Mr SYMON (2:55 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister inform the House of the importance of consistency in economic management? Why is it vital for the government’s budget measures to be passed by the Senate?

Mr TANNER (Minister for Finance and Deregulation) —I thank the member for Deakin for his question. The government’s budget has three critical aspects that are designed to tackle the very serious inflation challenge facing Australia: first, a very substantial surplus, nearly $22 billion, designed to dampen public sector demand; second, the creation of three long-term infrastructure investment funds, with over $40 billion, that are designed to put investment into the economic capacity of the country for the longer term; and, third, tax cuts that will help ordinary working families deal with the price pressures that are resulting from the inflation problem. Unfortunately, the opposition is delaying and obstructing budget measures in the Senate. We have just heard of one example. That threatens the government’s strategy to deal with inflation, both in the short term and in the longer term. It threatens the ability of the budget to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates generally, but it also threatens the flow of money into those long-term investment funds.

We saw this morning something of an insight into the underlying rationale behind the opposition’s position on the budget. There was a very interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald by the member for Wentworth. It appears that the focus group report is finally in, and he is quick out of the blocks with a few of those crucial words that no doubt have come out of the focus group, like ‘leadership’, ‘competence’ and ‘confidence’. There are a couple of interesting quotes that I would like to read to the House in this article:

In criticising the government and the government’s economic management stance, he says:

Unfortunately for the member for Wentworth, not everybody sees him as quite the paragon of consistency that he clearly regards himself as. He has something of a track record of inconsistency. He used to be a republican leader; then he cuddled up to the monarchists. He used to support having transport as part of an emissions-trading scheme; now he opposes transport being in a scheme. He opposed cutting the fuel excise; now he supports it. He came to Canberra as a great supporter of getting rid of discrimination against same-sex couples; now he is participating in an effort in the Senate to block the government’s efforts to do precisely that. So, if consistency is the member for Wentworth’s strong point, he clearly has a bit of a problem with some of his weaker points.

Unfortunately, his approach has infected the rest of the opposition. They have been in opposition for only about six months. They have had one position on bringing back Work Choices. They have had two positions on the reform of alcopop taxes: first they were for; then they were against. They have had three positions on means testing the baby bonus: first they were against it; then they were for it; then they were against it again. They have had four positions on inflation: first it was a fairytale; then it was a challenge; then, again, it was a charade; then, again, it was a problem. They have had five positions on fuel excise and petrol: zero, five, 10, 20 and a special mystery formula being worked on by the member for Tangney that no doubt will be revealed in due course. Finally, they have had six different positions on pensions—so many that I do not have time to outline them. They have not quite got to the partridge in the pear tree, but they are getting there.

Consistency does matter. Consistency does matter in economic management and it does matter in fiscal policy. The budget is consistently targeted at addressing the inflation challenge that Australia faces. It is targeted to address that challenge through a very substantial surplus to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates, through large investment funds that will enable Australia to invest in the economic capacity in the longer term that will help us to put downward pressure on inflation in the future and, finally, through a $55 billion package for working families and working people, at the centre of which are very substantial tax cuts. I very much welcome the opposition’s discovery of the virtues of consistency. I will welcome it even more when they start acting in the same way.