It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”.

There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office.

It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96.

Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer.

When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election.

Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle.

Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government.

So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:55am:


that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt.

This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here.