Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think we are all very privileged that Senator Conroy has raised this issue today because we have actually seen the birth of a new branch of economic theory. I would like to call it, for want of a better word, ‘roosternomics’. I refer to it as ‘roosternomics’ not because of the description given to Senator Conroy and a few of the other roosters by Mark Latham and not even because of the cocksure and theatrical manner in which Senator Conroy delivered his sterling address to this chamber and to the people at home; I call it ‘roosternomics’ for the simple reason that the rooster always takes credit for the sun rising. So small and so limited is the rooster’s intellect and grasp of the laws of physics—in this case, the motion of the earth—he insists that he is responsible for the rising of the sun. The only way that Senator Conroy’s arguments can be sustained is if ‘roosternomics’ takes both sides of the equation. Senator Conroy is not alone in adhering to ‘roosternomics’, because the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, is also a proponent of it. According to Mr Beazley, if we sell our Telstra shares, or if we sell them and park some in the Future Fund, there is going to be an overhang, the share price will fall and the investors will suffer. But, of course, if we decide not to sell the shares and park them in the Future Fund, the market will say there is excessive regulation and it is hamstringing the ability of the company to compete on an equal footing.

‘Roosternomics’ is not limited to Telstra. The opposition’s basic philosophy goes like this: ‘When we are in government we can sell 11 different companies’—Senator Macdonald talked about some of them like CSL and the Commonwealth Bank—‘we can sell the family silver but, rather than investing that money in productive enterprises, what we are going to do, according to “roosternomics”, is pour it into a black hole—a $96 billion black hole that existed in 1996.’ But of course they will not acknowledge that there is a black hole. They will deny it, as Mr Beazley did. He said in 1998 that there was no black hole and no $10 billion deficit. But, of course, the undeniable truth came out when Gareth Evans, a former senator, said that the deficit in 1995 and 1996 was actually $10.3 billion.

Once again, ‘roosternomics’ has both sides of the argument. The theory goes like this: you can spend your way to prosperity, you can continue to spend and spend, and you will eventually get richer. It does not work like that. The world does not work like that. You have to save and you have to invest. Part of investment for Australians is in the share market. We are one of the great share-owning democracies. We have a very clear and straightforward corporations law which, for prospectuses for initial public offerings on the share market, spells out very clearly the risks of investment. We have professional advisory services across the country which people can avail themselves of. But it is not enough to be condemned for not disclosing the risks to shareholders on behalf of Senator Conroy, because I think what he is doing is having a shot at the other ‘roosternomics’ advocate, Stephen Smith. I would like to quote what Mr Smith when he was the shadow minister for communications in 2000. He said:

... shareholders in Telstra, like shareholders in any company, purchase shares with their eyes open and they take the consequence of the market going up and the market going down ... they buy with their eyes open and, like everyone else, they take their chances in the marketplace.

That is ‘roosternomics’, isn’t it? We have another conflicting opinion based on both sides of the argument. As a professional investor, and previously as a professional adviser, I have endured the vicissitudes of the market and taken them with equanimity. You just have to accept it. But, of course, the mum and dad investors do not always have that same approach to it, and so they rely on professional advice.

Senator Allison was talking before about how we overcharged the people of Australia under the Telstra 2 sale. I go back to 1999, again, and Senator Allison is actually on the record as quoting an analyst saying that they were expecting an increase of up to 40 per cent, windfall gains for the investors in Telstra 2. So, whilst she acknowledges all the analysts now, she was prepared to ignore what they were saying earlier on. Senator Allison made these comments in the context of saying we should have charged more for Telstra 2. That is quite contrary to what she is saying now. She may not be a fully paid-up member of the ‘roosternomics’ fan club, but she is certainly on her way to getting there.

The other quote that I think we need to bear in mind today is from Terry McCrann. Mr McCrann has been quoted extensively by the Labor Party from some of his recent judgements, columns and articles about our performance in selling Telstra and offering it to the public to make it a more flexible, positive and dynamic company. In an article headlined ‘Coonan should take a bow, Beazley should bow out of it’, Mr McCrann makes a number of claims but the essence of it is this:

Beazley set the tone for his opposition colleagues, all of whom have distinguished themselves with observations ranging from the inane to the utterly irrelevant.

I think that sums up pretty eloquently the case of ‘roosternomics’—the inane to the utterly irrelevant. We have Senator Conroy standing up and deciding that he will be the champion of the mum and dad investors. Let me tell you now that the champion of the mum and dad investors is this government. This government has put more wealth into the pockets of everyday Australians and done more to lower taxes for Australian men and women than any government in Australia’s history. This government has done more to encourage investment in superannuation, which encourages strong investment in our share market, which provides much-needed capital for the development of Australia and our positive economy as it is going forward.

I consider us very privileged to have seen the birth of this new economic theory. It has been a long time in gestation but, while the rooster makes a lot of noise, he does not deliver much. That is why there is only one in every henhouse; they do not lay any eggs and you get no service from them. That is what will happen with the Labor Party. If they ever get into government, the people of Australia will be utterly dismayed at their performance.