2009-02-04 42 1 4 REPS 0 0 2009-02-04 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 161 Business 161 161 161 09:01:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 9 February 2009. I indicate to all honourable members that this report of course enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday 9 February 2009. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows: Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 MRS MOYLAN: To move: That the House: notes that: on 20 December 2006 a landmark decision was made by the United Nations General Assembly to adopt Resolution 61/225; the Resolution recognised the risks that diabetes and its complications pose to families, Member States and world health and was adopted by consensus; the Resolution declared 14 November as World Diabetes Day; this resolution joins HIV/Aids and Autism as the only diseases having their own resolutions and declared days of observation; an estimated 246 million people worldwide, in the age range from 20 to 79 years, have diabetes and this number is expected to grow by 44 per cent, reaching 380 million by 2025; each year 3.8 million adults die from diabetes related illnesses, representing one death every 10 seconds; an estimated 7.4 per cent of the Australian population has diabetes according to an AusDiab study in 2000; and according to an AusDiab study, in 2002 the social and medical costs of diabetes in Australia were estimated to total $6 billion annually; acknowledges the work of Professor Martin Silink AM MD FRACP, as President of the International Diabetes Federation and his colleagues world wide for their work to ensure that this United Resolution was carried; recognises that: in the catalogue of chronic illness, few conditions would be more needful of attention than the scourge of diabetes; the prevention and management of diabetes are the responsibility of the whole of society; parliaments should play a leading role in promoting community education and implementing effective policies and health-care for sufferers of this world wide scourge; left undiagnosed and untreated, diabetes dramatically affects quality of life and shortens life span and its malevolent course inevitably leads to many serious associated health complications including heart disease, stroke, renal failure, limb amputation and blindness; and unless national governments act to deliver comprehensive policies, the implications for health budgets will be calamitous; and calls on the Government to: continue to make diabetes a National Health Priority; commission a Productivity Commission Report into the real and increasing cost of diabetes to the community; adequately fund best practice medicine for the treatment of diabetes; and continue to promote healthy lifestyle programs, especially targeted to children and young people. Time allotted—25 minutes. Speech time limits— Mrs Moylan—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 2 MRS D’ATH: To move: That the House: congratulates the Rudd Government on the delivery of Round Two of the computers in schools program which will provide 141,600 new computers to 1,394 secondary schools across Australia, worth more than $141 million; notes that the Rudd Government has already invested $116.82 million for computers in schools during Round One in 2008 and that this latest round will bring the ratio of computers to students to 1:2 for all students in years 9 to 12 in those secondary schools who applied for and were granted computers; notes that the Petrie electorate will receive 1,267 new computers and $1.273 million in funding to the schools in the Petrie electorate in Round Two, in addition to the computers provided in Round One; acknowledges the ongoing commitment of the Rudd Government to achieve a 1:1 computer to student ratio for all Year 9 to 12 students across the country by 2011; recognises that: the future of this country lies within our young people and that as a government, we must invest in our schools to invest in our future; the commitment made by the Rudd Government through the COAG Agreement to deliver a further $807 million for legitimate costs to install and maintain the computers and costs associated with subsequent rounds; and congratulates the Rudd Government for delivering on its Education Revolution and the commitment we made to the Australian people in 2007. Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mrs D’Ath—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3 MR COULTON: To move: That the House: notes that children living in isolated regions of Australia face unique challenges when trying to access educational services; and calls on the Government to provide the additional assistance and support that would enable isolated children and students to access a full range of educational services from early childhood to tertiary education. Time allotted—25 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Coulton—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 4 MR RAGUSE: To move: That the House: recognises the importance of National Adoption Awareness Week and the significance of encouraging adoptees, adoptive parents and biological parents to opening and continuing the dialogue on adoption in Australia and encouraging people to discuss how adoption has impacted on their lives; and calls on the governments at the State and Federal levels to support all participants in the adoption process. Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm Speech time limits— Mr Raguse—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY Review of the re-listing of Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), Jamiat ul-Ansar (JuA) and Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI). The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 8.50 pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 MS LEY: To move: That the House: supports long term viability of regional and rural medical practices, hospitals and services; notes with concern the failure of state governments to provide adequate health services for Australians living in regional, rural and remote areas, particularly in relation to cross border health; acknowledges the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the significant contribution it makes by providing aeromedical emergency and primary health care services to people who live, work and travel in regional and remote Australia; calls on the Australian Government to eliminate inequality in healthcare access and services experienced by those living in rural and remote areas by: increasing the recruitment and retention of rural medical practitioners and health care professionals; assisting Australians who live in regional, rural and remote areas with the cost of travel to specialist medical appointments in capital cities and regional centres; and providing adequate funding to maintain and expand small rural hospitals and health services and their maternity and other procedural services. Time allotted—20 minutes Speech time limits— Ms Ley—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] 2 MR CLARE: To move: That the House: recognises the heightened importance of financial literacy and financial counselling given the global economic recession and its impact on the Australian economy; supports the actions the Government has taken to improve financial literacy and provide additional financial counselling services for people struggling to make ends meet; and calls on Australian banks and financial institutions to assist Australian families by providing additional support for financial literacy programs and financial counselling. Time allotted - 20 minutes Speech time limits— Mr Clare—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Report adopted. 164 Business 164 164 09:01:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That for the sitting on Wednesday, 4 February 2009: standing orders 31 and 33 be suspended; so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the following to occur during and after the periods set aside in standing order 34 for government business: debate on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2009, the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2009, the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009, and the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009 to be adjourned until a later hour after their introduction; when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2009 is called on, for a cognate debate to take place with the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2009, the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009, and the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009; in relation to proceedings on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2009, at the conclusion of the second reading debate, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate; and immediately after proceedings on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2009 have concluded, the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2009, the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009, and the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009, to be called on consecutively with no business intervening, and after each Bill is called on the immediate question then before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of each Bill to be put without amendment or debate; and any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. The global financial crisis has had an enormous impact on the world economy. Australia is not immune from it. The government will not be sitting back and watching. The government will take decisive and strong action. That is what yesterday’s announcement of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan does, precisely. That is what the six bills that are about to be introduced into this chamber do, precisely. There is an urgent need for these bills to be carried by the House of Representatives today. There is an urgent need for these bills to be carried by the Senate this week. That is because, as part of the economic stimulus, tax bonuses need to be paid through the Australian tax office to eligible taxpayers by the beginning of April 2009. But there are also four household measures. The single-income-family bonus and back-to-school bonuses are meant to be paid through Centrelink in the fortnight commencing 11 March 2009. The training and learning bonuses and the farmer hardship bonus are meant to be paid in the period commencing 24 March. Centrelink—and, indeed, its CEO—have advised that their strong preference is for the bills to be passed this week to enable the system changes to be made which would enable these payments to begin in March. The nation-building and jobs measures are contained in the appropriation bills, with $1.7 billion of funding estimated to occur in 2008-09. Prompt passage of the legislation is needed so that the approval and administrative processes which involve other levels of government can be established and the measures begin as soon as possible. These are not ordinary times. These are times that require urgent action from the government. The government have done that. The government, on the first day of sitting of this year, have indicated that we are prepared to take the action that is needed in the interests of the national economy and in the interests of families throughout Australia. The passage of these bills will be facilitated by the resolution that I have moved that is before the House. Members would note that the resolution that I have moved is similar to other motions that were moved over the period of the previous government—with the exception that it does not contain a cut-off time for debate and a gag facilitation. We are quite prepared to engage in debate with the opposition over the need for these measures to be carried—and I appreciate the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business and I have had discussions yesterday about these circumstances. If that means the parliament not rising at eight o’clock tonight in order to facilitate an increased participation by members, then so be it. I have requested of members on this side of the House that they do what they can to restrict the time for which they speak to these bills. We would certainly not expect shadow ministers who have particular responsibility for measures to restrict their time. We would say that the shorter the period for which backbenchers on both sides of the House speak, the quicker we will move to a determination of these measures. But move to a determination of these measures we will, because there is a need to not stand in the way of these payments. To do that would be, frankly, totally economically irresponsible. So I commend the motion before the House to honourable members and ask for their cooperation today in what will be a difficult day but a historic day—one in which the Australian government and, I hope, the Australian House of Representatives, all of the House of Representatives, recognises the need to take strong action as a result of the global financial crisis. 165 09:08:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Manager of Opposition Business 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —We have endeavoured to cooperate with the government in having these bills introduced today. We have not seen the bills, yet we are expected to declare a position right now on this package. We have not seen the six bills that are going to be introduced, debated and voted on in this place today. These six bills will take us into $100 billion of debt. The government has not provided us with anything more than a 45-minute briefing from Treasury, where numerous questions were asked and they could not answer those questions. An opposition member—They said, ‘We will get back to you.’ DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —‘We will get back to you’, said Treasury, but they want us to support measures totalling $100 billion and, from what we hear, an extension of the nation’s credit card from a limit of $75 billion to $200 billion. The government have had this in train for some time. We have not been party to this process—they never invited us. Other than our offering to be party to it they never engaged with us. There were not enough copies of this document—the Updated economic and fiscal outlook: February 2009—to go to all the members of parliament. We could not even get copies of the document that is the basis of the argument for $42 billion of spending. This is panic from the government. We are going to facilitate the government’s passage and debate of these bills, but we will not be gagged. We will not, under any circumstances, be put in a position where the government rams through the biggest spending initiative in Australian history—done at its convenience—and then be told to shut up, sit down and just vote for it. The government is telling us: ‘This is a take-it-or-leave-it package, and we are not going to show it to you. Just support it, shut up and sit down’. If this chamber has to sit until five o’clock tomorrow morning—as far as we are concerned, we will go through the night—no member of the opposition will be denied the right to speak on the biggest spending initiative in Australian history. We will not be silenced and, whilst we recognise there is an issue to be dealt with before the chamber, the government’s attitude on this has been immensely uncooperative. The facts are that the government have brought before this House bills that we have not seen. They have demanded that we support bills that we still do not have. We have to declare a position on $42 billion of spending, the details of which we have not seen and which cannot be explained. For us to support all these initiatives and to vote on them in one day means that they are saying to us, ‘You have to support $42 billion in 42 hours.’ Do you know what? We care more about taxpayers’ money than to do that. We will cooperate with the Leader of the House. This is going to be a very long day because the government has said to us, ‘Take it or leave it’. They have not given us copies of the bills and have simply said: ‘Please give us carte blanche to spend every dollar that is available—$2,000 debt for every man, woman and child—not just today, not just this year, but next year and for many years to come. We are holding a gun to your head. Pass these bills or we are going to shoot.’ That is very dangerous politics for the government. We will cooperate by allowing the government to have a cognate debate and we look forward to seeing these bills, which no-one has seen to date. 166 09:13:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I will sum up the debate and respond to some of the points that my colleague the Manager of Opposition Business has made. There is an enormous difference in the way that this government handles procedures in this House and the way that the former government handled procedures in this House. The former government would have brought on these bills and had a debate and a vote before two o’clock. That is what the former government would have done. The former government made it a regular procedure to come in here, table bills, move them and gag them within hours of their being introduced, with no briefings. The opposition received full briefings yesterday about this legislation. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —There were full briefings. The shadow minister for family and community services was not in his office last night, nor was anyone there when the minister attempted to deliver the bills, and they were left there last night while parliament was sitting. Opposition members interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The Manager of Opposition Business raises the issue of gagging debate. As the Manager of Opposition Business knows, a majority in this chamber enables that majority to be used to gag debate at any time. That was something that was used regularly by the former government. I have indicated on behalf of the government that it is our intention to sit after 8 pm this evening in order to facilitate debate in this chamber on these bills. But these bills will be carried today because I know that, regardless of the position that the opposition takes, each and every member who sits on this side of the chamber who represents the Australian Labor Party wants to deliver for people who they have been elected to represent. We should remember one thing: these bills are not actually about us. They are about 21 million Australians who need protection from the impacts of the global financial crisis. The shadow Treasurer’s office, as I understand it, did get the bills last night. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Huh! They were delivered! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —They were certainly delivered. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —She has got it. The shadow Treasurer confirms that she did indeed get the bill that was relevant to her. The fact is that when the opposition speak about process, what they will be seeking to hold up in the House of Representatives and in the Senate is $950 going to single-income families through the bonus, $950 going to families for the back-to-school bonus, $950 for the training and learning bonus and $950 for the farmer hardship bonus. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —A fat lot of good that will do! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Let us be clear. The member for Kalgoorlie indicates, laughing, that it is a joke that $950 will be paid to farmers. Let people in the electorate of Kalgoorlie know that the member for Kalgoorlie thinks—and he puts it on the record again—that ‘a fat lot of good that will do’. That is the attitude of the member for Kalgoorlie. What this out-of-touch opposition just do not get is that it is not about them. It is also not about us. It is about the public. It is about the 21 million Australians concerned about the impact of the global financial crisis. The Manager of Opposition Business suggests that we demand that they vote for this legislation. We do no such thing. It is up to them to determine their position on this legislation. However, we do give them a bit of constructive and helpful advice: when you have no alternative plan, when you have no solution to the crisis that confronts us, when you simply stand in the road and say, ‘Don’t give bonuses to working families; don’t give back-to-school bonuses; don’t give bonuses to farmers; don’t engage in economic stimulus,’ then we simply say that that is an unwise course for the opposition to take. And they take that road at their peril, because there will be a political price to pay if they stand in the way of this $42 billion package which has been welcomed by families, by community organisations, by the business community and by the National Farmers Federation. They can isolate themselves if they wish to do so. And, when they vote on these bills, that is what they will be doing if they oppose these bills. That is their choice. But already we have seen an opposition who are incapable, regardless of how much time they are given to look at and peruse legislation and to get briefings. We saw them in the Senate on the last night of parliament last year when, on the nation-building legislation, they voted three ways. Some voted in favour of it, some voted against it and some went to the toilet. That was their position on nation building. There was a three-way split across the Liberal Party and across the National Party—no idea. I say to them: learn the lessons of the Senate debacle for the coalition at the end of last year. Learn the political lessons that are there. Have the debate today, engage in constructive dialogue across the chamber, but bear in mind that, when you are talking about blocking, for example, the back-to-school bonuses, you are not actually talking about blocking the back-to-school bonuses for our kids, because none of us get family tax benefit A. You are talking about the people who elected us to this chamber to represent them. I commend the resolution to the House. I also commend the bills that will be introduced to the House. Question agreed to. 168 Bills R4045 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 168 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 168 168 09:22:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The unfolding global economic story reminds us daily that we find ourselves in the midst of the most significant global economic crisis since the Great Depression and, as our international circumstances get harder and harder, the government gets more and more determined. Its severity has grown since the release of the government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy in October last year, and has become even more serious since the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that I released in November. Projections of world growth, including by the International Monetary Fund, continue to deteriorate to a much greater extent than many envisaged at that time. The largest advanced economies in the world are already in recession, bringing the loss of millions of jobs. This global recession, the slowdown in the mining sector and among our trading partners, particularly China, has serious consequences for Australian jobs and for Australian growth. While we find reassurance in knowing that Australia is better placed than almost any other developed economy to withstand this fallout, we also know that we are far from immune. Although Australia has weathered the early stages of the global recession better than many other countries, the weight of the global recession is now bearing down on the Australian economy. The global mining boom that drove large increases in the terms of trade and in our national income has come to an end. Australian growth, as a result, is expected to be significantly weaker than previously anticipated. Growth for 2008-09 has been revised down from two per cent in MYEFO in November to one per cent in the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and unemployment will be higher. And that is precisely why the government has introduced the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which incorporates: 1. $28.8 billion to build the schools and roads and homes and communities and energy efficiency we need for future prosperity; and 2. $12.7 billion to boost consumption so we can support jobs right now. Jobs now, and the building blocks of growth and prosperity for the future—that is the absolute essence of the nation-building and infrastructure plan the Prime Minister and I announced yesterday. It is a plan with which we expect to boost growth by around by one-half of one per cent in 2008-09, and three-quarters to one per cent in 2009-10, and to support up to 90,000 jobs over that period. There is no guarantee our economy will not deteriorate further—even slower growth remains a genuine threat. The only certainty here is that our country will be worse off, and more Australians will be out of work, if we do not act in the way that I will outline here today. Nation Building and Jobs Plan The Nation Building and Jobs Plan is based on the reality that now is not the time for half measures. It is a time to be bold and to get on with it. It is weighted towards productive investment. It meets the crucial conditions for effective fiscal stimulus; it is temporary, timely and targeted. It will allow the swift construction of the schools and roads and communities we need for future prosperity. And like the Economic Security Strategy—which boosted demand in December and January 2008—this plan will keep Australia ahead of the curve. The measures we are introducing today are critical and they are urgent. Our plan seeks to support jobs and growth immediately, through a further round of targeted tax and transfer payments. It also lays foundations for higher productivity and future prosperity through a program of infrastructure investment. The plan will contribute to our long-term productivity reform agenda—an agenda that embraces the education revolution, investing in advanced infrastructure, COAG reform, and making the transition to the low-carbon economy of the future. The infrastructure investment in this bill accounts for $28 billion of the overall $42 billion cost of the plan—more than two-thirds of it. This investment will provide lasting benefits to local communities and to our national economy, as well as supporting Australian jobs during these tough times. Building the Education Revolution The bill that I introduce to the House today will fund the largest and most ambitious school modernisation program in Australian history. This is the centrepiece of our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The Building the Education Revolution program will fund a $14.7 billion investment in educational infrastructure over three years. It will benefit each and every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools: every single community, every single school, every single P&C—all with a role in the nation’s economic future. This is a critical investment in the education revolution. Nothing is more central to our longer term economic and social development than the education of our children. We cannot provide our kids with a 21st century education if they are stuck in cramped, decaying classrooms, designed for a generation of Australian children that left school many years ago. Schools that were built in the 19th and 20th centuries reflect the design standards, equipment and needs of a different era. Under the Building the Education Revolution program, we will invest $12.4 billion in the construction of assembly halls, knowledge centres, indoor sports centres, performing arts centres and similar major improvements for all Australian primary schools, special schools and K to 12 schools. Funds will be allocated to reflect school size, with $250,000 provided to small primary schools of up to 50 students and up to $3 million for large primary schools with more than 400 students. A further $1 billion in 2009-10 will be available for the construction of science laboratories and language learning centres in approximately 500 secondary schools, based on assessed need. Primary and secondary schools will also be able to apply for one-off funding of up to $200,000 for maintenance and infrastructure at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion over two years. This package of investment will provide tangible benefits to all local communities and will provide a major boost to key educational infrastructure for Australia’s children. Social Housing This bill also contains vital measures to tackle the crisis in affordable housing inherited by this government after years of underinvestment. Improving the supply of affordable housing is a key part of achieving the government’s goal of halving the level of homelessness by 2020. Across Australia, individuals and families in the bottom 40 per cent of earners are struggling to find affordable housing. For these people the social housing system is a key element of Australia’s social safety net. A cumulative real cut of $3 billion to public housing over the last 10 years has reduced the social housing stock and contributed to the state of poor repair. As a result, many people who needed public housing have been forced into the private rental market. This has contributed to a situation where 150,000 of the poorest households in Australia pay more than half their income in rent in the private rental market. The Commonwealth Social Housing Initiative will provide up to $6 billion to the states and territories to fund construction of approximately 20,000 new dwellings. This is a significant investment that will accelerate progress to our 2020 goal and reduce the number of low income households paying more than half their income in rent. The Commonwealth Social Housing Initiative will also provide an important immediate stimulus to the housing construction sector through $400 million for repairs to get existing social housing up to scratch. We have received strong support on this initiative from industry, for example from the Property Council of Australia, who said: Every dollar that goes into construction sector has a multiplier effect–it is spent three times over in the economy. This makes for an ideal measure of a well thought-out stimulus package. Community Infrastructure A third nation-building priority in this bill is community infrastructure. There is a desperate need for renewing and upgrading the infrastructure of local communities around our nation. Our nation has a large backlog of essential infrastructure projects in local communities. Much of our community infrastructure was built in the 1950s and 1960s and is in urgent need of renewal. That is clear from the response to the $300 million Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program (RLCIP) that the Prime Minister announced at the inaugural meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government in November last year. The competitive component of that program, $50 million for strategic projects, is already heavily oversubscribed. That is why the bill I introduce to the House today includes a $500 million investment over two years to help councils to invest in critical local projects through the Community Infrastructure Fund. This will include community halls, tourism infrastructure and sport and recreation facilities. It is in addition to the $300 million investment announced last year and it will provide an important boost to local economies of regional centres, towns and suburbs right across the nation. The bill also provides an additional $390 million over two years for black spots, boom gates and regional infrastructure. This will bring forward and boost capital expenditure in regional areas. It will also improve safety for motorists and passengers. I note the remarks yesterday from the National Roads and Motorists’ Association: The NRMA warmly welcomes this additional funding, particularly the fact that a substantial proportion of the money will be immediately available to be spent this financial year. Black Spot funding has been a major factor in improving road safety on many roads around Australia–additional funding for these projects is fantastic. This and the other community initiatives the government announced yesterday will provide an immediate boost to jobs and businesses in regions right across Australia as well as providing a lasting benefit to local communities. Conclusion There will be no quick fix to this global recession and many of its effects are still to be felt. But the government is doing what it can to help see Australia through. This is the first in a package of six legislative bills to give effect to its Nation Building and Jobs Plan, announced on 3 February 2009. It shows the government will do whatever it takes to support Australian jobs during these difficult times while still laying the foundations for the next generation of prosperity. With the Rudd government’s dedicated nation-building program, with initiatives like those I have outlined today, with national unity and with purpose there is no reason we cannot emerge from this global recession stronger and more prosperous than before the global financial crisis began. I commend this bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 172 Bills R4044 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 172 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett. Bill read a first time. 172 172 09:36:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill contains a key component of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan the government announced yesterday—the new Energy Efficient Homes program. This program delivers on the Rudd government’s commitment to comprehensive action on energy efficiency as a key plank in our response to tackling climate change, and effective action on energy efficiency will help reduce cost-of-living pressures for households, help reduce carbon pollution and support green jobs, driving demand in clean, green Australian industries. The program provides a $2.7 billion time-limited investment in the modernisation of Australia’s housing stock—a measure that will see almost all Australian homes insulated by the end of 2011. Ceiling insulation is typically the most cost-effective energy improvement that can be made to homes, providing real, tangible and immediate benefits to Australian households. An uninsulated roof cavity can lose up to 40 per cent of a building’s heat, and installing insulation in many cases could deliver reductions of more than 2.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year for the life of the dwelling. A typical household could also save around $200 in their energy costs each year through the installation of insulation. Despite this, up to 40 per cent of Australia’s homes do not have insulation. The Energy Efficient Homes program will see ceiling insulation offered to all uninsulated owner-occupied homes over the next 2½ years. In the majority of cases homeowners will not need to pay a cent—they can simply make a phone call and the government will arrange for the installation of insulation in their roof. The government is aware that those in rental properties and those who have already installed insulation in their homes will also want to play their part. This bill includes enhancements to two existing energy efficiency programs: the low-emissions plan for renters and the solar hot water rebate. The low-emissions plan for renters program provides rebates to landlords installing insulation in their rental properties. The government’s original commitment was set at up to $500 and limited to 300,000 rental homes. This bill provides for an increase in the maximum rebate to $1,000 until 30 June 2011 and removes the cap on the number of properties that can be insulated under this program. This is an additional investment of more than $600 million and represents an unprecedented opportunity for landlords to do the right thing by their tenants and install insulation in their rental properties. This bill will also increase the maximum solar hot water rebate—from $1,000 to $1,600—for households who do not access the insulation program and who replace their existing electric hot water systems with a solar and heat pump hot water system before 30 June 2012. Households that access this rebate could save $300 to $700 each year on their energy bills. The Energy Efficient Homes program will see an additional $3.9 billion invested in the fight against climate change and delivers on the government’s household energy efficiency commitments in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme white paper. Once fully implemented these measures could reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 49.4 million tonnes by 2020—that is the equivalent of taking more than one million cars off the road. This investment in energy efficiency will modernise Australia’s existing housing stock and contribute to meeting Australia’s 2020 target for emissions reductions. In addition to long-term environmental benefits, this package supports the jobs of tradespeople and other workers employed in the manufacturing, distribution and installation of ceiling insulation and solar and heat pump hot water systems. And there is already some early indication from business that our plan will have an impact. Let me read a quote from one insulation fitter, on ABC Radio yesterday, who said: Our own company … had to lay off a shift in one of our plants just before Christmas. We’ll be putting that shift back on. This bill also provides the enabling funding necessary to see this package implemented immediately and effectively. This includes $50 million allocated over the forward estimates to ensure that the one-off payment for working Australians is delivered expeditiously. With carefully designed initiatives like those contained in this bill, there’s no reason we cannot emerge from the global recession stronger and more prosperous than we were before it. The Energy Efficient Homes program has a role to play in supporting jobs now and building the low-pollution economy, and the growth and prosperity, that Australians deserve for the future. I commend the bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 173 Bills R4046 173 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard. Bill read a first time. 173 173 09:43:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Treasurer has provided clear context for the government’s decision to further support economic growth and jobs through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Demand in the economy needs to be fostered, and our economic circumstances provide the opportunity to boost necessary economic and social infrastructure. We are particularly pleased with the Building the Education Revolution initiative, which will offer all Australian schools an unprecedented opportunity to enhance their level of amenity and renew and develop facilities with expected flow-ons for educational outcomes. However, our Nation Building and Jobs Plan goes beyond the rollout of key infrastructure investment. The government will provide $12.7 billion in tax bonuses and payments to low- and middle-income Australians as part of its plan to help provide further immediate stimulus to the economy and to continue to support Australian households. Widespread support will be provided to households through bonus payments under the tax and transfer system, including additional support and incentives for people to engage in education and training. These payments will complement those made in the Economic Security Strategy and seek to broaden the spending base covered in the government’s overall response to the economic crisis. Approximately 12 million individuals will benefit from the bonus payments, which will not be taxable and will not be counted for income-testing purposes. The Household Stimulus Package includes five key bonuses. Back to School Bonus Our back to school bonus will assist over 1.5 million families and 2.8 million children in meeting the costs of education during these difficult times through a one-off bonus of $950 per child to families with school-aged children between four and 18 who are eligible for family tax benefit part A. In addition to those who will receive the back to school bonus because they are eligible for family tax benefit part A, the government has decided to extend the bonus to children aged 18 or under on 3 February 2009 who receive carer payment or disability support pension. The $2.6 billion bonus will provide an immediate boost to consumption to help support growth and jobs. Single Income Family Bonus To give additional assistance to families with children that have one main income earner, the government will provide a $950 one-off payment to approximately 1.5 million families who are entitled to family tax benefit part B. This measure complements the $950 tax bonus for working Australians announced as part of the government’s plan, which is provided for in a separate bill. Training and Learning Bonus The government will further support education and training through a $513 million training and learning bonus, comprising two elements. A one-off bonus of $950 will be paid to eligible students, those returning to study or training, and to certain other income support recipients to assist with costs for the 2009 academic year. The government will also provide a temporary additional incentive for eligible social security recipients to return to education and training in the form of a $950 supplement to the education entry payment and relaxation of the eligibility criteria. The training and learning bonus will assist Australia’s recovery by providing for a more equipped workforce into the future. Farmers Hardship Bonus The global financial crisis is not just a city phenomenon. Our regions and rural areas will also feel the impact of the slowdown. So, as part of our Nation Building and Jobs Plan, we will provide support for growth and jobs in rural and regional areas already experiencing difficult times. The government will provide $20.4 million in 2008-09 for a one-off bonus payment of $950 to farmers and small business owners receiving exceptional circumstances related income support payments. These payments will benefit approximately 21,500 recipients. These one-off bonuses are necessary to provide an immediate stimulus to the economy given the severity of the global downturn. It is a critical part of the government’s National Building and Jobs Plan. I commend the bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 175 Bills R4042 175 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin, for Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 175 175 09:49:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. A key part of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan is to provide financial support to taxpayers. The measures contained in this bill do just that. This bill delivers the government’s tax bonus for working Australians, announced by the Prime Minister and Treasurer on 3 February 2009. The plan was introduced to assist the Australian people deal with the most significant economic crisis since the Second World War and provide immediate economic stimulus to boost demand and support jobs. This measure, at a cost of $8.2 billion, provides financial support to around 8.7 million taxpayers and is one of five key $950 one-off payments for low- and middle-income households and individuals. The government is providing these cash payments to immediately support jobs and strengthen the Australian economy during a severe global recession. To immediately stimulate the economy in the shortest possible time, the five groups of one-off cash bonuses will be paid in March and April 2009. The tax bonus for working Australians will be paid to resident individual taxpayers who had taxable income of up to $100,000 and who paid income tax for the 2007-08 financial year, after taking into account any tax offsets and imputation credits. A payment of $950 will be paid to those who had a taxable income of up to and including $80,000 for the 2007-08 income year. A payment of $650 will be paid to those who had a taxable income exceeding $80,000 to $90,000. A payment of $300 will be paid to those who had a taxable income exceeding $90,000 up to and including $100,000. Eligibility for the payment will be determined by the Commissioner of Taxation, with all payments being made automatically by the Australian Taxation Office. The bonus will be available from April 2009 to Australian resident taxpayers who have already had their tax returns assessed. This will be the vast majority of eligible taxpayers. Taxpayers who have not yet lodged their 2007-08 tax returns will have their bonus paid following the ATO’s assessment of their returns. Importantly, taxpayers should lodge their 2007-08 tax return by 30 June 2009 to be eligible for the bonus payment. I commend the bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 176 Bills R4043 176 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin, for Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 176 176 09:52:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill provides for consequential amendments to various acts in relation to the tax bonus payment provided for in the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009. It ensures that the tax bonus payments are not to be treated as income for tax and welfare-related purposes. In particular, the bonus payment will be non-assessable and non-exempt income, which means that it will be disregarded for income tax purposes. In addition, the payments will not be treated as income for the purposes of social security and family assistance benefits paid by Centrelink. The bill also makes other consequential amendments relating to the administration of the bonus payment. I commend the bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 176 Bills R4041 176 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner, for Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 176 176 09:55:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The outlook for the global economy has deteriorated sharply. As a result of the global financial crisis, the global economy is now facing a much deeper and more protracted recession than previously expected. Advanced economies are expected to experience the sharpest collective decline in gross domestic product in the postwar period. The key emerging economies of China and India are now forecast to slow markedly, with growth in China expected to halve in just two years. And as a result, the global commodity boom, which has provided significant stimulus to Australian growth and incomes over recent years, is winding back. With the weight of the global recession now bearing down on the Australian economy, growth is expected to be weaker than anticipated and unemployment will be higher. It will also impact directly on the budget bottom line. The global recession has wiped out $115 billion of tax receipts across the forward estimates and moved the budget into temporary deficit. To support jobs and growth in the face of the global recession, the Rudd government has announced the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This will temporarily add to the deficit. This bill will ensure that the government can raise the funds required to meet this temporary deficit. The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 provides the Treasurer with a standing authority to borrow. This standing authority to borrow is limited to $75 billion. This amendment proposes to supplement that limit by providing that, in special circumstances, the Treasurer may increase the cap by $125 billion. The current global recession, and its impact on Australia, is clearly such a special circumstance. The overwhelming majority of the increase in net debt is due to the collapse in tax receipts as a result of the global recession and the unwinding of the commodities boom. Rises in payments, also associated with the slowing economy, are contributing to net debt. The government’s measures to support jobs and growth will also contribute. Australian government net debt will remain very low by international standards. At the end of the forward estimates Australia’s net debt is forecast to be just 5.2 per cent of GDP, while the average net debt for OECD countries in 2010 is estimated to be around 45 per cent of GDP. The government remains committed to its medium-term fiscal strategy of achieving budget surpluses, on average, over the cycle. As soon as the economy recovers and grows above trend, the government will take action to return the budget to surplus. These surpluses will be drawn upon to retire debt as rapidly as economic circumstances permit. But now, in the face of a deep and protracted global recession, the government must be focused on supporting jobs and growth, while investing in nation-building infrastructure—and we make no apology for that. I commend the bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 177 Bills R4044 Cognate bills: 177 Bills R4045 177 Bills R4046 177 Bills R4042 177 Bills R4043 177 Bills R4041 177 Debate resumed. 177 09:59:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. Every time I meet a school group visiting this place I tell them that every member and senator is working hard to make Australia a better place for them to grow up in. I say that we often disagree but that everybody is focused on them and I tell those children that this parliament belongs to them, that everyone is committed to a better future for them. I wonder today if I can say that to them again, because every billion dollars that we spend, every billion dollars of debt that we incur, will have to be repaid by those children. In government, we sought to take financial burdens off the next generation, and we did so. The Future Fund did just that, relieving those schoolchildren of the burden of over $100 billion of future payments for public sector pensions, and now a Labor government is piling those burdens on those children once again. In four years, net debt will be $70 billion, around $3,300 for every man, woman and child, and the government has asked for the right, just a moment ago, to borrow up to $200 billion—$9,500 for every man, woman and child in Australia. The plan we were presented with by the Prime Minister yesterday reeks of nothing more than panic. Far from a steady hand at the tiller we have a government led by a man who lurches from one ill-considered, ill-thought-out economic decision to another. We have seen the catastrophic unlimited bank deposit guarantee develop without even speaking to the Reserve Bank. We have seen the enormous harm that it did through the community—the hundreds of thousands of Australians whose savings were frozen as a consequence, the finance companies who could not raise money and the motor dealers who could not get finance. All of that flowed from an ill-considered decision. But there have been so many others. We saw the cash splash just before Christmas. We have the incredible proposal of the Ruddbank to prop up commercial property values for the benefit of the big banks and their profits. In the light of all of that, all of those errors—acknowledged errors, not in dispute; even the Prime Minister’s defenders acknowledge that he has made mistakes but hope that he will make fewer in the future—instead of carefully compiling a comprehensive response to this crisis over the summer, the Prime Minister spent his time writing a bizarre ideological treatise. It was as though he stepped into another world, a parallel summer fantasy dimension where Australia’s economy has been wrecked by lack of regulation by Liberal governments. Anybody reading his treatise could reach no other assumption and yet we see his own deputy, the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that Australia’s financial and prudential regulatory system was better than world-class and we see his small business minister writing in the Australian today that ‘Australia’s financial regulation is the envy of the rest of the world’. His own ministers are boasting of the stability of a financial system and its prudential and financial regulation that were put in place by the very men and women that their leader denounces as neoliberal extremists committed to letting the market rip and opposed to any form of regulation. It says a lot about the delusional nature of the Prime Minister at this time that not even his own ministers are prepared to sign up to his rantings. We have said again and again that we are prepared to sit down and discuss with the Prime Minister the form of the responses to this economic situation. All of those offers have been rejected. Yesterday the government presented Australia with its package at 12 noon. We were briefed by a handful of bureaucrats who were not able to answer even basic questions about the details of the package. They are still coming back to us on some of those issues. At 2.30 pm the Prime Minister read his statement, which we had been given at 1 pm. The government then went on the attack: it was irresponsible of the opposition not to immediately endorse the $42 billion package. Moreover, it had to be passed through the House and the Senate by Thursday. In other words, the Parliament of Australia would be given about 48 hours to consider and approve the expenditure of $42 billion. We support the Senate coming back next week, deferring estimates, to go through this plan in the greatest detail. It is vital that we do so. One can well imagine those schoolchildren of today who, as adults, years hence are paying high taxes to pay off the debt. When they complain about the high taxes they will be told by governments, by ministers, ‘Well, we’ve got this big debt. You’ve got to pay higher taxes to pay it off.’ They will ask us, ‘What were you thinking when you spent all that money? Why did you do that?’ We will have to answer, ‘Well, we didn’t have much time to think about it at all really.’ The opposition will vote against this package in the House and in the Senate. We know that this is not going to be a popular decision, but it is the right decision. The Prime Minister has made one easy decision after another. He has not made a hard decision since he took up that high office. But somebody has to stand up for what is right. Somebody has to stand up for fiscal discipline. Somebody has to stand up for the taxpayers of Australia and ensure that we do not impose staggering levels of debt on future generations. We will make that stand and we will make it knowing it is unpopular but recognising that the Australian people expect us to do what is right, and we will do that. This stimulus represents about four per cent of GDP, almost all of which is to be spent over the next two years, following up on the one per cent of GDP cash splash in December last year. Despite the protests of the Treasurer, the fact that this stimulus follows so hard on the heels of the earlier one indicates that the December cash splash did not work. The general view among economists is that at least two-thirds of it was in fact saved. I am sure that most of the balance was well spent but not all of it was, as poker machine and hotel takings demonstrate. The fundamental problem, which the government refuses in its arrogance and in its blindness to acknowledge, is that, if you give people one-off windfall lump sums in uncertain times, they are more likely to save it than to spend it. That is a perfectly rational and prudent response. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s call at the end of last year on Australians to ‘spend, spend, spend’ was jarring. It was a jarring statement because most Australians—all of us, I am sure—know full well that at the core and instigation of this global recession was too much debt. In other words, whether governments like to hear it or not, a good old-fashioned conservative value of thrift and saving is going to come back into fashion, it is coming back into fashion and it ought to come back into fashion. We do not reject the need for a stimulus at this time. The first question is: how big should the stimulus be today? Our judgment is that $42 billion is more than is appropriate right now. The government is looking increasingly like a frightened soldier who fires off all his ammunition in a panic in the first minutes of an engagement. This downturn may be very long lasting and we cannot possibly afford to spend larger and larger sums like this every quarter. Just think about it. If this package goes through, the government will have spent about one per cent of GDP in a cash splash in the December quarter and then there will be, just in the cash payments alone, another one per cent or somewhat more spent in the March quarter. It should not be overlooked by anybody that, just as the government times its announcements to coincide with Newspoll, so it is timing its handouts on a quarterly basis to avoid, no doubt, a quarter of negative growth. But where is that going to lead us? If we look at the cash handouts alone that the government is proposing to give away in March and that it gave away in December, what are we to expect in the budget and beyond? Are we going to rack up $40 billion or $50 billion a year in cash handouts alone? We do not have access to any more financial information than that contained in the government’s Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook which, as I said, we were given yesterday afternoon. But if the Prime Minister wants our support for a fiscal stimulus then he must be prepared to sit down and talk with us, he must be prepared to put the cards on the table and he must be prepared to negotiate. His current political hero, President Obama, probably the most popular political leader in the world, sits down with his political opponents. He is prepared to negotiate. He is prepared to engage the members of his legislature. This Prime Minister is so vain, so arrogant and so convinced that he and he alone is right that he is not prepared to do any more to his political opponents than to hold a gun to their head and say, ‘Stand and deliver and you’ve got two days to do it’. Unlike the Prime Minister, we do not contend that the approaches we favour are the only way to go. There is an infinite range of policy options available at this time and all of them have detractors and supporters. None of them are certain of success. Let me give the House an indication of our views of the particular elements in this package and the elements that we believe would be more appropriate. This is a basis for negotiation with the government. First, as I said a moment ago, we believe the package is too big. We do not rule out supporting further stimuli in the future depending on the economic circumstances and their composition. We need to keep a few shots in the locker. Our judgement is that a more appropriate level of stimulus is in the order of 1½ to two per cent of GDP, or between $15 billion and $20 billion. That is a matter of judgment. There is no mathematical formula that gives you the right answer here, but our judgment is that that is the band within which the stimulus should be. If people believe that we are more prudent, more conservative in spending taxpayers’ money and that we err on the side of spending less rather than more, then they are absolutely right. That is our philosophical approach to these issues. It is not a question of letting the market rip; it is a question of taking other people’s money seriously, guarding it, protecting it and ensuring that it is spent wisely and well. That is our commitment. We do not support a further round of cash handouts. That is a very unpopular thing to say and I acknowledge that, but it is the right thing to say. I think most Australians will recognise in their hearts that it is the right thing to say. It is extraordinary that the government would embark on this when there is no basis for concluding that the cash splash of December was effective. At the very least, the impact of the December payments needs to be taken on board. We need to know precisely what it is. Bear in mind that these handouts were paid two weeks before Christmas, and I said at the time that this was an interesting economic experiment. If ever a one-off handout, a one-off cash payment, was going to be largely spent it would be this one because the timing, being just before Christmas, was perfect for those people who wanted that outcome. Nonetheless, it appears that it was largely not spent, and bear in mind that the recipients in December were, for the most part, on low incomes—pensioners and others. The beneficiaries of the payments in the government’s package today will include many Australians at middle-income levels. Furthermore, the economic climate is much more uncertain—or more uncertain, at least—than it was in December. The incentives to save rather than to spend are therefore a lot greater. So we would support as an alternative the bringing forward of the 1 July 2010 tax cuts to 1 January this year. This will have a budgetary cost. It is obviously spread over time and it is not as much as the cash payments in the Prime Minister’s plan, but it is temporary. It is a timing difference. It will benefit all taxpayers, but it will benefit most significantly those on low and middle incomes. It is therefore very well targeted. It does not put $950 in everybody’s pocket today, but that is the point. It increases permanent income and it therefore provides a greater incentive to work and to invest. And by the middle of next year, households will have more money in their pockets and the prospects of more money to come. They will have more money in their pockets immediately, of course. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have tried to portray anybody who doubts their analysis of quick cash handouts as some kind of economic quack. That just underlines both their lack of reading in this area and their incredible arrogance. There are many voices all around the world questioning whether the immense scale and scope of the fiscal measures being hastily implemented by many governments are the appropriate response. There are many reputable economists who wonder whether those measures will be effective and whether they represent the best use of taxpayers’ money. The Treasurer yesterday derided the views of the Stanford economist John Taylor as irrelevant and extreme. It is very interesting that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia would so personally and viciously attack one of the most distinguished economists in the world. Given the influence Taylor has had on central bank thinking around the world, this is simply outrageous. But, more importantly, there are plenty of other economists who are similarly sceptical over the headlong rush to huge deficits and heavy debt. They include Robert Lucas and Ed Prescott—both past winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics—Robert Barro, Eugene Fama and Gregory Mankiw among many others. These are not quacks. These are not extremists. These are not irrelevant. These are great economic thinkers who have a view that is respected around the world but not, apparently, by the all-knowing Treasurer that we have on the other side of the House. Nor is it right to portray as ignorant extremism the coalition’s stance that tax cuts often provide a larger boost to the economy than public spending. Indeed, one of the most powerful and persuasive empirical studies in the United States—a study which has been much quoted in the financial media saying that tax cuts have a high multiplier; that is, they provide a larger bang for the buck to the economy than outlays—comes from none other than Christina Romer, now a senior economic official in the Obama White House. Now, clearly these are very difficult times and there are a range of economic opinions and interpretations. Nobody has all the answers. So it is the height of arrogance and intolerance for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to declare that the only way is their way. It just indicates a lack of willingness to engage in a constructive way both with the wider community and with a wide range of views, not to speak of the views of other members of this parliament. The next large element in the plan is an investment in schools. In government, we very heavily invested in schools. Indeed, one of our most successful and, I would say, popular programs was the Investing in Our Schools Program which the Rudd government has terminated. The $14 billion schools investment component of this package seems to have been selected largely because the government believes this building can be undertaken quickly. Experience suggests this will not be the case. The plan to work hand in glove with state governments reinforces everybody’s scepticism about that. We would welcome a renewal, indeed acceleration, of the Investing in Our Schools Program. However, we have to ask this question: is the most urgent infrastructure deficiency requirement in Australia primary school assembly halls and libraries? What about hospitals? What about nursing homes and aged care? What indeed about the National Broadband Network? What about water infrastructure, and what about expanding, and above all maintaining, our National Transmission Network? Labor’s response to this, of course, will be that there is more money to come for these measures, but there is the point. The finances of the Commonwealth are not a magic pudding. Everything has to be paid for at some time. Think of the faces and look into the eyes of those schoolchildren that come to parliament every day and remember that as these debts are piled up, billion upon billion, it is they who will have to pay them off. In an indication of the specific responses we would bring to this plan, we would support a renewed Investing in Our Schools Program. Based on our experience, we believe that $3 billion over three years could be, and would be, well spent and, depending on demand, and of course on the economic conditions, consideration can always be given to allocating more funding. That is a very important point. The parliament is not going into perpetual recess. The parliament is always here. We can come back and if circumstances require a greater stimulus of a different kind and a different time, we can do that. The Prime Minister is in a panic. He is firing off all his ammunition at once. We need to keep more in reserve—prudence demands that. The biggest gap in this package by far is jobs. The three top priorities this year must be jobs, jobs, jobs. Where is the assistance for small business in keeping employment high? The government will say that the insulators and the builders will be supported by these programs, and so they will. But most small businesses will not benefit from these spending measures. Fiscal stimulus should aim to invest in the Australian economy in a way that makes the whole economy more productive, efficient and competitive. Picking off one sector after another will always result in dislocations and discrimination against the sectors that are not privileged. That of course is why tax cuts are so effective, because every business and household benefits. We believe an element of a stimulus package should be that it lowers the cost of employing Australians. A key focus should be making it easier to keep Australians in their jobs, especially for small business. The proposed accelerated investment allowance has some merit, but a small business which is struggling with declining revenues would be better off with additional cash flow that it can deploy as it sees fit. We want to discuss practical measures with the government that will put cash into the hands of small businesses. One proposal which we have seen and which has considerable merit would be for the Commonwealth to cover, for a period, a portion of the superannuation guarantee levy. Appropriately costed within the framework of a more prudent stimulus, this would provide support for small business, lower the cost of employment and provide an incentive across the board to every small business. We welcome the government paying attention to the value of insulation. It is a great disappointment, as I noted in my speech a few weeks back, that the government’s election policy on insulation was left in complete abeyance. Nothing was done on it at all. Indeed, as of 20 January the government’s website dismally told anyone who was interested that the program details had not yet been developed—so much for efficiency. Insulation, however, is an energy efficiency measure that pays for itself, and government subsidies for insulation should recognise that. The $1,600 subsidy will, according to Mr Peter Ruz of Fletcher Insulation, who is quoted in the newspapers today, mean that over 90 per cent of jobs would be completed at no cost to the owner. The subsidy is not means tested. We would support an insulation subsidy of a lower amount, and I would suggest for the government’s consideration one that is, for example, $500 for all houses, increasing to $1,000 subject to a means test. That would reduce the cost of the measure considerably but remain a very significant incentive to the insulation industry. A similar approach could be taken to solar hot water. This stimulus has to provide the appropriate level of economic stimulus, so it has to be directed in a way that is effective. While the cash handouts will be popular, we do not believe they will be an effective economic stimulus. We believe that bringing forward the 2010 tax cuts would cost less and have much greater economic effect. It would benefit households and small businesses right across the board. We believe that the key issue for the government is the scale of this stimulus, the size of it. We believe it is too large and not composed of sufficiently effective measures. I have given some indication of ways in which the measures could be more effective. Above all, the government must ask itself as it looks at this and no doubt other measures it will bring forward: are they going to provide a benefit across the board? Are they going to make Australia’s economy more efficient, more productive and more competitive? If they do not do that, the money will not be well spent. The reality is that while these times call for governments to invest more than they normally would—and we recognise that—the investment and spending decisions must be of the highest quality. We should not be investing in measures or programs which do not stand on their own merits. They have to be measures that we would invest in in good times or bad. Otherwise, we are literally wasting taxpayers’ money at a time when, depending on the development of this global recession, we may find ourselves in greater need of those resources in the years to come. I recognise that much of what I have said will not be popular, but it is right. We must stand up for prudent financial management. Every dollar that this parliament approves to be spent belongs to somebody else. We are dealing with other people’s money. More significantly than that, we are dealing with the future of the young Australians who come here to visit this parliament. I do not want to have to look into their eyes and say: ‘When you grow up you will be paying higher and higher taxes because of the debt your parents’ generation racked up today.’ We recognise that these times call for investment and action by government. But it must be the right action, and governments must be prepared to take tough decisions, to take the right decisions and to have the courage of discipline. The Prime Minister has shown none of that. He has wanted to be Santa Claus—everybody gets a prize. The problem with everybody getting a prize today is that the children of today will be carrying a very heavy penalty in the years to come. We are committed on our side of the House to ensure, insofar as we can, that every dollar that is spent this year and in the years to come is spent wisely—always remembering those children, because it is those children who will have to pay off Labor’s debt. 183 10:29:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —We stand here today in the middle of a global economic emergency, and listening to the Leader of the Opposition you would almost be forgiven for thinking that it does not exist and that the government is doing this just on a whim. It is perhaps worth reminding the House that this is the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, something that we only ever read about in history books or were told about by our parents or grandparents. Economies around the world are now being swallowed up by a global recession. So what do we do? There are two options: the merchant banker model and the government model. The merchant banker model says: ‘Let the market take its course. The market will fix itself. Capitalism got us into this mess and it will get us out—sure, a few people will suffer along the way but a few people will get rich as well.’ It is the model that says, ‘Don’t use the economic stabilisers; avoid deficit at all costs; vote against these bills even if it costs jobs’—even if it costs the jobs of those young people the Leader of the Opposition talked about. On the other side you have the government model. The government model says that the market generates wealth and creates jobs, but sometimes it can spin out of control. It is the model that says that the market needs to be better regulated. It says, ‘Merchant bankers created this mess and we can’t rely on them alone to get us out of it.’ This is the model that says that government should step in and help out when markets fail. We know who the architects of the merchant banker model are. They are economists like Milton Friedman and they are politicians like Herbert Hoover, a previous President of the United States, who said: Prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the public Treasury. That is the model that is now being espoused by those opposite. We heard it from the Leader of the Opposition today. Their model is that the market should take its course. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said two weeks ago and that is what he is talking about again today. I think that the events of the last few weeks and months, spawned by the greed of merchant bankers, have proved that this is not the right approach—that markets spin out of control, that markets need to be better regulated and better managed and that there is an important role here for government. That is the approach that this government is taking. It is the approach that the new US administration is taking and it is the approach that has been adopted and recommended by the International Monetary Fund. The depth and the nature of the crisis before us make for very ugly reading. Over the Christmas break the news continued to get worse. Every time you opened the newspaper there was more bad economic news. Last week the IMF released a report that projects that worldwide growth will fall to half a per cent this year and that advanced economies are going to go backwards by two per cent. For example, the United States economy will contract by 1.6 per cent, Germany’s will go backwards by two per cent, Japan’s will go backwards by 2.6 per cent, and the United Kingdom economy will contract by 2.8 per cent. We are caught in the vortex of this global economic recession. We are in better shape and are better prepared than most countries, but inevitably our fate is tied to theirs because we live in a global economic community. Businesses here in Australia rely on businesses overseas in this interconnected world in order to trade, to do business and to hire new employees. Our biggest trading partner is China. China’s growth is going to contract by half over the next two years. Our second biggest trading partner is Japan; we now know that Japan is in recession. Our third biggest trading partner is the United States, and we all know what is happening there. In 2008 they lost three million jobs, in the last quarter of 2008 they lost 1½ million jobs and in December alone they lost half a million jobs. In the December quarter the United States economy shrank by 3.8 per cent in annual terms. They are just three examples—China, Japan and the United States. Six of our 10 largest trading partners are already in recession, and that is what is punching a $115 billion hole in the budget. We have two options: the merchant banker model or the government model. We can sit on our hands, we can sit on the sideline, and let the market take its course, or we can get in there and help and protect Australian jobs. The world economy has stalled, and I think governments have to get in there and start the world economy up again in order to protect jobs. That also just happens to be the orthodox economic opinion. It is what we have to do. It would be irresponsible if we did not. It would be irresponsible to sit on the sidelines and just rely on the merchant banker model. If we do that, then all of the evidence and all of the modelling by Treasury suggest that things will get worse—that growth will be lower and that more jobs, 90,000 of them, will be lost. I am acutely aware of just how important this is because I happen to represent an electorate where unemployment is already 50 per cent higher than the national average. My electorate is also a place where more people are already struggling to pay their mortgages than anywhere else in the country. You cannot pay the mortgage without a job, and that is why the priority of this government and this parliament has to be to do everything that we can to protect Australian jobs and to keep this economy growing. That is not just the opinion of the government; it is the opinion of every reputable economist in the country, it is the opinion of Treasury, it is the opinion of the IMF and it just so happens to be the opinion of the Business Council of Australia and a lot of other organisations. It is their opinion because it is the right thing to do and it is the responsible thing to do. Ray Brooks, the chief of the Asia and Pacific division of the IMF, said on the weekend: We emphasise spending—in particular, infrastructure spending. Temporary measures on the tax cut side, that should be targeted towards those who are likely to spend it, such as low-income earners. That is exactly what the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills do: (1) they provide temporary measures on the tax side, targeted at low-income earners, and (2) they provide funding of infrastructure that is badly needed and that is ready to go now. That is why the legislation is backed by almost every organisation in the country, except the opposition. We have heard today from the Leader of the Opposition that the coalition are going to vote against these bills. They have said they are going to vote against them, and I am glad that they have finally revealed their true selves. They spent all last year hiding behind the veil, claiming that they no longer support Work Choices, but that is a thing of the past. Today we have found the true wolf that hides under the sheep’s clothing, the true position of the opposition—the merchant bank model. You can bet that what they are about to do will be unpopular. It will be unpopular because it is also irresponsible. It is everything that the IMF is telling us not to do; it is everything that every other country in the world is not doing. Have a look at what every country in the world is doing. They are injecting money to stimulate their economies. The opposition are effectively coming in here and saying, ‘It’s too big a package; it’s too big a risk; don’t do it.’ Well, they can explain that to the people who will not get those one-off tax bonuses of $950, and they can explain that to every school in every electorate around the country where there will not be a library or a hall built, where there won’t be roads built or boom gates or insulation batts installed because of the actions that the Leader of the Opposition in this place and those in the Senate are intending to take. The opposition have spent a lot of time, not just in this debate but throughout the last few weeks, criticising and trashing this idea of one-off tax bonuses, one-off payments, by claiming they are not an effective way to stimulate the economy. They say they do not work, despite the fact that all of the data that is coming in indicates that they do. Remember December, when the rest of the world effectively fell off a cliff. The US economy went back by four per cent, in annual terms. World trade collapsed by 45 per cent, in annual terms, and the United States alone lost half a million jobs. At that time, when all of this was happening, profits and demand grew here at home. Yet the opposition say that the things we did with the $10 billion stimulus package did not work, and they have said it again here in this debate today. I will make one point, a point that was made yesterday: the evidence from Westfield alone points in the other direction, because their profits grew by 2.5 per cent last year in December, whereas in the United States they went backwards by 14 per cent. If you do not care to accept that argument, have a look at what Ray Brooks, the IMF Asia-Pacific chief, said on the weekend: I would emphasise that what has been done so far by the authorities— the Australian government— was a very timely policy response … It has helped cushion the blow. This is an extraordinarily sharp contraction in global demand that caught forecasters by surprise. That is the government’s position. A lot more could be said in this debate, but time is short. Let me just make this point: the government is being backed by every major organisation in the country because it is what the economy needs. It is what we have to do and it is what is right, and the opposition forget that at their peril. 186 10:40:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The coalition, through long experience, knows that prudent management of the Australian budget has in the past and will in the future be the key to a strong economy, to higher standards of living for all Australians and to jobs for Australians now and into the future. The coalition also knows, as does the Australian public, that Labor governments, state and federal, are reckless when it comes to spending other people’s money. There is something eerily familiar about the new Rudd government. It is building on a long tradition of Labor governments, state and federal, and their addiction to debt. The Whitlam government spent so recklessly that it ended up mired in the Khemlani loans affair. This might be a footnote of political history now, but it reminds us of the Rudd Labor government. The Whitlam government came up with a bizarre plan, through the Khemlani loans affair, to shore up its budget bottom line with dodgy loans from the Middle East. The Keating government went into so-called temporary deficit that grew exponentially until the nation was saddled with a $96 billion debt. And it would have kept going, had the coalition not been elected in 1996. The coalition then took 10 long years to pay off that debt in painstaking budget measures that, step by step, year by year, rebalanced the budget, put it back into surplus and then started providing savings for the future benefit of all Australians. The history of Labor governments—I point to the New South Wales Labor government—is repeating itself. The night before the election the Prime Minister gave a clear commitment to the Australian people that he was an economic conservative. He said being an economic conservative: … means a fundamental belief in budget surpluses. And you go back to my experience in this respect. I worked at a senior level in the Goss government in Queensland in the first half of the 90s. When national economic circumstances were difficult, when there wasn’t a lot of money flowing into the economy particularly, there wasn’t the presence of a global resources boom, and budget after budget, we produced budget surpluses. Let us cast our minds back to the time of Labor’s election win in November 2007. Labor inherited the best economic and budgetary circumstances of any incoming government in Australian history—a $20 billion surplus, zero government debt, $70 billion in savings, the lowest unemployment in more than 30 years and relatively low inflation. That is what sets Australia apart from the other economies in the world. That is why Australia is now better placed than virtually any other comparable country at this time of economic slowdown. In November 2007, consumer and business confidence was strong and people were generally optimistic about the future, and the Rudd government promised to do what the Howard government had done—that is, bring fiscal prudence to the handling and management of the budget. But what did the Rudd government do with that legacy? This is a measure by which to judge the Rudd government’s ability to make prudent economic decisions. What the Rudd government did was to immediately embark on a course of trashing the economic legacy of the previous government and to embark on a deliberate scare campaign about inflation. This had a devastating impact on confidence. Despite the strong economic conditions at the time, confidence fell further and more rapidly in Australia than in comparable countries during the first half of 2008. Think of what was happening elsewhere in the world, yet in Australia confidence fell further and more rapidly. Many Australians locked in home loans at higher interest rates because the Rudd government convinced them that inflation was out of control and that interest rates would continue to rise, and these people are now paying the price of that reckless action by the Prime Minister. The Rudd government simply got it wrong, and they have continued to make poor economic decisions. They continue to get it wrong. This package—the $42 billion spending package—fails to take into account the lessons of history. It fails to take into account the experience of other countries which in the past have attempted to stimulate their economies with large spending packages of taxpayer funds. Think of Japan in the 1990s. The government has failed to take into account the lessons—the harsh and bitter experience—of other countries. The package fails to embrace initiatives that will protect Australian jobs at this time. The package fails the government’s own test which it set itself for a fiscal stimulus. It said—based on the views of others, particularly the IMF—that fiscal stimulus packages should be temporary, targeted and timely. Even if you accept this as the test—and many do not—the government fails its own test. The package is not targeted at keeping people in their jobs; it is splashed across the economy. If you look at the cash handouts, there is clearly no strategic thought at all as to how those handouts will keep one person in a job and no apparent thought as to how the handouts will actually stimulate the economy—because they have been proven not to work elsewhere. There is no evidence that it will do what the government claims. This package is not timely, in the sense that much of it is long-term infrastructure spending. Whatever the merits of infrastructure spending, the government should not try and con the Australian people into believing it will provide an immediate stimulus that will boost GDP and ward off recession. It is not temporary—that is the biggest lie of all. It is not temporary. This government is potentially taking out a $200 billion mortgage on our future and that of the next generation. This is the biggest con of all: the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying that the massive budget deficit into which they wish to plunge Australia is temporary. It is not. The actions of the Rudd government represent the biggest budgetary turnaround in Australian history. We should remember that in May last year this government was forecasting a $21.7 billion surplus; we are now looking at a $22.5 billion deficit. If you take it over the economic cycle, the turnaround in the budget goes from an $80 billion surplus to a $118 billion deficit. That is a $198 billion turnaround over the economic cycle. One of the most infamous budgets in Australian history was the 1975 Whitlam budget. Its gross mismanagement resulted in a turnaround from a forecast budget surplus of 0.3 per cent of GDP to a deficit of 1.8 per cent of GDP. The Rudd government’s turnaround is far more reckless, taking a forecast surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP to a deficit of 1.9 per cent of GDP in just a matter of months. The amendment that was so quietly brought in today by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act reveals the lie behind the Prime Minister’s claim that this is just a temporary deficit, for this legislation would increase the cap on the issuing of Commonwealth government securities from $75 billion to $200 billion. This is what we are facing—$200 billion—and this government wants us to give it a blank cheque to mortgage the future of Australians to the tune of $200 billion without giving us any opportunity to properly scrutinise the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. Think of the scale of this. The previous Labor government left a debt of $96 billion, and this Labor government is on track to leave a debt twice as large, no doubt with the intention that down the track another coalition government with the experience, credentials and know-how will have to pay it off. But where will the money come from? This is not government money. Governments do not have their own money. It is not Labor or coalition money; it is taxpayers’ money. Any debt incurred by this government will eventually be repaid out of the efforts and earnings of wage and salary earners and through businesses. They will pay for it in higher taxes in the future or through reductions in public expenditure—in health, education and roads. But it will be the next generation who will bear the burden of this government’s reckless profligacy. This will be particularly the case if the debt has funded unproductive expenditures that do not increase gross domestic product, which would increase the capacity to repay the debt. The coalition has made it clear that public expenditure on physical infrastructure requires serious assessment of each project, and it is important that at this time the government have a measured plan for infrastructure spending over time—that it not panic and choose projects that have political appeal but which are poor choices in promoting long-run economic growth and the welfare of the Australian people. It is deeply concerning that the announcement of $21.4 billion in public expenditure on schools and public housing does not give any explanation as to why these projects were chosen instead of many other alternative public and private projects that could have been undertaken. Of course spending on schools is good public policy. Of course the coalition believes in schools and in housing. But, at this time, when you are taking the country into debt with a $200 billion blank cheque, are these the best investments—at this moment, with this amount of money—to stimulate the economy and to create and protect jobs? That is what the focus should be: keeping people in jobs. There is no evidence produced by the government that any of these measures will protect or create any jobs in Australia. The government’s latest forecast states that unemployment will rise from the current 4.5 per cent to seven per cent in 2009-10. It estimates that about 100,000 more people will be out of a job by 30 June this year. What is in this package to encourage small business, for example, to keep people on? What is in this package that says to small business, ‘We will help you keep your workers on’? There is nothing. There is no incentive for that. The government does not know how to come up with a package that will protect and create Australian jobs. This government chooses to make decisions on the run, without research or modelling to support its decision, without sensible assessments of what works and what does not, without consideration of failed policies of the past and without looking at what other countries have done, what has worked for them and what has not. But, worse still, it is clear that the government does not want to discuss alternatives. It will do anything it can to stop this parliament, or indeed the public, from discussing alternatives. The Prime Minister said, ‘Take it or leave it.’ The Prime Minister says it is his way or no way. The Prime Minister reminds me of the leader of a bushwalking group that is lost in the bush, trying to find the way home. He does not have the answers but he insists on going down the path he chose, knowing that that path has not taken him home in the past. He insists on taking everyone down that path and, if somebody in the party says, ‘Well, maybe there was an alternative path,’ he turns on them, abuses them and accuses them of not supporting his efforts to get home by his route, even though he knows it will not get them there. He just wants to be seen to be doing something, to continue to walk. He does not want to be questioned, does not want the logic and does not want any analysis of what he is seeking to do. Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that democratic government should be ‘command and control’. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister thinks. But that is not the way government in this country works. That is not the way a free and open democracy works. One of the primary roles of the opposition is to scrutinise the decisions of the government to ensure it makes the best possible decisions in the national interest. It is easy for an opposition to just roll over and say: ‘Oh well, the government’s come up with a package that will be popular. And the media will say that this is a good policy. Nobody will say that it will create a job, nobody will say that it supports small business, nobody will say that it will stimulate the economy, nobody will say that it wards off recession; but everyone will say that it is popular.’ Oppositions have a responsibility to the Australian public to stand up and say that a policy is wrong, that a policy is ill considered, when they truly believe that to be the case. The coalition is firmly of the view that, in the circumstances that Australia finds itself at this time, and taking into account what is happening overseas, this huge spend of $42 billion—on track to be $200 billion—is too much money at this time. It is bad public policy, and we must say so—and we do. The Australian people might say, ‘Fine, another $950’—who would not say, ‘Yeah, I’ll put my hand out for that’? But in their heart of hearts they know that somebody has to pay for this one day and that it is going to be the taxpayers of the future. It is going to be their children. This is precisely what the coalition was faced with when we came into government in 1996. And this is precisely why we set about paying off the $96 billion debt left by the Keating government—because we did not want future generations of Australians to be saddled with the profligacy of a Labor government. We made some really tough decisions in 1996. They were not popular, but they were right, because 10 years later we had paid off that debt. Standards of living in Australia had risen. The government had the ability to invest in schools, hospitals and infrastructure, because we did not have to pay the $9 billion in interest that accumulated every year on the $96 billion debt. There has not been any mention of that in the Prime Minister’s or the Treasurer’s comments to date. They have studiously avoided telling the Australian public that, when the government starts borrowing this amount of money in this fashion, plunging the country deeper and deeper into debt, we are going to have to pay interest on it. If a $96 billion debt attracted $9 billion in interest, just imagine what a $200 billion debt will do. That is money that cannot be spent on future infrastructure projects. It cannot be spent on schools and hospitals and it cannot be spent on government services, because you have got to pay off the interest. That is why we are so gravely concerned that this government refuses to acknowledge that Australia’s particular circumstances have to be the basis of policy responses to the pressures we face from the deteriorating international financial and economic conditions. We do not need to import the problems facing other countries by adopting poorly thought through policy responses. We have seen that with the government. It has panicked every step of the way in relation to the economic slowdown. The unlimited bank deposit guarantee, which led to the freezing of the investment accounts of hundreds of thousands of Australians and caused disruption in other areas of the financial system, was a classic example of how this government, in reading the overseas circumstances, imported them to Australia and applied an ill thought through policy that caused more harm to the Australian financial markets. This, we fear, is what will happen if this government is given a blank cheque to spend $42 billion now, leading up to $200 billion in the future. The legacy of this government will be massive debt and a burden on this country that will be unsustainable. I for one am not going to stand here and see Australia’s economy deteriorate in that way. (Time expired) 190 11:01:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The true measure of a government is not its performance during a time of prosperity but its response in a time of crisis. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan, coming on top of the Economic Security Strategy delivered in December, shows the depths of this government’s commitment to doing all it can to protect Australian jobs and families from the maelstrom that has engulfed the global economic system. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as we have just heard in her speech, wants to attack all this. We now know that the opposition wants to oppose this program, and it is clear that at least the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is simply out of her depth. This package is designed to stimulate the economy in the short term to help support up to 90,000 Australian jobs and to ensure that low- and middle-income families and households receive the assistance they need during these tough economic times. But it does more than that: it commences the process of building Australia’s post-crisis economy and a fairer society. The Energy Efficient Homes Program will help to prepare Australian households for a low-carbon future. Building the Education Revolution builds on the education revolution we commenced last year to ensure that our children are equipped with skills that will be needed in an open, dynamic, high-skill, high-wage economy. And the Commonwealth social housing initiative is fairly described as the most significant federal government action ever undertaken in the field of housing. These are carefully thought through packages. It is worth dwelling on some of the detail of these packages so that we are clear on what we are debating here with the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the cognate bills that are before the House. The Household Stimulus Package is timely, it is temporary and it is targeted. It includes the tax bonus for working Australians, up to $950 for eligible taxpayers; the single-income-family bonus, $950 for families that have one main income earner; the farmers hardship bonus—the matter which the Leader of the Nationals did not want to hear about in the House yesterday—$950 to farmers and others receiving exceptional circumstances related income support; and the training and learning bonus, $950 to assist students, those returning to study or training and some income support recipients. That will benefit some 4,737 students and young people in my electorate of Isaacs. There is also the back-to-school bonus of $950, to assist low- and middle-income families eligible for family tax benefit A with school-age children. That will benefit 11,154 families in my electorate. With the education package known as Building the Education Revolution, we will see a stimulation of demand in the economy. It will provide a much-needed boost to the construction industry and, in the longer term, it will help provide every single child in every single primary school, including all 38 primary schools and all the secondary schools—there are a total of 54 schools in my electorate—with world-class facilities that are necessary for a 21st century education. It will provide $12.4 billion to build new infrastructure such as libraries and multipurpose halls in every primary school. The package includes another billion dollars to build 500 science and language centres in our secondary schools. I know, having been to each of the secondary schools and all but a couple of the primary schools in my electorate, just how well used these funds are going to be and indeed how much they are needed to ensure that an appropriate level of facilities is provided in our schools. The Energy Efficient Homes Program will be a further support to the manufacturing and construction industries and will help prepare our economy for a low-carbon future. There is an investment of almost $4 billion in the Energy Efficient Homes Program and, as we heard yesterday and heard again today from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, it will enable around 2.2 million Australian homes to install free ceiling insulation. This is something close to my heart because my electorate is home to two of Australia’s major insulation manufacturers. It is going to be an important shot in the arm for local jobs. The Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand have their office in my electorate, and I spoke this morning to their CEO, Dennis D’Arcy. He told me that their rough calculations already have indicated that it is expected that this measure will generate some 4,000 jobs across the nation, in delivery, installation, supply and fixing of insulation, as well as office staff and trainers to train those who are going to install the insulation. That is before one gets to the possible increase in manufacturing jobs at the CSR plants in Brisbane and Sydney and the Fletcher plants in Sydney and Melbourne, the Melbourne plant being located at Dandenong South in my electorate. It is perhaps worth repeating for the benefit of the House what Dennis D’Arcy, the CEO of the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand, said to me on this. He said: We welcome this move. Energy efficiency is probably the most important step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings are the most important component in improving energy efficiency. Australian buildings have by international standards low levels of energy efficiency. These measures will have an impact on reducing emissions. They will help meet the 2020 targets. More importantly, said Mr D’Arcy, they will help every family without insulation to reduce household energy bills. Mr D’Arcy went on to tell me: It will create jobs. It is a bold and welcome measure. In addition, this package includes the Commonwealth’s social housing initiative, which is $6.4 billion for public and community housing, $6 billion over 3½ years. It will include also at least 20,000 low-income households being assisted by having access to housing. I spoke yesterday in the House about the regional and local government program, which is seeing an expansion from the $300 million announced at the local government conference held in this building in November, attended by mayors and chief executive officers of councils from all over Australia. I have heard repeatedly at that conference, which I attended with the Mayor of Frankston, the Mayor of Kingston and the CEO of the City of Greater Dandenong, both from them and from others who attended the conference, just how welcome was this initiative of the Rudd government to give direct access for local government to the Prime Minister and senior ministers and indeed the whole of the federal government. What the regional and local government package which is part of the package that is contained in this legislation will do is to permit the federal government to directly fund larger scale projects that have been selected by local government. They are local capital projects chosen by local people that are going to generate local construction activity and generate local jobs. I come briefly to the approach of the Liberal Party and the National Party which we have seen unfold here today. Greg Evans, the director of industry policy and economics at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, was quoted in the Age newspaper this morning as saying: The fiscal stimulus package, combined with the significant rate reduction announced by the RBA, will go a long way to alleviating the worst aspects of the economic downturn and indeed places us in a better position than every other advanced country around the globe. That is Mr Evans from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The opposition clearly does not understand that very plain language from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and indeed seemingly does not understand the seriousness of the crisis that this country is confronting. Last night we were subjected once again to the member for Higgins, Captain Smirk, talking on ABC TV. His only interest would appear to be in defending his own reputation as Treasurer. He is apparently not even interested in assisting the opposition to develop a coherent response, which, as we have seen even here this morning, is assistance that they desperately need. The member for Higgins has no constructive criticism, and his attempt to create a supposedly glorious past and superlative economic performance on the part of the Howard government is simply false. This is the man who blew the prosperity of the resources boom, the man who had the opportunity to future-proof our economy as a result of the unprecedented revenues generated by the best terms of trade in a generation, and instead the member for Higgins and the government of which he was part wasted it by failing to rein in spending and fuelling inflation. It was lazy, it was politically expedient and, along with the failure to invest in infrastructure and to invest in skills, it helped to fuel the inflation that the Reserve Bank had to fight with one hand tied behind its back. At least one can say that the member for Higgins has consistency in his favour, which is more than can be said for the present opposition leadership. They appear finally to have come to the conclusion that there is no role for fiscal policy in dealing with this economic crisis. We heard more of that from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in her speech this morning preceding mine. In her speech we had some extraordinary suggestions: for example, that there was no explanation as to why the particular projects that have been funded by this package have been chosen. She said also that there was no evidence that these projects will create any jobs. The merest imagination that she could bring to bear on this would show her that these projects have been chosen because all of them are aimed at improving circumstances in our schools, aimed at improving the availability of housing in our country, aimed at getting local projects built and aimed at getting money spent and construction being commenced as quickly as possible. As for the suggestion that there is no evidence that these projects will create any jobs, clearly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not the faintest understanding of economic activity, because when a government announces projects of this scale obviously they are going to both create and support jobs. The opposition has failed to understand that fiscal policy and monetary policy need to work together and, particularly in times like this, they need to be responsive to economic conditions. The Liberals and the Nationals did not understand this when they were in government and they do not understand it now that they are in opposition. 193 11:13:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Money cannot buy happiness, the old proverb wisely says, but the Rudd government is certainly trying its hardest to prove that wrong. What the Prime Minister announced yesterday was a plan to use our children’s money to fund five minutes of sunshine—indeed, probably 30 seconds of sunshine or even less. Of course the majority of Australians will be grateful to receive any kind of cheque in the mail; they will be grateful to have any kind of assistance. But where do we go when the money runs out, when there is no more left for Labor to borrow? This is not money that is being simply manufactured out of thin air; it is debt being accumulated today which must be paid back by future generations. We have just expunged from our memory Labor’s last debt, worth $96 billion. It took 13 years to accumulate, under the Hawke and Keating governments. This Rudd Labor government will eclipse that in one term. That is an extraordinary spending spree. The title of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 includes the phrase ‘nation building and jobs’, but it does not build the nation and it does not create jobs. The timing is wrong. It repeats the failures of the previous package. There is no lasting investment or leverage for the future. There are handouts but no permanent fixes. At the end of this package, the pension will still be too low and taxes will be too high. We are stealing from our children. This package of bills steals $200 billion from our children so that we can enjoy some sunshine for a few seconds. There are no new jobs. The government admits that this package creates no new jobs; all it does is sustain 90,000 jobs. That is something like $450,000 for every job sustained. There are no new jobs and no new permanent impetus for our economy—just 90,000 jobs sustained at a cost of $450,000 each. How were these options chosen? How did we come to a situation like this? It is Labor pork-barrelling on a grand scale, with no clear plan and no vision for the future. It is splashing cash around following a decade or more of progress in our country, but it will lead to economic gloom and debt repayment for at least another decade. As I said yesterday, little or none of this money will ever be repaid while we have a Labor government in office. They simply do not repay debt; they create debt. They create burdens that future governments have to alleviate. The job of paying back this debt will dwarf into insignificance what needed to be done when the Hawke and Keating governments left power. Of course, people will like to get the $950 handout from the government that is being offered to them. But in return for the $950 handout they are also being given a $2,000 debt. What we are borrowing to fund this package is the equivalent of $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. So, ladies and gentlemen of Australia, when you get your $950 cheque there will be some red ink on that paper as well—the $2,000 you will have to pay back in the future, along with your families, to fund what is happening today. The Prime Minister is looking more and more like Paris Hilton running amok with a Visa card in a Melbourne clothes shop—except the Prime Minister does not have daddy’s credit card to fall back on; he has yours and he has mine. We are going to have to pay for this spending spree and it will be a constant burden on our economy for decades ahead. Taxes in the future will have to be higher because we are paying back this debt. Government expenditure will be lower because a bigger bite of the budget will have to go into interest. We will be further behind and we will have less money to spend on schools and education, health, defence and the important responsibilities of the Commonwealth in the future because we will be paying off this debt for decades. The Prime Minister is already talking about a third stimulus package, even though the first one last October was a certified failure—except perhaps if you are a Chinese trinket manufacturer or you own a few poker machines. What about the $81 million of the last package that was sent to people who are living permanently overseas? How did it stimulate the Australian economy to send $81 million in cash grants to people who live overseas? The government has not learnt from these mistakes. In fact, the spending is getting out of control. Perhaps the most alarming piece of legislation that is in this package before the parliament today is the proposal to increase the limit on the government’s bank card from $75 billion to $200 billion. The bank card is about to be loaded to the gunwales with more and more debt, and there is no end in sight. That $200 billion is $10,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. So, in addition to having to pay off your own home and your own credit card bill, you now have to pay off Kevin Rudd’s and the Labor government’s credit card bill. Your share is $10,000; your baby’s share is $10,000; your grandmother’s share is $10,000. This is real money that will have to be paid for by ordinary Australians, working or not, for decades ahead as Labor spends monumentally out of control. The Prime Minister has admitted that he does not even know if this package is going to work. It is a gamble; it is a wager on our future. That confirms that we are right when we say that thousands of Australians who are going to be losing their jobs will be loaded with the additional burden of massive government debt and years of deficits and new taxes. What if the Prime Minister is wrong and the package does not work—and the evidence suggests that his first package has not been successful? Then we will have a real fire sale of our national economy. I would like to look at this stimulus package in a bit more detail. I would like to be able to talk in detail about the legislation, but the reality is that, like all members of the opposition, I am speaking about bills I have not read. I have not even seen a copy of the statement that the Prime Minister made last night because the government did not even print enough copies for opposition members to be able to read it. This is contemptuous treatment of the parliament. They did not show us the bill; there were no copies of the document. The only briefing the opposition had was a 45-minute talk with some Treasury officials who could not answer the basic questions—and we are being asked to approve in 42 hours $42 billion worth of expenditure we do not know the details of! This is the biggest ‘spend now, pay later’ program in history and we are expected to rush it through without proper consideration. We do know that the fundamentals of this package are wrong. World debt is at the heart of the global financial crisis, and Australia has avoided the worst of the crisis because we have less debt, because we had a government that paid off the debt and was able to put money aside. Now we are going to join the rest of the world and throw away our advantage by spending huge amounts of money when we do not even know if it will work. The government acknowledges that the package is not going to create jobs and that it will not provide stimulus in the form of a lasting benefit for our national economy. We need to look at the various measures in this package and what they are expected to achieve. I am interested that the centrepiece is a schools building program. It is a clear bailout for the failed Labor states’ unwillingness to meet their responsibilities for school maintenance over the years. Peeling paint and unusable equipment are evident in almost every school in the country. So now the Commonwealth is going to bail out the states. But this is supposed to be a stimulus package—something we want to spend quickly. Have you ever found a state government that can build a school building quickly? It takes them years to do the planning. They stuff around. They change the plans. They fiddle here and there. And they usually build things that the school does not want in the end anyhow. So it will take years to deliver a package of this nature. I have also noted that the children who go to small schools are not going to be treated very generously in comparison to those who go to the large schools. If you go to a primary school with 400 students or more, the school will get $3 million out of this package, but, if your children go to a school with 50 or fewer students, you will only get $250,000. So the small country schools that have been particularly badly treated by Labor state governments over the years are going to be badly treated again by the federal Labor government. Our Investing in Our Schools Program was very successful. One of its features was that it treated all schools alike. The little battling schools that struggle so much to raise funding through their P&Cs got the same money as the rich city schools that did not need it so much. That is one of the many reasons that that program was considered to be so successful. There is also to be money spent on competitive grants for science and language laboratories in secondary schools. How many small country secondary schools are likely to get a competitive grant for a science or language laboratory? We will be watching closely the electorates where this money is to be spent. What it will do is concentrate the expenditure even further on education in the larger and more prosperous areas. There is also to be $1.3 billion for minor maintenance—in some kind of a pale shadow of the Investing in Our Schools Program, which even members opposite would acknowledge was very popular with P&Cs and school communities. The larger schools will get $200,000 under this program, whereas the small schools with 50 or fewer students will get only $50,000. So the P&Cs that find it hardest to raise the money will get the least help from this government. It would be better if we were to re-establish and reinvigorate the Investing in Our Schools Program, because it worked. It worked quickly and it delivered the results that schools actually want. When one looks at the way in which the government has targeted its expenditure and its assistance to the states, one has to ask why we did not look at other areas where the states have seriously neglected their obligations. Why are we just bailing out the dilapidated school system? What about hospitals? What about the work that needs to be done on water infrastructure? Why were some of these key issues not funded? And what about, from a federal prospective, doing something more about respite care and nursing homes? That would have really delivered permanent benefits for the community. But that has been discarded and not even considered in this package. Let us look at small business. There is a proposal in this scheme to have a short-lived investment allowance. That will be helpful to small businesses who would like to buy new equipment. The problem, of course, is that most small businesses will be so stressed under the years of Labor government that they cannot afford the debt that is associated with buying new capital equipment. You cannot invest and get a tax concession if in fact you have not got the money to buy equipment in the first place. If you are a small business and you are going to go out and buy some office equipment or some machinery, that will be good for local business. It might even boost the income of the supplier. But virtually all of that equipment is going to be imported, so it is not going to have any lasting, flow-on benefits to the economy as a whole. Very little of the equipment that is likely to be purchased under this investment allowance will be made in Australia. And, of course, it is a very small window until 30 June 2009. So you really have to be ready to go now if you are going to get any advantage from it. Did the government consider paying the super guarantee levy of businesses to improve their cash flow or lowering income tax rates? What about delaying the emissions trading scheme, which is a new $11½ billion tax on industry that they can ill afford? Getting a tax deduction or an investment allowance for a new photocopier is very little help if you are going to have permanent, ongoing extra costs as a result of an emissions trading scheme. What about abandoning the government’s unfair dismissal laws? What about, in regional areas, abandoning the government’s scheme to abolish the en-route subsidy scheme? This is a scheme that has helped to keep regional air services in the air, and Labor is now simply going to get rid of it. There are many things that the government could have targeted this expenditure on which would have provided lasting benefits. I will turn also to the grants of $950 to farmers and small business men and women in drought affected areas. The government says there are potentially 21,500 people who will receive this benefit. The government is wrong to say that this is something that is going to go to farmers. Only a very small proportion of farmers will be eligible to receive this $950 grant. And what guarantees are there that, when the farmer gets the money, the bank will not simply swallow it up to pay off some of his debt? How can we be assured that this money will actually be available to families to help do something that is meaningful for them? It is the equivalent of the cost of about one day’s fuel for a tractor. That is the size of this benefit. And most farmers will not even get it. I am hearing repeated stories of scores of Australian farmers who are being told that their credit is to be withdrawn. Part of that is because they have built up extensive debt over the years of the drought and there is trouble with their equity. Their equity will plunge if the government succeeds in plunging our economy into a recession. There will be losses in the value of farm properties and therefore farm equity, and equity which previously may have been adequate to cover debts will be brought into question. Scores of farmers are also being told that their financiers—second-tier financiers, very often—will not be able to obtain the money they need to be able to support their farming customers. Because of the government’s botched bank guarantee system, there is no money to help these people. A cheque in the mail for $950 is no help to you if your bank is going to foreclose. The government seems to have done nothing in this plan to help those people who are facing such stress. Did the government consider abandoning its plan to massively increase quarantine charges for Australian exports? Did the government consider reinstating the farm apprenticeships scheme, which it axed through its very first razor gang? Will it consider abandoning its plans to axe exceptional circumstances assistance for some of the most stressed people in agriculture? What about the dairy farmers of Australia, who are facing reductions of up to 40 per cent in their incomes, partly as a result of overseas price wars, which this government has done nothing to seek to intervene to stop? When the Europeans and the Americans subsidise their dairy products, that affects Australian farmers too, and the government has done nothing to intervene in that regard. Can’t the government end its cruel water buybacks, which are destroying the potential for farmers to survive into the future by putting pressure on them to sell their water so that they are permanently out of agriculture? These buybacks are designed to achieve the spurious agenda that the government has on its mind. The government has also proposed to spend some money on road maintenance—just $150 million. That will not even make up for the cuts in road maintenance that Labor has instituted since it has come into government. You could spend all of that on one road in my electorate and you still would not have caught up on the maintenance backlog just for that road. It is a paltry effort, a paltry contribution towards improving those roads and ensuring that they are available to support Australian industry. The reality is that this package has not been well thought through. There is no evidence that the government has suggested or considered other options. There is no evidence to suggest that it has any plan or vision for the future. If you title your package ‘nation building’, you would think there was a vision or a plan, but there is not. There is no coherent strategy to drive recovery. It is a short-term package to buy popularity for a government that is floundering to find a way through the economic crisis. There is little or no leverage for business to assure their financial viability for the long-term interests of the nation. There is nothing in this package which will provide a permanent role and strengthened position for Australian business. It is just about handouts, short-term cheques in the mail, which, once they are gone, leave little or no lasting legacy. How can you build a nation when that nation is going broke? This involves billions of dollars a year for decades to come that will have to be spent on debt repayments rather than building the roads and railway lines that we need for the future. Labor talks about its infrastructure spending, but it will come to nought if future generations are unable to fund the maintenance and ongoing effectiveness of our national infrastructure network. There is nothing in this package for pensioners and self-funded retirees. There are no tax cuts, except for the short-term investment allowance. The jobs of thousands of people are being lost in industries around the country and there is no hope for those people in this package. The government only expect to sustain 90,000 jobs as a result of an expenditure of $42 billion. Their own estimates say that there will be hundreds of thousands of Australians thrown out of work. This package offers no hope for those people. All it does is spend money for a moment’s happiness, which will be paid back through years of hardship and denial by future generations—our children and our grandchildren. 198 11:33:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —I rise to support the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, which are before the House today. This Nation Building and Jobs Plan is not just needed; it is demanded. It is demanded by the global economic crisis. It is demanded as a consequence of the crisis facing our national economy right now. The opposition appear to be in complete denial. We have seen this over many years and it certainly has not changed. In the past they have been climate change deniers, saying that climate change does not exist. From the comments we heard in this chamber yesterday, the Australian people need to seriously question whether those on the opposition benches actually believe that there is a global economic crisis going on right now. Certainly, from the comments that were made yesterday, you would think that this is just a stunt that has been made up by the government to initiate these sorts of packages. It is unbelievable that members, including shadow ministers, would stand up here in this chamber and make the comments that we heard not just yesterday but today. We have just heard the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals, talk about these measures just being handouts, saying that they are not about long-term initiatives and that they are not about investment in infrastructure. Clearly the opposition have not turned on a television in the last six months or picked up a newspaper since yesterday and read what this package is about. I should not need to do this, but I will do it anyway just so the people sitting on the other side of the chamber understand what this is about. Then they can go and tell the 13,000 students in primary schools in my electorate that this is just a cash splash! They can tell them that these are not long-term initiatives for schools. Go and tell Aspley East State School. Go and tell Aspley Special School—a school who received an award of excellence last year for their initiatives. Go and tell Bald Hills State School, Bracken Ridge State School, Clontarf Beach State School, Craigslea State School, Everton Park State School, Hercules Road State School, Humpybong State School, Kippa-Ring State School, McDowall State School, Norris Road State School, Redcliffe Special School, Scarborough State School, Somerset Hills State School, Stafford Heights State School, Queen of Apostles Primary School, Southern Cross Catholic College, St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Grace Lutheran Primary School, Mueller College, Northside Christian College, Prince of Peace Lutheran Primary School, St Paul’s Primary School, St Benedict’s Catholic Primary School and Woody Point Special School. Go and tell them that this is just a stunt, that this is not going to improve the education that is provided to these students in the future. They know differently, as do many other people across this country, including a lot of well-recognised organisations who have come out in support of this plan today. Heather Ridout, from the Australian Industry Group, is reported as saying: The package targets consumer spending, which is absolutely critical to our near-term economic prospects, and boosts capital expenditure—looming as one of the real casualties of the downturn. We heard from the member for Wide Bay that the initiatives for farmers are worthless and will provide no help, yet David Crombie, from the National Farmers Federation, released a press release only yesterday saying that the government’s $950 tax-free bonus for all drought-affected farmers will reach some 21½ thousand farmers, many needy families and regional economies. Likewise, Mr Crombie stated that the regional infrastructure package—and the member for Wide Bay seems to think that there is no investment in infrastructure by this government—will see a major revamp of country services and will shore up jobs in local communities. We have heard that this government, with this package, is being accused of not investing in important initiatives like road building, national infrastructure or health and nursing homes. I have not heard more hypocritical comments in the last 12 months than what I have heard this morning. When in government for 11 years, the opposition not only ignored health, nursing homes and national infrastructure—especially in Queensland, where, according to them, we do not have any national roads that need repairing or building—but ripped money from the state governments to ensure that they were not able to deliver on previous commitments to the local economy. We have not heard a lot of alternative propositions put up by the opposition in the last 24 hours, but one solution we have heard is that we should delay the emissions trading scheme. What a surprise it is to hear the Leader of the Nationals suggest that we should delay the emissions trading scheme! We know the confusion in this chamber and in the other chamber about where our colleagues stand on the emissions trading scheme. The solution to the economic crisis is not to ignore climate change; that will not fix the problem. These are issues that we need to deal with and we cannot shelve one problem to deal with the other. They are both important initiatives that affect not just our environment but our economy into the long term and, as has been shown by this Nation Building and Jobs Plan, they can actually work together to grow the economy, to support the economy and to support jobs. We have seen that in some of the initiatives for households, such as providing insulation and an increased rebate for hot water systems. These initiatives are important and need to be done now and in the near future. They not only address climate change but also help to support jobs. This national package, at the local level, will do a lot for my electorate. Just look at the social housing initiative—not just what it will provide at a social level to the community, which is so needed, but also what it will do to support jobs in the area. By building new units and new houses, you create demand for carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters and trades assistants. If the member for Wide Bay were to say to the people in my community and in every other community around Australia that this is just about throwing money around and will not support jobs, I am sure that those people would disagree. I know that my local schools are going to welcome this initiative. There are many schools which, for many years, have done without halls or state-of-the-art libraries but need shelters and maintenance. There are so many things we can do to support our schools. It is not just up to the state governments to do that. We, as a federal government, also have a responsibility to stand up and acknowledge the worth of our young people. They are our future, and if we do not invest in their education and in the schools and the teachers who support them and their families then this country does not have a future. So that is where we must start and that is what we are doing. I welcome this initiative in relation to the schools, at many levels. In relation to investment in local government community infrastructure, this package will not only support jobs once again in my local community but also provide necessary community infrastructure and services. The Redcliffe PCYC is one example of an organisation that I will be working closely with. I will lobby the local government to consider the complete refurbishment of the club as a worthwhile project. This is a facility that has more than 3,000 active members—young people who deserve good facilities to keep them active and to help them learn and socialise within the community. The PCYC does a fantastic job but we need to do more to assist it. I welcome in the gallery today Alan Sparks, the Chief Executive Officer of East Coast Apprenticeships, who is absolutely committed to creating jobs and training opportunities not just locally in Queensland but nationally. Alan spoke with me and representatives of this government this morning about the importance of addressing our skills shortage, about the need for further training and about how we can make these initiatives complement each other when we are talking about building and about maintenance—because, no matter what happens in the jobs market, we still have a skills shortage and we still need to address this problem. That is the point we need to keep making to the opposition: these issues do not just go away, and you cannot put them on the shelf and think that we can come back to this at a time when the economy is looking a bit better. There has never been a more important time to deal with these initiatives. These bills before us this morning are important; they are necessary. This country not only needs the government to act but demands that this government act. I call on the opposition to support these bills. 200 11:44:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —While the opposition may be taking the politically unpopular course with the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills by not immediately acquiescing to the government’s demand that we pass them without proper scrutiny—which is what they are demanding—we are prepared to take the courageous line because at least one political party in this country has to act responsibly. At least one political party in this country has to do what is right, not what is easy and politically popular. Those who are on the government benches are yet, since the election in November 2007, to make a difficult decision. They are following the advice of their senators from New South Wales who advise them to be prepared to go into deficit, and deeply, if it would help them to win the next federal election. They are doing that. They are being profligate with taxpayers’ money. They are making the easy decisions to spend, spend, spend. But the opposition, led by Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, are prepared to stand up for what is right, and in the end, in the long term, the Australian public will see this debate for what it is: one side of the House being prepared to take out the taxpayers’ credit card and run it up to the absolute limit, and the other side of the House being prepared to stand up for what is right, to stand up for proper scrutiny and to stand up for no debt and low deficits or surpluses. Those on this side of the House believe in fiscal rectitude. Those on the other side of the House believe in spending in order to buy their way out of difficulties—in the same way they have done since time immemorial. Labor’s way has always been to tax and spend. There is not a spending idea that most members of the Labor Party do not think is a worthy spending idea—because they are not spending their own money; they are spending taxpayers’ money. The pattern has been the same since the Whitlam government in 1972, and this government are the sons of Gough, the sons of Jim Cairns and even—in one case, literally—the sons of Frank Crean. There is a Crean in the Rudd government, and unfortunately he is allowing the government to pursue the same policies that his father, Frank, allowed his party to pursue in the Whitlam government. They are sons of Cairns, sons of Crean and sons of Gough. To those Australians who look at this package and see an advantage for themselves today and wish that the opposition would immediately support the package, I say: consider the long-term consequences. This package will put the Australian budget into tens of billions of dollars of debt overnight. Within four years, the country’s debt will be $70 billion, and that is the conservative estimate. In the longer term, our debt will be beyond the wildest nightmares of those of us who were dismayed by the Hawke-Keating government’s $96 billion debt when we took over in 1996. We had to fix up the mess that had been left to us by the Hawke-Keating governments. And isn’t it always the way! Labor spends and the Liberals and Nationals have to fix the mess. And it will happen again. It happened after 1929-32, when we had to fix the mess created by the Depression and exacerbated by the Scullin government. It happened again after 1972-75, a period when the oil shock crisis brought unprecedented economic conditions to Australia. That situation was exacerbated again by the Whitlam-Cairns-Crean government, and we had to fix the crisis. It happened again in 1996 and it will happen again in 2010. In the longer term, the Australian public will look at this package and think, ‘Thank God that one side of the House showed some responsibility while the other side of the House, the Labor Party, were prepared to spend into debt and deficit!’ This debt will dwarf the Kim Beazley black hole of $10 billion that we inherited in 1996. We are talking about a debt that will lead to higher taxes and reduced opportunities for our children—and not only for our children but for our grandchildren. As the father of four children all under nine years of age, I am not prepared to saddle them with such an enormous debt into the future. Other members of the House, those on the Labor side of the House, seem prepared to do so. I know that many members of the government have young children. They have obviously decided that saddling them with the debt gets them out of a fix and will help them win—they hope—in 2010. They have decided that their children and grandchildren can wear the consequences of the decision they are making today, just as long as they win and get their backsides back on the government side of the House in 2010. That is all that has ever mattered to the Labor Party. That was the advice of Mark Arbib, from New South Wales, when he went to see Rudd and Swan and told them, ‘We must spend into deficit if we want to win.’ That is the New South Wales way. That is why New South Wales is now a national disgrace economically, and it is why their government is almost as bad as Hugo Chavez’s government in Venezuela. The fine detail of these bills, which never made it into the Prime Minister’s set piece speech for the media and the spinmeisters—a speech for which he had obviously spent weeks preparing and to which he gave the Leader of the Opposition an hour and a half to prepare a detailed response—is that the government is raising the legislated limit on the government credit card from $75 billion to $200 billion. The government is essentially asking the parliament to give it a $200 billion blank cheque. But my greatest concern is in my own portfolio area of education, where the government has announced a package of $14.7 billion of spending. This will be welcomed by the schools sector. Who would not welcome it? Schools will be delighted that this money may be spent in their schools and institutions. But I say that it ‘may be spent’. They may have the estimates correct on how much this is going to cost, but we cannot, on this side of the House, give a big tick to this package, no matter how seemingly generous, given the track record of the Minister for Education in delivering the policies that were announced before the last election. In two key areas—trade training centres and computers in schools—the minister has hopelessly failed to deliver on the promises that were made by the now Prime Minister before the last election. The part-time Minister for Education, with her eye on the ball of industrial relations rather than education, has been manifestly unsuccessful in delivering the Trade Training Centres in Schools and computers in schools programs, and everybody in the sector knows it. While many are too intimidated to say so because the government is, of course, the biggest spender on education in Australia, the truth is they all know it. Computers in schools has been a manifest failure. It is in free fall. It is costing twice as much and delivering half as much as was promised. There was supposed to be one trade training centre for every one of the 2,650 secondary schools in this country. How many have been delivered? LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —I haven’t seen any. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —My honourable friend has not seen one in his electorate. Thirty-four have been delivered across the country. There is evidence that up to 10 schools in an area have to pool their resources to create a trade training centre, because principals know that a lathe in the corner of a classroom at the back of the school is not going to make the slightest difference to building skills and training and encouraging apprenticeships, vocational education and training in this country. So I think we can say with confidence that there will never be a time under the Rudd government when there is a trade training centre in every school across Australia. There will never be a time when there are 2,650 trade training centres in secondary schools, because it is out of the question that the money that has been allocated by the federal government would deliver a trade training centre in every school, and we are already seeing the need for principals to pool their resources. Coincidentally, the kinds of resources that are being created eerily mirror the old Australian technical colleges that my venerable colleague the member for Goldstein, and before him the former member for Moreton, established under the Howard government. The Labor Party have essentially abolished them, and they refuse to visit them because they know how good they are and do not want to see the work they are destroying. They have trashed Australian technical colleges and decided to go with trade training centres which, because of the pooling of resources, bear an eerie similarity to Australian technical colleges. Isn’t that always the way with Labor? They are driven by ideology, bureaucracy and the union movement and kill things that work if they are free of regulation, involvement and control from the centre. That cannot be allowed to happen—we cannot have more freedom or the capacity for things to compete and grow! It has to be dominated by the union movement and the government, whether state or federal. It is one of the enduring embarrassments of Labor and can be traced right back to their very beginnings in the late 19th century. In the package that has been announced there is a description of the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program as having received an outstanding response from schools across the country. The unreality of that statement struck me in its tendency towards Maoism. How absolutely ludicrous! It bears a similarity to Maoists’ descriptions of their own programs in the 1950s and 1960s, such as: ‘Consolidate and develop the grand achievements of the great proletarian cultural revolution,’ ‘Let’s go and save our money in the bank for the sake of building a happy life,’ and, ‘Warmly hail the successful happenings, warm care and great encouragement.’ These were the kinds of descriptions that Mao’s communist China used to put on its failed programs. In the package that was announced yesterday, trade training centres are described as having received an outstanding response from schools across the country. There are 34 out of 2,650 promised, hardly an outstanding response. Principals across the country are pooling their resources because of the paucity of the money that has been put forward for trade training centres. Federal President of the Australian Education Union Angelo Gavrielatos, no great friend of the coalition, described the centres as: … a modest investment— that— … won’t offer a long-term solution to skills shortages. That was post the election, after the coalition had been defeated with the AEU’s help. So how could trade training centres at the same time receive an outstanding response from schools? As I said, the suggestion has Maoist similarities in its air of unreality. I now turn to the computers in schools program and its absolute failure. So far we have seen Trade Training Centres in Schools, essentially an unsuccessful program run by a part-time education minister who is more concerned with her future in the Labor Party than she is with delivering the policies that were announced by the then Rudd opposition. But the greatest criticism of the Labor Party’s pathetic performance in education can really be saved for computers in schools. The computers in schools program was going to cost about a billion dollars and apparently deliver a laptop computer to every child between year 9 and year 12 in schools across the country. We have now seen it blow out to at least $2 billion. It is now costing twice as much and delivering half the value. The promise now is that every second child will have access to a laptop computer—every second child at twice the cost! On any reading, computers in schools is a dramatic failure of public policy. It blew out from a billion dollars to $1.2 billion and then to $2 billion and is delivering half the value. When will the next blow-out occur? On that basis, the latest announcements in yesterday’s package will cost not $14.7 billion but more likely $29.4 billion and deliver half of what is promised. Maybe a school hall will be shared between every two schools. This program has been a shambles from the start. And the Minister for Education, the part-time minister, bears absolute responsibility. In the first year, computers were allocated to less than 10 per cent of public schools in Australia, and many schools that were promised computers midyear had still not received them when their students left school for Christmas. Freedom of information applications and estimates hearings forced the government to reveal that the program was underfunded by several billion dollars, because it had not occurred to the minister that giving someone a computer without software, IT or ongoing maintenance or networking support was pointless. The minister tried to pass these costs on to the states and—surprisingly!—the states rebelled. The states revolted. And why wouldn’t they—because everybody knows that the uplift factor from $1 billion being spent on computers was dramatically more than the $1 billion outlay? The states simply did not have the money; they did not have the resources. Alan Carpenter, the then Western Australian Premier, said: It’s a matter of how you implement it rather than having boxes of computers which nobody can afford to use in schools. Independent Schools Queensland director of operations David Robertson said: Where independent schools have additional maintenance costs they have limited choices—raising fees, stop doing something they are currently doing or appeal for parent fund raising … Anne Gisborne, of the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia, said: … if you’re going to be putting forward something positive and constructive, and it can’t operate, then it’s fairly useless. I will repeat that: if you are going to be putting forward something positive and constructive and it can’t operate, then it is fairly useless. What better way to sum up all the announcements of the Labor Party in education over the last 18 months. They make a big announcement—trade training centres, computers in schools, money for numeracy and literacy—but, when the rubber hits the road in the delivery, the administration and the management of these programs, it is an abject failure. So why would the opposition tick off their latest big announcement, their latest hollow-man announcement of huge spending in the schools sector, when we have zero confidence in the capacity of the government to deliver this package on the ground in schools? We know full well that what will happen is that this will disappear into the ether, like the computers in schools program, like the trade training centres. The government will get a couple of good headlines, and the principals, the parents and the students will be left without any actual nourishment for the programs that have been announced. They will be delighted, initially. But the failure of administration, the failure of management and the failure to deliver will leave them hollowed out as individuals and schools, with the disappointment that that brings, because we know that the minister will be incapable of delivering this program. Finally, there are huge holes in this program from the point of view of education. With its $41½ billion of taxpayers’ money to be run up on the credit card, not one dollar has been earmarked for the response to the Bradley review of higher education. With the money being blown in the way that it is—with the latest cash splash, of over $11 billion, following up on the December cash splash of $10 billion, sapping away at the resources of the taxpayers of Australia—where will the money come from for the response to the Bradley review? Where will the money come from for improvements to aged care, which is in desperate need in this country? Where will the money come from for waiting lists in hospitals—for infrastructure in hospitals? There are so many holes in this package. In education alone, I have identified a number. The Labor Party, having pooh-poohed the Investing in Our Schools Program, is now seeking to bring it back! We support that. We believe in investing in our schools. We initiated that package. We wanted to keep that package. Labor abolished it. And now they are seeking to bring it back in this package. That is one area that we will look at in our response to this package that the leader, Malcolm Turnbull, will announce in the hours and days ahead. So, more in sorrow than in anger, the opposition will oppose this package in the House of Representatives and the Senate. 205 12:04:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise today to support these responsible bills: the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. I see the shadow minister for education leaving the chamber, but I would just say that I have not heard such a load of rubbish in this place for a long period of time. I do not know whether, as the shadow minister, he has actually visited any schools, but, from what I have heard about schools not receiving computers, I think he must not have. Last week hundreds of schools in my electorate received computers, and last year I was at schools where they had computers in their hands—they had them. He talked about trades training centres not being rolled out. Well, I had in my office a very tangible chair of the international marine skills training centre that is being built as a result of Labor’s investment in trade training centres in electorates like mine—a project that has been planned for five years but for which they could not get the investment they needed because the former government had an ideological bent towards these Australian technical colleges, which we know were expensive and have been a failure. But I have come here today to debate this stimulus package and not, as the shadow education minister did, to digress into some ideological arguments, quoting Mao and others, in relation to education. We have a plan to support the Australian economy through these difficult economic times, and it is very disappointing to hear that the opposition will be blocking the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Before I move on to that, I also need to make the point that I hope that the shadow minister for education will explain that to the 7,722 families in his electorate that will not be getting their back-to-school bonus and the 48 schools in his electorate that will not be receiving their $200,000 in additional maintenance and renewables, or the 40 schools that would have been able to apply for additional funding for infrastructure, whether libraries or other resources, and primary schools—because that is the reality of what this government is doing. At the core of this package is an investment in education, and it just shows the stark difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House when the shadow minister for education can come in here and talk such drivel. The Rudd government, as I have said, has brought forward a nation-building package and a job protection plan which has measures to invest in schools, in defence and social housing, in community infrastructure and local roads, and in practical measures to tackle climate change, such as providing free ceiling insulation to around 2.7 million Australian homes. We recognise that we also need to provide stimulus on the demand side. That is why we have included measures for one-off payments to eligible families, single workers, students, drought-affected farmers and others. Very importantly, we put in measures to support small business and business in general through increases in tax breaks for eligible assets. These measures are needed and have been well received in regions like that which I represent—Cairns and tropical North Queensland. Our regional economy is heavily dependent on the tourism and construction industries, which have been battered by the global financial crisis. A well-respected regional economist has estimated that the package in these bills will pump between $400 million and $500 million into the Cairns and tropical North Queensland economy, supporting up to 1,000 jobs in the region that I come from. That is what the opposition is opposing. I know through the partnerships I have developed with local business and community leaders that this package is needed. Jobs have been lost in the tropical north because of the global financial crisis, and the Prime Minister and Treasurer have again sought to stay ahead of the game through this package as the global economy has deteriorated. The International Monetary Fund recently revised down the growth forecasts for the world, with no nation coming out unscathed. World growth has been revised down from 3.4 per cent in 2008 to just 0.5 per cent this year. Developed economies are forecast to contract by two per cent, with the United States and Europe being in recession. Critically to Australia, China’s growth rate has also been downgraded substantially. Having grown in double-digit figures in recent years, China is forecast to grow at 6.7 per cent this year. Economic growth, particularly in countries like China, has driven the resources boom and underpinned economic growth in Australia. The boom is over and the IMF has forecast Australia’s economy will also shrink by 0.2 per cent, having only last year forecast a 2.2 per cent growth rate for Australia. The IMF is forecasting negative growth in Australia and, effectively, a technical recession. A responsible government does not stand by and let this happen. A responsible government acts decisively in the national interest and that is what the government is doing through this package of measures. When private-sector demand and investment dries up in times like these it has been economic orthodoxy for governments to step in and stimulate the economy, and that is what we are doing. As the Prime Minister has made clear, he does not like going into deficit but it is the right thing to do given the global recession that we are facing. The government is acting in the national interest. This is the responsible course of action given that we are facing the world’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This is the world’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and those opposite are opposing these measures and want us to sit on our hands. The government have also made it clear that we have a plan to bring the budget out of deficit but the opposition continues to rail against going into deficit. When growth returns we will put constraints on budget outlays and we will see the automatic stabilisers returned and bring the budget back into surplus. We have a plan to bring the budget back into surplus. We understand that it is responsible to maintain budget surpluses over the economic cycle, but we are clearly in difficult times. Arguments against a deficit by the opposition at this point in time just demonstrate how out of touch they are. I hope they are not seeking to play politics by opposing these measures, because this is not about the Labor Party or the Liberal Party—it is about the national interest. It is about the 21 million Australians out there who are facing very difficult economic times. This package has been widely welcomed by industry and community leaders and, if the opposition are not prepared to listen to the government, I ask them to listen to calls from these leaders to support the package. If you will not listen to us, then listen to what some of the third party and independent commentators have had to say. Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group said yesterday: The nation building and jobs plan announced by the federal government today is simple and substantial, and will provide a big stimulus to help keep the economy moving. Together with the interest rate cut, it has been a big day for monetary and fiscal policy—it’s a case of ‘all hands on deck’…The package targets consumer spending, which is absolutely critical to our near-term economic prospects, and boosts capital expenditure—looming as one of the real casualties of the downturn. Mr Wal King AO of the Australian Constructors Association said: The Rudd government’s $42 billion nation building and jobs plan announced today will play an important role in stimulating the Australian economy…This is a very thoughtful and well targeted program— He described it as thoughtful and well-targeted, and I agree— but this is the right time to invest in Australia to protect the future and today’s announcements are an important contribution. It is the right time to invest. Adrian Pisarski, of the National Shelter Inc., said: This is the biggest postwar public housing investment this country has seen, and is one that the Rudd government should be proud of … After 10 years of reduced funding from the Howard government, this is an unbelievable result for the people doing it toughest in this country … This funding was the missing element of the National Affordable Housing Agreement and will provide long term growth for the economy and the housing sector. I know that these measures are welcome in regions like mine, where the construction industry is doing it tough. I have talked a bit about education, and I notice that the shadow minister for education quoted Angelo Gavrielatos from the Australian Education Union. Let us see what he had to say about reality in terms of our package: In addition to providing an important economic stimulus, today’s announcement is the most important infrastructure investment the government can make. This investment will provide the opportunity for our schools to engage in urgent upgrades and to develop modern learning environments, which will improve education outcomes for our students. That is what the Australian Education Union representative, who was quoted by the shadow education minister, had to say about this package. Finally, the National Farmers Federation, who have not traditionally been great supporters of the Labor Party, have welcomed the package. David Crombie from the National Farmers Federation said: The Government’s $950 tax-free bonus for all drought-affected farmers—reaching some 21,500 farmers in need—will be a much-needed fillip to families and regional economies. Likewise, the regional infrastructure package … will see a major revamp of country services and shore-up jobs in local communities. Further, the $2.7 billion tax break for small businesses … will be greatly appreciated by those small family-owned farms. In light of these comments I urge the opposition to reconsider their position. If you do not want to listen to us, at least listen to those third-party independent commentators. The opposition have not put forward any plan to deal with the job losses we are facing in communities such as Cairns and tropical North Queensland. They do not put forward any plans but they oppose ours, and they should listen to those independent commentators. Their approach is to let the market sort it out, when clearly the market has failed and continues to fail. The opposition do not see a role for government in protecting and investing in jobs during this period. They talk about jobs but do nothing to support them. The Rudd government are not prepared to stand by and let Australian businesses and families down. We are strong supporters of free markets and economies, but we recognise that they fail and need to be properly regulated. I spoke about this in my first speech to this parliament last year. This is not the time for governments to stand idly by, as the opposition is suggesting. This is a time for the responsible action that this package of measures represents. 208 12:16:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills at a particularly serious time in our nation’s history—certainly from an economic and a futuristic point of view. Firstly, I have to talk about something I spoke about in this House last night. That is the state of the nation’s health administration and what goes with it. Last night I informed the House of the death of a man yesterday in Orange hospital. On Saturday evening he collapsed on Mount Canobolas, five minutes flying time to the hospital through the Orange helicopter service. He was three hours getting to the hospital because of the incompetence and the political bias of the New South Wales government, as they had not equipped the service, as they did the Wollongong and Sydney helicopters, with a winch. Through sheer incompetency and sheer political bias, the western New South Wales service does not have anything like the same capacity as the Wollongong helicopter, even though it has to deal with longer distances and worse terrain—the whole spectrum. Nor is it funded enough to be able to deal with issues over most of New South Wales, when the Wollongong helicopter service is—and it is only 12 minutes flying time from the Sydney base. The state of the health system, particularly in New South Wales and particularly in western New South Wales, is so bad that, when I listened to the Prime Minister speak yesterday about the $42 billion package, I kept thinking, ‘We are going to hear about health in a minute.’ I am still wondering why I have not heard a word about health. What we heard about is pretty much a social package. I do not think it is a stimulus package. As our leader, Malcolm Turnbull, said earlier this morning, there are no certainties when you are dealing with economics and the issues around them. But when you look at this package, it very definitely is not a package that, is there for the future. It is a package that is going to have a dead end. There is no flow-on effect. There is no end result. There is no productivity. There is no long-term gain for those involved in producing or for those involved in working. It is all here and now and short term. Yes, I guess that you could say that without doubt it will keep some jobs in the building industry, but it does not go beyond that. And we are talking about $42 billion here. It does not provide any ability to repay any of that $42 billion, because there is no productivity, there are no taxes coming back from it and there is no GST coming back from it in the natural course of events. Politically, it might have been a great thing at the moment for us to say: ‘Wonderful! We will go along with $42 billion.’ There are a lot of families that will get the best part of $1,000 because they have a single worker, they have children or they are family tax benefit B taxpayers. Yes, it would have been very easy to do that. In my electorate, I am sure there are a lot of people who would benefit from that. But there are also a lot of people who have a future in this country. In my electorate in the last four months, well over a thousand jobs have been lost in the mining industry. Most of these workers have families. It is true that some of them fly in from other parts of Australia to work, but almost every single one of those thousand workers earns over $50,000. My understanding is that a person’s tax situation as of 30 June last year determines whether or not they will receive the various payments—$950 for their children or whatever—so I do not think that one of those people will receive anything. Even if they do get a $950 one-off payment, if they have any brains at all they will put it in the bank for when things get even worse than they are now. There is not one thing in this package that is going to encourage an employer to offer someone a job or to make it any easier to get a job. The only job assistance will be to hold jobs in the building industry. There is nothing to make it less onerous for an employer to offer a job or to keep somebody in a job—not one thing. You cannot escape the fact—given that even the government is currently talking about seven per cent unemployment in a very short space of time—that the No. 1 issue that we have to look at now and in the near future is jobs, the No. 2 issue is jobs and the No. 3 issue is jobs. I keep looking at this package, and I see a social package. I do not see anything in it that encourages people to offer more jobs or that makes it easier for employers to keep jobs. There is just nothing there to do that, and there is certainly nothing there that will do that in my part of the world. When I look at what has happened—as I said, over 1,000 jobs have gone in the areas of Cobar, Nyngan and Parkes, just in my part of the world; that is, one job for every 90,000 people over the age of 18 who have the right to vote—it is quite incredible. I especially find it incredible that there is nothing in this package to reverse or to help that trend. When I look at where this money is going I see that there is no long-term future in where this money is being spent. There is no flow-on, no comeback, no return of production, no return of tax and no return of GST to help pay for the $42 billion. I can see what has happened here. The government have got together and said, ‘We’re going to go into deficit. Okay; we can handle $5 billion. Oh, come on; we can handle more than that.’ Suddenly they have gone into deficit and, with Labor governments the world over, once they have taken the first step it is very easy to keep taking more. It is not so easy for those of us who have to pay it back. I remember well the pain this country went through from 1996 to 1998 while steps were taken to reverse the last trend. You cannot deny that it can be necessary to borrow money to get an outcome, but this is a one-off situation; there will be no flow-on to help it come back. Look at where the money could be spent. If you really want to do things to help the country, to help productivity, to help jobs and to help skill levels, you should look at water infrastructure. When the now Leader of the House was shadow minister for water and infrastructure, he kept saying that the $10 million water plan was not being front-end loaded. He said that we needed to front-end load it and do all the infrastructure things in the first three years. It was a little different when Labor got into government. They wanted to front-end load it, all right, but not into spending money on water. They wanted to buy it. They just wanted to take it out of production. As I have said in this House before, they were not trying to sort out the Murray-Darling Basin; they declared war on the people in the Murray-Darling Basin and they still are. I agree with his front-end loading right now—but invest in the infrastructure. There is one project which is currently being looked at. We provided money to do a study on how to save water in the Macquarie Valley. There are enormous amounts of water that could be saved. Off the top of my head, I think there are 60,000 or 70,000 megalitres—about 10 per cent of all the water in Burrendong Dam could be saved in that region, and this is just on two irrigation schemes, and including the towns of Cobar and Nyngan, which depend upon water being pumped from the Macquarie through the Albert Priest to those towns and the mines that support them. You could spend that money there now and you could create jobs. All the miners who are losing their jobs around Cobar, Nyngan and Parkes would be perfect people to be involved in the infrastructure work that would be needed to put in new channels, to put in pipes and to make the schemes around Trangie, Narromine and Nevertire all the way through to Nyngan much more water efficient and much more productive and give viable options for the future. I cannot think of anything that would meet the current crisis better. It is better than simply throwing money away on a one-off situation. I guess it is not popular politically to suggest investing in industry rather than in a one-off situation to people. But in the long term it all has to be paid back by the same taxpayers who are going to be getting a short-term benefit today. You can invest in returning things like water—not just for agriculture but for towns and water authorities around regional Australia and everywhere. But that seems too complicated—it is not simple enough—and apparently it does not hit the particular target group this government wants to spin doctor. When I look at it I see the way it is intended to be spent. Malcolm Turnbull, our coalition leader, mentioned earlier this morning that the old Investing in Our Schools Program, which is being copied now, was very popular and, with the non-government school system, every cent that was allocated to them went to them. However, for New South Wales at least, because the state schools did not have a separate accounting system, because they could not actually outsource their auditing et cetera, it had to be done through the New South Wales Department of Education. Naturally, they took 15 per cent of it. Given that this is basically what they are going to do again, this means that the states will pull in about $3 billion just by saying that they are administering part of the $42 billion. I think that is quite incredible. I think that to put up this package without getting the states to agree not to do that is totally irresponsible and ridiculous. I welcome $950 going to farmers who are receiving EC payments. However, that is very much targeting particular people. There are 21,000 farms receiving the household support payments or the money for homesteads. That would be in the order of one farm in every five in Australia. That is fine, but I think we would be far better off spending money on roads that were going to have tolls on them, not only to help production and to help the passage of people and everything else but because there would be a future in it and a long-term gain in it. It would help our taxpayers today, and their children, to repay this money, because it will have to be repaid. It took too long, and it was too hard, to pull back the $100 billion that we had to pull back. I have no doubt that we are going to end up with every bit of $200 billion being owed. The current government is trying to extend their credit limit from $75 billion to $200 billion, and I have no doubt they will spend every cent of it. If the government wants to do something serious about investing in the community and about having a stimulus package, why would it, on one hand, pull $60 million out of CSIRO a few months ago, when now it is talking about putting $88 billion in total so far into rejuvenating the state of the nation in Australia? That is $88 billion, and yet not long ago it took $60 million out of one of the organisations which provides for the future of our country better than most. Quite a lot of that $60 million came out of research into agriculture, the money that CSIRO spends on horticulture and other things to ensure long-term sustainability, ability to deal with disease and ability to come up with new and efficient ways in horticulture and other types of agriculture. I find it incredible that the government does not want to invest in water except to buy it and take it out of production. It does not want to invest in the future of agriculture. The government wants to take away money that has been earmarked for long-term research. Especially when you consider that all the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and his boss want to talk about is climate change, when the government is expecting farmers to produce more with the same or with less, why pull this money out of agriculture and then spend $88 billion on Australia one way or another? I think we have to look at everything from the point of view of the future. We cannot for one second forget that $42 billion does not come easily and that it is very hard to pay back. Like everybody else in this House I, too, have many schools in my electorate—the biggest electorate in New South Wales—in the far outback or in places like Blayney, Sofala, in the east, or Orange. Every time I see these schools—and I have a large family myself—I think at least $2,000 of this particular package, let alone what might come in the future, is owned by every man, woman and child in Australia. Let us not forget that it has to be paid back. I look at communications and I think that it is not long ago that this government wiped a contract that was already signed by the previous government to provide broadband to regional Australia. They would do very well to relook at that contract, talk to Optus and Elders and say, ‘Would you consider doing that again?’ because by the end of this year they would have had broadband available to almost everybody in rural and regional Australia. It is quite obvious that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Senate has not the faintest idea where he is going with broadband and that there is nothing in the future. Broadband is about productivity. It is about communication. It is about helping country people to do things at a time when we are going to be up against it. And we will need every means at our disposal, be it social or, more to the point, productive—be it for a farm or for anyone with a business at home—to fix the broadband up for very little money by comparison with what is currently being looked at to throw at whoever they can come up with to give them a viable tender. At the moment I think the minister has no idea where he is going. Just think about it: by the end of this year regional Australia could have had a very viable, very broad-ranging broadband network. The $42 billion—$2,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia—is not long-term money. It is here to be spent and, even with the schools, even with the infrastructure spending, there is no gain afterwards. Whether their school needs it or not, it would be nice for kids to have a new library or hall or whatever it might be. But we have to, at the moment, take a view which is in the best, long-term interests of Australia at a time when we are going to need it. I look at this and I think it is a little bit like the Democrats in America using the current situation to pursue a social rather than a stimulus agenda. We have to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘Let us remember we are talking $42 billion, not $42.’ It does not matter how quickly you say it; it is one heck of a lot of money. It has to be paid back. Right now we have to think about our children’s future as well as our future. 211 12:35:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 0 Mr GIBBONS — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. Most of the world’s major advanced economies are in recession, and emerging economies like China and India are slowing dramatically. No country will escape the falling economic growth, job losses and budget deficits that will flow from this. The recession is now bearing down on the Australian economy with growth slowing and employment weakening, but the Liberal Party stands there just like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. No matter how many arms and legs they have lost, they will just not give in and accept that they are wrong. They keep on advocating the same policies that caused the global economic crisis in the first place. Just last weekend the shadow Treasurer was singing the praises of the voodoo economics of the 1970s. Across-the-board tax cuts are the opposition’s answer to everything, despite the fact that these have been one of the main causes of the economic problems in the United States, problems that have now spread to almost every country in the world. The shadow Treasurer’s claim that reducing tax rates will increase tax revenues for the government is straight out of the Ronald Reagan neoconservative policy manual, a manual that is now so discredited. Two years ago, the architect of that tax theory, Art Laffer, said the US economy had never been in better shape. He said that there was no possibility of the US real estate bubble bursting in 2007 or 2008. In fact, he even bet someone a penny that there would be no recession by 2008—and this is someone that the shadow Treasurer is looking to for political policy guidance! In 1987, Ronald Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. For almost 20 years Mr Greenspan argued for extreme free market economics and against regulation of the financial markets. Last October, Mr Greenspan admitted that the ideology that had guided his term as Federal Reserve Chairman was wrong, yet this is the same ideology that we hear from the Liberal and National Parties today. The Liberals have no more credibility on economic policy today than Art Laffer or Alan Greenspan. Australians are indeed fortunate that they voted for a change of government before this economic crisis hit our own shores, because the Rudd Labor government is the government that is taking action to shelter Australians from the worst effects of the global economic downturn. It is taking decisive action to help all Australians, not just a wealthy few, to deal with the uncertain times ahead. This $42 billion economic stimulus package is the latest example of the government’s well-thought-out, targeted initiatives to support the Australian economy and Australian jobs. It gives support to families and individuals to ensure we keep demand and consumption flowing in the short term and it also lays the groundwork for a stronger economy when we emerge from the global recession by investing in essential community infrastructure like schools, housing and local roads projects. Of course, this means that the government will have to take the budget into a temporary deficit; with $115 billion wiped off government revenue by the global recession, there is little choice. But the government will stick to its election commitment to keep the budget in surplus over the economic cycle, with a firm plan to reduce the surpluses as growth returns and the global recession turns around. The economic crisis is affecting my electorate of Bendigo, just as it is every other part of the Australian nation. People are doing it tough as businesses contract and jobs are lost, and this is happening after more than a decade of the worst drought in living memory. So I think it is important to highlight how this economic stimulus package will benefit many of those in my electorate. Firstly, many individuals will receive targeted bonuses that will not only help with higher living costs but also provide an immediate stimulus to the economy and support local jobs; some 11,000 families will receive back to school bonuses of around $950 to help with the cost of children returning to school; more than 260 farmers and small businesses affected by the drought will receive a hardship payment of $950; students and people looking for work will receive a training and learning bonus of $950 to help with their study costs; and everyone whose taxable income was less than $100,000 in the 2007-08 tax year will benefit from a payment of up to $950. There is support for all of the 90 schools in my electorate, whether public, private or independent, that builds on the government’s education revolution. Every primary school will receive help to build or upgrade large-scale infrastructure such as libraries and multipurpose halls. There is funding for high schools to build new science laboratories and language learning centres. Every school will receive up to $200,000 for maintenance and renewal of school buildings and minor building works, and there is additional funding to accelerate the government’s Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, which helps to provide high-quality trade training to secondary school students. These educational initiatives will not only help schools and their students; local communities will also benefit. A key requirement of the package is that major facilities in primary schools which are built or upgraded with this funding, such as halls or indoor sporting centres, must be made available for community use. This will particularly be beneficial for the smaller townships right throughout my electorate, and local communities will also benefit from an additional $500 million to expand on the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program for strategic projects. This program funds local government community infrastructure projects such as town halls, libraries, community centres and sports centres. There is a high proportion of low-income earners in my electorate, and many will benefit from the commitment to build new social housing. Most of the new houses will be completed by December next year, and this will help provide a significant boost to the local housing and construction industry. Small business is the backbone of a regional economy, and it is no different in Bendigo. The temporary business tax break announced yesterday will help many local businesses to increase productivity by investing in new plant and equipment. Another particularly welcome set of initiatives is the $890 million to improve community infrastructure and road safety. Many lives are needlessly lost on regional roads, and these measures will be a major benefit for regional communities. An additional $30 million for the years 2008 and 2009 and $60 million in 2009 and 2010 for the Black Spot Program comes on top of the government’s announcement in December that it would more than double the black spot funding from 2008-09 from $50 million to $110 million. These are magnificent increases in a very, very valuable project. Every dollar spent on the Black Spot Program is estimated to save $14 in reduced road trauma costs. And, for the first time, a portion of additional funding will be allocated to black spots on Australia’s national highways, which until now have been excluded from the program. There have been several serious accidents on rail crossings in regional Victoria, and there is an urgent need to reduce the risks faced by road and rail users at these types of intersections. Yesterday’s announcement included $50 million in 2008-09 and $100 million in 2009-10 to speed up installation of around 200 sets of boom gates and other safety measures at high-risk rail crossings that do not already have such controls. The government will also provide a further $150 million in 2008-09 to help the states and territories fund a backlog of maintenance projects on Australia’s national highways. Although all new homes must be insulated, many older homes, which make up about 40 per cent of Australia’s housing stock, are uninsulated. Many of these older homes are in regional areas, and insulating them will help reduce Australia’s carbon emissions, reduce energy bills and support local jobs. Installing free ceiling insulation in Australian homes will cut around $200 a year from household energy bills and will support the jobs of tradespeople and workers employed in the manufacturing, distribution and installation of ceiling insulation products. And the government has not forgotten the many vulnerable households that do not own their own home and are renters. To help these households lower their greenhouse gas emissions and save money on energy bills for the next two years, the government will double the rebate currently available to landlords to install insulation in their rental properties from $500 to $1,000. I am proud to speak here today in support of a package of measures that are economically responsible and appropriate for the highly uncertain times in which we are living. It is a package of measures which is only possible due to the sound economic policies of previous Labor governments. Without the far-reaching economic reforms introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments, Australia would not have enjoyed the economic prosperity that it has over the last decade and would not be in such a strong position to weather the looming global recession. These measures could never have come from the Liberal and National parties had they been in power at this difficult time, as the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated by announcing that that they will not support the package in either the House or the Senate. This is just dog-in-the-manger politics. They may as well stand up in this House and punch themselves in the head a few times. Their response is driven by the same discredited, extreme capitalist ideology that made the measures necessary in the first place. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, they just do not know when to give up. The voters kicked you out because they do not want any more of your extreme ideology. Once again, we are a lucky country: lucky to have a Labor government, a competent government and a responsible government in office at this time. I commend the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan to the House. 214 12:45:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. It is with a great deal of pride that I note that Australia is the 17th largest economy in the world, and it is with pride that I note that the Deputy Prime Minister, in Davos, extolled the virtues of our banking system and the regulations that have been put in place to protect the financial wellbeing of Australians. Australia does not have a Lehman Brothers bank; Australia does not have a Royal Bank of Scotland. We have secure banks. One of the things that have spiralled this country ahead of the race down the track towards a recession was the prophets of doom and gloom straight after the elections. Straight after the election the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Deputy Prime Minister all stood up and said: ‘The economy is too hot. Inflation is a problem. We have to slow down this economy.’ So up went interest rates. Then what happened? The events that started to occur in September last year in overseas countries started to come through. They basically stalled our economy through their rhetoric. They destroyed the confidence that investors in Australia had—investors such as small businesses that are the backbone of this country and that employ many people. They started to destroy that confidence, and then came this policy of splashing cash to try to fix the issue. There are many reporters with economic credibility who report that other than in a few select areas in retail there has been no great benefit and that 75,000 new jobs were not created because of that $10.4 billion. The cash splash was a relative failure that Australia could not afford. I read about the ‘Key Economic Forecasts’ and the ‘Budget Bottom-Line’ in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. Why did I have to read that in the Sydney Morning Herald? Because the documents were only tabled a very short time ago. In fact, the statement and the notes that accompanied the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday were only printed in limited numbers. I am sure that every interested journalist got one, but there were none for every member of this House—and that is a disgrace. Members of this House are elected to represent the people of their electorates and to look after the financial benefits and employment prospects of individual Australians and in particular, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech today, to look after future generations and the children of this nation—that is, the people who are going to be saddled with this $42 billion debt. Forty-two billion dollars in 48 hours is just under $1 billion per hour of expenditure, with no proven fact or science that it will actually work. In the Herald this morning I read that, as we all knew, the budget was to be $21.7 billion in surplus. The projection for next year was a $19.7 billion surplus, for the year after that it was a $19 billion surplus and for the year after that it was an $18.9 billion surplus. That was the track on which the coalition had taken government policy over its time in government. We went from a deficit-run government in the Hawke-Keating era to one of surpluses. We put money away for a rainy day and, true, this is that rainy day. But the new predictions are that this year we will have gone from a $21.7 billion surplus to a $22.5 billion deficit. Next year we will go from a surplus of $19.7 billion to a $35.5 billion deficit. In 2010-11 we will go from a $19 billion surplus in the forward estimates to a $34.3 billion deficit, and in the fourth year of forward estimates, in 2011-12, we will go from an $18.9 billion surplus to a $25.7 billion deficit. All of those deficits are individual, and then we look at the cumulative effect. That money will need to be paid back. Many members of this House were not in parliament in 1996. