Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (15:54): I listened very carefully to what the shadow Treasurer had to say on this matter of public importance. Unfortunately, he tended to vindicate what one anonymous senior staffer said at Menzies House: that the shadow Treasurer, if he ever became Treasurer, would be an incredible stain on the Liberal Party. I find that the Liberal Party and indeed its country branch allies, the National Party, have never seen a myth they do not like to exaggerate. I was listening carefully to what the shadow Treasurer had to say. As I listened to him try to pretend that Australia is not in fact an OECD nation that is doing far better than other nations in the OECD, I was reminded of the Liberal Party's ongoing commitment to untruths. I was reminded of the weapons of mass destruction that we never found, I was reminded of the children overboard and I was reminded of Work Choices. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! I realise it is Thursday afternoon, but there are far too many audible interjections. Mr SHORTEN: Even so, not content with the legacy of the past, the shadow Treasurer wishes to renew the great tradition of Liberal myth making with his unfair and factually unbased attack on a great Treasurer. We will start off with the exhibits of this mischievous Hans Christian Andersen like bit of bully boy bluster from the wannabe Treasurer of the wannabe tea party of Australian politics. I have listened very carefully to this discussion that somehow the Western Australian government did not tell anyone about its desire to increase royalties. As a part of the exercise, I have on me some of the great culprits of the current political debate. I have some iron ore fines here. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hughes will not interject. Mr SHORTEN: I have here some iron ore fines. I am sure most of the Liberal Party have never seen any. In the same tradition, because they might not actually know what an iron ore fine is, I also wish to refresh the memory of the House. On at least eight occasions—not seven, not six, not five but eight occasions—Premier Barnett said he would not increase royalties. He said in an article in the Australian Financial Review—not exactly Green Left Weekly—titled 'Barnett rejects iron ore royalty rise', on 4 September 2010: In the future I think there is a case for the fines iron ore rate to be equivalent to the lump royalty rate or closer to that, but it is not something that we are moving on now. It won't be in next year's budget. For the benefit of some of the members opposite, that is this budget. He said, 'We will not be moving on royalties in the immediate future.' As much as the opposition may seek to shout its way into government and shout over the facts, Premier Barnett said on ABC radio on 20 October 2010, 'We have no plan to increase royalties.' The following day, in that paper of record the West Australian, he said, 'The state has no intention of increasing royalties.' In an interview with the Australian, another paper of record, on 30 October 2010, 'I have no plans to increase royalties.' He then said on a fifth occasion—not content with four occasions— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: I am glad to see that the member for Kooyong has recovered. He then said, in his government's own submission to the Commonwealth Grants Commission in November 2010 which was sent to the Treasurer's office by the undersecretary, in relation to iron ore royalties, 'Further changes are not on the horizon.' As the Premier recently indicated—that would be Premier Barnett, for the edification of the opposition backbench—'the state has no intention of increasing royalties'. How often does a politician have to say he is not going to increase royalties before those opposite will believe him? On a sixth occasion, on 21 December 2010 Reuters reported that they said there was no proposal to increase royalties again. Six times it was said. That was clearly not enough. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: The member for Casey may be interested to learn that on 23 February 2011—that would be this year—it was reported in the Financial Review: Colin Barnett said there were no plans to lift the royalty rate for fines iron ore from 5.6 per cent to match the lump rate of 7.5 per cent. Mr Barnett said that while the different rates didn't make sense to him, the government had no plans to increase the fines rate in the foreseeable future. I would assume that in the common parlance of the great English language that the foreseeable future would go for at least the next three months. That day, on 6PR—a radio station, if you were not aware of that—he made it very clear: 'We don't have any plans to increase royalties in Western Australia.' Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the interjections are good natured, but I am finding it difficult to listen to the minister. Honourable members on my left will remain silent. Mr SHORTEN: No-one is keeping the member for Casey here. We had always reserved the right to do that, but I understand that they do have to turn up because some of their colleagues missed divisions last night. On 6PR radio Premier Barnett said on those magic airwaves of the radio: 'All I'll say is simply that we are not contemplating one at present.' That was less than eight weeks before the budget. Even if the opposition are still content to besmirch the reputation of a great Treasurer by trying to pretend that Premier Barnett did not say these things, we have to then actually look at what his accomplishments are. I think that, whenever you look at a matter of public importance— Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Kooyong will remain silent for the remainder of the MPI. Mr SHORTEN: We can only wish, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we look at this matter of public importance, I would have thought the shadow Treasurer, in order to have a debate about the merits of the government, would realise this is not a one-horse race. We have a beast called the opposition. I am using a horse analogy as opposed to any other point about that. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: It is a saying, Member for Casey—you need to get out and about. I am going to use several criteria to establish why I think our Treasurer is better than their shadow Treasurer. They are fair criteria; I will submit them for the House's consideration. The first will be spending, the second will be savings, the third will be inflation, the fourth will be the tax-to-GDP ratio— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: GDP, for the opposition backbenchers, is the gross domestic product. I will cover our handling of the global financial crisis—we would like to conveniently forget the war, would we not? We will look at our handling of the natural disasters and we will look at our fiscal position. In fact, why do we not put in a plan for Australia as a criterion and why do we not talk about jobs? The jobs number is the one that dares not speak its name among the opposition. These are the criteria on which, I think, you can judge our Treasurer versus their imposter. Let us start with spending. We kept real spending growth, and we are keeping real spending growth, at one per cent. That is the lowest growth rate of any five-year period since the 1980s. Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable members for Mitchell and Herbert will also remain silent for the balance of this debate on the matter of public importance. Mr SHORTEN: In the last five years of the unlamented, departed coalition government, real spending growth reached 3.7 per cent. There is a beautiful set of numbers, as a former Prime Minister would have said—us, one per cent real spending growth; them, 3.7 per cent real spending growth. You cannot trust those people with the cash registers. Then we get to savings. We have made $100 billion in savings since we have been in power and all you can do, when we put up the savings gold medal, is choose to come not second or third—you want to be right at the back of the queue. You want to look at a $10.6 billion black hole. Then we look at the tax-to-GDP ratio. This is a number which the opposition conveniently overlooks, because the opposition are the great myth makers of Australian politics. They say one thing and they do something else. The tax-to-GDP ratio is Commonwealth tax receipts as a proportion of Australian economic activity. Let me put it in context. We are taking 21. 8 per cent of GDP or, to put it another way— Mr Tony Smith: What is GDP? Mr SHORTEN: It is gross domestic product, Member for Casey. You will have your chance. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: The member for Casey has in fact had his chance. I am disappointed that they do not promote him to the front bench; he has more wit than half the people in front of him. Our tax-to-GDP ratio is 21.8 per cent. If you imagine the Australian economy as being $100,000, under us you are paying $21,800 in tax. But what was it under the scallywags of the opposition when they were in government? It was 25 per cent. So there was old Mr Howard and Mr Costello putting their hands in your pocket for $25,000 in every $100,000 in the Australian economy. We are better at keeping down the tax-to-GDP ratio. But it does not stop there, members of the House. Let us look at our handling, and the Treasurer's handling, of the global financial crisis. I know that the shadow Treasurer once famously called the global financial crisis a mere hiccup. Let me tell the House: it was more than a mere hiccup around the world. Thank goodness we had a Labor administration and Wayne Swan as our Treasurer. If you do not take my word for it—unfortunately some in the opposition are not enamoured with what I am saying, because the truth hurts—let us have a look at what the OECD said. Mr Tehan interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: The OECD, Member for Wannon—it is not the name of a type of cow. The OECD said it considered Australia's stimulus package to be among the most effective in the OECD, that it helped to avoid a recession and that there was already an infrastructure deficit from the past from continuous underinvestment in that area. And we know who was responsible for that—those opposite. There was also the IMF. Before the conspiracy theorists leap to their acronym dictionary, let me be clear that I am not talking about the International Metalworkers Federation; I am talking about the International Monetary Fund. They have endorsed what our