Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What an embarrassment! No wonder they got rid of you as the shadow spokesperson. It is very easy to come into the chamber and try and verbal people and make things up as you go. You are getting to be quite experienced at that. Let us look at this matter of public importance:

The Gillard Government's continuing inability to balance the budget and wavering commitment to achieving a budget surplus in 2012/2013.

Let us look at the people who have put up this matter of public importance. On 19 August 2010, in the Australian:

National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling identifying a $377 million hole in the Coalition's Education Tax Refund policy.

The rot had started. Once again, in the Australian, the newspaper that the coalition used to decide their MPIs about the carbon price:

Abbott's plan would use taxpayer dollars to pay for government to fund industry to lower its emissions. The Gillard scheme taxes industry to give it a price incentive to change its ways and, to the extent it can't or won't, funnels much of the revenue from the carbon tax back to the public (lower- and middle-income earners) through tax cuts to compensate for expected price rises.

The significance of achieving this target should not be underestimated for the clarity it brings to why the scheme of Labor is better than that of the coalition. I quote:

It is a two-horse race, and when it comes to doing something about climate change—

the coalition horse is lame. The Australian continued:

Abbott's response to Labor's package is a bundle of contradictions. He'll have significant tax cuts of his own we are told, just without the carbon tax which pays for them. He scoffs at the value of a 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020, even though the target is bipartisan and underpins Coalition climate change policy.

And yet we have this MPI. Then we had Joe Hockey at the Press Club with an extra­ordinary performance. The Sydney Morning Herald noted:

Mr Hockey repeatedly stumbled over claims he miscalculated spending savings simply respond­ing that 'they were right at some point in time'.

These are the people that bring this MPI into this place. The Sydney Morning Herald went on:

... the Opposition has said it would be able to return the Budget to a surplus early by imposing tougher cuts on spending, and has accused the Government of not being vigorous enough in the economic statement released last Tuesday.

There is more:

… part of the $52 billion the Coalition had said it would cut from spending included $1.7 billion from Labor's proposed company tax cuts, which were to be funded by a higher mining tax.

What was the problem with that? The coalition would not proceed with the mining tax. Give me a break. Then we have the Victorian Premier helping you out. He is someone who in 2008 said:

We support an emission capping and trading scheme as the least costly way of responding to global warming.

The modelling commissioned by Mr Baillieu deliberately phrases results in a negative way such as the 23,000 jobs being 'lost'. It is a pity the modelling did not include key assist­ance measures under the plan of the Gillard government for a clean energy future with assistance to nine out of 10 families and industries across Australia. Talk about political expediency being more important than economic honesty. The list of economic incompetence is endless, but there is a limit to my time so I will not mention the $70 billion black hole that needs to be corrected before the coalition can even get back to zero.

Mr Deputy President, when can you recall the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, saying the surplus was in doubt? I do not and I cannot recall any comment from Senator Penny Wong suggesting that there was anything other than a solid commitment to returning the economy to surplus. So where does the concern about wavering come from? Maybe it comes from the attitude of the coalition to coal seam gas exploration, mental health funding, the complete lack of counting skills that we have seen since the last election and which butcher to visit.

Numerous media outlets have reported on the favourable IMF outlook on the Australian economy. Even the Wall Street Journal helped out, noting:

During last year's election campaign, Labor promised to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13 in a push to underline its claim to conservative economic management. It has continued to insist the promise is iron-clad.

Yesterday, the Treasurer said the IMF had offered a "resounding endorsement" of Labor's economic policy, confirming that the nation's outlook remained strong, despite renewed fragility in the global economy.

The IMF commends the government's fiscal strategy to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13 despite the impact of natural disasters, highlight­ing that Australia's fiscal consolidation is 'faster than in many other advanced economies and is more ambitious than earlier envisaged' …

Other IMF comments include:

Australian economy forecasts

I note already around 750,000 jobs have been created since we have come to office, and nearly 190,000 jobs in the last year alone, with more than nine out of the 10 jobs created in the last 12 months being full-time jobs. The IMF suggests a strong position to adjust:

There is ample scope to cut the interest rates and provide liquidity support for banks in the event that global financial markets become severely disrupted.

The important thing is to recognise how much stronger our economy is. We have avoided recession, giving us very strong public finances and very low debt; low unemployment at around half the level of the US; a massive pipeline of investment, particularly in resources; strong financial institutions and world-class regulators; and a well-functioning government. Just taking the last comment of 'a well functioning govern­ment', who do we believe: the IMF or Malcolm Turnbull telling SBS that Australia is run by a 'dysfunctional and chaotic government'? I suspect Malcolm is getting confused with the party with whom he sometimes associates himself. Australia's net debt will peak at 7.2 per cent of GDP in 2011-12. If you look around the world, you see the USA with 86 per cent in 2016; Japan, 164 per cent in 2018; the UK, 80 per cent in 2013; Canada, 36 per cent in 2013; France, 82 per cent in 2013; Italy, 101 per cent in 2011; and Germany, 55 per cent in 2012. You only have to look at the powerhouses of Europe, Germany and France, to realise how well Australia is performing compared with the last Howard government, the highest taxing government in Australia's history. And what did they do for Australian families? They did nothing.

Labor has provided numerous new jobs, childcare assistance and paid maternity leave. We reformed health funding. We have provided education support. We have developed plans for aged care, disability support, mental health assistance—and the list goes on and on.