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were not in this House in 1996 to see the measures that had to be put in place to address the $96 billion worth of debt that was left to the coalition to fix. We had to make some tough decisions; there were spending cutbacks. But, you know, we did not penalise the individual. We did not put taxes up. In fact, what we did was to make the tough economic reforms and address the deficit, which was paid off. There was a lot of pain, but we found that we were paying around $8 to $9 billion per year in interest rates on that deficit. As we started to reduce the deficit, that money was freed up and could be spent on other things or actually given back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. Many were the times on budget night that the Treasurer got up and announced yet again another tax cut. In fact, we went to the election last year forecasting tax cuts in excess of $30 billion. Today the Leader of the Opposition has called on the government, as part of the package, to bring forward the tax cuts from 2010 to now. That will mean that every household—including two-income households—earning around $80,000 will be around $1,700 per annum better off. It is putting the money back into the pockets of people over a period of time. Quite often, once-off payments create an initial splurge and, as we have heard, two-thirds of the $10 billion package was more than likely spent paying off debt. What is more important is that payments are regular, that people can count on them and that they can invest in their daily life. Whilst the $1,400 that was given to our pensioners was good money and well deserved, it was spent on either paying off credit cards or paying off one bill, yet here we are, after Christmas, in February, and still they are back on $273 a week. The government intends to spend $42 billion, but why aren’t the pensioners taken care of? Why isn’t there a $30-a-week increase in their pension now so that they can afford to live a little better for a longer period? I look at this government and I compare it to when I first started work as an apprentice. My first pay packet back then—it was a few years ago!—was $11 a week. I found that, as I was working, I was able to get a thing called a bankcard. And, because I did not receive much in the way of financial training when I was at school, I thought it was free money. But then one day, when I got the bill about a month later, I worked out that it was not free money and I actually had to pay it back—and I had to pay it back with interest. This government is treating taxpayers as though this money is free money. But the reality is that it is the taxpayers, not the government, who will have to pay back this money. It is young taxpayers, who are currently going through school, who will be burdened with this debt. Whilst some of this $42 billion of spending in one hit is very good spending on infrastructure, it has not been proven that it will fix the problem in the long term. Even the Prime Minister said, ‘This is no silver bullet.’ But the reality is that he and his leadership team were given the opportunity to sit down with the coalition and work through which packages would be financially affordable for Australia to achieve the direction in which we want to take Australia. But, no, the Prime Minister and his Labor team have gone it alone. This Prime Minister and his Labor team want to guillotine this debate for $42 billion tonight so they can ram the legislation through the Senate to ensure that the $950 expenditure for those lucky individuals who will receive it—and not all Australians will receive it—will actually start to appear in spending in the March quarter. The Prime Minister was not averse to calling a 2020 Summit to gather Australia’s best and brightest together to bring ideas to the table. But, at a time when you have an economic crisis, why wasn’t the Prime Minister gathering together Australia’s best and brightest around the table and working out what package would work and what would benefit all Australians not only today but in the future? After seeing one of the bills here, I fear that this is only the tip of the iceberg. One of the bills we are being asked to sign off on today will allow the government to increase borrowings to $200 billion. That is an awful lot of money—I do not know whether I could write that many zeros. If I think about my own household income, and indeed if many Australians think about their own household income, $200 billion is just a telephone number. It is something they do not easily understand. But, when they are going to be faced with increased tax payments, they will truly understand it. We as a nation grew and we were able to climb through the Asian meltdowns, the US recessions and other economic crises because we had taken hard measures, because we had created a confidence—and that is the key word in all this—in our economy, a confidence in the leadership of this government, whereby people were prepared to invest and spend. Today we are seeing people locking up their money, and none worse than the banks. The Ruddbank will only satisfy some of the larger property developers. But can I say to you—and it is a well-known fact—that it is the small to medium-sized businesses that enable our country to survive economically. It is the small to medium enterprises which employ the broad majority of Australians. Now the banks are revaluing the assets of those people and, quite often, putting foreclosure notices on their businesses. They demand and ensure that, in this environment, they recover their money—damn what it does to the local business; damn what it does to the people who are employed there—and, in most situations, people have never defaulted on loan payments. But the banks are tightening up and, as the banks tighten up, because of the lack of confidence in this Labor government we will see more small businesses close. We will see more people hit the unemployment queues, and there will be fewer people working who are able to pay the tax to cover the debt. So it is a vicious cycle. I hear members opposite say, ‘It will do wonderful things, and I can do this and I can do that.’ What worries me about this finance package—and I understand that all the state premiers are coming here tomorrow, and who wouldn’t with this bucket of money on the table?—is that it will just be a shift of dollars to the states. As I look around Australia and, in particular, at New South Wales, where I come from, I see the New South Wales government is not only morally bankrupt but financially bankrupt. It has no ability to manage its economy. That is typical of Labor. This Labor government is now going to give it billions upon billions of dollars more money, without demanding one single reform by that government to ensure that it spends our money—taxpayers’ money—wisely and efficiently. So what we will see in the states is more of the same. The Prime Minister has talked about maintenance programs and new halls. As I drive around my electorate, the biggest issue is not necessarily school halls or maintenance; the issue is the number of demountables the kids have to sit in at school. That is an issue, but that has not been addressed. No, it is all about ribbon cutting—having a new school hall to cut the ribbon of. These things do absolutely nothing, as I see it, to improve the educational standard where the kids sit in the classroom from go to whoa every day they go to school. They might visit the school hall once a week for assembly or a drama performance. Also, this package has failed to address one of the biggest issues in Australia—that is, health care. After all, it was the Prime Minister who stood up and said, ‘I have a national plan.’ It was the Prime Minister who said, ‘If the states don’t get the health system right in 12 months, I will step in and I guarantee to fix the problem.’ He had a plan, and he also said that the buck stops with him. The reality is that the bucks—or the dollars—have stopped with him, because there is $10 billion being held up that has not flowed through. Structural reform is needed in the administration of both education and health in the states. We should be focused on outcomes, not just on political spin and on bailing out state governments for their re-election opportunities. As I say, there are some good points. I spoke yesterday in a briefing with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, and he spoke to me of the Defence Housing expenditure—an additional 802 homes over and above the forward estimates, at a cost of $251 million. The program annually is around $151 million, building 500 houses per annum. Our defence people deserve to have the best accommodation that we can provide to them, and I do not deny them that. But, instead of spending $251 million on houses, perhaps the government could have reduced the burden on the bottom line by entering into more lease agreements, entering into leased properties for our servicepeople and giving them some choice. I sit there and look at this package, and I look at the people who are presenting this argument and at the urgency with which they do it. I am reminded of Gough Whitlam in the seventies, who loved being Prime Minister so much and did not want to be bothered with all the detail; he just let his ministers spend, and spend recklessly. We incurred debt that took us 30 years to recover from. I also notice this $200 billion, and it brings back reflected memories of the Khemlani affair: ‘Get the money wherever and however you can; just make sure that we keep up with the spending.’ Spending to avert crisis is not wrong as long as it is properly managed. Spending to keep people in jobs is not wrong as long as it is properly managed. I see $42 billion, the largest single expenditure as one package ever in Australia’s budget—a billion dollars an hour is what we are asked to approve—as reckless spending, because they have not bothered to sit down with the coalition, or, indeed, even with the smartest, the brightest and the best, whom the Prime Minister brought to the 2020 summit, and to look at what can be done to make sure that we have a better Australia. In conclusion, I was rather concerned at a media article a couple of months ago on a thing called the Pappas report. The Pappas report said not only that the government had already taken $1 billion a year, or $10 billion over the next 10 years, out of the defence budget but that Mr Pappas felt that another $3 billion in cuts could be sustained in Defence. I say to you that that is rubbish. It is rubbish because at the moment there are civilians in Defence who are losing their jobs because of these cutbacks. There are troops who are deployed to East Timor who cannot even get mosquito nets to protect themselves from the mosquitoes at night. I know the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, sitting at the table here, is an ex-serviceman himself—and for that I respect and congratulate him—but I say to you, Parliamentary Secretary: your former colleagues are now deployed in Timor and do not have mosquito nets. Is it a part of your budget cutbacks that we cannot provide basic amenity to those men and women who go to serve this nation, and serve this nation well, and that you have cut back on the supply of provisions to them? Parliamentary Secretary, I ask you to take it up with your minister and ask why these people do not have basic provisions to protect them from the natural elements. They do not ask for much and they serve our nation well, but I think that we as a nation should never cut back on basic necessities which they need to do their job. I never thought that I would stand between a bucket of money and constituents, but I have to say this: you have to have restraint and you have to show respect and responsibility. If I approve this $42 billion, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning—and I look into the eyes of those schoolchildren and think about this—then I am going to put up to a $9½ thousand debt on every man, woman and child in Australia. I cannot responsibly do that. But I say to the government: we, the coalition, are prepared to sit down and meet you to talk through a complete package—perhaps a smaller package—that will be for the benefit of this nation in the long term. (Time expired) 218 13:05:00 McKew, Maxine, MP BP4 Bennelong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare 1 0 Ms McKEW —I rise to support the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, which provide a huge stimulus package which will support families and rebuild the nation. The $42 billion spend is immense—I acknowledge that; it is not in the normal order of things—but the government is faced with a bitter set of statistics. The majority of our trading partners are in recession; we have seen the halving of growth in China and a collapse in commodity prices. Australia is bracing for tough times, and the times require a comprehensive, bold package, to be delivered in a speedy manner. While I say that this package is not in the normal order of things, it is entirely orthodox. When the private sector retreats, it is up to the public sector to fill the gap. We are seeing this around the world—in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States—and this is the context, I think, in which this package needs to be considered. As the Prime Minister has been saying, across the world what started out as a financial crisis has now turned into an economic crisis and risks becoming an employment crisis. Wherever you look—whether it is Nicolas Sarkozy in France or Gordon Brown in the United Kingdom—governments know that they have to lead their economies with targeted and timely intervention. Indeed, newly elected US President Barack Obama is working on an US$800 billion stimulus package right now but he has not yet secured agreement from all sides in the US congress. This delay is deeply regrettable not only because so much of the world still looks to the United States to take the lead but, most importantly, because of the widening human despair across America. Every day it seems we hear of more lay-offs in once great American companies. Already 2½ million Americans have lost their jobs. Just think of the despair of that. While the congress bickers, ordinary Americans are learning to cope with shattered expectations. They are still waiting for the government to step in and alleviate the pain, to do what economic orthodoxy demands during recessionary times: an opening of the public purse to resuscitate a contracting economy. But what do we have here in the Australian parliament? It is obviously the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to emulate the Republican recalcitrants in the US congress. Isn’t that interesting? How at odds this is with what the coalition’s traditional supporters are saying! Katie Lahey, the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, said: The Rudd Government has acted quickly and responsibly to limit the impact of the global recession … The package delivers a substantial economic stimulus … Peter Verwer, the CEO of the Property Council of Australia, has praised the initiatives and said that they will ‘inject billions of dollars of new capital directly into the community’. From my own area in the north-west of Sydney in the seat of Bennelong, Andrew Bland, the chairman of the Ryde Business Forum, said that there are excellent moves in the packages. He has particularly praised the excellent tax incentive provided for small business to invest in capital expenditure items. Interestingly, he also said: This will hopefully flow through to increased sales and benefit the business community as a whole. We are also hopeful that the cash incentives provided to most consumers will also have a similar positive effect to that experienced late last year. That is praise for last year’s stimulus package and a welcome for the one that we are debating today. Interestingly, those three comments came from what one could say would be the traditional coalition supporters. So much for the Leader of the Opposition being in touch with mainstream Australia and mainstream orthodoxy! When I am talking to people in my electorate, most people say similar things. They want their government to be practical and they want a government that is compassionate. In the light of today’s debate, it is very interesting, particularly for me, to look back and reflect on why the seat of Bennelong, a traditional Liberal seat, fell at the last election, in 2007. It was not because of redrawn boundaries and it was not because of any particular antagonism towards John Howard. It was because of the deep sense of betrayal felt by so many individuals in Bennelong. Time and time again when I was out doorknocking in suburbs like Epping, Gladesville, Denistone and North Ryde— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs interjecting— 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—If the member for Mayo wishes to be here to deliver a speech, he will remain silent. BP4 McKew, Maxine, MP Ms McKEW —people continually expressed their deep disappointment that the coalition government was wasting the prosperity. As the tax revenues rolled in, as the bounty of the mining boom rolled in, people wondered why the coalition government was not building the skills of the 21st century, was not greening our households and was not providing for the homeless. The Leader of the Opposition today has the hide to talk about the need for prudent financial management. Yet he was part of a government that time and time again put self-interest above the national interest. If anyone doubts that, they should get a copy of The Howard Years, brought to us by your ABC late last year. Have a look at the opportunism, the naked politicking and, in many cases, the sheer delight of so many key ministers in the coalition government who could not believe their good luck that they got away with it so long. I know that many people in Bennelong squirmed when they watched this, and they felt roundly vindicated that they had sent the Liberals packing. People in Bennelong work hard and they want a government that works hard in their interest. They want a government that champions their beliefs and their interests. And they particularly want that at a time when national confidence is so fragile. That is what the government’s stimulus package does and why it is so important. Australians want action. They want to see builders with fresh contracts and redesigned smart school buildings that mirror the excellence of the teaching that goes on inside those buildings. They want us to help them remake their houses so that they too can do their bit to save the planet. I will finish by quoting from one of my constituents, Mr Peter Trickett, who lives in the north-west of my electorate, in Epping. He wrote to me only last week. He praised the government for the first stimulus package but he pointed out that, as the managing director of an engineering consultancy, he was very concerned about the impact of the downturn on the building industry. He had already seen eight projects delayed indefinitely. Being a practical man, Mr Trickett made some suggestions in his letter. First of all, he said an immediate stimulus was needed for construction. Most importantly, he stressed the need for community projects of the kind that would support local tradespeople and the other businesses that support them. He said the significant issue is to start now. Interestingly, Mr Trickett gave an example of a project that would be in the overall interests of the community and at the same time help the building industry. He said: … an example of the type of project to consider would be to eliminate all demountable classrooms in New South Wales. I would like to point out to the previous speaker, the member for Paterson, that this indeed is one of the options available in the schools package that is part of the overall stimulus package. I can say today to Mr Trickett: the Rudd government is listening and is acting. Like the Prime Minister, I look forward to the schools in my electorate becoming centres of economic activity where local people work to improve schools, where children learn. Recessions are traditionally brutish things. They can empty us out. You see it in the ‘for lease’ signs, the abandoned construction sites, the deferred ambitions and the lengthening unemployment queues. But it does not have to be like this. That is why the Prime Minister has said he will move heaven and earth to support Australian jobs and shield the Australian economy from the worst effects of the global economic crisis. The dramatic reversal of our economic fortunes has reminded everyone of a key Labor principle, and that is the critical importance of balancing the public and the private. That is what this package does. I commend the bills to the House. 221 13:15:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I too rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the cognate bills that we are debating today in this rushed manner in this House. I follow a member who, I note, although she talked about doorknocking during the 2007 federal election, failed to show her face during a by-election in a state seat, which was interesting. Today the Leader of the Opposition has taken a principled but right stand. Today he has taken a decision which will not be popular in the eyes of the electorate and in the published opinion polls, but it is the right thing to do for our country. In my maiden speech I made the point that I come here with a set of principles to stand for. I also made the point that, no matter how big the bullies were on the other side, we would not be bullied; we would look at packages like this and make decisions based on our principles. One of those principles is that we should not leave this country in worse condition for our children than we found it in. This package—and the whole economic management of this government—will leave this country in a worse position than we found it in. It will do so by racking up so much debt that opportunities for our children in the future will be greatly reduced. It will leave them with a higher tax burden and it will damage their opportunities for a better life. I do not say this lightly. The decision we have taken in the party room and the very courageous decision taken by our leader will not be popular in my electorate or the electorates of many of my colleagues in the short term. But I think that in the longer term people will respect the fact that we have stood up for them and that we have not been bullied into a populist stunt by the government, based on politics. That is what these bills before the House are all about. What does this package purport to do? It does several things. It spends money in all sorts of places—other people’s money. Let us not forget that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about our constituents’ money, not ours. The package does some things which I support—for instance, school modernisation, or a new version of the Investing in Our Schools Program, a Howard government program cut by this government which I support being reinvigorated to a certain degree. I support our leader’s position in that respect. On Monday I was lucky enough to present a flag to the Kangarilla Primary School. It is a small school in my electorate, with 75 students. They have been completely ignored by the state Labor government in South Australia. Their air-conditioning system is blowing hot air, which, let me tell you, in 42 degrees is not a very pleasant thing for year 2 and year 3 kids to go through. Rather than replace it, which is what is required at the Kangarilla Primary School, the state government bureaucrats insist that it needs to keep being fixed, even though the air-conditioning maintenance people say it should be replaced. So I support a program like the Investing in Our Schools Program, which allows schools to make decisions which best suit their school—not necessarily to build gymnasiums or grandiose buildings that the Prime Minister or one of his ministers can open but actually to invest in infrastructure in their schools which will work for them. Air-conditioning systems are a good example. I do support that sort of productive spending. However, what I have a problem with and what we will stand against and vote against, both here and in the Senate, is more cash splashes in the form of one-off handouts. The last package, the package announced in October last year and delivered in December, did not work. Some of that money—the very small proportion which went to pensioners—was welcomed, but I suspect that more broadly through the community people were a bit perplexed about why there was all this money being handed to them by the government. Why has a surplus which was 12 years in the making been spent in five months, so that we are now $22 billion in debt? We are going further into debt next year, further the year after and even further the year after that—to the point where we will be at least $100 billion in debt, which is more than what we found when we came to government in 1996. But what is really concerning is a small provision which was not in the speech yesterday, the announcement from the Prime Minister. Nowhere can it be found that the government wants to increase its credit card limit from $75 billion to $200 billion. It is like when most of us in this place and a lot of our constituents get the helpful letter from the bank saying, ‘You might have a $5,000 credit card maxed out, sir’—or madam—‘but we’ll let you have $15,000.’ That is what has happened. And the Rudd government has written back and said, ‘Please, can we?’ We will have $20 billion worth of debt in this country that our kids, my kids, will have to deal with, if we let this package go through. What is happening here is that, rather than a thought-through strategy on how to handle this crisis, we have got a panic: ‘Chuck some money at it, get some cash out the door and let’s make it political. Let’s write an 8,000-word essay, an ideological rant, and try and box the other side into supporting our big spending plans.’ Well, it will not work. We will not be bullied, as I said in my maiden speech. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —That’s because you’re stupid! IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —We are here to make decisions in the best interests of our country’s future. The member for Bendigo can be abusive all he likes and do the bullying, as his frontbench does every day, led by the leader of the government and others. I must say that the minister at the table, the member for Eden-Monaro, is not one of those who is involved in that sort of behaviour, but there are some on the front bench who act the goat and try and bully the other side into supporting their ill-thought-through plans. We will not do it. We will not be bullied. We will stand on our principles and do what is right for our country. That is what we plan to do and that is what I thought the Leader of the Opposition said so eloquently this morning in this place. The interesting bit which is not in this package, although its name is the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, is that there is no focus on jobs. There is some vague reference to supporting jobs but there is actually no focus on it. A decent writer on economic matters and certainly no friend of the coalition over time—I think he was probably one of the more critical writers about the coalition’s budget strategies and economic strategies—is Mr Tim Colebatch, in the Age, who today wrote: And the worst is what is not there at all. There is nothing to help the real victims of the recession: the 800,000 Australians whom Treasury expects to be unemployed by June next year. Remember that Treasury’s estimates in recent years have not been all that good, so we can expect that is probably going to be a whole lot more than 800,000. That is Tim Colebatch, not a supporter of the coalition. We had the member for Bennelong mentioning her good personal friend Katie Lahey, at the Business Council of Australia, before, claiming that she supports it and so forth. Why wouldn’t she? Of course she would. It is a segmented package. There is no surprise that Katie Lahey, the friend of the member for Bennelong, is supporting it. Two months after the first package had been allocated to the Australian people—the massive one-off payments—why would we be going back straightaway? You would think a government with some idea would be considering the evidence, looking at what has been shown by the first spend and seeing if the results were worthy of more one-off payments. It does not appear they have done so. The only flimsy evidence those on the other side will raise is that Westfield’s profits are up, which is interesting given that they are social democrats completely opposed to capitalism these days. But that was the claim yesterday. I, like the former Treasurer on Lateline last night, do not believe the purpose of people paying tax is to boost the profits of Westfield. I genuinely do not. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms Grierson —It has saved jobs. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —There is no evidence that it has kept jobs at all. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Jobs fell in December. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Exactly. David Jones got rid of retail staff. So there is absolutely no evidence at all that that package meant Westfield kept more people. It meant their profits went up. It is pure voodoo economics from those on the other side, and it is led by their leader, who does not know what he is. Twelve months ago he was an economic conservative; today he is an unreconstructed socialist. That is what has happened here. He is bagging Margaret Thatcher, bagging Ronald Reagan and calling Milton Friedman all sorts of names. His Treasurer is abusing a well-known economist in the US, which is extraordinary for a federal Treasurer of our country to do. They have no idea about what they are actually doing on this. The Australian people understand that the only people in this parliament who know how to manage this economy are those on this side. That is why they will respect in time the decision by this side of the House to stand against parts of this package—to stand against what are excessive parts of this package. We should not allow this government to take Australia into a situation where we are $200 billion in debt, and that is what this government is asking us to do in a 24-hour period. We did not see the bills until this morning. I note that Senator Xenophon has just been on Sky News. The threats from the other side are that you can jam it through the House—we can sit till 2 am—but you cannot jam it through the Independents in the Senate. I think it would be wise for the government to consider what the Independents have said. Twenty-four hours to spend $42 billion, not of your money but of your constituents’ money, your children’s future—24 hours. How would we explain to our children in the future when they say to us, ‘Why did you let this country get to $200 billion in debt, where most of our budget is taken up by paying interest on this debt?’ What are we going to say? ‘Oh, we considered this in great detail over a 24-hour period.’ What are we here for? Maybe we need to go to the great unreconstructed socialists and have a dictatorship so that the government can just usher through its plans. Those on the other side like quoting the new President of the United States. I note that the new President of the United States is trying to work with both sides of parliament. He is trying very hard to get the Republicans to support his ideas. He is listening to their ideas. What do you think the chances are that this Prime Minister and this Treasurer will listen to Malcolm Turnbull’s ideas? 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —None. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Exactly. The member for Bendigo agrees that the arrogance on the other side is beyond repute. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —The same courtesy you gave us. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Order! The member for Bendigo should not interrupt. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —The member for Bendigo highlights the point. This government is the most arrogant government and the most dangerous economic government we have had since Gough Whitlam had his hands on the levers. We know that because most of those on the other side are great disciples of Gough. There was a great celebration last week for his birthday, and I congratulate him on being the oldest former prime minister. However, he was a terrible prime minister. What we are seeing here is a bigger spend than Gough, by GDP. We have seen a situation where this government inherited a $22 billion inheritance that has been spent, with another $22 billion and another $30 billion next year, and they are asking for the bank to extend their credit card to $200 billion. There is not a shred of economic credibility left on the other side. There is no evidence that the first package worked. There is no evidence that this package will work. There are general assertions and there is politics, and that is all it is about. How do we say it is politics? Let us look at the language in the House of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other ministers who have their answers drafted by the hollowmen in the PM’s office each day. It is either ‘decisive’ or ‘a temporary deficit’. Where did the ‘temporary deficit’ come from? I understand it came from a former Treasurer and then prime minister in the early 1990s who claimed that it would be a temporary deficit. It was only temporary until the coalition was elected and then it was turned around, when tough decisions were made in 1996 to bring the budget back into the black to reduce those interest payments. That is the only time it was dragged around, and the ‘temporary’ was ended. And that is what will happen here again. It cannot be temporary when the out years all predict a deficit. There is no plan to get out of deficit; there is no plan for a future surplus. This is Labor writ large. Instead of spending his holidays writing an 8,000-word ideological rant based on some thought bubble I think he had before Christmas and trying to box the Leader of the Opposition into a corner, the Prime Minister really should have sat down and thought about a plan to keep Australia strong. Let us not forget that he has inherited one of the best economic situations in the world. I will quote from someone who is not a supporter of ours, who said on the weekend that: Australia has a AAA foreign currency rating. We have open and competitive markets backed up by a world class financial and prudential regulatory system—indeed given the flaws exposed by the global financial crisis in financial and prudential regulation I would say our system is even better than world class. That was not said by a supporter of ours; it was actually the Deputy Prime Minister. She said that our system is better than world class. It is a system inherited by those on the other side. They will deny it, I am sure. They will sit there and shake their heads and say they did it all— 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —Paul Keating— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Actually, APRA was introduced in 1998. When did Paul Keating lose, Member for Bendigo? I think it was in 1996. So Paul was still telling Peter Costello what to do, was he? I do not think he was, actually. I think the member for Higgins and the former Prime Minister had a fair bit to do with the establishment of the structures that have kept Australia strong. We did not get into the business, as Bill Clinton did, of telling banks to lend to people who could not repay their debts. We did not get into the subprime business, because we had strong regulations. That has kept Australia strong. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons interjecting— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —The member for Bendigo can deny it all he likes; the Australian public accepts this fact. I think he is one of the only ones left who do not. The Deputy Prime Minister accepts this fact. This government has no economic credibility whatsoever. This is exposed by our decision to oppose these measures. It is the right decision for our country’s future. We should not allow a situation where this government is allowed to rack up $200 billion of debt for our children’s future. It will not be an issue that you will have to deal with, Member for Bendigo, but the kids of the future will. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Order! The member will not encourage the member for Bendigo. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right to pull me up on that. The other interesting argument we hear from those opposite is that they have actually had nothing to do with the deficit and it has just been caused by global economic circumstances and reduced taxation revenue. A small fact that they should bear in mind is that the reduction in taxation revenue has only been $9 billion out of a $22 billion surplus. The reason we are in deficit is that there has been $28 billion of extra spending. So it is not actually the global financial crisis that has caused the deficit; it has been decisions of the government. We would argue that it has been ill-thought through decisions of the government. That is what we are saying in this place today. Ours is not a popular decision; we accept that. We will take a hit in the polls, and those on the other side will jump around with glee. But it is the right decision for our future. It is a principled decision. It is not a decision to run some ads leading up to an election of me standing in front of some big towers claiming I am an economic conservative and talking about how I have always been an economic conservative who believes in a surplus budget. This is showing through action a commitment to real economic conservatism, which is keeping this country in a situation where we will be able to pay back any debt that we rack up in the future. Giving the green light to the Labor Party and the government to rack up $200 billion of debt on the national credit card is the wrong thing to do. In summing up, I just want to deal with one other issue that those on the other side raise, which is the rewriting of history. I do give the Labor Party great credit for that; they are very good at it, particularly on the history of stimulus packages. If you look at the history of stimulus packages, you will see it is not great. We remember Working Nation, of course, and the one in December does not look to have gone so well. Even going back to FDR’s policy, which is often rolled out as the great left-wing policy program of the 20th century, it did not work. What is forgotten is that FDR’s package did not work. There was 17 per cent unemployment in 1940. He would have lost the next presidential election but for the war. I respect what he did during the Second World War—do not get me wrong—but I think his economic credentials are far from what those on the other side would like them to be. We agree on this side of the House that we need some stimulus. That is why our position is that we support extra money for the Investing in Our Schools Program. We support some investment in productive capacity in the economy for health issues, electricity networks and so forth. But what we will not do is allow this government to rack up $200 billion of debt for our country’s kids to face in the future. It is the wrong thing for this parliament to agree to. We will stand in the way. It is not the popular thing to do; the member for Boothby will agree with me. Those on this side of the House will agree that it will be a difficult thing for us to do in our electorates, but it is the right thing us to do. I stand opposed to these measures. 226 13:35:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. These bills actually do represent decisive and considered action on the part of this government at a time when the global economic outlook has deteriorated significantly and shows little sign of any imminent recovery. The IMF has repeatedly retargeted its forecast for global growth, cutting those predictions three times in just the past four months. But, if you listened to the speakers on the other side, you would think there is plenty of time to do something to respond. But three times the predictions for growth have been changed in four months. Finally, the IMF now anticipates a deep global recession. We cannot afford to wait until that is upon us. With projections that world growth will fall to half a per cent this year, the lowest growth rate since World War II, now is the time to act. With global output and trade figures plummeting in the final months of 2008 and the slump in global demand leading to a collapse in commodity prices, threats to our economy are very real. I remember standing in this House last November when we were speaking on the Economic Security Strategy—the $10.4 billion stimulus package—and remarking that Alan Kohler on the business program on the ABC had commented that 42 per cent of international GDP wealth had just disappeared in one day. These are unprecedented times. Since that time, more international GDP wealth has disappeared every day. It is an economic tsunami and it certainly keeps plunging ever closer to our shores. Without a further, more significant and timely policy stimulus the Australian people—Australian businesspeople, Australian industry, Australian children and Australian students—would face the full consequences of the severe slowdown. With international economic pressures continuing, the influence of the global decline is something that none of us would want to pass on. It means job losses, business slowing and increased pressures on our welfare systems. I listened with interest to the opposition, and I thought about how this has happened. We all think of how this has happened. Most ordinary Australians get a salary or a wage and maybe put a little in the bank or they use it for their everyday living. They may have a home that they are buying or paying off or even an investment property and they invest in their superannuation through their employment. That is it. They do not have much discretion on how to pull that out when things get tough. They have to ride this through. They will not be getting any big dividends or returns. Those with big money have pulled their money out—it is not there any more. That investment money is not there. I do not know where it is. Does it go back to Swiss banks? Does it go into gold bullion? I do not know where it is, but it is not there now. People with big money have some discretion. They have some choice. Ordinary Australians do not have any choice. What little assets they have are stuck there. They are watching their assets diminish in value and they are hoping that these packages, this government’s measures, will help them—and that is what we are trying to do. I do hope that when those opposite are pushed to a vote they consider the lack of control that most ordinary Australians have over this situation and the plea from them for help from us. According to the IMF and Treasury, when the economic stimulus is taken into account, economic growth is expected to grow by one per cent this year. That is the growth that maintains jobs. In 2009-10, with the stimulus package, it is projected that growth would be perhaps 0.75 per cent. These measures, undertaken with the advice of Treasury and guided by the information coming through the IMF are about both supporting growth and jobs now and investing in Australia’s economic future. This package builds on the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy released earlier, where we saw pensioners, carers and people with disabilities certainly making good use of that money. We know how much they appreciated that, particularly in my electorate. I was absolutely touched by the number of constituents who wrote little notes and letters saying, ‘Thank you,’ or, ‘Please thank the Rudd government,’ or, ‘Please tell Kevin that this meant so much to me.’ It did mean a lot to those people because until then they saw no light on the horizon. I welcome the $42 billion stimulation package. I know that my electorate of Newcastle is set to see many significant benefits. This morning I heard some of the Leader of the Opposition’s grand economic rhetoric—his grand thesis on democracy and economic theory—and I have heard the member for Mayo talk about this ‘great inheritance’. What did we inherit? Let us be honest now. Let us not rewrite the history again. We did not hear anyone say anything about the lack of investment in skills, in innovation, in education and in training. We did not hear anyone talk about the failure of the previous government to rein in low-doc loans. I heard the former Treasurer, Mr Costello, on Lateline the other night speaking about how we did not have the subprime situation. No, we did not have the subprime situation, but I have been on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and have heard two Reserve Bank governors urge the previous government to do something about low-doc loans. Mortgage repossessions are running at one a week in my electorate. That has been the case for several years. It did not start now; it started because of that neglect of the economic fundamentals. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Watch out!’ I thought Mr Costello was certainly looking forward to an opportunity presenting itself for him and his ambitions. These are difficult economic times. This package is designed to maintain and stimulate growth, protect jobs and provide a responsible and decisive response to this unprecedented global and national economic circumstance. I recall someone saying something about a big-spending election promise. The opposition are saying that we are the big spenders. Well, hey, big spender, come on down! If we had had to fund the election promises from the Howard government, if the public had been foolish enough to re-elect those people into government, we would certainly be in a much more parlous situation. In this package we have also taken the opportunity to invest in the green economy—something very important to my electorate. We have a dreadful carbon footprint in the Hunter and Newcastle. We export coal, but we are doing something about transitioning our economy towards a more energy efficient situation. There are measures in this package that respond to climate change and deliver to people the opportunity to take on some energy efficient measures in their homes—for example, house insulation or a solar hot water tank. Some people with a bit of discretionary money would love to invest in measures to combat climate change and invest in the environment for our future. This summer we are all greatly feeling the effects of the situation and we all feel some guilt and some desire to make a difference and contribute. So it will be very pleasing to see people take up those opportunities to contribute to improving the climate change situation and building a green economy in this nation. I know that for the people of Newcastle this package will be extremely important. The average salary is less than $50,000 per annum in an electorate like mine, so most people will benefit from that $950 taxpayer one-off bonus. There are over 20,000 school-age children in my electorate. At this time of the year, when they are going back to school, the $950 back-to-school bonus will be used very well and will certainly be appreciated. It is very much an investment in the education of our children and it is an understanding that families always have additional costs that they try to balance as best they can. Every one of the 10,000 recipients of family tax benefit B in my electorate will receive a bonus of $950 per family to help with those costs. As a former school principal I am delighted to see so much going into maintenance of schools and into infrastructure in schools. It is a good decision. It is something that I know can be rolled out straightaway. For a local economy like mine, with 52 primary schools and 70 schools overall, this measure will mean that tens of millions of dollars will be injected into our regional economy. Building the education revolution alone equals a swift injection of up to $50 million into the Newcastle economy. Many new homes will be built through the investment in defence housing. I am really looking forward to the benefit that will flow to my electorate from that. Activity in the construction industry is known to create more jobs, flowing through to the transport industry, subcontractors and suppliers. It is a great way of spreading some of our wealth. The 50,000 private home owners in my electorate will be particularly pleased that they can now consider putting in some insulation to keep their homes cool on hot summer nights. I am also pleased to see that there have been many public endorsements of this package in Newcastle—unlike what we have heard from the opposition. Local endorsements have been strong from the business chamber, the trade union movement, the manufacturing cluster group and the collective Hunternet. They are all predicting that these measures will be of great assistance to our local economy. In Newcastle we have a strong tradition of stepping up when things are tough, and we are doing so already. We make a valuable contribution to the national economy. I would encourage people benefiting from this economic stimulus package to support local farmers markets and local produce manufacturers. There are manufacturers of insulation in my electorate. I hope that they score very well out of this. For local regions that have a history of the booms and the busts, this will be a wonderful opportunity for everyone to benefit and to contribute to the great challenge of keeping our economy strong, protecting the jobs of the people we care about and making sure that the future of this nation is a bright and great one. 229 13:46:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —It is a pleasure to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, which are before the House. It would be the easiest thing in the world to stand here and join in the government cheer squad and pass the $42 billion program without any murmurs of dissent. But, in all good faith to the people of Gippsland and to my own children, I cannot support these bills, which mortgage our future. I think the Prime Minister has simply not yet made the case to justify the scale and the targets of this package. I doubt that there is a single person in this parliament who does not appreciate the magnitude of the economic challenges which confront our nation and the world at the moment. But to suggest that we should just sit back and give the Prime Minister and the Treasurer a blank cheque, no matter how misguided or ill-conceived the plan may be, is I believe the height of arrogance from those in government. We would not be doing our job if we did not at least scrutinise this legislation on behalf of the people of Australia. It is easy to shovel the money out the door and give everyone a bonus but it is damn hard to pay the bills in the future. I fear the Prime Minister has panicked. In his desperation to be decisive, to do something, to just do anything, he has panicked and come out with a package about which even he admits—he admitted it here yesterday in the chamber—he does not know if it will work. In this mad rush, the government is attempting to ram this legislation through parliament without allowing reasonable time for due consideration of the details of a spending program which we all acknowledge is of historic proportions. Do not get me wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not believe the package is completely flawed. There are several elements that I fully support, particularly if they were downsized to more reasonable proportions. But this government is not interested in negotiating with the opposition. It is not interested in hearing the views of people on this side of the chamber, many of whom have held high office in the past and have been successful in guiding this nation through troubled times over the past decade. I am reminded of a quote from a good friend of mine, a member of the upper house in the state parliament in Victoria, Mr Damian Drum. He says: ‘To think either side has a mortgage on what is right or what is wrong is absolute folly.’ I believe that there are some very reasonable people on both sides of this House and that we could go a lot further in our deliberations on this package if we listened to the good ideas from both sides of the chamber. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer could perhaps put aside their own egos for five minutes and sit down and listen to others, I think Australians would benefit in the longer term. I am sure we would end up with a much better stimulus package if we all just took a cold shower and brought this legislation back before the House, perhaps even in a week, rather than trying to ram it through today without any level of negotiation. There should be more discussion and negotiation between senior members on both sides of the House. I turn to the specific details of the package. The bonus payments are probably the area where I have my greatest concerns. There is almost $13 billion to be given out in one-off payments over the next few weeks. These will be popular. I have no doubt they will be popular in my electorate of Gippsland, where I have a lot of family tax benefit A recipients and a significant number of low-income earners. But even the Prime Minister admitted the data from the $10.4 billion package which was initiated prior to Christmas is not yet complete. I was one of the members on this side of the House who actively supported the $10.4 billion package before Christmas, because one of the primary targets of that package was pensioners, carers and people with disabilities. They were the less fortunate people in my community who I had been actively campaigning for for longer term support through government support payments. So I openly supported the $10.4 billion package and encouraged people, if they had the opportunity to spend some of that money, to spend it locally and support local jobs. It is strange—and I have commented on this in the past—that the government could never justify increasing pensions on the basis of social justice, on the basis of the need to help those less fortunate. They had to wait until there was an economic crisis to finally do something to help pensioners, carers and people with disabilities. So I was surprised that the Labor government—supposedly the great defender of low-income earners and those less fortunate—was not prepared to assist our pensioners at a time of need but waited for this economic crisis to justify its decision. Even if you accept the argument that the government’s $13 billion in bonus payments is affordable for the Australian nation, why are we taking a punt like this at this time? We do not know if it will work. There has been no modelling whatsoever released to tell us whether $950 per individual is enough or whether it is too much. I fear that once that money has gone we will have nothing to show for it as a nation. Gippslanders will get a significant share of this money. If you worked it out based on really rough figures of $13 billion spread over 150 electorates, you would find that about $87 million was coming to Gippsland. I can tell you now that the people of my electorate are not as short-sighted as the Prime Minister in this regard. They would rather see that $87 million spent on safer roads, better hospitals, improved aged-care facilities, sporting grounds, swimming pools and nursing homes—some real infrastructure improvements that are going to be there for the longer term, not a here today, gone tomorrow cash splash, which is all we are going to see over the next months with this $13 billion program. There is a very long list in my own electorate of areas in which we could spend this money more constructively and which I believe would deliver the long-term productivity improvements we are looking for as a nation as we move forward into the 21st century. The Shire of Wellington itself has regularly lobbied the government and me in relation to a $5 million plan to help develop an indoor sports centre—again, a much better use of the money than just a $950 one-off payment. The Macalister Irrigation District around the Maffra area has an urgent need to upgrade the irrigation channels. We are talking about one of the most productive export industries in my region, and there is no funding available for it under the national water plan at this stage. We also see this $950 one-off payment being made to farmers. I can tell you now that they would rather see some real commitment to upgrade the irrigation infrastructure in Gippsland for the longer term so that their children have a future on the farm rather than just one $950 payment, which is all they are going to see in this particular package. Gippsland Rotary Centenary House is another project that I have been speaking to the government about. It has been a very successful program. The state government in Victoria and the previous government, in a bipartisan way, supported the development of the Gippsland Rotary Centenary House, where local Rotary clubs have created a home away from home for people receiving cancer treatment. Tragically, the program is so successful and is in such demand in the Latrobe Valley that we need more units. A plan has now been put before the government to build a further nine units. Again, the people of Gippsland would rather see some of this $13 billion spent on projects like that for longer term benefits to the cancer care treatment of people in Gippsland than a one-off payment of $950. There is an ongoing program, which has received support from both sides of the House, from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and also from the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister. That program is to upgrade the Princes Highway from Traralgon to the New South Wales border. Every report that comes back from the AusRAP studies shows that the Princes Highway in Gippsland is of a lower standard than would be accepted of a national highway. A $140 million program to duplicate the highway from Traralgon to Sale has been put before and accepted by the government. Again, all we have seen committed to that program is $2 million. It is another project that Gippsland would rather see get underway than a $950 one-off cash payment that will be gone before Easter. I accept that investment in natural gas reticulation is actually more of a state government responsibility, but, judging by the program we have before us, the state and federal boundaries have been blurred somewhat in this current package. Investing in natural gas reticulation is primarily a state responsibility but it would create jobs in my community and help our small businesses prosper and compete with the metropolitan areas. I think a lot of metropolitan businesses take for granted that the gas from Gippsland is available for their use, but many small businesses in my community have no access to natural gas at the moment. That is something that I have approached both the state and the federal ministers about. Once again, the people of Gippsland would rather see something constructive than the $950 in their pocket which will be gone tomorrow. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are selling Gippsland and all Australians short by suggesting they would rather have just this one-off payment than some longer term investment in infrastructure. One of the key areas of the package that lets down the people of Australia relates to small business support. Any package that we put together for the Australian public now should have a focus on jobs. Again, this package misses the mark. I acknowledge that there are some tax breaks for small business, and that is a positive start, but, if we are going to be splashing around a sum of $42 billion in just one package, we need a real focus on jobs and—from the viewpoint of a country-based member of parliament particularly—jobs in rural industries and the small business sector. For example, again there is nothing in this package to help secure the export markets for the dairy industry, which is faced with an uncertain future due to the price cuts and the protectionism of the European Union. There is nothing in this package for rural industries whatsoever. There is nothing here to support the regional tourism industry, and this staggers me. The member for Eden-Monaro is with me in the chamber today, and I suggest that he would love to see some more funding for regional tourism to promote the great attractions of the Sapphire Coast. The Sapphire Coast is a nice place but the Gippsland coastal area is just a little better. I know the member for Eden-Monaro disagrees. There is nothing here to support the regional tourism industry. I would support a massive boost in marketing of regional attractions to encourage Australians, perhaps this year, to put the local economy first and to take a holiday here in Australia. I am disappointed that the package, which could have focused on small business jobs and on tourism industry jobs, has missed the mark in that regard. The government could have reinstated the farmer apprenticeship scheme and also the Small Business Assistance Program, which were both cut in the previous budget. It is very hard to believe that you are for jobs in small business when you have a government that was prepared to cut such schemes in the last budget. There really could have been more investment in regional infrastructure and programs like the Regional Partnerships initiative, which has been sadly missed in a lot of regional communities since its disbandment by this government. We have had the inquiry; now I think it is time to start rolling out funding for genuine projects which meet the tests and will certainly be strongly supported by members who represent regional electorates. This package should have been all about jobs. Given my bias for regional communities, it should have been all about regional jobs. What the government said last year compared to what they are saying now is something that is really beyond belief. Last year we were talking about creating 250,000 jobs from these stimulus packages, but now they are only talking about supporting jobs—supporting 90,000 jobs. I fear that we are really just making this up as we go along. They do not know if this package is going to help jobs at all, and I am not prepared to mortgage Australia’s future on a bit of guesswork by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Gippslanders would rather have a job in the future than have a $950 bonus in their pocket in the next month or so. Gippslanders are telling me already that they would support a major investment infrastructure boost rather than just $950 in one bonus payment that will be gone before Easter. Even with a $42 billion package, even with a package of historic proportions, there are those who have managed to miss out. It is hard to believe that, when you are throwing taxpayers’ money around like confetti, some people can still miss out. Among them are the most vulnerable and those heavily impacted by the economic crisis, such as our self-funded retirees. There is not a cracker in this for them—not a cracker for the pensioners, the carers, the people with disabilities. We should be locking in a permanent increase in their support payments now and giving some certainty to the economy rather than the whim of one-off payments. What if this money is not enough? When is the next payment going to come? When is the next stimulus package? It is very easy for anyone to make a hero of themselves, going around spending like a drunken sailor, shouting the bar, when they are spending someone else’s money. I said at the outset that the package is not without merit and I believe there are some good ideas in there, just as I do believe that there are good ideas on both sides of the House to contribute to this debate. That is why I am most concerned that we have attempted to ram this package through with such a short amount of time for debate. The schools and education package is one area where I think there is probably unanimous support across the chamber. It is one of the most sensible components of this package. I will ignore the rhetoric of members from the opposite side which suggests that the previous government was not interested in schools. I would suggest that the Investing in Our Schools Program was an outstanding initiative and members on this side of the House would certainly support such a package going forward into the future. Members on both sides of the House understand the importance of investing in the future of our children, and the very essence, I believe, of this debate is what that future is that we are going to provide for our young children. What concerns me most with this package is that it discriminates against the smallest schools in regional areas by allocating them a smaller amount. I fear that the federal government, in this regard, is actually bailing out our state governments and that we will only end up hiding their failure to invest in the future of our public schools. Although there is no-one who is going to debate the point about whether we need to be investing more in our schools, I think this is one of those times when a bit more discussion and negotiation between both sides of the House would have come up with a better package than just simply throwing massive amounts—$14.7 billion—at the problem and effectively bailing out the state governments’ failure to invest. The sheer magnitude of this program and the involvement of the state governments bring doubts to my mind as to whether it can actually be delivered. There is no-one on this side of the House who has much confidence in the capacity— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 233 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 233 14:00:00 233 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his forecast of $70 billion in debt over the next four years. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why his one-page legislation, rushed into the parliament in a panic this morning, allows his government to increase debt to $200 billion? What is the government holding back from the Australian people? 233 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —In answer to the honourable member’s question: he will be familiar with a couple of facts. The first is a collapse in government revenues over two periods now. This was first announced at the time of MYEFO, where revenues collapsed at $40 billion. Since then, there has been a further collapse in revenues of $75 billion. Secondly, in terms of additional borrowing requirements for the government, there are, of course, the other costs, including enhanced social security payments, which flow from increased unemployment and other associated social security payments. So that is the second factor. The third factor goes to the actual cost of funding the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which the government announced yesterday. If you aggregate the three measures that I have just referred to, it requires borrowing. I would challenge the Leader of the Opposition to identify in this chamber which individual measures, of all those referred to, he chooses not to support, because he knows, as everyone else knows, that in these economic circumstances they can only be financed by borrowing. 233 233 14:02:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House the need for the Nation Building and Jobs Plan announced yesterday and its role in addressing the global recession? 234 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question because it goes to the heart of how this nation responds to a global financial crisis, which is becoming a global economic crisis and, in turn, a global employment crisis. As I have said to the House before and will say again, there are two strategic choices for the national leadership of Australia: either to take a concrete course of action to seek to reduce the impact of this global recession on Australians—who did not cause this crisis—or to simply sit on the fence and carp. Those represent the alternatives for the leadership of the nation. The Labor government has decided on a course of action. Those opposite have decided to remain firmly sitting on the fence carping because they have concluded that it is to their political advantage so to do. In relation to the content of the package that we have put forward, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and I today went out and visited a school: St Gregory’s parish school in Queanbeyan. It is one of 7,400 primary schools in Australia—Catholic, independent and government—right across the country, where this government has resolved to invest, together with the secondary school program and maintenance programs, nearly $15 billion. When I was at St Gregory’s this morning, they outlined to me how they were currently in the business of building a new library resource centre. It is costing them $1½ million through the renovation of a building that has been there since the 1960s. They pointed out to me at that school that they have demountables in which the kids are still studying, and for a school of 600 kids they have actually no assembly hall—none whatsoever. When I spoke to the principal— Opposition member interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —This is a Catholic school. Government members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Those opposite just interjected something about state schools. It is a Catholic school. The principal said, ‘What we really need in this school is an assembly hall in order to bring the kids together.’ In the stinking hot days in which the kids went back to primary school last week, and in the depths of winter here in this part of Australia, it is pretty hard to bring the school together in a single place. So what that principal said to me—and I imagine he will resolve this with the Catholic education authority—is that he wants to see projects like that advanced within his school. It is a school of 600 in our neighbourhood, and I was out there this morning with the member for Eden-Monaro. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would suggest to those opposite that on behalf of each one of them right across the country—each one of the primary schools in each one of your electorates—what you have embarked upon today is to vote against the biggest building program in every primary school in the nation— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In the electorate of North Sydney; in the electorate of Curtin; in the electorate of Wentworth; throughout Adelaide; throughout Brisbane; throughout Queensland—in every state of the country you are voting no against what the schoolteachers, the P&Cs and the P&Fs of this nation are demanding. And you are doing so for one reason and one reason alone: rank political expediency. Because I suspect that— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I notice that the member for Higgins up the back has a quiet chortle to himself. I think he knows what my reference is, as yon Higgins has again a hungry look when it comes to questions of Liberal Party leadership. There is always a backward glance to see what Higgins might be up to. Can I just say this: when the Leader of the Opposition in effect said, in a statement today, that building school infrastructure was not the highest infrastructure priority of the nation— 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Ah! So he says that school infrastructure— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —We have it confirmed from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, that building school infrastructure is not an infrastructure priority for the nation. That is what he said. On the question of hospitals, as they twist and turn and have to deal with every P&C and P&F in each of their electorates who comes and says, ‘Why are you voting against a building program for the primary schools in your electorate?’ what this Leader of the Opposition then seeks to deflect to is the necessary investment in hospitals. Following 12 years of Liberal government, they are talking to us about the priority of investment in public hospitals—after they gouged $1 billion out of public hospital expenditure. I have seen it all! In our first year in office, at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in this building in December last year, what did we agree on? A $4.8 billion plan with the states and territories to reinvest in public hospitals, a $1.1 billion plan to invest in the future human resource needs of the health system, further investment when it comes to emergency services of $750 million and further investment when it comes to elective surgery of $600 million. We have done all these things in one year, and those opposite have the absolute audacity to stand here and challenge whether we regard public hospitals as an infrastructure priority. The truth is that in their 12 years in office what characterised those opposite was that no infrastructure whatsoever was a priority. You ripped and gouged at public hospitals, you failed to invest in our universities, you failed to invest in our TAFEs and now you refuse to invest in our primary schools. I say to those opposite that the contrast in terms of nation building is clear. I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that his and the Liberal Party’s opposition to the biggest nation building and school modernisation plan for Australia demonstrates how out of touch they have become. The Liberal Party are out of touch with P&Cs, P&Fs and mums and dads seeking to have decent buildings for their kids in primary schools, out of touch with mums and dads struggling with paying back-to-school costs and out of touch with small business, who want the measures that we foreshadowed yesterday by way of the accelerated investment allowance. You are out of touch with the needs of tradies, carpenters and plumbers, who are desperately seeking new project work. You are out of touch with the real needs of Australians. Instead, his prescription is this: stand to one side and allow the Australian people, Australian tradies and mums and dads to face and endure the full brunt of this global economic recession without government stepping in to help. That is the alternative. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House that the challenge for the nation at a time of unprecedented global economic challenge is clear-cut: either you act and government intervenes to help stabilise financial markets, to help increase growth, to help support jobs and to help families deal with the consequences of this global recession, or you vacate the field, as recommended by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is out of touch with mums’ and dads’ basic needs right across country. This government will get on with the business of seeking to protect the Australian economy and families as much as is humanly possible from a global economic recession, which they did not cause and which free market fundamentalism has rammed in their direction. 236 236 14:11:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the latest ABS retail trade survey, which showed that seasonally adjusted sales increased by $700 million from November to December. I ask the Prime Minister: what happened to the other $8.9 billion of the cash splash? 236 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Just occasionally there is a question from the Leader of the Liberal Party which really takes your breath away. Uniquely across the world, in terms of what has happened to the world in the global economic crisis, we have positive news in terms of retail sales in December—and those opposite want to simply cry foul and say it is not good enough. Across the world, retail collapsed in December. In the United States there was a massive collapse in retail. You saw it also in the data I referred to yesterday from Westfield in New Zealand and other sources. The retail sales data produced officially today demonstrate that we have, through the measures provided by the government at the end of last year, investment by consumers in consumption which helps support all the businesses employing people in the retail sector. Those opposite—who claim from time to time, depending on the season, to stand up for the interests of small business—fail to understand how much small business is concentrated in the retail sector. Are you seriously saying to the government that the investment which we made through that allocation to families last year, the impact which it has had on retail sales and the flow-through effect which it has had on the small retail businesses of this country is of no consequence? That statement demonstrates one thing: those opposite have embarked upon a campaign of negativity, negativity, negativity. We are in the business of embarking upon a positive course of action to see the nation through, and the Leader of the Opposition should think better of the retail sector in the future. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would like the Prime Minister to engage in a campaign of relevance, relevance, relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As the Prime Minister has concluded his answer, I call the member for Page. 236 236 14:14:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister please update the House on the reaction to the government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution package? 236 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for her question; I know how interested she is in the circumstances of schools in her electorate. We have had reaction to the announcement yesterday from all of those who are in touch with the needs of Australian schools—those who work in schools, those whose children go to school and those who represent schools in the public debate. Those in touch with the needs of Australian schools have, of course, welcomed the government’s historic Building the Education Revolution package and its historic $14.7 billion investment in primary schools, special schools, schools that service primary and secondary students together, K to 12 schools and secondary schools. To give you just a flavour of the responses, Mr Bill Daniels, who represents the Independent Schools Council of Australia, welcomes this substantial investment in capital infrastructure and said that it ‘will greatly benefit independent school communities across Australia’. The President of the Australian Primary Principals Association, Leonie Trimper, said: Today’s announcement is fantastic news for Australia’s 7,500 primary schools … This is a fantastic win-win for all Australians … it is also a lasting investment in Australia’s future—our primary school students. I could, of course, go on to a host of other supportive comments, but perhaps the sentiment was best caught by Mr Bill Bird, the Principal of Kingsgrove Public School, who was quoted in today’s Australian. He described the package as ‘brilliant’ and said that he looked forward to replacing the demountable library, which has been there since the original building burnt down several years ago. He said: It will give them a new sense of permanence and purpose … That is extremely important. Not only that, it will result in an environment that is actually conducive to learning. These are the voices of people who are in touch with the needs of schools. Then, unfortunately, we have also heard the voices of those who are completely out of touch with the needs of schools. First and foremost is the Leader of the Opposition, who in his contribution earlier today rhetorically asked, ‘Is the most urgent infrastructure deficiency requirement in Australian primary schools assembly halls and libraries?’ Well, I suggest that he walk into any school in this country and talk to the principal, talk to the teachers and talk to the parents in that school and ask them what they think is important to the future of this nation. What they will say is important to the future of this nation is having a 21st century education system that invests in primary school students. The Leader of the Opposition wants to play some funny game about priorities. Well, the government are very proud to say that we think this nation’s priority is its children. We think that this nation’s highest priority is the next generation of Australians—our highest priority for economic prosperity, our highest priority for equity. We will unashamedly say that in every school in this country. Presumably, members of the Liberal Party will be walking into those schools saying, ‘Kids aren’t a priority,’ because that is what the Leader of the Opposition believes. The Leader of the Opposition was not the only Liberal voice putting this position. We had the member for Higgins describing this $14.7 billion investment in Australian schools as a ‘poor quality spend’. The only poor quality in relation to this announcement is the completely out of touch reaction of the Leader of the Opposition and his Liberal Party. They do not understand the importance of schools to Australia’s future, they do not understand the importance of a first-class education for Australian school students to this nation’s future and they are completely out of touch with principals, with teachers, with parents and with all those Australians who care about our future and who, most particularly, care about the education of Australia’s kids. 237 Distinguished Visitors 237 14:20:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —As the mention of young Australians sent the House slightly haywire, I think that it is appropriate that at this time I welcome the young Australians from regional and rural communities who are here for the Heywire Youth Issues Forum. Heywire is an initiative of ABC Radio. On behalf of members I welcome them to the House and wish them all the best with their activities throughout the week. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 238 Questions Without Notice 238 238 14:20:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the government is forecasting economic growth of three per cent in 2011-12 and is also forecasting to run a deficit of $25.7 billon in that year. Can the Treasurer explain to the House how the government intends to maintain a budget surplus over the economic cycle while it has plans to run a huge deficit in a year of average growth? 238 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition just cannot get it right. We project trend growth in that year; we do not forecast it in that year. Let us be very clear about that. An opposition member—What’s the difference? 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —There is a very big difference. This is a very important time in the history of this nation. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —What is the projection? 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —One is a projection; the other has been modelled, of course. The economic illiteracy of those opposite is truly stunning. For the first time in the history of this country we have had a major political party and its leader come into this House and say that they intend to deliberately vote for higher unemployment. That is exactly what they have said. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker—apart from the offensive nature of that allegation—on a point of relevance, I ask the Treasurer to come back to the point about how they will maintain a budget surplus over the economic cycle when they are forecasting a year of assumed average growth? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will respond to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The opposition do not believe that we need an economic stimulus, despite the fact that there has been such a substantial contraction in demand. They do not think, for example, that we need bonus payments targeted at lower income earners to boost consumption precisely at the time when this country needs it, when the world is throwing the worst that it can possibly throw at us. What this government is going to do is act to support jobs, and to do that we do need to have a temporary deficit, and that is provided for in the forward estimates. Our commitment to fiscal rigour over the long term remains. We have made it very clear in the UEFO that we intend to return to surplus as soon as we possibly can, consistent— Opposition members interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —It sounds like all those opposite know the date when world global conditions are going to normalise. Do you know that date? Of course you don’t. So when growth returns to trend terms we will begin to move back to surplus. That is the responsible thing to do. Of course, moving back to surplus would not be helped by the approach of those opposite. We have had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggest that the way to get future growth and future tax revenue is to give even bigger tax cuts. She said that bigger, permanent tax cuts would increase revenue. We would suggest that is a recipe for higher and higher deficits and for higher and higher borrowings. That is exactly what it is. It is interesting to look at what the Leader of the Opposition has had to say about her position on this. This is what he had to say this morning on ABC Radio. Interviewer: ‘Can you explain Julie Bishop’s suggestion on the weekend that you can increase your tax revenue by cutting your tax take?’ Mr Turnbull: ‘Well, this is um, this is um, um, a point. It’s like a lot of economic, um, points. It has merit, but it isn’t right, you know, in an extreme fall.’ DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to save the Treasurer from himself here. He was asked a question. If he believes he is keeping to his own formula, why is the government projecting three per cent growth and yet running a $25.7 billion deficit? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will respond to the question. I will be listening very closely to the Treasurer. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The interviewer went on: ‘Do you agree with Julie Bishop?’ Mr Turnbull: ‘Well, it, it, it, I simply, rather than, I’m not going to, to’— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst recognising the limitations upon you in terms of the answering of a question, it is still required that it be relevant, and a question asked about the government’s business and the government’s budget hardly requires reading to this parliament some interview that was conducted on the radio. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —It was your leader. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —I do not care who it was. I am telling you: let him answer the question, even if it is with his escape clause. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The interjectors will stop interjecting. The member for O’Connor will ignore the interjections. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Don’t ruin my day! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is a character who has a name in common with mine who has a saying, ‘Make my day,’ but I am not going to. I will be listening very carefully to the Treasurer’s response. There are difficulties, as I said yesterday, regarding the way in which the House has allowed this type of material to be used in answers, which I have a problem with, because it is bordering on debate, which is not allowed in the formulation of a question, but the traditions of the House have allowed it. I will listen carefully to the Treasurer’s response. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I was merely making the point that the opposition has a policy to send the budget into deeper deficit permanently. What we are doing, with a targeted stimulus, is to support jobs right now when they are needed. And we have made the point and we have made it publicly in the documentation that we published yesterday that, as soon as the economy recovers, as soon as the economy grows above trend, the government will take action to return the budget to surplus. That is as it should be. 239 239 14:28:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr DANBY —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the retail trade figures released this morning and their implications? 239 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —The Nation Building and Jobs Plan that we announced yesterday and, of course, the Economic Security Strategy that we put in place last October do demonstrate how Australia can get through this global recession in better shape than most other advanced economies, because we can use our strengths in fiscal policy and monetary policy to stimulate demand in this economy and to support jobs. That is precisely what we are doing, and that was precisely the intention of the Economic Security Strategy last October. If these retail trade figures today demonstrate anything, they demonstrate how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition and his entire frontbench are with what is actually happening in Australia, because, contrary to the Orwellian language of the Leader of the Opposition earlier, what these retail trade figures show is that the Economic Security Strategy gave a significant boost to demand in December last year, supporting employment, particularly in the retail sector. The December retail trade figures show that retail sales increased by 3.8 per cent in December. You know, that is the biggest monthly increase since August 2000. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Bowman! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —But consider the backdrop to this, because it goes to the core of the inaccuracy of what the opposition has been saying in this place over the last 48 hours. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Bowman! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The backdrop to this is, in December, the sharpest contraction in global demand seen in the history of the modern market economy. In other countries around the world, what you saw were substantial falls in retail sales. If you go through them, in the US retail sales fell by 2.7 per cent in the month of December, in Japan sales fell by two per cent in December, in Germany they fell by 1.2 per cent and in the UK they fell by one per cent. It is also instructive to look at the data as to where the sales were biggest or where they increased the most, because there is this allegation from the other side that Australian families are out there wasting it; that is the implication of what they are saying. Let us just look at where it was spent: department stores had an increase of 8.3 per cent; clothing, 5.8 per cent— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Bowman! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —and other household goods, 9.9 per cent. This is occurring in the midst of the carnage on global stock markets and the collapse in demand and growth right around the world. This is a very substantial achievement, and it has been a very big boost to employment in this economy at a critical time for so many Australian families. I would say it certainly demonstrates the wisdom of the government’s approach in targeting our assistance, particularly to those who are credit constrained and who are on lower incomes, and it demonstrates why most of the economists around the world and most of the official bodies back our view that making these payments to people who are credit constrained and on lower incomes, and doing it in a lump sum, works. It works. Of course, we get this from the IMF most particularly. Just look at what John Lipsky had to say on 17 November—he is the deputy chief of the IMF, the former chief economist. He said: For example, measures to support low-income households would be particularly helpful in boosting demand, and would be targeted at those most in need. You can even go to the Business Council of Australia and their budget submission, and I could go on and on— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Bowman! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —quoting economists around the world, including Nobel laureates, who provide a very sensible source of advice which common sense tells you is correct: if you target your support at those who need the assistance most then their propensity to spend will be highest. Of course, that is the orthodox position. It is not the position, of course, articulated by the Leader of the Opposition or by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It now brings us to this point, and it is very important to consider it in this light: by refusing to support the package that we have brought forward and by being so critical of the consumption measures that we have put in this package, if they were successful in their endeavours, they would leave a gaping hole in our economic defences against the contraction in demand that is occurring on a global basis. This government does not intend that to happen. We are intent on putting in place this jobs plan—this package to support employment in the Australian economy for Australians right now—and anyone who will not support it is simply supporting higher unemployment and is utterly irresponsible. 241 241 14:34:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that over 90 per cent of National Australia Bank mortgage customers are still paying above their monthly minimum repayments—in other words, mortgage holders are paying down their debt rather than taking the savings in interest rate reductions? Given this pattern of saving by householders, how can the Prime Minister be confident that his cash handouts will be spent and not saved by nervous householders? E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Bowman will excuse himself from the House for one hour under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Bowman then left the chamber. 