Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:25): People listening to this MPI debate might think they had just experienced a bit of deja vu, maybe a bit of a re-run of an old tape. But the old tape was not that old; it was from earlier today. The coalition disrupt the proceedings of the House for urgencies and for all sorts of things they want to do just to have a debate, then they have an MPI just half an hour later on the exact same topic. They have no idea about their own agenda or how to run a program and certainly no idea about what the urgency is in a matter of public importance. So rather than talk about the issues I thought that I would have a look at what this MPI actually says and that maybe we could address the urgency. What is the urgency that is contained in this MPI? I had a bit of a think about what this urgency perhaps represents. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): Order! I will ask for the cooperation of the House. The last speaker, the member for Cowper, was heard in silence and the same courtesy should apply to every member of this House. Mr RIPOLL: Thank you for the protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, from this rowdy mob, although I have to say they are not as rowdy as the contributions we had just after question time. There was a fair bit of hide, a fair bit of bluster—and a fair bit of spittle that went around the room at the same time. But it always indicates to me just how shallow, hollow and how empty the rhetoric is—the louder it is. We saw plenty of that before from the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney. Again, I thought I should have a close look at what this urgency matter is. What could be so urgent? Is something imminent about to happen? A collapse or an ending of something? This urgency starts to wear a little bit thin after more than two years of hearing it—'The government's going to collapse,' 'Something's going to happen,' all these things. It just is not the case. So I figured out what the urgency is. It is the urgency of these guys to warm their backsides on the seats of government. That is the urgency. The urgency is actually about them. It is about their personal urgency. They want to get on this side. That is the only urgency. These guys are in a hurry. One thing that we do know is that they do not respect democracy. From day one the only mantra they have had is: 'We need an election tomorrow.' That is their whole mantra, that is their policy basis: 'We need an election tomorrow so that we can get to government quicker. Forget the three-year terms, forget the process, forget the Constitution.' The urgency of this motion is about how quick these guys can get themselves into the seats of power. Believe me, they have form. That is the only urgency. Then I thought, if it is not just about the urgency issue, perhaps it is the control of government spending. What is urgent about the control of government spending? I thought there must be something disastrous happening either in Australia or in the world. I looked at the world and I thought, 'There is something disastrous happening.' Most of the world is feeling those ill winds of the global financial crisis. I know those opposite have forgotten already; they forgot the same day it happened. The global financial crisis, according to Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, just did not happen. They like to skip over that bit, because the Labor government actually did a good job of getting through it. So they do not want to talk about that; they do not want to remind people about that. So what is the urgency here? What is the getting back into control of the spending? I thought I had better go and check the books. What is the best way to find out if spending is out of control? Go and check the books. So I did. I went and had a look at the books and I found—guess what—that the Australian economy has grown larger, by 11 per cent, since we came to government. How is that even possible? We were facing a global financial crisis but we still managed to grow the economy. And guess what? We did not grow it by sacking people. That is what the Queensland LNP and Campbell Newman do and that is what Barry O'Farrell does in New South Wales. We grew it by adding jobs. We grew it by investing in infrastructure. We grew the economy by investing in education, investing in skills dealing with productivity and looking at what the economic drivers of the economy are. I know they are hollow words for the opposition. They do not even know what those words mean. They are not concerned. In fact, in this one matter of public importance you can see what this opposition are all about. It is about their urgency to warm the seats of government, their urgency to run to the Lodge, their urgency to be in the halls of power—not to deliver anything, not to achieve some good, not to deliver some outcome and not to deliver better education outcomes or better health services. Let us take a leaf out of the book of those LNP and Liberal and National party governments that are in government right now. We know they are on the same page and are singing from the same song sheet. They are in the same broad church. What are they doing? What are they doing to their economies? What are they doing in their states? Let us take a look at Queensland. You would think that in difficult economic times you would try to boost upwards the economy. You would perhaps try to support mining. You would not want to increase royalties. A direct hit—regardless of profit, just on the sheer amount you pull out of the ground. At the same time that we have got price pressures downwards on resources, they actually put a tax the other way. They put a tax on the quantity that comes out of the ground rather than when you make a profit. Where have the great market economists of the Liberal Party gone? They are not sitting on the opposition benches. They are not even on the crossbenches. Ms O'Dwyer: They're not sitting on your side! Mr RIPOLL: If they are not sitting on our side and they are not sitting on your side, just which side are they sitting on? There are only two sides. Let me go through, again, some facts. Where have we spent the money?—hang on! We lifted the age pension, the largest single increase in the age pension, for those most in need in our economy—our older people who really need a boost. Opposition members interjecting— Mr RIPOLL: They are still arguing against it! They still do not want older people to get an age pension increase. They really hate that. It is disturbing. Was that a waste of money? I do not think it was. I think it is something good we did and is something that will outlive us as a government and hopefully outlive you, whenever you might be in government. We saved over $3 billion by means-testing the private health insurance rebate to ensure it was fairer and more sustainable into the future. We understand the need to get the balance right between spending and saving. We have saved over $900 million by targeting family payments in a better way, making sure the baby bonus works in the way it is intended. We have saved over $1.9 billion by better targeting the tax concession for living-away-from-home allowances. We have saved over $900 million by reducing tax concessions for very-high-income earners. People have called for a long time for the lifting of the tax-free threshold. Why should it only be $6,000 before you pay tax? This government listened. We have lifted it not twice but three times, to $18,000. That is where we have spent the money. Go and tell everyone out there that you want to take it back off them, because that is what you are saying by everything that you do—I was going to say in policies, but there are not any. Mr Tony Smith: I thought we had nasty policies! Mr RIPOLL: They are all nasty. They only have one policy and one mantra, which is the urgency to get to the Lodge and the urgency to be in the halls of power. They cannot wait. They are rubbing their hands with glee. You can see them at night, going: 'I can't wait. I can't wait to do what Campbell Newman does in Queensland. I can't wait to do what Barrel O'Farrell'—maybe he is a barrel—'Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales— Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Herbert that he is not in his chair. Mr RIPOLL: They cannot wait to get to the halls of power to do the first thing they always do, and all Australians know it, and that is to just start sacking people. How do you support an economy by just getting rid of people? It is a tragedy in this place. But when we recently heard some of the contributions to this debate I thought I had better listen to what the other side says, to make sure I get a grasp or a grip on what their argument is. Their argument amounted to this, and I will summarise it. You start with a tax. You attack government department names: 'What a silly name for a government department.' I think the shadow Treasurer spent two minutes talking about silly names. That was his contribution to an economic debate. Then they attacked small business by saying: 'What a waste of money, to give it to small businesses that do things for other people. As long as it’s a small business related to climate change or anything that might be good for sustainability or the future, attack them. They're not worthy of being called a small business.' Then they talked about flowers. The member for North Sydney spent a minute talking about flowers and the great waste. Then they went to their pet subject, their favourite topic at all times—that is, sacking people. They think this government spends too much money employing people. Opposition members interjecting— Mr RIPOLL: They go, 'Where's the money coming from?' This is all that is left. I will tell you where it is coming from and I will tell you where we have saved it, because I have already done some of that. And I will tell you where it will not go. It will not go to Liberal Party mates and to National Party mates, as under the previous Howard government. We saw enormous trunks of wasted money going to—if you want to talk about far-Left airy-fairy stuff—Liberal and National party mates. So it is clear in this place that after five years and more than two years since the last election we have done a good job to support jobs and the economy, and it is proven by the— (Time expired)