Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to participate in this debate to take note of answers to questions without notice today. The situation we are in is, I suppose, very open and clear. We have an opposition that is pursuing a budget surplus and we have a government that is pursuing a budget surplus, with an underlying net debt position at the moment of 10 per cent of GDP—that is, one-tenth the level of most other advanced economies. So, in a nutshell: do not worry about the economy, do not worry about the people who work in it and do not worry about the people in it who need to be educated or looked after. Get a surplus. On the other hand, we have a responsible position, taking into consideration all of the global factors. If we were just to look at one simple global factor which has come to light today: the seasonally adjusted trade deficit of $427 million in December 2012 is an 85 per cent improvement on the revised $2.8 billion November deficit. The volatility that exists outside our control is what impacts on the budget.

I am sure those opposite know this fully well. They know it better than the average punter out there who votes. But they see no tactical or political advantage in telling the truth or putting the real case up. They want to confect a situation where they malign the reputation of the Treasurer, malign the reputation of the Prime Minister and advance their ruthless, short-term political aims.

Basically, they lost the last election and never got over it; two of their mates came to the right side of the table and from that day forward everything has been about destruction. Nothing has been positive. Last night we saw swinging voters say, 'We know the position on deficit; we know the position on surplus. Can you cost a policy and tell us about it?' And the answer was, 'No, we're not going to. We will do something before September 14, but we are not going to tell the average voter anything at all about what our policies cost, or what we would be doing.'

All I can say as a very new senator is that I have seen the results of some of the spending. I have travelled the length and breadth of the electorate of Grey. I have seen and heard from the small business operators who kept apprentices on. They have built trade training centres, they have built Building the Education Revolution libraries and science facilities. And that stimulus funding has kept people in rural communities, and a lot of Liberal-held seats, in the game—in the economy.

Let us look at some of the simple things that the Labor government is doing with parental leave. Parental leave is great for the time that you enjoy to have your child at home and either partner looks after it. But what is it really about? It is about people participating in the economy. It is about participation rates; it is about women participating at a greater level than they have been. It is about them enjoying paid employment, contributing to the economy and growing the size of the pie.

As with the NDIS: the Productivity Commission highlights the fact that we can get a genuine economic benefit out of putting these very notable and worthwhile reforms into our economy. And there is a cost, but the cost will be paid over the long term.

I think, really, that the situation we are in is that Labor governments do not walk away from the economy, their constituents or the population in pursuit of a symbol of a surplus. We want a surplus, and we will deliver a surplus. The reality is that we do not ditch people, we do not gut the economy and we do not stagnate the economy. We prime the economy because it is in the best interests of all Australians to be able to contribute, to earn, to work, to have a useful life, to pay their taxes and to provide for their children.

I think that is the ultimate difference between the debate on this side and the debate from the other side, which is purely short-term electoral advantage. The vomit principle is alive and well on the other side. If they continue to repeat their untruths and their statements, they believe the electorate will suddenly wake up and say, 'I've heard that 1,400 times—it must be true'.