Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make a few comments about drought and the economy, but before I do I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that this is your last evening here in the chamber, Mr President, during adjournment. I would like to place on record that it has been an honour and a privilege to have come into this place during your time as President and that you will be very much missed.

I recognise, as many do, that the drought is still having an enormous impact in regional Australia. While we have seen some rain in quite a number of areas and there is a bit of green around, it has not yet rained any dollars into the banks for farmers. I think it is very important that we recognise that is the situation and we do not lose sight of the number of very difficult years that farmers have had—and it is not only the farmers but also those businesses in rural communities that are suffering the flow-on effects and will do for quite some time to come.

The government has, of course, been assisting as much as we possibly can—with around $1.8 billion in assistance already. Up to about $2 million a day that has gone in drought assistance to local communities, farmers and businesses. Of course, we are only able to do that because of the strong economic management of this government. Certainly one of the best ways to enable farmers to cope with drought is to provide them with a strong economic environment—and that of course means interest rates. Farmers around this country battle terribly during drought, and the pressure they have to face when confronted with high interest rates is extraordinary. As if it is not bad enough having to cope with a lack of rain! It is just not fair on those farmers if they have to cope with high interest rates like those we saw under Labor in the past. Under Labor we saw interest rates of over 20 per cent.

Interestingly, there have been a number of years when we have had dry times in this nation. In 1982, when we were under Labor, the overdraft rate was 15.8 per cent. At that time it was sort of a short, sharp drought but in 1991 we went into quite a long period of dry times. In 1991 the interest rate was 14.3 per cent. Compare that to the last five years of drought that we have had leading up to 2007, where the interest rate has been between eight per cent and nine per cent. That means that farmers, as difficult as it is, can manage to get through these times. We are talking five, six and seven per cent less than we had under Labor during similar dry conditions. That is what this government has delivered.

While we are on that, let us have a look at the government’s economic record compared to that of Labor. Some say that they do not want to listen to what the economy was like under Labor, but it is a little bit like buying a car. If I were thinking about changing my car, I would be absolutely stupid to touch one until I had completely checked out the manual to see what that car’s service record was like. That is what we need to do here. We need to look at how the car the opposition has run will go in the future. It is very interesting to look at what happened under Labor. I know some people think, ‘It was a long time ago; does it really matter?’ Yes, it does matter. Under Labor, interest rates got to over 20 per cent, the unemployment rate got to 10.9 per cent—which meant that a million people were out of work—the teenage unemployment rate got to 34.5 per cent, the long-term unemployment rate was over 30 per cent higher in 1996 than it is now and the inflation rate got to 11.1 per cent. People might not want to look at what happened under Labor, but they are the facts. They are the facts that people need to be aware of.

Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition says that he is an economic conservative. I could say a thousand times that I am a six-foot, dark-haired bloke but, no matter how many times I say it, it is not going to make me a six-foot, dark-haired bloke. We need to look at the Leader of the Opposition’s actions, not his words. While this government was building a strong economy—and that is recognised by people right around this country—the Leader of the Opposition was voting against the very measures that this government put in place to make that happen. I do not understand how he can be an economic conservative and vote against the things that make this economy work when that economically conservative focus is there.

The Treasurer said about the Leader of the Opposition recently in the House:

He says that he now supports an independent Reserve Bank with an inflation target. Labor opposed it. Labor said that it was illegal. Labor promised to sue me for putting it in place. They now say that they are in favour of balanced budgets, but they voted against balanced budgets and said it would take the economy into recession. They now say they are in favour of reducing government debt, but they did everything they could to stop us wiping out $96 billion of Commonwealth debt. They will now have you believe they are in favour of the Future Fund, but they did nothing to set it up and they have promised to raid it.

So it strikes me that it is pretty simple and pretty obvious that when the Leader of the Opposition says he is an economic conservative it is just rubbish. It is important to remember that it is because of Labor’s economic policy that we had a $96 billion debt. I might say that figure again in case you did not catch it: it was $96 billion. While that is a big figure there is a corresponding really big figure: the $8 billion a year of interest that had to be paid because of Labor’s debt. That $8 billion a year has now been freed up so that we can spend it in the best interest of people right around this country and it does not just go to pay of interest on a debt that Labor racked up.

I do not see, as a result of all of this, how the Leader of the Opposition can be an economic conservative. It is interesting to see that the Leader of the Opposition thinks, ‘Mm, people around Australia think the government has been managing the economy very well.’