year in, year out.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's bigger now, you fool!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And why is that? I will come back to that. But we are committed to a surplus. One thing that unites the coalition and the Liberal and Nationals parties is that we want to return the budget to surplus after eight years of deficits, started by Labor, spending billions of dollars—billions of dollars squandered on all sorts of things. It is time to return to surplus, and on this side of the House we are very committed to doing so. We are also very committed to ensuring that there are more jobs in the Australian economy, and we will never stop. And you are right: there might be people who are unemployed, and that is not good enough, and we will continue to work on that. We had a five-year target and a 10-year target, and we are on our way to achieving that. And every member on this side of the House is committed to more jobs.

Next week I will be running a job seeker boot camp for the people of Petrie. I have invited along something like 25 employers and about 50 local people who are unemployed—not just young people but older Australians as well—who can come along and have the chance to mix with employers and find out what it is that employers are looking for when they are hiring. These are positive steps. I know the member for Corangamite regularly talks to young people in her electorate as well about what they can do to achieve their goals and contribute to this great nation.

We are also committed, of course, to lower taxes and higher productivity—and not just within the Public Service and not just within government, but we are helping businesses achieve better productivity by reducing red tape. Since we came to office something like $2.l billion worth of red tape has been cut. Paying less tax is good for the economy and is a due reward for the hardworking men and women of Australia who must save, work hard and invest. And we want to reward them. But what is Labor doing? They are increasing taxes. They are saying no to everything.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

The member for Rankin says we have not come back to surplus. But what have they done? How has he voted on budget saving measures to help Australia return to surplus so that children and young adults like those up there in the gallery and in my electorate of Petrie are not paying, for decades to come, for the way of life of Australians today? They have done nothing. The member for Rankin and every member on that side of the House has done nothing. They have voted against every saving measure. In fact, they have voted against their own measures. I am sure the member for Rankin and other members over there have said, 'We're going to save this; we're going to vote for that.' I think they said it would be $3½ billion worth of savings before the last election, and they have not passed one of their own. The hypocrisy of this MPI and of the actions of those opposite in this House is unbelievable.

Look at ChAFTA. Finally, today they said yes. For months they have been saying, 'No, no, no, no, no.' They remind me of that historic British comedy The Vicar of Dibley. I do not know who here has seen The Vicar of Dibley. Do you remember Mr Trott? He always says, 'No, no, no, no, no, no no—yes.' That is the Labor Party. That has been the Labor Party, for months, on ChAFTA: 'No, no, no, no, no, no, no—yes.' That is the member for Rankin and every member on that side of the House. They need to get their act together. And, finally, I would say that they need to make the savings.

I say to the Australian people and to the people of Petrie: we live in the greatest country in the world—Australia is a wonderful country—but do not let the Labor Party come back to office. We cannot afford these members opposite. They have learnt nothing in two years. When the next election rolls out they still will have learnt nothing. We need to return to surplus. Australia will continue to be the greatest country on earth with the coalition in charge.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the end of another big sitting week in Canberra. Lots of things have happened this week, and I think one of the most important, if we are honest about it, is that we are finishing the week with one less member in this place than we started with: the member for North Sydney has moved on. And for all the disagreements we had with the member for North Sydney, for all the substantial policy problems we had with his budgets and his approach to the economy, I think as he takes that long and winding road back today—the three- or four-hour drive from Canberra to North Sydney, with all his stuff packed up in the back of the car—he will probably take some quiet satisfaction that his replacement is no better than he is. And when the social services minister goes back to his office today and closes the door and curls up into a ball and rocks back and forth and mutters to himself about what happened to him in question time today, he can also take comfort from the fact that he is no worse than the Treasurer. And when the major projects minister goes back and wonders how he got caught defending a hole that was dug and a photo taken before the hole was filled back in again as a major project, he will at least thank his lucky stars that he is not going as badly as the Treasurer of this country.

The Treasurer fails to understand, when we ask him in question time whether growth has been revised up or revised down—that is pretty important for a Treasurer to know—and when he is asked what his plans are for the surplus and when we might have one. He says, 'In the future'. We are going to have one in the future. Then he gets up, in an answer to a question from the member for McMahon, and accidentally confirms that the spending of those opposite is actually higher than the spending that we left them with, which blew out of the water—completely torpedoed—all the rubbish from the member for Petrie, all the rubbish from those opposite about spending in this economy. He got up and in a big whoops moment decided that he would confirm that they are bigger spenders than we were in government. But more serious than all the gaffes and all the gobbledygook from the Treasurer is his failure to provide economic leadership, and that is what this MPI is about—his failure to convert his campaign of undermining the member for North Sydney into a plan for the economy of this nation.

