Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to be here in the Federation Chamber with my friend the member for Mayo. I look forward to his contribution as always.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about me?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we can all hope that we are Griffinesque. That is all I can say. I would like to congratulate the member for Fraser on his motion. It is a good motion. It looks at the economic situation, and there is much to be positive about—800,000 jobs since 2007 and an unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent, lower than all but one of the major advanced economies. We are beating the rest of the world, whether you look at the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe generally. We have a very good news story to tell on jobs. We have a very good news story to tell on inflation, which is low. We have a very good news story to tell on wages growth, which is faster than CPI. We know that the best way to deal with the cost of living is to have growing wages and, if you have not got a job, to get a job and, if you got a job, to get a better job. That is always the best way of dealing with the cost of living. We have got low interest rates, which of course are a major contributor to family and household budgets. We have got low debt—not high debt but low debt—and we have got an investment pipeline, which, according to the Treasurer tonight, increased by 12.3 per cent in the March quarter, to reach a record of $1.086 billion, the first time more than $1 billion has been spent on mineral exploration in a single quarter. That exploration has risen by 35 per cent since the price of carbon was announced, and 80 per cent since the minerals resource rent tax. So we have a stunning investment pipeline, which will basically underwrite future economic growth. We have doubled investment in schools. We have an extra 116,000 university places, which we know are a major contributor to future economic growth. We have a record number of people in training and apprenticeships. We have some 460,000 Australians currently in trade apprenticeships or vocational training nationwide.

So we have got a very good news story, particularly when you look at the rest of the world. The US recovery is slow due to the housing overhang and the results of the household debt and banking debts that were incurred during their crisis. Europe is having a political crisis which has economic implications, which is all basically around the security of debt and who is going to be responsible about it. We see them pursuing damaging and counterproductive short-term austerity programs, very similar to what the coalition would advocate for Australia. We know that in Europe the only solution is a guarantee of all European debt, followed by short-term growth policies and finally a program of long-term austerity, not short-term austerity. That is what will fix Europe.

We know what is going to come up next. The member for Mayo is going to stand up here and pour scorn on Australia's economic record. We know that the opposition like going overseas and talking about how good Australia's economy is and then, when they get in front of a hometown audience, they will have you believing that black is white and up is down. They will be talking the place down, trying to damage consumer confidence and pretending that Australia's economy is like the rest of the world's. This is very damaging speculation. We know that the member for Mayo has speculated about mining investment in my state, South Australia. He will do so again—talking the state down, talking mining down in the state.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're talking down Jac Nasser!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not attacking him; I am attacking you.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This is not the place for attacking anyone. For short-term reasons, the member for Mayo will talk down the Australian economy. They have very little to say about their own economic policies, which are basically austerity policies. They are based on the simplistic notion that a complex national economy or an international economy is somehow like a household budget. It is not, and it is ridiculous to suggest it is.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to follow the member for Wakefield and I am pleased to see that he continues to support the Australian wool industry with that jumper that he has on this evening in the Federation Chamber.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the Kim Carr collection!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Kim Carr collection—the member for Wakefield has just revealed his true colours! I thought the member for Wakefield was from Don's right, but it turns out he is from Kim's left, so that is a bit of a shock. That is a revelation in this chamber this evening. It is coming back in the new line.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This is about the national economy, not about fashion. Can we get on to the debate, please.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a motion moved by the member for Fraser. I think it is the second or third time the member for Fraser has tried to use a motion in the chamber on the economic situation to prove his economic prowess to the current Prime Minister—although he does spend a fair bit of time up in that back corner talking to the former Prime Minister and potentially future Prime Minister about seeking promotion, no doubt. I think the last point is a very important aspect of the motion. It calls upon members to approach economic debates with 'facts rather than fear'. That is true, and I agree with that provision of the motion. My good friend the member for Wakefield said in his contribution that I had raised questions about mining investment in South Australia and the potential risks to it. Actually, it was not me. As much as I would like to be the chairman of BHP at some stage in the future, I am not; that position is held by a man called Jacques Nasser—who used to be, of course, in charge of one of the member for Wakefield's beloved car companies in this country, so I would have thought he would be quite supportive of Mr Nasser.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was a Ford man!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was a Ford man, rather than Holden. Unfortunately, the member for Wakefield has launched a vicious attack on Mr Nasser in suggesting that Mr Nasser is raising fear and scare tactics on the Australian economy by saying that the absolutely vital investment for our state in Olympic Dam, the expansion of that project and the huge opportunities is brings—we have seen in the state budget that 0.5 per cent of the lowly growth predicted in the state budget will actually be contributed by the Olympic Dam expansion—are all at risk because of four factors. Three of those factors are in the hands of—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have gone into state politics. You'd be a great premier!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't abuse me like that!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would make a great premier!

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can we keep the debate civil.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Civil—thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You know how abusive that threat is! Three of the four policy decisions that are putting at risk this investment for South Australia's future are in the hands of the federal government. We know that includes the reregulation of the Australian workplace and the empowerment of the union thugs back on the work sites. We have seen that with strike after strike, with coalmines shut down in Queensland. Those opposite want to blind themselves to this, because of course they receive such significant donations. But we know that this is causing such problems with the Australian economy. We read it day in, day out. We know that Mr Nasser also pointed to the inconsistent policy approach when it comes to tax—the mining tax debate which has caused so much sovereign risk to our country. The Labor Party pretend that we are the only country in the world with—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is there such a big investment pipeline?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an investment pipeline. It has not been fulfilled yet, mate. That is the bit we want. We want tomorrow's prosperity. Economic figures today reflect yesterday's performance. Today's reforms will reflect tomorrow's prosperity, and this is the bit the Labor party do not understand. They want to treat our mining industry as if we are the only country in the world that has resources. Of course, that is not true. The world is awash with resources. If we make it harder to compete on the international stage with our resources industry that investment, that pipeline they like to talk about, the $20 billion potential investment at Olympic Dam in South Australia will not go ahead and tomorrow's prosperity is then at risk. This is the risk of the Labor Party and their legacy to this country. Do not worry about the sleaze and the incompetence. The real insidious legacy of this government, when they finally finish off the current Prime Minister and go back to the former Prime Minister, will be the economic reform record of this government. It will leave Australians with a debt legacy for a generation and with a prosperity problem for a generation.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before calling the member for Chifley, the member for Mayo spoke a lot about BHP chairs. Unknown to many members is former BHP chair Jerry Ellis, who was recently recognised in the Australia Day honours. Just putting on the record the congratulations of the House to him. The member for Chifley.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was actually going to get up and move an extension of time so we could actually get to the motion that was being debated. I heard a lot there, but I do not know at what point the member for Mayo was actually going to get to the resolution that has brought us here.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair, I did not speak to it either.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a rather inconvenient admission. I do not need you to admit that in here. I start my contribution quoting three numbers: 22, 20, and 4.9. The first is 22 per cent unemployment in Greece; 20 per cent in Spain; and 4.9 per cent here in Australia. Imagine the way the political discourse would be carried on in this country if we were loaded up with the number of jobless that exist in those countries. Certainly no-one wishes that on anyone but having that level of unemployment, not only as an economic issue but as a social one as well and its massive distortion on politics, would be phenomenal if it were to occur in this country. If anything, in terms of this debate, it is not so much that we talk about facts themselves; it is more getting a recognition of facts from those opposite. When you look at where our economy is relative to others, our economy has done phenomenally well. We are right to be proud.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

There are a lot of people that, I would say, Member for Mayo, seek to be gracious about the contribution of those opposite. It is easy to flog off a major asset like Telstra and use that money to retire debt, but where were you when we needed investment in education?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why have we got a skills shortage?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And let us talk about health.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is one member who is on his feet. Please respect him.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Instead of actually investing in health care, there was a massive dole out of funds through private health insurance. There was not an investment in hospitals; there was an underinvestment in health. In terms of education itself, instead of putting money into TAFE, those opposite sought to duplicate the TAFE system by setting up their own rival TAFE system and underfunding TAFE. Yes, you did get a surplus—everyone acknowledges that. It is the way that you got there and the underinvestment and what was left as a result of that and the type of issues that we have to deal with now. The Reserve Bank was saying from the early part of the last decade that capacity constraints were the biggest threat to the economy, that those capacity constraints were in the form of skills shortages and infrastructure constraints that needed to be addressed and were not. I have already talked about what happened in education. Where were you on infrastructure? You pretty much abandoned, for instance, anything to do with urban planning or involvement in urban infrastructure—not only making cities liveable but ensuring the fluid movement of people and goods within cities.

I will give credit to those opposite. The one bit of infrastructure that you did get to was the M7, and you only got to it because you put a toll on it. I am first to admit that the M7 was certainly—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Well, my preference is not that we have to rely on tolls, but that we are able to invest without putting the imposition of tolls. Most of the infrastructure in this country has not been developed simply as a result of putting a toll bucket on the end of it. Again, if you look at unemployment, at inflation and at growth, we have a great advantage relative to others. My biggest concern is not just about our recognising the strength of this economy but about making sure that we continue to ensure that this is an open economy, one that connects within the region, that maintains, for example, a commitment to recognising the value of Australian investment, along with foreign investment; that we are able to take advantage, for example, of what we have as a result of the NBN and take advantage of our IT sector and what that can do in connecting us, not only internally but within our region. As much as this is a discussion for here and now—and what I will pick up on in terms of what the member for Mayo is saying—the reforms that we make now generate prosperity down the track. I am certainly proud of being part of a government that has put us in a position where we are able to leap off the advantage that has been given to us.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing in this motion and in all of those opposite who speak on it is so typical of this government's approach: they automatically think that the good aspects of the Australian economy have something to do with them. I would not be so churlish as to say that the past reforms of past Labor governments have not contributed to Australia's economic performance today, just as the past reforms of the coalition government. But those opposite—

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be your ex-boss.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

belong to a government that has done so badly in so many areas. There is no shame; repeatedly, week after week, day after day, there are motions of self-congratulation when, really, if you look at what this government has done and the way it goes about it, it is very, very obvious to Australians that not only is this a bad government but it is a government that will claim credit for things it has not done. It is a government that, still, with every breath, with every day and with every act will not be straight with the Australian people. My friend and colleague the member for Mayo articulated very eloquently the government's failings on some major policy areas. If you take this long motion from Dr Leigh, it calls, amongst other things, for debates with facts. Now, this motion is coming out at a time when the government is sending letters to pensioners about cash for the carbon tax, and the Prime Minister's office is tweeting 'cash for you'.

The public rightly see through this. There are letters such as the one I have here with the headline 'Extra cash for you' and reads: 'Cheaper than a $2 shop, extra cash for you. P.S. This is just part of the extra help the government is giving millions of Australians.' Extra help for what? 'Extra help to deal with the carbon tax, compensation to help with the injury we are causing you with the carbon tax.' Dr Leigh says there should be debates about facts. What about some facts on a letter headlined 'Extra cash for you'? What about another P.P.S saying: 'All of this is borrowed money.' That would be one fact that, if you were upfront with the Australian people, you would put in a letter that you were sending out. What about explaining to the Australian people that every dollar that the government is giving is borrowed and they will have to pay it back, and their children will have to pay it back? But, no, you do not get that from this government or from those who support this government—those who prop it up.

As I mentioned at the outset, we saw on the weekend the hashtag from the Prime Minister's office, 'Cash for you'. Quite rightly, the Twittersphere responded as you would expect. One tweet likened it to an African bank scam, as you would expect: '#cashforyou. Urgent business relationship. First, I am a Nigerian prince and must solicit your strictest confidence in this transaction.' This government that seriously stands before this parliament is sending out letters with 'cash for you' and twee hashtags, as I have said, and is expecting the public to take them seriously. What the Australian people know is that this money that is being sent out is borrowed money. There is $100 million a day being borrowed. In your personal life, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Oakeshott, because you are a normal family guy, if you spend on your credit card you get the bill. With the government, they have got the card, but it is the families that get the bill. They pay the bill. This government borrows money on their behalf to send out to them and then writes them a letter congratulating itself on sending the money out, headlined, 'Extra cash for you'. We have all the oratory from the Prime Minister. That is what it has come to for the Labor Party. From Curtain to Chifley, I would even say the oratory of Whitlam, down to this Prime Minister: 'Cash for you.' That says it all about this government, and to have a motion from Dr Leigh on serious economic issues— (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey talked a bit about history. I was very interested to read the recent book by George Megalogenis and to read about Billy Snedden, then opposition leader, in about July 1973 summoning the coalition leaders to Sydney to talk about the fact that the Whitlam Labor government had failed, that the experiment was wrong and all these jeremiads about how bad it was. When I read the book it was like reading a speech from the current Leader of the Opposition. It was the fact that those opposite never, ever accept the legitimacy of a Labor government. It is the divine right to rule that is in their heads and in their hearts.

What you really should believe is what they say when they go overseas, not what they say when they are campaigning here. We have had the Leader of the Opposition running around like some sort of Old Testament prophet saying, 'We're all doomed,' like Sodom and Gomorrah or something like that. The whole thing is about to collapse. Australia is like Sodom and Gomorrah: it is going to collapse; the economy has completely had it. But when they go overseas it is a different story. When they are speaking to an international audience they endorse the direction and the strong economic fundamentals of the economy. In fact, in his budget-in-reply speech, the opposition Treasury spokesperson said that economic growth under this government had been poor. But he went on Bloomberg TV and conceded that the economic fundamentals of the economy were strong. The Leader of the Opposition declared that the federal Labor government would never return the budget to surplus, as we projected and Treasury projects, but he actually recalibrated his message, with his Treasury spokesperson talking up the Treasurer's steps to deliver a surplus when he was overseas. When he is overseas he says, 'Yes, it's going to happen.' But, when he is in Australia, it is a different story entirely because it does not suit their narrative and their campaign purpose. Last year when he was in London, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that Australia had serious bragging rights, but now there is a sovereign risk with a Labor government.

