Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (16:49): I thank Senator Nash for her contribution. She was obviously playing to the audience, which I understand is an audience very sympathetic to Senator Nash and to Senator Macdonald over there. I am sure they enjoyed that mixed speech full of slogans and rhetoric. But that was mostly what it was. Every now and again, though, Senator Nash had to confirm that those things were facts as if somehow that actually made them facts. Let me point out a few of the things that she claimed were facts when they were not. She talked about a number of minor matters which I do not know the detail of, like an $80,000 expenditure on consultancy. That does not sound like good money spent; but, again, I do not know the detail of that. We will have a look at it. But, when we talked about programs worth many hundreds of millions of dollars, she talked about computers in schools and talked about the blow-out. Senator Nash should know—and I think she actually does know—that there was not a blow-out in that program. The government made an extra budget allocation to compensate the schools and states for the extra IT required to implement that program. We ended up with a fantastic program when we finally got a unit cost per computer on an average of $500. The extra budgetary allocation was to ensure that we had proper, powerful IT systems in place to get maximum benefit out of those computers. It was disappointing that some of the states did not step up to the mark to assist in that very generous position that the Commonwealth government took. Some of Senator Nash's contribution reminded me of the contribution John Howard made in the lead-up to the 2007 election. When talking about interest rates, he said interest rates would always be lower under a Liberal government than they would be under a Labor government. Well, what is the cash rate today? The cash rate today is 3.5 per cent. That is lower than the cash rate was at any time under the last Liberal-National government. Yet we hear this sort of stuff peddled all the time as if there is a problem. If you listen to Senator Nash, you would think that the economy is a basket case. Of course, that is what the Liberal-National parties want you to think. They want to talk the economy down. They want to trash it. Let us just look at some of the fundamentals of the economy and acknowledge that the global financial crisis was real. I just refer back to some of the comments I heard Senator Fifield make. One of the things he said was, 'Even if you accept that there was a GFC' and then he went on to talk about some other things. I think there was a GFC. I do not think there is a conspiracy theory group or a GFC deniers group going on. I notice members of the National Party want to accuse the Greens of being involved in conspiracy theory groups. But there ought not to be a conspiracy theory group suggesting that there was no global financial crisis. Maybe Senator Fifield should just look to Europe, to the United States and to other parts of the developing world to see the devastation that is still occurring as a direct result of the global financial crisis. It came here as well but we have not been affected by it so much because of the actions we took as a government to mitigate its effects on our economy and our community. Let us just look at the fundamentals of the economy, which is no basket case. Let us just look at our economy as a whole. It is 11 per cent larger now than when we came to office, despite the worst global financial conditions since the Great Depression. Our economy has been growing faster than every other single major advanced economy—0.6 per cent in the March quarter and 3.7 per cent over the year. It is a larger rise than every other economy. Our unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. It is less than half of what it is in Europe, and it is not quite half of what it is in the United States. But it is significantly below every other advanced economy. Our inflation rate is at a 13-year low, with underlying inflation at the bottom end of the RBA's target band of around two per cent for the year through to June. As I have said, the cash rates are at 3.5 per cent—lower than at any time under the Liberal government. We have got a huge investment pipeline with a record $260 billion at an advanced stage, helping to boost the productive capacity of our economy. Consumption in the country has also been growing by about four per cent throughout the year. We have very low debt. Net debt as a percentage of GDP is peaking at around one-tenth of the level across major advanced economies. Let me just talk about debt for a minute, because when figures are bandied around they actually sound like significant figures. When people start to talking about millions or billions of dollars, a normal household would grapple with what that means in reality. Where is it? What sort of size is that? And what does it mean in terms of the overall economy? Net debt peaked as a percentage of GDP at 9.6 per cent in 2011-12. That is around one-tenth of the level of the major advanced economies. I want to make this comparison: this is like someone earning $100,000 a year and owing 9.6 thousand dollars. That is your debt. I know my mortgage is significantly higher than that. It would be like Senator Fifield owing $20,000 on his mortgage