From time to time, when ministers get up, it is possible to bluff, bluster and bumble your way through question time, but it is not possible to bluff, bluster and bumble your way to jobs, growth and opportunity in this economy. It has been two years now and a picture has emerged of their economic management. That picture ain't pretty.

The numbers do not lie. As the member for McMahon ran through, we do have some sickening numbers in the economy at the moment: growth at 0.2 per cent in the June quarter; annual GDP growth of just two per cent, well below trend; since the government's first budget we have seen annual GDP growth trending downwards quarter after quarter; five consecutive quarters of declining living standards; unemployment up to 6.2 per cent; 800,000 Australians out of work; consumer sentiment down 12 per cent from what it was at the election; a budget deficit which has doubled in the last 12 months; and real wages growing at their slowest rate since the ABS began measuring wages growth in our economy. That is the economic record of those opposite.

In this country we need to rebuild our economy an create jobs that last. That is the main task of this parliament at this time in our nation's history. Our economy is at a key juncture. We are in a transition in this economy between one where we have relied for a long time on the high prices that people will pay for our commodities to one that will rely more heavily on innovation and human capital, the sorts of things that the member for Chifley has been on about for as long as I have know him. We do need to focus on those things. Our remarkable quarter-century of growth in this country is at serious risk. If we choose the wrong path, if we get it wrong, we will lose that legacy.

Our choice, as the Leader of the Opposition says, is to get smarter or get poorer. Getting smarter means investing in science and technology. It means teaching and training our people for the jobs of the future and growing our economy in a way that ensures that there is enough opportunity to go around. That is the task of this parliament.

Instead we have a Treasurer who is not up to the task, who does not have a plan to do those things that we need, a Treasurer who was sacked from the board of Tourism Australia unanimously. He got 200 grand more as a payout than he was entitled to and refused to pay it back. He is a guy who got refused an adviser's licence by ASIC. That is the Treasurer of this country. He has a seriously chequered record. No wonder there is no plan for the future of this country or this economy with this Treasurer in charge.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not spoken in an MPI for a while and I note with interest that I haven't really missed much! It is quite ironic that the topic, as always when I come to these MPIs, is that the Treasurer does not have an economic plan—this on the day that we agree and pass ChAFTA in this house. This government has had a strong record over its first two years through ChAFTA today and through the Japanese and Korean free trade agreements.

I admire the member for Fraser and the wonderful oration he gave in his policy announcement this morning. Yes, it is about the future, but it is also about today. It is also understanding the structural budget deficit challenges that we actually face. The thing about ChAFTA that is ironic is that it is also about learning that at times that the problems are big enough you need bipartisan support for some things that are in the national interest.

We do have a structural budget deficit. I have said this and will say it till I am blue in the face. The Intergenerational reportbelled the cat. In the next 40 years we will grow in the age bracket of 65-plus at three times the rate that we will grow in the age bracket of 0-64. You had the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the week stand up and ask why we would have the audacity to increase the retirement age, though the opposition when in government had done exactly the same. It is because we are living longer and larger portions of our life are spent in retirement, not earning or paying tax.

But you can do two things: you can bury your head in the sand and hope that the future is going to save you or you can confront the problem today. I disagree completely with the member for Rankin but I do congratulate him on his promotion. The Minister for Social Services today belled the cat again. He stood at the dispatch box and explained that we are prepared to take the tough decisions we need to but balance with common sense. He explained that at stage in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government the opposition when in government were confronted with the same hard decisions. At times like that, we, like the opposition have today with ChAFTA, worked wit them to make tough calls.

I do not know when the light is going to switch on with the opposition. There are people over there that I have a lot of time for and who are quite switched-on people. At some stage they are going to have to tell us what they are going to do differently and how they are going to pay for it. We are getting close—within 12 months—to the next election. It is fine in opposition to spend two years pooh-poohing everything that the government wants to do and opposing for the sake of opposing, but at some stage they have to offer solutions beyond five-minute orations from the member for Fraser.