241 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his question, and it does bring back into stark relief the Leader of the Opposition’s proclamation of the Turnbull doctrine yesterday—that the thing about money is that you either spend it or save it, those essentially representing the two strategic options which are available. This government is not in the business, and can never be in the business, of forcing any individual consumer or taxpayer to deploy their funds in a particular way. What we can do, however, is assist the family budget by the practical measures that we outlined last year in the Economic Security Strategy and again as a part—one-quarter, in fact—of the nation-building plan that the government released yesterday. If individual households and consumers elect to spend then, of course, that directly assists sectors of the economy—such as retail, but other sectors as well—and therefore that supports employment directly. That is why there is such a strong body of advice from organisations around the world as to the virtue in employment terms of such measures. Secondly, however, if consumers elect to save in part, as many of them will, then that can have the effect of offsetting later decisions to return to spending. To give you a practical example, if someone is now electing, for example, to take part of the $950 cash bonus to make a temporary down payment or reduction in their credit card bill, that is a matter for them, but if that is their decision anyway then what that provides is a greater opportunity for that person to return to other levels of spending a little later on. These things do not exist as stark alternatives to each other. That is why a proper and rational response to the global economic recession and its impact on Australia is to have an entire armoury of measures, including those designed to support households, those designed to support consumption and those designed to support private residential construction—hence the first home buyers boost of last year and many of the construction related issues we announced yesterday, including the one-off extraordinary investment in 20,000 units of social housing. That is why we must also embrace, as part of our strategy, encouragement of business to resume decisions on private fixed capital investment—hence our decisions to bring in an accelerated temporary investment allowance. That is why, on top of that, we must also push the throttle into fast forward in the direct government investment in critical public infrastructure like schools, roads and other elements of transport and related infrastructure. A rational response to the impact of the global recession on the Australian economy must embrace all the elements that I have just referred to. It is not one or the other. That is the only way we can reduce the impact of this global recession on Australia. The alternative, as the member for North Sydney knows full well, is simply to let the free market rip. That is the alternative that the Australian people are confronted with. Our strategy is clear. 242 242 14:38:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan will support Australian families such as those in my electorate of Braddon and on any responses? 242 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Braddon for his question and for the very hard work that he does for the families in his electorate, in that part of Tasmania. Yesterday there was some new hope for Australian families. Mums and dads can breathe just a little easier with the announcement of the government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It is an economy-boosting plan from a government that is determined to take the decisive action needed to support families and jobs. Under the plan, 8.7 million taxpayers get a tax bonus of up to $950, 2.7 million school-age children attract a $950 back-to-school bonus, 1.5 million single-income family households get a $950 single-income family bonus and families relying on the housing and construction sectors could feel a little more confident knowing that 21,000 jobs are going to be supported by the government’s investment in the social housing sector—$6.4 billion of investment. The Leader of the Opposition wants to kill that hope and confidence of Australian families. He does not care about the millions of jobs that will be under threat if families do not get these tax bonuses and payments. He does not care about stopping support for the 21,000 jobs in the housing and construction sector. Every single time an Australian parent loses their job, the Leader of the Opposition will need to answer to those parents about why he is opposing this Nation Building and Jobs Plan. All of us on this side of the House and many other Australians know exactly why the Leader of the Opposition is doing this: for base political purposes—no other. It must be a pretty lonely place over there. The Business Council of Australia right through to Anglicare all understand why this plan needs to be supported. The opposition has got this gravely and dangerously wrong. Just this morning—as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said so clearly today—we have got the final nail in the Leader of the Opposition’s coffin, with the retail sales figures up by 3.8 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition might not have noticed, but these are the biggest monthly increases since August 2000. The figures do not lie. The economic strategy payments in December did their job, and the Leader of the Opposition should now make sure he supports the government’s actions in our $42 billion package so that people can keep their jobs. 242 242 14:42:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer point to a country where a stimulus package providing one-off payments to families and individuals has successfully created jobs? 242 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —They are so out of touch that they do not know what country they are living in. I can point to the success of the Economic Security Strategy of last October in Australia. I can say to the honourable member that the overwhelming research work that has been done around the world by the expert bodies studying this matter over the years, most notably the International Monetary Fund, is absolutely unambiguous in its recommendation for our approach. Not only do people like Nobel laureate Paul Krugman share this opinion, and not only is there a large body of economic opinion in the United States and Britain; this opinion is also shared by many people in this country. A recent budget submission given to the government said: Measures most likely to immediately impact demand are direct purchases of goods and services by government, and/or transfers directed to members of the community with a high propensity to spend. Who would that have come from? Could that have come from the ACTU? It came from the Business Council of Australia. This is accepted wisdom. The only people who do not accept it are those opposite, who are so terminally out of touch they cannot see the urgency involved here and the need to support Australian jobs and Australian industry. 243 14:44:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the economic benefits of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and why it is so important that the plan be implemented as soon as possible? 243 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —It is very important that this legislation passes the House this week. We have been advised by the tax commissioner and also by the chief executive of Centrelink that we do need key legislation through this House if the payments are to proceed through Centrelink in March and if the tax bonuses are to be paid by the tax office in April. That is just a fact. Given the urgency of what is occurring internationally, it is very important that there is no undue delay. I have seen the Leader of the Opposition today talk about what we should be doing instead of, for example, providing the tax bonus and some of the other payments. He suggests that what we should do instead is bring forward the 2009-10 tax cuts. That was one suggestion yesterday. If you were to take the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion, that would deliver $150 to a taxpayer on $30,000—only $150. There is no stimulus there. That is $800 less than our tax bonus that we will deliver in April. If you are talking about someone on $65,000, he only wants to deliver in that period $150—once again, $800 less than the tax bonus that we will deliver in April. Of course, he would deliver, through his proposition, $2,150 to a taxpayer on $200,000. That is a real indicator of the priorities of the Leader of the Opposition. I think because I pointed out this mistake to him yesterday he changed his tune in the House today. I think in the House today he suggested that they would be in favour of bringing forward the tax cuts from 2010-11. I think that is what he said in the House today. If his proposal were to be adopted, that would result in $300 to a taxpayer on $30,000—$650 less than the bonus that we would provide in April. But, for somebody on $200,000, that would deliver $3,450 to that taxpayer—$3,450 more than they would receive through our temporary bonus. But it is worse than that, because it goes to the point that I made to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition earlier, because they are arguing in favour of permanent tax cuts. If the proposition to bring forward the 2010-11 tax cuts were put and implemented by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition’s proposed tax bring-forward would cost $11 billion, on a permanent basis—hence my observation earlier that they are in favour of higher deficits permanently. 244 244 14:48:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is also to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to weekend newspaper reports that $81 million from the government’s first spending package went to recipients living permanently overseas. Treasurer, how did these payments overseas stimulate the Australian economy? 244 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I think the member has a very short memory. It is the case that we do have reciprocal social security agreements with other countries and payments are made to Australians living overseas, and other countries have payments made to their residents living here. I do have a long memory, because I have a memory of a time when the member who asked the question was actually a minister for social security in this House. I think you will find he might have negotiated some of those agreements. I think that is the case. He was certainly a member of a government that was negotiating the arrangements that apply now and have always applied under both sides of politics. 244 244 14:49:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 Ms JACKSON —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan improve road safety and stimulate local economies? 244 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Hasluck for her question and her ongoing interest in transport and infrastructure development, including in her electorate. The package that is before the House today provides an additional $90 million for the Black Spot Program. The Black Spot Program improves safety right around the nation. For every dollar spent, there is a far greater saving due to the fall in health costs from accident reduction and in terms of efficiencies on our roads. This will fund an additional 350 projects. It brings spending on black spots to over $250 million over the next two years, more than double what the former government was planning to spend over the same period. We are also providing an additional $150 million for repairing and maintaining regional roads. In order to do all this, of course, we need to get the package that is before the House passed. You would expect the National Party to at least be supporting regional road projects. If nothing else, you would expect them to be supporting that. But the Leader of the National Party, the shadow minister for transport, has already made his contribution to this debate and he has dismissed the $150 million. Indeed he has called it ‘a paltry effort’. He has said: You could spend all of that on one road in my electorate and you still would not have caught up on the maintenance backlog just for that road. Who was the minister who presided over the maintenance backlog? Who was the minister for transport in the former government? He and his Nationals colleagues presided over massive cuts in road funding, including a cut of 35 per cent. In 2005-06 it was $4.3 billion, down to $2.8 billion in 2006-07—a cut of 35 per cent in road funding. So out of touch are they with people who used to be a part of the constituency that they engaged in. This is what people in the sector have had to say about the package put forward under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Wendy Machin, President of the NRMA, said yesterday: The NRMA warmly welcomes this additional funding, particularly the fact that a substantial proportion of the money will be immediately available to be spent this financial year. Trevor Martyn, of the Australian Trucking Association, said: We are very pleased the Government has looked beyond tomorrow’s headlines and is putting money into fixing the roads and making them safer. Every road user will benefit from the Government’s plan. The fact is that the opposition are just so out of touch. It is all about them; it is all about the politics. The Leader of the Opposition is more concerned about protecting his own position as Leader of the Opposition than he is about defending the interests of the nation. The default position, because his party room is just so divided, is to come in here and simply say, ‘We will oppose the whole package.’ They stand condemned, they stand isolated from their own base, they stand isolated from their own communities, and over coming days, weeks and months there will be a real political price to pay for the political opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. 245 245 14:54:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 Mr KEENAN —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to yesterday’s updated economic outlook, which forecasts a loss of 300,000 Australian jobs. How can the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile that loss of jobs with the government’s claims that its recent spending packages will create or support 330,000 jobs? 245 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the shadow minister for his question. The answer to the shadow minister’s question is in fact obvious. The government is engaged in the economic security strategy in this Nation Building and Jobs Plan to promote economic activity and to support jobs. As the Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion, we are in difficult times. But what we can certainly say about the economic security statement and about this Nation Building and Jobs Plan is that it will support economic growth and consequently support jobs. Whilst we are in difficult economic times, clearly the nation will be in a better position with this stimulus in our economy than if the nation followed the lead of the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Liberal Party, who have taken a conscious decision today to come into this parliament and to vote for higher unemployment—to come into this parliament and vote against nation-building propositions, including the biggest historic spend on our schools in this nation’s history. That is what the Liberal Party have chosen to do. The Treasurer, during the course of question time, has taken the Liberal Party to the evidence from the retail trade figures about the difference that the Economic Security Strategy made. If members of the Liberal Party are so economically naive, so economically incompetent that they cannot reason from those figures into understanding that stimulus packages make a difference to economic activity and stimulus packages consequently make a difference to and support jobs, then really I do wonder what hope there is for them. I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that, if he cannot explain that basic economics to his frontbench, one does wonder what skills you need to be a merchant banker. 245 245 14:57:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister advise whether the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan will maximise support for jobs? Why is a temporary stimulus through targeted payments and investment a better mechanism for supporting economic growth and jobs than are tax cuts for higher income earners? 245 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —The government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan is designed to push back hard against the very powerful negative economic forces emerging from overseas that are causing major problems for the Australian economy and at the same time to leave a legacy of new and upgraded infrastructure for the future of Australians. The individual payments that we are committed to will hit the Australian economy first in March and April but will continue to flow through for some months thereafter because people may in some cases save initially and spend subsequently. The investment in insulation of Australian homes, in schools and in housing will ensure that we rebuild the infrastructure of this nation, both the community infrastructure and the productive infrastructure, for the benefit of future generations. It is legitimate to ask what exactly across-the-board permanent tax cuts favouring wealthy people would do for future generations in terms of productive infrastructure and community infrastructure. How are they going to improve the productivity of this nation? Yesterday I reminded the House of the infamous statement by the member for Curtin on Sunday where she advised that the coalition’s response was ‘broad and sweeping tax cuts that will increase the tax base and increase tax revenues’. As I have already pointed out, this is based on the discredited theory of Professor Arthur Laffer that if you actually cut taxes that will mean tax revenues grow. I note the Leader of the Opposition’s response to that in a radio interview where he stumbled, he bumbled, he weaved and he ducked but he was unable to avoid saying that he kind of agrees sometimes with his own deputy leader, his own shadow Treasurer. There were lots of, ‘Well, it, it’, ‘Simply this’ and ‘I am not going to’— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is like Groundhog Day, except that the second time around it is far more presentable. I would ask you to bring him back to the question that he was asked by his own side. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am listening closely. The question asked for a comment on targets and tax cuts, and I think that is what the minister is making. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —There is another element in the statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that warrants some examination too. That is the reference to ‘increase the tax base’. Increasing the tax base means one thing, which is that you start taxing things that currently are not taxed. That is what the former government did by introducing the GST. That is what ‘increase the tax base’ actually means. I note that the opposition, who are today making such an issue of deficits, are saying that their alternative strategy outlined this morning by the Leader of the Opposition involves a stimulus package of $15 billion minimum. When on radio today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked, ‘If you were going to spend $15 billion in a recovery package, would that send the Australian economy into deficit?’ her answer was: ‘It would balance it in fact at this point.’ Not only has she not caught up with the $115 billion collapse in government revenues that the Prime Minister announced on Monday, but even if you measured this against the projections in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook paper published in mid-November you would see that this statement is 100 per cent wrong. She cannot even add up, because the stimulus package they propose would take the budget into deficit even without the recent updated analysis of the collapse in tax revenues. The statements from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition lead to one of two conclusions: either the opposition has a strategy to impose new taxes, perhaps by broadening the GST and putting it back on food as it always wanted to do, or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. Those are the two options. I concede that there is quite a bit of evidence to support the second hypothesis, but having been in this place for a while I am a bit of a cynical type and I am a bit more suspicious. I tend to believe that, in politics, where there is a little bit of smoke there is going to be fire. I note with interest that in late January the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said that one of the first things the opposition would do in response to the global financial crisis was revisit industrial relations laws. I wonder what that is a reference to? I believe in watching what people do in politics. What we have really seen hinted at by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and walked away from to a degree for public presentation purposes by the Leader of the Opposition, is the real traditional Liberal Party strategy, which is tax cuts for the wealthy, an increase in the GST’s scope and bringing back Work Choices. That is the strategy of the opposition. The government reject these approaches because we are investing in the long-term infrastructure needs of this nation. We are getting spending moving into the pockets of ordinary families to ensure that the retail sector and the ordinary small businesses of this country can continue to grow to sustain jobs and growth. 247 247 15:04:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his promises that ‘no child between year 9 and year 12 shall be without a computer’ and for ‘a trades training centre for every secondary school’ at the last election. Given that the free-falling computers in schools program has doubled to $2 billion and only 34 trades training centres have been approved for Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools, what confidence can the Australian people possibly have that yesterday’s promises for schools will be any less hollow? 247 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The government stands unapologetically for an education revolution in Australia. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I thought that would get them going! We stand for an education revolution in terms of what we build in our schools—our primary schools, secondary schools, TAFEs and universities—and in our research. We believe in that because we need to equip this nation for the 21st century economy. I said yesterday that when I said at the last election we needed to prepare for that day when the mining boom was over those opposite when they were in government scoffed and laughed. That was a little more than a year ago. Guess what? The mining boom is over. What they did for 12 years was turn their backs on developing the knowledge base of the economy to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. This seems to have escaped the attention of the member for skirt— Honourable members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —that is, the member for Sturt—in the midst of what I think must be an interesting set of arrangements at the moment in terms of his loyalties between the member for Wentworth and the member for Higgins. We will just think about that for a minute. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was very specifically about the hollow promises made at the last election and their failure to be delivered. It was about outcomes, not rhetoric. The Prime Minister should be brought back to the question— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —A key part of the education revolution is to ensure that our kids have access to the digital education revolution of the 21st century. That means that all kids, not just those in the richest and flasher schools, have an opportunity to participate in the information economy of tomorrow. That means that we have to work hard to do it. What those opposite did, when they had 12 years to act, was simply push it all into the too-hard basket. Nothing happened on high-speed broadband; nothing happened on a rollout of effective computer access within our schools. When it comes to trades training centres in schools, as we have gone around the country we have seen capital infrastructure in our secondary schools which has not been updated for 30 or 40 years. This is a disgrace. We need to invest to fix it. Adding to that, we have sought, with the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which we outlined yesterday, to add language laboratories, science wings, 21st century libraries and multipurpose halls to our schools. This is part of building the best education system that this nation can possibly have. We will honour our pre-election commitments on trades training centres and on computers in schools as given. 248 248 15:07:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Minister for Trade. How will Australia’s trade policy enhance the economic impact of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan? 248 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr CREAN —I thank the honourable member for her question and make the point that the global financial crisis is having a huge impact on trade flows around the world and, despite the fact that Australia posted a strong trade surplus yesterday, we will not be immune. The reason for that is that six out of our top 10 trading partners are already in recession. The IMF is forecasting that trade flows will decline this year by 2.8 per cent, and we are seeing very worrying trends in terms of reversion to protectionist policies, most evidenced by the dairy decision in the EC and the ‘buy America’ campaign emanating from the US congress—both measures which we have strongly opposed. Because we are not immune, we as a government have to act decisively here as well as in international fora in arguing and taking action for a positive and constructive path forward. That is why yesterday’s $42 billion jobs and nation-building package is an essential part of our response not just for what matters here in this country but also in terms of a global call for those countries that are in a position to spend and inject a fiscal stimulus to do so. The IMF has called for countries that are in that position to spend at least two per cent of their GDP. Yesterday we also saw the Reserve Bank responding not just to the circumstances here but also to the urgings of banking authorities for the central banks to ease interest rate pressures. Our endeavours in international fora to free up trade are so important to this coordinated approach. The reason for that is simple. It is because trade itself is a stimulus. That is because historically world trade has grown faster than world output. Each time that there has been a successful conclusion to a trade round, that multiplier has increased. So the point that we make is this: what is the point in a coordinated approach to fiscal stimulus unless you are prepared to work on the multiplier as well? That is why we have been advocating the conclusion of the Doha Round not only in the forums of the WTO but also through the G20. This is a government that has responded and acted in terms of a coordinated action. But who is standing against that action in this country? Those who sit opposite, because they would oppose the stimulus message and the stimulus calls from the international organisations to which Australia has responded. The opposition’s action is irresponsible. It not only flies in the face of what has been called for globally but also condemns Australian working families to the worst excesses of what will happen out of this global recession. 249 249 15:11:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr DUTTON —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister outline how the government’s spending package will provide relief to patients and doctors in hospitals around the nation, including the Dubbo hospital, where doctors have not been paid since October and regular maintenance programs are not being undertaken? Why won’t the minister deliver on the government’s promise to fix public hospitals? 249 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Dickson for his question because it allows us to take the opportunity to remind the House about the very significant investments that have already been made in health in the last 14 months, in contrast to the approach taken by the previous government, which used to rip money out of the public hospital system. So let me just recap in case any members have forgotten over the Christmas break about the $64 billion of health investment—a 50 per cent increase on the previous government in this healthcare agreement. I do not hear anybody saying that a 50 per cent increase on the previous government’s healthcare agreement is an underinvestment in health. I did not hear any criticism about $1.1 billion going into the workforce. I did not hear any criticism when we put $750 million on the table for emergency departments across the country—something those opposite never did. I did not hear any objection from constituents in the electorates of those opposite and in the electorates of our members when we committed to putting $600 million into elective surgery. I can report to the House that 35,000 procedures— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question went to the government’s $42 billion spending package and why there was not one dollar towards those hospitals in the $42 billion announced by the Prime Minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I would suggest that the member for Dickson review the latter part of his question. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I will get to the question of the Dubbo hospital in a moment. Let me first report to the House that I have not heard people complaining about the extra 35,000-plus procedures—hips, knees, cataracts—that were paid for by this government’s investments in its first days in office, which have now been delivered across the country. That is more than was promised. Let me go particularly to the question of the Dubbo hospital, because it is a very bad situation. In answer to previous questions in the House I have made clear that we do not apologise and are not apologists for what is clearly an inadequate situation at that hospital. I would like to read a quote to the House, because it seems that sometimes those opposite do not like to hear my views on these things, but I wondered whether they might like to hear the member for Dickson’s view and his comments last week on 2SM. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —I’m sure they would. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —It will be very interesting for those opposite, because he said: The issues at Dubbo hospital of course have been around for a while. The hospital and the public health issues in general have been around, frankly, for the last 10 years. We have done more in the last year than you ever did! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I am happy to clarify it. For the last 10 years Labor have been in New South Wales and they have ripped patients off— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The House will come to order. The member for Dickson is reminded that that is not a point of order and that the Speaker’s tolerance is getting very stretched. 250 250 15:16:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House on the opportunities for members to play a role in the rollout of the Building the Education Revolution initiative? 250 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I know that he is deeply interested in education in his electorate. Can I say to the member for Moreton and to all members in this parliament that our investment of $14.7 billion into our new program, Building the Education Revolution—a historic investment in every primary school, every secondary school and every special school in this country—offers opportunities for those members who are in touch with the local schools in their community to assist. Of course, members who are in touch with their local schools know what their local schools’ infrastructure needs are and they know that local principals, teachers and parents have seen yesterday’s announcement and now want to start working it through. Members of parliament who are in touch with their local communities can play a role in getting that information to school communities. I would recommend that those members visit the Building the Education Revolution section of my department’s website, where they will find fact sheets to assist schools to work out how they will benefit from this program. The benefits of this program for local schools are enormous, as are the opportunities for supporting local jobs as people go about the construction, repair and maintenance activities that will be financed by this historic new investment in schools. The government are anxious to work with in-touch local members on this program and we are anxious to work with those who want to assist with the rollout of the program. In that regard I would refer to the statement by the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, Mr Colin Barnett, who said: The Federal Government’s plan— that is, our Nation Building and Jobs Plan— emphasises the areas of housing and education, two areas that I am confident the Western Australian Government can help to deliver … The Liberal Treasurer in Western Australia, Mr Buswell, said: That type of stimulus, whether it impacts on consumption expenditure or investment, is something that the state government welcomes. Those people are clearly prepared to work with the federal government in delivering these new investments for Australian schools and more broadly through our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Of course, there are those members of parliament who are so out of touch with the needs of their local school communities that they are opposed to this $14.7 billion investment in schools to make sure that they are able to meet the needs of the 21st century and offer a world-class education. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition was inviting members of parliament to imagine what they would say when looking into the eyes of schoolchildren as they talked to them about Australian politics and about matters that involve the Australian nation. In-touch members of parliament will be able to say that we are making a historic investment in their schools and their future. Out-of-touch members of parliament from the Liberal Party, who are voting against it, presumably will say that they were members of a government that used to have a program called Investing in Our Schools, which they brought to an end by way of prime ministerial press release on 19 February 2007, and that they then contested an election in 2007 without promising one dollar more to that program. In his response today, the Leader of the Opposition floated an idea that maybe $3 billion could be put into that program but failed to explain that that is an 80 per cent cut on what the Rudd Labor government is committed to—a Nation Building and Jobs Plan for every school in the country as opposed to the Liberal Party’s Investing in Our Schools Program, brought to an end by the then Prime Minister by way of media release on 19 February 2007. 251 251 15:22:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr CIOBO —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports which show 93 per cent of small businesses are under cash flow stress. Prime Minister, how does your government expect small business to take advantage of the increase announced yesterday in business investment allowance if 93 per cent of small businesses do not have the cash to invest? 251 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. The government has been working its way through a range of options to try and assist the small business community across Australia, who are bearing the brunt of this global economic crisis. Small business is extremely important. It generates employment of a large order of magnitude across the country. There are millions of small businesses. Each of our communities is well represented by the men and women of small business who are out there, often putting their houses on the line in support of their small businesses and generating jobs for themselves and incomes to support their families. These small business men and women have not caused this crisis—not one bit. It has been caused by other factors which have been the subject of debate here and elsewhere. The practical question we face is: how can we support those businesses? What we have done so far is implement a range of measures which assist—they do not remove or eliminate the impact on them of the global economic recession but they assist—in reducing that impact. One of those measures has been derided almost universally by those opposite, and I refer here to the measures that we have taken to support private consumption. Small business operators, as the honourable member will know from the Gold Coast, are very much concentrated—not exclusively—in the retail sector. Therefore, when you provide direct stimulus to consumption, it flows through in large part to retail. The statistics referred to by the Treasurer before, about what happened with the retail sales figures at the end of last year, reflect therefore a direct flowthrough to small business operators. It is not the end of the story. It means that more measures must be taken, but we are acutely conscious that small businesses, out there at the front arm of retail, are bearing so much of the brunt of this impact, and therefore our direct support for consumption last year and this year is of direct relevance to them. Secondly, when it comes to the stability of the financial system and the ability of banks to provide credit at all—and I will go to the question of the extent to which banks are properly providing credit to small business in a minute—the first and foremost responsibility of this government, given the extraordinary events of last September and October, was to ensure the continued stability of the financial system, period. In this country, our overwhelming focus has been on what we need to do to make sure that Australia’s main commercial banks remain viable into the future. If you look across the world at what has happened with the mainstream banks and other major Western economies as they have fallen like ninepins, you will see that 30 of them either have collapsed or have had to be bailed out by governments. That is of fundamental and continuing concern to this government, hence the actions we took—which were, in large part, opposed by those opposite—in the double guarantees that we provided both to depositors and to banks for interbank lending. Why we provided support for interbank lending— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst this is a general meander through the government’s response, the fact is that my question was specific about the initiative announced yesterday. The Prime Minister has been speaking for six minutes and has yet to address in any way the question I asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I will come to the measure announced yesterday, which relates to the accelerated investment allowance, once I have described the impact of supporting banks and their ability to provide credit, period. You see, the debate in this parliament about what we do on stimulus is important. It goes to the questions of government direct action in supporting jobs and also government direct action in building necessary infrastructure in our schools and elsewhere. But, in the overall global scheme of things, what happens with the normalisation of private credit markets is of fundamental importance. If we do not get that right globally then stimulus can only do so much—even macroeconomic global stimulus, including both fiscal and monetary policy measures. It is getting global credit markets operating again which is so fundamental to allowing credit to flow again at a reasonable price to small business borrowers as well. That is why we are so actively engaged in the whole exercise of ensuring the continued stability of our major banks and our overall financial system. Also, what has been criticised by those opposite is our direct engagement in a measure with the banks to support the private commercial property market. Those opposite need to reflect on this: in the event of the withdrawal of foreign participation in the syndication associated with the commercial property markets—as the Leader of the Opposition audibly groans—what you are effectively signing up to by opposing that is to allow the collapse in asset values of so many of the major companies of this country who have substantial investments in the commercial property sector. That sector alone employs some 150,000 people and a number of small business contractors directly affected by any such collapse in their asset values, of which the ‘member for merchant banking’, otherwise called the Leader of the Opposition, seems to be completely oblivious and disregarding. On the measure that we announced yesterday, which goes to the investment allowance, we have specifically embraced measures to reduce the overall threshold at which small business can apply for their handling through the measure that we have embraced. Before, the threshold was $10,000; now it has been reduced to $1,000. We have also increased the actual amount from 10 per cent to 30 per cent. We are acutely mindful of the decisions which small businesses must make. On the supply of credit and the cost of credit to small businesses, as I also said yesterday, we will remain heavily engaged with the banking sector to do whatever we physically can to support the proper flow of private credit to small businesses as they need it. Small business, together with other sectors of the economy, is critical and represents a critical focus of what the government seeks to do. We are engaged in a grave debate in this parliament about how Australia should respond to this global economic crisis. What stuns me about the debate today and the position taken by the Leader of the Liberal Party is that the Liberals, demonstrating how much they have lost touch with the Australian community and economy, are now threatening in the Senate to block tax bonuses to 8.7 million Australians, to block the biggest single building program across Australia—7½ thousand primary schools—and frankly, they should reconsider their position. 253 253 15:29:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 Ms LIVERMORE —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. What has been the response to new investment in social housing in yesterday’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan? What positive effects will this have on construction workers in Capricornia in keeping them employed after the recent lay-offs in the mining industry? 253 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms PLIBERSEK —I want to thank the member for Capricornia. I know that she has been very concerned about recent job losses in the mining sector and she is very concerned to keep construction strong in Capricornia. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan, released yesterday, includes a historic investment in social housing which will have benefits right across the nation: in areas like hers; in regional centres; in rural and remote areas; and in suburbs and cities. Right across this nation, we will be building 20,000 new homes and renovating another 2½ thousand run-down homes in order to make them liveable again. This is the largest single investment in social housing ever made by an Australian government. The package will help us meet our targets on homelessness and provide affordable housing for low-income Australians who are struggling in the private rental market. We have had—unremarkably, I suppose—very strong endorsements from the community and welfare sector. The Council to Homeless Persons has said, ‘This is great news for the more than 100,000 Australians who are homeless.’ The Brotherhood of St Laurence has said: … we haven’t seen this kind of government investment in social housing for decades. Not only will it bring lasting benefit in terms of protecting construction jobs but it will also boost the stock of affordable housing for disadvantaged Australians now and into the future. ACOSS have said, ‘We are delighted that social housing has been given a much needed boost.’ It is also the fact that this package makes great economic sense. It will support jobs in the housing and construction industry. The Housing Industry Association says: … the spot purchase of private sector new dwellings will provide a rapid and necessary boost to economic activity. It will activate the commencement of many approved private sector dwellings that have stalled due to a lack of working capital … The Property Council of Australia says: Every dollar that goes into the construction sector has a multiplier effect – it is spent three times over in the economy … This makes for an ideal measure of a well thought-out stimulus package. The Residential Development Council says: In committing this money to the sector, the government is ensuring projects that are already in the development pipeline are built, and more importantly that new projects get off the ground, which is difficult in the current market. This measure is right for our economy. It is right for building our nation in the long term. The opposition’s decision to block these measures will be a blow to the many low-income Australians who are struggling to put a roof over their heads, and it will be a blow to the construction sector: to all those tradies, small businesses and building supply companies that are struggling to keep their heads above water and struggling to keep their apprentices employed. The responsible and compassionate thing to do is pass these measures now. 254 254 15:33:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr MORRISON —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. Given that the government has already brought forward more than $1.8 billion in projects for homelessness and affordable housing—I might add, supported by the opposition—can the minister explain why committing the taxpayer— Government members interjecting— E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr MORRISON —I am talking about your existing programs, remember? Keep up. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cook has the call, and the interjections will cease. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr MORRISON —I will start again, Mr Speaker. Given that the government has already brought forward more than $1.8 billion in projects for homelessness and affordable housing, which the opposition has already supported, can the minister explain why committing the taxpayer to an additional $6 billion in debt for public housing is a more effective use of taxpayers’ funds than providing support to boost construction for private housing—which represents 97 per cent of residential construction? 254 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms PLIBERSEK —I guess there are a few things that you can take from that question. The first thing you can take is that the $3 billion cut by the previous Howard government from social housing is their continuing policy. The fact is that, if funding had continued on the trajectory that it had been on under the previous Labor government, we would have 90,000 extra public housing homes in this country today. We have got 100,000 homeless Australians on any given night. If we had continued on the previous trajectory, there would have been 90,000 extra public housing dwellings. We will put that to one side! That does not matter! The honourable member has asked why we would not spend extra money on building private housing. He may have missed the fact that we have set aside $623 million for a National Rental Affordability Scheme. He may have missed the fact that we have set aside $1½ billion for a first home owner boost—increasing the first home owners grant to $14,000 for existing properties and $21,000 for newly built properties. And what do people in the development and construction sectors tell me? They tell me that they are relying on these first home buyers—who are walking in off the street with the confidence to buy, for the first time in many years, because interest rates are low and the first home owner boost is giving them confidence—to keep themselves working. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. My question was: why is it better to spend it on public rather than on private housing? Why is it better spent there? 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —I will conclude by saying it is ironic in the extreme that a party that ignored housing policy for over a decade, and that presided over a growth in our homeless population at a time of economic prosperity, should raise this issue in this way. 255 255 15:36:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 Ms OWENS —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister update the House on support for the new Energy Efficient Homes program as part of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan? 255 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. I know that she takes a keen and acute interest in the policy matters that we are bringing forward for people in her electorate. As the House would be aware, as part of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan, we have committed $3.9 billion for the Energy Efficient Homes program, which will roll out energy efficiency to Australian suburbs on an unprecedented scale, providing immediate support for green jobs and driving demand in clean and green industries through insulation and hot water. Critically, the Energy Efficient Homes program will also help relieve cost-of-living pressures for nearly three million Australian homes because it will reduce people’s energy bills for years to come. There will be a significant saving of 49 million tonnes CO2 equivalent by 2020, akin to taking one million cars off the road. I was asked what support there is for the Energy Efficient Homes program and am pleased to say that the response has been overwhelmingly positive. One insulation fitter on ABC Radio yesterday said: Our own company had to lay off a shift in one of our plants just before Christmas. We’ll be putting that shift back on. That is exactly what the Energy Efficient Homes program is about. I am also happy to read what the Clean Energy Council had to say about the package: Insulation saves energy, money, jobs and the environment—so it’s a win-win-win-win. These sorts of packages help every Australian by cushioning the cost of transition to a carbon constrained economy. That is exactly what the Energy Efficient Homes program is about. Master Builders of Australia said: This initiative will help support much needed jobs in the building industry, while at the same time assist in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and saving energy costs. …            …            … Boosting the building industry is a proven formula for reviving economies and stimulating jobs growth. There was this recognition from the Climate Institute: There’s no question that insulation and solar hot water are at the top of the list in improving the energy wastage and carbon pollution from our homes … And so the statements of support for the government’s announcement yesterday go on. These positive responses show exactly what the Energy Efficient Homes program is all about. This is the right package at the right time, and these programs are already open for business. This is action on an unprecedented scale, with insulation to around 2.7 million Australian households, including half a million rental homes. By increasing the solar hot water rebate from $1,000 to $1,600 and removing the means test, we are harnessing Australia’s abundant sunshine for a true solar revolution in Australia’s suburbs. We heard another endorsement today not from a third party but, as it turned out, from the party opposite. This is in fact what the Leader of the Opposition said about the government’s rollout of insulation: We welcome the government paying attention to … insulation. We then got some overblown criticism, ignoring the fact that the Liberals did nothing for some 12 years, before he went on to say: The $1,600 subsidy will … mean that over 90 per cent of jobs would be completed at no cost to the owner. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that that is exactly the point. The $1,600 subsidy that the Rudd government will provide for ceiling insulation means that over 90 per cent of jobs will be completed at no cost to the owner. That is the point of this particular measure. He went on to say: The subsidy is not means tested. We would support an insulation subsidy of a lower amount, and I would suggest for the government’s consideration one that is, for example, $500 for all houses, increasing to $1,000 subject to a means test … A similar approach could be taken to solar hot water. That is quite incredible. What must the member for Flinders be thinking after spending most of last year asserting the great injustice of a means-test on the $8,000 rebate for solar PV, a rebate that continues to run at record levels despite the member jumping out of an aeroplane saying it was in free fall? The Leader of the Opposition is now trying to means-test a package that is all about value for money, delivering energy efficiency savings for nearly three million Australian households on an unprecedented level and driving demand for green jobs. The opposition has lost the plot. It is time it supported this bill. 256 256 15:42:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr DUTTON —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. I refer the minister to reports that not-for-profit aged-care providers are refusing to take up placements for high-care residents. With the crisis in aged care, why was not one cent of the government’s spending package allocated to help older Australians in need of high care? 256 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the honourable member for his question. I point out to him that this government is providing record funding when it comes to aged care of $41 billion over the next four years. That is in comparison to 12 years of neglect by the previous government. The other side is always talking down the aged-care sector. The honourable member referred to the latest aged-care approvals round, in which we had very healthy and competitive numbers of people applying for those places right throughout the country. Indeed, when it came to high care we had a huge amount. When it came to community care, we had a 10 to one oversubscription. What that shows is there is a huge interest from providers when it comes to applying for those particular places. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —The industry’s in crisis and you have no idea what’s going on! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Dickson has asked his question. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —So I thank the member for pointing out the latest round of ACAR, in which we have a major oversubscription and in which we are seeing major capital grants to our aged-care providers throughout the country. As I said at the beginning, this government is committed to providing aged-care services for our older Australians. We had 12 years of neglect from those opposite. What we are doing is providing record funding—$41 billion over the next four years. We are doing that to provide services to our older Australians right throughout this country where they need and deserve them. 256 256 15:45:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, how is the government supporting older Australians during these challenging times? 256 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Longman, who certainly does understand that older Australians who have worked very hard all their lives are feeling the pressure of the global financial crisis. It is the case that older Australians are amongst the millions who will benefit from the government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Those self-funded retirees who paid tax in 2007-08 as a result of their investments or other income will receive the $950 tax bonus. Part pensioners who paid even one dollar in tax last financial year will also receive the $950 tax bonus. That means that around 290,000 older Australians, self-funded retirees and part pensioners can expect to benefit. This, of course, is on top of the benefits that were paid to both pensioners and self-funded retirees back in December. Those Economic Security Strategy payments went to four out of five of the 2.8 million Australians aged over 65—both pensioners and self-funded retirees. Very importantly, many pensioners who are suffering in the private rental market will benefit from the government’s $6.4 billion investment in social housing. Many pensioners in the private rental market are under severe housing stress, and we certainly hope that some of them will be able to benefit from the 20,000 extra homes that will be built. This support builds on many other initiatives that the government put in place last year for older Australians. These figures are very important for everybody to be aware of. In total—and this is excluding the normal indexation that pensioners receive—the government has provided an additional $2,337 of assistance to single pensioners and $3,537 to pensioner couples—all that in the year since we came into office. We are also committed to delivering long-term pension reform, and that has been recognised by the National Seniors chief executive officer, Michael O’Neill, who yesterday said: I think the relief has come already, and there will be a further lot of relief with the reform in May in the budget. Unfortunately for older Australians there is only one thing standing in the way of them benefiting from this Nation Building and Jobs Plan, and that of course is the opposition. It is the opposition that is going to prevent self-funded retirees and part pensioners getting the tax bonus that we have proposed. They also seem to want to stop those pensioners who are under severe financial stress in the private rental market from getting the help that they need. That demonstrates just how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are. They have no intention of making sure that older Australians get the help they need. 257 257 15:49:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 Mr BILLSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister accept that his failure to get the national broadband network project under way, the government’s single biggest infrastructure election promise, has deprived the Australian economy of a significant economic stimulus? 257 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The question just asked by the member for Dunkley reminds me of all of the questions on national economic infrastructure posed today by those opposite. It begs one fundamental question: what did you do for 12 years? What did you do on broadband for 12 years? What did you do on building our schools for 12 years? What did you do on building our hospitals for 12 years? What did you do when the investment in our universities went backwards rather than forwards? What did you do to make sure that our research infrastructure was in fact world-class? The answer to the above: nothing, nothing, next to nothing, nothing and nothing. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a matter of relevance, we were wondering how the NBN stimulus is going? That was the question, Prime Minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On the question of infrastructure, including broadband infrastructure, the government will stand by each and every one of its pre-election commitments. These are vital to the nation for the 21st century. Our vision for the nation is to ensure that we have 21st century infrastructure. This government stands for nation building; those opposite are for sitting on their hands. That is the alternative. Again, I say to those opposite, including to the leader of the Liberal Party: the Liberal Party, by its decision today to block this nation building plan in the Senate, has demonstrated how out of touch they have become with all Australians and with the needs of the Australian economy and Australian families. So out of touch have they become that they have no mind whatsoever as to who will pay the price of this global economic recession. I will tell you who will not be paying the price: the merchant bankers. Who will be paying the price will be those who are out there depending on this government to act, in order to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of private sector activity, by assisting with the measures that we have announced. We have already underlined, through the statements the government made yesterday, those who will benefit from the package the government has put forward. But those who will pay the price for this action taken by the leader of the Liberal Party today are the mums and dads who, every day, are facing the challenges of paying back-to-school expenses, those out there who are waiting for decent primary school facilities and those out there who expect their governments to act, not just to waive through the recession onto their shoulders. 258 258 15:53:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the response to the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan, in particular the initiatives that will benefit small business? 258 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 Dr EMERSON —I thank the member for Bass for her question and for her ongoing support for the Business Enterprise Centre in Launceston and the small business community more generally. I can advise the House that the response of the small business community to the plan announced yesterday has been extremely positive. Indeed, the Council of Small Business of Australia described the plan as: … a confidence boost for small business that will provide benefit to many small businesses and to the communities in which they live and operate. We have heard from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia. What do they say? They describe it as, ‘A timely shot in the arm for small business.’ They say: The $2.7 billion tax bonus— that has been criticised by the coalition— is an important and timely investment in the lifeblood of the Australian economy—small business. The New South Wales Business Chamber has said that this is ‘a shot in the arm for the New South Wales economy’. It said: New South Wales businesses will particularly welcome the $2.7 billion package of tax breaks for business. What do we hear from the Master Builders Association of Australia? They have said: The building industry is predominantly made up of small businesses which should benefit from the Government’s $2.7 billion Small Business and General Tax break … The point they are making is that this is a plan for tradies. This is a plan for the tradespeople of Australia. As the Prime Minister said during question time and again this morning, ‘What have you got against the contractors and the tradespeople of Australia?’ You are supposed to be supporting small business—the tradies and the contractors—but you are opposing each and every one of these measures. What do the National Farmers Federation have to say? In support of the package, they say: Further, the $2.7 billion tax break for small businesses … will be greatly appreciated by those small family-owned farms. Well, it would be appreciated if we could get the legislation through the parliament. The Restaurant and Catering Industry Association has said: The small business tax break … may just be what our small businesses need to convince them to buy that new piece of equipment in the market. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— There you go, the member for Moncrieff! Very importantly, on the question of spending, it also said: Consumers now spend nearly 10 per cent of their household income on meals out, on average, and these additional payments, which will come just prior to the next school holidays— if we can get them through the parliament— will be spent in restaurants and cafes. So there is the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association. The fact is that the only critics of this plan are members of the opposition. The criticism was led last night by the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, who formally began his campaign for the leadership yesterday and last night. Members of the opposition are always taking an each-way bet, a bob each way. I will bet that there is a very big chance—and I will back it on the nose—that the member for Higgins, the former Treasurer, will be the Leader of the Opposition by— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Realistically, how can this rant be relevant to the question asked? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will respond to the question. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —I am responding to the decision of the opposition to oppose this package. The temporary opposition leader is condemning the Australian people to more hardship, to more job losses, to more people losing their homes and to more people losing their businesses. He is completely out of touch with the needs of the Australian people and he is completely out of touch with the needs of small business. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to put aside his personal short-term political interests to support the small business community of Australia, to support the Australian people and to support the Australian national interest by passing this package. 259 259 15:57:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the repeated statements in the months leading into the last election that Labor had a plan for major infrastructure. Prime Minister, after well over a year in office and two so-called stimulus packages totalling $50 billion, why have there been no major new infrastructure projects announced to date? 259 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —They really are a bunch of beauts, aren’t they? On infrastructure? In 12 years, nothing; one year, fix the lot. That is terrific. One year, fix the lot—cranes out across the country. But there are a few things that you have to go through. One is called the tendering process. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, can I draw your attention to the obligation of speakers, be they at the dispatch box or otherwise, to not only address you through the chair but not turn their back upon you so they can perform some computed or TV trick. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will address his remarks through the chair. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On the question of infrastructure, let us all bring close to mind the absolute debacle in the Senate last year when those opposite sought to vote on the nation-building legislation. Do you remember that? I notice the honourable member who has just interjected, who is from the great state of Western Australia. I thought that, after 12 years of umpteen studies by those opposite about partnering with the Western Australian government on the future development of the Ord, this government, uniquely, has now said to the Liberal government of Western Australia, ‘We’re going to be partners with you in that development.’ That is why I went up to Kununurra with the Liberal Premier of Western Australia—because we are going to get on with the business of developing the great north-west, as opposed to those who twiddle their thumbs year on year on year. Furthermore, I would say to the member for Goldstein in answer to his question: on two occasions last year we advanced two blocks of half a billion dollars to the universities of Australia to advance much-needed capital works. That work is now underway—from planning processes and the rollout of project work. We did the same in the stimulus package last year—half a billion dollars released also to the TAFE sector of the country to do the same. I would suggest to the member for Goldstein that he also pay attention to the other contents of the $4.6 billion nation-building program that we released last December, including the massive investment in the Australian rail freight corporation, and to what will happen to the Australian rail freight network across the country. These are decisions which have already been taken, and we support each one of them. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I intimidated him, Mr Speaker! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I think I should be charitable and let that just ride. 260 260 16:01:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the reaction to the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan, including the farmers hardship payment? 260 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Flynn for the question. He is a member who is well in touch with the farmers in his electorate. It is critical that the government invest in long-term nation-building projects in rural and regional Australia in order to support jobs and boost long-term growth. We referred yesterday to the reaction from the NFF as one of the first farmers organisations to explain their view of how this would affect farmers in need. They said: The Government’s $950 tax-free bonus for all drought-affected farmers—reaching some 21,500 farmers in need—will be a much-needed fillip to families and regional economies. But the most extraordinary thing has not been the positive reaction from the farmers; the most extraordinary thing has been the reaction from some of the people within this chamber—because, while the member for Flynn understands that there are 550 farming families in need in his electorate who will receive the $950 payment, I think people were astonished when the member for Wide Bay decided to announce that the more than 130 farming families who would receive the $950 payment in his electorate were going to be told that he would come in here and vote against the $950 payment for those 130 farming families in his electorate. But maybe it is because he did not consult fully with the other members of the National Party and Liberal Party in this chamber who have many more than 130 families who will receive the benefit but who have now been committed to come into this chamber and vote against them receiving that benefit. Did he consult with the member for Parkes, who has more than 800 farming families in his electorate for whom he is going to walk in here and vote that they not get the $950? Did he consult with the member for Murray, who has more than 1,900 farming families in her electorate and who will come in here and vote against it? Did he think for a moment about the electorate of Mallee and the extraordinary challenges that are evident in areas like Mildura, where there are more than 2,150 farming families who will receive the $950 payment—yet he will vote against it? But the members for Flynn, for Blair, for Eden-Monaro, for Wakefield, for Ballarat, for Bendigo and for Corangamite will come in here and defend the farming families in their electorates? Did he think about the member for Gippsland, who campaigned during his by-election that he would support the upgrade of the Maffra Secondary College—yet, when money is going to come forward to help fund an upgrade at Maffra Secondary College, he has been committed now to come in here and vote against it? Maybe the member for Gippsland ought to have a look over his shoulder at someone who was elected in the by-election in another part of Australia on the same day, because the member for Lyne campaigned vigorously for the upgrade of Laurieton primary school, and he will be able to come in here, defend his local primary school and vote in favour of it. There are three political parties in this room. The political party in this room that represents the fewest country seats is, without surprise, the National Party. There is a reason for that. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, on that note, Hockey Joe having had a bit of trouble rustling up a few more questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 261 Auditor-General's Reports 261 261 16:06:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER ——I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 19 of 2008-09 entitled Performance audit: CMAX communications contract for the 2020 Summit: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 261 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 16:06:00 —Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Freedom of Information Act 1982-Report on the operation of the Act for 2007-08. Future Fund-Report for 2007-08-Corrections. Debate (on motion by Mr Hockey) adjourned. 261 Matters of Public Importance 261 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s determination to drive the Budget into a structural deficit and long-term debt I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 262 16:07:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —I note that the Prime Minister extended the length of question time just then in order to avoid further scrutiny over the next few days about the details of his package. The interesting thing is that we had at least another 30 questions that people were prepared to ask on the details of the package and the bills which we received today. Forty-two billion dollars is asked of the Australian people, and the Labor Party is scurrying out of the chamber after delivering these bills to us today. The bill that is most alarming is not one of the appropriation bills—even though we are going to vote against them; it is the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009. The bill itself is less than one page. But that one page is perhaps the most deadly page to the Australian economy and to future generations of Australians that we have ever seen in economic terms, because that one page says that this Commonwealth government can increase the size of its credit card from $75 billion to $200 billion. I did not hear that in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. I did not hear it in the press conference. I did not get any early warning about this. But the Minister for Finance and Deregulation introduced this bill this morning to increase the credit card limit of the Commonwealth from $75 billion to $200 billion. ‘Take it or leave it,’ they said. They said: ‘You have to pass this bill. This bill must be passed by the House of Representatives today.’ Even as now scheduled the House of Representatives will sit until at least 10.30 tomorrow morning, because every one of my colleagues will use their right to have a say. The government can threaten the gag at two o’clock or three o’clock or four o’clock in the morning, as they have said they are going to, but we are standing on a matter of principle. It comes down to this one-page bill, which says that the Australian government is prepared to borrow up to $200 billion and wants 24-hour approval from this parliament, without detailed explanation for that massive borrowing binge. Why $200 billion? That is the first time we have seen a figure of that scale anywhere in the papers or even in this UEFO, the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook, copies of which not all members of parliament were able to receive because it was not widely circulated yesterday. The interesting thing is that it does not say anything in here about borrowing $200 billion, but the legislation does. The legislation that we have to pass today and the Senate has to pass tomorrow says ‘borrow $200 billion’. If the government is expecting there to be a default for financial institutions associated with any of its guarantees, it should say so. I have no reason to believe that that is the case. If the government believes that there are going to be some other defaults that will require it to provide emergency funding either to corporates or financial institutions, then they should advise us—if not publicly, then privately. If they believe, as I suspect is the case, that state governments will continue to have problems raising money in financial markets and that indeed the Commonwealth needs to start issuing bonds to raise money to pay for the states, then they should come clean with the Australian people and certainly they should tell us. Today, question No. 1 from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister, was: why on earth does this government need to increase the credit card limit of Australia to $200 billion from $75 billion today? And the $75 billion today is not even issued. Even if we are in the debt markets—which we are, even though the previous coalition government paid off government debt—the reason we stayed in those debt markets was to keep some liquidity in the markets and to have a yield curve that would provide some guidance and stability in the markets. That is why we still issue bonds. The interesting thing is that we did not have $75 billion on issue and we certainly do not understand why this government wants to have a borrowing capacity of $200 billion. The interesting thing is that when you look historically at the underlying cash balance of the Commonwealth as a percentage of GDP—and, naturally enough, the government issues bonds to pay for its deficits—you would say to yourself, ‘Well, of course there are various times when it exceeded the levels that are in the projections contained in UEFO.’ In fact, the Commonwealth has from time to time, particularly under the Whitlam government, gone to 3½ or four per cent of GDP. The largest one, on scant reading, was 1992-93 under Paul Keating when we went to 4.1 per cent of GDP as a deficit. But in the main economic parameters revealed in the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook you can see the government says that in 2009-10 its forecast is for three-quarters of one per cent growth in GDP, and then it is going to go to three per cent the following year and three per cent the year after. I will tell you what: you will want to strap in in 2009-10 for the joyous ride of a massive acceleration in GDP growth! Do you know what? The government is going to have a significant deficit, not just in 2010 but in 2011 as well, which is completely at odds—as the shadow Treasurer said—with its so-called plan to put the budget back into surplus when the economy gets to its average growth rates. Do you know what the interesting thing is, Madam Deputy Speaker? These figures—particularly projected revenue—are ambitious. The information that I have been able to obtain is scant. It includes the 45-minute briefing from the Treasury for the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer—and I might say it was not even from the top officials at Treasury—during which they could not give us the answers to the questions that we were asking—for example, about a $50 billion drop in corporate taxes over the next few years. What is the assumption about the profitability of corporates over the next few years? They could not give us the answer, but do you know what it is, Madam Deputy Speaker? The government’s projections assume that corporates in Australia over the next few years are going to be, on average, more profitable than they have been over the term average of Australian economic history. So they are saying corporates are going to continue to have above-average profits while the Australian economy drops, while unemployment goes to seven per cent, while the terms of trade collapse. They are still projecting in their revenue estimates that corporate tax, which is probably the most volatile of the taxes in terms of estimated revenue—and I think the Minister for Finance and Deregulation would agree—is going to be above average. Go figure. And do you know what? Under the scenarios that all the economists and global experts are talking about, every dollar spent today may well have a value of $1.50 at a later date. If it is well spent, if it is targeted, it will provide the stimulus to create real and sustainable jobs when there is confidence. When you see economic projections such as these—which are ambitious, if not extremely optimistic—you say to yourself, ‘These guys are not being fair dinkum with the Australian people.’ And yet the government come into this place and they say to us: ‘Approve a credit card limit of $200 billion. Approve immediately the biggest fiscal stimulus in memory, of $42 billion. Approve it now, without question, without demur—and, by the way, we are telling you the whole story.’ Well, they are not telling us the whole story. I want them to come clean about their fears about the current account deficit. I want them to tell the truth about the great risk that the overseas purchasers of all our minerals and energy are going to default on their contracts. I want them to be fair dinkum with the Australian people. The Prime Minister said last year that he rang up the President of China and got an assurance that China would continue to buy all of our minerals and energy. They gave him an assurance that they would honour the contracts. They did not deliver on those words, if they were in fact the words provided by the President of China. So do you know what happens, Madam Deputy Speaker? Australia faces this unenviable position where the government is being overly optimistic with its projections, it is not being fair dinkum about the risks, but it is asking us to sign off on the biggest spending initiative in Australian history. I will go one step further. As the Intergenerational report stated at various times—there are various volumes of the Intergenerational report—there is a danger of a structural deficit for Australia. That structural deficit, by the initiatives of this government, has just got a whole lot worse. It is hard yards to get it back into surplus. The reason why it cuts to our core to see a new government come in and spend money is that we know what you have to do to get back into surplus. It is hard yards. There are thousands of economists out there who will say to you: ‘Spend, spend, spend,’ under these circumstances, but it will be those same economists in 10 years time who will say, ‘Cut Medicare in half, take $50 to $100 off the pension, abolish the family tax benefit, cut the defence budget.’ All the things that will really hurt the fabric of the Australian nation those economists will argue for in good times. And do you know what? They should not be listened to in those good times, just as surely as they should not always be the bible during bad times. When we start citing economists, I look at Ross Gittins last year, who said the government should dump the Costello tax cuts. I look at Access Economics and Chris Richardson, who said the government should dump the tax cuts because at the end of 2008 they would be awash in so much money they would not know what to do with it. I reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister said that Australia was going too fast at the beginning of last year, that the inflation genie was out of the bottle. And I well remember the Treasurer referring to the ‘inflation monster’. At that time, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bradfield, the then shadow Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, and I were all saying: ‘Guys, look at what is happening to credit markets overseas. There has been a complete meltdown in confidence in credit markets, not just in the United States but around the world. The tsunami will hit Australia.’ And at that time the Prime Minister was urging Australians to rush down to the beach to have a look. What a mistake that was, a dramatic mistake—180 degrees wrong. And then the Prime Minister talks up the panic. ‘It is going to be bad, really bad,’ he said on 12 October. If there was any confidence left amongst Australian consumers, it was wiped out by the Prime Minister’s words on that weekend: ‘It is going to be bad, really bad.’ You know what? You can put $100 into the hands of someone but if they think for one second that they might not have a job in 12 months time, that they might not be able to feed their kids, that they might not be able to pay the rent, they will be holding on to that $100 because they might need it on a rainy day. When the Prime Minister says that there are graphic storms on the horizon and that they will hold them back, we say the Labor Party are the party of debt and deficit. We say the Labor Party are the party of debt and deficit; that is what they are. That is why today we will not support them with their initiative—because it is bad policy with bad consequences, particularly for our children. 265 16:23:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —Today the Liberal Party and the National Party have taken the astonishing decision to try and run the country from opposition in the middle of a national economic emergency. The government is responding by seeking to stimulate the Australian economy in response to the enormous negative forces that are bearing down on our economy, and the opposition is determined to block the path to recovery, to block the path to defending jobs and to thereby increase the job losses and economic pain that will flow as a result of this global financial and economic crisis. It is interesting that the member for North Sydney has presented the opposition’s case today. Yesterday we had the Leader of the Opposition. The question that many of us will ask is: where is the member for Curtin? Where is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer? In what is going to be one of the biggest and most important economic debates in this parliament in recent times, there is no sign of the shadow Treasurer. We have the member for North Sydney auditioning for the position and doing a very florid job, I have to say, though a little bit light on content. He made the extraordinary assertion at the commencement of his remarks that the government allowed question time to extend further than usual in order to avoid scrutiny. We were under the impression that question time is actually about scrutiny, and the opposition certainly on many occasions has asserted that. The government, in pursuing its response to the global financial and economic crisis, is following the advice of the International Monetary Fund and is doing what governments in many other parts of the world are doing. The Liberals are off on their own little planet, in their own little world, fighting dead ideological battles of 20 and 30 years ago. They have lost touch with the reality of what is occurring in the world and what is occurring in ordinary homes, businesses and workplaces around this country. The package the government has put forward has had a great deal of thought, a great deal of consideration and a great deal of analysis go into it, and naturally extensive advice from Treasury and from the other central agencies. We have sought to achieve a critical balance between short-term stimulus, getting money flowing in the economy, and long-term nation-building, long-term building of productive infrastructure, productive economic capacity and community infrastructure that will benefit our children. The balance that we have pursued is roughly 30:70 or thereabouts—about 30 per cent on short-term tax bonuses and payments and around 70 per cent or so on longer-term infrastructure, much of it flowing very quickly, much of it in smaller or localised infrastructure, much of it to unfold in the next year or two. I have outlined to the House before that the argument about whether payments are being spent or saved is largely fallacious because the bulk of the payments that may be saved today, because money is interchangeable, will in effect be reflected by increased spending next week, the week after, next month and in the ensuing months thereafter. Some of it will be long-term saved but I would suggest not much, and the retail sales figures today show that the outcome of the stimulus package put forward by the government in December has been overwhelmingly to stimulate spending, to stimulate economic activity, to stimulate the retail sector and, most importantly, to support jobs. The long-term benefit which will flow from the government’s package is that we will rebuild the primary school infrastructure of this nation, which is long overdue. We will further enhance the secondary school infrastructure of the nation. We will add substantially to the social housing stock and indeed 800-odd new defence homes, which is an area where we do require further effort. We will insulate the homes of the nation and, of course, will improve the road and rail infrastructure around the country as well. The question that people need to ask is what the Liberal Party would be doing on all of these fronts to build the long-term infrastructure of the nation. What would they be doing with respect to our primary schools, our secondary schools, our roads, our rail infrastructure? The answer thus far is virtually nothing. I want to turn to the substantive accusations by the member for North Sydney about the issues of debt. We will see first that the profile of the collapse in revenue as a result of the global economic slowdown, about $115 billion over four years, is very similar to the projected deficit. In other words, the primary villain in driving the budget into deficit is the fact that tax revenue has collapsed. So much for the accusation that the government is driving the budget into deficit. In fact, it is the collapse of tax revenue that is doing that. It is notable that, as I indicated in question time today, the absent shadow Treasurer is simply unable to add up. The figures put forward by the government in revised estimates of future surpluses in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook papers in November last year showed a surplus this year of $5 billion, about $3 billion next year and about $2 billion the following year. Even against those now out-of-date, those now optimistic figures, she claimed that a Liberal surplus package of $15 billion would not drive the budget into deficit; it would keep it in balance. You do the maths, Madam Deputy Speaker. You subtract that 15 and, even if you put those three years together, they are still not up to 15. The impact of the government’s position will see the deficit peak at 2.9 per cent of GDP, and that compares with somewhere in the vicinity of six or seven per cent across the developed world and in places like the United States eight to nine per cent. The net debt figure, which is currently in negative—in other words, more is owed to the government than vice versa—will increase to around 5.2 per cent of GDP. That compares with the average across the developed world today of 45 per cent of GDP. The reason that the ceiling on debt raising that has been put forward in the legislation by the government is at $200 billion is that there is already a facility, and already mostly taken up, for $60 billion to $70 billion of debt, which of course is offset by similar assets, mostly in the Future Fund, held by the government. The government has made commitments to enable lending to go to non-bank mortgage brokers, up to $8 billion, and, of course, the Australian Business Investment Partnership, of $2 billion. When you add in the projected deficits, that is where you get the need for a ceiling of that kind. The strategy the government have put forward to return the budget to surplus is very clear and straightforward. Firstly, we will allow tax receipts to resume their normal growth up to a ceiling, on average, of the tax as a proportion of the total economy we inherited from our predecessors, as we promised at the election. Secondly, we will restrain spending growth to a two per cent real increase per year once growth in the economy has resumed at trend. Thirdly, at that point we will require and have a clear objective that new policy proposals and new spending proposals from within the government will need to be offset with contrasting savings. I turn briefly by way of explanation to the question of the projections in the later years in the four years. Something that any respectable shadow minister for finance should know is that the first two years you see in a set of budget papers are fully modelled forecasts. The second two years are projections. What those projections consist of is simply the long-term average. If you look at those two years you will see that they are actually identical. The projection of growth is three per cent and three per cent, and the same for the others. It is a completely misleading and ignorant way of presenting these things to suggest that that compares with the projected deficits, which are not projections based on 20 or 30 years of data. This is a completely salacious proposition that has absolutely no meaning. I think this underlines the point that the member for North Sydney made again today about his respect for economists. He said earlier on today on 2BL: ‘Economists will always go to extremes. Economists will say in downturns, “Spend, spend, spend.”’ I am not quite sure who the government is supposed to turn to for expert advice in the middle of an international economic crisis other than economists. Perhaps we should be asking aromatherapists, astrologers or other such experts. Perhaps we should turn to people who can really look into the future and tell us where things are heading. An opposition member—Numerologists. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Numerologists—that is probably not a bad idea! The shadow minister for finance might take you up on that. I understand, as we all do, that you get different perspectives from economists. There are people on both ends of any debate in the economics profession, but you have to take advice and form your own view on that basis. To denigrate them, as the member has done, is simply absurd. The alternative that is put forward by the Liberal Party is across-the-board, sweeping tax cuts. I quote: Broad and sweeping tax cuts that will increase the tax base and increase revenues. That is courtesy of the infamous and much discredited policies of Professor Arthur Laffer, adopted by no less than George Bush Jr—not his father—which have sent the US budget into massive deficit and created a huge problem for the entire nation, not just the Obama administration. It is code for tax cuts for the wealthy, for high-income earners. It is code for: ‘Don’t target the money. Don’t try and get the money into things like construction and retail and all of the parts of the economy that naturally contract very quickly when a downturn occurs. Just spray it everywhere, particularly to the better off.’ It is also notable that part of this formulation referred to increasing the tax base. That, of course, is code for expanding the GST back to where the former government originally wanted it to be, which was on food and virtually everything. They were forced to retreat from that. It is not surprising that the shadow Treasurer has been kept in the box in the ensuing days after this performance. The shadow Treasurer has let the cat out of the bag on what the Liberal Party is really on about. Finally, on radio a couple of weeks ago the shadow Treasurer said, ‘The first thing we would do in response to the global financial crisis, if we were in government, is revisit these proposed industrial relations laws.’ What is that code for? That is code for bringing back Work Choices. So there is a simple trifecta. The alternative from the Liberal Party to the government’s package is tax cuts for higher income earners, GST expansion and bringing back Work Choices. They are the three pillars of the traditional Liberal Party position. We know what the member for Curtin is talking about when she talks about increasing the tax base. She possibly does not know what she is talking about, but we certainly do know what she is talking about. There is a three-point plan juxtaposed against the government’s package, and that three-point plan is very straightforward. The result of that plan would be massive, indefinite budget deficits, like the United States has had, ever-mounting inequality in Australia and, of course, Your Rights at Work stripped away. There have been a lot of comparisons made in recent times in commentary between contemporary circumstances and the 1920s and 1930s. You would have to say that the opposition are certainly doing their bit for this because they are seeking to return Australia to the economics of Stanley Melbourne Bruce, the Lord Bruce of Melbourne, and to the days when the natural rulers of the country wore spats, top hats, waistcoats and all those kinds of things. They were blind to human suffering, indifferent to job losses, indifferent to business failures, fixated with the elegant virtues of the free market no matter what the cost and, of course, horrified at the prospect of governments intervening to invest for the future of the nation. There is no better person to do a latter-day impersonation of Stanley Melbourne Bruce than the Leader of the Opposition. There is no more appropriate person. I think that the ordinary working person in Australia will be asking themselves today: after all the carnage on Wall Street, all the destruction of value and all the people who have lost their jobs and their life savings courtesy of the behaviour of investment bankers, is Australia ready to have an investment banker as Prime Minister? I would say probably not. That may be a question that the Australian people get the chance to decide towards the end of next year, if the member for Wentworth lasts as Liberal leader. If the member for Higgins’s on-again, off-again flirtation with the prospect of Liberal leadership goes into recession yet again, that will be something that we will see in due course. This is something that I think lies underneath the position that the Liberal Party have taken today. What it means in effect is that we will see the attempted blocking of a government plan that will result, if that blocking succeeds, in more pain for working people of this nation in the face of a giant economic challenge, more people losing their jobs, more people losing their homes and more people losing their businesses. It will mean that there will be no investment in rebuilding our schools across the nation, particularly our primary schools. It will mean that the effort to insulate our homes and to take a big step forward in collectively reducing our carbon footprint and improving our greenhouse gas emission performance will not happen. It will mean that our effort to improve social housing, to reduce homelessness and to build more accommodation will not happen. It will also mean that a vast array of small businesses, retailers and contractors will lose sales, shed staff and, in some cases, go out of business. Of course, in total, it will also mean that there will be less investment, because there will be no investment allowance for large and small businesses to attract further investment. The government is committed to this plan. We are committed to fighting all the way to get it through the parliament, to get it in action, to get the money moving, to get the investment moving and to do what other governments around the world are doing to protect their citizens, to protect their working people, to support the jobs in their economies and to support the businesses, large and small, that create wealth and jobs—and we are going to stick to that and we are going to fight all the way. 269 16:38:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —This is one of the most important matters of public importance to be debated in this parliament. The MPI contrasts the differing approaches of Labor and its profligate spending and the responsible economic management proposed by this opposition. It is an issue of whether we want to manage this country’s financial affairs responsibly or whether we want to go down the path of debt that is running out of control. The $42 billion economic package introduced into this House today is vintage Labor. It is introduced on the basis of no care and no responsibility. It is Whitlam on steroids. It is a massive package. It is a package that will certainly be welcomed by many in the community. Many of those who receive it will certainly welcome it. But the important question is: is it the best package to achieve the three primary objectives of government in 2009—that is, jobs, jobs and more jobs? We are duty bound in this House to ask whether it is the best use of taxpayer funds. Are there better ways that we can spend this money to achieve those three objectives of jobs, jobs, jobs? Is the quantum of this package the appropriate quantum given the economic circumstances in this country? If it is such an effective strategy to spend such a huge amount of money, why don’t we double it? Why don’t we produce even more jobs by doubling the package? If it is just as easy as spending more money, why don’t we go into more debt and create, as the government alleges, more jobs? The problem is that this package is plunging us into debt which will become unsustainable—debt which will have to be paid by our children; debt which will limit the ability of future governments to deliver services and to deliver tax cuts to the people they will represent. This government have made the almost Orwellian claim that they built a surplus. Let the Hansard show that they have not built this surplus. They inherited a surplus; they did not build a surplus. And what did they do with the surplus that they inherited? They converted it very quickly and very effectively into a deficit. They converted a $22 billion surplus into a $22.5 billion deficit. The previous coalition government was handed $96 billion in debt by the Labor government that preceded it—a government that went to great lengths to ensure that they concealed a budgetary black hole from the incoming government. That Labor government did not deliver a surplus; they delivered a massive deficit. The question needs to be asked: what debt are this government going to hand on to the next government? What is the black hole that this government are going to hand to the government that follows? More importantly, what impact will that debt have on the children of this country? The ‘hollowmen’ of spin central in the Prime Minister’s office have created a new economic term. They have created the notion—and it is a new one to me—of a temporary deficit. I cannot imagine that you would find that term defined in Robert Barro’s book Macroeconomics: a modern approach or Taylor and Weerapana’s recent and influential book Principles of macroeconomics. The notion of a temporary deficit has no basis in economics; it is purely more Labor spin. This is not a sound term; it is a term contrived by this Prime Minister and the excuse for a Treasurer we now have to deceive and mislead the Australian people. The people of Australia know that Labor deficits are not temporary deficits; they are permanent deficits. They are a burden on the Australian economy, but they are the Labor Party’s stock and trade. In this House this morning we saw the introduction of one of the most frightening pieces of legislation that I have seen introduced to this House—that is, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009. This is a bill which I believe should strike fear in the heart of anyone who lived through Paul Keating’s recession we had to have and anyone whose taxpayers’ dollars were used to repay the debts of the former Labor government—the result of their previous spending binge. This bill, in one section, increases the potential debt to some $200 billion. It is a frightening increase. It is an increase that should concern all Australians. This sort of debt binge that we are talking about is clearly reminiscent of the Whitlam era. I guess the ghost of Khemlani is stalking the ministerial wing yet again. But the people of Australia do not want financial management Rex Connor style. They know that the electorate must repay the debts of this government, and they should rightly be concerned. The Prime Minister is asking the people of Australia to take him on trust. But, when we look at the current government’s responses to the problems that they face, we see that their responses have certainly been flawed. Last year we saw the Prime Minister goading the Reserve Bank to push up interest rates. Despite the fact that world markets were already in turmoil, despite the fact that growth was already slowing and despite the fact that growth was in fact collapsing overseas, we had the Prime Minister and the Treasurer goading the Reserve Bank to push up interest rates not for the benefit of this country or for the benefit of taxpayers but for the benefit of Labor’s political ends. They introduced an unlimited bank guarantee, a rushed decision which threw financial markets into turmoil, with thousands of investors having their funds frozen. Why was that? Why was this flawed plan introduced? It was not introduced because it was good policy. It was introduced because the Prime Minister had a media deadline to meet, and because of that he did not consult the Reserve Bank; he did not take the proper advice. He rushed the decision so that he could meet the media cycle, so that he could keep his spin machine rolling. We then had the first stimulus package, $10.4 billion—half of the surplus. It was going to save the world. Yet the first stimulus package has virtually disappeared without a trace—$10.4 billion, half the surplus, and it is virtually gone. We have had a government that has misread the economic climate time and time again, and the Prime Minister says: ‘Trust me. This package is going to work.’ That is the message he has given. This is $42 billion, with an ongoing structural deficit being put in place, and he says: ‘Trust me. It’s going to work.’ He is going to run a deficit of $22.5 billion in 2008-09, $35 billion in 2009-10 and $70 billion over the forward estimates and he says: ‘Trust me. It’s only a temporary deficit.’ Based on his form to date I think the Australian people are wise not to trust the Prime Minister. I think the Australian people are wise to listen to the words of the opposition when they show real concern for the future of this country, real concern for the taxpayers, who will have to pay back Labor’s debt, which is being put in place not to benefit the Australian people but to benefit the political needs of the Australian Labor Party, who need to be seen to be doing something, doing anything, in the face of what is a very difficult financial position. We had a stimulus package put in place in December. We have another stimulus package now. What happens if things do not improve? Are we going to have another $40 billion in three months time and $20 billion three months after that? Where is this going to end? Where is it going to leave the Australian people? The way the government is lurching into deficit really is Labor showing its true colours. We have a stimulus package that enshrines debt as a factor in Australian government and commercial life. We went for years with the notion of surpluses. We went for years with the methodology that the government was repaying debt and was managing responsibly, and that has been replaced by a new paradigm—a paradigm of debt, of put it on the never, never—and a new notion of a temporary deficit, for which there is no plan to repay. As I said when I started my contribution, this is pure Whitlam—Whitlam on steroids. And steroids, like long-term debt, can have some very serious consequences. They can stunt growth; they can cause baldness. But the financial repercussions of long-term debt, long-term debt out of control, can be far more problematic for our Australian economy. We have to reject Labor’s notion of profligate spending. We have to support the opposition’s plan to have responsible economic management so that this country lives within its means, so that it creates jobs for young people, so that we invest in Australia’s future, not spend for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party. 271 16:48:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —We are all very much aware of the significance of the challenges that we are facing right across the globe at the moment, and one of the most challenging aspects of the situation we currently face is that many of the old economic orthodoxies have had to be thrown out the window. In fact, we all know that an over-reliance upon neoclassical economics has at least in part been responsible for the international economic mess that we are all trying to come to terms with. That is a reality that we all confront. The message that is coming across through the many international discussions that are occurring at the moment is that, for the first time, the international economy has faced a massive downturn of this sort in the global era. It is in that global era that we require a global and coordinated policy response to deliver the best possible outcome, to fight against the economic challenges that we face and to try to deliver stronger economies right across the world into the future. That is the challenge—the challenge to work globally. If we are going to have any chance of working globally we need a bit of support and a bit of cooperation locally. On the issue of debt and deficit I hear those on the other side say that the Labor Party is the party of debt and deficit. Let me make a few points. The first one is that the first budget surplus in Commonwealth history was delivered under a Labor government in the 1980s. Have a look at all the years of government that preceded it and I can tell you, as unfortunate as I think that fact is, that many more years were under conservative rule than were under Labor rule. These are the same people who just a short time ago were telling you that the Labor Party was the party of high interest rates. With interest rates at their lowest point since the 1960s, there has been a slight adjustment in the rhetoric. Those opposite want to call us the party of debt and deficits. They want to accuse us of driving the budget into deficit, as if in the present international economic environment there were some choice. Have a look around. Have a look at all of the developed economies in the world. They are all in deficit, not as a matter of choice but as a matter of economic reality. When you have $115 billion wiped off your tax revenues, it stands to reason that that is going to have a really big impact on the budget bottom line. That fact is going to trip a budget into deficit. There is no active decision taken on the part of a government to do that. If those on the other side have an answer, a solution, a strategy to combat that, to minimise the loss of $115 billion worth of tax receipts over the forward estimates then I really want to hear it. If they have a solution, it would be in the national interest to put it on the table right now. But they do not have a solution. In fact, the only thing that even resembles a solution that has been put on the table has been what the shadow Treasurer refers to as ‘broad and sweeping tax cuts’. That comes from the very flawed and defective theoretical basis that has underpinned the American economy and led the world into the great disaster that we currently face—Reaganomics and the administration under George W Bush. What we have seen is this attempt to provide those broad and sweeping tax cuts, and some people hope that that will stimulate the economy. Have a look at the budget deficit and at the debt that the United States’ economy is carrying and tell me that they have not got anything to do with that strategy. If you want to come into this place and complain about debt and deficits, you are going to have to do a little better than come up with broad and sweeping tax cuts as your panacea or your prescription because, frankly, they will not cut it. Those of us throughout the world economy who have listened to those types who have led us down that path are all now saying: ‘You were wrong; you were dead wrong. Not only were you wrong but we are all paying the price now.’ What we say is that we want to be a part of the global effort to bring our nation through this crisis. We know that there are massive challenges but we want to work and draw upon the very best instincts and values of the people in this nation. We want to take advantage of the opportunities that are presented, even in the midst of the great challenges we face. We want to invest in those areas that our nation requires investment in. For those on the other side, it is almost an acknowledgement of the failing in their time in government. They do not want to talk about it. Frankly, if I were on their side of politics, I would never go into a school because every time I went into a school in my community, the school would tell me about how they needed more resources and that if the Rudd government wanted to deliver an education revolution it would have to do what the Howard government failed so abysmally to do, which was to invest in our nation’s future, to invest in educational opportunity. We are committed and determined to build the education revolution. That is why this second major instalment, this second big stimulus package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, is following hot on the heels of the Economic Security Strategy. Those on the other side talk about it not really achieving anything and say that it was a bit of a fizzer. All I can say is: let us just take ourselves back to when we introduced the package. Those on the other side, who at first said they were not going to quibble, then went on and said: ‘Oh, this is too much money; you are blowing all this money in one hit. Surely the economy is not in such dire straits that we need to be spending that sort of money? It is going to drive up inflation, drive up interest rates.’ These were the sorts of things that were being said by those on the other side. I put this question to the House: where would we be if we had failed as a nation and as a government to take the strong, early and decisive action to put that money into the economy to ensure that the wheels of commerce in this country continue to turn, that small businesses continue to have customers coming through their doors, that people continue to have the opportunity to get up and go to work each day and to provide for their families? All of that has been evidenced in the retail trade figures that were out today. Importantly from my perspective, those figures, apart from showing a 3.8 per cent seasonally adjusted increase in retail trade for December, show a 4.9 per cent increase in New South Wales, the state that I am from. Those on the other side have to get their story straight. Are they saying that we have done too much or not enough? Do they now say that they were wrong to say that we were spending too much money on this package? Do they acknowledge that the fiscal stimulus provided back then had an impact? Those opposite come into this place and ask questions and say things that really demonstrate they are out of touch with their communities. If they were in their local communities talking to retailers, they would know. They would not have had to wait for the retail trade figures today. Talking to shopkeepers, they would have known that they had been doing it tough and that this really did help. What is the solution being put forward by those on the other side? Where do we go from here? They say: ‘Let’s sit on our hands. We’ve got all the time in the world.’ I can understand that. When it comes to economic management, they want to claim the mantle of great economic managers. To them, the last decade in office was about operating a cash register. The money was flowing in from corporate tax receipts in particular; the mining boom was providing the windfall that the government needed. That was a great opportunity for the country. The great shame and the great tragedy was that there was very little investment in our nation’s future. That has made the challenge and the job ahead for us even greater, but we are determined to invest in our nation’s future. If those on the other side want to block the package that is currently before the House, as they have indicated, then they will have to account for it to the Australian people. I simply issue this plea: do not fool yourselves into thinking that this is just about statistics or about finding some cute debating point. People’s lives are at stake—the lives of people in my electorate and people right around the country. There are jobs at stake. This package stands to support up to 90,000 jobs. When you are voting against this package, just think about those people who will not have the opportunity to go to work because money that would otherwise be pumping into the economy, providing more stimulus, has been denied. That is the challenge for those on the other side. You either want to be part of the solution or you want to stand in the way of us and delivering a strong economy in the longer term for the people that we are all meant to be representing. 273 16:58:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —We are all aware of the global crisis and we are hearing and reading about many of the issues. In the last day, this parliament has been discussing some of those issues. The point that I make today is not really to get into the debate about the bills but to issue a warning to both sides of parliament that we should not rush this debate. The member for North Sydney made an important point earlier, and the Prime Minister has made the same point: this is a very significant and crucial issue. This nation has never before been where it is at, and the last thing that the people in the community want is the game being played as if it were just another traditional political issue where the two sides face each other and the one with the numbers wins. That is not going to deliver confidence within the community. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have talked about confidence and fear, and the contributors to this debate in the last few minutes have talked about those same issues. What this needs is a parliament that actually deliberates on the issues in a constructive sense rather than on the politics of the issues. The country does not need references to Whitlam; it does not need those references back to the seventies. This is a different issue. What it does need is both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to look very seriously at what is actually happening here. We all know that the Prime Minister does not have all the answers. We all know that no-one on the globe really knows what is going to happen in terms of this financial collapse. So there will be mistakes made—and I am sure that, in this package that the government is trying to rush through the parliament, there will be some mistakes. On the surface, I will be supportive of the legislation. But there are areas that need proper scrutiny—not political scrutiny and references to debt-ridden and debt-addicted Labor and Whitlam on steroids, or whatever the reference was. I do not think that does anything to enhance confidence within the community about the parliament actually trying to come to grips with solving an issue. We have two houses of parliament. The government does not control the Senate. But I think it would be in the interests of the government to slow down on this issue and actually have the debate about these critical issues—not in a political sense, where you gag it at three o’clock in the morning because you have got the numbers; that would be the worst thing that could be done in terms of this issue. This is a lot of money. These are, in my view, serious attempts by government to address some of these issues through money going into a whole range of areas—including schools, local government and the community—and obviously the various tax and investment allowances and so on that are built into it. In addition to that, we have got climate change issues. They all send significant signals to the community. But the signal that is coming out of this place now is one not of unity but of ‘the game is the same’. Everybody is suggesting, and I think the general public feel, that this is an issue that they do not understand. There were a lot of institutions that we trusted globally, a lot of people we trusted globally in terms of their economic theories and the way in which they developed confidence in various policies that governments around the world put in place. Take Alan Greenspan—most of us thought that he knew everything that was going on, but now he has apologised. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Well, the ‘member for Skirt’ mightn’t have— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —No, we all agree with you. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —but a lot of his colleagues did. But the point I am making is that confidence in a lot of these institutions has been undermined in the general public’s mind. Yet the way in which this debate is developing—even as the gimmickry today at question time, which is supposed to provide scrutiny in terms of the legislative— (Time expired) 274 17:03:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —The opposition’s rejection of a stimulus package that has been designed to bolster Australia’s economy during an unprecedented economic crisis is an irresponsible, obstructive tactic at a time when Australians are looking to their government for responsible leadership and support as they struggle to keep their jobs and their homes. This package is not just about one-off ‘handouts’. It is about the Australian government providing an immediate stimulus to the economy and, more critically, it is about supporting Australian jobs by bringing forward massive infrastructure programs through which Australians will see immediate and much-needed benefits. Far from being irresponsible, this package strikes the right balance between supporting growth and jobs now, and delivering the lasting investments needed to strengthen the economy for the future. And this is good quality policy. Nowhere is this commitment more obvious than in the massive $28.2 billion of direct investment in schools, housing, roads and other essential infrastructure. This is not a structural deficit, nor a long-term debt. It is a sensible long-term investment in our future prosperity. In investing in education, we are investing in the future of young Australians. It is these young Australians who will be the future workforce of this country. It is these young Australians who will create our future wealth. It is these young Australians who, through their talents and skills, will be the drivers of our innovation capacity. By investing in our schools through infrastructure and facility upgrades, as this package aims to do, we are equipping these young people with the resources and the tools they need to create our future prosperity and grow our economy. We often talk about a decline in interest by schoolchildren in the areas of science and maths. My own committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, recently released a report called Building Australia’s research capacity, detailing the decline in the numbers of young Australians pursuing a research career. We must heed these alarm bells if we are truly committed to increasing our knowledge and scientific capacity. Building modern science labs is fundamental to reinvigorating young people’s interest in science, and it is critical to our country’s economic future and prosperity. This stimulus package responds to this need. If we accept that we need to develop capability in the areas of science and maths, then we need new science laboratories and we need them now. And if we accept that we need to develop our language capabilities in order to be competitive in a global community, then we need language laboratories and we need them now. By injecting funds into schools, the government is investing in the nation’s future. For the opposition to obstruct this investment and to try to paint the government as financially irresponsible indicates that they do not see the value of investing in our nation’s future through our schools and that they are in serious denial about what other countries around the world already know—that is, that the effects of the global financial crisis are unfolding before our eyes. Australia is not immune and we must act now. Is it possible that the opposition just doesn’t get it? If this is the case, can I take the opportunity to inform the opposition that other Australians do get it. I would like to have a look at what others who know a little bit about these things are saying about the government’s stimulus package. Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group says: The nation building and jobs plan announced by the federal government today is simple and substantial, and will provide a big stimulus to help keep the economy moving. Together with the interest rate cut, it has been a big day for monetary and fiscal policy—it’s a case of ‘all hands on deck’ What a pity that the opposition has chosen not to get on board. Ron Silberberg from the Housing Industry Association also says ‘The government’s recovery plan appropriately spends for jobs in the short term and invests for future prosperity.’ Angelo Gavrielatos from the Australian Education Union, who seriously understands the need to invest in our schools and lobbies hard to ensure that this happens, says: In addition to providing an important economic stimulus, today’s announcement is the most important infrastructure investment the government can make. This investment will provide the opportunity for our schools to engage in urgent upgrades and to develop modern learning environments, which will improve education outcomes for our students… And finally, Wal King from the Australian Constructors Association says ‘This is a very thoughtful and well-targeted program. This is the right time to invest in Australia to protect the future and the announcements are an important contribution’. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. 276 Bills R4021 276 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 17:09:00 —I move: That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 276 Bills R4014 276 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 276 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) 17:10:00 —I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 276 Bills R3051 276 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 276 Bills R4044 Cognate bills: 276 Bills R4045 276 Bills R4046 276 Bills R4042 276 Bills R4043 276 Bills R4041 276 Debate resumed. 276 17:11:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —It is a pleasure to rejoin the debate on Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills. There is no-one on this side of the House or in the broader public who has much confidence in the capacity of the state governments to deliver the education and schools program either on time or on budget. It was interesting in question time today to hear the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry lecturing me about the needs of Gippslanders and the Maffra Secondary College. It was a very unusual choice of example by the minister, given the debacle which surrounded the funding for the Maffra Secondary College project. The state government of Victoria put out a press release announcing funding for the Maffra Secondary College and then said, ‘Whoops! It is no go—there is actually no funding for Maffra Secondary College,’ and backed right away from the project. It only required a few street marches, petitions and a campaign by the local MPs and the community residents themselves to actually get the funding restored, so that was an unusual choice by the minister if he was hoping to build any faith at all in the capacity of state governments to deliver on these projects under the education and schools program. Gippslanders really do know how much the minister cares for them anyway. He has visited the region three times—all in the lead up to the Gippsland by-election—and has not been seen since. We would love to have him back. He is most welcome to come to Gippsland any time, particularly as our farmers are dealing with ongoing struggles with the drought. There is great support for investment in the education programs associated with this package. The problem is that there is no balance to the package. There is nothing there for the health needs of my community; there is nothing there in terms of aged-care needs, which are not even mentioned at all. I do take up the comments from the member for New England, who called for a bit of caution—and perhaps people should slow down and take a bit of a deep breath about this whole debate given the importance of it. I am not one to completely discount the package and say it is all poor public policy because I do believe there are a lot of good policies in the package, and I have referred to a few of those earlier today. There are some good initiatives but, again, I fear that in the roads and transport area we are to some extent just bailing out the state governments from their responsibilities. One particular package that is of interest is the $150 million for boom gates to improve safety at level crossings. There is no argument from either side of the House regarding the need to improve level crossings, but we are talking about $150 million for 200 projects. Right across Victoria there are probably 1,000 unregulated crossings which have been the subject of great community debate. I believe we could force the state governments to match the funding dollar for dollar and get 400 boom gates installed if that were to be the treatment of those particular level crossings. I think we are letting the state governments off scot-free from their obligations in relation to the safety of level crossings. There is a little bit of extra funding for the roads Black Spot program. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government pointed out today that he would expect the Nationals to support that, and we certainly do support the additional funding in relation to regional roads projects. It was the Nationals, in conjunction with the Liberal Party, who initiated Roads to Recovery, one of those programs which has stood the test of time and has not been disbanded by the current government. Roads to Recovery is one of those excellent programs under which local communities get to decide the local priorities, and I would hope that in this particular package there is some option for that to happen if the package is passed by the Senate. There is also some good news in the package in relation to some of the environmental aspects of it. But again, in terms of the most effective spend in this regard, it is the sheer scale of this whole package and the lack of negotiation or discussion with the broader community which bothers me. There is no extra funding here, for example, for Landcare, which is the real, practical, labour-intensive program. We are talking about job creation. This is a real opportunity for labour-intensive work in weed control, pest animal removal, erosion or revegetation works. It would create jobs and deliver real benefits to the environment right across regional Australia. I do accept that the ceiling insulation program and the solar water rebates are both reasonable initiatives. But again I question the scale of the program. Is this the best way to be spending $42 billion as part of this initiative? The government has failed to negotiate on this package and involve the broader community in a debate when we have the time to do so. Can we really afford the extent of these programs and will we really stimulate the economy and create the jobs which should be created and which the Prime Minister himself has indicated are the main focus of this entire strategy? We have no evidence that the first package worked, and there is still no proof that this one will either. While I am on the environment, there is that little matter of actually delivering on previous promises. My good friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—I am sorry to be talking about him in his absence—has promised $3 million for the Gippsland Lakes. It was promised in November 2007. Thirteen months later, not a single cent has been delivered on that promise. We have exchanged correspondence on the issue. Apparently we are waiting for contracts. So, for 13 months we have been waiting for contracts for a $3 million project. We are talking about a $42 billion project to be rolled out over the next four years. I have very little confidence in the capacity of the government to deliver on that promise. The Gippsland Lakes funding that I am referring to is a critical program, which has widespread support across the community, to reduce the nutrient flow into the Gippsland Lakes, an icon of the Gippsland region. I urge the minister to expedite that funding as soon as possible. Given that the government could not even deliver $3 million on time, I have no reason to be confident that the rollout of the $42 billion will work, particularly once we involve the dysfunctional state governments. We have all had experience of the state governments’ failure to manage money properly in recent years. The public housing construction program, particularly relating to the defence forces, has a lot of merit. As the member for Gippsland, the East Sale RAAF base is a critical component of my regional economy, and I would be a madman to suggest that improving the stock of Defence Force housing is not a good strategy. I am certainly in support of that, but again I seek more time to negotiate these issues through the government. There are elements of the package, as I have repeatedly said before, which are quite good. I can see how the building program would deliver benefits in terms of jobs in the construction industry. But, on the overall scale of things, I am stunned that it is a $42 billion package and we are given 12 or 14 hours to debate it here today with no preparation whatsoever. It smacks of arrogance and it is a discredit to the government. The failure of this government to negotiate or to talk to others about the package reflects their view that they know everything. Alternative viewpoints are being put in public already. Michael Costa, the former New South Wales Treasurer, suggested in the Daily Telegraph today: The Government should focus its attention on providing an environment that supports business confidence. The quickest way for the Government to restore business and consumer confidence is through tax cuts. These are alternative ideas that, when we are talking about a $42 billion package, should be fully explored before we just rush headlong into this program. I do accept the need for a stimulus package, but not this one, and I will be opposing the bill. I urge the government to go back to the drawing board, to slow down and to take the advice of the member for New England in that regard, to listen to the views of others and to return with a realistic package we can all support. It is easy to be popular and to give away money that we do not even have; it is much harder to do the right thing and make the tough decisions. (Time expired) 279 17:19:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I am pleased to be able to make a contribution on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. This is an important debate that we are having today, and I think that both sides of the House are in agreement that the global economy has in past months deteriorated to the point where some of the biggest economies, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, have all fallen into recession. We all acknowledge the tough economic times, but global economic conditions are worsening at a faster pace than first thought. The International Monetary Fund reminded us of this very fact when it recently cut its forecast for global growth three times in just four months. It is now expecting a global recession. The global financial crisis has impacted significantly on our forward projections for revenue over the four years of the budget estimates. This means that there is now a $115 billion shortfall. As the global financial crisis impacts on the daily lives of people around the world, I and this government believe it is time for the government to act again. Last December this government took decisive action. The $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy was common sense, it was economically responsible and it dealt with the state of the global economy at that time. Just today we had the ABS statistics released, which were referred to in question time, with the retail trade figures for December 2008. As we know, they were better than expected; they were 3.8 per cent. The ABS said that total sales hit a seasonally adjusted $19.16 billion. In fact, the ABS said ‘the package implemented in December 2008 has impacted on Australian retail turnover’. Our economic strategy was a responsible package and had a positive impact on the Australian economy. But, since December, news on the global front has changed significantly. We cannot sit idly by, waiting for the market to correct itself. What we need to do is actively put in place further nation-building packages that will support not only the Australian economy but Australian jobs and leave us with better infrastructure and a better country than when we started. And this is exactly what the Rudd Labor government have done. Again, we have acted decisively. Without significant action it will be difficult to hold back the economic tide that has engulfed some of the world’s biggest economies. It is clear that the Australian people want to feel secure as we head through turbulent economic times. It is clear that they are looking to their government to take action—direct action—through this extraordinary and historic economic event. It is also clear that those opposite are not heeding the warnings before us. They are insisting on an ad hoc approach at best—an ‘it’ll be all right, mate’ approach—bringing tax cuts forward and letting the market correct itself. It is clear they really do not have a plan at all. We heard that yesterday in the House, with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation kindly pointing out the shadow Treasurer’s confusion from the weekend, when she said that the government should pursue broad and sweeping tax cuts that will increase the tax base and increase tax revenues. If we do not take decisive action now, Australia will be at risk of losing some jobs. If we do not take more action now, there will be no guarantees that Australia’s economy will sustain this economic emergency. Our plan in both this package and the previous one is to strike a balance that supports short-term relief and long-term initiatives. It is a plan that will immediately support jobs, while over the longer term delivering an infrastructure package that will strengthen Australia’s economy in the coming years as we come out of this global crisis. It is also about stimulating the economy in the short term and providing direct payments to low- and middle-income earners as well as encouraging private sector development. This Nation Building and Jobs Plan continues the Rudd government’s action in the face of the worsening global financial crisis. We also know that China’s growth has halved. It has forced the Australian government to reconsider and to bring on another stimulus package, a package that must be supported by all in this chamber if we are to ride out these economic conditions. It is not since the Great Depression that we have witnessed comparable financial and economic times. Australia is better placed than most other economies, but with the growing emergency before us we can no longer think that we will be totally immune, and we need to do something about supporting Australians and Australian jobs as we go forward. As the federal member for Franklin, I welcome the measures contained in these bills because I know that the constituents of Franklin will want some support and assistance during this crisis. There is a household stimulus package that will ensure the economy is strengthened, and the government will provide upfront lump sum tax bonuses of $950 to around 8.7 million taxpaying Australians earning $100,000 or less. The working Tasmanians in my electorate of Franklin are set to benefit. The Household Stimulus Package will also assist single-income families with a bonus of $950 to provide some additional assistance to families that have one main income earner. We are also supporting those on the land with a $950 payment that we will pay to farmers and others receiving exceptional circumstances payments. A training and learning bonus of $950 will be allocated to those returning to study or training. Infrastructure investment, as we know, is one of the core initiatives of the Rudd government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The plan will deliver $28.2 billion in direct investment in schools, housing, roads and other local infrastructure, and it is our schools that will be the central focus. It will deliver a $14.7 billion boost to the education revolution over the next three financial years. We are calling it the Building and Education Revolution. All of Australia’s 9½ thousand schools will benefit. There are three key elements of this Building and Education Revolution: $12.4 billion, which will be allocated to primary schools to build or refurbish large-scale infrastructure; $1 billion, which will be allocated to build up to 500 science laboratories or language centres in our secondary schools; and $1.3 billion, which will be used to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor infrastructure in all schools. In my electorate of Franklin, I have 55 schools, and all of them will benefit in some way. Primary schools with more than 400 students, such as Howrah and Huonville schools, will each be eligible for up to $3 million in infrastructure. It will assist them to expand or upgrade their existing facilities. In my travels in the electorate, I have come across many schools that will benefit greatly from this. I have seen temporary classrooms, which we have around the country, on many of the school grounds. I have also seen schools that have no shelter for their students when it is raining or protection from the sun. I too, as the Prime Minister mentioned today, have many schools that do not have areas big enough to hold a school assembly, where the whole student population can actually meet together in one place. I will be encouraging all the schools in my electorate to access this money and I will be talking to them about what they are going to spend it on. I will also be helping around 9,000 families in my electorate who will receive the back-to-school bonus of $950 to help with the costs of kids returning to school. If this package is actually passed some time this week, those payments are supposed to begin in the fortnight beginning 11 March. I hope we can get some of this legislation through, because people are relying on this money and they are counting on it, and those opposite are letting them down. These payments are what we are paying on top of the education tax refund. It is not only the schools that will benefit in my electorate, or the households, with direct support; it will also be of benefit to southern Tasmania’s roads. There will be an additional investment in the Black Spot Program to further reduce accidents on Australia’s roads. In December 2008 the government announced we had more than doubled the black spot funding from $50 million to $110 million. The government will now invest in an additional $30 million in 2008-09 and $60 million in 2009-10 to further extend the coverage of this project. As chair of the Tasmanian Black Spot Committee, I welcome this funding. I am sure that many councils and local government roads in Tasmania will benefit greatly from that money. We are also turning our attention to making sure that households are well insulated. This will modernise Australia’s existing housing stock. Australian owner-occupiers will be able to access a rebate of $1,600 for the installation of ceiling insulation and solar hot water panels. This will save them money on their electricity bills in two ways. We are also looking to support tenants in rental accommodation, with landlords able to access the increased rebate. And we are helping Australian households to install climate friendly hot water technologies, as I mentioned. Again, I will be encouraging all my constituents to take up these offers to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. On top of these initiatives, we are putting money into social housing, with $6.4 billion allocated over 3½ years for the construction of new social housing, as well as a further $400 million over two years for repairs and maintenance to existing public dwellings. In Tasmania a large proportion of our population is reliant on government income support. There is also a very large waiting list for public housing, compared with other states, for our population. At least 20,000 low-income households will be assisted by having access to secure and affordable public housing. This will help accommodate people who are homeless, who are at risk of homelessness or who are paying very high rental costs and are unable to continue to do so. It will also help stimulate the building and construction industry through further additional dwellings and increasing expenditure on repairs and maintenance. These are local jobs and, in supporting jobs, it will be a win-win situation for all. I want to quote some of the responses in my home state of Tasmania with regard to this package—in particular, from the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which said: … this is a brave package and one that will impact on the nation’s fiscal and economic position for many years to come. Master Builders Tasmania said: The dual benefit of having falling interest rates in conjunction with this kind of fiscal stimulus will certainly alleviate some of the pain that is coming for the industry. I too support these economic packages. These are tough times, and this plan strikes an important balance between supporting growth and jobs now and delivering on investments in our future. It is a plan to support the Australian people. It is what they expect of us. It is time to show some leadership and it is time to act. I commend these bills to the House. 282 17:30:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. Many members, including ministers, have chosen today to read the thank you notes from those they represent who will be receiving money. The leading talkback commercial station in Perth has as one of its announcers a fellow called Bob Maumill. I have known Bob for many years. He is a hard-nosed Labor voter. He would say so publicly, and I admire him for it. He is not a bad horse trainer either, and we have had many discussions in both areas. I thought the House might be interested in what this hard-nosed Labor voter with a huge interest in democracy and the proceedings of parliament had to say on air today. To put it in simple terms, he said: Pull your head in Kev, let the Opposition do their job. I might add that the member for Brand, who is here in the House, would know Bob Maumill well. Maumill goes on to say: … the Opposition has every right to take reasonable time to carefully examine these latest spending proposals. In fact it is the Oppositions duty to do so. The question might be asked as to why Bob had to give that lecture to his Labor colleagues. It might be that Bob knows that we have been in recess for nearly two months. While the Prime Minister was writing his treatise on the advantages of socialism, we could have been called back here to give this a couple of weeks’ consideration and meet the deadlines for which the government is so anxious. To come back and on the second sitting day have $42 billion of virtual mini-budget dumped into this House with the obligation of analysing it and giving good service to the community is ridiculous and bad. One can only doubt the motives of the government for doing it. As much as it is necessary to try and keep ahead of the current international situation, it is not that urgent. It seems that getting money out might have more to do with the schedules applied in Newspoll than the welfare of Australians. It is interesting because, when I look at this legislation and its intention, there were some very significant promises made by the government when we fought the last election. The first promise was economic rectitude: ‘We will guarantee to maintain surpluses. Trust us.’ Then in that context we were told we would have an education revolution funded in a proper budget which was to retain a surplus. Then we were going to have a housing program for the poor and the needy funded without the need to borrow. Where are they? I heard the minister today telling us about her new program, all of which is to be funded with debt. But I thought she had fixed that, according to answer after answer she gave in this place some time ago. She had done a deal with the private sector. They were queuing up in their thousands to take the deal from the government whereby they would construct the housing and rent it out on the basis of a subsidy. It is a good practical policy, one might think, but one can only wonder why it is now necessary for the government to borrow billions to build houses. Like that lovely gift of free computers, there is nothing in this legislation that tells us who pays as the houses suffer the normal deterioration applicable to rental premises. They cost a lot more to look after than premises that people might buy with their own money. It is the same thing. The states are saying, ‘Whacko! Give us the money!’ but not one of them has yet answered the question, ‘Hell, what do we do with 20,000 houses as the windows get broken and the floors get ripped up and all the other issues that most of us have perceived in this particular area?’ Not a word. We know what has happened with the free computers. The overall cost has doubled, and that is probably not enough because it has been established that the maintenance cost of these little black boxes is far in excess of their actual hardware purchase—and we know it. The first question we have is: what is this all about? It is certainly not an attempt to turn the Australian economy around or crank it up. It is alright to talk about whether or not extra money was spent at Harvey Norman or Bunnings or any of the places I visit as a shopper. I noted what happened. When the turnover went up, the queues at the checkout got longer. But I did not see any extra checkout chicks. Nobody stood up in this place and said, ‘Here is the evidence of increased employment relevant to this costly injection of funding.’ You could say maybe some did not get the sack, but there is no evidence of that. Under the much hated Work Choices legislation, there was evidence of 50,000 new jobs in a month in Victoria and New South Wales immediately after small business discovered it no longer had the threat of paying go-away money under those particular rules of unfair dismissal. So when we want to compare the statistics it is not a bad idea to put the facts on the table. But there are so many questions that cannot be answered in the course of a day or two. This legislation should have laid on the table for at least a week, while the broader commentators had a look at what it all meant. I was a bit surprised that the Minister for Trade put his head above the trenches today to make his contribution and to repeat carefully crafted lines like ‘decisive’, ‘the opposition is out of touch’ and everything else. I read into his remarks that the IMF have said that Australia has got to spend more money to save the rest of the world. You can go back and read his comments, but that was the clear implication that I worked out. This is what annoys me, as the representative of farmers, miners and all those primary industries—the people who carry the Australian economy. And the workers who have lost their jobs: what are they going to be under this new spend, spend, spend regime? Checkout chicks? Maybe they will get a job as a barman or a croupier. But they will not be getting a job in mining under this package because there is not one cent for the export industries. Tourism is an export industry, if people can possibly understand that. They said a little while ago: ‘Things are dreadfully tough for us. Can you help?’ The answer from this government was no. How do we drive an export-oriented economy when we give those industries no help and we give all the money to people to go and buy imported goods? Maybe that truth came out through the comments of the Minister for Trade when he said, ‘The IMF are pressing for this.’ Australia is apparently going to save the world! There is no talk anymore of a surplus. From this moment on, everything is borrowed money. When all those people get their 900 bucks, their interest bill will start. I do not know if anybody thinks that we materialise money in this place—of course, the Whitlam government did. If we are real about it and we borrow money, and we borrow it out of a very restricted market, where do the profit generators get theirs? You might like to tell me. Are they going to get it overseas? That seems to be the problem. So we are going to have government back in the money market, hip-and-shouldering every other business that might think it can borrow some money, and doing something for the economy on the way. It is all right for the Reserve Bank to say what interest rates will be. When money gets short, it is out of their control. They become commercial rates. The banks talk about the cost of borrowing. So when $40-odd billion worth of government paper comes onto the market—and of course people will buy it, because they at least hope they will get their money back there—what happens in the private sector? Historically, our banks have gone overseas, and certain government initiatives have helped them there. There are rumours in the trade at the moment that letters of credit, fundamental to the export trade, are not being honoured. Has our government been out there, at no cost, and saying to importing nations, ‘What is your government doing to guarantee these letters of credit?’ Nothing! All they want to do is get out there and start to cover their backsides for their election promises. Everything of substance in this package was promised in the election: ‘We’re going to look after the schools. We’re going to look after social housing.’ Why don’t you do it, as you promised, within a surplus budget? Because you can’t; that’s why. So you are going to put the kids of Australia into debt. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Would the member refer his comments through the chair. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —I would be delighted to, but unfortunately for you, you are dragged into this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a government member, so you have to answer some of these questions. But I respect your right and I will do that. My reference to ‘you’ was very much to the people who are here, who are going down the road of borrowing money and saying: ‘Don’t you worry about that. It’ll all come good and we’ll pay it back.’ The record of Labor governments in my living memory is that they have never paid a debt back. They let it accumulate. That is the other point. There is an item here—the home units—that is worth $6 billion. How soon will the interest bill be $6 billion, ongoing? And when will it be $10 billion, ongoing? Where, then, do you find the money for the schools and everything? Let us go back to the commencement of this government. We had a thing called the Investing in Our Schools program. That was dreadful. That was a program where individual school principals and their P&Cs assessed their schools and made an application for money—up to $150,000 for any school. I have got 150 schools in my electorate and many of them thought $10,000 was enough. Others took the lot. One purchased their own new classroom. They bought computers galore. They bought musical instruments for the kids. But they did not all think they needed $150,000. So now they are going to get $200,000. Is that good public policy? The locals worked out what they needed; it was free and there were no strings attached, other than that the state government over there in Western Australia ripped 17 per cent out of it by insisting that it manage the money for them. I thought that was pretty outrageous. That program was cancelled, and now we have a look-alike—and under which label? Not ‘good public policy’ but ‘saving the nation’—a crisis response. And then, of course, we had Regional Partnerships. The scheme was rotten and absolute daylight robbery! There were thieves! Let us say that a couple of the projects did not meet proper standards. I created that program, and I received a letter from the Auditor-General saying, ‘Not under my watch.’ However, the reality is we have a new Regional Partnerships. But there is no basic managing of the money. It is just ‘hand it out and hope they will spend it’. Is that good public policy? No. What do we have now? We are going to build all these new houses, but we have not yet built the ones that were previously funded—I do not think they are out there for rent in any number. The Minister for Education—and just about everything else—has lectured us over the year about all the money that she has put into education. But when the shadow minister stands up and asks where the things are that have been so funded, the answer is that they are not there yet. In fact, on one very significant trades’ training issue, there are five around Australia that have been approved. So they still have the opportunity to contribute to the stimulus and give some jobs to workers. But, when you look at it, I agree with our leader. Firstly, tax cuts would have been the better stimulus and, whatever the cost, they flow through. When we were in government, we introduced tax cuts for about three years and delivered a surplus as well. So, all this argument that you cannot have tax cuts in a surplus is defeated by history. Nevertheless, when you get down to it, why would you borrow all this money for such mundane tasks? If we really and truly wanted to do something—for example, give those 1,800 miners that I represent down at Ravensthorpe a job—why would we not put in place a major production project? When the much quoted Roosevelt addressed the problems of the United States during the Depression, he built the Hoover Dam. If anyone reads the public works history of Western Australia, nearly every water catchment and every dam in our state was built during that same period. It gave people work but there is still a lasting benefit to the community. Now we have a few lousy millions to put pink batts in buildings. However, nobody has told us what the carbon footprint of manufacturing that sort of insulation is. If it is rock-wool then there is an awful lot of heat that goes to burning rocks into fluff. But that does not matter! It looks good. The money that was allocated before Christmas for the Christmas party could have been put into one renewable energy project—utilising the tides of the Kimberleys. The interconnection of that energy on a two-way basis with the coalfields of Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania could have been done for less than that $10 billion. I have circulated that information widely. It would have been job creating now and, of course, it would have left a wonderful legacy—4.2 gigawatts initially—of electricity. That is 10 per cent of Australia’s total generation and 120 per cent of Western Australia’s. And if the government had paid for the infrastructure, the electricity was free. How much would that have helped the elderly and the needy? And, of course, what would it have done for our environment? These are the issues that a competent government would have looked at: major construction projects. Housing, of course, is a responsibility of government 365 days a year. You do not have a cop out and go for these sorts of fancy schemes under the farrago of a package to save the economy. It is just silly. It is a mixture of all those things, and there is no credit to the government at all in the course they have taken. Yes, they could have had these opportunities. What about flow-through taxation provisions for the mining industry? Unemployed people could go out mining because there are people who will invest for the tax deduction that can flow through to them from the company that is losing money looking for minerals. They would have a job now, and whatever they find we would be able to program and project into our future monetary needs. There are all these good options, and the ones that the government has presented us with have no credit whatsoever. (Time expired) 285 17:50:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills that provide the legislative underpinning for the economic stimulus package, which was announced yesterday by the government. An American President, a long time ago, said: … we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. In saying those words, Abraham Lincoln was, of course, talking about a tragedy—the American Civil War—which far exceeded what we are dealing with today. But his sentiment in placing in historical context the role of public policy in the way it applied to that crisis is one that is very apt to what we are dealing with right now. Whether we like it or not, we are faced with the single biggest economic shock that the world has seen since the Second World War, and we will be remembered, no matter what we do or what we do not do, on this day and in this chamber. And whether we act, or whether we do not act, will not just have an influence on Australians in the months and years ahead. It will have an influence on Australians for decades to come. And so, for me, the question is very simple. We must act. We must deal with the historic task that we have been given in the circumstances that we have been presented with. When the Rudd government came to office it inherited an education deficit. During the Howard years Australia was the only country in the OECD which reduced its expenditure on tertiary education as a proportion of GDP. That is just one figure among many which demonstrate the extent to which education withered on the vine during the Howard years. When the Rudd government came to office we inherited an infrastructure deficit, and we are not the only ones who say that. Engineers Australia, a respected peak body of engineers, has said that in the final years of the Howard government, from 2001 through 2005, infrastructure in this country went backwards—on roads, on the electricity grid and on seaports. That again is just one comment in an ocean of comments which demonstrate the extent to which infrastructure in this country rotted during the Howard years. The Howard government also failed to acknowledge the role that humans have played in climate change, such that amongst developed nations we stood alone with the United States in failing to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The Howard economic formula was simply to transform this country into Asia’s quarry and to leave everything up to the mining boom without any thought at all as to what might happen when the mining boom came to an end. Well, now it has, and nothing was done to take the proceeds of the mining boom and reserve them for a time such as we face today. The economic laziness of the Howard government made no investment in the human capital or the productive capacity of this country, and it had absolutely no comprehension of the Australian government’s responsibility for dealing with climate change, which is, in a sense, the global issue of our age. When we came to power we discovered that the Howard government had been asleep at the wheel for 11 years. The very first thing we did was crank up the engine and get Australia moving in the right direction. In the first 12 months of the Rudd government we were faced with an almost unprecedented economic phenomenon: this incredible global economic shock. We have heard a lot about the dimensions of it, but if there is one fact which puts it in some kind of context it is that the IMF now predicts less than half the previous lowest rate of economic growth since the Second World War. It is the first time that global economic growth has been forecast to be less than one per cent. This decline in economic growth on a global level, including in places like China, combined with the end of the resources boom, has seen $115 billion of government revenue wiped away over the next four years. In October last year the government announced its $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy, which put much needed cash into the hands of pensioners and low- and middle-income earners. That principally happened in December last year. The retail figures that have just come out indicate the significant positive impact that had on our economy. At a global level, over the Christmas and New Year period we saw a further deterioration in global economic conditions. Indeed, the IMF has revised its forecasts down three times in the last four months and is now predicting serious recessions in the major economies of the world—that is, serious recessions in our major trading partners. That brings us to yesterday’s economic stimulus package, which brings us to today’s consideration of the legislative underpinning of that economic stimulus package. The stimulus package provides for $42 billion, $30 billion of which will be spent on infrastructure—and almost $15 billion of that will be spent in education. In my electorate in Geelong we are transitioning from an economy dependent upon manufacturing to a much more diverse economy. We know how important education is in providing people with the skills for the jobs of the future. More than $800 million will be spent on roads and local infrastructure. In Geelong we know what local infrastructure can do to stimulate a local economy. The first stages of the Geelong Ring Road were opened just last December. The ring road is going to give rise to some of the best transport and logistics land in the country. It will help establish Geelong not only as a Victorian centre for transport and logistics but as a national centre for transport and logistics, and there are jobs in that. More than $3.8 billion will be spent on making our homes more energy efficient through insulation and increasing the solar hot water rebate. In Geelong we certainly know the effects of climate change. Last Thursday Geelong experienced its hottest day ever recorded. We are a city which is water starved. My son began high school on Monday and for almost his entire life he has lived in a world of water restrictions. He sees a measure which I had always thought came into place in the most extreme of circumstances as the definition of normality. In addition to the spending on infrastructure, $12.7 billion of financial assistance is being provided to middle- and low-income earners such that almost 80 per cent of working Australians will receive some of the tax bonus of up to $950. Almost 10.6 million Australians will benefit from this economic stimulus package and the measures that were implemented in December. The net effect of all of these initiatives is to keep our economy in growth. As a result of this package, Treasury predicts that economic growth in 2008-09 in Australia will be one per cent and, in 2009-10, three-quarters of a per cent—modest growth, to be sure, but growth in the context of our major trading partners experiencing recession. This package will also support 90,000 jobs, which goes to the heart of what we are doing here. On this side of the House we value jobs far more than flat-earth, dry economics. We are about protecting the economic security, self-esteem and human dignity that comes from work. We are about avoiding the destruction of human activity and human creativity that results from joblessness. The current American President, when talking about his own economic stimulus package, said: It’s a plan that … recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment—the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there’s so much work to be done. That paradox exists in Australia as well. Our stimulus package is absolutely aimed at providing jobs, but it is aimed at providing jobs in areas where work needs to be done in this country—rebuilding our education system, rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, dealing with our responsibilities around climate change and in other areas such as homelessness and bolstering the small business economy. Our economic stimulus package is about having Australians work in these great areas—it is about engaging Australians in the grand endeavour that will take this country through the 21st century. 288 18:00:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills and in doing so fully support the position outlined from this side of the House, starting from the Leader of the Opposition earlier this morning. That is a position that the Leader of the Opposition outlined in great detail; a position which he conceded will inevitably not be popular in many quarters, but a position that is responsible. We have seen from this government throughout the months of this global financial crisis, panic and fumbling, an emphasis on announcement rather than substance and a determination to try to dominate the media cycle. If only that had been matched by an equal determination to get the policy details right, Australia would be in a greater position. We know that spending massive amounts of money is popular. Forty two billion dollars of spending will be popular; $84 billion would probably be twice as popular. But at the end of the day, you have to look at the quality of the measures and you have to answer the question of how that money will be repaid. You have to think of those who will repay it. That is something that those opposite have never done. The Leader of the Opposition outlined with great clarity the fumbling and the failures that we have seen throughout the course of this year and the hypocrisy that the Prime Minister has brought to the most important economic debate of our lifetimes. We saw the fumbling and the failure of the bank guarantee, we saw the television footage from that famous weekend when the cameras had to go out because the Prime Minister needed to roll up his sleeves and then they got them back in again. We saw that, while there was a focus on all of that, the Reserve Bank Governor was never rung—and we saw the aftermath of that. We saw the Treasurer of this country, back in October or November of last year, announcing the mid-year forecasts being unable to say what his own inflation forecasts were because he had spent more time preparing his lines and ensuring that he got out the required quota of descriptive words such as ‘decisive’, while the press gallery sat there in stunned silence as he looked for more than a minute for his own inflation forecasts. That was something that, as I have said to this House before, summed up perfectly the lack of focus this government has on what matters and its obsession with the short-term popular policy hit. On Saturday morning, Australians found out that over the course of the summer holidays the Prime Minister had spent his time writing an 8,000-word essay. What came to my mind was, if only he had spent as much time thinking and consulting on policy responses as he spent writing that essay. The other thing that came to mind was that I felt sorry for his family. Can you imagine having to endure the triumphant recitals of draft after draft over the summer holidays of his latest essay? We have seen this Prime Minister bring a juvenile aspect to the debate—a juvenile determination to try to blame previous governments. We saw that with his attack on 30 years of neoliberalism, forgetting, as has been pointed out, that for around half of that time Labor governments were in office. Until he wrote his essay, we were being reminded day by day by those opposite that in their view all the heavy lifting of reform, all the deregulation, had been done by the Hawke and Keating governments. It was Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister who as Treasurer floated the dollar, cut taxes and engaged in deregulation. This was part of the proud Labor story until the weekend, when we discovered that, actually, Paul Keating was just a nasty neoliberal after all. What the Prime Minister forgot was that at the very same time that he was writing his essay and sending it to the newspapers, his own Deputy Prime Minister was telling the world at Davos what a great regulatory system Australia has. The Deputy Prime Minister said: We have open and competitive markets backed up by a world class financial and prudential regulatory system—indeed given the flaws exposed by the global financial crisis in financial and prudential regulation I would say our system is even better than world class. Our system also has an independent Reserve Bank. That is a Reserve Bank created by the previous government; an independent Reserve Bank that those opposite opposed; an independent Reserve Bank that those opposite tried to sue the then government for establishing. Today we have the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy saying much the same thing in the newspapers. In one breath you have the Prime Minister of the country able to say that Australia is in a better position than other countries and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation saying the same thing today but unable to acknowledge that some of the fundamental reasons why Australia is in a better position include the regulatory strength that was introduced by the previous government and the fact that we paid off all our debt and we had a strong budget position. The Prime Minister could not even say it yesterday, and that just speaks volumes about him. I am prepared to say that the Hawke-Keating government engaged in some good reforms. Ministers on the other side have previously acknowledged that the Howard government engaged in some good reforms. That is what this public debate needs, not cheap, pathetic, juvenile approaches. With this package we have seen more of the rushing and fumbling, where the Prime Minister has got together a package—it is comprehensive, it is produced, there is minimal time for this parliament to consider it, it is released—and his attitude is: ‘There it is. You haven’t even got time to read it. If you don’t agree with everything I’ve said, then you’re opposed to Australia’s interests.’ That is pathetic, particularly given the track record of failure and fumbling that we have seen throughout this year. The coalition have outlined their position on these bills. We have said where we think the emphasis is wrong and we have said the scale of debt that is involved is too high. Out of the $96 billion debt left by Prime Minister Keating, $60 billion or more of that was racked up in just five or six years. From 1990 to 1996, net government debt increased from $30 billion to $96 billion. It took 10 years to pay off. Former Prime Minister John Howard summed up the current situation rather well a few weeks ago by saying, ‘Going into deficit and debt is like riding down in an elevator; getting out of it is like climbing the stairs.’ It is very easy for the Prime Minister, with his focus on spin and announcements to not think about that, to not ensure that the spending is right, but Australians intuitively know this, and what he is proposing is something far bigger than that. This is not like going down in an elevator; it is like abseiling down a mountain and having to climb back up. It will not just affect, in particular, the taxpayers of today; it will affect the taxpayers of tomorrow. With some of the measures we have, again, seen the inkling and the evidence that they have not all been properly thought through. We have seen it with the cash payments, and that has been the subject of debate throughout the day and was the focus of question time. We have argued instead for tax cuts. I would urge those opposite to look at some of today’s newspapers. I have the Australian here, where a reporter has interviewed a few people about exactly what they are going to do with this cash handout. One lady, Nicole Drumbrell, said: ‘It’s nice to get money for free,’ she said, adding that she planned to use the bonus to pay off her credit card … That is exactly what the government do not want her to do. They want her to spend it. Another person interviewed was Anna Hurtig, aged 29, who earns about $50,000. The article went on: But while she was happy about the bonus, Ms Hurtig said cash splashes were a risky, short-term … would entrench the pessimism in the economy. ‘People are already nervous,’ she said. ‘If the Government is willing to spend that much money on workers, then people might lose confidence even more.’ Tax cuts were a more pragmatic way of reviving the economy, she said. The coalition’s approach has been to make some constructive suggestions and for those opposite to do what they have not done at all since the financial crisis began and that is to consider an alternative view and consider something calmly. We have had the announcement of a $42 billion package, followed by a couple of days of sitting. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are asking the parliament to spend less time agreeing on the biggest fiscal package than they spent over the weekend putting it all together. When you consider the small business announcement, what has been announced by the government will be welcomed by some small businesses. But the coalition say that, if you are trying to help small businesses, those small businesses struggling with big cash flow problems, those having trouble currently paying their wages bill, those retailers with three or four employees—this is out in main street of Australia; this would not fit into a 7,700-word essay, because it is too mainstream—who have to go to the bank with their tapped-out overdrafts and pay the wages bill, then a depreciation allowance will not help them. They have to spend money. There are smart people opposite; they know this. I know it does not fit with the control freak nature of the Prime Minister but, to get a benefit, they have to spend money—money they have not got and, hello, in a credit crisis, money that is difficult to get. So, in a constructive sense, we say, ‘Look at measures that will directly help reduce that employment cost now to preserve people’s jobs. Look at the superannuation guarantee, at those costs that are there.’ And, as the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘Look at it constructively.’ We have made other suggestions as well. If the government are serious, they will consider them. Unfortunately, we suspect they will not, because they have not to date, but the opposition will do and say, and vote according to, what is responsible. We will do so through the course of this week and into the future. The government should recognise their mistakes of the last year, and they should recognise that perhaps there are alternatives that might be better and that will help Australia. They should recognise and reflect on the size of the debt they are promising to handball to future generations. 291 18:16:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I want to be unambiguous in my support of this $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, established with the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. I was very interested in the contribution of the honourable member for Casey. He wanted to get into an argument about who was responsible and who had contributed most to our regulatory system. Indeed, both sides of the House agree that we have a good one, but no matter how good the regulatory system is it is not going to stop Australia or Australians—ordinary men and women and their kids—from being affected by this global crisis. In fact, the opposition just do not get it. There is no textbook about how to handle this. We cannot go back to the last decade and get examples, find the rules or get the guidelines. This is an economic calamity of proportions that none of us in this House have previously experienced. It was very interesting that when we introduced the first package of measures—a package of $10.2 billion—initially the opposition said, ‘We’re supporting it; we’ll offer bipartisan support,’ but then they said: ‘You haven’t modelled this enough. There should be more Treasury modelling. You’re moving too quickly. You need to take your time.’ What is the criticism now of this package? The member for Paterson, a very senior shadow cabinet minister—the shadow minister for defence—has said we need to have a 2020 summit about it and that we should not have announced it today or yesterday, as the Prime Minister did; what he should have announced was a 2020 summit. As I seem to recall, when we announced the 2020 Summit, all the opposition thought that this was a ridiculous idea, but here you have a very senior shadow minister, the shadow minister for defence, saying: ‘Look, let’s have a summit. Let’s not do it now.’ Not only are they not opposed to a summit but they are opposed to doing anything, according to the member for Paterson. He wants to have a 2020 summit. I say—and I think it is the government’s view, and it is certainly the Prime Minister’s view—that things in this global economic crisis are moving so quickly. Before I dispense with our first package, I say that it was interesting that the retail figures were out today about what happened in December—whether or not the first stimulus package worked. What did those figures say? Notwithstanding the opposition saying it was a waste of time and space, that the money would not be spent properly and that the retailers would see no benefit at all, of course, there was a kicker in the December retail figures. In fact, the government was right all along. I thought, because the opposition seemed to think that this is merely a minor domestic debate about an economic measure, that we ought to look at what is happening in other countries. In the United States, that President beloved of the opposition, President George W Bush, put in a stimulus package of US$146 billion. Of course, President Barack Obama is now trying to get his stimulus package through the congress. It is through the House of Representatives and he is trying to get it through the Senate, just as we will face that same challenge with our Senate. It is US$819 billion. So in the United States it is US$146 billion for the first package and, for the second package, US$819 billion. Do you know what some of the criticisms of the experts are over in the United States? They are that maybe the second package has not gone far enough and needs to be bigger. That is what the criticism seems to be. In China, one of the most important trading partners of Australia, the good news, of course, is that they still have growth, but the growth has been dramatically cut back. What is the Chinese government doing in response to the global economic crisis? It has a stimulus package of US$586 billion. I repeat that figure: US$586 billion. It is a huge package. In the UK, the stimulus package is US$30 billion—₤20 billion. In Germany, it is US$66 billion, or €50 billion. I could go on and on and on. So what is the point I am making? No country is immune to the global economic crisis, including Australia, no matter how well placed we are. We know one thing for certain, and that is that our economy is going to be affected. Ordinary men and women in our electorate are going to face economic challenges that they have not faced before. What should a government do? Should we have the summit that the member for Paterson is suggesting or should we take action on behalf of ordinary Australians and try to minimise the damage caused by this unprecedented world global financial crisis? Of course, that is what Australia is doing. No-one can stand up in this parliament and say that this is a perfect measure or that we know absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt what the impact will be, but we are taking action and we know that it will do good. It is aimed at two things: nation building and preserving jobs. It is aimed at trying to weather the international storm that we face. We have taken action in our first 12 months of government—the first stimulus package; the $300 million to build local community infrastructure; the $15.2 billion COAG funding package; and the nation-building package announced in 2008. What are the key features of this package? We are doing something very good for the environment by providing free ceiling insulation for about 2.7 million Australian homes. This is not only good for those that live in those homes but also good for the environment. We are making a big hit on Australian schools. We are going to build or upgrade a building in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools. We are going to build more than 20,000 new public housing dwellings to try to combat homelessness. We are going to refurbish a further 2,500 of those homes and make them available for occupants. In defence—and they are even opposed to this—we are going to provide 800 new homes in metropolitan and regional centres for the families of our serving men and women, who are required at a moment’s notice to put their lives on the line in service of their country. We are making a $950 one-off cash payment to eligible families, single workers, students, drought affected farmers and others. There will be a temporary business investment break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets. We are going to provide significantly increased funding for local community infrastructure and local road projects. You would think that, in response to this package, we would get some support from the opposition. Not on your Nellie! Anyone who is following this debate knows that, in the face of one of the worst financial crises in the world, the opposition opposes, root and branch, the bills that we are debating. They will vote against them in the House and they will vote against them in the Senate. They will provide no support. If they are successful, it will leave the Australian people naked as they face the tornado of the world global economic crisis. I do not think that the opposition is being responsible—I have run through the deficits that other countries have legislated for—I think they are irresponsible, because if they are successful in this place and in the Senate then there will be no cushioning or softening for ordinary men and women. They will face the harsh realities. It does not matter whether they are farmers, small business men, tradesmen or ordinary workers working at a shopping centre; they will get nothing off the opposition. This is what the opposition have decided to do. There is no sense of leadership. There is no real leadership by Malcolm Turnbull in all this. It is just a default to what oppositions do; they just oppose. That is what has happened as we as a government have tried to battle the unknown. No-one has had the experience of this before. We have introduced quite a variety of measures, but without the support of the opposition. I say: shame on you. For all those schools in my electorate that may now miss out on all the building and maintenance, I say: shame on you. For those of my constituents who would have received the $950 that you are trying to deny them, I just say: shame on you. I wish I could speak more, but I will finish on this note: this government has never guillotined a bill in this House. The opposition are saying that there is insufficient time to debate these things. Here are all the bills that were guillotined in the last parliament, including the NT intervention, where we had less notice to debate it and certainly did not get a look at any of the legislation. But we supported the government. Notwithstanding the shabby treatment and notwithstanding the guillotine, we supported the government initiative in the 41st Parliament. If you want bipartisanship, if you want to do the right thing by the Australian people, support this package. 