based on his wage. That is what it is. So when people talk about those massive figures, put them into perspective. You talk about what that percentage means and you give some real-life examples. Anyone would accept that that sort of debt level is incredibly manageable. Gross debt peaked as a percentage of GDP at 18 per cent for the year 2011-12. We start paying down gross debt as a net debt percentage of GDP from 2012-13. Net interest payments in 2012-13 will be 0.5 per cent of GDP. Again, that is like someone earning $100,000 a year and paying only $500 a year in net interest. If you make that comparison, it takes it back to what an individual might own. That is not the economy that Senator Nash and Senator Fifield were describing. This economy is strong, and it is strong because of the actions that this government took. When the global financial crisis hit the world, we were quick to act because we did not want to see the ravages from massive unemployment that would follow. We decided that we would stimulate the economy—and I will talk about that in a minute. But what did the Liberal-National Party do? They actually voted against that. They said, 'Let the market rip.' Let us look to Europe— Senator Humphries interjecting— Senator MARSHALL: Sure, Senator Humphries reminds me that in the first tranche they were supportive of some stimulation, but of course they rejected the bulk of it. They rejected what was absolutely necessary. We would have seen that stimulus completely wasted if we had not followed what the Reserve Bank governor of the day said to do, which was: if you do not spend enough early you will end up spending much more later. We took advice from Treasury and from the Reserve Bank and spent the necessary money to protect this economy. We know—and all the Treasury modelling shows this; you will only have to look at the graphs—that when the private sector investment was removed from the economy, the stimulus investment filled that gap. We actually saw that. I know how many jobs it saved. You can look at the Treasury modelling and see that it was in excess of 200,000 jobs. I know this from personal experience because I have opened many, many BER buildings. This was a fantastic program of $16.2 billion of unprecedented spending in our education sector to support the economy. When I opened those buildings the builder would often be there. I would talk to those builders and say: 'Did this project make a difference?' And builder after builder would tell me that this program actually stopped them putting off staff or stopped their companies from going under completely. That was what they would tell us. That is what they do tell us. We know it had a massive impact. We know it saved 200,000 jobs. That is 200,000 incomes that are spent in shops and other small business that then support other employment. It has an enormous flow-on effect. It is 200,000 people that then would not be on Newstart. The impact of saving this country from the ravages of high unemployment not only has untold economic benefit for this country but also gave workers dignity. It saved people from being unemployed. It saved people the worry of having to scratch out a meagre existence to provide for their families. At the same time—and only a Labor government would do this—when it came time for the government to reinvest in our economy, we picked education to do it in. We have left a lasting legacy. We have built school halls, classrooms, libraries and science centres across more than 10,000 schools in this country. Those buildings will be there for 20, 30, 50 and sometimes more years as a lasting legacy, a great investment in the educational future of this country and of our kids—and it was something that the opposition voted against. It was a great legacy, a great investment in our economy, and it worked absolutely. And it gives you the opportunity to say, 'Oh, what GFC?' Senator Humphries: No-one said that. Don't be ridiculous. Senator MARSHALL: Well, Senator Fifield said, 'Even if you accept that there was a GFC.' Let me say to you that there was a GFC and most of the developed world is still suffering the consequences of it. Let me just come back to BER building program for a minute. One would have thought that after the Liberal-National Party members voted against that building program, they would not turn up to the opening of the buildings. I did many openings in different areas in seats that were held by the Liberals or the Nationals and saw that the local National Party or Liberal Party member would turn up, stand up there for the photo and want to be part of it. They wanted to be part of saving their community. They wanted to be part of that spending program that supported local businesses, local industry, local jobs and saved jobs, so that money could be spent in local businesses supporting further jobs. They wanted to be associated with that but, of course, when it came time to put the money where their mouth was, they voted against it. It shows the hypocrisy of the Liberal-National Party when all they want to do is talk down the economy—when, as I have already pointed out, the economy is in the best shape of any in the developed world. We are the envy of the rest of the developed world, but all you want to do is trash talk the economy. You talk about the $120 billion supposed black hole. That is another statement that