David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on the government’s approach to dealing with the global financial crisis, which of course is now moving into the next phase, which many commentators are calling ‘the global economic recession’. As we move through the months ahead, it will be no surprise to anyone in this place that the challenges that we face throughout the Australian economy—largely driven by the global factors that are at play—will mean that more and more Australians will find themselves out of work in the coming months. This is the harsh reality that we as a nation have to confront. It is a very sad and personal cost for each and every person who ends up unemployed and for their families.

The role of governments in times such as these is to act early, to act decisively and to act in a way that seeks to buffer the Australian economy from those global forces. That is what we have seen from the Rudd government. There has been much speculation and much comment in recent times about the impact of the Economic Security Strategy that was put in place before Christmas. I would simply make the observation that most of the people who are now coming forward and being critical of that package not only supported the package but also voted for it and expressed their support for it both in this place and outside this place. But we are now seeing a revisionism taking place from those people, who seek to distort what occurred before Christmas. The Economic Security Strategy—which was the first example of the Rudd government acting early and in a very strong way to ensure that we protect local jobs within the Australian economy—was welcomed in the first instance by the Leader of the Opposition and by the opposition, who said that they were not going to quibble with that package. But there has been a lot of quibbling since. There was a lot of quibbling in the days after that commitment not to quibble, and we have only seen that intensify over time.

If we look at what occurred prior to Christmas, we see that there was a significant increase in retail spending within the Australian economy. In the December quarter, we see that retail trade increased by 3.8 per cent. We have seen through the national accounts figures that there was a contraction in the economy in the last quarter. But, when we take into account that the bulk of the Economic Security Strategy payments only began to flow through in the final month of that quarter, we can see that the position would have been much worse had the government not acted. And let us not forget that those on the other side were not suggesting that there was no need to act; in fact, if anything, they were suggesting that perhaps we had overdone it, that we had acted a little bit too decisively. Now, looking back and seeing the figures that have flushed through the system, we can see that the government were right to take that action, that the economy was beginning to slow and that urgent and decisive action was required—and that is why we acted.

I want to go to the issue of the so-called sugar hit or the so-called cash splash that we hear those on the other side talk about. Let us not forget that the so-called sugar hit or the cash splash was about providing some assistance to those people doing it tough, to those people in need—whether it be pensioners, low- or middle-income families with children, veterans or carers. Remember when those on the other side started to crank up the issue when it came to pensioners? When it suited their political convenience, they were out there drumming up support for the pensioners. They did nothing whilst in office for the last decade but, all of a sudden—from, I guess, the luxurious position of opposition—they decided to start to crank up the issue. We all remember that the then shadow minister for ageing started up a petition to increase the pension. That campaign got a bit of momentum, but later that day she was slapped down by the then shadow Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. The only reason the opposition continued to put an increase in funding to pensioners on the agenda was the action of the then opposition leader, the member for Bradfield. So we saw back then the fact that the then shadow Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, was opposed to providing that increase. But, when the government acted decisively to provide that assistance to pensioners, we saw the member for Wentworth backtracking.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted.