Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the minister to a Treasury study of the nation building and job stimulus plan, authored by researchers at the Australian National University. That study has made preliminary findings which show that, on the announcement of the government's plan to provide $900 cheques, 'the estimated consumption response was not very large'. Consumption growth increased at the time of the announcement by around one per cent. That is weekly expenditure, so it amounts to about $1.20 spending from the $900 we provided them. Does the government accept the findings of this study financed by your own government which highlights that your stimulus package was a multibillion-dollar fiasco and that is now part of the reason that we find ourselves in excess of $255 billion in gross debt?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think there are some figures here which are apposite. Since this government came to office, the Australian economy has grown 11.2 per cent. By contrast, Germany—the strong economy of Europe—is 2.7 per cent larger, the US is 1.8 per cent larger, Japan has contracted and the UK has contracted by 4.2 per cent. You can come in here, Senator, and talk down the economy all you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

In addition, since we came to office we have seen some 800,000 jobs created. Compare our unemployment rate with the unemployment rate in the eurozone, which is in excess of 11 per cent, or with the unemployment rate in the US. What those opposite cannot bear—and it says something about them—is the fact that the economy is growing, unemployment is lower—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Joyce is entitled to be heard in silence—as anyone else is.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was about a Treasury-based study, which is quite explicit that we only got $1.20 value out of a $900 payment. The minister should be approaching the issue of her own Treasury paper, not some other peripheral data.

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

There is no point of order. The minister is answering the question and has 51 seconds remaining.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it interesting that the senator thinks that jobs growth, low unemployment and the growth of the economy is peripheral data: 'We don't want to talk about jobs or the unemployment rate; that's peripheral data.' To Labor governments that is central data. That is the central issue that governments need to confront: how do you continue to grow the economy, grow jobs and secure prosperity now and in the future? I would also make this point: Treasury estimates, which have been publicly spoken about on many occasions, make clear that the stimulus package this government engaged in—opposed by those opposite—avoided the loss of 200,000 jobs. Senator Joyce may think putting 200,000 working families on the scrapheap is— (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the fact that the government justified its approach to stimulus in 2009 by relying on a draft, unpublished overseas paper by Christian Broda and Jonathan Parker. Can the minister explain why the government relied on a draft, unpublished, overseas paper to spend $8 billion in 2009, but will not accept the findings of a Treasury finance paper today?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make two points: I have been advised that the study to which you refer is not a Treasury study and I have also been advised that this particular study considered week-to-week consumption and it did not look at durables, so obviously it took just one set of data. I also refer the senator to the 200,000 jobs that Treasury have said our stimulus avoided. We can argue about studies, we can argue about numbers, but what I would ask the Senate is this: which economy is projected to grow faster in this coming year than any other advanced economy? Which economy has an unemployment rate with a five in front of it? Which economy has seen hundreds of thousands of jobs created since the change of government? It is Australia. The only people who do not like those facts are the opposition.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a final supplementary question. I refer to the same Broda and Parker paper, which has been updated. The paper found that in the United States, a similar $900 payment had just a $50 effect that was spent on consumer goods to stimulate their economy. Does the government accept that it is quite apparent that this form of stimulus just is not very stimulating, and that it is rather hard to repay the debt once the money has gone?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would again remind the senator that if he wishes to compare us with the US their debt to GDP ratio in 2012 is 83.8 per cent, while the government's budget MYEFO update in 2012-13 has net debt as a percentage of GDP at 9.4 per cent. That is 83 per cent compared with 9.4 per cent. I think the senator is saying that we should somehow look to the US as a better example of how to manage an economy through a global financial crisis than Australia. I make no criticism of the United States—they had to deal with an enormous financial crisis and it was particularly difficult for the US economy. But the reality is that our figures, our economy and our jobs are in a far stronger position than those of the United States.