David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I was relieved to see Senator Fifield's name attached to this motion in the Notice Paper today. I must confide to the Senate that I was becoming worried about Senator Fifield's wellbeing. As the Senate will be aware, Senator Fifield has been engaged in some very dangerous activities in the past week or so. He has been busy organising a coup within his own party, trying to depose his colleague Senator Kroger as a Senate whip and doing so against the wishes of his leader. We learnt that Senator Abetz was also a party to this little plot and that it was only quashed when Mr Abbott intervened and said that Senator Kroger was to be left alone.

Yesterday it was also revealed in whose interest Senator Fifield has been engaging in his rather inept plotting and scheming. Senator Fifield, it seems, is the agent of the man who made his career: his former employer, Mr Peter Costello. Yesterday we learnt that the former Treasurer is trying to come back to Canberra so that he can depose Mr Abbott and seize the Liberal leadership, a position for which he has in his own mind always been destined. Senator Fifield, it seems, is his point man in the Senate.

This motion begins by asserting that the budget 'does nothing to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of storm clouds on the global horizon'. Leaving aside the question of what a global horizon might be, this astonishing statement reveals just why the opposition might well want to bring Mr Costello back to Canberra. I could say a lot of things about Mr Costello's performance as Treasurer, but I am fairly certain he would never have said such a ridiculous thing as we can find in the motion we are considering right now.

Has the opposition noticed that the central feature of this budget, which is to cut or defer spending and increase revenue so as to put the budget back into surplus, is a motivation to strengthen the economy of the nation? Has the opposition not noticed that the debt crisis in Europe is all about the markets punishing countries which do not exercise the fiscal discipline necessary to keep their budgets in surplus? Has the opposition not noticed that the Australian economy is amongst the strongest economies in the developed world? Has the opposition not noticed that we will be the first economy in the developed world to move back to surplus? Has the opposition not noticed our low unemployment, our low interest rates, our strong trade position, indeed our healthy demographics? Has the opposition not noticed today's employment figures, in which unemployment has fallen yet again to 4.9 per cent?

Let me quote the independent economic commentary website Economy Watch:

Spurred by robust business and consumer confidence, Australia’s economy is expected to grow even quicker in the next five years. 2011 to 2015 should see Australia’s GDP … grow by 4.81 to 5.09 percent annually … Likewise, Australia’s GDP … per capita is expected to experience healthy growth.

I am not surprised at all that there are Liberal senators who want to bring Mr Costello back to Canberra, because the performance of their frontbench on the economy since they have been in opposition has been little short of laughable. First we had their appalling response to the global financial crisis in 2008. The shadow Treasurer then was Ms Julie Bishop. What was her response to the GFC? 'Wait and see,' she said. Wait and see! What a masterful piece of inspirational leadership that was. Fortunately for Australia, this government did not wait and see. Our Treasurer, Wayne Swan, acting on the advice of Treasury and the great majority of economists, responded rapidly and responded effectively with our stimulus packages, which saved this country from the kind of recession that afflicted most of the rest of the developed world and which, I am sad to say, is still afflicting much of Europe. While I am on my feet addressing this subject, let me pay tribute to Senator Nick Sherry, who was a member of the ministerial team that planned and executed Australia's highly successful response to the GFC—the most effective and successful response in the world. Senator Sherry gave us his valedictory speech earlier today, and he had every right to look back with pride on his long career in the Senate and in the ministry. He shares the credit for the success and strength of our economy today, which is in such glaring contrast to the state of many other developed economies around the world. I thank Senator Sherry for his service to the Labor Party, the government and the Senate and, like everyone else, I wish him well for the future.

Ms Bishop's brilliant performance as shadow Treasurer led to her being replaced by Mr Joe Hockey—the thinking man's Clive Palmer, the man who did such a great job in 2007 of persuading Australians that they should embrace the Work Choices legislation. Building on that success, Mr Hockey's comedy routine as shadow Treasurer has been ably assisted by his straight-man sidekick, Mr Andrew Robb, as shadow finance minister. These two have bumbled and blundered for the past three years, passing the buck between them, contradicting and undermining each other, putting out figures and retracting them—and then denying that they ever said it.

On Tuesday's Lateline, in response to the budget, we saw a breathless Mr Hockey insist that if he were in government he would cut much deeper. No wonder senators opposite want to bring Mr Costello back to Canberra. Perhaps they should get the band back together and bring John Howard back as well. Then they could give Australia what it really wants: the son of Work Choices! And if anyone thinks that is an idle threat they should read Mr Howard's speech to the postbudget breakfast in Brisbane, in which he said:

At some point this country has to revisit the area of industrial relations reform.

We all know what industrial relations reform means to Mr Howard and indeed what it means to those opposite. It means the return of Work Choices. And if we should forget that, we have Mr Howard's proxy, Senator Sinodinos, here to remind us.

What is the first item on the opposition's indictment of our budget? That it fails to cut spending. This is curious, because ever since Tuesday night the opposition and its friends have been castigating us precisely because the budget did cut spending. The budget in fact cut spending by $33 billion. Let me quote a source that senators opposite might respect: the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Swan unveiled the biggest package of budget cuts in 30 years hoping to turn a deficit of $A44.4 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year ending June 30, into a surplus of A$1.5 billion in fiscal 2012-13.

