Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing ) (15:26): The problem with the shadow Treasurer making a speech like that is that he lacks all credibility on these issues. He lacks absolutely any credibility on economic issues. He sets tests for the government that he never met when he was the senior adviser to our worst Treasurer ever, Wayne Swan. When we came to government, we inherited a slowing economy, we had rising unemployment and we had a worsening budget position. So, on every single measure that the shadow Treasurer referred to, things were in a worse position when he had control of the levers. Yet every achievement by this government is not enough for the failed shadow Treasurer, who was the failed chief of staff to Australia's worst Treasurer, in Wayne Swan. The reality is that the Australian economy is in good shape, and the Treasurer outlined that in question time today, whether he was quoting ratings agencies or quoting the Reserve Bank. If you compare Australia to the nations we should compare ourselves to—big, established, stable democratic economies—we are growing faster than any country in the G7. Wages growth is higher than the wages growth that we inherited from the Labor Party. This is the irony of the debate. The Labor Party come in here every day bemoaning wages growth, yet it was lower when they were last in government—never heard a word about it from the Labor Party when they were in government, never. Minimum wages under the Labor Party, the great champions of the workers, decreased in three of the six years that they were in government. Under the coalition government, they have risen every year. When you come to the dispatch box to make these statements, you've got to have credibility, and the absolute worst person for the opposition to put up in these sorts of debates is the failed shadow Treasurer. Perhaps the only worse person that you could put up in this MPI is the member for McMahon—the member for McMahon, who's still got extraordinary power within the Labor Party, because every single one of his policies is still on the books. Every single one of the Labor Party's policies, the failed policies that they took to the election, is still on the books. We saw it this week, and I outlined it in question time. There was an extraordinary report in the Fin Review this week that the shadow housing minister, in a speech, had said that Labor's negative gearing policies were not dead. So we've got the shadow housing minister, in some sort of alliance with the shadow Treasurer, clinging on, holding on for dear life, to all of the higher taxes that the Labor Party took to the election and on which the Australian people delivered their verdict. There were the one million retirees who would have been hit by the Labor Party's proposed removal of franking credit refunds. The member for McMahon very helpfully before the election quite strongly recommended that those people vote against them—and, boy, did they take that advice! Boy, did those retirees take the member for McMahon's advice! So that's still on the books. What about the $30-odd billion of extra superannuation taxes? I think we all remember the former opposition leader who magically forgot about those at a doorstop during the election campaign—$30 billion is just a bit of a rounding error for the Labor Party when you're talking about increasing taxes by $387 billion! Ms Payne interjecting— Ms Murphy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The member for Canberra and the member for Dunkley are warned. Mr SUKKAR: What about increased taxes on family businesses? What about increased taxes, essentially, on electricity and cars? What about the taxes that we have seen a devastating impact just from the prospect of—those being Labor's housing taxes that I referred to earlier? We now categorically know the shadow housing minister is arguing around the opposition ministerial table that they should keep those housing tax policies. We saw what that did to confidence in the housing market—the prospect of Labor's housing taxes doubling capital gains tax and abolishing negative gearing for the tens of thousands of Australians, most of whom are on average incomes, who seek to invest in a property to provide for their future. We see the shadow housing minister still arguing for those. I suspect most people on the front bench here will be making the same arguments. Ms Payne interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Canberra will remove herself under 94(a). The member for Canberra then left the chamber. Mr SUKKAR: What do we see from the Labor Party now? We see a Labor Party that's got no credibility. We've got a Labor Party that puts up the shadow Treasurer, who's failed in everything he's done, to then set bars and tests for this government that the Labor Party never met. As the Treasurer said in question time today, I understand the instinctive reaction of oppositions to be relentlessly negative. I understand that. An opposition feels the need to criticise the government of the day. An opposition feels the need to see bad things in everything that happens. But they should take the advice of that failed former Treasurer of theirs, Wayne Swan, when he said: It is important that our political leaders work hard to build confidence in our economy and not be out there talking down the economy. If you listened to the shadow Treasurer's speech here today, he would essentially go into any forum of a G7, where we've got a faster growing economy, and trash every single one of those economies based on the test that he set at this dispatch box. If you look at a whole range of other statistics—these are unarguable statistics—unemployment now is lower than when we came to government. Employment growth under the Labor Party was just 0.7 per cent. Now it's at two per cent—twice the OECD average. This is what Labor don't understand. We believe that the first object of government, of course, is keeping our citizens safe and the second is doing everything we possibly can to create the environmental certainty and the economic circumstances for them to get a job. That's absolutely the most critical thing that a government can do. When the Labor Party were last in government and employment growth was 0.7 per cent and unemployment was at 5.7 per cent, I didn't hear Labor members criticising their own government. They are trying to rewrite history. We know the Labor Party are replete with people who write books about themselves. They're absolutely replete with former members who get a kick out of writing about themselves and genuflecting to the Labor Party. Not one of them apply the same test— Dr Chalmers: Malcolm's is coming out soon. He's got a few pages about you. Mr SUKKAR: That's probably the only contribution that's been correct from the shadow Treasurer today. None of them will criticise their own government for the tests that they set that they could not meet. That's why they have no credibility on economic issues. In the end, I say to the shadow Treasurer on the big battle that they are no doubt having within their party between those who believe that $387 billion of taxes was the right way to go and those who believe, 'Actually, maybe we should listen to the Australian people,' that we know who's going to win. The shadow housing minister outlined it this week. They want to hold onto the taxes. And why do they want to hold onto the taxes? It's because they cannot control their spending. If you cannot control your spending, you have to reach further and deeper into the pockets of Australians. And that's what we won't do. We've seen $24 billion of tax refunds flow into the economy in the last 12 to 14 weeks. We believe that $24 billion of tax cuts and refunds are better in the pockets of Australians, rather than Labor politicians deciding how it can be spent. We saw from that lamentable period when they were in government, when they took Howard's $70 billion in the bank and turned it into $240 billion of debt, that there's no crazy spending idea they won't go for. Whether it's pink batts or school halls or cash for clunkers, there's no crazy scheme they will not fall for. We are very different, and we have credibility on these issues. So I suggest the opposition put somebody up with credibility, in future, on an MPI on the economy.