Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Listening to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, with his rolling negativity on the economy, I really had to stop and have a good think about whether I was actually here in the House of Representatives chamber, because the only conclusion that you could possibly draw from the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution is: just what sort of parallel universe is this bloke living in? Perhaps he actually thinks he is an avatar in Second Life, in a world where he is not just Prime Minister but the world economic supreme being who knows all, sees all and is the world economy—an economy where there has been no crisis, merely a little blip. But the reality is that even Second Life has been hit by the global financial crisis. This is just how inconsistent the Leader of the Opposition has been on this issue.

First he told us that we were exaggerating the scale of the global financial crisis. Then he told us that there was no need for stimulus to the economy, voting against the government’s measures. Then each time there has been data on sectors of the economy, whether it is the retail sector not having as sharp a downturn as expected or the building and construction industry just holding up, he has said that it has absolutely nothing to do with the government’s stimulus package. Now he is telling us, just as there are very early signs that some elements—and I emphasise, some elements—of the economy are improving slowly, that we should go through a slash and burn exercise and cut the remaining stimulus package. Counter to advice of the IMF, the OECD and the Reserve Bank, Malcolm knows better.

If we take all of these things together, the views of the Leader of the Opposition are that the global financial crisis is really not happening; that if it is happening then it does not need to be responded to; that if it does need to be responded to then it does not need to be responded to with much; that even if we did respond a little, it really would not have an effect; that even if it is having any effect, it is nothing to do with the response; and, finally, that if it is actually having an effect, it is now time to stop responding despite the fact that people are still losing their jobs, that private sector capital is still not flowing into the economy and that funding from the building and construction component of the stimulus has only just started to flow. If you are confused, imagine what a member of the coalition would be feeling at the moment when trying to be consistent with their leader’s views. No wonder many of them have actually stopped trying and said, ‘Blow it; I’m going to say whatever I think.’

Let us remember where we actually are. When we came into office we were following a government that had done little to set this nation up for long-term productive growth. Those members opposite failed in a number of key ways. They failed to invest on the back of the mining boom. They failed to allocate funding across our nation fairly. They failed to set up our nation’s economy in critical areas of education, health and roads and rail infrastructure. They sat on their hands and watched the clock tick by, with no new ideas. Now it seems that nothing has changed for those opposite. The clock is still ticking and they are still recommending that we all sit on our hands. They have no new ideas, no consistent policy and no alternative government.

When this government announced our economic stimulus, we did so on the basis of a number of factors. The main ones were that the world was facing the onset of the global financial crisis and the possibility of Australia falling into a recession. Also, we knew that without action Australian jobs were at risk. So we acted. We did not sit on our hands while thousands of Australians lost their jobs; we acted. We invested in productive areas of the economy: in education, health and infrastructure. What this stimulus has done, and will continue to do, is provide support to our nation’s economy when economies around the world are at their weakest. The Rudd government first acted to support families with cash payments that flowed through to the retail sector. Second, we invested in crucial infrastructure that could be delivered in all regions in a reasonable time frame. Then, finally, we invested in large long-term infrastructure to support jobs into the future, creating three phases of economic stimulus to provide continued support to the Australian economy.

We now have the Leader of the Opposition with this MPI that reflects his underlying objection to taking action and protecting Australian workers’ jobs through economic stimulus. Our national economy and subsequently the thousands of businesses and workers who drive it have faced tough times over the course of the past year, and although they have battled hard, worked hard, now is not the time to pull back on our efforts. Without the economic stimulus package there is no doubt that Australia would have been in recession. The last national accounts showed that without our swift action Australia would have experienced three consecutive quarters of negative growth.

But those opposite are saying we are out of the woods and that the stimulus should now stop. I am not sure where the opposition is getting its advice from. It is certainly not from the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the Reserve Bank or Treasury—they are all expecting that Australia will experience sub-trend growth over the coming period. These expectations are not on the basis that we halt all economic stimulus today. These expectations are on the basis that the stimulus package, as originally planned, is fully implemented. The Rudd government has a plan to withdraw as the economy recovers, but this does not mean ripping away funds from regional communities in particular who are relying on Australian government support.

This year the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, which I chair, has been travelling across the country, to regional Australia, as part of the inquiry into the impact on our regions of the global financial crisis. Let me debunk some of the things the Leader of the Opposition seems to want us to believe. Regional communities have made it absolutely clear to me and members of this committee that combating the impact of the global financial crisis on regional and rural Australia is critical to their long-term prosperity. Regional Australia is experiencing continued unemployment growth. Unemployment has already risen by almost two percentage points, and nowhere is this more evident than in regional areas. Regional industry is telling us that the programs announced by the Rudd government are critical to their survival. Business after business and local government after local government appearing before the committee have given evidence of the stimulus payments supporting local economies, from Geraldton to Broken Hill to Townsville to Ararat.

To put the brakes on now would be disastrous for communities who are seeing many projects just on the verge of implementation. If the opposition leader is sincere in his belief that our spending has been wasteful then he really needs to get out of his Sydney office and have a chat to the thousands of workers and businesses across regional Australia who are relying on this stimulus package and the nation’s leaders to assist them. If we do not continue to act we put at risk thousands of jobs. The Liberals’ plan would see over 200,000 Australians out of work.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot say on the one hand that we should cut spending and on the other that we should not. In the last budget we put forward a number of savings measures to combat the ripping of $210 billion from the government’s bottom line as a result of the global financial crisis. The opposition decided to block these savings measures. They blocked these measures because the opposition leader wants it both ways. It is hypocritical for the opposition leader to introduce an MPI attacking the government’s fiscal strategy when he is the very person who is blocking savings measures that would have assisted in the very area of his concern. A perfect example is the private health insurance rebate, which is a key savings measure to be blocked by members opposite. They argue that they would have a lower deficit and lower debt yet they have not introduced a single savings measure of their own, other than a tax on cigarettes, nor supported savings measures introduced by the government.

This government does have a clear plan to bring the budget back into surplus by 2015-16. As part of the 2009-10 budget, the government made tough choices to deliver $22.6 billion in savings over four years. Yet many of these savings measures were blocked by those opposite. These were savings that were expected to halve the deficit over the next three years and see it return to surplus in 2015-16. Again, these measures have been blocked consistently by an opposition failing consistently to introduce savings measures of their own.

The former government squandered the economic prosperity from the mining boom. They had the opportunity, whilst such an unprecedented level of government revenue was coming in, to invest in productive areas of the economy—infrastructure, education, schools, road and rail. They declined to do so. We, in response to an unprecedented financial crisis, have invested important stimulus that will boost the supply side of the economy so that the economy has a greater productive capacity without a trigger for inflation. We have acted to protect Australian jobs. We have acted to invest in the nation for the short, the medium and the longer term. And we make no absolutely no apologies for continuing to act in the interests of the Australian people on this issue. They expect no less of this federal parliament.

See this speech in context