All we can say about those opposite is that they are inconsistent. They have a mercurial if not schizophrenic approach to economic management that is governed by 30-second sound bites. But I prefer to listen to what the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development have to say about our economy. When those opposite are in power they say that they are great managers of the economy, but when Labor is in power and the economy is going well it has nothing to do with the government; it is all to do with other events and other people. But when they are in power you hear the exact opposite.

If they had bothered to go to the recent forum in Brisbane, they would have heard firsthand what the participants at the forum said. But they called it a talkfest. The Premier of my state did not even bother to turn up to it in his hometown. It was a missed opportunity to meet with the captains of industry and leaders of the unions to talk about how to improve the economy and improve the productivity of the country. We know when you have a look at the economy, you see the five per cent unemployment rate. About 835,000 jobs have been created since we have been in office, while 27 million jobs have been lost in the Western world. We have low interest rates—lower than when those opposite were in government. I distinctly remember being a candidate in 2004 when former Prime Minister John Howard talked about interest rates always being lower under a coalition government. It is completely untrue. We have a growing economy. We are one of the few countries to actually avoid a recession and it is because we were not asleep at the wheel when it came to the global financial crisis. We invested in timely, stimulus events and it had to be done. Those opposite failed. They would have taken us to unemployment and recession. We invested in road infrastructure, school infrastructure, health infrastructure and community infrastructure. Why? We wanted to keep jobs going. That is why we have an unemployment rate of about 4.6 per cent in Ipswich. Traditionally, Ipswich has almost double the national average rate of unemployment during times of hardship and decline. We invested in great projects like the Ipswich Motorway, where about 10,000 people had jobs. We invested in those projects; those opposite spent three campaigns campaigning against that. That is an indication of why the economic fundamentals are strong in this country.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on this thesis of Dr Leigh's, and quite a thesis it is. I just hope that the one that got him his doctorate had a little more substance than this one. He talks about the key issue being whether we want the economic discussion to be about fact or fiction. My view of this thesis of emotion is that really it is Dr Leigh's motion of no confidence in the Treasurer. It is saying that the Treasurer's record cannot stand on its own; therefore we need all members of the Labor Party to stand up and hail the Treasurer for the wonderful job that he has done, whereas they all know and see it in question time everyday that this Treasurer has no credibility whatsoever. He can take credit for nothing because he has done nothing of substance as Treasurer to in any way improve the productivity of this nation.

This no confidence motion in the Treasurer, as set out in this thesis by Dr Leigh, has no substance to it. Let us look at what is fact. Let us look at the fact that the Labor Party will not call the carbon tax for what it is: a tax. It always says 'carbon price'. Yet the Prime Minister, under duress, admitted that it is a carbon tax. So now they must not dare mention carbon tax in anything that goes out; it has to be carbon price. Let us get some facts. Let the Labor government tomorrow in the chamber come out and use the words 'carbon tax'—call it for what it is. Let us see some facts.

Let us also see them detail the real impact that it is going to have on the Australian community. I do not think that Dr Leigh or the others we have heard from today will do that. The memo has gone out to the Labor Party: 'You cannot use the term "carbon tax", even though the Prime Minister admitted that that is what it is. You have to use carbon price.' Not only do they have to use carbon price; they then use bribes to try to overcome the detrimental impact that it is going to have on the Australian people. They will use those bribes and market them under this '#cashforyou'. I must commend the member for Mayo for the wonderful press release that he put out last week on this '#cashforyou', where he demonstrated magnificently what it is all about: cash being taken from future generations of Australians to bribe the current generation of Australians to try to forget about the impact that this carbon tax will have on them. He referred to it as being very similar to an African Ponzi scheme, with the emails we all get trying to rip off the Australian public. It was extremely apt and hit the nail on the head when it comes to fact versus fiction with this government.

We also have other examples. Let us look at the budget surplus—the budget surplus which the Treasurer has said that he will deliver. Why then, on the nation's credit card, did he sneak through a rise from $250 billion to $300 billion? And why, when we sought to make this clear in the budget papers, would he have nothing of it? We wanted to get the fact in that, even though he was budgeting for a surplus, he wanted a $50 billion extension on the nation's credit card. Would he allow that fact to be revealed in the budget papers clearly? No, he would not.

Let us look at cost of living. I do not see any mention of cost of living in Dr Leigh's motion before us. Since this government came to power, electricity costs have increased by 65.7 per cent; water and sewage, 59.1 per cent; utilities, 58 per cent; gas, 38.7 per cent; insurance, 33.4 per cent; education, 31.1 per cent; medical and hospital services, 28. 8 per cent; and rents, 25. 8 per cent. The list goes on and on, and I have not even got to child care. The government has done nothing to address these cost-of-living issues and it is about to make it worse when it introduces the carbon tax on 1 July.

We on this side are happy to talk about facts until we get to the next election and we can get rid of this incompetent Labor government.

Debate adjourned.