David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I was going to speak on some of the policy issues presently facing Australia, but I have to confess at this early juncture that I was so astonished by the performance of the opposition in question time today that I decided it was impossible to allow some of the statements that were made by opposition senators to pass without comment. In question time today Senator Abetz started the ball rolling by asking in his best and most affected sarcastic tone: ‘When will the government deliver a budget surplus?’ What an astonishing question! Does not Senator Abetz recall that the budget brought down by the Treasurer in only May of this year provided for a surplus of $21.7 billion? Of course, the delivery of that surplus is dependant on the passage of the budget through this parliament. And what contribution has Senator Abetz and his magnificent team opposite made to delivering that surplus, that surplus which he argues is so very essential? His contribution has been to block and obstruct the revenue sections of the budget. It is as simple as that. He opposed the luxury car tax. He opposed the tax on alcopops. He opposed measures that contributed more than $3 billion a year to that very surplus he now pretends to worry about.

The Rudd government came to office determined to maintain a strong budget surplus, and it brought down a budget that provided for that very thing: a strong budget surplus. The government wanted a strong surplus in order to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. In the economic circumstances of May 2008, that was absolutely the economically sound and responsible thing to do. Let us cast our minds back. The Labor Party and the new Rudd Labor government had found itself custodians of an overheated economy, an economy that had endured interest rate rise after interest rate rise as it struggled to cope with, amongst other things, the flagrant, outrageous and economically irresponsible pork-barrelling of those opposite. Irrespective of the macroeconomic setting that this country needed, those opposite were determined to spend their way out of political problems.

We did not have to maintain a strong surplus. We could have spent that $21 billion achieving other objectives. We could have spent it fixing some of the things that the Howard government neglected for 11 long years. We could have spent it on schools and universities, on infrastructure and vocational training, or even on raising pensions. But we did the responsible thing and maintained a strong surplus. That fact alone puts paid to the socialist fantasists opposite who are concerned that Labor are not the economically responsible managers that indeed we have proved ourselves to be.

And, in that circumstance, what did the opposition do? They did their best to sabotage the surplus by blocking the key revenue elements of the budget in this Senate. Then they raised a noisy, dishonest, hypocritical campaign—a campaign even they were embarrassed about—demanding that we increase the base rate of the pension. Never mind that they did not raise the pension when they had the power to do so.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We gave you the strongest economy in the Western world! You’ve never given us one of those economies; you gave us a $96 billion debt!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Mason, it is the adjournment debate. I am listening with great care to what Senator Feeney has to say. I would ask you not to interrupt Senator Feeney.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m only speaking the truth, Mr President—as I always do!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can put your name on the list if you want to speak the truth. Senator Feeney, continue.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth is a stranger to those opposite. I remind the honourable senator opposite that the golden rule in politics is never argue with the bloke with the microphone! So, never mind that they did not raise the pension when they had the power to do so. Never mind the fact that the Howard cabinet, including Senator Minchin, Senator Abetz and Senator Coonan and the rest of the fabulous four over there, rejected Minister Mal Brough’s cabinet submission to raise pensions in the 2007 budget. They presumably rejected that submission at the time because Senator Minchin and others said we could not afford it. Notwithstanding that, the hypocrisy of those opposite, boundless as it is, meant that Dr Nelson went on to say, in the aftermath of all of these anti-budget measures, that this was a government that was itself putting the budget at risk. Next they demanded that the government cut fuel excise by 5c a litre, of course a desperate bid by a failing opposition leader to cash in on the dissatisfaction in the community about what was then a spike in world oil prices earlier this year.

If the government had acceded to the opposition’s various demands, absurd as they were, and allowed them to block our revenue measures in the Senate, the total cost would have been $5 billion a year—almost a quarter of the budget surplus announced in May this year. That is the critical context when contemplating the shambolic performance of those opposite in question time today, when they emerged as the new-found defenders of the budget surplus—just as effectively, I might say, as when they tried to come out as the defenders of pensioners earlier in the year. Mr President, there is a good saying in politics: ‘The mob always works you out.’ And let me tell you, those opposite do not have a scintilla of credibility on these critical issues.

Today Senator Abetz sought to lecture us on the importance of maintaining a surplus. But what did his colleagues say about the surplus earlier this year? Dr Nelson said that his populist demand to increase pensions could be ‘taken out of the more than $20 billion surplus.’ Tony Abbott said that ‘it was not economically necessary to have a surplus of $22 billion.’ And what did the Merchant of Venice say? Malcolm Turnbull, on ABC Radio on 13 October, said when considering the proposed pension rise:

Now in addition to the arguments of compassion … there is also the need for an economic stimulus—and this is one economic stimulus that could be delivered in the near term.

