Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can hear the cries from the opposition. They do not want to acknowledge this. They do not want to acknowledge that they put in place by their policies a structural deficit because they did not think about the future. They did not think about which way the country was going to go. That structural deficit was well and truly in place and at the same time we had rising inflation and projected rising expenditure. This was pro-cyclical spending. When the Labor government was hit by the GFC it got into countercyclical spending, a classic and much-applauded technique around the world. The fact is—and the opposition will not acknowledge this—this government is recognised around the world as having undertaken sensible, pro-active and successful policies to ensure that, when the rest of the world was going into recession, Australians were able to bypass that.

There was a cash surplus left by the Howard government, which was useful in that process. I think all government members acknowledge that. It was, however, funded by an extraordinary growth in tax receipts. Again I quote Lindsay Tanner:

Over the six years to 2007-08 growth in tax receipts averaged 8.1 per cent per annum.

These are the people who complain about big new taxes. He continued:

In the election budget of 2000-01 tax receipts grew by 12.6 per cent. Yet from 2003 to 2007 there were virtually no significant savings measures in the budget.

Yes, there were tax cuts under the Howard government but there were tax cuts under the Rudd and Gillard government as well. We delivered on those tax cuts. We delivered sensible tax cuts and we are now delivering expenditure on infrastructure and expenditure on productivity that will reverse the underlying structural deficit. That is the difference.

Senator Ronaldson talked about cost-of-living pressures and we have heard that from the coalition. We did not hear anything about cost-of-living pressures under the Howard government. I do not deny that there are cost-of-living pressures. I know that families are experiencing cost-of-living pressures, but they would be experiencing a lot more cost-of-living pressure if there were a lot more unemployment in this country. If the government had not put together the sensible, practical stimulus package, there would be a lot more unemployment in this country and that would cause continuing structural problems in our economy.

It is all very well for coalition members to live by some short-term formula, but Labor government members take great pride in the fact that their policies and their passion are for delivering a strong, stable, productive economy where ordinary people are able to benefit from the growth of this country, hence proposed measures like the mining tax, which is so trenchantly opposed by those opposite. They trenchantly oppose any revenue measures but do not propose any serious practical measures for reducing our outlay. To be lectured by members of the coalition is demonstrably inane and stupid because their record in government has been poor. They have stood back and opposed a serious, practical and extensive government program of economic management. We have seen no policy and no ideas, and even if we had we have seen in the past that the projections made by their leader, Tony Abbott, are subject to this broken promises out—we cannot place absolute weight on what he says at some times. This is the quality of the opposition that we are facing and I am certainly glad that I am on this side of the chamber.