Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the Treasurer said in February, and I'm quoting directly:

… the pressure on the economy, the upward revision, is because of faster-than-expected private demand at the same time as public demand taking a back seat, is actually retreating.

Yesterday's national accounts show the opposite. Public demand grew at more than twice the rate of private demand in the December quarter, just as it did in September. The Treasury made that claim to justify a rate rise which hurt millions of mortgage holders. The official data contradict them directly. Will you stand by that claim or admit he was wrong?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bragg for the question. If you look at the data in annual terms, private demand grew faster than public demand, and it has been shown not only in the national accounts but in other economic data as well.

I would also point out to Senator Bragg, considering that they were going to have deeper deficits and higher debt under their plan for the economy that they took to the election, that, if we take your concern and apply it to the policies you took to the last election, then we would be in a much worse position.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg?

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on relevance. The question was quite clear. Will the government stand by the claim or admit that they were wrong?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a preamble. I'll remind the minister to focus on the whole of your question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course I support the comments by the Treasurer. As I have just explained, if you look at the data—not only in the national accounts but other economic data—and if you look at the contribution to growth that both public and private demand made, which in yesterday's data release was 0.3 for public demand and 0.3 for private demand, in annual contribution to growth, public demand was 0.7, and private demand in annual growth was 2.3. So, yes, the Treasurer is correct. So, I've answered the question directly.

Well, I have, Senator Cash. The other point I made is that, that based on the economic geniuses of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the plan they took to the election last year, which was overwhelmingly rejected, had deeper deficits and higher debt because—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And higher taxes.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and higher taxes, as Senator Wong points out—if people remember, they wanted to borrow to build nuclear power stations. Under your plan, they would be much worse off.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  Public sector demand is at an all-time record share of the economy, and it is accelerating. The Treasurer said it was retreating. Minister, which is right, the Treasurer or the national accounts?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer is correct. And the other point that I take about this line of questioning, including the concerns that the opposition have now—I mean, these are concerns that they didn't have when they were actually in government—about wages, which were raised yesterday, and public spending was that, as you know—

Well, you weren't too concerned about real wages when you were in government, Senator Hume. But the other concern they have is around public spending. As you know and as is drawn out by the ABS data and identified by the ABS—if you don't want to believe the government, believe the ABS—the investment was in defence spending. So now you've added that to your list of things that you don't support, which I find—ah, interesting. The contribution made in Commonwealth public demand was in defence spending, which is something you clearly don't support. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bragg, second supplementary.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if the Treasurer can't accurately describe what's happening in this economy, how can Australians have any confidence in this government's economic management, particularly when households are being hit with higher mortgages, higher rents and higher taxes all at the same time?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian community got an opportunity to make a decision about whose economic plan they supported, and they made that choice, and it was about a government that invests in essential services, helps things that you don't support—cost-of-living support, which, again, you don't support—and manages the budget responsibly, delivers surpluses, pays down debt and reduces the deficit. That is what the Australian people voted for: a government of adults, not a group that squabbles and trips over itself to get up to the Sky News interview to bag each other, and not for a plan that told everyone that all the women of Australia were bludgers and weren't allowed to work from home—but oh, if you didn't work from home and you weren't allowed to work from home, you could work part time; that was the other gem in that policy announcement: you're not entitled to work full time; you can work part time. The Australian people made their judgement, and they supported our plan.