So, only last month, Mr Turnbull was in favour of spending a large chunk of the surplus, not only to achieve social policy ends but also to stimulate the economy. That was what Mr Turnbull said, and it was in line with government policy, because what did the Prime Minister announce the very next day? He announced a $10 billion economic stimulus package, including a $4.8 billion package that included benefits for pensioners, benefits for families and benefits for first home buyers.

In response to the global financial crisis which broke out in September of this year, the Rudd government decided to use half the surplus to stimulate the economy and thus safeguard the most vulnerable sectors of our community against the effects of that crisis—which is, as all concede, a foreign-born crisis. And what did Mr Turnbull say about that? He supported it. He said: ‘It has our bipartisan support. It gives justice to Australia’s aged pensioners, in particular, who have been doing it tough.’

What does all of this tell us? It tells us that, when those opposite meet every morning to plot their cunning strategies for question time, they would do well to have regard for the utterances of their leader, and they would do well to have regard for the comments of their frontbench.

That was six weeks ago, but it has been six long weeks for those opposite. Now Senator Abetz tells us that spending the surplus is wicked and irresponsible. In doing this he is not only apparently contradicting his own leader, and he is not only ignoring the opinions of every responsible economist in Australia, all of whom have supported the government’s actions, but he has forgotten his own best efforts earlier this year to destroy the surplus by blocking those key revenue measures in the budget.

Even more extraordinary was the speech of Senator Coonan immediately after question time, while taking note of answers to questions. Senator Coonan seems to be inhabiting a kind of parallel universe which even the Tardis would struggle to reach, a parallel universe in which the global financial crisis does not even exist. God bless Senator Coonan for inhabiting such a place, where there is not such a crisis. She told the Senate that the Rudd government ‘have pronounced it all too hard and declared that Australia is headed for a budget deficit and probably a recession’. She said:

If this sounds familiar to Australians … it is because it is, very familiar. The ghost of Labor governments and their extreme failure to run the economy competently is well and truly back with us.

That is Senator Coonan’s analysis of our current circumstances.

This is of course an opposition that is struggling to find its way, struggling to find a story to convince Australian voters that its own shambolic performance over 11 years should be vindicated. But let us not forget that in the context of a global financial crisis an economic stimulus package has been completely justified—and despite your very determined efforts to try and persuade the Australian people that the government is in the custody of a group of socialists— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This contribution has been inspired by Senator Feeney. I was not intending to speak, but Senator Feeney cannot leave the record the way he has. Selective quoting by Senator Feeney does not do him or the Labor Party any service. I could spend the full 10 minutes just going through the critical analysis of how bad the Labor Party was at economic management of this country. I am not going to put the Senate through that arduous task because I intend to only speak for a couple of moments, but I will redress the record.

Senator Feeney needs to be reminded of two salient facts. The first one is that, when we inherited government and the Australian people wanted us to severely take over this country’s financial management again, we had a $96 billion debt to pay back that the Labor government of the day had built up. That is the inherited pattern in Australian politics, cycle in, cycle out: what the coalition parties do is rebuild this country. We rebuild the financial stocks. We strengthen the financial management of this country, only for it to be eroded by a Labor government every time they come to office. And that is repeating again.

In 12 months of office, this Labor government has gone into deficit. It is about to borrow money again. It is going to put the burden on future generations of Australian families. Senator Feeney should not be proud of anything he has said tonight. We are the serious economic managers of this country, and I can tell you, Senator Feeney, through you, Mr President: do not ever, ever presume to be anything other than economic wreckers of this country. The Australian people will put us back into office a lot quicker than you understand because we can control the economy, we know what we are doing and we have a fantastic track record.

Could I just make another observation about what happened today. Senator Feeney has only been able to quote Liberal senators today. Do you know why? It is because we are the only senators that make any sense when it comes to economic credentials and economic management. If he wants to come into this place and argue records, we will do him any day on economic management on records. We could go for a long time. I would have to do this on a Tuesday night and get the 20-minute adjournment speech just to cover the issues that we need to cover to prove the economic credentials of this country that the Liberal Party and a coalition government have given.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Howard versus Keating or Whitlam; try that one!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Great interjections, I might add. But could I add also that when you came into government—accidentally, I might add—we left you $20 billion in your petty cash drawer. Where is it? What have you done with the $20 billion we left you? Not only that, we put under the mattress another $20 billion in future funds. What are you going to do with that? We accept the Australian people’s verdict on the election, but it was by default that you got in. You did not even expect to come into government. You got there, and you are about to wreck the economy again. Do you know what is going to happen? The Australian people are going to put us back in again to fix the problems, as they always do.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join the debate today. It just so happens that at this time of night there is not a lot of other entertainment on the radio and there are quite a number of Australians listening to the broadcast of the Senate. I just want to remind those Australians who might be listening to tonight’s debate that when the current government came into being in December last year, they inherited a $22 billion surplus, left to them by the Howard-Costello government. Contrast that with 1996 when the Howard government came in. What did they have then? They had a deficit of $96 billion. In the year that we took office, 1996, the Labor government, after telling the world that they had the economy well in hand, actually had a $10 billion current account deficit in that one year alone.