293 18:28:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP 0 0 Mr COSTELLO — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. In August 2007, world financial and equity markets began falling rapidly in response to mortgage defaults rising in the United States, particularly in an area of the market known as the subprime mortgage market. In this sector of the market, in which a lot of easy money was given to very bad risks, mortgage defaults began to rise and people began to be concerned not just at those borrowers unable to service their loans but at those lenders who had made unwise loans and would take consequent losses. During the period of the Howard government when I was Treasurer, I frequently adverted to the risk that this would be to the US economy and to the world economy generally. It was easy to see that a problem was developing, although nobody was sure of the particular dimension. We in Australia were concerned about the fallout of this crisis and we had taken steps to ensure that Australia did not ape the experience of the United States, that we did not have exposure to subprime mortgages in anywhere like the dimension that they did in the United States. We did that in several ways. One was by contacting the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA—an organisation which our government had established—and ensuring that it was in contact with financial institutions in Australia, ensuring that credit standards were not diminished. On occasion I also called in the chief executives of the major Australian banks and said to them that the government were concerned about credit standards and we did not want to see credit standards dropping in Australia. We did not call low-credit borrowers ‘subprime’ borrowers; the expression that was used in Australia was ‘low-doc’ borrowing. These were low-documentation loans which sometimes could be given to people who had no capacity to repay them. Australia was much more successful than the United States in reducing exposure to bad credit risk and thereby limiting the losses that our financial institutions would be exposed to if mortgage defaults should rise. As far as our government was concerned, the response to the international developments was that Australia had to ensure that it kept a robust and growing economy. Those people who remember the slogan that the coalition had in the 2007 election remember that our slogan was ‘Go for growth’, that it was important that Australia continue on a path of growth and that it ought to be underpinned and supported by strong economic policy. In fact, in the course of the 2007 election I announced a major reform of taxes which would reduce tax burdens for all Australians. As is known, the Australian Labor Party copied 91½ per cent of those tax cuts and put them in place, on the same timetable, at the same levels—with the exception of reductions in the top marginal tax rate—in its May 2008 budget. There were many economic commentators who said that it was irresponsible to go for growth, that it was irresponsible to cut tax in 2008, but I think as we look back we can see these were wise decisions. If we should have been doing anything in 2008, we should have been putting more effort into going for growth before the events that unfolded in the course of the year. What was the Labor government’s response to these developments? The Labor government decided that Australia’s problem was very different in 2008. The Treasurer said that the ‘inflation genie’ was out of the bottle, that spending was out of control, that spending should be reduced and, by implication, interest rates increased. Indeed, the Reserve Bank of Australia famously increased interest rates in November 2007, during an election campaign, and was egged on by the Labor Party to continue increasing interest rates, which it did until as late as March 2008. In the light of the massive reductions in interest rates since—massive reductions which of course I support—it is clear that the course and the conduct of monetary policy in late 2007 and early 2008 were mistaken and that the turning point in the economy was overlooked. Why was it that the Labor Party focused so heavily on the so-called inflation genie? Well, when you inherit an economy which has a budget in surplus and no net debt, which has unemployment at 30-year lows, where the credit rating has been restored to a AAA rating on foreign currency bonds, where you have a Future Fund of $61 billion and a Higher Education Endowment Fund which has been set aside for the educational sector—when you inherit a economy in that condition—you have to find a fault somewhere. If you cannot find a fault somewhere, what problem have you got to solve? So the Labor Party, naturally enough, looked for a problem. The trouble is it was the wrong one. It is hard to remember but, if we go back to January 2008, 12 months ago, the Australian Labor Party had not only diagnosed the wrong malady; it was administering the wrong treatment. I am amused to hear Labor member after Labor member stand on their feet and talk about the importance of new spending. When you were arguing in favour of your budget in May 2008—please go and check the Hansard—you were arguing in favour of new expenditure cuts in this budget year, in this budget. I could go to many of the historical documents. The one I like the best is Kevin Rudd’s address on 21 January 2008 on how to build Australia’s economic future. He said this: Prior to the election, we ran as fiscal conservatives. With the election behind us, we now intend to govern as fiscal conservatives. He went on to say: Today I announce a fiscal target that will guide our budgetary process … That was for this year’s budget, the May 2008 budget, for the financial year which does not finish until 30 June 2009. This is what he was saying about how he would be guiding this financial year. He went on: The Government aims to deliver a budget surplus of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP … This will require a determined, disciplined approach to spending and a hardline approach to savings. We are debating here a $42 billion package which will drive the budget into deficit of over $20 billion this year, which will cumulate deficits of over $100 billion in four years, with a promise that we would be having a disciplined approach to savings. It was a massive miscalculation and we can all see that now. But it continued right through the course of 2008, and as late as September of last year, less than five months ago, the Treasurer told this House: … we identified the magnitude of the inflation challenge and dedicated ourselves to addressing it … It was imperative we abruptly change Australia’s fiscal direction and move away from the reckless spending of our predecessors. Oh boy, they changed fiscal direction. They changed fiscal direction all right, but they did not change fiscal direction by moving away from reckless spending. They did not change it by tightening spending. Here we are five months later and we have changed fiscal direction—we have changed fiscal direction from a $20 billion surplus to a $22 billion deficit. We have changed it all right. It is just that the direction in which we went was not forward; it was reverse—and in the space of five months. All these born-again Keynesians were in September of last year part of the neoliberal conspiracy, believing in tighter budgets. They were going to show the Liberal Party who the real he-men of fiscal conservatism were by reducing savings and building budget surpluses. The 2008 budget would be today probably the most worthless financial document in Commonwealth history. What it predicted would happen in this year bears no relation to reality. It can best be filed in the fiction section of the Parliamentary Library, because every one of its forecasts is now out of date. In November we had the Economic Security Strategy, which was going to bring economic security to Australia. It was a $10 billion spend. It has been and it has gone. Now we are back here in February with a $42 billion spend, being told that this $42 billion spend is the medicine that is required; this is the one that will do the trick. We are going to have a budget in May. Is there any speaker on that side of the parliament in the Labor Party who can promise us that there will not be another spending package by May or June or September? Has anybody said in any of the documents: this is the last shot in the locker? We were being told that $10 billion was the government’s ask in November. Now we are being told it is $42 billion. In between, by the way, I think sometime over Christmas, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation said he was going to form a razor gang. At the time that the government were apparently gearing up to a $42 billion spend, they were also going to set up a razor gang. What this tells me and what this statement tells me is that this is a government which is unnerved and which is struggling step by step with measures that it has not consistently thought out, and it is on the run. It was on the run in November; it is on the run in February. Let us go to the documents themselves. The documents say that this $42 billion will support 90,000 jobs—not ‘create’, not ‘keep’ but ‘will support’; make some contribution, in Treasury-speak. Forty-two billion dollars and 90,000 jobs is about $400,000 per job. Do the arithmetic; do the maths. Do you think that is good value for taxpayers’ money: $42 billion for 90,000 jobs? The government says, ‘Oh well, the budget is sliding into deficit because our revenues are down.’ But, if you go to reconciliation table 4.2, the budget has been driven into deficit by policy decisions, not by parameter changes—$10 billion in MYEFO and another $18 billion in this statement. That is $28 billion off a starting point of 20 or 22. It is policy decisions; it has nothing to do with revenues. The figure that the Prime Minister talks about of revenues, $115 billion, is in the out years. He is telling you what he thinks is going to happen between now and June of 2011. And if you believe that you will believe anything. This is a government that in May could not tell us what the position would be in February, and now it wants you to believe that it is telling you in February of this year what the position will be in June of three years time. It has no idea. Those forward estimates bear as much relation to what is going to happen as the May budget bears relation to where we now are. All we can tell you is that the government want to be able to borrow another $125 billion. That is the ceiling they have sought: $125 billion. That is what they think they will need authority for, and they are asking this parliament for authority to borrow $125 billion over the next few years. When we came to office, when I became Treasurer, Australian net Commonwealth debt was $96 billion. It took us 10 years to pay that back. Labor has not even had one full budget year and it is seeking authority to re-borrow the lot, to take us right back where we were before we began a 10-year program to free this Commonwealth of its net debt—10 long years. As somebody who did take a budget out of deficit the last time Labor was in government, I can tell you it is hard to do. Even the government themselves are not saying they will do it in this term. Even the government themselves cannot tell you what is going to be the financial situation in two years. A temporary deficit can last for a very long time. According to this statement, it will last for at least four years—that is, even if growth returns to trend. What if growth does not return to trend? Where will the Australian budget be then? What will be the debt position? We are embarking now on a slippery slope where nobody can tell you what the final outcome will be and no-one has an exit plan. We are reversing 10 years of hard work and we are doing it to support 90,000 jobs at more than $400,000 a job. The other point I want to make about the quality of this spend is that a large part of it is transfer payments to stay-at-home mothers, to families with children. Of course, they will welcome those payments. But a family worried about the risk of losing their jobs are not going to take a payment and go and spend it. They are not going to say, ‘We’ve got a payment; let’s get out to the cafe and order a big dinner.’ That family is rationally going to say: ‘If unemployment is rising and our jobs are at risk, we’re going to save the money or, preferably, pay down our mortgage. We’re going to degear the household, just like businesses are degearing.’ You can understand that. This is why the Treasury has not modelled more jobs as an outcome. But the thing that amazes me about these transfer payments is that apparently there is nothing for the unemployed. They are for working taxpayers. If you had income in the previous year you will get a bonus. What if you were on unemployment benefits? I thought this was a package to help people who are out of work, but there is nothing for the unemployed and nothing to reduce the costs of labour for businesses that might want to put on more employees. There is nothing in there that creates an incentive to add to the labour supply. There are transfer payments all right, and they will be welcomed by the people who get them, but this is not a jobs strategy. Why else can I say this is low-quality spin? I can tell you why else. It is because the proposal to insulate houses was rolled up to me as Treasurer. It is not new; it was rolled up to me. This proposal did not materialise because of the global financial crisis; it has been down in the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts for years. What happened is that, once it became known in the federal Public Service that the spend was on, the departments dusted off their spending proposals. We did not need a global financial crisis to go into insulation of houses. That has been on the books for years. Similarly, the rebuilding of schools has been on the books for years. The state Labor governments have been responsible for that for years. We did not need a global financial crisis to rebuild educational institutions. What has happened here is that the departments have dusted off their spending programs. They have found a few neophytes who are running the government and they have said: ‘Bring them in. Give it $42 billion. Take the budget down by $100 billion, and we will be back in May for more.’ If you think that this program is going to be the difference between a recession and growth in the Australian economy, you have not read it. There will be growth of half a per cent, the Australian Treasury says, for $42 billion. It is not value for money. It is taking Australia on a bad path into deficit and debt. It is hard to get out of those. It is not in Australia’s interests. (Time expired) 297 18:48:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I am very pleased to rise to support the six bills before us, the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, which combined make up the Rudd government’s second stimulus package. It was very interesting to hear the member for Higgins talk about his prediction of the global financial crisis not last year but the year before. In fact, he knew about it when he, with Mr Howard, came up with the ‘Go for growth’ slogan. The only issue is that the member for Higgins forgot to tell the rest of the world that the global financial crisis was coming. The legislation before us today is critical for the difficult world economic circumstances that face our nation. The $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan adds to the economic security package announced in October last year. Despite the ill-founded waffling of the opposition, the Economic Security Strategy announced in October last year did have a positive impact on demand in targeted areas of the economy, including retail. In my electorate, evidence from those in the building industry indicates that the percentage of first home owners purchasing newly constructed houses has increased from eight per cent two years ago to 25 per cent since the introduction of the first stimulus package, suggesting that first home buyers, who had previously been excluded from the market, have been able to fill the void left by investors as a direct result of the first stimulus package. Since the announcement and delivery of the Rudd government’s first economic stimulus package, the outlook for the global economy has deteriorated significantly, with the International Monetary Fund now forecasting a deep global recession. The global slowdown has driven almost all major advanced economies into recession, including those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Europe. In addition, growth forecasts for one of our major trading partners, China, have halved. Australia has not been immune to the unfolding global financial crisis. This global crisis has already had an impact on Australia’s projected economic growth, unemployment and government revenue. Faced with this situation, the Australian government has a choice. The first option is to do nothing and let markets do their worst. The second is to act now to support jobs and growth. It seems that the opposition favours the former, doing nothing, despite this being contrary to advice from the International Monetary Fund and other international organisations and inconsistent with action taken by other countries around the world. The Rudd government is committed to the latter—that is, when the markets have failed, the government must intervene to support jobs and growth. The government is committed to action, and it is committed to an action that has been widely supported by economists and peak business associations alike. The package before us today outlines our plan to stimulate our economy, to support jobs and families and, in doing so, to invest in the long-term future of our nation. The package is made up of two broad areas: direct payments to householders, worth approximately $12 billion, and investment in infrastructure, worth around $30 billion. The government will provide to householders a one-off cash bonus for those paying tax who earned up to $100,000 in the 2007-08 financial year. This payment will be made to each and every taxpayer. In addition there are a number of other bonuses. A back-to-school bonus will provide an upfront payment of $950 for families on family tax benefit A for each eligible school-age child, to assist with the costs associated with going back to school. In my electorate of Kingston, this payment will assist approximately 13,000 families. Further assistance of a $950 bonus will be paid to those families on family tax benefit B, to farmers experiencing hardship and to those receiving the education entry payment. These payments are designed to provide an immediate stimulus to the Australian economy. As I said in the introduction, a large component of this package is to invest in the nation’s infrastructure. In particular, a large part of the package is to invest in our nation’s schooling infrastructure. As I have gone around my electorate, school principal after school principal has indicated to me that they believe they provide a world-class education and have many dedicated staff and a committed school community. However, many have indicated to me that it is their buildings that have let them down, that it is their physical environment that holds their school back. Therefore, I am extremely pleased that the package before us today provides a huge investment to equip our schools for the 21st century. This package will provide all primary schools with the opportunity to build libraries, halls and gymnasiums or to do classroom refurbishments and provides secondary schools with the opportunity to build science labs and learning centres. The opposition has argued on and on today that this package before us is not investing in our children’s future. However, most sensible people do understand—even if the opposition does not—that there is no better or more direct way to invest in our children’s future than by investing in their education, and that is exactly what we are doing. As the Prime Minister has stated, not only will we be investing in the future of our kids, but every school will be a centre of economic activity, supporting local building and construction jobs. In addition, the package provides investment in other critical infrastructure, including building social housing, aimed at lifting the quantity of public housing stock—working towards this government’s very admirable aim of halving homelessness by 2020—and investing to provide safer roads by fixing black spots, fixing regional roads and installing boom gates. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan also invests now to help householders adjust to a carbon restrained future by providing insulation to those who do not have it. This package also provides assistance to small business in the form of an investment allowance for small business. The spending in this package will affect the budget bottom line. As announced on Monday, government revenue has sharply declined as a result of the global recession and a temporary budget deficit is unavoidable. However, in these extraordinary times, a temporary budget deficit is the responsible course of action to protect jobs and growth. The course of action that the government proposes has been both advocated by the IMF and supported by Australian business groups and economists. However, despite the current need for a temporary budget deficit, this government is committed to returning the budget to surplus and has a plan to do this. We have made a commitment that, when growth returns, this government will allow tax revenue to recover naturally and we have committed to capping spending in order to pay off this temporary deficit. We have heard some members of the opposition say that they would prefer, rather than the targeted package we are proposing, an unspecified number of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Apart from the fact that this approach has been discredited and would not provide the immediate stimulus necessary, it would also plunge the budget into long-term structural deficit. So the opposition is advocating a deficit that is much more long-term than the temporary deficit that this government is advocating. Today the opposition announced that it opposes this package, showing that the Liberal and National parties prefer to have their heads in the sand rather than face these serious economic times and are focusing on cheap political point scoring rather than thinking about the welfare of the Australian people. This country is facing the deepest global recession since World War II. We must act now if we want to reduce the impact of this global recession on Australia. We need to stimulate our economy, and the plan before us today does just that but also invests in our nation’s long-term future, which will provide benefits not only today but also for years into the future. Therefore, I do commend the bills to the House. 299 18:58:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. There is an ugly fellowship, a not-so-secret society that exists today. It is called the fellowship of the deficit. It remains unique. It knows no bounds. It has no restraints. It is confined to no faction. It imposes no intellectual requirement nor geographic location. In the words of the mantra, union membership is required and blind adherence to collectivism is needed. No other circumstance or condition whatsoever save the merit of lazy spending shall entitle a Labor leader to membership of the fellowship of the deficit—as all postwar Labor leaders have become members. So today the coalition draws a line in the sand—a line that divides the experienced, prudent economic management of the coalition from a panicked, deficit-ready government; a line that divides a coalition that paid off the last Labor government’s exorbitant $96 billion debt from this Labor government that presented a bill of one page to thrust this country into up to $200 billion worth of debt. Today we draw a line in the sand that divides the coalition, as being those clearly able to manage money, from a Labor government with a long line of deficits from Whitlam, Hawke, Keating and now the current Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has demanded that the parliament approve his plans for $42 billion in expenditure, with every cent borrowed, and has given us 48 hours in which to consider this package. That is a billion dollars an hour. He has refused to discuss, let alone negotiate, the package with the coalition. Almost all economists agree that the recession has a long way to go. This will not be a V recession. We pray that it will not be an L recession. It may likely be a U recession. Yet the Rudd Labor government is panicking. It has loaded its magazine and fired off all the rounds in one burst rather than a few highly targeted rounds with enough left in the magazine to see through the action. Even with this reckless handout of cash and massive, debt-fuelled spending, the Prime Minister’s package still predicts unemployment topping seven per cent in just over a year—a third of a million Australians out of work. In 1996 the previous Labor government left a legacy of a $96 billion debt, of unpaid and unaccounted for super liabilities approaching $60 billion, of interest payments and a debt of $8 billion a year. When you add it all together about $200 billion of debt remained unfunded, with unpaid super liabilities and interest payments. It took 11 years to pay off that $200 billion, and now, with the stroke of a pen, within 12 months, this government is seeking to put the nation back into the same parlous economic position that we dragged the country out of over 11½ years. The question is: what has caused this panic? What has caused this economic conservative, or should I say social democrat, or was it Christian democrat—I can’t keep up—to panic? History going back to October 2008 will illuminate this a little more. On 10 October the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer called on the Rudd government to take three immediate decisions to strengthen the Australian economy: increase the proposed government backed deposit guarantee to $100,000; increase the investment in AAA rated residential mortgage backed securities through the Australian Office of Financial Management; and announce it would defer the implementation of an emissions trading scheme. Yet, not to be outdone, two days later on 12 October, the Prime Minister announced an unlimited deposit guarantee—heaven forbid if he were to agree with the opposition leader—to operate for a period of three years and a guarantee of wholesale term funding by authorised deposit-taking institutions in return for a fee. The Prime Minister told Australians he was acting on the best advice of the regulators. On 12 October he said in a press release: My officials have done considerable work on the design of these arrangements and, in developing these measures, I have received advice from the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia … You can imagine our shock, surprise and indeed horror when on 21 October it was confirmed that the Prime Minister had not directly consulted with the Governor of the Reserve Bank prior to announcing the unlimited guarantee. On 22 October, during the Senate estimates process, we learnt that the decision to increase the deposit guarantee was an entirely political decision in response to the Leader of the Opposition calling for a $100,000 scheme. The government had initially claimed that it had been working on the detail of its bank guarantee policy for over a week and that the weekend meeting was merely to finalise details. With the savings of thousands of Australians frozen due to the unlimited guarantee, the Treasurer said to go to Centrelink. On 23 October he said in a press conference—and I will quote him, just so you do not get confused: So I say to the people who are adversely affected by some of these decisions that have been taken in these managed investment funds, do fully investigate your eligibility for income support through Centrelink, that’s what I say to them. On 25 November the Treasurer denied ever having made his callous and disrespectful remarks. On 25 November, he said: I did not say that all people in managed investment funds who were experiencing problems should go to Centrelink. Clearly there is a problem there, isn’t there, Mr Treasurer? On 24 October the Treasurer announced that a $1 million cap would now apply. The exclusion of foreign bank branches from the guarantee clearly resulted in a rush of transfers from foreign bank branches to banks covered by the guarantee. On 28 October the government finally sorted out the anomaly of foreign bank branches being excluded from the guarantee while foreign subsidiary banks had been included. Clearly this caused considerable problems. We have had panic after panic after panic. But the panic continued, like the running of the bulls at Pamplona. The Labor government then spent $10.4 billion, with no economic analysis from Treasury. There was no modelling. There was no analysis that could be considered as to the impact of the stimulus. That was half their fallacious forecasted budget surplus, with no modelling. They stated it would create 75,000 jobs, yet every indication is that jobs have disappeared since that time. Now, after all that panic from 10 October right the way through—not a sound decision throughout—we move up to the latest curtain-raiser, with the Prime Minister planning to plunge Australia into debt with a poorly considered, for the most part non-productive and ineffective, $42 billion fiscal stimulus package, with every cent borrowed, with every cent to be paid off by the next generation, by your and my children. Furthermore, the government is looking to increase bond issuance by a further $125 billion to $200 billion to finance the debt. This, combined with the state Labor debt of almost $100 billion, means that Labor governments across the country are looking to rack up public debt of almost a third of a trillion dollars—three thousand million dollars. That must be paid off with interest. That must be paid off by future generations. It look 11½ years of the magic of the Howard-Costello government to pay off the last $200 billion left by a Labor government. Likewise, the excesses of the Whitlam years were paid off by the coalition government that followed. The Howard government paid off the recklessness of the debt left by the Hawke-Keating years. I can see it now—the $200 billion recklessness of the Prime Minister Rudd years will again have to be paid off by the real economic conservatives in this country, the coalition. The federal debt of $200 billion is 9½ thousand dollars for every man, woman and child. The Treasurer has learnt from saying that the last stimulus would create 75,000 jobs. This one is only going to support 90,000 jobs. That is $470,000 per job. Great mathematics, Mr Treasurer. You ask: why does the coalition steadfastly refuse to back this ludicrous plan? We have drawn a line in the sand. And what is the plan to pay it back? Yesterday and today in question time the Treasurer stated that as soon as the economy starts to grow above the trend they will start to think to pay it back. ‘As soon as the economy automatically recovers’, as if we were praying to the automatic gods for the economy to recover by itself, when it moves above the trend. What does ‘above the trend’ actually mean? There is zero plan to pay back a fifth of a trillion dollars of debt, and that is reprehensible. On the other side of the ledger, the real economic managers, the real economic conservatives, have proposed permanent tax cuts currently scheduled for 1 July 2009 and 1 July 2010 to be brought forward and backdated to 1 January this year. The opposition leader has stated that by the middle of 2010 this would leave a two-income household earning $80,000 approximately $1,700 better off. Perhaps the largest gap in the government package is the lack of measures that directly and broadly support employment, particularly employment in the small to medium business sector which, as the minister across the table would know, accounts for almost 50 per cent of employment in the country. Whilst accelerated depreciation, which is less than eight per cent of what the government is proposing, has some merit, the coalition believes measures that more directly and immediately improve the cash-flow position of small firms and help them protect and create jobs are preferable. One proposal the coalition is seeking to discuss with the government is the Commonwealth paying a portion of the superannuation guarantee levy on behalf of small employers for the next two years. This measure will directly improve the cash position of small firms, directly reduce the costs of employment and directly contribute to preserving jobs. These measures are fairer, they represent a better targeted and more effective stimulus for the economy and they protect jobs better. The coalition has invited the government to sit down and discuss alternative stimulus measures which would be responsible and would allow sufficient capacity in public finances to meet emerging challenges. The silence has been somewhat deafening. The coalition is committed to sound economic management and to ensuring that government spending is of high quality and reduces the burden on Australian taxpayers and their children, which is why the current package cannot and will not be supported. A line has been drawn in the sand and the real economic managers will indeed stand up. 302 19:10:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —It is quite clear that the opposition just do not get it. It is quite clear from the contributions that we have had today that they are out of touch and just do not understand what is happening in their own electorates. These are not normal times. This is not a time where the normal rules of operation apply. This is an extraordinary time in which we are having a global meltdown that is unprecedented since the Depression. Because of that the government have acted in a firm, decisive and swift manner to make sure that we have been ahead of the curve all the way through this crisis and that Australians right around Australia are best protected from this global financial crisis. In talking about this latest package, the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, it is important to go back to the $10.4 billion stimulus package in October and look at the effects that it had. Today we heard that retail sales in December grew by a much larger than expected 3.8 per cent, seasonally adjusted. That is the best result in eight years. In New South Wales the result was even better, 4.9 per cent, showing how important the stimulus package was to triggering demand in the retail sector. When we look at Australia and comparable economies around the world, we find that Australia alone has an economy that has had positive growth. When we look at any of the European countries or the United States we see negative growth in the retail sector; in fact, we have seen the bottom fall out of the retail sector in that same period. But in Australia we had the benefit of a stimulus package announced in October ahead of the curve, putting money in people’s pockets in December, and that has played a substantial role in the far better than expected retail results in December. This is important in my electorate of Dobell in particular because the biggest sector of employment is retail. In fact, 14 per cent of all people who work in the electorate of Dobell are employed in retail. We already have high unemployment, in excess of seven per cent, so you can imagine the effect for the people of Dobell without this stimulus package. Quite frankly, the figures that came out today were absolutely no surprise to me and I do not think they would have been a surprise to any member of this parliament who actually spends the time to go out to the shops and talk to their constituents. December and January have been very, very busy in the shopping centres on the Central Coast. I took the time to walk around and talk to shop owners. They were saying to me that it was one of the best years that they had had in many years. This, of course, was only anecdotal evidence at that stage. They said that people were telling them they were out there spending some money because they had extra money from the government’s stimulus package and that without that they had dire fears for what the Christmas period would hold. Many employers told me that, because the December retail season started so well, they changed their employment plans to lay off staff and decided to keep them on. They told me that they were very thankful that they did because it was a very good December for the retail sector on the Central Coast in December 2008. There is not just anecdotal evidence that comes from Labor members. The ANZ head of economics, Warren Hogan, talking about the $10.4 billion stimulus package from last October, said: It really highlights that the government’s stimulus package is working, and suggests people are spending most of their packages. It is a package that worked. It showed this government being ahead of the curve. When that package went through we had the opposition all over the place in relation to that package. One day the leader was supporting it; the next day he was not. Then they were not quite sure where they were, but thankfully it got through and it had a very positive effect. We now have the situation of a more substantial package that is required because of the further deterioration in the global financial crisis being blocked by those opposite. Those opposite—who scoffed at the $10.4 billion plan which has proven to be so successful, particularly in electorates like mine—are now saying: ‘We can’t go ahead with this vital plan. We can’t help protect the Australian economy from the global financial crisis because we want to score cheap political points on this issue and we want to hold the Australian population to ransom and make sure that this package does not get through.’ There are some very key measures in this package which indicate just how vital it is that it is passed. The measures include: free ceiling insulation for around 2.7 million Australian homes; building or upgrading a building in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools; building more than 20,000 new social and defence homes; a $950 one-off cash payment to eligible families, single workers, students, drought affected farmers and others; a temporary business investment tax break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets; and significantly increasing funding for local community infrastructure and local road projects. This is a very targeted package. I was asked by my local ABC radio today what a package for the Central Coast would look like if I were designing one and I said that we had it yesterday. If you were designing something that would help my electorate, that would generate and protect jobs and protect the economy there, then this is precisely the sort of package that one would introduce. There are many reasons that this is so appropriate for my electorate, but one in particular is that one of the largest categories of occupation in my electorate—far higher than in most electorates—is tradies. We have many tradies who drive to Sydney in the 5 am early rush to get to their jobs down there. The residential building boom that has been very much part of my electorate and its growth in recent years has led to a larger proportion of tradies living in my electorate than in most others. What would help to protect their jobs? What would make sure that they continue in work? It is precisely the sort of program that this government is trying to introduce and push through. That is in relation to building works in schools, insulation in homes, and the building of social and defence homes around the country. These are precisely the key levers that are so important to all the tradies on the Central Coast. Of course, we have been criticised for just looking at the building sector. Basic economics show that if this sector continues to have people employed in it and earning money, and they spend money in their local community, then that is good news for the whole community and for the whole local economy. With the $10.4 billion package, one of the things that I did in my electorate was urge people to buy locally on the Central Coast. We received a terrific response in relation to that, and I am sure that was part of the reason that jobs were kept locally. This sort of package also lends itself to local solutions for local economies, to make sure that they survive and jobs stay locally. But what do we have from the opposition in terms of this great package that can help Australia survive and ride out this economic downturn? They say, ‘No, we are not going to go ahead,’ or, ‘We are going to reduce the contribution.’ The Leader of the Opposition has said that money going to schools is a good thing but that they would only put in 20 per cent of what this package is going to do. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to tell me which of the 46 schools in my electorate are not going to get the money? Which ones should I be ringing up? Is it Berkeley Vale Public School? Is it the Bateau Bay Public School? Is it Holgate Public School? Is it the Jilliby Public School? Which of these? Eighty per cent of them are going to be crossed out if the opposition have their way. I want to know because I want to tell the P&Cs, the schools and the parents that the opposition are standing between their school and a new hall, library or updated facilities. This is an opposition that is not in touch with its community. If it were in touch with its community, it would be out there supporting this package. Opposition members would be out there saying, ‘This is good for my community, this is good for the economy and this is something that should be supported.’ The opposition is without a clue and out of touch and needs to get out of the way so we can get this package through. I commend this package to the House. 304 19:21:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills before the House, known as the Nation Building and Jobs Plan package. People generally say that you should not get between a politician and a bucket of money. I would like to place on notice that this is one bucket of money with which I do not want to be associated. I would also like to make the point that democracy is about checks and balances. It is our job as an opposition to perform those checks and balances on proposals brought forward by the government. The public expects no less of us. People want us to act in the public interest and they want the opposition to be strong. Sure, they may not have voted for us. Clearly, not enough of them did. But they still want us to be a strong opposition, and that is why I do not believe they will be impressed with the government’s approach of ramming these bills through the House in one day and through the Senate in another. We have already heard that there are measures afoot in the Senate to frustrate this, and I am very pleased about that. Remember, this does not have to be sorted out today, tomorrow or this week. Certainly, there is a call for measures to be taken, and some of them are urgent. But it is not necessary to open the war chest and throw almost as much as we can get our hands on at the moment, every single dollar that we have in there—in fact, we do not have those dollars in there; we are borrowing them—out into the community and let it rip. That is not an appropriate course of action and the opposition very strongly believes that, which is why we have said that we will vote against these bills in the House and in the Senate. Sometimes in this place I detect a whiff of political opportunism. We see it on all sides of the House; there is no point in pretending that it is not there. There is no point in pretending that we are not politicians and sometimes we act from political motives. But this is not one of those cases. This is not an instance of us trying to outguess the government and be purely political—how could we about an issue as serious as the looming economic recession? That is why I feel comfortable in myself that by voting against these bills we are in fact doing the right thing by the people of Australia. Today’s headlines, I have to say, were quite disappointing to me. It was not because they all endorsed the government’s measures—that was to be expected, and, when it comes to money that is being handed out, nobody wants to be last in the queue. But I thought they were confusing for the average voter. Many front pages had fistful of dollars-type imagery and big smiles. One had a photo of a young fellow picking up a young girl who was waving her hands with glee. Inside there phrases such as ‘Here are the winners’, ‘What do you get?’ et cetera. I was quite appalled by that. This is not about what you get. This is about what we as the country have to give to support ourselves, to sustain ourselves and to make sure that our debt does not go on for too long. Certainly, the headlines reminded me of those that appear at budget time, and that is the confusion. People are seeing this as like a budget, that the government has money and it is deciding what it is going to do with that money. The government does not have this money; it is borrowing this money. And at one point in the future, over many years in the future, the money will have to be paid back. That point has been made over and over again, but it needs to be persisted with. This is not a budget and this is not about people missing out. This is about an economic stimulus package, and the government has made that quite clear. But I think that over the years of the Howard-Costello government people got used to the fact that the money was there and that at budget time it was about allocating the surplus. In fact, at the end, they got cranky with us because we did not allocate the surplus; I recognise that. The surplus is the people’s money. In a sense, the deficit is also the people’s money, but it is not our generation’s; it is a future generation’s. So it is easy to be confused by the actions that this government has taken because it was not much more than a year ago that the Prime Minister announced that he was a fiscal conservative. After the last election, when he agreed with well over 90 per cent of the proposals put up by the opposition—and he seemed to do so gladly and willingly—he was a fiscal conservative and proudly so. He embraced our measures and then, after getting into government, he seemed enormously concerned with this overheating in the market. Of course, he blamed the previous government for those increased interest rates, and I think there is a good argument that his comments pushed up those interest rates. Maybe he was badly advised; I do not know. But the impression we got was that there was too much activity, too much demand and too much inflation—and yet the crisis originating in Wall Street in the United States had already begun. So why had this not been factored in? I think the reason was that everybody realised Australia was a strong economy. We were not going into the ensuing months from a weakened position, as were America, much of the EU and certainly Britain. People took comfort from the strength of our economy. But it seems there has been something of a turnaround, and we just have to join the mass of lemmings racing to the cliff; we have to whip ourselves up to the same level of panic. But remember that we had a strong, very well-regulated economy—and we still do. Future students will of course study this worldwide recession in the same way that they have studied the Great Depression and other interesting economic movements in world finances. And they will know what should have been done, with the benefit of hindsight, which we of course do not have. Students at La Trobe University, where I studied economics, will doubtless be doing that in a very short space of time. My point is that there is no right or wrong answer here and now. Sure, we can talk about learning from history and about the best models that we have; I am quite suspicious of models. But we do not really know and there are a range of options. I am sure that the advice presented to the government prior to them making this decision was around that range of options. Having received advice from government departments myself, I know that they very rarely say, ‘Well, this is what you need to do.’ They give you the options, they give you the advice, and the tough call of government is to pick the option that you think is in the best interests of Australia. So we do not know what will eventuate over the next few months, but it is the job of the opposition today to evaluate all of the alternative approaches, and we as an opposition do not think that the approach the government has chosen is the right one. The jury is still out on the degree to which the December stimulus was effective. Some are saying that it did increase retail spending. I think there is some evidence of that. Many are saying that two out of every three dollars were not in fact spent. Now, with people catching the mood of panic from the government, are they more likely to spend the money? Mr Swan, the Treasurer, said yesterday that this package was designed around a propensity to spend. I was a bit worried about that because I thought, ‘Well, if you are designing a package solely around a propensity to spend, will you design the current package that way?’ No; it is a bit of mishmash. It has to satisfy various interest groups, it has to look like it is a nation-building package and, yes, it does have to give money to people through an existing mechanism, Centrelink, which is able to get the money out into the community and into the retail sector as quickly as possible. We understand that; I understand that an economic stimulus comes from consumer spending. But I was concerned at the comment—and the Treasurer mentioned it again today—that it needs to be around the propensity to spend. Stay-at-home parents are receiving $950, and so are some other groups in the community. And there are other allocations across a range of sectors, but I do not think they naturally line up with those who would have the greatest propensity to spend. If I were to think of the people who would have the greatest propensity to spend, it would be the unemployed, and they get nothing out of this package. One of the reasons that it is so cruel is that it talks about supporting, not creating, jobs but it does nothing for people who lost their job yesterday. I stand to be corrected on that—and I hope I am—but I think that is one of the cruellest aspects of this package. The issue is not about the quality of the projects that are before us. Many government speakers have asked, ‘Which school would you stop funding; which project would you not go ahead with?’ That is a farcical argument and does not make sense in the context of this debate, because we are not talking about the quality of the spending. Of course it is all good. It is great to put money into schools; it is great to put money into insulation; it is great to give farmers who are struggling from the drought an extra $950; and it is great to do that for students as well. You cannot argue against any of those things standing on their own as being good things to do, but that is not the point. The point is that this package presumably is designed to ameliorate a 300,000 increase in unemployment in just over a year from now. The question the opposition has to ask is: are the measures proposed the best possible use of that money to reduce or keep to an absolute minimum the number of people who will hit our dole queues in just over a year’s time? I am not sure that it is, and that is why we as an opposition need to examine it closely. That is why we have made that offer to the government, but they have their own reasons for ignoring us. But they will have to unwrap the package further under the scrutiny of a Senate committee, it appears, and I hope that that job is done when that happens. It is not about the quality of the spending. Even the Treasurer has said it is just about the propensity to spend. I certainly would always welcome money that goes to rural schools, and that is in the package, but I do not think that $14 billion needs to be allocated to that. I say that because I have a lot of hospitals in my electorate in rural New South Wales that are struggling significantly. I also have a lack of aged-care facilities and I have older people being forced to travel too far to spend their final days away from their loved ones. So, if we are talking about $14 billion to build things, perhaps some of that could be allocated to aged-care facilities or to hospitals. Health has been completely ignored, in spite of the Prime Minister’s strong talk following a COAG meeting soon after he took government about ending the blame game and fixing up health. Anyone who lives in New South Wales will tell you that it is far from being fixed up. While I mention New South Wales, there is an interesting case in point, because it appears that money can be found. Because of the federal government’s strong credit position, it is able to borrow this money. Its capital account is in good condition and it is able to make the allocation, and our credit rating presumably is not going to suffer as a result of it. But you could not do that in New South Wales. New South Wales as a state is effectively bankrupt. That is why they are desperately trying to live within their means. That is why they cannot pay their bills to the Dubbo hospital, to the surgeons who visit and to the small businesses that supply the health system in New South Wales. That is why they are totally inwardly focused at the moment as they struggle to find some sort of lifeline to hang onto. If you look at the New South Wales government as a case in point, I am not saying that we are approaching that, but we are heading in that direction because, when you lose control of your spending and your savings, you lose your credit rating—which clearly New South Wales is desperate not to do—and you get to a situation where the money is not there. So we should not forget that there could be a time in the term of this government or the next when the money is not there. Having lived and felt the hardship of being a citizen of New South Wales, I feel that is not something we would want to look forward to. We in the opposition do agree that a stimulus is required. As I said, we would perhaps move it in different directions within some of the areas that are allocated. Perhaps $15 billion to $20 billion would be more affordable. There is no reason why the parliament cannot resume two or three months from now—it is probably sitting anyway—and discuss the effect of today’s stimulus and see whether more is needed or whether we can finetune the package and perhaps allocate further money if required. As I said, there is no need to open the war chest and pick up the dollars and throw them out there holus bolus—no need at all. We would prefer that tax cuts that are due in July 2009 and July 2010 be brought forward to January this year. That would provide a broad based stimulus to the economy, and I think it would create more of a propensity to spend, if that is what the Treasurer wants—and that is what he has said. Many government speakers have said, ‘Tax cuts for the rich,’ but I remind the government that they are their tax cuts—these are Labor’s tax cuts: they are not quite the same ones we took to the election. So why have they suddenly become tax cuts for the rich? And what are they going to do about them given that they were a previous commitment? This is $42 billion but it is not the end of the story. We still have a budget to get through. And that is the other confusing thing for the Australian public: Mr Tanner, as the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, is with his razor gang—and it always happens at this stage of the political cycle—going through the Public Service expenditure line by line, slashing and burning. So what is really going on here? It is so easy to send out $42 billion but at the same time we have to cut and scrimp and save in every area of the Public Service. Is it that the public servants do not have a propensity to spend? Could it be a reason to get money out into the sector and into the community? I thought that would be an excellent way of doing that. So the public is hearing confusing messages, and I am confused too. I mentioned the cruelty of this package to the unemployed, because it gives nothing to them but says it is protecting them. I think it is also cruel to self-funded retirees and cruel to small businesses. I can only conclude that that is for political motives. Self-funded retirees have just seen another drop in interest rates, which again is a stimulus to the economy which is happening besides this package. But, because of the securitisation of the loans in which they have invested, largely, many of them are seeing huge reductions in their returns, and that is frightening to people who have saved and put away money for their retirement, not intending to go on the public purse. There is nothing that I can see in this package to support them. For small businesses, there is a 30 per cent investment allowance, but you need to have the money to make the investment in the first place. When I looked at the bill, I thought that it was probably a 130 per cent investment allowance—in other words, that it is a full tax deduction for your expenditure over the life of the particular item plus another 30 per cent. But it is not. It is just a total of 100 per cent rearranged differently and loaded up to the front of the period over which you depreciate your asset. I do not think that really adds up to very much at all, particularly when many small businesses are going to have to borrow the money to make the investment. They are not going to do that because they are worried about their futures and their ability to continue trading in the present environment. I would also add that in my electorate many small businesses are not paying tax. That is not because they should be paying tax and are avoiding it; it is simply because they have not made a profit for a long, long time. This bill is very cruel to self-funded retirees and to small businesses. I would like to make a quick comment about the security of our nation given that the future is apparently not right. We should remember that, for those who protect our borders—the men and women of Customs, of the Australian Federal Police, of the Australian Crime Commission and of our state police services—times could get very tough indeed in terms of the jobs that they have to do. Corporate fat cats are bending the rules, which is something we have seen in previous recessions. We saw it with Skase and Bond. That is not just history; that can recur. We are going to need an applied and intelligent police and security presence on the job, but what have we got? We have a razor gang going through the budgets of the AFP and Customs and slashing them. I think that we should be concerned about the security of our borders and the amount of illegal activity that will happen around those borders if we enter the recession as we are told. In our heart of hearts we know that we have to save but we have a government telling us to spend. As I said, I understand that additional consumer spending stimulates the economy, and that is good. But somewhere, somehow we are going to have to feel the pain. This bill is not going to make that pain go away. It is simply going to put it off. In looking at today’s headlines about what you will get, remember what you will have to give. It will not be us, this generation here in this House it will be our children and it will be our grandchildren. We are being asked to pass appropriation bills that allow the government to borrow $200,000 million dollars. We are being asked to do it in the blink of an eye. We are told that if we do not do it we are horrible, economically irresponsible, blindly political et cetera. That is not the case. I am concerned about the debts of future generations and I ask the government to sit down with the opposition to look at some different measures that will still provide the stimulus but will give us some room to manoeuvre in the months ahead as we are not sure what exactly may happen with the world economy and how we may best respond here in Australia. 309 19:40:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —We have seen in this place today more worshipping than we would see in a church, more sermonising and more devotion to a belief in a system than we would see in any mosque, synagogue or church around this country on this Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. We have seen worshipping at the feet of Milton Friedman, devoted to Reaganomics—the failed free market fundamentalism of America. We have seen no plan offered by the opposition in relation to our $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. We have seen carping and criticism. We have seen idleness, ignorance and apathy. The opposition’s response would be to do what President Hoover did: sit there and do nothing. Our response is more like FDR: we are listening to what the IMF says. The IMF said in late January this year that world economic growth projections are down to 0.5 per cent, the lowest since World War II. It called on its members to take new policy initiatives, a stimulus, and said: Strong and complementary policy efforts are needed to rekindle activity And that is what we are doing. As the Prime Minister said on 3 February this year: This is not a question of choice. This is what we are required to do. And I agree. We are required to do this because we need to support the men and women, the families and the young and old in this country. There are about nine newspapers in my electorate and one daily, the Queensland Times. I want to read from the Queensland Times and I note that this will be the first time I have read from that newspaper since I have been elected to this place. The acting editor, Linda Brady, said in today’s Queensland Times: If you are a home owner, worker, single breadwinner, drought-stricken farmer or someone returning to study, you had plenty of reasons to smile yesterday. A full one per cent rates cut and the prospect of a $950 one-off handout is enough to delight most people in this increasingly gloomy economic times and understandably so. It goes on to say ‘and $950 buys a lot of bread and milk’. I say to the member for Farrer that I am happy to come to her electorate. If she does not want the money, I am sure the schools in my electorate do. I heard the member for Higgins today making one of his rare sojourns in the House and it was one of those few occasions when he happens to speak. He was giving us his prophetic utterances. He went on about how he knew it all; he knew it was coming. But the coalition’s tactics, strategy and statements over the last election were so confused, how could you tell? But Pete is a prophet now. He is wise in hindsight. It is interesting to see the response of those opposite: confusion reigns. I would love each one of them to go back to their electorate and do a mobile office this Saturday morning. They should go back there on Friday to visit their schools—primary and secondary—and tell them, ‘Sorry, I just voted against you getting up to $3 million.’ Let them see what the principal has to say in those circumstances. And let them see what the farmers have to say in rural electorates—so many now represented by Labor members of parliament. Go and have a talk to them about that. It is interesting that the NFF supports the package. The last I knew, the NFF were not affiliated to the Australian Labor Party. They are not an affiliated union. But, when I read what they had to say about the farm stimulus to spark economic growth in the country, I thought I might actually contact them to sign them up to the Queensland branch of the ALP. They were so much in support of what we are doing. It was a terrific response. In my electorate there are 119 farmers and small businesses affected by the drought who will receive a hardship payment of $950. The member for Higgins and the member for Farrer can come to my electorate and explain to those farmers why they are not getting the $950. There are 63 primary schools and 14 high schools in my electorate and I would be interested in either one of them coming to my electorate and saying, ‘Sorry, you are not getting that capital funding for essential new buildings, upgrades and refurbishments.’ That is what they are saying to us, and that is what they are saying to the teachers, parents and children in those schools in my electorate. Part of this package includes 133 new defence homes to be built in the electorate of Blair. That is $36.3 million to be injected into the Ipswich economy. Local tradies, sparkies and those who work in the wet trades will be doing the work. In the suburb in which I live, Flinders View, we have 54 new homes being built. In the adjacent suburb, Yamanto, there are 72 being built. And this is what the opposition are saying to the defence families in RAAF Base Amberley in my electorate: ‘We are not interested in supporting you with good quality, appropriate housing.’ Go and tell the partners and the wives and husbands of the Defence Force personnel in my electorate that they are not going to get those houses. I spoke to two mayors in the three councils in my electorate: Paul Pisasale and John Brent. Paul Pisasale is the Mayor of Ipswich. Paul is a well-known fellow. He described the package as ‘excellent’ and he is looking forward to spending part of the $500 million that we are giving for community infrastructure. John Brent is the mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council. There are not many National Party members opposite but there are still a few, and some of them would know John Brent, I am sure—I have known him for years. John Brent is a good bloke and he does hard work for the local community. He worked for decades in local councils in the old Boonah Shire. He is now the new mayor of the new amalgamated council. John and I had a conversation today about the package and I told him I was going to say this in parliament today. John is very supportive of this package. And guess what: John is a very prominent member of the National Party in Queensland. It is a great package for the old Boonah Shire and now for the Scenic Rim. So I say to those opposite: have a talk to your Liberal-National Party colleagues—or Liberal Party or National Party or whatever you call yourself in Queensland. Go and have a talk to John. John will tell you what you should be doing. He wants the package so we can deliver on things, just as his council is delivering on the hydrotherapy complex in Boonah. We have done that; the coalition never did that in the Scenic Rim. We are delivering $667,000 to the Scenic Rim and they are going to put $480,000 of that into building a hydrotherapy complex for the local area. It is the Rudd Labor government that has done that, and John is looking forward to making an application for further funding for the Scenic Rim. I spoke to Colin O’Connor, who is the CEO of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council. I campaigned hard in the last election in the Lockyer Valley Regional Council but I have to confess that I did not win the majority of votes in that area. It has traditionally been a conservative voting area. I did pretty well. I won the old Laidley Shire—just—but I lost Gatton. I am working hard to reverse that for the next election. But Colin said to me today that he is really looking forward to the package because they have a great arts cultural precinct on Lake Apex that they want to fund, and they want to fund it out of the kind of money that we are delivering in this package. I suggest that those members of the Liberal-National Party who are in the Lockyer Valley send an e-mail, or pick up the phone and ring Malcolm. Ring the Leader of the Opposition and tell him what they think. Do they want the complex at Lake Apex? It is a proposal that is going to bring a lot more money, commemorating the Lights on the Hill, the truck drivers and the coach drivers who have died in accidents—sadly—across the last year. I go to the Lights on the Hill memorial every year. It has a great precinct and it has a library that will be going up. It is a great investment. We are talking about an injection of up to $15 million in the local area, and this is allied with the Rudd government’s injection of $47.2 million to relocate the School of Veterinary Science from Brisbane to Gatton. The Rudd government is delivering for the Lockyer Valley and the rural areas. The National Party have forgotten about the rural areas. But those regional and rural voters must remember this at the next election: it is the Rudd government that cares for the rural areas. We are the ones who are delivering for the rural and regional schools. We are the ones who are injecting the black spot funding—twice as much as the coalition government ever did under Mr Howard. And we are the ones who are delivering with this package. The coalition should stop opposing this, go and talk to their regional and rural constituents and have a look at what this will do for the local areas in terms of jobs and training, and assistance to farms and families in the working-class areas of Ipswich and elsewhere. To the opposition I say: support this package, get on board and stop opposing it. 312 19:51:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —In speaking on Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills I pose the question: what is too big, irresponsible and poorly targeted, does nothing to reduce the cost of employment and will not help the estimated 2,000 people in the Barker electorate who will lose their jobs, according to the government? The answer is the Rudd government’s so-called economic stimulus package. The people in the electorate of Barker, whom I am proud to represent, are not short-sighted. They are not stupid. They recognise what this is all about. The long-term goals that they have for their communities’ future generations of sustainable employment, health and aged care, affordable education, thriving small business and a strong rural market economy will not be helped one bit by this package. Much of my electorate is declared exceptional circumstances farming areas. Hardworking farmers, growers and small business operators are doing it tough with drought and water shortages such that they have difficulty meeting family and personal living expenses. I note that the member for Blair referred to the National Farmers Federation supporting some parts of this package. I also note that the South Australian Farmers Federation, a member of the National Farmers Federation, came out today and said that through giving a farmer in a declared exceptional circumstances area a one-off payment of $950, as this package does, he or she may be able to buy one tonne of fertiliser or a couple of tonnes of seed—but then what? While everybody welcomes what seems like a bit of free money, in this situation people recognise that we could actually do a lot better. Farmers in my electorate are still facing high interest rates on farm loans. As Deputy Speaker Adams would recognise, I am a farmer myself. He would also recognise that I understand farming and farmers. Farmers are still facing high interest rates on farm loans because interest rate reductions have not been passed on to them at all. It would be better for them if those interest rate reductions were actually passed on to them. This government has done nothing to help farmers secure reduced overdraft or loan payments. A common overdraft is about $200,000, although there are many larger than that, while a few are a bit smaller. On a common $200,000 overdraft, a two per cent reduction in the loan rate would be worth more than four times $950 every year. It would be much more worthwhile for farmers to receive the reductions in interest rates that the banks have not been passing on than to receive a one-off payment of $950. The banks have passed the cuts on to homeowners by and large, but when it comes to small business and farmers they have not been passed on at all. In fact, a constituent rang me up and said their rates had actually gone up rather than down. Farming families are still paying extraordinarily high interest rates on their farm loans and overdrafts, and they continue to struggle to keep their farm businesses afloat, while city based Australians have up to $100 a week more in their pockets as a consequence of reduced bank interest rates. Farmers and food manufacturers have already seen their profit margins squeezed by drought and the financial crisis, and giving them $950 does little to address that. They will still wake up tomorrow and face drought, water shortages and reduced farm gate prices, and they will continue to compete against cheap imported food products. On ABC Radio 891 this morning, in response to the announcement of tax bonuses, Greg from Loxton on the Murray River asked, ‘Wouldn’t this money be better put into infrastructure?’ Greg is absolutely right. Loxton is currently suffering the effects of the drought. As with other communities in the Riverland, shops are shutting and a growing number of workers are facing redundancy. The crisis in the Riverland’s once mighty irrigation industry is taking a horrific toll, and more and more Riverland farmers are struggling to put food on the table as spending tightens. It was an inspiration to celebrate last week when a Loxton High School student, Daniel Schulz, was named South Australia’s Young Citizen of the Year in recognition of his extensive volunteer work with organisations across the region, including the State Emergency Service. Daniel is an inspiration with his sense of belonging to his local community and wanting to give to his local community. He is not alone in having these qualities—they abound in many rural Australians of all ages. It has been my mantra for a very long time that the smaller the community, the bigger the heart, because the smaller the community, the more it does to stick together. What does this package offer young rural and regional Australians such as Daniel? It does nothing to guarantee them employment. It does nothing for the additional 2,000 people in my electorate who are facing unemployment, as this government forecasts. Rural and regional Australians are not fools. I have always said that farmers and growers are amongst the most entrepreneurial and resilient of Australians because necessity has forced them to be that way. You cannot run a sustainable rural property in a careless, irresponsible and hasty manner with no regard for the consequences. Yet this is precisely the way that the Rudd government is implementing this package. The Prime Minister yesterday demanded that the House of Representatives approve $42 billion in expenditure within 48 hours—almost a billion dollars an hour. I oppose the Rudd government’s $42 billion package because it is not a responsible or sustainable way to run the national economy. I know this decision will not be popular, but it is the right decision. Earlier today, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry asked how I would explain to my constituents my decision to oppose these bills. Doing so is not a problem because, from Bordertown to the Barossa and from the Murraylands to the Riverland and Mount Gambier, people have been telephoning my electorate office saying that they are not fooled by this package. They do not want the debt that comes with it. They would happily trade the payment for jobs for their children, for security in the small businesses in their communities and for a stronger rural economy. Without exception, callers to my office have reported that they consider this package to be poorly targeted, ill thought through and irresponsible in today’s economic climate. The objective of any package must be to protect and create jobs, support small business and support our economy. This package will not achieve that. That is because yesterday’s fiscal stimulus package was a political announcement, not an economic one. It will make almost no difference to the economy. I look at this package and see little evidence that it will underpin the jobs of Australians. There is no evidence the government’s $10.4 billion spending package before Christmas created the 75,000 jobs Mr Rudd promised. I talk to publicans in my electorate who tell me they had the best December ever. The latest figures from the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner in South Australia show people spent $68.1 million on poker machines in December, an increase of more than $8 million on the $59.76 million spent in December 2007, just one year before. Alarmingly, the Prime Minister is already talking about a third stimulus package, even though the first one last October was a certified failure—except for in pubs and with poker machines. The government has scared Australians, including those in my electorate. Last year, at a time when grocery and petrol prices were high, we saw the Treasurer talking down the economy and talking up inflation. That made business owners nervous and certainly made them less likely to put on new staff or offer workers extra hours. Australians are even more scared when just a few months later they see the government spending $42.5 billion, in addition to the $10.4 billion in December, even though tax revenue is estimated to fall $115 billion over four years and the budget is already in deficit. Be afraid, rural and regional Australia—be very afraid. This is a scary way of managing your economy. Even with his reckless cash handouts and massive, debt-fuelled spending, the Prime Minister’s package predicts unemployment will top seven per cent in just over a year—another 300,000 Australians out of work. Just nine months ago, Kevin Rudd announced a budget surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP. He went on to say that this would require a determined and disciplined approach to spending. But this budget bears no relation to what will actually happen. As the member for Higgins said, this should be filed in the fiction section of the Parliamentary Library. Last May, Treasurer Wayne Swan projected $80 billion of cash surpluses over the four years from the 2008-09 financial year. Now he is projecting budget deficits of $118 billion. That is a staggering $198 billion turnaround, an average $50 billion for each year. The previous Labor government left a legacy of $96 billion in government debt and the budget was in deficit for six successive years. It is interesting that in 1990 after 90 years of federation—in which time we had to fund two world wars, the building of a new capital and several other wars along the way—successive governments had accumulated $16 billion worth of debt. But, over the next five years, Labor repeated every year what it took us 90 years to achieve with that debt. We went from $16 billion to $96 billion in five years. Unfortunately, with the way we are going here, the record of the Rudd Labor government will be even worse than that. It took the Australian people a decade to repay that debt, a scenario we are now facing again. Now another Labor government is asking me, on behalf of the hardworking Australians in my electorate, to agree to plunge headlong back into large deficits and more than significant debt. Yesterday, the Prime Minister railed against neoliberalism and free-market fundamentalism, not mentioning that it had produced 30 years of unparalleled economic growth and wealth in this country. He claimed that the same free-market fundamentalists who rejected financial regulation also opposed labour market regulation. Mr Rudd clearly has an unusual understanding of free-market fundamentalism and extreme capitalism. The only sector of the economy that you could possibly say has become less regulated in the past two decades is the labour market. All other areas of government have become more regulated. Deregulation of the labour market started off with the Keating package and it was further deregulated twice under the Howard government. This deregulation has helped to give us the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years and gives us the best chance of protecting jobs from the effects of the economic crisis. Labor market deregulation had nothing to do with the economic crisis, yet this is the first area that this government wants to re-regulate through its Fair Work legislation. What Mr Rudd is not telling Australia is that the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 allows for the Labor government to take the nation $200 billion into deficit—$9,500 debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. I said earlier that rural and regional Australians are not fools. They have already twigged that in return for the $950 handout—for some—they are also being given a $2,000 debt, just with this package. What Prime Minister Rudd is borrowing to fund this package is the equivalent of $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Rural and regional Australians know that when they receive their $950 payment there will be some red pen on that paper as well—$2,000 will have to be paid back by you in the future, as well as by your family members, to fund what is happening today. Earlier today a young man from Mount Gambier contacted my website. He told me that last year he began full-time employment as a teacher in Mount Gambier and thus became financially independent soon after graduating from university. He will not qualify for the $950 bonus because, during the 2007-08 financial year, as a student, he did not have a net tax liability. Throughout his years at uni, this young man never received one cent from the government, or payments from Centrelink or other government departments, to help with living costs. Even though he was forced to move from country South Australia to Adelaide in order to gain a university education he was not entitled to youth allowance, rent assistance, a Commonwealth learning scholarship or any other payment because they are means tested against parental income. He quite rightly pointed out the difficulty this caused him as a country student, given that the costs of relocating, finding accommodation and meeting food and other living costs are far higher than for city students who can stay at home. Students do not have the option of living at home if they come from an area that is 400 or 500 kilometres away from a capital city. This young man told me that this package is a slap in the face from the government, and I agree with him. I commend him for toughing it out, gaining a tertiary qualification and then returning to rural and regional Australia, which will benefit from his teaching skill, but I do not envy his financial future. He is a working Australian and will be paying many thousands of dollars in tax in the 2008-09 financial year and beyond. He will also be incurring the $2,000 debt that comes as a consequence of Labor’s bonus payment that he will not receive. These bills are an irresponsible spending spree. The title of this bill, the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, includes the phrase ‘nation building and jobs’, but it does not build the nation and it does not create jobs. The timing is wrong. It repeats the failures of the past package. There is no lasting investment or leverage for the future. There are handouts but no permanent fixes. At the end of this package, the pension will still be too low, taxes will still be too high and rural and regional Australians will be worse off. It is an undeniable fact that this $42 billion cash splash means that, in the future, taxes will have to increase by $42 billion to repay it and by even more to repay the loans. We know Whitlam ran our economy into the ground with debt and overspending. We know that Keating ran our economy into the ground with debt and overspending and, true to form, the Rudd Labor government is doing the same. Labor has form on this and it cannot be trusted with either the economy or taxpayers’ money. My father used to say—and this is not in the economics textbooks, I can assure you, because I do have an economics degree and a politics degree—that it is easy to be generous and compassionate with other people’s money. Never has a truer word been said, and Labor is proving it. 316 20:10:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I have listened in this debate on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills to many of those opposite, and I have just listened to the Leader of the Opposition on The 7.30 Report. Increasingly, in this debate, we are hearing members of the opposition, again, hark back to the golden days of the Howard government and the dark days of the Keating and Whitlam governments. As I listen in this debate to opposition members, I believe they just do not understand the times we are living in today. They do not understand just how serious the crisis is that we are facing. This is not like the last years we lived under the Howard government. It is not like what happened when Keating, Hawke or Whitlam were in power. It is not like anything we have experienced before. We are living in unprecedented times and it requires absolutely strong action from government. It seemed unimaginable this time last year that we would be experiencing such desperate times. What started at the hands of a small number of reckless financiers in the United States has now made its way into every economy. We are facing an unprecedented crisis, one that is not of our making—a crisis that day by day is making its way into every element of our economy, whether it be the slowdown in demand for our commodities; the reduction in sales of new vehicles; job losses, particularly in the manufacturing sector; or the restriction of the availability of credit for investment. The list goes on. The people who are bearing the brunt of this crisis are not the reckless US financiers, although we do hope some of them have done so; it is ordinary working families who are paying the price for the greed of a few. It will be some time before we start to make our way out of this crisis. There will be many lessons to be learnt—hopefully, lessons that forever change the way in which nations work together to strengthen and develop economies internationally. But what we are dealing with now, what is before the House in these bills tonight, is in the face of an unprecedented global financial crisis. What do we as a parliament do about it? What measures do we as a parliament need to take to continue to stimulate our economy now, to avoid the dire growth predictions of Treasury and to invest in our economy so that when we get out of this mess—again, a mess not of our making—we are stronger and able to immediately take advantage of better financial times? I understand the opposition’s need for scrutiny of these bills. There should be scrutiny. As someone who served two terms in opposition, I understand the frustration that those in opposition feel about not being in the decision-making chair and about the sometimes overblown rhetoric that is often needed in order to ensure that your point is heard. But what I do not understand—at the time we are facing right now, the global financial crisis—is the decision by the opposition to oppose outright the measures in this bill. The issues facing this parliament are extremely serious. This is not a normal circumstance that we are facing. If we as a parliament fail to act now, it is not the people in this chamber who will be the losers. In the short term, at least, we are all assured of a job. It will be those kids who finished school last year who are desperately seeking work in a shrinking economy. It will be people employed in the building and construction industry—apprentices, electricians, carpenters, plasterers and plumbers—who will find that they have no work. It will be workers in the manufacturing sector who slowly find that their jobs are disappearing. It will be shop assistants, laid off as people stop spending in the retail sector, and it will be parents struggling to make ends meet as their children return to school. In opposing this legislation, the opposition needs to be prepared to explain itself to those people. I stand before this parliament as a proud representative of regional Australia. Regional Australia is often the first to feel the brunt of any downturn, and we have less capacity to absorb job losses and reduction in investments than capital cities do. That is why the investment in this package in schools and community infrastructure is so important—because it means that every region will share in the investment. It is investment that will not just benefit us today. Improving our schooling facilities and community infrastructure will benefit our communities for years to come. These are the things this package is designed to do. In my district, all 76 primary schools will receive capital funding to build new infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure, such as libraries and multipurpose halls. Our secondary schools will have the opportunity to apply for funding to build new science labs or language learning centres, and each and every primary and secondary school, government and non-government, will be able to access funding for much-needed maintenance. Over 10,700 families in my electorate will receive a back-to-school bonus of $950 to help cover the costs associated with children returning to school. Families receiving family tax benefit B will receive a one-off single-income family bonus of $950, and over 200 drought affected farmers and small businesses will receive assistance with a $950 hardship payment. In addition to this, some 5,200 students and people looking for work will receive a $950 training and learning bonus payment to support their study costs. Many households in my district can take advantage—and I certainly encourage them to do so—of free ceiling insulation and increased rebates on solar hot water systems, two products of which a large proportion are manufactured here in Australia—again, supporting manufacturing jobs. Businesses can benefit from the small business and general business tax break, and people in my district who had a taxable income of less than $100,000 in the 2007-08 financial year will receive up to $950. That is not to mention the assistance that could flow through my electorate through the regional and roads measures announced as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. These include funding for boom gates at high-risk rail crossings, additional Black Spot Program projects, $150 million to carry out maintenance works on our nation’s highways and $500 million of additional funding for the strategic projects component of the government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. The three projects from my local government areas that were submitted by the local governments as their priority for large-scale infrastructure investment—the Eureka Centre, Doug Lindsay Reserve in Creswick and the redevelopment of the Darley campus of the Bacchus Marsh Secondary College as a Moorabool Shire community facility—are all projects I know that now have a greater opportunity of getting funded under that $500 million. All of these things have combined to result in a plan that provides both direct and indirect support to thousands of people throughout my electorate. This stimulus package is certainly welcome news to those people. Nobody likes deficits, and entering into a temporary deficit is not something that this or any government would ever take lightly, but this government is committed to working through the financial crisis. We understand just how serious the circumstances are that we are facing—something which the opposition still seems to be in denial about. The government are taking measures to stimulate the economy and to keep people in jobs. We will not bury our heads in the sand on this challenge. We cannot; too many people are relying on this parliament to ensure that the economy keeps ticking over. Entering into a temporary deficit is what this government needs to do in order to see us through, and it is not a decision that we have taken lightly. We have made a commitment to all Australians, and I have made a commitment to the people in my electorate, that we will take all action necessary to respond to the global financial crisis and to support our nation during this period. This government knows that the immediate road ahead will be tough—extremely tough—but we are committed to working through it, and I know the members of my community are also committed to working together to get through it as well. I certainly commend this bill to the House and hope that the opposition manages to change its mind in the course of the evening. 318 20:19:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —Today in this House the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009 was introduced. In short, what that one-page bill does is to seek to give Prime Minister Rudd a blank cheque for up to $200 billion in debt and deficit which will be levied on the current generation, on the next generation and potentially on the generation after that. In one page, that bill sets out the extent, the scope and the intent of the recklessness which has been foreshadowed in all that we have seen in recent days. Two hundred billion dollars is $9½ thousand of debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. For a family of mum, dad and two kids it is $38,000—almost $40,000 of debt for that family. That is debt which has been paid off in the past. That is debt which, we were told prior to the election by the would-be Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, he would never be responsible for. He was a proud fiscal conservative, he said. If this is fiscal conservatism, I would like to see reckless behaviour, because we saw today a blank cheque for up to $200 billion placed in the parliament, and we have seen already a $42 billion package in the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, which they want passed through this House posthaste, without scrutiny. This is a net turnaround in the budget of $198 billion, from an $80 billion forward surplus to a deficit of $118 billion within a short period of time. The speed with which these things have been done is almost unimaginable. Make no mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker—spending is right at the heart of what is happening to the budget here. It is a conscious pattern of extreme expenditure. To paraphrase the Deputy Prime Minister: the government’s motto from here on in is, ‘Let the spending rip.’ The Prime Minister of Australia told pensioners before Christmas to ‘spend, spend, spend’. That is not about thrift, that is not about hard work and that is not about preparing for the future; that is an invocation of irresponsibility. That is not what we expect of our Prime Minister and it is not what we expect of the government. No government at any time in Australia’s history has presided over such a dramatic reversal of fortune in Australia’s finances and set us down a path to a $200 billion debt. This is not some form of hypothetical. This document, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009, with one page sets down a legacy which will hang around the necks of this generation and other generations. So it is a fundamental question about whether what has been proposed is reckless and ineffective. There are two fundamental concerns that we have with the package that has been placed before this parliament and before the Australian people. Firstly, the magnitude, the scope and the speed are breathtakingly reckless. This is not just $42 billion; it foreshadows a $200 billion debt in the government’s own legislation. The government’s own legislation sets down a blank cheque for $200 billion. Moreover, the composition of the spending is not about productivity. The member for Maribyrnong, the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, is in this chamber. Prior to the election, he was a proud advocate of greater productivity. Yet we know that the government’s first round of payments immediately prior to Christmas—when you would expect the maximum uptake of expenditure—to those of lower income, who would have a higher propensity to spend, produced 20 per cent of expenditure from it. That is the estimate: 20 per cent expenditure of that which was paid out to those with the highest propensity and need for expenditure immediately prior to Christmas. That was all that was spent. Eighty per cent failed to reach its target, because we were told that this money should be spent. That is not about productivity. That is not about effectiveness. Neither of those two fundamental tests of the nature of any stimulus package have been met. So that is why we have deep, profound reservations about that which has been proposed, because it betrays the long term and it fails the short term. Nothing more problematic could be expected from a government: that they betray the long term and fail the short term. Let me go through in detail the concerns I have. First, looking at the budget itself, in 2008-09 we go from a projected $21.7 billion surplus to a $22.5 billion deficit—a turnaround this financial year of $44 billion. The deficit, however, includes the $10 billion put forward prior to Christmas and the $12 billion which is outlined in the government’s Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook and which will be spent over the next four months. So what we see is that the entire budget deficit for this year is encapsulated in those two spending measures alone. They say: ‘Somebody else created it. It’s not us. It wasn’t me.’ The entire budget deficit of $22 billion for this year is more than met in those two measures alone. They have spent it; the next generation will have to pay for it. What about 2009-10? In 2009-10, a budget surplus of $19.7 billion was projected, yet we see that a deficit of $35.5 billion is now expected—a $54 billion turnaround. In 2010-11, we see that there was a surplus of $19 billion projected; now a deficit of $34.3 billion is projected—a $53 billion turnaround. For 2011-12, a surplus of $18.9 billion was projected a few months ago; now it is projected to be a deficit of $25.7 billion—or $44 billion in turnaround. And yet we are told that the test of a temporary deficit is when we are back in growth. Both of those years—with a $34 billion deficit in 2010 and a $25 billion deficit in 2011—are projected as being years of three per cent growth. That is not a temporary deficit. What we face now are deficits as far as the eye can see. And that is real recklessness: high levels of deficit and high levels of debt which will impale future generations at a time of projected growth. The government are projecting growth. They say that their test of whether or not to run a deficit is whether or not there is growth. There is growth of three per cent in their budgets for each of those years—unless the government’s figures are meaningless. A short while ago we had assets of $40 billion; now they are gone. We see as a result of this package immediate debt of $70 billion over the coming years and a request for a debt facility of $200 billion. To go back to where I began: that is nine and a half thousand dollars for each and every man, woman and child in Australia—$38,000, nearly $40,000, for every family of four. And it has to be repaid. The interest will be a millstone around each successive budget and each successive generation. We know, because we had to pay off the interest and we had to pay off the capital of the last debt binge. That is what we are facing. What about the origin of this problem? The problem is caused by debt and deficit around the world. The problem is not caused by Australia, which has both a healthy public finance system and one of the world’s healthiest private financial systems. Australia has the best banking system in the world, some of the healthiest individual financial companies in the world and the best regulated financial system in the world. Those are not our words; those are the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. But the problem has been caused by debt and deficit, both public and private, in other countries. And the very cause of the global problem is the remedy prescribed by the Prime Minister. What we see here is a program which is recklessly excessive and ineffective in its composition. The best defence of an economy is a strong budget. We had all sorts of excuses when we were in government which could have allowed us to blow the budget. There was a tech wreck, SARS, terrorism and an Asian financial crisis, yet we decided that holding the budget strong was the best defence we could have. All of this comes against a background of a notional commitment to fiscal rectitude, yet we have seen the fastest turnaround in Australian finances in Australian public history. A blank cheque for $200 billion signals a budget blow-out. We have already seen that budget blow-out and we know that what we see with this package is not the end; it is the beginning. This is the second package. The composition is poor, the effect will be limited and the result will be debt and deficit for this and future generations. I note that the Prime Minister’s essay in which he attacks the notion of neoliberalism does not likely signal that he now supports the reintroduction of tariffs, although we want to know: would he like to reintroduce tariffs around the world? I doubt that is what it means. Does it mean that he wants to change the regulatory system of what his Deputy Prime Minister describes as the best regulated financial system in the world? I doubt that. Does it mean that he wants to nationalise the banks? I doubt that. What it was was a piece which set the ground to give him a blank cheque to blow the budget. He wanted to change the framework to say, ‘We can spend as much as we want.’ That is what this debate is about. Why is it that the opposition has taken a step which potentially has significant short-term unpopularity? Because at the end of the day, if we take this stand now, we can hopefully improve the composition of the package, reduce the recklessness and prevent and moderate future actions by the government which have been foreshadowed in the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009, or what will forever hence be known as the blank cheque for $200 billion worth of debt. Having said all of that, I think it is important to remember that this is part of a historic pattern of mismanagement, seen not just under the Whitlam government and not just under the Keating government, with its $96 billion of debt; under this government we have already seen the driving up of interest rates at precisely the wrong time—a conscious, deliberate strategy which failed to foresee or understand the coming financial crisis. The Leader of the Opposition warned that it was reckless to drive up interest rates at precisely the wrong time. The banks were given a green light not to pass on all the interest rate drops in the last quarter of last year. The furore over that led to the unlimited bank guarantee, which in turn led to the freezing of retirees’ assets, which in turn had to be wound back. All of those were warned against. And then we saw the first cash splash, which had a 20 per cent effectiveness rate. That would fail any Auditor-General’s assessment of an effective program of public expenditure—20 per cent effectiveness when it was directed to those with the greatest need and propensity for expenditure at the single moment when they were most likely to spend. I hate to think how much of this measure will achieve the Prime Minister’s purpose. The figure will be low. I also want to make brief comment in relation to the insulation measures contained within this package. The Leader of the Opposition has set down a clear objective of saving 150 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020, through our green carbon initiative. He has foreshadowed and referred to the potential, as outlined by McKinsey and Company, of saving 50 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020 through energy efficiency measures. Only last week he set down a path along which we would proceed, of accelerated depreciation for energy-efficient measures which would work towards that figure set by McKinsey of 50 million tonnes saved by 2020. What we see here are measures with some merit but which are hopelessly ineffective as a fiscal stimulus and which will have significant problems in their implementation. The starting point was this: 18 months ago the Labor Party promised an insulation initiative. Nine months ago, in their budget, they included the money for an insulation initiative. As of yesterday morning, the website of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts said that program details were still to be worked out and announced. Strangely that had changed today, but you still could not apply for and receive the money. What is extraordinary is that, nine months later, in a period when they say green jobs are so important, the Labor Party delayed their own initiative on insulation which they said was so important. On implementing a pilot program, they have failed abysmally, so we have deep concerns about their ability to implement. The second point here is that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, we will consider a much more targeted and much more modest initiative at this stage. The principle that he outlined is that, unlike a solar panel, which may be $12,000, $13,000 or $14,000—and, if you take away the $8,000, nobody other than the ultra-wealthy can afford them—insulation pays for itself. So we have said there will be means-testing for insulation and we think that is an extremely important thing, because what this government has said is: ‘We will help the wealthiest Australian with their extension or their refit. It does not matter if they earn a million dollars a year. Even though insulation does have a high rate of return, even though it does pay for itself, we will help the wealthiest Australian put pink bats in their roof.’ I have nothing against pink bats. They are an important efficiency measure. But it is those who are on low incomes and cannot afford it who need the assistance, and we will ration our funding appropriately. If we are spending the dollars of a taxpayer from a Holden plant in Melbourne’s south-east suburbs on subsidising the wealthiest Australian putting affordable insulation into their roof, does that seem right? Is it right that the poorest Australians who pay tax are subsidising the wealthiest Australians to put insulation in their roofs? The case of solar panels is very different. The only people who could afford solar panels were those on higher incomes, but without the $8,000 it would have been unaffordable. In this case the insulation has an extraordinary rate of return, it has a low overhead cost relative to other measures, it is affordable and achievable and it does bring benefits in its own right. That is why we look to say that we will impose a means test and we will come back with more details of an energy efficiency package. I note that the farmers and those on the rivers have been utterly failed by the inability to address some of the water efficiency measures within a much smaller budget, which we would increase. Ultimately, this is about protecting future generations from debt, deficit and a millstone around their neck. (Time expired) 322 20:39:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —This package is one that we take very seriously. I have been listening to the debate during the day and recently the comments from the member for Flinders. It seems to me that for the opposition this is simply a high school debate about what they are doing, what they have done, what we are not doing and what we should do. Essentially they are not even telling us what we should be doing. They are saying what is wrong with our proposals, yet through all of this they are forgetting that this package, contained in the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, is about a stimulus. This is not simply about arguing over philosophies, talking about the history—what they have done right and what they think we have done wrong. This is very serious and it is about extraordinary times. It is about our ability as a government to respond and be able to make good in the situation that we find ourselves in. I should also note that this package and these bills are about prevention. This is very much about looking into the future as far as we can and saying that, given the circumstances around the world, if we do not act now, as we acted last year with our other package, there could be even more dire consequences for us as a nation. The member for New England raised the notion that this should not be politicised. He is absolutely right. This is not about politicising an issue that is so important. Extraordinary times and extraordinary events require a government and an opposition to work together to provide some solutions. It is interesting to hear people peel away the issues, even talking about some of the initiatives on the environment and the outcomes and consequences of what we might put up as part of this package. If you take notice of all of those who have spoken, certainly on the opposition side but also on this side of the House, really what we are describing here and the solutions we are presenting are very much part of our agenda as a government. In a lot of ways this is about bringing forward our nation-building, whether we call it our education revolution and building that revolution, and all of those nation-building initiatives that we put in place as the government in that first 12 months. It was lucky that we essentially had 12 months to prepare ourselves for what has come down on us now. It is interesting to see that the member for Higgins, who gave a very impassioned plea, talked a lot about the history and his role as Treasurer of this country. He had a long period as Treasurer, and we can support or disagree with the whole range of things that he has done as a Treasurer or that the previous government did. The member for Kingston said tonight that the member for Higgins seems to believe that he saw this coming back in 2007. As the member for Kingston said, if he had such foresight why didn’t we make arrangements to buffer ourselves against that? I think a lot of it is political rhetoric. It is good to see that the member for Higgins is back in the debate. He has been silent for the last 12 months and I think the nature and concerns of the debate on these bills means that the opposition need to bring him back on board for whatever experience he can bring to the table. As a government we certainly enjoy every bit of understanding that can go into this debate, but at the end of the day we have got some serious business to do. We have to get these bills through. We can organise and discuss and debate all of the specifics of this bill but it is about a prevention package; it is about stimulating the economy. We as a government need to take quick action, and it does concern me that the opposition is going to oppose these bills. I find that remarkable. A lot of it is just trying to make comparisons with history, whether we talk about the Whitlam era, whether we talk about the Hawke-Keating era, whether we talk about the Fraser era or whether we talk about the Howard era. The member for Flinders talked specifically about statistics and some economic concepts. I was probably paying tax and working when he was still in primary school. In fact, by the time he was in high school I was in business, paying 22 per cent interest under the Fraser-Howard government. If we want to go back and talk about economic credibility, we can look at those periods of government and say, ‘Well, they did not do it very well.’ In fact, it was a Labor government that turned the first surplus as a Commonwealth government. So let us remember all of that. I am not going to dwell on it because, for this debate, it is just not important. This is not about who has done well and who has not done so well; it is about the economic times that are confronting us right now. I would certainly suggest that the member for Higgins sit down with his own party and talk more specifically about some solutions, because I have not heard what those solutions are. The reality is that income tax rebates or tax cuts are just not enough. We can argue the point economically; in fact, it was stated in the House today during question time that most economists do not necessarily agree on the way forward or the tactics. But, as a country, as a government, we have to use those resources that are available to us. The wonderful thing for us as a government, the one light of hope, is that the bringing forward of the stimulus package is also delivering very vital infrastructure. While this is very much a national and global debate, it would be unforgivable for me not to talk a little bit about my electorate and how important this stimulus package will be, especially for families. This is about giving people security and a state of mind that says that this government is acting rather than reacting to events that may occur in the future. It is about putting on the table some understanding that we as a government are here working to find solutions. As our Prime Minister said, if this package can take us through the next budget period, the next 12 months, we will need to see how the land lies at that time. But no-one can predict what that is going to be. So to hear the argument from the other side of the chamber today telling us about what they think we should be doing in light of not knowing where this is all going is very difficult. However, we as a country are very lucky in terms of our financial position that we can borrow and put money into the economy in building assets. If we look at my electorate—and I know it is common for most electorates—there is somewhere in the vicinity of 50 schools that will ultimately benefit from these maintenance and building programs. The seat of Forde was formerly held by a Liberal member, a great member for the area, for nearly 12 years, but unfortunately the former government just ignored our region. We are so far behind the eight ball in terms of the infrastructure we currently have. From my perspective this is a great package for the country not only with the injection of funds into the economy but also in providing some very basic infrastructure. On a number of occasions I have spoken about the lack of good roads within my electorate. We have a major highway within our electorate, the Mount Lindsay Highway, which is rated one of the 10 worst highways in the country. Before I came into this place, before I started talking about these particular pieces of infrastructure that were rundown, we were getting very little airplay. In fact, before the last election there were no commitments for our electorate. We have been lucky through the infrastructure spend of this government. Now that we have the ability to actually get more projects up in our community we are going to be able to put in place some of that basic infrastructure that we have been missing for so long. The member for Blair spoke today about his conversations with one of the mayors in his electorate, the Mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council, John Brent. I also had a conversation with John today. He is very keen to work as quickly as he can with government to get some much needed infrastructure into his area. That includes roads, schools and a whole range of items. He has been ignored for a long time in his region. My electorate is known as the Gold Coast hinterland because it takes in the area behind the Gold Coast, almost out to areas like Boonah. I also have three local government authorities. The Gold Coast City Council is the one in the northern part of the Gold Coast city, but the city of Logan, a very new city in terms of its expansion and amalgamation, is desperately in need of infrastructure. It is so important that with this package we can now coordinate and make sure that we get these projects up and running so that we as a community and those local government authorities get the support and funding for projects that will put in place efficiencies for our local economies for many years to come. For those reasons this is a serious debate. It is a serious issue that we are confronted with and we need to act, and act quickly. Again, my plea to the opposition is to sit down and think hard about what they are doing in holding up this package. It is not so much about the family payments, which are so important and will give confidence to families; it is about stimulating the economy. It is about getting the built environment, getting builders, contractors and investors back into our communities and building infrastructure that is going to stimulate the economy and create jobs. To do some calculation about how much this is costing per job is an absolute nonsense because, at the end of it, yes, we will create jobs and, yes, we will give security to families, but we will also put long-term assets in place. In closing, I would like to say that this package is so important, and I make a plea to the opposition to support it. This is nation building. It is true stimulus. I suggest that unfortunately the opposition’s stimulus is akin to using a nasal spray. Our stimulus package is a true stimulus package. It is about putting money into the economy and making sure that we can take ourselves through future periods without knowing what the global environment is going to do to us but certainly preparing ourselves for anything that comes. So, for those reasons, I commend these bills to the House. 324 20:50:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —I too would like to speak about the so-called Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 stimulus package and its cognate bills. Today in the Daily Telegraph the headline ran ‘Kevin Rudd’s fistful of dollars’. If we follow through with that analogy no doubt we will be back in this chamber in the not-too-distant future debating the sequel, For a few dollars more, produced by Kevin Eastwood and starring Clint Rudd. There in all his glory is Clint Rudd with a cowboy hat, a cheroot in the corner of his mouth and a fistful of dollars—a very potent image. I do not seek to besmirch Clint Eastwood, a great actor and one whose movies I really like. By way of an aside, I can recommend to colleagues that they see his new movie, Gran Torino— 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Hear, hear! That’s the only thing you’ve said so far I agree with. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —Thank you, Bob. A fistful of dollars and For a few dollars more came out during the spaghetti western cycle. Let us continue the analogy a bit further and compare it with the political cycle. The spaghetti western was made in a rush and pushed out to the public. The storyline was generally thin, the bit players did not enhance the plot—hence the star was somewhat diminished—and as the audience left the theatre they were probably feeling that they had been taken for a ride. So it is with this package. It has been made in a panic and pushed onto an unsuspecting public—to say nothing of the briefest of time given to the opposition to analyse it. So it has been really rushed. It has a very thin plot and a not well thought out script. There are the bit players on the government benches trying to defend it—feebly in many instances. The star, in the person of the Prime Minister, is demeaned by the package and its predecessor, the December cash splash. Finally, in a few months time, as we step out into the daylight of the reality of this package, we will all know that we have been taken for a ride. The Daily Telegraph had it right. The Daily Telegraph had a very potent image of what this package is all about. What we see in this package is an unfocused, panicked response by the government, rather than a measured stimulus for our economy which will protect and create jobs, support small business and strengthen our economy on an ongoing basis—not flash-in-the-pan stuff but on an ongoing basis. Instead, this package is cost-shifting from the state governments to the Commonwealth—albeit self-imposed by the government—and it is throwing one-off bonuses at people rather than ongoing support, as it neglects some of those most in need, such as pensioners and self-funded retirees. The $42 billion spending package is all borrowed money and it will leave a $2,000 debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. So you will get, in many instances, a $950 bonus and acquire a $2,000 debt to pay back over the coming years. It has a similar element to that most despised of all institutions, the pay day lender—the person who sleazes up to you at the pay office and will give you a short-term loan but you have to pay it back with a lot of pain. But even more worrying, in an innocuous one-page bill, the government wants to increase our national bankcard by lifting its borrowing capacity from $75 billion to $200 billion. That is the equivalent of $10,000 debt for every single Australian. Just over a year in power and we are already learning that the Labor leopard has not changed its spots. If the government had a clue, if it genuinely wanted to release a stimulus package that would keep our economy afloat through rough circumstances, it probably needed only to spend around $20 billion in a measured and responsible way. We have to recognise the importance of keeping a reserve in case future packages are needed for some yet unseen struggling sector of the economy. And I highlight for example health and aged care. In the pre-Christmas package, pensioners and welfare recipients were paid $1,400 for a single person and $2,100 for a couple. While I am sure many people put that to very good use, when it ran out you were back on the base pension. Lots of people come into my office and tell me that the real estate boom and the subsequent rise in rents, petrol and certain food lines, the drought and so on have put them in a position where the base pension is no longer adequate. Pensioners desperately need an ongoing week-to-week, fortnight-to-fortnight increase in their pensions which can be relied upon well into the future. There is no security in solus one-off payments. I believe it would have been infinitely better in the first package to pay a $500 bonus and then increase the pension from that day forward by $30 or so, and, if it needed adjustment, to do that in the May budget when the government gets its much vaunted report on pensions. This would have had another salutary effect in the community because the additional money going to pensioners, part-pensioners and welfare recipients would be reflected in week-to-week spending right across the nation—and that would stimulate sales. Some economists believe that up to two-thirds—and we heard tonight in the debate that it could even be as high as 80 per cent—of the pre-Christmas package may have been hoarded. So that is not doing a lot of stimulating. I do not know if that is the case, and one of the reasons this new package should not have followed the Christmas package—or not followed it so closely—is that we do not yet know the real outcomes of the pre-Christmas package. If we knew that, then this package could have been better directed. Once again, with this new package, I am sure lots of people will find the $950 very helpful. I certainly do not begrudge it, but I can see some sectors amongst the $950 recipients where an increase on a weekly or fortnightly basis over a continuing period of time would be much more helpful. Let me take for example Austudy. Students and parents tell me that it is not enough and parents now have to heavily subsidise their children who have gone away to university and other forms of training. Here also, $30 a week would provide a great deal of comfort and reliability to students, and this money would be spent in the community on an ongoing basis in a variety of ways. In other words, it would be stimulating the economy. Targeted, strategic spending with a permanent increase to pensions would be the best foundation of all, along with the immediate implementation of personal income tax cuts. What would they have meant? If we brought forward the two tranches that were set three years ago, the average family on $80,000 would be $1,700 better off over the next two budgets, and that is roughly the equivalent of twice the $950 payment. Instead, we are racking up a huge amount of debt, much of which will find its way into the poker machines and savings accounts of the nation. Saving is prudent and I am not criticising that. What I am saying is that when this money goes through a savings account—or, even worse, a poker machine—it is not stimulating anything. It was reported to me that in the fortnight or three weeks immediately following the cash splash one club in my electorate saw its poker machine revenue increase by 42 per cent. In saying that, I certainly do not believe that that was indicative of the vast majority of recipients; I know that others, because of the fear of uncertain times, tended to hoard their payments. Those two subgroups do nothing by way of stimulating the economy. I suspect that, in the new package, a lot of lower and middle income earners receiving payments will use them to reduce mortgage debt—and, again, that is prudent. But if the government’s goal was to stimulate the economy by way of spending then these payments may in many instances have missed their mark. About as much thought has gone into this package as went into the $10 billion cash splash that was given away in December. Approximately $500 million of that was sent to 70,000 Australian pensioners living overseas. I have got no problems with pensioners living overseas getting regular increases in their pension—none whatsoever. But that particular $500 million, meant to stimulate the Australian economy, went to the cash registers of Italy, Greece, Turkey, Croatia, the UK and so on. It did nothing for our own economy. It gives us a crystal clear look at the forethought and planning abilities of the government. I reiterate that I am not against pensioners getting a better deal. This is something I have argued even in the coalition party room and even in the last year of the previous government, and I have no doubt that a lot of people used that $1,400 or $2,100 wisely. But we must give pensioners and welfare recipients ongoing certainty in these very uncertain times. The greatest sleeper and the greatest injustice of this package is ignoring the self-funded retirees. They are caught in a three-way squeeze. It comes about this way. The failure of the international shares and security market has diminished their superannuation funds by as much as 30 per cent; I have heard of some diminishing by as much as 40 per cent. The action of the Reserve Bank in reducing interest rates has meant that funds in fixed investments based on bank interest have also been reduced dramatically. Finally, they have very few entitlements from other government mechanisms to support their way of life, and they are really hurting. The irony of this is that they are good spenders. They are people who are still active, who pride themselves on being self-reliant, but now that their pool of money has been so dramatically reduced they are not in a position to go out and do the things they have done in the past. They could be out there boosting our economy. The exclusion of self-funded retirees from this latest package will hit my electorate very hard. Independent retirees from around the country have flocked to Hervey Bay, Bundaberg, Bargara and surrounding communities. In fact, 20 per cent of the Wide Bay Burnett statistical region population is aged 65 or over, so you can imagine just how this has bitten in my electorate. Let me move to schools. This package allocates $14.7 billion to school infrastructure. I am not altogether sure that I consider tarting up schools that have been neglected by state governments for 10 or 20 years as being infrastructure. But we will accept that it is infrastructure. It is one of the biggest cost-shifting exercises I have ever seen. The idea of building school halls, libraries and laboratories, while laudable, is of little consequence if the state and territory governments will not take responsibility for their own infrastructure. The Rudd government is all the time bailing out its bankrupt state colleagues. Quite frankly, if this funding is going to be doled out it would be far better and more effective and efficient if it were done along the lines of the former coalition government’s Investing in Our Schools Program, which, as you all know, was one of the most popular school funding programs ever. Current government members told me so at the time. I have no faith in filtering billions of dollars through state governments. They have an appalling track record of being slow and of siphoning off funds into their own coffers. I know of a state school which received a half a million dollar grant to build a new administration centre. To my utter amazement I found out that 40 per cent of those funds were eaten up with state charges. I know of a state school that acquired Investing in Our Schools funding to install air conditioning, only to find that its electrical system did not have the capacity to drive the air conditioners—and they were not big air conditioners. Anna Bligh says that she is pulling out all stops to cooperate with the Commonwealth in spending this largesse quickly and efficiently, and I ask: why not up until now? What is the point of having a Taj Mahal at the bottom of the oval when the rest of the school is full of asbestos and has wiring hanging out of the ceiling and no air conditioning? I ask: what capacity have the state Labor governments demonstrated that they are capable of doing this job? I urge the government to have a look at that. We have had a lot of threats here tonight from the government, saying that people will punish us if we do not spend this money on the schools. People know we spent a lot of money on schools. Those opposite talk about farmers. I am sure that, to many farmers, especially those in drought conditions, the $950 will be quite welcome. But, once again, I ask: when that is over, what follows it? I think the member for Barker made an eminently sensible suggestion tonight. What about, on an ongoing basis, reducing interest by a two percentage point interest rate subsidy? That would have an ongoing effect for, say, three years, until we get through this crisis. I would like to talk briefly about level crossings. I see my colleague from the South Coast in here tonight. We did a very interesting study into level crossings, one that we were all very proud of. This particular study identified three types of crossings that need to be treated, and not just by saying, ‘We’ll spend $150 million on 200 $750,000 boom gate crossings.’ That is quite commendable; I am not knocking that. But level crossings have to be treated holistically. There is another type of level crossing that needs treatment, which is one that just has a flashing light. It is perhaps not used very often; it might be on a branch line or something like that. Then there is a third type. It might be a cane train line or a grain line that is used only once or twice a week. On that one you do not have lights or boom gates because, quite frankly, you cannot afford to do it. There are thousands of these crossings around Australia—not 200 but thousands. On that one you need to put down a strip of bitumen with rumble strips in it so that as you come up against the level crossing you get the ‘bumpety, bumpety, bumpety’ effect that alerts you that you are coming up to a level crossing. If there had been a holistic package in this about level crossings, rather than a populist one, I would have praised the package a lot more. In this debate I also lament the dishonest representation of the Leader of the Opposition. Members opposite said that he opposed the package. He did not. He wants a package but he wants it well directed. The member for Forde called for expertise in this debate on the ongoing problem of the economy, and he praised the entry of the member for Higgins into the debate. But colleagues in the government have to recognise that, if you want that sort of cooperation, you also have to be fair. You do not give the documents to the press at 10.30 yesterday morning and give them to the opposition at 12 noon and then come into the House and give your speech—as the Prime Minister did at 2.30 pm, giving the opposition leader his speech at one o’clock. That is not playing the game fairly. This is the biggest package in Australia for 35 years and there was not one day’s notice. That is appalling. The government stands condemned for that and it has little justification in criticising the opposition for doing what it should be doing and opposing these measures. 328 21:10:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I take the opportunity in this evening’s debate to support the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills that are before the House today. I want to create a little bit of context around this in terms of what it is that we are actually dealing with in quite unprecedented circumstances. In the last parliament, as well as sitting on the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services with my colleague the member for Hinkler, I sat on the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. I am very conscious of the fact that in 2007 we became aware of some of the problems occurring in America. Indeed, we had a roundtable in this very parliament in August of that year to look at the subprime crisis in America and its potential flow-on effects to Australia. But little did any of the experts whom we spoke to that day, or those commenting around the world, understand the intricate connections that had been created in our world through the financial markets. And little did they envisage the flow-on effects that that would have, to the point where, as we are seeing now, most of our major trading partners are in recession, the IMF has adjusted its predictions regularly over the last couple of months, and this nation could have gone into negative growth in recent quarters. So, in circumstances in which there is no textbook and no opportunity to go and look at a previous decade and ask, ‘How did they handle it; what were their responses?’, governments are making the best-informed decisions that they can, well aware that they need to act quickly and well aware that these things can deliver an increasing life of their own. There has been an interesting development in economic discussions over recent years with people looking at the psychology of economics, and words like ‘confidence’ have become critically important in the current context. Within that circumstance, the Rudd Labor government sought, at the end of last year, through the Economic Security Strategy, to invest some confidence through consumer spending back into our own economy. It was a large package and it was targeted at those people whom we felt were most in a position to spend the money. We are now faced with a new need to intervene and we have a package that operates at a two-step level. That is why I am strongly supporting it today. The first step is to again reinject some money into the economy to bolster consumer consumption and confidence within the markets out there, particularly the retail, hospitality and tourism markets but also the construction markets. That part of the package is designed to get out there very quickly. That is why we are quite clear that we need this matter to be resolved by the parliament in a very quick fashion. Then there is the second part of the package, which lays the foundation for longer term activity in our communities. That is the infrastructure side of the package and, I point out, the skills side of the package in terms of the financial supports being offered to people undertaking study. The reality of that sort of investment is not only its importance in creating activity in our communities. I would argue that it is also well targeted because it fulfils a lot of the other productivity needs that we have for longer term wellbeing. It is also about saying to people that this is a period which we can get through. We have strong fundamentals in this country. We have a natural inclination in Australia to a free, competitive and entrepreneurial mindset. But we also have a profound distrust and cynicism about what you might call the sleazier side of rampant capitalism. So, regardless of who has been in government, we have always had the view that we like people having a go and we like people taking a risk. But we also think that government has a role to play in ensuring that those less admirable versions of this type of activity are regulated and controlled and that some protections are provided for people. Those really solid foundations mean that we are in a good position despite the fact that we are facing unprecedented times. But, for government, that responsibility becomes even more critical at such points in time. It is very easy to manage effectively and well through good times. It is very easy in good times to be complacent and to get into a feeling that this will always be the way it is and that we do not actually have to look at whether we are investing for the future. And I would suggest that that is what happened in the previous government’s last couple of terms, because what they actually needed to be doing was investing in infrastructure and skills. We came to government on a promise to take up that task and, despite the difficulties that we face, we are still giving a priority, through these packages, to achieving that. That is what the investment in schools is about—not only in the capital but also in creating a modern schooling environment. I come from a schooling background, and I want to move on to the issue of that part of the package that provides for investment for schools. I do this because, for a very long time, I have been of the view that it really is time for a major overhaul of the capital of our schooling system. I am very conscious that there was a huge investment into new schools and new school infrastructure in the 1970s as the population boom that had occurred began to come through our schools. If I look around my local area, I can identify quite a lot of high schools that were built in the seventies—and, indeed, a lot of primary schools that were built not so long afterwards. What that means is that all of those new schools are, en masse, hitting a point of being 30 to 40 years old, a point at which pretty much most places will need some major structural work done on them. Each of us, in our electorates, would be regularly visiting schools who want to show us that they are struggling with maintenance issues, let alone getting new infrastructure in place. I think it is a really useful thing for the federal government to do. It is looking to create the sorts of jobs that plumbers and carpenters and painters can do in our local communities. It is using this opportunity to address some of those problems that those schools are facing. More importantly, I have long been of the view that our schools were built on an industrial model. They were built on the idea of the mass education that occurred after the Industrial Revolution. How can we tell that? Because they are all boxes. Everyone moves from room to room at the ringing of bells. There are little units of work of 40 minutes and the students are in little organised workgroups. That is the industrial model that people went out into the work world for. So it prepared them well for that. But that is not the world our young people are going out into anymore. It does not reflect the reality of what they will experience in the work world. It does not reflect the technology that they will interact with in all sorts of jobs. I had the plumber come to my house a couple of weeks ago. He had a laptop on the spare seat of the car, and that is where he did his quotes and so forth. It does not matter what job you do, you are going to have to interact with technology. You are going to work in flexible teams. You are going to work to different timelines and deadlines, not to set hours with the ringing of bells. I have long had a real concern that it is difficult for our teachers to move beyond that model because the infrastructure around them is built on that model. So this massive investment in new learning labs, new libraries and new science facilities for our schools is really critically important. I have great respect for the member for Hinkler, but his description of this as ‘a lick of paint’ for schools, and the constant denigration amongst some of those on the other side of the House of the importance of computers in schools, just shows how out of date and out of touch he and his colleagues are with the world that our young people will face when they come out of schools. These are critically important investments for the future. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that he does not see any problem with taking this $14.7 billion package and slashing it to $3 billion just reflects, I think, that he has not got the idea either. And I am a bit surprised, to be honest with you, because I would have thought he was a pretty modern man. When I saw my sons going off to school recently with a bunch of textbooks in their backpacks, I thought, ‘When in their working world are they ever going to do that?’ The only people I see doing that now are QCs on Macquarie Street in Sydney, dragging their bag of books behind them as they walk around. People do not do that any more. Our young people deserve this investment, and the opportunity that this package provides should be supported by those opposite. It is not cash in a flash. It is not a one-off. It is one of the most critical investments that we can make in our long-term future. It is sad, I think, that the opposition are going to oppose this. I think it is short sighted. I have heard many of them argue that there has not been sufficient time for them to consider this range of bills and to respond. There has certainly been enough time for them to decide that they are going to oppose the bills, lock, stock and barrel. So I would say to them that these are unprecedented times and that the principles that are laid down are pretty clear: act fast, inject money, boost and support your economy, and boost and support jobs. It should not be that difficult to see from the signs around the initial economic stimulus package—such as the retail figures that have been released today—that this activity works. It is valuable, it is welcomed by the community and I would suggest that these bills are extremely important at this time. They need to be dealt with quickly, and I would encourage those opposite to reconsider their position on them. I express my support for the bills. 331 21:22:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —Along with the rest of the global community, Australia faces challenges that will once again test our resilience, ingenuity, work ethic and entrepreneurship. Australia is a young nation and our successes in all fields are disproportionate to our population. This is in no small measure due to the can-do attitude of the hardworking men and women in our communities. One thing is for certain: rarely do governments add to the national wealth through the creation of new enterprises, inventions and services. That is why we must ultimately look to our wealth and job generators to help us through hard times. It is the farmers, fruit and vegetable growers, horticulturists, shopkeepers, tradespeople, service providers, manufacturers, miners and all those engaged in commerce and industry who provide the wealth and job creation in the Pearce electorate, and this is no doubt repeated in every electorate across the country. Government spending can assist in cushioning the nation against the fallout from the current financial disaster. However, in the bills before the House it is the quantum of spending, the manner of allocating that cash, the lack of consultation and the haste with which the bills are being dealt with that the coalition takes issue with. Plunging the nation into unprecedented levels of debt without reasonable evidence that the measures will be effective is foolhardy in the extreme. On the government’s own admission, another 300,000 people will lose their jobs by 2010. The question must then be asked: why is the government splashing so much cash around when it has little prospect of creating and preserving jobs? Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the public has seen any modelling to demonstrate the efficacy of these measures. Furthermore, this parliament is being asked to consider, debate and vote on Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and five related bills in unseemly haste. A prudent government would want to do everything possible to minimise risk when exposing the men and women of Australia to such high levels of spending and potential future debt. There is a need to address and acknowledge the hardship that many in our communities are facing. There are increasing numbers of people who have lost their jobs already. Superannuants who have saved all their lives for their retirement now find themselves with severely reduced investments to live on. Pensioners and low-income recipients, especially families with children, are having a difficult time making ends meet and they worry about their future job prospects. Many medium sized enterprises cannot get finance to carry on their businesses due in part to the government’s bungling of the bank deposit guarantees. Members of parliament are the custodians of the country’s wealth. All Australians have worked hard to contribute taxes to ensure that this country has some of the best public facilities in the world. The Howard government retired debt and left the legacy of a large surplus to the incoming government. Our collective responsibility to the men and women of Australia in these difficult times is to find the best way to smooth out the worst effects of the global recession and to look after the national interest. What this government demonstrates is a reckless disregard for the short- and long-term future of all Australians. While I can fully understand that many people have welcomed the immediate cash handouts, and look forward to more, the real concern that I am hearing from people in the community is about the prospect of employment now and in the future for themselves, their children and their grandchildren and the security of their assets and savings. These are issues that are focusing the minds of most people. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his address to the parliament, job creation and preservation are the most urgent priorities. This financial rescue package should be able to clearly demonstrate that it will achieve this objective. The one sure way of ensuring jobs is for government to direct financial resources into areas that will improve our economy. That is not generally achieved by government. It is achieved, as I said before, by the entrepreneurship and confident spirit of hardworking Australian men and women. There are several key elements to wealth and job creation where the government can assist. One is for the government to contribute to the best possible infrastructure, including rapid, efficient, cost-effective and clean transport systems, high-level communications systems and reliable and cost-effective energy and water supplies, with a strong focus on the development of cost-effective renewable energy sources. These are the elements that can assist the continued economic wellbeing of our communities. With so much emphasis on a carbon trading system, we are neglecting the development of a renewable energy economy that has the potential to create new industries, increased exports and additional job opportunities. The development of renewable energies could provide cheaper and reliable energy sources for industry into the bargain. Commenting on the government’s proposal on the ABC yesterday, Mr Lawson, on behalf of environment group Friends of the Earth, noted: … there’s no green jobs, there’s no investment in renewable energy, there’s no commitment to new energy infrastructure or a new electricity grid. This is a complete failure on climate change. Talking of exports, the promotion and development of export trade in a country of 21 million people is pivotal to our continued prosperity, and the government should redouble its efforts to facilitate a strong export sector, including in the renewable energy technology area. The second key element to economic growth is to ensure a well-educated, trained workforce. The cost of labour should not be inflated by overly bureaucratic employment laws, including unfair dismissal laws that catch businesses up in protracted, expensive litigation. Sensible, fair employment laws, balancing the interests of employers and employees, are pivotal to the development and growth of enterprise and jobs for as many people as want them. For those who have lost their jobs a retraining package is necessary, not just a $950 one-off payment. A training package should be made available to ensure that these people can as soon as possible find employment in other sectors that are still finding it difficult to get skilled workers and trained staff. There is an urgent priority to ensure a green-skilled workforce. Hot water systems companies and insulating companies will need skilled workers to meet the increased demand for manufacturing and services. Money to target skills training in these areas is essential if the industry is to cope with the increased demands from this part of the package, which I personally welcome. The third element in stimulating business activity is through the taxation system. While the 30 per cent tax rebate for businesses that purchase new equipment over $1,000 in value announced in this package is welcome, it will not help a business suffering from reduced cash flow. We need to allow greater flexibility in the application of this measure. Further, the Leader of the Opposition has quite sensibly suggested that the government contribute a portion of the superannuation guarantee levy, which is currently an obligation of businesses, on behalf of all employees. These are practical measures that would go a long way to improving the tenor of these bills and indeed the outcome for employment opportunities. A number of initiatives in the bill are welcome, including the initiative to subsidise solar hot water systems and the initiative to insulate houses—notwithstanding some of the deficiencies in the delivery of those programs, which the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Flinders, outlined to this House earlier this evening. Not the least of these welcome initiatives is the additional funding for schools and public housing. I have long advocated in this place a greater government commitment to low-cost housing, and this is a very good start. However, it is curious that the Investing in Our Schools Program instituted by the Howard government was scrapped soon after this government came to office. This program saw smart and effective investing because, instead of decisions being made by bureaucrats, the school communities determined local needs and priorities. I have some reservations about the prescriptive nature of the government’s proposal in these bills to determine the priorities and provide the template or blueprint for what can or cannot be built. This is the type of policy that too often results in white elephants instead of addressing urgent community priorities. It fails to recognise the disparate nature of school communities and adopts the policy of one size fits all. These are elements which could have been dramatically improved through consultation to maximise the investment of taxpayers’ money. Instead, the government takes an arrogant approach that it has all the answers, and despite a so-called ‘national emergency’ it is not prepared to consult more widely or to take up the Leader of the Opposition’s offer to consult more closely. It should concern every single man, woman and child that the money allocated to be spent in these bills is not simply money that taxpayers have already contributed; it will commit future generations to a budget deficit. More alarmingly, we are still in the early phases of these financial woes, so it is likely that the budget deficit will further escalate. As I said, by the government’s own best estimates unemployment is expected to grow to seven per cent. In fact, these bills will not only result in an escalating budget deficit but will allow the government to rack up a $200 billion debt, or, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, provide a credit card facility, an open chequebook, for a $200 billion debt. Notwithstanding the possible criticism from some in the community, it would be irresponsible of the opposition to give the government carte blanche to spend at such an unprecedented level without more detail and evidence of their claims. Indeed, it would be irresponsible for the opposition to allow these bills to pass, given that they allow the government to further increase indebtedness up to that $200 billion level. These policies have been developed in a vacuum and we are therefore left with little option as an opposition but to act as a brake on the profligate spending policies of the government. The coalition believes in maximising the individual’s capacity for prosperity. This does not come from one-off payments alone but from sustained economic activity, entrepreneurship, invention, service delivery and plain hard work and application. This government expects the coalition to endorse the measures in these bills without proof that the measures will work, without any evidence of their efficacy, with an expectation that we will suspend our right to question and that we will pass the bills with fingers crossed and with vain hopes. The economic package before us is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of financial legislation that this parliament has had to consider. The Prime Minister said that this was ‘a plan of unprecedented scope’. It is also a plan of unprecedented spending. Never before have we had a budgetary turnaround of such immense proportion as this. Such spending demands the highest diligence and scrutiny from the representatives of the Australian people. The Australian people deserve to have hope. It is a false hope that the government are offering, a hope premised on short-term populist policy. Hope can only thrive where there is confidence. People may well be happy with their $950 cheque, but they will not have hope if they are worried about the future of their jobs or the sustainability of their business enterprises or the safety of their savings and fixed assets. The government’s ‘my way or no way’ dictum would suggest a reckless disregard for due diligence. This is a blatant abuse of power by the government and they do not deserve the support of the opposition or of the Australian people. More information needs to be made available if they expect us to sign away the nation’s savings and place the nation further in debt. If they want these bills to succeed there should be far more consultation and discussion and far more evidence and modelling laid on the table. The Australian people expect that we as an opposition will do our job, and that does not include binding every man, woman and child in our electorates to a credit facility of $200 billion and squandering the hard-earned savings which taxpayers contributed under the previous government to retire the $96 billion debt—a legacy of the previous Labor government—and to ensure that we had savings for difficulties that might present themselves in the future. I think we are now seeing those savings squandered. If we are going to bind every man, woman and child to such a debt then, as I said, we must be very certain indeed that this money will be used wisely to increase prosperity, to create and maintain jobs and to preserve the hard-earned savings and assets of individuals and businesses. In conclusion, I note that, in an article in today’s Australian, Lenore Taylor said that the Prime Minister was taking a punt and that he was not sure that this measure was going to work. I think it is reasonable for all of us to understand that we are not entirely sure what we are facing with this global meltdown. But I think it is reasonable to ask the Prime Minister to do a reasonable risk analysis and to present the evidence both to the opposition and to the other parties in this place so that the Australian people know what those risks are and can then determine whether they want their representatives to take those risks. The Australian people deserve more than a game at the roulette table with their hard-earned cash. 335 21:40:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I rise this evening to also support the package of legislation, the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, that has been put before the parliament this evening, outlining the government’s $42 billion package to stimulate the economy and to protect individuals and households against what is an unfolding economic crisis. There is no doubt that this economic crisis is the greatest crisis that we as a globe have faced since the Great Depression. The causes, as we know, are very much out of our control, but it is the role of the government and the government’s task to buffer the Australian people against the impacts that are coming our way. It is paramount that the government does all that it can to support jobs and protect the livelihoods of all Australians in this current economic crisis. I am very proud to support this legislation, because I believe the government’s decision to stimulate the economy through building infrastructure and increasing the spending power of those most in need will generate a greater spread of economic activity and will therefore create a much stronger buffer against what we are facing. It simply makes sense to support the community by providing essential infrastructure, by supporting jobs, by supporting industry and by also giving households an amount of money contained in this package to increase spending and stimulate economic activity. I am particularly proud of the $14.7 billion that is contained within this legislation for schools across our country. I believe that the decision to inject funds into this very important public infrastructure is a masterstroke. It is a masterstroke because it provides much-needed funds to stimulate activity to create and support jobs, to support our construction industry and to support our school communities whilst at the same time building infrastructure that will provide for this nation the skilled workforce we need to enhance and embrace the emerging knowledge based economy. It will support our educational facilities, it will give our kids a future and, in so doing, it will also create the sorts of jobs and economic activity that in the short term will buffer us, as I have already said. It will enhance our kids educational experiences because it targets those facilities in our schools that are most needed—the multipurpose facility, the science library—the things that many schools which are just struggling to keep up with basic maintenance and infrastructure would dearly love to have to give our kids an even greater educational experience and more skills and to stand them in good stead for the future, and that is exactly what this measure will do. And, of course, at the same time, it will provide much-needed business and employment not only for those tradesmen and contractors out there who will be building this infrastructure but also for their families as well. In my electorate of Bonner and across the country there are now many school principals who are wiping their brows after learning of the $200,000 for maintenance. We all know that managing a school from day to day poses many different and complex challenges, but often having the money to be able to do some of that basic maintenance and to fix little things straightaway makes everybody’s day so much easier. I am sure that that measure will be embraced. Of course, this is not just a grand package of words that we have put before this parliament; this is real dollars that will be translated into building infrastructure for our local communities. I am particularly pleased that the 48 schools in my electorate of Bonner will be a part of this funding package and will benefit from it. Gumdale and Wakerley, in the central part of Bonner, are two suburbs that I think really reflect what will be good about this package and what has been so neglected over the last 10 years. They are two of the fastest growing suburbs in Brisbane, particularly the area of Wakerley. Thousands of new families have moved in there over the last few years—young families, first home buyers and the whole cross section of our Australian community. There is a state school that is almost bursting at the seams because of such quick population growth. The suburbs, although some estates within them are only 12 months to two years old, have no broadband access. Public transport is appalling and the roads are congested. Of course, because they are such new suburbs, there is simply no community infrastructure. We are not talking about a particularly disadvantaged or impoverished area; we are talking about a suburb in the middle ring suburbs of Brisbane with ordinary working families going about their business. The P&C at the state school have been asking for years for a community hall, a facility where their kids can get out of the hot Queensland sun and the rain that we have enjoyed over the last few weeks and which will also provide indoor sporting activities and rooms and storage areas that can be used by the community at large. They have raised $250,000 on their own, and I was pleased in the election campaign that the Labor leader, now Prime Minister, committed $500,000 towards that community facility. I believe that with this new package we should be able not just to contribute that money but to significantly assist the state school in building a community facility for the suburb of Gumdale, a real benefit and a standing testament to the fact that this government is prepared to support essential community infrastructure. The social housing package is yet another masterstroke—$6 billion that not only goes to support the construction industry, those employed in that industry, their families and the ongoing benefits that arise from the dollars spent to support that industry but also goes to the heart of any compassionate government: that is, providing that basic essential, a home, for someone who does not have one. The fact that there are 100,000 homeless people in this country is a shame. The fact that we are bringing forward a funding package that will build 20,000 new homes is something that we should all be celebrating. As a former local councillor, I say that the money allocated for community infrastructure, for roads and for black spots is something that is long overdue. I know that in my electorate of Bonner there are many areas that have been neglected and that need the support of a strong government putting in money for infrastructure. I very much welcome the funding that has been put forward in this package. For all those reasons, it astounds me that the opposition have chosen to oppose this package—housing for homelessness, primary school children getting the educational facilities they need and secondary schools building on the important skills they require through science labs and state-of-the-art libraries. But I guess it should not really surprise us, because this package is actually incomprehensible to them. It is incomprehensible because it demonstrates—and this is something that many people who have supported social democracy for many, many years would know—that government is a force for good in a capitalist economy and is not a barrier to enterprise but, in fact, can be a tool that supports private enterprise by investing in infrastructure, by promoting economic activity and by ensuring that private enterprise economic activity is not an end in itself but the basis for building a society in which everybody benefits. That is why this package is so important to addressing the current economic crisis that we have. It is so important because it addresses the need for stimulation now and acknowledges the role that government can play in building the economy of the future by providing the skilled workforce and the infrastructure that we need. It demonstrates that government can work in partnership with private enterprise and that simply letting the market rip brings us all into a very devastating situation where many, many people miss out. The opposition do not get it; they do not get that part of the package, and that is why they never did it themselves. Their only solution is an outdated, discredited idea that simply bringing in tax cuts will work. It will not. In conclusion, I would like to say to the opposition leader in response to his speech this morning, when he talked about staring into the eyes of children, that I think he should stare into the eyes of those children whose father comes home when he is made redundant, whose mother comes home sacked, whose school is badly in need of repair and who do not have the skills, equipment and infrastructure to get the education they need to get us out of this economic crisis. The opposition need to stare into the eyes of the children today and say that they were not prepared to support a package introduced by the government that would not only stimulate our economy, address the economic crisis and give people the spending power they need but also build the future that those children should benefit from. All I can say is: thank goodness that it is a Rudd Labor government that is managing at this time, because I dare not think what would be happening to us if the opposition were still in power. 337 21:51:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. Given the economic environment, as well as current and future unemployment projections and the fact that according to the government’s own forecasts an additional 300,000 Australians will be out of work by June next year, the stimulus package should be about jobs. In fact, the Prime Minister promised that 75,000 new jobs would be created by his first $10.4 billion package. Well, where is the evidence of these 75,000 new jobs that cost $10.4 billion? It was reported by James Campbell in the Sunday Herald Sun in February that $81 million of this first stimulus package in fact boosted foreign economies because the 58,000 Australian pensioners living overseas also received the bonus. For many reasons, we do not support this government’s second, poorly constructed $42 billion stimulus package. It has been rushed into the parliament by a panicked government—so panicked that we have been given very little time to scrutinise the bills. These are bills that will cost $42 billion of taxpayers money, in the hope that this will stimulate the economy. And what about the elephant in the room, the one-page bill introduced today that gives this Labor government the power to increase government debt to $200 billion at 24 hours notice? In the last 24 hours, the government has used all sorts of endorsements to talk up this package, whilst vilifying the opposition for seeking time to debate and consider the bills, ask questions and offer constructive comment. In spite of the government’s vilification, this is our job as the opposition. The Australian people know it and the Australian people expect it. In fact, I have a quote of my own regarding the package and, somewhat surprisingly, it comes from Bob Maumill in an editorial on his 6PR radio show in Perth this morning. He said: ‘Pull your head in, Kev; let the opposition do their job.’ Bob went on to say: That we are facing a time of great uncertainty is obvious. The spread of Wall Street disease has poisoned the world economy. People in Australia are fearful of losing their jobs and their homes. They fear the prospect of a future of uncertainty and diminishing living standards. Our Government had to act. Our elected leaders cannot sit by and watch a disaster develop. Urgent action was needed, and the Rudd Government acted swiftly to pump money into the Australian economy through a series of handouts to targeted sectors of the community. With the crisis growing, Kevin Rudd and his government have announced another incredible spending splurge. Billions of dollars to be pumped into the Australian economy in an attempt to counter the recessionary factors that are leading to an erosion of business confidence, job losses and a contraction of the Australian economy with the frightening spectre of a depression. In announcing the latest measures the Prime Minister demanded that parliament rubber stamp the latest massive spending package. He wants the package passed promptly and has urged the Opposition to minimize debate and get on with it. Well the Opposition has every right to take reasonable time to carefully examine these latest spending proposals. In fact it is the Opposition’s duty to do so. This enormous spending splurge will impact on tax payers for decades. Malcolm Turnbull and his team owe it to the taxpayers of Australia both present and future to carefully scrutinize these spending proposals before approving them. It may be unpopular to withhold money from the masses and Rudd and his spending team will harshly criticize he opposition for any delays. But let me remind Mr Rudd that Australia is a democracy, and our democracy provides for a series of checks and balances. Those checks and balances require that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in our Federal Parliament question and scrutinize legislation when they deem it necessary and in the public interest. What Kevin Rudd and his government are proposing is likely to impact on Australian taxpayers for generations to come. Malcolm Turnbull and the opposition, in demanding time to examine the detail of Rudd’s massive spending package, and calling for caution, and advancing alternative proposals, are quite properly and responsibly doing their job. And I would like to remind Kevin Rudd that, despite what he may think of his own infallibility, some of us feel a darn sight more comfortable when a strong parliamentary opposition carefully examines legislation and asks appropriate questions. And if he is the great social democrat he professes to be, he will give them time to do their job on behalf of the Australian People. Remember Kev, the Australian people have to find the money. And this humble tax payer would like to remind Mr Rudd that, despite what the Prime Minister thinks, the Rudd way may not be the best way or the only way. Those were the comments of Bob Maumill today. The coalition has every right and an absolute responsibility to examine these latest spending proposals. The coalition has always stood for and continues to stand for fiscal discipline and sound economic management—having inherited and repaid Labor’s previous $96 billion deficit and having provided the Rudd government with an economy known as ‘the wonder downunder’. This is the result of fiscal discipline. It has only taken the Labor government nine months to change that through flawed government policy. This package will again see a Labor government send Australia into deficit—according to government figures, a $22 billion deficit this year and, according to the forward estimates, a $70 billion net debt over four years. But will it actually be a $70 billion net debt? Time will tell whether these figures prove to be an accurate forecast or whether in fact the debt will be significantly higher. Why? Because, as a result of these bills, the Labor government will have the power to go into $200 billion worth of debt. It is a package of Labor debt and deficit that the government expects our children to pay for. And what about jobs in this package? We have seen a change of language from the Prime Minister since the first package. Instead of saying the package will create jobs, the government is now saying the package will support 90,000 jobs. What does it do for the 300,000 workers who the government forecasts will lose their jobs this year? What does it do for apprentices who lose their jobs? What happens to their training? What does this package do for subcontractors? What does it offer young people leaving school who cannot get a job? What we have is $42 billion, in the Prime Minister’s words, ‘to support 90,000 jobs’. The OECD has repeatedly said that it is work, not welfare, that helps people most, and it is a very arrogant Labor government indeed that states that its package is the only package. We have repeatedly offered to work with the government on an appropriate response to the financial crisis but the government has ignored this offer, as I have no doubt it will ignore the initiatives we have contributed today. The opposition will not support the package, and the Prime Minister cannot simply demand that we rubber-stamp $200 billion of debt. Yes, we need an economic stimulus package, but not one that is four per cent of GDP. We talk to small and medium sized businesses around the country about how they can stay in business and about jobs. We listen to businesses and workers, people who tell us how they believe jobs and training can be created and retained. I will quote from one email I received today from one of my small business constituents: As to the CASH SPLASH, I think its extremely irresponsible, as it doesn’t address the core issues!! As far as I am concerned the problem lies in lack of confidence, lack of employment opportunities, the fall in the price of commodities (minerals etc) and the property price gloom. By just handing out cash it does NOTHING to address the above issues! I believe the government needs to empower business to employ MORE people, expand their business and in so doing will create more income for the government, with less people relying on hand outs etc… How to do it?? Well, government can look at subsidising wages (of new people employed) pay for their training, tempt business by cutting their taxes if they increase the amount of people they employ… I also think NOW is a perfect time to spend BIG dollars on infrastructure I think the above measures will go a long way to save our country from going to recession. By doing what the Rudd government wants to do, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster which we will be paying for many years to come! We know that the 3.8 million small businesses in Australia are the engine room of the economy, employing nearly half the workforce. I have over 14,000 small businesses in my electorate. Where are the measures to deal with the supply and cost of credit to small business? I have visited small and medium businesses in my electorate who say they are not seeing any reduction in interest rates on their lines of credit. Indeed, the big four banks, continuously supported by the government, are being inflexible with refinancing requests or loan rollovers. Some people are still paying over 10 per cent interest on their commercial loans or credit facilities. There has to be a flow of credit to small and medium businesses. Some of the small businesses in my electorate are farmers. Farmers collectively across Australia employ 300,000 workers. The package will see 21,500 farmers who receive exceptional circumstances payments receive $950. But what about the other 130,000 farmers in Australia who are not on exceptional circumstances payments? Farmers in my electorate—dairy and beef farmers, horticulturists and viticulturists—depending on what super they use, are paying from $500 a tonne to over $1,000 a tonne for it. Dairy feed pellets are at least $400 a tonne and transport and fuel prices have hurt these businesses over the past 12 months. Beef prices have been extremely poor and we have recently seen milk prices drop anything from 20 to 39 per cent. And we are seeing a return to tariffs and protectionism in Europe and potentially in the United States. Apart from writing a letter, what is the government doing? What is the one sector that has kept Australia out of a technical recession? The strong exporting agricultural sector. How does this package assist exports and productivity? Where is the commitment to water infrastructure? The government should be investing in the productive capacity of Australia, including business capacity, to drive the economy in the future. In a $42 billion package, where is the stimulus for the mining and resource sector and the fly-in, fly-out staff and contractors affected by retrenchments in the mining sector in the north of Western Australia? Equally, I have seen no stimulus in the package for the tourism sector or the health, aged and community services sector, both major employers. This package should be all about jobs, jobs and  more jobs. Where is the modelling to support the Ruddbank package that is supposed to create or preserve 50,000 jobs—the Prime Minister’s $4 billion recent support plan for a commercial property fund, a fund that once again supports the big four banks’ balance sheets rather than jobs? The decision that Mr Rudd has to make is to ensure that every dollar of taxpayers’ money that he spends is effective and targeted to pursue the goal of jobs for Australians. The opposition will not support the package, the government does not have all the answers and the Prime Minister cannot simply demand that we rubber-stamp $200 billion of debt that will need to be paid by our children. I strongly oppose these bills. 340 22:06:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I find this extraordinary. I do not like to be negative about this, but we have had the carping about this package, the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the cognate bills, going on all day. Frankly, from the mob on the other side—who rammed through this place the financial packages for the Murray-Darling and the intervention in the Northern Territory without any real modelling at all—it beggars belief. The hypocrisy that is being demonstrated on the other side in relation to this is quite breathtaking. However, I do not want to enter into that. People do not want to hear that. I agree with the member for New England that what they want from this House and this parliament is bipartisanship. All I can tell you—and we all agree on this—is that we are facing a serious challenge. We do not have time for these games, this argy-bargy. This government was elected to make decisions and we are doing it—exactly the same rhetoric that Howard and his crew used when making important decisions. We are doing it. What we are witnessing today is political gamesmanship. I also find it extraordinary that the member for Higgins has finally emerged from under his mushroom—not one speech in 2008, not one speech in this parliament, and he now has made two speeches this year and made a few comments on TV. So something else is going on and that is what is affecting the performance of those opposite in relation to this very significant package. All I want to say about this is that we on this side are fair dinkum. It may not be the bees knees in terms of what is required. There may be some difficulties with it. But its intention is right and the response of the Australian people is, ‘Get on with it.’ We have had enough third-party endorsement for this already to have this endorsed by the Australian people. So let us not play games anymore. This speech is being broadcast, and I had some people contact me today with some practical questions about how this affects them. I would like to deal with those. I would like to share the questions and answers with those who may be listening to this broadcast and with my colleagues here. So let us begin. The first question is: if a person is working as a casual employee and is over the age of 18, do they get the one-off payment? My research says, yes, the government will provide all eligible taxpayers with a tax bonus payment of up to $950. The bonus will be available to Australian resident taxpayers who paid net tax in the 2007-08 financial year. If they have not yet lodged a return for the 2007-08 year, they have until 30 June 2009 to lodge it and must be eligible for the payment. That is an important condition to this. The second question is: what happens if you are self-employed? My answer is the same as above: so long as a person has lodged a tax return, they will be eligible. If in doubt, they should contact their accountant. How soon do these payments get paid? As soon as the Senate passes these bills—and this is what all this is about. This is all conditional on the Senate passing these bills. As soon as the Senate passes the bills, the tax office will determine eligibility and payment will be paid either direct to bank accounts or by cheque, depending on how your tax return is generally delivered to a person. When do they get paid? It is all dependent on the Senate passing these bills, but at this stage the tax bonus for working families is April 2009; the farmers hardship bonus is the fortnight beginning 24 March 2009; the back-to-school bonus, for those that are eligible, the fortnight beginning 11 March 2009; the training and learning bonus, from 24 March 2009; and the single-income family bonus, so important to so many families both in my electorate of Braddon and throughout Australia, from 11 March 2009. This is pretty immediate stuff, ready to roll, depending on the Senate, depending on those opposite. The Australian people wait for sensible deliberation. To be eligible for the ‘worker earning under $100,000 payment’, would you have had to be in paid work prior to this announcement or could you get a job between now and when the payment comes through and still get the payment? Unfortunately, the answer is: no, you have to have been in work and paid tax in the 2007-08 tax year. How does the government determine who is eligible for the insulation subsidy and how is it paid—through vouchers or cash or whatever else? Guidelines and application forms for this one will be released once the bill is passed, but effectively there is a very generous subsidy for people to insulate their houses. Of course, the environmental effects from this are fantastic, so it has widespread community and environmental benefits. Do people who are under 18 and working full time and earning under $100,000 get $950 as well? So long as they have lodged a tax return for 2007-08. How does the package work for people who have one person working earning under $60,000 and one on a disability pension? Do they get another payment for the pensioner, seeing that they got the pre-Christmas payment before? A good question. According to my research, the person on a disability pension does not get another payment. They got either $1,400 as a single pensioner or $2,100 for couples last December. The government is providing additional financial assistance to families who rely on one main income earner. This includes sole-parent families and two-parent families where one parent chooses to stay at home. I add that the bonus will be a one-off payment of $950 per family to every family entitled to family tax benefit part B, or FTB B, as we call it, irrespective of the number of children. If that income earner also earns less than $80,000, they also get the $950 working families tax bonus. Another interesting question next: does salary sacrifice act to bring your actual wage down in relation to the $950 handout? According to my research, it is based on net tax liability—after deductions and adjustments. For separated parents, is the $950 back-to-school payment made to each parent as a percentage of the care of their children? If it is, why should the main carer, who is responsible for school levies, uniforms et cetera, as per information provided by the Child Support Agency, not receive the full payment? This payment is made to the parent or parents who physically receive family tax benefit B. If this payment is split between parents then the amount of back-to-school payment delivered to each parent will be directly proportionate to the percentage of FTB B they receive, which is dependent upon the percentage of care they have for their children. Finally: if there are two breadwinners and one earns $10 million a year, does that person’s partner, who earns $50,000, still get the $950 bonus? I do not know who sat down to write that question, but I do not know anyone in my electorate who fits that example. However, it is worthy of researching and answering. The answer, if you are still waiting and awake is, yes, as long as the person who earned $50,000 lodged a tax return for the previous financial year. If one partner has $10 million, why would the other partner need to work, I say! However, we have choices in this world. This is a serious issue. I do take it very seriously, but I wanted to answer some practical questions that were put to me by people from my electorate. I know my electorate will benefit. It is an electorate full of hardworking, innovative and industrious people and an electorate that has a relatively low-income status compared to many other parts of Australia. I know that the people in my electorate will benefit from this. We have done it tough for a long time in relative terms. We are used to hard times, but we do value support when we need it most. I am very proud that I am about to inherit the west coast of Tasmania from my colleague and cousin the member for Lyons, Dick Adams. Yes, he is my cousin—on my mum’s side, for those who may not be interested! Anyway, I am inheriting Cousin Dick’s area, and they are going through tough times. I have already met with Mayor Gerrity, the state departments and the unions to try and help in the downturn of the mining industry on the west coast. I know that they will benefit from this greatly. They want this package, warts and all. I know it may well have difficulties—members on the other side have raised some issues and so have we—but this is the best we believe we can do seriously, practically and realistically. Australian people do not want mucking around on this. Let us get on with it and, please, stop the games on the other side. It is too serious for everyone involved. 343 22:17:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. We certainly are in an interesting time in this nation’s history. We are in a time when the country and, in fact, the world are facing great challenges. How we react to those challenges will affect our future prosperity. If we get it right, we may well prosper or at least mitigate the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. If we get it wrong, this country will be plunged into a deep spiral from which it may take many years to recover. During the 2007 election campaign, the Prime Minister projected himself as a fiscal conservative and he mimicked the policies of the Howard government. But more recently we have seen the Prime Minister displaying his true colours. Following the war on binge drinking, the war on obesity and the war on whatever else came into his head, we have now apparently embarked, according to the Prime Minister, on the war on neoliberalism. He has sought to blame the operation of free markets for the world’s current ills and, as a direct consequence, the situation in which this country finds itself. This is a market system that has lifted millions out of poverty, a system which has provided rapid economic growth to countries right round the world. But we see that our Prime Minister has morphed into a social democrat. He now champions greater regulation. He has become an advocate for a more planned economy. The surplus which he inherited from the previous government was the product of an efficient market economy. It was regulated, and well regulated, but still an efficient market economy, a system which he now seeks to deride. We have before this House bills which will give effect to the government’s solution to the nation’s current economic woes. The Prime Minister appears to claim that he is the font of all wisdom, that the solution to the problems which we now face can only be found in this package. I pose the question: upon what basis does the Prime Minister conclude that the collection of measures in this package are in fact the optimal solution? I have not seen any modelling to prove that point. Upon what basis can he conclude that we are heading for a pink batt led recovery? Would not an investment in health infrastructure achieve a similar result? Would not requiring state health agencies, for example, to pay their bills on time provide a similar stimulatory effect within the economy? The government paying its bills on time—a simple concept, a concept which small business, which is struggling in the current economic environment, should be entitled to but which is currently not occurring. The Prime Minister insists that the bills before the House must be passed as a matter of urgency and that to delay them will be to the detriment of the economy. That is why this legislation must be passed in haste, so he says. Given the quantum of money involved, some $42 billion, isn’t it worth taking the time to scrutinise these measures? Isn’t it worth taking the time to look at other alternatives? As a member of this House, I maintain that it is a member’s duty to question such a very large expenditure. The Prime Minister is saying that there is no alternative, that these bills must be passed without question, that he is the font of all wisdom. ‘Trust me,’ he says. Sadly, this is clearly not the case. We have seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer fail on numerous occasions. We have seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer talk up interest rates at precisely the time the economy was slowing, the global financial conditions were deteriorating rapidly and the global financial crisis was gaining momentum. We have seen the turmoil caused in financial markets by the failed bank guarantee scheme, which resulted in the funds of thousands of investors being frozen because the Prime Minister acted in haste, did not seek the appropriate advice and was a slave to the media cycle. We saw the previous cash splash in December, which was supposed to create 75,000 jobs, disappear without a trace. Where are the benefits now? Where are the 75,000 jobs? We see unemployment continue to rise. We see now before the House a new package, a new solution, at a cost of $42 billion. The bills before the House tonight provide a stark contrast between Labor’s history of profligate spending and the coalition’s track record of responsible economic management. The bills before the House signify a departure from the policies of the previous government. We now see a situation where the government will be driving the budget into structural deficit and long-term debt. During the term of the Howard government, through responsible economic management, the huge debts of the Labor years were repaid. We have seen this government attempt to claim credit for the surplus they inherited. We have also seen the government in the first financial year for which they were responsible convert a $22 billion surplus into a $22.5 billion deficit. We have seen the return of old Labor—big spending, big deficits. We now see a deficit projected to be $70 billion over the forward estimates—a debt that must be repaid by the taxpayers of this country, a debt that must be repaid by our children. We hear the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation tell us that it is only a temporary deficit. But it is a deficit for which they have no plan to repay. There are elements of the package that have significant merit. Quite clearly, we would welcome expenditure on schools, on public housing, on home insulation, on regional roads and on small business tax incentives. But are they the best small business tax incentives? Would it not make more sense to provide relief to small business with their cash flow by perhaps assisting them with their super guarantee levy payments rather than putting in place an incentive for small business that would require the expenditure upfront before the tax rebate could be received? Payments for individuals also have merit, but are they an optimal solution? These are good questions which need to be carefully considered by the House. There is urgent need for greater investment in infrastructure. Certainly in my electorate, work on the Pacific Highway is in urgent need. The duplication of that highway—the major freight corridor and passenger vehicle corridor between Sydney and Brisbane—is years overdue. Centres such as Kempsey, Macksville, Coffs Harbour, Woolgoolga and Ulmarra are in urgent need of bypasses. The road between Coffs Harbour and Woolgoolga is heavily trafficked. A project is basically shovel-ready, requiring the funding to get works underway to allow safer travel between Coffs Harbour and Woolgoolga and provide much welcomed employment opportunities in that area. The electorate which I represent is a high-unemployment area, so additional stimulus coming from the government through investment in infrastructure would certainly be most welcome. Regrettably, this package has neglected the Pacific Highway and the huge amount of money that still needs to be invested in that vitally important road project. In the area of health, our local hospitals are in urgent need of increased funding. The Kempsey community has been fighting tirelessly for the redevelopment of Kempsey hospital. I have in fact tabled a petition in this House calling on the federal government to support the redevelopment of the Kempsey hospital through the National Health and Hospitals Fund. Kempsey hospital is a very important local facility. The residents of the North Coast are concerned about proposed staff cuts at their local hospitals—hospitals that are already buckling under the patient load that they are currently carrying. The North Coast Area Health Service are not thinking about increasing staff; they are attempting to reduce staff. In an Orwellian twist, they claim that, by reducing staff, they can somehow perform more procedures. That is something that is lost on me, but apparently it is well known to the North Coast Area Health Service how they are going to achieve that. Also, our local health service is apparently not paying its bills on time. We have seen recent media reports of a local Coffs Harbour business that is owed money by the North Coast Area Health Service. Getting the cash to local businesses when it is due will help stimulate the economy and will help support jobs. On the issue of health, the Prime Minister said that the buck stopped with him. It is time that he left the rhetoric behind and started to prove it and held local state health authorities to account and ensure that they are paying their bills on time. Regrettably, this package does not provide extra funding for health—funding that could have allowed local businesses to be paid and ensure that the cash continues to flow through our local communities. There may well also be unintended consequences of this legislation. We saw unintended consequences with the Prime Minister’s hasty action in relation to the bank guarantee. A situation has been brought to my attention in relation to a business which substantially sells second-hand trucks. Those trucks are not eligible for the tax rebate. That is the advice that we received from the minister’s office today. So that particular business—an important small business in the local community—is at a substantial disadvantage when compared to businesses that sell new trucks. If you purchase a second-hand truck, you are not eligible for the investment rebate but, if you purchase a new truck, you are. It is a substantial disadvantage for this particular local business. I think it is a substantial unintended consequence, which does give an indication of the haste with which this legislation has been brought to this House. Also before the House today we have a very important bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009, which seeks to authorise the government to issue stock and security to the value of $200 billion. That is a truly staggering amount of money—$200 billion. After the term of the Hawke and Keating years, Labor left the incoming coalition government with a debt of $96 billion. They left the taxpayers with a debt of $96 billion. This bill proposes to provide an upper limit of some $200 billion. The taxpayer can rightfully feel concerned as to how that debt will be repaid. How will future governments service that debt? It is a very important question and one which deserves an answer. I am concerned that this package is not an optimal solution to the problems that this country faces. It certainly has welcome measures, and these measures would certainly be looked favourably on by many people in the community. But the real issue that we face here is: how is the debt going to be serviced? How are these deficits going to be reversed? The government has no plan by which to do that. Quite clearly, this package has been put together in haste. Though it has the potential to provide benefits, it also has the potential to provide significant challenges to future generations. It is of concern and it should certainly be the subject of further debate in this House. 