Mike Baird | Member for Manly

Change Font Size: A A A A

Email Alerts

Interviews

Car-Pool Connect

Community Heroes

Photos

Federal Budget

Thursday, 15 May 2008

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [3.44 p.m.]: It is quite incredible that the Iemma Government has the hide to come in here and talk about the economic prowess of the six-month-old Rudd and Swan Government. I refer to a very important number. What is the difference between the Federal Coalition and Federal Labor Governments? It is quite simply $31 billion. In 1996 John Howard and Peter Costello inherited a deficit of $10 billion. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan inherited a surplus of $21 billion. Let us try to work out who said this:

Mr Speaker, you don't turn around a nation's finances, a nation's future, without making some hard decisions.

But if we avoid the hard decisions now, they are only going to get harder in the future … We cannot expect those who rely on pensions and allowances—low-income earners—to bear the cost. So we are asking high-income earners to make a contribution and business to make its contribution, too.

That was not, as members opposite might have hoped, Wayne Swan. It was Peter Costello in his first budget as Treasurer in 1996. He made the point that the first budget after a change of government presents a rare opportunity. It is a chance for the new Government to establish itself as a sound economic manager while trying to attack the reputation of its predecessor. Wayne Swan, whenever one looks at him, has a new double act going. Have members seen it? He runs out with Ken Henry. It is the best double act since Daryl Somers and Dickie Knee. Ken Henry is trying to prop up the Dickie Knee in Wayne Swan and trying to show the world that Wayne Swan is an economic manager. No-one believes it and the Federal Budget confirms to the people of Australia, very early on, that Wayne Swan does not have the ticker for the job. He does not understand what it means to be Treasurer and he is all at sea. I will refer again to this fantastic article in the Australian, which states:

The risk of the economy going into recession, although not large on most calculations, is greater than at any time since 1990. In that year's budget, Keating announced the biggest estimated budget surplus on record: $8.1 billion or 2 per cent of gross domestic product.

That percentage is just above this year's surplus. This is the important point, and members of the House and the people of New South Wales should know it:

… the 1990 surplus turned out to be a mirage, virtually vanishing, together with Keating's reputation for economic management, as the recession gathered pace. Just $372 million of the surplus was left by the end of 1990-91 and another two years down the track that had turned into a deficit of more than $17 billion.

We have heard here today that the Australian Labor Party, which, in its time, had a surplus, demonstrated very quickly the capacity to lose it. Wayne Swan has been handed a jewel—a $21 billion surplus—but what is he going to do with it? His first budget tells us. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about a new era of Federal-State reform. "We can do everything we want", is effectively what he is saying. What about the ALP going back to its principles? The two foundations of that surplus were, firstly, tax reform—the GST. Let us run through the ALP's response to the GST.

At the time it was not supportive. In fact, Kim Beazley in various documents—I will not read them all—said the Howard Government had made a mess of the tax system. He said the GST, if implemented, would hit hardest those least able to afford it—young families, pensioners, charities, people on low incomes. On radio last year he said he thought the GST had put a dampener on the Australian economy when it was introduced. He said it had been a problem for small business ever since. And so it went on. Why does the Federal Government, together with Wayne Swan—the Dickie Knee of Australian politics—not want to get rid of the GST? The ALP was opposed to it and it is now in control. Why does it not follow through?

The second pillar of the surplus was waterfront reform. We heard for years that the ALP opposed waterfront reform. It was not interested in improving the productivity of companies; it was not interested in trying to make Australia a more competitive place to do business to help and grow our industries. No, the ALP did not want waterfront reform. Why not? It was because there were unions in place and Labor did not want to upset them.

That rings bells when we consider the privatisation debate and how it will play out. But the Australian Labor Party opposed waterfront reform. Unless you make some of those hard decisions for things like surpluses to become deficits—

Mr Michael Daley: You also opposed—

Mr MIKE BAIRD: If the member were to ask the Maritime Union today what it thinks of waterfront reform he would find it is very happy with it. Does the member want to know why the union is happy with it? The people of New South Wales should know why the union is happy with it. At the beginning of the waterfront reform process the number of containers being shifted from our waterfront per hour was 13 compared with a world average of 25. Other companies were able to process goods from their wharfs at almost double the speed that we were. At the end of the waterfront reform process what figure did we get to? I will tell the member: We got to over 30—we shifted 32 containers per hour.

What was the cost of the waterfront reform in processing those 32 containers versus 13? I will tell the member: The cost was exactly the same. The union rewarded productivity. The people who moved those containers were rewarded for moving new containers. It is not a difficult concept but it is something those on the other side of the House should pay attention to. I am very concerned for this country because Wayne Swan's first budget shows that he does not have ticker. We have heard him talk about inflation, inflation, inflation and what did he do? He delivered the biggest spending budget this country has ever seen.

Ms Alison Megarrity: Oh!

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The member may well say "Oh!" But if the Federal Government introduces taxes that increase the consumer price index by a quarter of a per cent, then that is obviously going to impact on inflation. Wayne Swan does not have the ticker. His budget is very disappointing and I am very concerned for Australia's future under the Rudd Government.

Add to:

Be first to comment on this article

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
Name:
E-mail
Subject:
Comment:
Code:*