Australia is facing an economic difficulty at the present time. It sort of started when Mr Rudd and that totally incompetent Treasurer, Mr Swan, took office. They have been able to manage things, to date, alone, but can you imagine what sort of problem Australia would be in today if, instead of inheriting a $22 billion surplus, the current government had instead inherited a $96 billion deficit, as the Howard-Costello government did back in 1996? Had the Rudd government inherited a $96 billion debt plus a $10 billion current account deficit, can you imagine that sorts of problems we would be facing at the moment?

I remember 1996 well, because about 10 per cent of my fellow Australians did not have a job, and that happened under a Labor government. Unemployment was enormous in 1996—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney, perhaps you were not around then or perhaps you were getting some union campaign organised. You certainly were not looking after the jobs of your union members, because unemployment in 1996 was at an all-time high. You might remember as well that inflation in 1996, after 13 years of Labor government, was in double digit figures. People complain that Mr Rudd and Mr Swan talk up inflation, but even when they are talking it up they are talking about three, four and five per cent. When the previous government took over in 1996, inflation was in double digit figures and interest rates were up around eight or nine per cent. I remember back when the Paul Keating government was in office. I was buying a house in those days. I was paying 17.5 per cent interest on my housing loan under that Labor government. You can understand why Australians appreciate that Labor cannot be trusted with money.

For those who might be listening, if you think that you are having troubles with your mortgage at the moment, imagine how you would have been if you were paying 17½ per cent interest on your housing loan. That is what happened under the last period of Labor government. Not only did they leave a $96 billion debt, not only did they leave unemployment at record rates, not only did they leave inflation in double digit figures, but they left ordinary householders like me paying 17½ per cent interest on my housing loan.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Commercial borrowings were over 20 per cent.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Mason. At that time, I was in a legal practice and I had a lot to do with small business people. They were paying the banks 23 per cent. The banks were not lending, so they were paying private lenders 28 per cent to keep their businesses going. That was Labor’s mismanagement of the economy. You simply cannot trust Labor with money.

I draw the comparison: we took over government in 1996 with a $96 billion deficit. Over a period of 11 years and a lot of hard work with a lot of very good management of money, we paid off Labor’s debt after about seven years and then we started putting money aside. As Senator Parry said, we put it under the mattress. We started putting the surpluses away for the future of Australia. When we left office we left this government a $22 billion surplus. Within 12 short months that $22 billion surplus has now turned into what appears to be a deficit.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the Labor Party senators—and there are a lot of them here for this time of night; usually they are somewhere else at this time of night—are trying to drown me out, Mr President, because they understand that—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just address your comments to the Chair, Senator Macdonald. Ignore the interjections; I will deal with those.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjections are so irrelevant and puerile that I am of course ignoring them. On reading the transcript of this you will recognise that I have been addressing nobody else but you all night, Mr President. So perhaps your comments should be directed to those on your right—that is, those in the Labor Party who are trying to drown me out.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you just address your comments to the Chair and do not try to tell me how to do my job.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have addressed my comments to nobody else but you—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what I am saying; just address me.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but I would expect your protection from the enormous amount—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have been protected, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of interjections that I am getting from the Labor party. The Labor senators do not want the people who are listening to this debate tonight to hear me pointing out that one year ago the Rudd government was left with a $22 billion surplus. And here we are, within 12 months, talking of, in Mr Rudd’s own words, a deficit. How can you blow $22 billion in 12 short months? I know how they ran up a debt of $96 billion in 13 years, because I was there and I saw the second half of it. I saw the ‘recession we had to have’.

I only mention these things because of what Senator Feeney and Senator Parry said—they encouraged me to assist in putting the record straight. When you compare Labor with Liberal, you have a $96 billion deficit by Labor and you have, after 11 years of hard work, a $22 billion surplus by the Liberals. It took us 11 years to pay off Labor’s $96 billion debt and convert that into a $22 billion surplus, but the Labor Party have blown it all in 12 short months. We are now going back into deficit.

How can you ever trust Labor with money? It is an old principle, Mr President. Look around the states. Every state in this country—apart from Western Australia, now run by a Liberal government—is owned by Labor, run by Labor, and now going into deficit, and they are doing the same thing in the federal parliament.

I am delighted to have been able to enter the debate for those people who do quite seriously listen to the debates at this time of night. It is important that we put on the record the real situation and not the Labor rhetoric.