Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

A few weeks ago, the member for Wentworth casually sauntered out into one of the courtyards here in Parliament House and he announced to the Australian people that he would be cutting down a first-term Prime Minister. What was the reason he gave to the Australian people for this move? He told us that Australia was not receiving the economic leadership we needed, and, hence, he needed to replace the Prime Minister. It was quite extraordinary: the putative Prime Minister was saying that the cabinet of the government he had been a senior minister in for two years was letting Australia down when it came to the economy. The Labor Party has been pointing this out for two years; we have been making that argument. Malcolm Turnbull, the now Prime Minister, made the argument, and the majority of the Liberal Party agreed with him. They had come around to the point of view that they were not giving Australia the leadership it needed.

What was the Prime Minister's answer to this question—his secret weapon on the economy? It turned out it was the member for Cook, his new Treasurer. This was his appointment to turn around the malaise in economic policymaking in Australia. Well, we finished today the first full sitting fortnight of the Turnbull government with the new Treasurer, and we have seen a performance over the fortnight that makes the old Treasurer look good. Who would've thought the member for Cook could make the member for North Sydney look on top of his brief! Who would've thought that he could make the member for North Sydney look like a paragon of competence in his first outing as Treasurer in the House! But he managed to do it. So it has been quite clear through this fortnight that, if the member for Cook is the answer, the Prime Minister has asked the wrong questions about the economy.

Firstly, let us look at the new Treasurer's performance when it comes to the budget. The whole raison d'etre of the Abbott-Turnbull government is to fix the budget. They told us they would get back to surplus, and that was the whole reason for their being elected. And one of the new Treasurer's first moves—right out of the blocks—as new Treasurer was to say: 'Australia does not have a revenue problem.' It was only a spending problem, he said. We have heard that before, because the member for North Sydney used to say that standing here and he used to say it standing on the other side as well, that Australia did not have a revenue problem. But then he came to office and he brought down a budget, and he brought in a GP tax, a petrol tax and a deficit levy—all revenue measures. Yesterday, the former Treasurer gave his valedictory speech and he begged for high-income superannuation concessions to be reined in. He even called for reform of negative gearing. They would be revenue measures. The former Treasurer had worked out what the new Treasurer is yet to work out.

At question time we asked the new Treasurer: how much did revenue fall between the 2014 and the 2015 budgets? The answer could qualify as simply bizarre, because he came to the dispatch box to tell us about spending. That was his answer to a question about revenue. I will concede this: spending under this Treasurer is running at GFC levels—that is true. We concede that and we agree with that. But then the new Treasurer tells us that we should reduce spending to the same proportion it was in 2007 under the Howard government, which was 23.1 per cent of GDP. So from 25.9, which is high, to 23.1. That amounts to $45 billion a year in cuts that he says the nation needs to embrace. Let's consider just how big that would be. The age pension in the budget is $44 billion and he wants $45 billion worth of cuts. He could abolish the age pension. That would be one way to do it, and with this government you would not put it past them. They have already had a go at the pension, on several occasions. That just shows the magnitude of this Treasurer being completely out of his depth. No wonder he is confused about when they are going to get back to surplus.

We asked him when Australia would get back to surplus. Quite clearly, he thought it was a trick question. He was not happy to answer that question, because he could not answer. We will forgive him that. You have some question times that are better than others. He was asked again on the Today Show, the next day, so he had 24 hours to think about this. In an interview which I think would be an equal tie with the Minister for Social Services for the biggest train wreck of the week, he told us that we will get back to surplus 'in the future when we get to that point'. That was his very detailed answer. It would not be in the past—he cleared that up; we will get to the surplus in the future. That is the new position of the Abbott-Turnbull government. We have had several. We were told there was going to be a surplus in the first year. That has been and gone, as has every year afterwards. Then we were told at the end of the forward estimates that it would be in four years. That is no longer the case. Then we were told it would be at the end of the decade. Then the former Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, said it did not really matter when we got back to surplus. Now the new Treasurer says, 'It does matter and we'll get there in the future at some point.' That is the fiscal strategy of the government.

The Treasurer is all talk when it comes to economic growth. He told us, 'You should be focused on economic growth like we are.' If you were the Treasurer in the Abbott-Turnbull government, would you be talking about economic growth? I do not think you would be boasting about the performance. Again, we asked the Treasurer: was growth for this financial year revised up or down in the Abbott-Turnbull government's last budget? We did not get an answer to that. He could have tabled a document or he could have tabled a graph of growth under the Liberal government. He could have tabled this graph showing growth going down under this government. He chose not to do that.

See this speech in context