They have so far as it sits today a $62 billion black hole. They want to spend—though we cannot actually get them to answer whether they do or not—$80 billion more than us on health and education in the next 10 years. They will not answer that question; they just want to criticise the fact that we will not spend $80 billion more like they want to but then will not say whether they will or will not. The shadow foreign minister wants to spend $16 billion more than we are in our forward estimates in foreign aid over the next 10 years; but, so far, over the same 10-year period they have proposed two revenue measures. One is a multinational tax package which they will not release the PBO budgeting on that will raise $9 billion over the 10 years. The other is a superannuation tax which moves the goalposts on people who have invested in their retirement in good faith under the rules of the day. That is going to raise $14 billion.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Jim, the numbers do not add up. You have got $23 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. There is $62 billion in a black hole. You have got $80 billion that you will or will not—you may answer the question at some stage in the next 12 months—spend. And there is $16 billion. That 62 is over the forward estimates. It was 57 but jumped to 62 in the last week. Before estimates the rest are for 10. So when you take the black hole for the forward estimates and spin the number out, it comes to somewhere in the order of $150 billion to $200 billion that you will not tell us how you are going to pay for. This is the problem we have. The reality will bite at some stage, and the people of Australia will work it out and value a government that is prepared to take the tough decisions that we need.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been talking a lot about leadership and economic leadership. We have been looking at the leadership, in particular, of Malcolm Turnbull. We have looked this week at some of his track record on leadership. We reflected on the fact that on the biggest project he has had to deal with he said he would deliver it faster and cheaper—but he has not. He has basically breached his promises. It is not being rolled out faster. It is being delivered slower. It is being delivered at double the cost of what was predicted. And the download speed target of 25 megabits per second by 2016 was not met. He has failed on every measure.

What happened as a result of that failure on one of the biggest projects in the country? He got promoted! I have been wondering why Malcolm Turnbull keeps saying, 'It's a wonderful time to be alive.' It is because if you stuff up a project like that you can become Prime Minister. That is agile, right there! He said that he needed to be the Prime Minister to provide economic leadership. Here is the test. As has been outlined by my friend and colleague that member for Rankin, the stats are devastating. We have an unemployment level now of over 800,000 people out of work, higher than it was during the GFC. We have wages flat as a tack and hardly growing, about the flattest they have been since records have been collected. Growth is not high enough to cut into that joblessness figure and it is not expected to be any time soon.

If you look at the size of the deficit you will see that, despite those opposite saying that they would come in and bring it down, it has gone up. There have been, for example, five quarters of declining living standards. That is worse than it was during the GFC. Confidence is down as well. When you look at consumer sentiment measured by the Westpac confidence measure you will see that it is 12 per cent below where it was at the election. That is where things are at.

Let's talk about economic leadership. We have a climate where people know that their living standards are declining and that wages are not growing at a rate to help them meet the cost of living. Also they are worried about, for example, what will happen next if they lose their job. What is the economic leadership provided by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer? What is their answer to give people comfort and to make people feel that they will be all right? Their answer is to bring in a bigger GST and cut penalty rates. This is the leadership being shown by those opposite. When they have been asked this week how they will deal with all those problems and deliver confidence, all they have had to rely upon is the financial systems inquiry—as if that is going to deal with all the issues that are on the table. We agreed with the financial assistance inquiry and we are working with the government on that, but they cannot claim that that is going to make any headway on the other issues I have mentioned.

It cannot be said, for instance, that a reliance on trade agreements alone, as good as they are, is going to fix all that. The Prime Minister said that he would provide leadership and do things differently. This is the test: what is he going to change? In the budget, for instance, those opposite have cut $80 billion in health and schools funding. What is he going to do on that? He said he is going to do the same thing. Everything has stayed the same. Everything is supposed to have changed but it has stayed the same.

There are a lot of people on that side who feel they have been betrayed because they thought there was going to be something different. They thought they were voting for change, but the only thing that has changed is that they now have a different Prime Minister. But everything else, every other measure, is all staying the same. There are still the attacks on family payments. There are still the attacks on education and healthcare spending. There is still a commitment to that when we need to find a way to grow the economy, boost confidence and ensure that growth is not just limited to one sector.

