Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I just cannot get over the hypocrisy of the coalition on this issue of debt. I was a member of the economics committee for 5½ years and on that economics committee we had coalition member after coalition member railing against any increase in government debt. It did not matter whether it was good debt or bad debt; so long as it had the four-letter word 'debt' they railed against debt. I suppose the epitome of the coalition's position has been driven by the National Party. That is the problem that the coalition have: that the National Party are actually driving their economic agenda for them. When they keep capitulating to the National Party on economic issues then any credibility that they claim to have brought from the previous government, I think, dissipates quickly.

When you talk about debt, you have to look at the overall economic agenda of a government and you have to look at the economic leadership, or lack of leadership, you get from your treasurer. My experience in politics over recent years is that you do not get much leadership from coalition treasurers—in fact, coalition treasurers are normally pretty malleable. Their backs are made out of rubber. They do not seem to stand up to any challenge in terms of good economic policy. You only have to get former Senator Joyce standing up and talking about how bad debt is, and the coalition run away from debt.

The coalition disparage debt, time and time again. Yet, here we are. After years and years of disparaging debt, we have this grab to move to debt, a grab to say: 'We will embrace debt. We will embrace $500 billion.' Now, with your deal with the Greens, you have the triumvirate: the National Party, the Liberals and the Greens determining economic policy for the coalition. I have to say: people are worried. You only have to read the economic analysis that is out there. People are worried about the messages that are being sent by this government that claimed it would do so much prior to the election and has done so little. It is a government that is in chaos internally, a government that is trying to juggle the pressure from the left by the Greens, from the right from the National Party; they are not handling it. All the balls are going up and they are falling at their feet. You know that well, Senator Sinodinos.

I suppose we have to accept some of our responsibility on this; we handled the global financial crisis too well. We acted in a timely, temporary and targeted manner. All around the world, any analysis that was undertaken by economists or by other governments said what a great job we did. But what the coalition seems to want to do when it comes to debt is forget that sometimes Keynesian economics needs to be implemented. I know you have your right-wing ideologues in the coalition, especially the modest members who would have government do nothing. It is interesting to note that the modest members are no longer claiming they are modest members when they are writing articles. I see this morning that the latest modest member has just walked away from this issue of being a modest member. I am not surprised, given their economic theories are being trashed, day in and day out, by this extremely simplistic and pragmatic approach from the coalition on economic policy.

Sometimes, as you would be aware, Senator Sinodinos, when there is a failure of the market, government has to step in. When you have the biggest single economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is appropriate for government to step in when the market freezes. When investment stops, when business abandons the scene, then you need to take on debt. The previous government did that in a manner based on advice from Treasury, based on watching what was happening worldwide, and ensuring that we did the right thing by this community and by this country.

We did that and we did it well: 210,000 jobs were saved because of the actions we took during the global financial crisis. But, if you listen to the coalition, you would think that there was no problem there; that we should not have gone into debt; that we should have simply abandoned communities around this country; that we should have abandoned industries; that we should have said to the business sector in this country, 'Let the market rip. You get on with it. You suffer the consequences of the global financial crisis', because we would be taking debt on.

So you railed against debt at every opportunity and you used debt as the marker for incompetent government. You argued that, if you were going into debt, there was an incompetence there. But you know, Senator Sinodinos, that that is not correct and that governments go into debt for a range of factors. You railed against government debt during your time in opposition, and now that you are in government it has gone completely the other way—debt is required, masses of it—uncharted amounts of debt can be brought to bear.

I have heard the argument that you are not setting a target for debt, that this will keep the debt under control. I just do not buy that for a minute, because quite frankly when you have a weak Treasurer, as you have with Treasurer Hockey, in the mould and in the tradition of former Treasurer Costello, when you have a weakness at the fundamental core of the coalition when it comes to economic policy, we are entitled to be worried about what is going to happen to this economy.