reminds me of the John Howard statement that interest rates would always be lower under a Liberal Party than under a Labor Party government. It is just absolute nonsense. It is a fallacy. You have used numbers to manufacture this figure for your own political interests. Let us just look at the inputs you have put into that claim from the carbon price. You have used numbers from Frontier Economics, who happen to be a longstanding critic of the carbon pricing scheme. You have made assumptions on where the EU carbon price is right now and transferred that out into the future as if there is no movement. You have ignored the average EU carbon price over the last five years. You have ignored the fact that the EU is now considering policies to bolster the price. You have put the absolute worst-case scenario in those figures. In terms of the dental care scheme, it is $4 billion for dental care and it is over six years, not the two years that you have put into your figures. Two years is quite different from six years, just in case you thought that was a minor discrepancy, Senator Williams. That is a significant distortion of the figures. But we also know that the program that that will replace will actually improve the long-term position of the budget as well because it brings dental care back to a sustainable level—again something that you have completely ignored. You spoke about an NDS in schools. You incorrectly attributed the full cost to the Commonwealth where the states will bear some of the costs and you have also included a much faster transition that will cost significantly more than the assumptions made in the budget and the planning for these schemes. So again you have misled. You have cooked the books to get the result that you want to get. Then, of course, you base your figures on maintaining the Defence White Paper 2009 proposals, but ignore the fact that there is a new white paper coming for 2013. So even though you know there is going to be a different set of figures coming out of that, you have used figures that you know will not be relied upon. This government is returning the budget to surplus on time as promised and ahead of every other single major advanced economy. We are seeing that, despite what even Senator Fifield conceded: that there has been $150 billion ripped out from government revenues due to global instability. We are very proud as a Labor government of what we have done to stimulate the economy. We are very proud that we have put jobs front and centre. We are incredibly proud that we have saved this economy from falling into the recession. We are incredibly proud that we have done that in the worst financial conditions the world has seen since the global financial crisis. The record of this government is incredibly strong in this respect. Let us talk about those jobs for a minute. Jobs were front and centre and that is why we acted to support, in the face of the global financial crisis, measures that would support many hundreds of thousands of jobs. We have an exceptional jobs record, with this economy creating around 800,000 jobs since this government came to office while the rest of the world has lost millions. You only have to look at Europe and the United States today, where there are still millions of people unemployed as a direct result of the global financial crisis. Look at their result and look at our result: 800,000 jobs grown since this government came to office; millions of jobs lost in the rest of the developed world. We have an unemployment rate at 5.1 per cent, one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world and less than half of that in Europe. But what is the Liberals response to that? We can probably just have a little look at what is happening in Queensland right now. Their response is to cut 14,000 public sector jobs. That is their response. There is no commitment to jobs from the Liberal-National Party, and that is a fact. Senator Nash talked about facts, and wanted to reinforce all of her claims as facts. Well the facts are there for everyone to see. If you elect a Liberal-National government, they will slash jobs. They do not care about working people, they do not care about the dignity of work, they do not care about the suffering that unemployment creates. And they certainly do not care about the communities and the small businesses that rely on those incomes for those businesses to grow and survive. They seem to forget that jobs are not just numbers; those wages are spent in local communities, supporting local jobs, supporting local small businesses. Those sorts of cuts destroy communities and provide enormous hardship. We have also seen the government in Victoria, the Baillieu government, slash $300 million from the TAFE budget—sabotaging the educational future of regional and city kids—and we have not heard a peep out of the National Party about sabotaging regional kids' educational futures. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Australian public would be very well advised to look closely at what newly elected Liberal and National parties are doing with jobs, with education and with their own state economies, because that is what they will get if they actually elect a Liberal-National coalition when the next election comes around. I hope Australians will learn from those lessons, and I believe they will stick with this government.