The only thing these people ever say whenever they talk about workplace relations is that someone on a penalty rate has to lose, someone's working conditions have to be poorer and someone else has to carry the can for reform instead of them doing the right thing. This is why they are failing. This is not leadership. It has been a total charade that is being led by the Prime Minister and the member for Cook. (Time expired)

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow Treasurer for this opportunity to discuss the very strong economic leadership the coalition has provided over the last two years. How appropriate it is that he should pick today, of all days, to bring this up. To pick a day when a free trade agreement with the world's most populous nation has passed through this place highlights just how out of touch the Labor Party is. The coalition has concluded three free trade agreements that the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government could not do in six years

Free trade is just natural trade. It is the normal default state of affairs for trade. People have wants, needs and desires—some demanding, others supplying. This is how it should be before meddling governments get involved for selfless or selfish reasons. Strong leadership is providing sustainable spending programs that deliver real and efficient results for all Australians. Strong leadership is about growing the wealth of the nation. Strong leadership is knowing that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Australia must rely less on higher taxes to fund ever-increasing public expenditure. We have an expenditure problem, not a revenue problem. We must reduce the burden of tax on individual taxpayers as well as business, especially small business. Paying less tax is good for the economy and is due reward for the hardworking men and women of Australia. Tax is a disease—every economy needs a little bit, but too much and the economy dies.

We must encourage Australians to work, save and invest. If they work, save and invest to grow new business, open new markets and develop new products, they will be able to hire more Australians and promote more trade, especially with the growing middle class of Asia. We cannot wait for it happen and we cannot just expect it to happen.

Our coalition government have reduced real growth in government expenditure from the 3.6 per cent it was under Labor to 1.5 per cent per annum over the 2015-16 forward estimates. That is strong leadership. We have implemented a total of 332 budget measures out of a total of 402. Again, that is leadership. We are taking on the big end of town with respect to our response to the Murray financial services review. Again, that is leadership. At every turn there are examples of strong economic leadership from this coalition government.

Earlier this year the Intergenerational report outlined how Labor's debt negatively impacts economic growth, wastes significant resources on interest payments and leaves Australia exposed in the event of an economic downturn. This is precisely why savings measures are so important. Since the 2013-14 MYEFO, savings measures have improved the budget bottom line over the relevant forward estimates period by more than $85 billion, with $64.3 billion in reduced spending and $20 billion in revenue.

What we are seeing in real terms is pro-growth policies vis-a-vis the infrastructure funding commitments, with responsibility achieved through fiscal consolidation. Yet Labor continues to block about $13.6 billion in budget repair measures which we have put forward. This only demonstrates that Labor is not responsible, capable or credible when it comes to economic management. I do offer the opposition one suggestion. It is simply this: park the politics of envy and put forward some real solutions.

This is a terrific day for the many businesses and families in my electorate of Tangney. Today I am particularly proud that our government has a plan and is getting on with the job of providing strong economic leadership.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance which talks about the failure of the Treasurer to provide economic leadership. If you want to see how the Australian economy is tracking, just look at some of the key indicators—indicators that some of my colleagues have referred to but which I will repeat just to create the picture. Unemployment is up from 5.8 per cent when we left office to where it is now at 6.2 per cent. The underutilisation rate is above 14 per cent. The annual GDP growth rate is tracking at around two per cent and trending downwards. The projected budget deficit was $17 billion when we left office. It went to $35 billion in just 12 months, and I understand that as at last month it was about $48 billion. Government spending is at 26 per cent of GDP and government revenue is at 23.5 per cent of GDP. A particularly interesting indicator is that in the last six months the Australian share market index has fallen from 5,900 to 5,300.

The figures paint a very clear picture, and the picture is that the Australian economy is struggling. The government excuse will always be that commodity prices have fallen, that the Chinese economy is stalling and that we need to make tough decisions. They are weak excuses which simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Have a look at the US, the UK and New Zealand who, during the GFC, were tracking with much more difficulty than Australia. The US economy is growing at a rate of 2.7 per cent, the UK economy at 2.4 per cent and the New Zealand economy at 2.4 per cent at the moment. Regarding their unemployment rates, the US is 5.1 per cent, the UK is 5.4 per cent and New Zealand is 5.9 per cent. All are lower than Australia's rates. That is despite the Australian dollar falling from 92c when we were in office to 70c against the US dollar, despite the three free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China that members opposite keep talking about and despite the fact that the GFC is now behind us. It is not surprising that Westpac consumer sentiment shows that, since the election, consumer confidence in this country is down by 12 per cent. That reflects the message that I get every day while I am out there talking to people and businesses.

There is good reason for that consumer confidence to be down. Yesterday the member for North Sydney, in his valedictory in this place, applauded Labor's NBN policy because he understood the productivity gains and the industry efficiencies and how we can connect with the rest of the world much more easily. Indeed, the Prime Minister today referred to it in terms of the importance of online trade. He understood the importance of having a high-speed, fast broadband in this world. It is no longer a luxury; it is an essential piece of infrastructure. Yet what do the government do? They stall the rollout, they provide an inferior service and the country goes backwards and becomes a joke. Why? It is because the government simply do not understand the importance of it.