It is clear that many in the coalition do not understand the fundamentals of the economy, do not understand the role of debt. And, if you do not understand the fundamentals and you do not understand the role of debt, if you have a blank cheque written for you by your new coalition partners the Greens, then we worry that you are not going to be able to manage the economy effectively.

Look at some of the recent decisions: the manufacturing sector—the car industry that creates tens of thousands of jobs around the world and around this country. You have the car industry; you have Qantas. What do we have? We have a bumbling, indecisive government, because you have a bumbling, indecisive Treasurer at the core. It is obvious, Senator Sinodinos, that you pride yourself on your economic credibility and your economic knowledge; it is not clear then that you are influencing your leader, the Treasurer, on this issue.

I will not go to the Prime Minister, because you know what the former Treasurer Peter Costello said about the Prime Minister: basically 'economics is not his strong suit'. So we are left with a position where the Prime Minister has no economic credibility, where the Prime Minister cannot handle economics and where you have a Treasurer who is in the jelly-backed tradition of treasurers in the coalition. You set up this new arrangement with the Greens, who are there driving your economic policy. We are entitled to be worried about where we are heading as a country under your lack of strategy, your lack of planning and your lack of economic credibility. This is what we have to look at here. You have vilified debt for years, and then, suddenly, when you are in government, debt is as much as you can roll in: 'Give us $500 billion debt.'

The big trucks have all disappeared. We do not see any more trucks going around the place with government debt on them, because the coalition are going to be absolutely delinquent on debt. Senator Sinodinos, you can stand up and you can argue that you will be good economic managers, but there is no evidence—either in the Howard government or in the governments before the Howard government when John Howard was the Treasurer—that there are good economic underpinnings by the coalition. They were poor economic managers; they have always been poor economic managers. They have always gone for the short game, never the long game. They have never understood what the long-term issues are. That is why we have this crazy proposition. Where are the economic underpinnings of this so-called 'Direct Action'? Absolutely none. There is not an economist in the country who is prepared to stand up and say that this is the way forward.

We have a coalition, in my view, dithering over an economic crisis. They do not know where they are going. They will probably set up another review on something or other. We have 50 reviews in nearly as many days they have been in government. How many more reviews do they want? When are they going to start taking some economic leadership? When are they going to demonstrate even an inkling of economic understanding about the issues that are important for this country. I do not think that the coalition will.

They come in here and argue that we should simply capitulate on an open chequebook for the coalition. That is a real worry because whenever they have the National Party on their right and the Greens on their left in this new coalition then I just worry about what demands will be put on their Treasurer. As soon as a demand is put on their Treasurer, you know what happens, Senator Sinodinos, the rubber-back just collapses and he gives in. He was not going to be bullied, but the first rumbling from the National Party when they put a shot across his bow on national television and he gave in.

We need investment in this country. We need a strong approach on debt in this country. That is what the previous government gave and that is why we have had three AAA ratings that the coalition never, ever had. It is extremely worrying that if they have a blank chequebook that all these pressures will be put on them from the Greens and from the National Party to give in on their pet projects, and the trough will have to be bigger and bigger. We know who the experts are in this place at feeding off a trough—the National Party. You know that, Senator Sinodinos, that is why you are smiling. You had to try to manage that for many years, unsuccessfully, I am afraid, when you were the chief of staff to John Howard. But you really have a problem, in my view; you do not understand the economic issues that are important for this country. You are prepared to abandon communities in South Australia, abandon communities in Victoria and abandon families. You talk about these issues in big, macro economic terms but you just do not understand the implications for a family if they lose their jobs in Elizabeth or if they lose their jobs in Port Melbourne. These are big issues for ordinary people and ordinary families, and all those opposite want to do as a government is to pile on more debt and to get a blank chequebook so they can try to look as if they know what they are doing.

It is quite clear that the coalition have no economic comprehension of what the issues are, that the public have been conned and that you are not the government that people thought they voted for. If they only think they know what your policy is then there is a problem. I think your performance so far as a government has been abysmal and the public are onto you.