Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It took the Albanese government three years to realise that Australia's living standards had dropped more than those of any other developed nation. It then took them three months to organise a meeting that would go for three days to ask other people what to do about it.

I was one of 25 people issued a golden ticket from the Treasurer to attend that roundtable. On accepting the Treasurer's invitation, I put out three markers on behalf of the coalition. If we're to deal with Australia's living standards, these three markers are key: No. 1, you do not raise living standards by raising taxes; No. 2, you do not raise living standards by raising the cost of doing business, and, No. 3, you do not raise living standards by raising the burden on future generations. Those with even the smallest knowledge of the bare basics of economics would see these markers as self-evident truths, yet Labor's roundtable defied all three. The outcomes of Labor's roundtable will be higher taxes, higher costs of doing business and a higher burden on future generations. Let me be very clear: the coalition did not agree to the outcomes of Labor's roundtable, and the coalition did not agree to the principles against which this government wants to raise taxes for everyday Australians.

As I reflect, albeit only one week after the roundtable, I realise this was less a productivity roundtable and more a socialist summit. What we saw was an unholy trinity of big government, big unions and big superannuation funds. This is the plan of the Albanese government: to basically concentrate the power of these three and to expand the tentacles of government into the lives of everyday Australians. It is Labor which sees government at the centre of Australian society. It is the coalition that believes that the centre of Australian society should be the Australian people.

Now, in the government's fourth year, the Australian people are starting to feel the real symptoms of a government that puts itself at the centre and not the people. The Australian people are feeling that through their everyday living expenses. It's why we heard this week that, since Labor came to government, the cost of electricity has gone up by 39 per cent and the cost of gas has gone up by over 38 per cent. Today the shadow minister asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for an explanation as to why these energy costs are going up, but the government cannot answer the question. It is a direct consequence of government policy, and it's the Australian people who are paying the price. This is a government that puts itself at the centre and not the Australian people.

Of course, the Treasurer claims that this government has done a wonderful job when it comes to interest rates. However, the average mortgage holder today is paying $1,800 more in interest payments every single month than they were when Labor came to office. As of today, they're paying $1,800 more every month in interest payments, and that is just the average mortgage holder. Why? It's because this government cannot manage money; this government cannot manage the economy.

The thing is that it's not just the pain of the Australian people today. We know this government is quickly raising the debt to $1 trillion. By their own estimate it will hit $1.2 trillion by the next election. This is Labor's debt, which will be left to the next generation of Australians to pay off. Our children and theirs will pay the price of this government's debt. Their plan is 10-plus years of deficits. And why? It comes down to one reason: this government cannot stop spending. They're on a spending spree. We know that spending as a percentage of GDP has gone from 24 per cent up to 27 per cent. In this financial year, they are spending $160 billion more than what the coalition spent in our last budget. They just can't help spending.

I raised this at the roundtable and made it crystal clear that the government has to stop spending. The Treasurer didn't like that. It smashed his glass jaw. You could feel his ego going everywhere, slashing anything in its wake; so upset was he about his spending spree. But it has to stop. The recommendation that I made on behalf of the coalition at the roundtable was that the government adopt some fiscal rules, some discipline, to contain the Treasurer's spending. Do you think the Treasurer accepted the idea of rules? Did you know that, since the Hawke government, every single government has adopted fiscal rules for their Treasurer, except the Albanese government?

We put it to the Treasurer this week and asked if he would introduce fiscal rules. He said he doesn't want to introduce fiscal rules. We put it to the Prime Minister and asked if he will rein in the Treasurer—is he strong enough to do that? If every Prime Minister since Hawke has been able to apply some discipline to the Treasurer, will this prime minister do it? No. They don't want rules. They are addicted to spending. Who wants rules when you just want to spend? That's what the candyman wants to do. He's a big spender, so there are no rules.

I'm not the only one calling for rules, by the way. Ken Henry, Philip Lowe, the chief economist at KPMG and the chief economist at AMP are all calling for rules. And, under pressure, the Treasurer came out and said he's now got a rule. The rule is he is going to bank most of the upward revisions to revenue. In other words, when revenue comes in that's unexpected, he's going to bank most of it. So he's only going to spend up to half of it.

I thought I'd check this out. I looked at the Treasurer's own budget figures, and you wouldn't believe what it tells us. This financial year the upward revision for revenue is $7 billion. Guess how much of the $7 billion the Treasurer is planning on banking? None. He's going to spend $7.2 billion of the $7 billion. The very week he fabricates a rule, he breaks it. This is the problem we have, you see. We have a government that cannot control spending. That is why they call him King Taxalot. King Taxalot and the knights of the round table, creating ideas so they can take those ideas to be considered by the nitwits of the cabinet table.

See this speech in context