Which other advanced economy has trashed its manufacturing industry sector as this government has—and for no better than ideological reasons? None. Other countries value their manufacturing industry sector. Indeed, the USA and UK economies are both growing their manufacturing industries rather than trying to push them backwards and downwards. This government is putting ideology ahead of sound economic management. Which other smart economy would even contemplate spending $50 billion on buying submarines from overseas when Australia has the capability to build them here, when we have Australian ship workers who are losing their jobs and when it actually makes economic sense as well as military sense to build the subs here in Australia? No other government would ever even contemplate that.

But this government simply does not get it and simply does not understand how to manage an economy. The Turnbull government, now with a new Treasurer, has clearly lost control of its budget. Its simplistic and desperate solution is to cut government spending with no understanding and no compassion for the consequences. It is pinning all its hopes on the China free trade agreement.

With respect to that, it is interesting to see that the ink has barely dried on the Japanese and Korean free trade agreements and they have been relegated to the waste bin in terms of the commentary we hear from members opposite in this place. They never talk about them anymore. It is all about how the Chinese free trade agreement is going to save this government. They might hope it will, but it is going to take more than that to do so. What the economy needs is policies that are based on common sense, policies that will show some leadership. When it comes to that, this government has clearly failed to provide the economic leadership that will provide confidence to the rest of the Australian community.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great opportunity to talk on the MPI when our colleagues opposite put up something about economic management. It is like shooting ducks. Unfortunately, members opposite seem to have a bad case of economic amnesia. They criticise us any time a difficult decision is made in this House. That is the job Australia gave us. We went to the 2013 election promising to get our debt under control. And as soon as we start doing that they go weak at the knees. They are not prepared to do anything apart from spend more money. It is really easy to spend money, particularly when it is somebody else's. Margaret Thatcher had it right: the trouble with socialism is that they spend everyone else's money and then, when the money runs out, the whole system collapses.

You have just got to look at what the net debt was for Australia in 2007. It was a negative debt. We had $29 billion in the positive, having inherited $96 billion in the red when the Howard government came to power in 1996. The debt trajectory that we inherited when we came into responsibility for the Treasury was trending at reaching $666 billion by 2023. That is 26½ per cent of the GDP in federal government debt. This is often compared to government debt in other countries, but a lot of those other countries do not have a similar system to ours. They might have a unicameral system and not necessarily have states. If you add Australian federal government debt to state and local government debt, we are up there at $710 billion.

When the winds are heading in the wrong direction in the world economy, you really have to have a government that has got its books in order. That is why it is so important. When the GFC came along, what kept us in place? We had a sound banking system and we had next to no debt. Admittedly, guaranteeing the stability of the banks was a good call. I supported that. But spending billions and billions of dollars—which is a permanent debt that we and all Australian taxpayers have to pay back—to get dodgy school halls and pink batts and to have nothing else to show for it was just a crime. No-one would mind if the Labor government had built the freeway from Sydney up to Brisbane, or the Bruce Highway, or even the inland rail. But no—pink batts and dodgy school halls; that is what you got for your money. It was just a waste of money. So, when they try and have a go at us for economic mismanagement, I just laugh. They have no runs on the board except for growing our debt.

I admit we have taken some very difficult decisions. This afternoon's question time dealt with the family tax benefit B changes. The reason we are making those changes is that we are trying to get people back into work. Someone has got to pay. That is what no-one seems to be prepared to say when they promise X, Y or Z because they think it is a good idea. They do not say who is going to pay, and the answer is, more often than not: it is the taxpayer. Currently, government securities on debt are over $402,636 million. That does not include residential backed mortgage securities, so you can put a bit on top of that as well. Thank God the Future Fund was isolated, because they would have spent that too. They did try back in 2012. They had a little nibble and tried to get a little bit, but fortunately they were not allowed to get hold of the Future Fund.

GDP growth at two per cent is meant to be a crime. That is fantastic if you realise that our economy is linked to China, which has had a massive slowdown. We have a huge linkage in the commodities and, of course, commodities have come off the boil because China has come off the boil. It is a no-brainer. So it is not that surprising. But job ads grew in August and September. Unemployment, despite all the losses in the mining sector is still level at 6.2 per cent. That is pretty good, considering. There have been 118,000 jobs created in last year. That is a good figure. The participation rate is up, at 65 per cent. So, even though we have got more people who are getting the confidence to go back into the economy, our unemployment rate is staying the same. We have got 900 jobs on the Pacific Highway— (Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.