That is what the Wall Street Journalsaid—'the biggest package of budget cuts in 30 years'. Of course, when one contemplates the time span of 30 years, that means that this government has already achieved bigger savings measures than anything the Howard government ever managed.

So we have indeed cut spending in this budget. But, according to the opposition, this is a terrible budget, precisely because it has made some cuts or deferrals in the areas of defence, foreign aid and so forth. Yesterday John Howard described the cuts as 'shameful'. These cuts are real and, certainly in the defence area, they will cause the deferral of some desirable projects. So to suggest that this budget does not cut spending is just ridiculous. This is a government that makes tough decisions on spending when those tough decisions are necessary.

This line of attack by the opposition of course raises the obvious question: if the opposition thinks that a $33 billion cut in spending is not enough, what figure would they nominate? How about $70 billion? That is a nice round figure. As it happens, it is the one that both Mr Hockey and Mr Robb have put forward at various times—and then denied at various times, and then put forward again at various times. And although they have been trying to run away from that number, it is plain that the opposition's ERC—if one could dignify it with such a term—does not know whether it is cutting or spending, leaving or arriving. If the cuts we have made are not enough for the opposition, what would they cut? Education? Pensions? We saw the shadow Treasurer speaking in London about the wickedness of a culture of entitlement. So pensions no doubt sit somewhere on their list. But what else? Medicare? Defence? I notice that the opposition has been remarkably silent on the questions of defence in this place. These are the big-ticket items in the budget, and it simply is not possible to make deep cuts in government spending without cutting into these areas.

My advice to those opposite, particularly Senator Sinodinos, is to stop wasting your time costing Senator Cameron's manifesto and turn your minds to costing your own policies. But this opposition always tries to have it both ways on spending. This is an opposition that could run into itself coming through the door. They criticise the government when we make cuts to spending, but they promise the Earth to the various interest groups that support and fund their parties. They conceal their own plans—plans that must involve massive cuts to spending if they are to repeal the mining tax and lose the revenues it will produce and yet not put the budget back into deficit. I think it is time the opposition came clean about where they are and by how much they would cut spending. I hope Mr Abbott will do this in his budget reply speech tonight. But, as I recall his lamentable performance in his budget reply speech of last year, I must confess that I am not confident about that.

Today the opposition cries crocodile tears about foreign aid, but foreign aid is always the coalition's first target of choice for spending cuts. It is an easy target for the right-wing populism that coalition parties like to engage in when no-one is watching. I am sure the Senate remembers Senator Joyce's incoherent rambling speech in February of 2010, when he called into question our foreign aid budget in its entirety, especially our funding to the World Bank for poverty alleviation. Peter Reith—who remains influential in the Liberal Party, helpfully commenting on its fortunes from time to time—said recently that foreign aid is a waste of money. The website of Liberal MP Jamie Briggs recently ran an article calling for the scrapping of Australia's foreign aid to Pacific Island countries to help them cope with climate change. So this is the commitment of those opposite to foreign aid, and their support for its financing will last mere days.

The motion before us also refers to the world's biggest carbon tax. If the opposition thinks that we on this side are going to make any apologies for putting a price on carbon and carbon emissions, taking the first step on the long road to decarbonising the Australian economy, they are mistaken. This government has many achievements to be proud of, but I think history will record that the final passage of the carbon price legislation was one of our finest hours. We would of course have reached that milestone in 2009 had the coalition parties honoured the agreement Mr Turnbull reached with the government and passed the CPRS legislation. Instead, they allowed Mr Abbott, they allowed Minchin's militia and they allowed his fellow climate change denialists to seize control of their party. They reneged on their solemn agreement with the government and they chose the path of cynicism and obstructionism, something for which future generations of Australians will undoubtedly condemn them.

Eventually we succeeded in passing the carbon price legislation, along with its associated compensation packages. From 1 July this year, Australia will start to see the benefits of that package flowing to them. We have never denied that putting a price on carbon will impose some costs on some sectors of the Australian economy, an economy which we all understand is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and indeed coal exports. But we strongly believe that, in the longer run, it is in Australia's interests economically, socially and environmentally to take a leadership position in the slow and difficult struggle to save the world from the effects of human induced climate change.

In conclusion, I completely reject the terms of this motion. Those opposite have no grounds to criticise this government's record of fiscal responsibility. Yes, we went into deficit in 2008 and in subsequent years as part of our response to the GFC, a global financial crisis that those opposite still deny ever happened. The government did the right and responsible thing. Contrary to the primitive Thatcherite views of those opposite, there are times when deficit financing is necessary and responsible to stimulate an economy in danger of sliding into recession. We make no apologies for that and indeed the performance of the Australian economy is lasting testament to the effectiveness of the government's actions. But now it is time to bring the budget back into surplus and that is what we have done. That has certainly involved some pain, including in my own portfolio areas. But as a great Social Democratic Prime Minister of France, Pierre Mendes France, said:

To govern is to choose.

All parties have to choose what path to follow. We have chosen the path of discipline and responsibility by bringing down a budget that delivers a surplus while protecting those who rely on Labor to safeguard their welfare and their lives. Those opposite have chosen the path of irresponsibility, obstructionism, hypocrisy and even deceit. I am confident that the Australian people will recognise which side of the Senate has acted in the national interest.