House debates

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

Matters of Public Importance

Economy

4:03 pm

Photo of Andrew LamingAndrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think what the Australian people would like to think is that some of the best ideas from both sides of this chamber could lead to a more confident Australian domestic economy. Today I want to talk about some of the international context that explains why we're in some fairly tough times; give a bit of detail about how the states are going; and, finally, explain the responsible measures that we in this government have taken to respond in real time, and how the best thing we can do to compare what the other side would have done in government is to look at how they fared in 2008-09, during the GFC. I'll look at some of the decisions that they made to give us some idea of exactly what they would have done, had they been in government, because the most instructive thing of all, of course, is to see how this lot acted when they had control of the economy.

First of all, I want to talk about the quiet reality that we have a Sino-American trade war. That's going to make it tough times for virtually every developed and developing economy. It's in that context, I think, that Australians voted on 18 May. Faced with two choices in a two-party democratic system, they went, ultimately, almost at the last minute of the election campaign, with the party they can most trust to make tough calls.

Politically, running a surplus budget is very important to Australians. Just like their households—they know that they have to run to a budget. They want to think that, federally, we can do the same thing, particularly in the context of Labor state governments that over time have basically spent down to the limits of the credit card, to the point where to spend an extra dollar would lead to a collapse in the credit rating. So states like Queensland just sit on that very familiar number—I see a head nodding on our side—of around $80 to $90 billion of state debt. Isn't it refreshing to know that, despite that chaos, there's a federal government that has brought the budget back into balance? We have done it through tough measures. We've done it with almost no cooperation from the other side over the last six years.

You can understand it is very important to Australians that, unlike those on that side, we on this side actually do what we say. When we talk about a balanced budget, we are absolutely determined to deliver it. Having said that, there are some important concepts around it. People are doing it tough. Australians know that's happening. If you have got a job, you hold onto it. Finding a job is hard work, but it can be done. Most of the jobs being created are full-time. That has been mostly due to the federal government policies of the last six years. We have been working assiduously to find every opportunity for Australians to leave welfare and get back into work. That's not an easy path. It's a path the other side abdicated during their 2007 to 2013 period. If you got on welfare, you stayed on welfare. That was the approach. We are not to going to brook that; we won't fall back into that habit. For every Australian of working age who is healthy enough to work, we will work to find them a job. It's going to be damn hard to do but we will find a way—for example, through the PaTH program, by helping youth leave school to find an opportunity. Even for the refugees coming to Australia, we are tailor-making arrangements so that when they land they have economic opportunities.

What would the other side do, were they to be in government? Back in the GFC era of '08, for a moment there was a blinding flash of light when both the government and the coalition agreed it was time to stimulate. You will remember: it had to be temporary and targeted. Remember, it was about who you targeted and it had to be timely. Congratulations to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who acted fast. The first tranche of that stimulus was supported by both sides of parliament as we gave payments to pensioners. But in '09, as soon as Treasury indicated that the GFC was effectively over and that the dip in our GDP growth had already ended, even at that point, there was no temporary notion about Labor spending. What you need to know is: whenever you vote a Labor Party in, the only way out of the debt they create will be taxation by a subsequent government, who will have to make the hard calls. We on this side have been making them for six years; Labor has opposed them at every step. But I can tell you one thing, when Labor inherit a surplus, it is gone within 12 months and they just keep spending. They spend money and give it out to their mates, and it is mostly not in economic infrastructure; it is in social infrastructure. There is nothing wrong with social infrastructure but, ultimately, you need to have a proportion of economic spending. Given the choice, we could raise payments for everyone and convince ourselves that was an economic measure. I tell you what, you could raise every payment in this country but it won't get us out of the Sino-American trade war. The only way out of this is economic spending and economic infrastructure. I respect the opposition's point—do it faster and sooner.

Come to Queensland and talk to the Queensland Premier—get the Queensland government to approve the dams that are stacking up. Go out to Hughenden with $180 million ready for a dam, and they will go out and start looking around for a finch! That is the problem we have with Labor. But you don't see it in New South Wales; they're building. You have a coalition state government working with us and getting things moving. You can see cranes in the Sydney skyline that you don't see in Brisbane. If you want to know how this group would act if they had the economic tiller, just look at the GFC, where the money vanished in a year and had very little impact on average Australians.

Comments

No comments