Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister advise the House of recent outcomes of government economic and financial management in Australia? Do these outcomes enjoy continuing support?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Port Adelaide for his question. It has become clear over the first session of this new parliament that there are some members of the opposition who do not accept the government’s critique of the record of economic and financial management of the former government. In fact, some members of the opposition still hold dear to the nostrum that the former government was Australia’s best ever economic and financial manager.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very good to see that some of you stand for something! We, of course, do not agree with them. We think there are one or two facts that kind of get in the road of this assessment, like: 10 interest rate increases in a row; inflation at a 16-year high, government spending increasing at 4½ per cent real; money squandered on things like $457 million in government advertising in the space of the 16 months; grants soaring from $450 million in 2002 to $4.5 billion in 2007; huge blowouts in defence spending; enormous increases in Public Service employment, particularly at the SES level; millions squandered on regional rorts; productivity growth down to zero; a current account deficit above six per cent; and so the list goes on. But some in the opposition discount these inconvenient facts and hold true to the belief that the former government was the best economic and financial manager that Australia has ever seen—like the true diehard and ultimate Howard supporter, the member for Warringah, who last night demanded that the Rudd government honour the former Liberal government’s promise to spend $9 million upgrading the Brookvale Oval, the home of the Sea Eagles. He finished his speech with these immortal lines:

We are all Australians. We all deserve a share of government largesse.

That tells you everything you need to know about the Howard government. But at least the member for Warringah stands for something; at least he has got a position. On the recent economic and financial management performance of governments, at least some in the opposition actually take a stand. Sadly, we cannot say the same about the Leader of the Opposition. No-one could ever accuse him of being a true believer about anything. When he is asked the big questions about economic and financial management, he refuses to answer. He pleads the fifth; he takes the fifth. Does he support Work Choices? He will not say. Does he believe that government spending needs to be cut? He will not answer the question. It was put to him at the Press Club the other day, and he would not answer. Does he believe there is a need to tackle the spending blowouts in defence? He could not possibly comment.

The moment of truth is coming for the Leader of the Opposition and it is coming quicker than he believes. In fact, it is coming this weekend. There is a matter of enormous significance, of enormous importance to many Australians, happening this weekend. The question he has to face up to is: which footy team does he barrack for? He has told the Australian people over the years that he barracks for two teams—the Swans and the Saints. He barracks for both—just as he is in favour of Work Choices when he is in the boardrooms in Sydney but is against Work Choices when he is out in regional Queensland; just like he opposed an apology to Indigenous people in December and supported it in February; just like he spent half his adult life in the Labor Party and half in the Liberal Party—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowper will resume his seat. I recognise the member for Menzies.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is not only irrelevant; it is pathetic.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to give the member for Menzies the opportunity to be the winner of today’s lottery; regrettably, the way he has couched his point of order makes it a bit difficult. But I would remind the minister to get back to the substance of the question. Whilst I am sure the member for Warringah is flattered that the minister actually listened to his speech in the adjournment debate last night, I think that questions like this, where we have discussion about other members of the House, are not really helpful.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The moment of truth is arriving about what the Leader of the Opposition stands for on a number of issues. What does he stand for on industrial relations and on economic management? What party does he want to belong to? What is he going to do about the amalgamation?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. I call the member for North Sydney.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am the member for Cowper, Mr Speaker.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowper, sorry.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I have the call?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to give the member for North Sydney the call—but I have to admit that there is a voice that recurs in my nightmares! I call the member for Cowper.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to draw the minister back to the question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will bring his response to a conclusion.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will bring my contribution to a conclusion, Mr Speaker. The moment of truth arrives on Saturday night at Telstra Dome because the Swans are playing the Saints. Who is the Leader of the Opposition going to barrack for?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s repeated refusal on radio this morning to directly answer the question: ‘Will your first budget be aimed at helping the Reserve Bank slow down the Australian economy?’ Will the Prime Minister guarantee Australian families that his first budget will not contribute to a slowdown of the Australian economy?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The challenge we have is inflation running at a 16-year high. It is a fact. Those opposite may rail against the fact, they may find it politically uncomfortable, but it is a fact. It is not a production of ALP publications; it is a production of national statistical data. The challenge for responsible government and responsible economic management is: what do you do about this 16-year high inflation record? That is, if you leave it unattended to, it continues to do what inflation has been doing for some time, which is punish working families by causing upwards pressure on interest rates. That is the economic equation: if you leave inflation unaddressed it rolls through to interest rates pressure, which rolls through to working families.

Here is where the rubber hits the road for those opposite. By failing to act on inflation so consistently, they sat there and allowed interest rates to go up time and time again and thereby punished working families. That is what happened as a consequence of the previous government’s inertia on inflation. Our response to dealing with the inflation challenge is to look at the total equation on the supply side and the demand side. On the demand side of the equation, if you make sure that through responsible budget management you have a decent budget surplus by way of a target then you bring down public demand as part of the overall demand equation. We are mindful of the fact that, when it comes to private consumption and private demand, we are delivering tax cuts. That is why it is important for us to show restraint as far as the overall architecture of public demand is concerned. Furthermore, the government continues to examine measures which assist in boosting private savings on the way through. That is half the inflation equation.

The other half is dealing with the supply-side measures. And it is there, after 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia, that those opposite failed to act on skills and failed to act on infrastructure, resulting in all sorts of capacity constraints. Frankly, if you have a situation where you have demand exceeding supply over a long period of time, you get inflation and interest rate pressures go up. We will act responsibly on this, as those preceding us did not.