Senate debates
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Questions without Notice
Budget Surplus
2:14 pm
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source
Let us be clear: when those opposite keep interjecting, ‘They’ve inherited it from us,’ this is not the truth. What those opposite proposed was to loosen fiscal policy. They were advocating a policy position of 1.5 per cent of GDP for the surplus. What we delivered was 1.8 per cent. So, when they want to catchcry and interject that we inherited it from them, we actually delivered the surplus that this country needed. We needed responsible economic management, and that is why we delivered a strong surplus of $22 billion. This surplus will provide a buffer against uncertain global economic conditions. It will help the fight against inflation and it will give us the capacity to invest in Australia’s long-term future.
We made room for a substantial Working Family Support Package, including $47 billion in tax cuts. We laid the foundation for responsible investment in growth for the future, providing $40 billion for responsible investment in nation building. Our approach, which combines a big surplus with relief for families and investment in long-term growth, is the best way to meet the substantial global challenges that we face in this country. And it is an approach that has been endorsed by organisations like the IMF.
The Liberal Party’s irresponsible and reckless approach in the Senate is putting at risk the strong surplus we need in uncertain global times. Those opposite want to punch a $6.2 billion hole in the surplus. Those opposite have fallen from any pretence of being responsible economic managers to simply being economic vandals. They are yet to explain the impact on inflation and the interest rates paid by working families from the decisions they intend to take here in this chamber. Last week, as we know, Senator Fifield and the opposition’s leader in this chamber, ‘Dr Yes’, were arguing that we should have a lower surplus. That was their argument last week. They say we should simply absorb— (Time expired)
No comments