government did. Then let us look at Peter Anderson, the chief executive of ACCI. On 12 May 2009 he said: The investment by this government was overdue and will contribute to a more efficient and competitive economy when recovery arrives. In the Australian Financial Review on 3 June, 21 economists said: Deploying our strong balance sheet to use otherwise idle resources—or to put it more compellingly, deserted factories and unemployed workers—to build assets that improve our lives and our economy in the future, seems much more appealing; much more commonsensical than retreating into phobias. Sound advice for the opposition. We have seen more and more people endorse our handling of the GFC. But it does not stop there. When the natural disasters struck our country—tragically, in many cases, with loss of life, but also incredibly significantly economically—who was there to help rebuild the roads and the schools and the community? Was it the coalition when they were asked to help lift resources? No, not at all. They were missing in action. Mr Truss interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: No medals for bravery for the Leader of the National Party. No medals for bravery for the National Party. They abandoned their own people. I admit their members of parliament did good work for individuals distressed by the floods, but as a party, when they came into this place, they opposed the flood levy. Let us look at plans for Australia. Only one side of this House has a plan for Australia. Mr Hunt interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: Here comes the member for Flinders, ready to another write a thesis on climate change—I do not think so. We have a plan for Australia. We have a plan for jobs. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Flinders knows it is grossly disorderly to stand and shout at the minister who has the call. If he wants to interject, he should do so from his seat in a dignified way. Mr SHORTEN: He may well want to, but I appreciate the Deputy Speaker's ruling. I have gone through a list of what we have done and a list of what they do not stand for. I have gone through the accomplishments of our Treasurer and I have also examined this specious and baseless attack—pretending that the Premier of Western Australia had not said, on at least eight occasions, that they were not going to increase royalties. But there is a little bit more here for the information of the House. If the opposition seriously want to be a government—we hear them barking and we hear them noisily shouting, 'Election! Election!'—then what they have to do is reassure a whole lot of people out there that they actually have a plan. At the moment, people cannot be confident that the opposition have a view about what to do. Any mug can knock, but not everyone is capable of running the show, and that is the challenge for the opposition. The people opposite do not have a view on superannuation. They are happy to put 15 per cent superannuation in their own pockets or defined benefit—beautiful money if you can get it—and I do not mind that. But what I object to— Mr Briggs: That is weak, Bill. You are weak. Mr SHORTEN: Member for Mayo, you should be ashamed of your position. You will not support the people in your electorate getting 12 per cent superannuation. Mr Briggs interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will remain silent. Mr SHORTEN: Stand up and do the right thing by your electorate— Mr Briggs interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn the honourable member for Mayo. Mr SHORTEN: Stand up and support your punters who might not have enough money when they retire. Why not support 12 per cent? Indeed, if they are so ready for government, why are they backing conflicting remuneration structures for financial advisers? Why not, if people need good financial advice, let financial planners work with their customers instead of get all the commissions and conflicted remuneration structures? Mr Briggs interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Mayo that he is under warning. One more word and he is out. Mr SHORTEN: We see a lot of contradictions in the opposition. They do not want to tackle problem gambling. They are not particularly interested in our measures to lower the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. They are not interested in supporting— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Danby: You didn't even support the Pacific Highway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports is not in his seat. He will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN: I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his ongoing commitment to the Australian economy and the Australian people. The opposition will not even deal with issues of climate change. It is one thing to knock our plan—Her Majesty's loyal opposition have the right to disagree with the government—but it seems to me that there is an obligation, if you are going to knock the plan, to say what you are going to do about it. We know that they do have a plan to spend $10 billion picking winners amongst the biggest polluting companies, but that is not a real plan. We believe that we have a very good Treasurer, and we think the shadow Treasurer needs to pull up his socks. (Time expired)