Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (11:38): I thank the member for Fraser for his motion. We have just listened to 10 minutes of talk about the opposition and about various university academic programs and, as usual, very little if anything about the government's economic record because it has no positive economic record to speak of. Let us correct a couple of misconceptions from the member for Fraser's contribution to this debate. Firstly, we already have a profits based tax: it is called the company tax. No-one in the world has an economy-wide carbon tax, yet that is what this government is foisting on the Australian economy. Included in that is a $10 billion boondoggle for the clean energy fund to waste money on clean energy projects that are patently uncommercial. It is a sad, short summary of where this government's economic track record is. Let us start with the final point of the member's motion, which: … calls upon all Members to approach economic debates with facts rather than fear, and to put the national interest first when discussing the strong Australian economy. Let us start with the definition of 'facts'. According to Dictionary.com a fact is something that exists; a reality or truth. A fact is 'something known to exist or to have happened' and 'known by actual experience or observation.' Let us look further at the member's motion, which states: … OECD Economic Outlook 91 confirms that the Australian economy will significantly outperform OECD economies … We do not know that. That is conjecture. It is an opinion. It is an estimation. It remains to be seen for the future. So it is not a fact. In addition, with regard to the statement about the IMF, the IMF has said of Australia: … we welcome the authorities' commitment to return to a budget surplus by 2012-13 to rebuild fiscal buffers … which will supposedly put 'Commonwealth government finances in a stronger position'. But does the IMF also welcome the government's move to increase the national credit card debt limit by another $50 billion? While the government says it wants to achieve a budget surplus of $1½ billion, it is still wanting an extra $50 billion. Last time I checked that did not add up. I do not think the IMF supports it, because it has made no comment about it. The fact is this government continues to claim success for fiscal management which it cannot claim. The benefit of our current economic position has its genesis and its foundation in the reforms of the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments. That is what is continuing to benefit us today. It is the legacy of these reforms from which we still benefit. Let us have a look at some of the other matters that were raised in this motion. There is a reference to government debt, and the member for Fraser touched on it briefly. I am pleased to see that, for a change, the member is staying in the chamber to listen. For our debt levels we can thank the hard work of the former Howard government which, under the stewardship of the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, succeeded in repaying $96 billion of accumulated Labor debt last time we came into government. Not only was this achieved but this government also came into office in 2007 with $70 billion of net assets and a $20 billion budget surplus. Since then this government has lived outside its means and accumulated $174 billion in budget deficits. Thanks to Labor we now share a net debt of $145 billion, which has been accumulated over only four-and-a-bit years. Given this government's track record, who knows where this figure will end up? How will average Australians feel about some of the statements outlined in this motion, particularly as regards interest rates being at low levels by historical standards? Let me remind the House that the standard variable mortgage rate was 24 basis points lower on average under the coalition government during its term in office. On a typical $300,000 mortgage this difference would represent a saving under a coalition government of $720 a year or $60 a month. Mr Perrett: What was it when we took office? Mr VAN MANEN: Have a look at the spreads. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting. Mr VAN MANEN: The esteemed member for Moreton always has a contribution to make to the debate. Let us have a look at the spread on small business interest rates. It is not about the 3.5 per cent cash rate: that is not what Joe Public out there is paying—he is paying his mortgage rate to the bank. For small business the difference is even greater, with the spread for the average small business unsecured overdraft 135 basis points lower under the coalition than it was under Labor. For example, for a small business unsecured overdraft of $200,000 this represents a saving of $2,700 a year. Let us not forget that the topic of interest rates is a double-sided coin. Last week I spent some time meeting with some of my constituents, and a number of them were self-funded retirees. Whilst a fall in interest rates is good for homeowners and small business borrowers, it is not very good for self-funded retirees because they rely on the interest rates they are getting on their money that is invested to fund their retirement. Once again this government only looks at half the picture. The majority of Australians will acknowledge that by historical standards unemployment, inflation and interest rates are at very low levels. But in reality they do not feel this as a day-to-day reality in their lives. Talk to a family man who is out of work or underemployed. Tell that to a family struggling to make ends meet, tell that to a pensioner who is living under the poverty line. There are real cost-of-living pressures out there that directly contradict Labor's economic celebrations. There are many examples of day-to-day financial struggles for pensioners, families and businesses that are the reality of what is being experienced day-to-day in our community. This Labor government can stare through their rose-coloured glasses all they like but, at the end of the day, average Australians will not see it as a fact or believe it is great news because what they are experiencing right now is the very opposite of what this government says is happening. For example, food and petrol prices are up around 11 per cent, education and health costs have risen some 25 per cent. Under Labor, electricity has increased by some 66 per cent. It was only last week that I visited a local family owned commercial laundry operation in my electorate who expect their electricity and gas and fuel bills to increase somewhere between 10 and 25 per cent as a result of the world's biggest carbon tax. As it stands, many small businesses in my electorate are doing it tough. When I speak with business owners I hear about their struggles to pay the rent, to keep people employed and the challenges of competing with the high Australian dollar. They are not saying, 'Hey, Bert, isn't it great that interest rates are low,' or, 'Isn't it great that we have a AAA credit rating.' In actual fact, they are concerned about the rollout of the world's biggest carbon tax. This brings me to my last point about putting the national interest first when discussing the strong Australian economy. I say to the member opposite and to those in the government: if you really thought about the national interest first and keeping your job second, our economy would be in a much better position. For a long time now the people of this country have had to sit back and watch as this Labor-Greens government has voted in the carbon tax and an additional 26 new or increased taxes. I am more than happy to continue to put the national interest first when discussing the economy. I, along with my coalition colleagues, have been putting the interests of Australians first all along and we welcome the Labor-Greens government to do the same. Debate adjourned.