346 22:29:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —I am pleased to support the timely announcement by the Rudd Labor government of its $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This package is being delivered in response to the rapidly changing economic circumstances that Australia is facing in a global economy. Every economy in the world is experiencing economic conditions similar to or worse than our own. Many countries are already in recession. The reality is that this financial crisis is global and it is unprecedented. The circumstances and severity of this global crisis are changing rapidly and we must respond accordingly. The government has determined that, while Australia is better placed than many other countries to deal with this economic crisis, we cannot avoid its impact entirely. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan will act as a stimulus for our economy. It has been designed in the first instance to directly assist families and indeed all Australians by easing the financial burdens currently being experienced. However,  it goes further than just putting money into people’s pockets. It is a plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It provides all-important infrastructure and support in the areas of education, housing, energy and roads. This package will ensure that the impact of the global recession on our economy is minimised as much as possible. It also ensures this investment will have long-term benefits. It will ensure that the recovery, when it happens, will be rapid, giving Australia significant advantages. You would think that, given the extent of the global economic crisis, the opposition would be giving its full support to this package. Of course they may want to make a few minor changes, but that is very sadly not the case. They want to throw the whole package out. What do they offer as an alternative? Nothing. In response to the greatest challenge to a government of this country in decades, they would do nothing. That shows the people of Australia the clearest difference between the two sides of politics. The Prime Minister has recently pointed out the reason for that difference as the opposition’s neoliberal doctrine. The opposition clings to the failed neoliberal economics which have caused this crisis and to the kind of do-nothing approach that failed so badly in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Like a dwindling number of members of this House, I was raised in a family which carried vivid memories of the Great Depression. My grandfather, who carried a swag throughout eastern Australia in the Depression, would often remind me of those terrible times. They and the generation that followed them vowed that they would never let that situation occur again. So, as we stand on the brink of severe economic collapse, we are divided between those on this side, who would do everything to avoid such a tragedy, and those on the opposite side, who see the economic crisis as the opportunity for a few wealthy individuals to make money. We know from history that the way out of the Great Depression was to stimulate demand, even though that stimulus was the Second World War. As my Grandie used to say to me when I would sit on his lap, Hitler gave him work and Tojo gave him overtime. As this stimulus program shows, we can boost demand in the economy by government spending in productive areas like education, improving our environment and roads, and building for our future. This program is an investment in our local schools, with $12.4 billion being made available for building or refurbishing large-scale infrastructure, including libraries and multipurpose halls in primary schools, K to 12s and special schools, of which I have a few in my electorate. The amount of $1 billion will be provided in a competitive process to build up to 500 science laboratories or language learning centres in our secondary schools. Some $1.3 billion will be used to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and to build minor infrastructure in schools. This means that schools will have the facilities to deliver their programs more efficiently and to provide a better outcome for Australian students. It is a long-term investment in our children’s future, with significant and immediate impacts on local economies. If you listen to the Leader of the Opposition, you hear that he would rather have the paint peeling from the walls of classrooms while painters stand on the unemployment line. He would rather we did without new school buildings while bricklayers in my electorate try to exist on the dole. That is the kind of thinking that conservatives employed in the 1930s at such great social and economic cost. They will never learn. Now dressed up as neoliberals, they cling to their supply-side doctrine. ‘Don’t stimulate demand,’ they say. ‘Stick to the failed policies of trickle down economics.’ They refuse to see that, in creating a manageable deficit today, we will avoid creating the kind of deficit which would bankrupt this country. If governments do nothing the situation will get worse, not better. If unemployment grows and businesses fail, our tax revenue will collapse. We must do something to boost demand, and that can be done in ways that build for our future and our children’s future. Boosting family expenditure will boost demand and at the same time help cash-strapped families to meet their needs. Some $12.7 billion will be used to provide financial assistance to households and to support economic growth. Eligible taxpayers will receive a tax bonus of up to $950, depending on the income threshold. Around 8.7 million Australians will benefit from this measure, a key part of the government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The building industry is one of the first to feel the effects of an economic downturn. As long ago as last March I warned the House of the dire condition of the building industry in south-west Sydney. Funding building construction is one of the fastest ways to boost employment. Much of the expenditure is spent on materials made locally and there is a high multiplier effect for other jobs as well. Boosting expenditure on housing at this time makes sound economic sense. Under the programs, some 20,000 new social housing dwellings will be built. The additional housing will have a significant social impact by assisting those who are homeless, those who are at risk of being homeless or those who are paying high rentals. This package will stimulate the building and construction industry, provide small business with a significant boost and, most importantly, protect jobs. The government will also build 802 additional residences for Australian Defence Force personnel and their families through Defence Housing Australia at a cost of $252 million. The government will invest $150 million to clear the backlog of road maintenance projects on our national highways. The government will invest an extra $500 million over two years, helping local councils fund critical community infrastructure projects, including town halls, libraries, community centres and sports centres across Australia. These building and construction projects can deliver the critical shot in the arm to help the Australian economy to weather the storm in the short and medium term. This package does not ignore the special role of small business. It will provide an additional $2.7 billion tax break to small business. This will boost investment and protect jobs by providing significant relief to small and medium businesses—the backbone of our economy. Yet the opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, seems hell bent on derailing it and derailing the Australian economy. As I said earlier, this is the real difference between the two sides of politics in Australia, and the people of Australia now have a clear-cut example of how those policy differences affect them. By boosting demand at a time when the global economy is in freefall, we can maintain a level of economic activity which will maintain the economic wellbeing of Australian families. We must avoid at all costs the damage to our society which can result from a severe economic recession. Just like Margaret Thatcher—who declared there was no such thing as society, only an economy—the opposition are hung up on the idea of a deficit. They do not care what the consequences are for those Australians facing uncertain employment—those Australians in my electorate who are definitely facing uncertain employment. They do not care about small business owners wondering where there next order is coming from. They do not care about the generation of school leavers and university graduates who will be joining a depressed labour market. Their grim hope is that, if the global crisis deepens, these measures will not be enough. It is a sad state of affairs when, at a time of severe crisis, the opposition is engaging in petty pointscoring rather than uniting to address this crisis that confronts our nation. They should hold their heads in shame. The Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills should have received bipartisan support. We should have joined as one. For the sake of this great country, for the sake of Australia, I say this evening: shame on the opposition. The people of Australia will not forget. 348 22:42:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I do not engage the time of the House a great deal in debate but the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills are important, the issues are important and, contrary to the suggestion of the member for Fowler, let it be clear that members on this side of the House do care. We care a great deal about Australia. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Well, support the bills. Support them. Cross the floor. Have the courage. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fowler ought not to interject other than from her seat. It is disorderly. She should remove herself from the chamber. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —I have to say that bipartisanship is something that I like to see, but bipartisanship has to be earned. You do not simply put down your proposition and demand unthinking support, and in my view it is certainly the case that this government, instead of looking for culprits and people to blame for the difficulties that it now faces, ought to give credit where credit is due. The first point I would make about where credit is due is in relation to the strength of the Australian economy. Our position is very different from many others. It is largely because of the very hard work of the previous Prime Minister and Treasurer that we are in a unique position amongst developed economies. We did not get there by accident. We got there because there was a good deal of hard work and difficult decision making, and those approaches in the end paid a dividend. By paying off debt we were able to create an environment in which people were able to prosper—people in business and people employed. We created very high levels of employment. We were in a situation where this government came to office and inherited a very substantial surplus. I recognise that the crisis that we are said to be facing was not generated domestically, and the one credit I give to the government and to government members is that they have not blamed Howard and Costello for the crisis. But there is an inkling of it when you hear terminology like ‘neoliberal’—whatever that means. I think it is meant to model itself on the neocons of the United States. I want to come to that, but I want to come to it in the context of the approach to this issue. I have been surprised about the extent to which so many people have been, in a sense, in a state of denial. I went to a major conference at the end of 2007. It was called the Davos Connection and it was organised by people who often attend the Davos function in Switzerland. They organise an event here in Australia, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition—as he then was, now the Prime Minister—has attended such meetings. These people are informed, and I heard in debate some very interesting propositions, including that Australia, notwithstanding what was already evidently occurring in the United States of America, would not experience the same difficulties as the United States. And the reason for it is that we were ‘decoupled’. I had not heard this language very much before, but it was quite interesting language. It was predicated on the basis that Australia, having, as the Labor Party would assert, entered into very significant resource developments, had largely got there by accident. I would dispute that. I do not think it was some purely accidental set of arrangements that put us in a position to be competitive and able to supply other countries. There were many difficult policy decisions that we had to take to get us to a point where we were competitive in those areas. And the view was that China would experience no difficulty. Sure, it might lose some markets to the United States, but it had a whole host of other markets. It would develop its economy domestically and it would continue to grow. And in those circumstances, as a supplier of raw materials—of resources—Australia would be largely insulated. We now know that that is not true. In fact, it surprised me—but it certainly proves to me—that in these issues you cannot assume that there is somebody who is the font of all knowledge. There is no-one who will be able to tell you exactly what needs to be done and how to manage the issues that we face. I do not think there is any one person or any one party that is able to bring together that degree of experience. I do want to share some thoughts with members of the House about the nature of the problem that China faces and that we face. I read a very interesting article in the Australian Financial Review by Colleen Ryan and Stephen Wyatt. It was about China, and it compared China’s position today with that of the United States of America in the Great Depression. It was making a number of points about what some economists have been saying. They have suggested that the global downturn is, in fact, going to exert a much greater toll on China than anybody initially imagined, and that there were growing concerns that the country may become the real victim of this slump. The words that were used in the article were ‘just as the US suffered most during the Great Depression in the 1930s’—and then it refers to economists, such as Michael Pettis, a professor at Beijing University, who believes that there are deeply worrying parallels between China’s economy in 2009 and the US economy in 1930: Both economies had experienced heady rates of urbanisation and industrialisation. And then the US in 1930, like China in 2009, witnessed a sudden collapse in its export markets. As a result of collapsing exports, the United States in 1930  was plagued with massive industrial overcapacity. United States domestic consumption could go nowhere near absorbing the might of the US productive machine. Similarly, China in 2009 has seen its export markets collapse and, like the United States in the 1930s, now faces massive overcapacity” and its domestic consumption cannot nearly absorb the goods produced by this productive behemoth. Those words rang alarm bells with me. I do not hear it elsewhere but it is a matter of very substantial concern. We do not know what the impact of what is happening in China now will be on Australia, but I suggest it has the potential to be somewhat worse than we have seen and I am not sure that the measures that are being proposed here are really going to deal with that sort of environment. I note also in reports today that there are some comments from the OECD that ought to sound for all Australians some fairly significant alarm bells. The OECD deputy secretary-general, Aart de Geus, warned that despite the fiscal action and rate cuts, the Australian economy would be damaged by the current global recession: “Australia could be potentially one of the hardest hit economies,” Mr de Geus told a Sydney University audience. “Not only does Australia suffer from the reverberations of the global economic downturn, it is also hit by a negative terms-of-trade shock, due to the steep falls in the prices of its commodity exports. “Australia’s dependence on foreign markets to finance its external deficit represents potential economic fault lines.” These are matters that ought to give members of the government great concern. They are of concern to me and they are of concern to members of the parliament on this side of the House. It is not a question of looking at who to blame; it is a question of thinking constructively and cooperatively about how we address these sorts of issues. I have not seen that approach being taken, I regret to say. The government seems to have been looking for somebody to blame. It is very interesting that not so long ago, when the government did not recognise we had a problem internationally of the sort that we are facing, they believed we had an inflation problem. They wanted to talk it up and they did, with comments like: ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle.’ Those comments were designed to blame Howard and Costello for an inflation problem the government thought they had inherited. There was no inflation problem, but the comments had a significant impact in terms of encouraging the Reserve Bank to take some pretty tough decisions in relation to interest rates—decisions that were taken at a time that was not particularly beneficial to the Australian economy, leaving us in a far more difficult position than we otherwise would have been in. My experience in public life is that in politics if you make the right decisions the politics looks after itself. If you look at Costello and Howard in office you see that, in making the right decisions, the economy came together in the right way for the benefit of the government of the day and the Australian people. As the magnitude of this crisis has become even more apparent, the government have been looking around for somebody to blame, as we hear in all their speeches. I do not know whether the member for Throsby, who will speak after me, will talk about neocons or neoliberals, but the member for Fowler did, as have many others through this debate, taking the lead from the Prime Minister. I do not think that in dealing with these situations he needs to look around to try and find labels of that sort and to try and find others to blame. I do not know what the relationships of people in the Labor Party are like, although they are obviously fairly dynamic in New South Wales. A fellow called Michael Costa is a former Labor Treasurer of New South Wales. He is a man who has played a very active role in the trade union movement. If I were in the Labor Party, I suppose I would think he had contributed significantly to the party’s wellbeing. 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr Laurie Ferguson —This part is tongue in cheek. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —I would be interested to hear from the member for Reid if he has some insights as to why Michael Costa might write as he does. He wrote an article today in the Telegraph and I think it is worth quoting. He said: IT wouldn’t have mattered what the Prime Minister announced in his fiscal stimulus package—it won’t be sufficient to counter the impacts of the current global economic difficulties. Kevin Rudd should stop talking down the economy. Yes, we do have problems but we are well-positioned to see our way through. Constant exaggerated and negative commentary creates uncertainty among investors and consumers. What is the point of providing a $10 billion fiscal stimulus and then scaring the recipients? Is it any wonder many people chose to save their portion of the stimulus. I thought they were very perspicacious comments, and people should take some note of them. We should think more about the problems that we have to deal with and be very cognisant of the importance that confidence plays. Coming from the very strong fiscal position that the government inherited, it should be building on that and building confidence. There are no neocon or neoliberal culprits out there to blame. Thatcher, Reagan and, obviously, Howard are being pointed to as having a particular philosophical approach which it is said may have helped bring about this crisis, but that ignores the roles of people like Blair, Brown, the New Zealand Labour government, Keating and Hawke, all of whom walked on the same stage. I do not think you can blame any so-called neocons. An article by Makin from the Griffith University on the Gold Coast says: The looming recession was clearly not made in Australia. It has resulted from global banking problems which have squeezed liquidity worldwide, decimated asset values and shredded business and consumer confidence. It will not be over until these central problems are rectified. Budgetary measures that boost unproductive public spending are not the solution and are not risk-free for financially globalised economies like ours. So how did we get into this mess? What was the problem in the global banking system? Some will say it was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but it was more than that. It was in fact not a neocon outcome but what Labor members would regard as a social democrat approach that brought this situation about. There are any number of articles you can read about why in 1999 certain lending approaches were encouraged by the Clinton government of the United States of America, perhaps for the right motives, where a great deal of borrowing was put in place for properties in which there was very little capital brought to bear by the borrowers and where United States financial institutions were stood over to ensure that so-called low-doc or subprime loans were made. I read an article by Vincent Gioia which said: How did this happen? In its infinite wisdom congress established two organizations known as “Fannie Mae” and “Freddie Mac”, euphemisms for the Federal National Mortgage Association … and The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation … …            …            … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages on the secondary market, pool them, and sell them as government-backed securities to investors on the open market. This secondary mortgage market increases the supply of money available for mortgage-lending and increases the money available for new home purchases by freeing up money in lending institutions to make still more loans. It went on to say: … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the vehicles to place a house in every man’s future just like the “chicken in every pot” thing decades before. Tough new government regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. So there you have it. The problem was of social democrat making. It was a problem whereby financial institutions were set up to fail. This is not a crisis for which the Prime Minister is, in my view, able to put the blame either on his political predecessors or on a political philosophy with which he does not agree. I make those points very strongly. Now I come to this particular package. We are seeing a great deal of redistribution of assets and wealth in Australia at the moment. If these were deliberately structured government policies about which the government said, ‘Look, we’re going to tax some people more to distribute to the poor,’ one might well understand it. But what we are seeing is a great deal of redistribution occurring because some people have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, for instance. Others put money into superannuation; in many cases they were encouraged to invest in that. Self-funded retirees, people who have saved all their lives to be able to look after themselves, have seen the value of their assets depreciate. Property and shares have lost value. People’s investments in some cases have been frozen. We have seen situations where some people who borrowed money have remained on variable loans; others took fixed loans and have been penalised as a result. We have a situation where some people are going to benefit from the sorts of proposals that are being considered here while others are going to be left unaided. There is no right or wrong remedy for these matters. I think it is a crisis of very considerable proportions, but it is one in which the government ought to recognise that it is not the font of all wisdom and its advisers are not the font of all wisdom, and they should be prepared to work with the opposition in the way in which we have offered to deal with these difficult conditions. 352 23:02:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —The government’s stimulus package, as encompassed in the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills before us for debate this evening, is an unprecedented package for unprecedented times. It is not a reckless spending spree, as portrayed by some on the opposition benches but, in my view, a well-crafted response to the circumstances facing Australia in the context of a global financial crisis. The member for Berowra, speaking prior to me, outlined the dimensions of the problem. It is a huge problem that, in a very genuine and constructive way, the government is trying to address while at the same time recognising that there are no silver bullets. And, because it is a global financial crisis, it is not an issue where the blame game applies. The member for Berowra outlined the lack of regulatory frameworks in the United States, particularly in what are commonly referred to as NINJA loans, as being a very significant contributor to the excesses exemplified by corporate greed on Wall Street, which has to a large degree instigated this global crisis. I think the Prime Minister said it well when he indicated: The whole purpose of this extraordinary package, designed for these extraordinary times, is through public demand to offset the contraction in private demand within the economy, so that we minimise the overall effect on households and jobs. That is the reason for the stimulus package that we are debating here tonight. It is interesting that the member for Berowra did not refute the argument that we are indeed facing a severe global financial crisis. It is the nature of this crisis, and the fact that it is something that certainly someone of my age has never witnessed previously, that has necessitated decisive action so that we can at least try to ensure, to the best of our ability, that economic growth continues and that we avoid the worst impacts of a recession, which we now know is afflicting so many of our trading partners and comparable nations. It is in that context that the package comes before the parliament. It is not some hidden agenda to try and emulate the so-called Whitlam era of profligate spending, but rather a genuine response to an unprecedented global situation that confronts us for the first time since the Great Depression. The IMF itself has in recent times drastically revised down its forecast for the global economy. The member for Berowra pointed to the problematic situation with China and what the final outcome in terms of their growth rates might be. We are already reading of the severe consequences that even a 6½ per cent forecast in economic growth—half of what we have seen in more recent times—is causing immense social dislocation and unemployment. Interestingly, I came across the following words from the new US Secretary to the Treasury: If our policy response is tentative and incrementalist, if we do not demonstrate by our actions a clear and consistent commitment to do what is necessary to solve the problem, then we risk greater damage to living standards, to the economy’s productive potential, and to the fabric of our financial system. So it is in that context that we do take some comfort in the fact that our regulatory framework has been very strong and that our banks have good credit ratings. I think that in some ways we will be able to withstand the worst shocks that this crisis has wreaked on many other countries. But we do know from Treasury estimates that our tax take is estimated to fall by around $115 billion over the next four years because of this recession, and very significantly because of the collapse in demand from China. There is no doubt that the complementarity of our two economies has been a very positive aspect of the boom that we have lived through in more recent times, but it also carries inherent problematic outcomes, particularly in our terms of trade, as the member for Berowra also referred to in his contribution. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the consequences of this crisis and its impact on Australia. We cannot afford to sacrifice jobs and economic output because to sit around and not take bold action, or not give a clear and consistent commitment to solving the problems, would leave our economy and our nation even more exposed in the future. We know from Treasury estimates that without any stimulus from the government the economy would have delivered scant growth this financial year—in the order of 0.5 per cent and none the year after. Even with this package the Treasury predicts economic growth this financial year of one per cent and 0.75 per cent next year. Very alarmingly, Treasury forecasts unemployment rising from 4½ to seven per cent by June 2010. It is in that context that I believe our stimulus package gives us the best opportunity to hopefully see some continuation of very modest growth and minimisation of the very deleterious impacts of unemployment. There are two major elements to our package. Around $30 billion will be directed to infrastructure spending and support for business. Importantly, around half of that outlay will go to the largest school modernisation program this country has ever seen. This is truly a commitment to building the Education Revolution. As the member for Berowra quoted from one article, what is important to the future is ensuring that investment is made in productive capacity. In investing in school infrastructure, we not only provide a stimulus for local employment opportunities but also enhance teaching and learning facilities. Hopefully, in a very substantial way, we will also be able to underwrite higher productivity into the future. So it is an immediate stimulus, but it has a long-term objective as well. It is very well targeted. I am delighted also that the government will provide an additional $500 million over two years to expand the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. This will be well received in my community and I know a lot of projects will be up and ready to run as soon as that funding flows through to the local community. This spending will provide two positive outcomes. As we know, good community infrastructure is critical to improving social inclusion and livability and to underpinning regional economic growth and jobs. The rapid injection of funds into local communities through these projects will deliver local jobs while at the same time addressing genuine community needs. I think also the investment in the efficient homes package will provide a boost for local small businesses—those emerging in the renewable energy sector—as well as providing practical support for households to reduce energy use and save on energy bills. Interestingly enough, about 40 per cent of our housing stock currently is uninsulated—the older homes. And, over the next couple of years, owner-occupiers will be eligible for free product and insulation capped at about $1,600 a year. In that regard, the Clean Energy Council rightly said, in response to the package: Insulation saves energy, money, jobs and the environment—so it’s a win-win-win-win. The package will also provide access to a solar hot water rebate, which will be increased to $1,600 and not be means-tested. Either one of those options will be available. The great virtue in this is that it will help in a practical way in our moves to a more carbon-constrained economy, and I can see that, locally, it will support the jobs of tradespeople, small businesses, contractors and workers who have engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and installation of ceiling insulation and others in the renewable sector. So a lot of the package is targeted at productive investment—investment in long-term productive capacity—predominantly, as I say, through this schools package and the infrastructure package. The rest of the package is aimed at stimulating consumption, and is targeted at low- and middle-income earners and families. Of course, not everybody will be the immediate beneficiaries of this package and, in that regard, I do worry about the plight of many self-funded retirees, who tell me about the serious predicament they are in with interest rates yielding very little return on their investment. So it is a kind of double-edged sword for those people in particular, and I think we need to keep an eye on that situation. But the $950 one-off payments incorporated in the tax bonus, the single-income family bonus, the farmers hardship bonus, the back-to-school bonus and the training and learning bonus will be well appreciated by those who will be the recipients of these benefits. If you look at the economic advice about the argument as to whether it should be a one-off or a tax cut flowing through to everybody, which I think is still the position of the opposition, the weight of economic advice seems to indicate that targeted one-off payments, rather than generalised tax cuts spread over a lengthy period, are more likely to be continued and thus provide a more effective economic stimulus and support for local jobs. And the one-off payments then do not feed into a possible structural ongoing deficit. Finally, I want to say that the unemployment projections are extremely worrying, particularly for a region like mine in the Illawarra, which, even in good times, had really high unemployment rates—higher than the national average—particularly among our young people. I referred earlier to the projected rate of unemployment of seven per cent by June 2010. The figure is worrying in that, within six months, roughly 800,000 Australians would be unemployed, up from 500,000 in December. So imagine how much worse this would be if we did not take action by way of a stimulus package. Surely the opposition must understand the consequences of their short-sighted decision to oppose our proposals. We already know that jobs are being lost locally, especially among contractors, and that workers, particularly casual workers, are suffering a reduction in hours of work. I know that at the local steelworks major upgrades have been brought forward at a time when orders are down and workers have been asked to take their accumulated leave. Because of the importance of the steel industry in my region, we will need to provide careful oversight, particularly if the US administration provides preference to American steel in their buy American campaign. I am also worried that anecdotal evidence already indicates a falling off in apprenticeship opportunities, an issue of particular concern with my region’s high youth unemployment. I am hoping to see further constructive initiatives in the area of labour market programs, apprenticeship training and employment opportunities. In conclusion, I quote from an eminent economist, Mr Ross Gittins, in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. He had this to say: … so much of the global recession we are caught up in emanates from the Wall Street debacle. Since the crisis reached its peak in October we’ve been able to see its consequences coming, like a slow-motion tsunami rolling across the Pacific. …            …            … In theory, the authorities’ early start should make their efforts more effective. That is, the combination of monetary and fiscal policy should do this. As he says: A stitch in time should save nine. …            …            … Mr Swan’s latest measures are justified and well-judged. In combination with the rate cut they should, as the Reserve Bank has said, “help to cushion the Australian economy from the contractionary forces coming from abroad”. In the context of the worst global recession and the understanding that our economy and nation are not immune from it, I urge the opposition to rethink its attitude and to support the passage of the bills before us this evening. 355 23:16:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased to speak on Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills this evening. The bills are intended to support the government’s stimulus package, for want of a better word. When I first was re-elected to this House, I made a commitment to the electors of Canning that I would do the best I could to ensure that they—many in my electorate are low socioeconomic earners—would be able to keep as much as they could of the moneys that they earned. Some people would loosely call this the group of the working poor. Not many people would actually appreciate that tag, but it describes a group of low socioeconomic people who are just above the basic wage, who are above the dole and who want to work. One of the things that we can do for this group of people who have a great work ethic and want to work is to allow them, when they work, to keep as much of the moneys that they earn as possible. This is called incentive. I think incentive is something quite fabulous, because it motivates people to be in the workforce and to have all the right intentions about earning funds to buy their own home, to support their own families et cetera. One of the best ways you can do this is to ensure that taxes are lower. We as the previous government made sure that we lowered the thresholds so that more people could keep a greater amount of moneys that they earned. When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, spoke this morning on this legislation, he made it quite clear that we were not just saying that we did not support the bill in toto, that there were elements of the bill—for example, the schools initiative—that were quite fine but that it had missed many other targets that the community has expectations about. He pointed out that tax cuts were an alternative arrangement. We have heard a raft of people in this place today pooh-poohing tax cuts. They do not quite understand that tax cuts go to all earning Australians. It is a fair way of redistributing wealth and income, because it allows the people who earn funds to keep more of them. I think my commitment to the people of the electorate of Canning, in saying that I would support their ability to keep as much of the moneys that they earn as possible, is deliverable through tax cuts. It is a very sensible measure, and it is an alternative that we have offered up today and that we continue to put on the plate. We are in crucial economic times both internationally and nationally, yet Australia is going to weather this storm better than any other country. We might ask why. We will not go through all the reasons, but anyone here with half an ounce of understanding of where this economy has been in the last 10 years would understand that when the Howard government first came to the treasury bench in this place it inherited a massive debt of $96 billion. It took almost 11½ years to pay off. Then there was a $10 billion Beazley black hole, as we called it, in their budget forecasts. So that added to the problems. By the time the coalition had left government not only was the economy in such sound condition that it was called the ‘wonder down under’ but also there was no government debt; it had all been retired. In fact there was a $22 billion government surplus and there was a $60 billion Future Fund, providing for liabilities into the future. When the Rudd government decided to address the global crisis, which engulfed the rest of the world earlier this year, they spent half of the surplus. We thought: ‘That’s right. The surplus has been preserved. In these sorts of times it is probably a logical move to make.’ But what we did not expect was the stimulation on the stimulation. While I am on stimulations, I tend to concur with the tongue-in-cheek comment made by Andrew Bolt this morning when he said that the biggest stimulation he got out of today was seeing Mitchell Johnson’s partner, Jessica Bratich, at cricket’s Allan Border Medal presentation last night. I must say, I tend to agree with him, looking at the photo in the paper. Some people see the stimulus package in quite a different light. For example, today in this House I met one of my constituents, who had his young disabled son here too. My constituent said: I can’t understand this. I’m going to be getting this money. I’m happy to take the money, but they’re throwing it around like confetti. It’s a bit of a worry, isn’t it? Another constituent, from Canning Vale, emailed me tonight and he said: As a member of your electorate, I would like to say to your current government money handouts are a slap in the face for someone who works hard. I do all the overtime I can to make money. This takes me over $80,000 for the handouts. I should go on the dole or work minimum hours like others do. I do not pay a premium in tax for the government to give it out to people they think need it. What about those who pay the tax? The government apparently does not care about us. Perhaps I should claim a deduction on next year’s tax for the money. A very unhappy taxpayer: Mr Williamson from Canning Vale. I will be telling Mr Williamson from Canning Vale that it is not my government, I did not support them and I will explain to him that they are throwing the money around like confetti. In Western Australia some years ago, before he passed away, there was a bloke called Naughty Don Rogers, a car salesman—probably in the same vein as the Prime Minister. He used to stand there in the ads saying: ‘I’m going mad with money. I’m throwing money around. Come and get the money.’ This is what is happening: the government are going mad with money and they are throwing it around the place just like confetti, in many irresponsible sorts of ways. We do not prescribe to the Naughty Don theory of throwing money around. We think it should be well targeted and well advised. HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr Irons —He went broke. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —As my learned colleague tells me, eventually he went broke as a car salesman because he did throw money around. What we find is that the Prime Minister and Mr Swan, the Treasurer, are continually coming up with their ideas with no modelling. And then they go to the head of the Treasury and the head of the Reserve Bank and say, ‘We have come up with this and you had better support us,’ and they dutifully jump into line and explain why they are supporting the measures. I have made comments before about the compliance of some of these regulators and it is a bit of a worry because you need fearless and frank advice, not compliant advice. At the end of the day, you need good regulation, which this country has had before but it seems to be falling into line somewhat now. The Prime Minister had made it clear before the election that he considered himself an economic conservative, as pointed out in an article today by Julie Novak: As little as six months ago, there were still uncertainties about Rudd’s views. Was he really the “economic conservative”, committed to lower taxes, budget surpluses and economic reform, that he painted himself before last election? Further on, she says: The Prime Minister has developed an intellectual straw man of free market “fundamentalism” to divert attention from his failed interventions and create a climate for more of the same. This is not the approach befitting a once self-avowed economic conservative. The media is starting to pick up on this. This is a chameleon that we have operating now in this place as Prime Minister. Another journalist, Janet Albrechtsen—one that I know the other side hate, and remember what Mr Latham said about her—said today: Rudd, the pre-election economic conservative who said there was not a “sliver of light” between Labor and the Liberals on fiscal policy has now, post-GFC, handily acquired a newly discovered long-held belief on the evils of free markets. She goes on to talk about Japan. I will read this and explain: … Japan’s lost decade where … a Keynesian deficit-financed spending program failed to restore a depressed economy in the ’90s. We know that Japan used the same sort of package in the early nineties that the Prime Minister is putting into this place, and it took them the whole of the nineties to recover from the government intervention. Finally, they got to a point where they were being competitive and trading again and the global financial crisis hit them. We know that Japanese interest rates for many years up until now had been zero, and as a result the Japanese economy shrank and we saw the demise of Japan as our No. 1 trading partner, falling behind China. Where you can, you have to allow the free market to intervene and grow the economy rather than rely on the artificial stimulus of governments, because at the end of the day governments are not good managers. We have seen this all around Australia. When governments get in the way, they cause an enormous amount of damage. You can see, for example, the basket case that New South Wales is. In fact, Labor governments all around Australia are either in deficit or heading towards deficit and huge debt. This is in the Labor Party DNA. It is part of their mantra. We saw this with former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He saw debt as a way of resolving his financial problems, and yet he is out there touting to us what a financial guru he was. He certainly was not the great Treasurer that he used to tell us he was. But not only are we now ending up with a $42 billion package, which is four per cent of GDP, but the government have come into this place today with a piece of paper, one page, saying that they are now going to put us into hock for $200 billion. If it took us 11½ years to pay back $96 billion, imagine how long it is going to take this country to pay back $200 billion. It is quite scary, and this is what I call intergenerational debt. We are now going to transfer the decisions in this House today onto future generations. I will not be here, and I doubt whether anyone in this current crop will be here when this debt is paid. The Labor Party say this is a temporary deficit. It is not a temporary deficit at all. You cannot have a temporary deficit that is going to take more than 10 years to pay back, if not longer. It could take forever. How often does a windfall gain like the Chinese economy come along and allow a country like Australia to benefit? So we are putting this country in hock for generation after generation. As the Leader of the Opposition said, how are we going to tell our kids that we sat here and supported this decision? That is one of the reasons why I am saying tonight, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we will not be a part of this. We see that, yes, there had to be a stimulus from the surplus, but going into debt and transferring this to future generations of Australians is quite irresponsible—and we are doing this even before we have seen how the previous stimulus package has worked. We know that the earlier stimulus package has not even been allowed to flow through yet. For example, computers are not in schools yet. It was amazing; in one of the clips on TV tonight I saw that, at one school they went to to say where they were going to put $200,000, there was a big sign on a computer saying ‘out of order’. So much for the rollout of the computer package by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is just not happening, or if it is it is a slow burn. So where is the money? Where are the jobs? The Prime Minister said there were going to be 75,000 jobs, but when Mr Swan was asked today where the 75,000 jobs were he could not name one. How can they say they are creating 75,000 jobs and are going to create all these jobs into the future when their own forecasts say they are going to have 300,000 jobs destroyed or taken out of the system by 2010? You cannot have it both ways. They think that if you say it often enough and for long enough and get many of the sheep in the media in the Canberra press gallery to keep writing it then people out in the electorate will end up believing it. Most sensible people do not, because they can see past it. They have seen the history of what you get when you get the Labor Party in government. As I said, this intergenerational debt is very scary. I am young enough to remember the time when I first went out working—I was a schoolteacher in the Pilbara—and Gough Whitlam had just come to power. This is a very Whitlamesque solution. I remember clearly Gough saying, ‘Well, the way I would fix things is I would give all the pensioners $50 each because they would go and spend it and it would stimulate the economy.’ Does that have a familiar ring to it? These are old, Whitlamesque solutions, which the Prime Minister of the day has decided to adopt. In the Australian Financial Review today Tony Makin pointed out that governments that get into the market and borrow eventually cause rates to go up, because government, with its triple-A rating—even if that ends up lower—is far better placed than people borrowing money for mortgages and things like that. In the end, the individual who tries to borrow money will pay more, because the cost of money is interest and of course an individual paying the interest on a mortgage and competing with government will always lose. Alan Moran in today’s Australian Financial Review said: Australia’s second pump-priming stimulus announced yesterday will prove every bit as wasteful as last October’s $10.4 billion package. He goes on to say: Such pump priming will only retard recovery and leave a painful legacy of debt to be serviced. As I said, Japan is a good example of that. There is a lot more that I could say, but in the last few moments I want to finish on something that I think is quite shameful. People in my electorate have come to me in numbers in recent times and said: ‘About 12 months ago, with Mr Swan talking up the inflation genie, I got scared into fixing my mortgage interest rate. I went to the bank and the bank said, “You’re right; they’re putting up mortgage rates”’—and remember they were putting them up when everybody else was bringing them down—‘so I fixed mine and now I’m in real trouble because my fixed interest rate is up around 10 per cent and other people’s rates are now down to about six per cent and heading south after yesterday’s announcement by the Reserve Bank.’ One of my constituents has a large transport business. He borrowed a million dollars at fixed interest. His business is now paying $10,000 more per month than it should be. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer asked a question of the Prime Minister, which was followed up by the member for North Sydney, about giving some relief to those who have been caught up by the government’s advice—because he is giving relief to everyone else. His answer was, ‘That notion is ridiculous.’ He had no real answer. We have to do what we can to help people who are caught up in fixed-interest mortgages. It is just so unfair that the government wants to give everyone else relief but it will not give relief to the people who are caught up in this bind, probably locked in for the next two to five years. I have put in writing to members of the government many proposals for infrastructure projects in my electorate, and I hope those projects will get some finance out of this. For example, when we came into opposition there was over $100,000 for a paediatric ward in the Peel region—not in my electorate but in the electorate of Brand. Yet, because it was an initiative of the previous government, they knocked it off. Those are the sorts of things that should be reinstated and funded. We want to see something out of this package that creates jobs rather than kills them off. We do not want to go back to the massive unemployment that Labor governments have delivered to this country in previous times. This money can be used far more judiciously. A large amount of money is being thrown around like confetti to people who are just saying, ‘Yeah, I’ll have the money. Give it to me. I’ll spend it.’ The final example I will give you is of a person in my electorate, Scott, who has five children, and his wife is expecting a sixth. He said to me that he told the kids at Christmas, ‘This Christmas is on Mr Rudd, kids’. Of course he will get the baby bonus shortly when his sixth is born. He said ‘We’ll take the money but we’re not voting for him, because we think where he’s taking us is very scary.’ I rest my case. 360 23:36:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I am glad to follow the member for Canning in this debate on Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009. I have a lot of time and respect for his former occupation as a teacher and I know the Pilbara very well, so I do appreciate his earlier years. But after his economic contribution tonight I have to say that I do not think he would get a gig teaching year 10 in commerce, let alone economics, these days. I start with a quote from last week’s Economist, a reasonably august magazine with world distribution. It said: Few now doubt that the world economy is in its most parlous state since the 1930s. Demand is slumping across the globe as firms and consumers are battered by a pernicious, self-reinforcing bombardment of dysfunctional financial markets, falling wealth, higher unemployment and rampant fear. The IMF’s latest forecasts, published on January 28th, suggest 2009 will bring the deepest global recession in the post-war era. That is the position as seen by world economic commentators. Regrettably, it is not the position that is even remotely identified by the opposition. Those opposite had 12 years, during which they failed to invest in infrastructure, stripped investment in education and purposely wound back investment in health and hospitals. Yet we have just heard again from the member for Canning that they have an unfettered belief that this situation should be left for the market to work its way through. More accurately, he said, ‘Leave it to the market to work it out.’ That is a little bit like the parting comments that George W Bush made in opposing the financial package that was proposed in the United States. He did not see a need for regulation or intervention. He actually thought, like the other Republicans over there, that this was an exercise they would leave to the market to work out—with all its casualties, I might add. That is the level of contribution that has been made throughout this evening. We have not had a proposition put forward as to what might be addressed. To sum up, the advice coming from the Leader of the Opposition—and from the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs; I wonder what that august body, or its clients, might be thinking at this stage—is to ‘suck it and see’ and allow this to work itself through. Fortunately, the Australian people made a decision in November 2007 to choose leadership over rhetoric and action over indecisiveness. They chose a government that is capable of making clear decisions. There has been no greater time when we needed clear decision-making than now. I suppose I spend a bit too much time on dealing with the opposition, because throughout the evening, whilst they want to prolong this debate, they have not made any real contribution in terms of substance. If you look at most of the economic commentators and credible economists around town, very few are paying any attention to the position adopted by the opposition. It is as if they have disengaged from the debate and from what is good for this country. The economic position that we find ourselves in is, quite frankly, unprecedented. The Economist is right when it reports that these are unprecedented times. It is for that very reason that we have adopted a package of $42 billion and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Our plan is very much directed at the creation and preservation of jobs. It is a plan that goes beyond just the rollout of key infrastructure investments, which have already been provided for within the budget and are continuing through the development of Infrastructure Australia, which will look at all the infrastructure developments and the development of future productivity based gains to be made in this economy. This is a separate plan which is now adopted. It is a look at nation building and jobs at a time when the injection of money is required in order to avoid further adverse effects from the globally imposed recession. The plan involves $42 billion. Of that, $28 billion will be directed to investment in schools, housing, roads and other essential infrastructure, including $2.7 billion to a temporary tax rebate and the expansion of small business in the private sector. It will also provide for $12.7 billion in direct payments to low-and middle-income earners. I would have thought that, as a teacher, the member for Canning would have talked a little about one of the key aspects of this package—that is, schools. Today I took it upon myself to contact a number of schools in my electorate. I have 43 primary schools and 19 high schools, a total of 62 schools. I did not ring all of them but I rang enough to get their views on this. In terms of primary schools being able to access capital funding of up to $3 million for essentially new buildings and upgrades of existing parts of their facilities under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, there was not one school that thought that was a poor idea. Similarly, all the high schools in my electorate saw a lot of merit in being able to invest in a science block or a new language centre within their schools, and they said they would compete for one of the 500 to be built. A lot were dumbfounded when they found out that all the schools in my electorate—all 62 of them—would be eligible to receive up to $200,000 for refurbishment and maintenance within their present school structures. There can be no greater investment than in education. That is an investment in our future; it is an investment in our productivity. In all the economic publications I have read, particularly those dealing with education, I see that how we want to be in 10 years time depends on what we invest in education. That is where we see our productivity growth. It is probably why we have such a job in front of us, because 10 or 12 years ago the previous Howard government stripped money from education, and we are paying the price of that. We have to correct that. We have to take the position of investing in schools and generating jobs for local tradespeople. A couple of people we spoke to today were local contractors. They are all very keen about each of these schools being able to receive up to $3 million. They know what that means in terms of the electricians they will employ and the carpenters and the apprentices who will be employed. That is another aspect of this package which is very much about jobs. Then there is energy efficiency in houses. I calculated that there are 25,000 families in my electorate that will benefit from the home insulation rebate or from being able to use the $1,600 for solar heating. In terms of the household stimulus—and this is a very important part—in my electorate there are 14,081 families who will receive the back-to-school bonus of $950 per child. That is 23,000 kids whose parents will receive $950. There are 13,000 families in my electorate who are on family tax benefit B, and they will receive $950 per family. Of those who are students or are unemployed and returning to study, somewhere in the vicinity of 5,000 people in all in my electorate will receive $950 each. Going from the census figures, 98 per cent of all wage earners in my electorate in the south-west of Sydney, the seat of Werriwa, are earning less than $100,000 and will benefit from the tax bonus. Small business will indeed benefit from the $2.7 billion in tax. And, in my electorate, small business clearly is the backbone of employment; I am glad to see the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy wandering by. This evening I received some comments from the CEO of the Macarthur Business Enterprise Centre, David Waudby. He said: The $42 billion package will help boost confidence in the short term, while helping deliver long term infrastructure benefits. South West Sydney businesses will particularly welcome the $2.7 billion tax breaks for business. Small business welcomes initiatives to enable them to retain employees while maintaining viability such as the tax deductions on investments. I should also indicate what Cheryl McBride, the President of the Public Schools Principals Forum, said today: The Forum welcomes the huge injection of funds in the education system with open arms. The Forum is delighted that the Rudd Government has placed education at the forefront of its economic strategy. An investment in education is an investment in our future. I concur with the views of both Mr Waudby from the Macarthur Business Enterprise Centre and Cheryl McBride from the Public Schools Principals Forum. I would encourage all members opposite to ring their local schools and businesses and ask them what they think and at some stage during this debate be prepared to say whether they want their electorate’s schools to benefit from these provisions or not. 362 23:48:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —Amongst the myriad global economic commentary proffering advice to governments around the world, I believe that one of the more sensible contributions was made this week by OECD Deputy Secretary-General Aart de Geus, who was reported as saying at a conference in Sydney this week: The degree of stimulus needs to be country specific … to avoid putting the long-term sustainability of public finances in danger. I believe there are two very salient lessons from his comments that we should take note of in this important debate on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills this evening—and this is a very important debate. As a new member of parliament having the opportunity to contribute to a debate such as this and to the nature of that debate, which has run the full course of this day—and it is very late this evening and the debate, I assume, will run for some time yet—I cannot think of a more significant debate that is necessary for this country on the global financial crisis. I recall last year when the opposition was calling on the Prime Minister to come into this place and outline his thoughts and make his contribution on what his plan would be. And it took literally ages for him to come in and make that statement. Finally, he did, but here we are today, in a new year, debating this incredibly important matter for our country. The two lessons I would take from Mr de Geus’s suggestions at the conference in Sydney this week are these. Firstly, Australia needs a plan for this economic downturn that deals with the situation and circumstances in Australia, not in the United States, not in the United Kingdom, not in Europe—in Germany or in France—and not even in Canada, where I believe they actually have half a clue about what is going on and what are good suggestions for their economy. In this debate there seems to be a looking across the shores and across the seas to what is happening in other places. There seems to be the assumption that what is happening there is exactly what is happening here and that therefore the remedies for what is happening there should be carbon copied. It is as if anything that trickles out of the mouth of the new United States President, that is uttered at a G20 conference or that goes through the halls of Davos must be done in Australia. If we are not doing what the rest of the world is doing then we will be making some grave mistake! In the 11½ years that the coalition was in office we were doing things that the rest of the world was not doing. We were not running deficits. We were not getting into debt. We were regulating our financial system. One of the first and most important lessons is that we cannot get sucked up and led astray by the distractions and debates going on in other countries. In this parliament, in this place, for our circumstances, for our future and for our children, we need to be focusing on what is happening here. We need a plan that focuses on the specific challenges facing this country in this crisis. Secondly, we must avoid the temptation to panic and in the process mortgage our future financial viability by engaging in social programs masquerading as economic stimulus measures, whose only real outcomes will be higher debt for future generations and little if any lasting stimulus to our economy. There is a great temptation here, as we are seeing from the government, to kick up the dust. If there is dust being kicked up, if there is activity, if we are running around, if we are making big statements and if we are going on television and issuing grand statements to the nation then something must be being done! There is no doubt that out in the community there is the desire for something to be done. But doing anything is not the answer. Kicking up the dust is only going to kick up the dust; it is not going to take us forward. Indeed, there is a danger it will take us backwards. Let us not forget that this package should have one objective: to effectively and efficiently stimulate our economy. We are looking for maximum bang from our buck. It is not about any other agenda. As the shadow minister for housing, I would say it is not about a housing agenda. It is not about emissions reduction. It is not about any of the other important issues that we talk about in this parliament. It is actually not specifically about the future of schools or of hospitals. All of these measures may form part of a package but the agendas in each of those areas are not the prime purpose of what we have before us. The prime purpose of what we have before us is to create an economic stimulus. Last year—and I would commend the government on this—the government announced a package of $300 million to be spent by local governments. If that had been an ongoing measure to invest more in local governments, as I said at the time, you would want something in return. There should be a reform agenda for greater federal investment in local government. But as a one-off stimulus measure with no strings attached it suited the purpose. Local governments are in a good position to go and spend money quickly, and they have worthy projects all ready to go. We may quibble over some of the aspects of that package, but the issue was that it was about a stimulus. If it had been about a longer-term program of local government reform then it would have been a terrible way to do it. If it was just about splashing around money with no hope of anything in return—for example, the cutting of business regulation—it would have been terrible. But to put money out there into the economy was a reasonably good way to do it. When we look at these measures, this is what we use as our test. It is not about how it meets other targets of the government in a primary sense. It is about how it meets the objective that falls before us—that is, to achieve an economic stimulus. It is not an open invitation to opportunistically promote your favourite cause or wish list, which could never be justified in any responsible budget. I would be staggered if many of the measures in this package were brought forward in a normal budget. In fact, I am aware that in the social housing sector there was an expectation that this government would put $1 billion per year every year on top of what was out there into the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That did not eventuate in that agreement. In fact, over the forward estimates, the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement effectively raises spending over the forward estimates only by around $46 million. But here we have those measures which could not be justified being put into that agreement finding their way into a ‘stimulus package’. You see, quality of spending must be measured against the degree of economic outcome, especially when debt is involved. Last year, when the first stimulus package was put out there, the government was spending it out of a surplus—a surplus that this government did nothing to accumulate, but, nevertheless, it was not incurring debt at that time. It has proved to be a fairly unwise deployment of that surplus, but this time around every single dollar is going on the taxpayers’ credit card. Frankly, I think that imposes an even higher test of accountability on this parliament to ensure that these measures are effective and efficient and can deliver. This is a package of panic. It is reckless in its magnitude and it is ineffective in its composition. For these reasons, I am extremely proud to stand in the parliament this evening with my leader and my coalition colleagues, as the member for Cook representing a community that pays its way and understands the cost of debt and the meaning of responsibility and as the shadow minister for housing and local government, and oppose this package. It ignores Australia’s unique situation. It indentures future Australians like my daughter and her sibling-to-be with a generation of Labor debt of up to $200 billion. It indulges a grab bag of Labor Party pet programs at the expense of genuine economic stimulus. There is no doubt that the coalition stance in the short term will not be popular, as the Leader of the Opposition said rightly today. Unlike those opposite, that is not our purpose. Populism is not our agenda in addressing these bills. We oppose them because it is the right thing to do to provide financial security for future generations. Under the Rudd Labor government the debt train is leaving. It has left the station with this proposal, and we are here to tell you that the coalition will not be getting on board Labor’s debt train. Since coming to office, the Prime Minister is yet to make a tough decision. He has made many decisions and he has made some fine decisions. I am particularly proud that around this time last year we stood in this place and offered an apology to Indigenous Australians. That was a fine decision. Many of those decisions have been supported. There have been some good decisions and many poor decisions, but none of them have been hard or unpopular. If the Prime Minister finds handing out $42 billion and $950 here, there and everywhere a tough decision, then he must dread Christmas. He must find that an absolute heartache. He must find going to birthday parties of siblings just a shocker. If that is a hard decision, I would like to see a really tough one. As we move through these challenges, the Prime Minister seems more interested in, if not obsessed with, finding someone to blame for our current circumstances rather than coming up with a package that generates an actual stimulus. Many of the speakers tonight have addressed the fanaticism of his treatise on neoliberalism, which, frankly, is as absurd as it is indulgent and annoying. It is real leadership that this country now needs. At the last election, Labor said, ‘We need new leadership,’ but what I say to Australians tonight is that we need real leadership, not new leadership as a faint phrase that people toss around in the lead-up to an election. That is what was promised—new leadership. What we need now is real leadership. It is the real leadership that was on display today from Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth in this parliament, not from the Prime Minister. Unlike those opposite, in Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, we have a leader who will make tough decisions; a leader in whom people can have confidence, and also will put the national interest first; and a leader who is not driven by ideological, sterile debates—the sorts of debates about which the new US President said that, frankly, we all have to get past them. That is what he said in his inauguration speech, and the first thing our Prime Minister did was to leap into those debates with gusto which was just alarming. We need a leader who is not obsessed with those remote and dated ideological debates but is concerned about doing what is right in the national interest, because this is a leader you can really trust when times are tough. This is a leader whom Australians will be able to trust to pull this country out of the mess that this Labor government will inflict on our economy in the years between now and the next election. The Labor government will leave us with a debt like none before it. It will even exceed, I believe, that debt left to the former Prime Minister John Howard and the member for Higgins, Mr Costello, by Paul Keating in 1996. They have learnt nothing on that side of the chamber. In going from opposition to government, there has been no great passage of wisdom, and their true colours have been exposed. But the coalition is drawing a line here. We are drawing a line here in the sand and saying, ‘We will not get on board with this spiralling process of debt.’ In terms of the unique experience of Australia, I outlined a number of those measures. We did not enter this crisis saddled with debt, deficit or ineffective regulation, and we will not emerge from this crisis by simply carbon-copying the policy responses of those countries whose experiences are characterised by debt, deficit and inefficient regulation. Debt and deficits are not new to most OECD countries. We approached this crisis from a position of strength—a strength that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were unwilling to acknowledge. The first thing they should have been saying as the economic downturn progressed was, ‘You know, we can get through this because, for the last 12 years, we have had a process which has paid off debt, which has built a surplus and which will see us through.’ That was a reason for confidence, but we did not hear those words come from the Prime Minister and he denied Australians the most important inspiration they needed at that time, which was the reassurance of a country managed well for so long. We are not saddled with the burden of a collapsing housing market, the subprime lending crisis and nonrecourse loans. It is our national record of financial prudence and responsibility that has prepared us for this challenge, and it is this same temperate discipline that will see us through. The government simply do not understand this. The government say our deficit has been caused by the collapse in revenue, and, particularly for this financial year, that is an untruth—that is a complete lie—because we know that only $9 billion of this year’s deficit has been caused by collapsing revenues; the rest relates to government policy measures, as is outlined in their own document. Our deficit is the only home-grown element of this package that we see here. Otherwise, we have borrowed the various responses of other countries obsessed with their own approach to their problems. So what does constitute a responsible response? Here are some important benchmarks. Will it increase productive capacity in our economy? Will it leverage impact on the economy? Will it empower the private sector to invest and keep people in their jobs? Will it provide a platform for consumer confidence? Will it produce the maximum dividend? Can it be delivered efficiently and effectively by those tasked to implement it? Will the benefits justify burdening future generations of Australians with the dead weight of debt? Make no mistake—this is not just $42 billion in spending; it is $42 billion in debt. Every cent of the cash splash must be paid back with interest not just by those who receive it but by all those who do not as well. A further issue is that of timing. There is no use being three goals up at the end of the first quarter and losing your legs in the final session. This could be a very long winter for the global economy, and we need to ensure that we not only respond at this time, as we believe we must—the coalition is saying that we should respond but not in this way—but also maintain our capacity to continue to respond. That is the real threat that is posed by this package in addition to the heavy debt burden that it provides. The ultimate test is whether this initiative will work. The Prime Minister has said that this package will prevent a recession. He says there is no silver bullet and then effectively applies this tag to his own package, enforcing it on this parliament tonight. Then he says that there are no guarantees. The scale of debt attached to this package requires such guarantees. He is right—there are none. Hence, prudence is required rather than gambling with the financial future—frankly, Mr Speaker—of my children. This is particularly true for a package that masquerades old Labor agendas as economic stimulus. The proposal to spend $6 billion to build public housing is simply fanciful. Not only does the public housing sector account for no more than three per cent of the residential construction industry but the delivery of this package depends upon the ability of failed state and territory housing authorities to deliver. During the past five years, almost 20,000 public housing dwellings have been approved through the planning approvals process. Yet over the same time the stock of public housing dwellings has declined by more than 10,000, despite funding from the federal government of around $5 billion. The Minister for Housing has gambled $6 billion of taxpayer debt on the ability of state and territory housing authorities to deliver. Public housing tenants know better than anyone else that this is not a wise gamble. If the test is whether the project can be delivered, they are on very shaky ground with this initiative. There is also the test of leverage. By way of comparison, if the First Home Owner Grant for new construction were to apply to all new residential construction, with $6 billion to spend this package would stimulate the construction of not 20,000 public housing homes but 280,000 in private housing. The coalition takes no issue with public housing, as those in the House from the other side sought to pretend today. We on this side of the chamber have already supported more than $1.8 billion of new initiatives from this government to alleviate homelessness and provide affordable housing. They are worthy initiatives to support, particularly for homelessness. We take issue with whether this will provide the most effective stimulus. Clearly stimulating private sector housing will have a more far-reaching impact than this measure. This measure is the proof that this is not a stimulus. It is an excuse to put on the public credit measures that could never be justified in the course of a normal budgetary process. Otherwise, you would have put it in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, but you did not do that. This proposal will do nothing to reduce rent pressures in the private rental market. It will do nothing to alleviate cost pressures on home purchases caused by chronic undersupply, caused by state governments and the exorbitant charges of states and territories, particularly in New South Wales— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr MORRISON —by the mates of the member for Grayndler. This is about Labor’s social housing agenda. It is not about an economic stimulus. Where will the homes be built? Can the minister tell us where these homes will be built? How can they deliver such a significant increase in supply in such a short time and satisfy the necessary requirements of planning and community consultation? How will they avoid building another Rosemeadow or Macquarie Fields in such bulk proposals as they rush ahead, cut corners and leave future generations living in these communities to pay for their mistakes? It is also clear that they will seek to accommodate this increase by taking up house and land packages in existing mainstream residential estates. (Time expired) Thursday, 5 February 2009 367 00:05:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. As is well understood on this side of the House, the global financial crisis has pushed many countries into recession, countries such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, countries in Europe and many of our neighbours in Asia. Australia is not immune from what happens globally. This has certainly been held to be true over recent months. With the forecast from the IMF of a two per cent collective contraction of the world’s advanced economies in 2009, there are major consequences economically for Australian government revenues, growth and of course jobs. Together, these bills form the Rudd government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which has been announced to support jobs and invest in Australia’s long-term economic growth. There are far too many components in this package for me to be able to talk about all of them in the time available, so I will concentrate on a few areas that will have particular relevance to many of my constituents in my electorate of Deakin. Building the Education Revolution is a $14.7 billion component of this package, and it contains three key elements: Primary Schools for the 21st Century, Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools, and Renewing Australia’s Schools. They are all important in their own way and I will go through them briefly. Primary Schools for the 21st Century is the major part of the package, and it is a $12.4 billion program that allocates funds for the building or refurbishment of large-scale infrastructure in primary schools, K-12 schools and special schools right across Australia. This program covers both government and non-government schools and provides capital funding from $25,000 right up to $3 million, depending on the size of the school. In the case of primary schools in my electorate of Deakin, most schools will be eligible for funding of between $2 million and $3 million to construct new libraries, multipurpose halls or other approved buildings. An important condition of the funding for these new facilities is that the schools make them available for community use at little or no cost. I think it is very important, if we are going to put money into community assets, that the schools are not locked away at weekends and night-time or shut up for months on end over school holidays but that local communities are able to access and use them. There is always demand, in every electorate, for meeting places for local volunteer groups, whether they be for scouts or for various other clubs. There is always a need for that sort of thing. Schools that already have modern libraries and multipurpose halls will be permitted to apply for funding for refurbishment of buildings or the building of new facilities. This could include the replacement of portable classrooms with permanent structures. The 21 government primary schools in Deakin electorate will all benefit greatly from this measure. Many were built decades ago and simply do not cater for the 21st century needs of students, teachers or parents—who also spend a lot of hours at schools. I have been to primary school assemblies in Deakin that have had to be held outside in the rain because the school does not have a multipurpose room or hall to accommodate their assemblies. Other primary schools have halls that are far too small to accommodate all the students in safety and comfort, so students end up sitting on the floor, elbow-to-elbow, in lines, and hope that they can all squeeze in the door. In these circumstances, the provision of a multipurpose hall that could be used for school assemblies and other meetings would be a very welcome upgrade that cannot come too soon. Of course, it is not only government schools that are burdened with old, out-of-date or non-existent multipurpose halls and libraries. There are also non-government primary schools that have similar needs for infrastructure, and they too are eligible to receive funding at the same rates under this program. In 2007, the combined enrolment in primary schools in Deakin was 9,232 full-time equivalent students. Anecdotally I think that figure has gone up in the last year and a bit. Most primary schools I have been to have reported an increase in the size of their schools over that time. Whilst it is very good that we have got more children going through school, it also puts more pressure on those schools. Importantly, each and every primary school student will benefit from this program. The second element of the Building the Education Revolution package is Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools. This is a $1 billion program that will fund the construction of up to 500 science laboratories or language centres in Australian secondary schools. Investment in science labs and language centres will provide students studying these disciplines with access to modern and cutting-edge technologies that they can make use of in their own learning spaces. The electorate of Deakin contains 10 secondary schools, a mixture of government and non-government schools. Each school will be able to lodge bids in a competitive process for proposals. Applications will be determined on demonstrated need, readiness to commence the project, and capacity to complete construction by 30 June 2010. The third element of the Building the Education Revolution package is Renewing Australia’s Schools, a $1.3 billion program that is available to all schools—primary and secondary, government and non-government. The important thing about this program is that it is almost an immediate start. Most schools in Deakin would qualify for funding of between $125,000 and $200,000, based on the number of students in the school. The funding can be used for maintenance and renewal of school buildings and for minor building works. It can also be used for items such as minor refurbishment of buildings, fixed shade structures, covered outdoor learning areas, green upgrades such as water tanks, air-conditioning and support for students with disabilities or special needs. These all may be funded under the Renewing Australia’s Schools program. Many of these projects should be able to begin almost immediately. The issues in the long term are well documented and the solutions in many cases are readily apparent. As I mentioned previously, many schools in Deakin were built decades ago. As Melbourne’s population expanded eastwards in the 1950s and 1960s these schools were built to cater for the increase in the local population. These buildings still bring back memories of my time at school and that is because some classrooms still look the same today as when I went to school, except I left school 27 years ago. Some of the buildings are now over a century in age, and maintenance or refurbishment for them cannot come soon enough. Many schools still have portable classrooms, again a very memorable feature of my days at school so long ago. In my visits to schools in my electorate over the last year, the issue of maintenance has just about always been raised. The schools try to find more room in their budgets to cover increasing maintenance costs of continually ageing buildings. Rusting roofs and gutters, peeling paintwork, holes in masonry and doors that no longer fit into doorframes—all are very common. Going through a very hot summer also increases those types of maintenance tasks, and things that have held together quite well suddenly do not after a few days of 40 degree-plus heat. For many schools these are not new problems. They are part of a maintenance backlog that stretches over many decades. Even trying to carry out modern teaching in classrooms that are in good condition but which were built 40 or 50 years ago is also problematic. Rooms might not have enough power capacity for computers or they might be too small for modern teaching methods, especially for combined classes. The local employment that will be generated from the Building the Education Revolution plan will be substantial and especially needed due to the contraction in our economy. Projects such as these provide employment not only for tradespeople but also for people such as architects, engineers, suppliers and wholesalers and especially the many other local small businesses which rely on the construction industry for a living. There is nothing better than having activity happening on several sites near where your business is set up. There are many other features of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan that I could highlight here in the chamber tonight but, listening to the debate, I think many other members have already spoken on most of these points, including the benefits that this package of stimulatory funding will bring to our economy in the face of the global economic crisis. These bills are vitally important to keep our economic wheels turning whilst private sector demand is contracting. The opposition are saying they are going to block these bills but I see no great benefit for our nation in that. I call on them to reconsider and I commend this package of bills to the House. 370 00:18:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER — I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. The descent of Australia into chaos and hardship is a journey that starts with Paul Keating’s deregulation of the banks. As Trevor Sykes said in The Bold Rider, in the 1960s and 1970s and earlier the federal government and the Reserve Bank could finetune bank lending by adjusting the LGS and SRD ratio. By raising or lowering these ratios the Reserve Bank could turn the money tap on or off. When Paul Keating deregulated the financial system in 1983-84 he abolished the key tools for controlling economic activity. The seeds may have been sown by Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead and champion of individualism, and also by Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in economics, who said that if goods and services grew annually by, for example, three per cent and the Federal Reserve set money growth at 6½ per cent then you would have a gap called inflation of 3½ per cent. The wonderful contribution to modern thought made by these two giants in the 1950s and 1960s metastised, however, in the 1970s and 1980s into something truly malignant. Whether one labels it as the Prime Minister did this week as neoliberalism, or as we referred to it in Australia as economic rationalism, it all means the same thing—free market economics. I have been accused many times in this place of wanting to take us back to 1960s McEwenism. I have always answered by saying, ‘Better the 1960s than what the people in this place espouse, which is taking us back to the policies of the 1850s of laissez faire capitalism, with the unemployed being locked as prisoners in poorhouses, eight-year-old children going down coalmines and steel collars.’ Mr Keating and Mr Costello completely obliterated the policies of interventionism, regulation and developmentalism. The three great men in Australian government history were clearly Theodore, McEwen and Chifley. The policies of these three great Australians may be described as interventionism, regulation and developmentalism. The rule of law was replaced by fang and claw. The beavers would be replaced by the sharks and alligators. The nest-builders would become prey to the crows and Lousy Jacks—the nest raiders and egg eaters. Let me be very specific: from 1984 to 1990, just seven corporate tigers got off the banks and people controlling the savings of ordinary Australians 9.9 thousand million dollars. That happened in just five years. This is delineated graphically in Trevor Sykes’s landmark book titled The Bold Riders. This $9.9 billion was used by these men to play monopoly with each other. The media lauded them as the bold riders, politicians wanted their photographs taken with them, the banks and media applauded them, fund managers fell all over themselves to give them money—Connell, Holmes a Court, Skase, Bond, Elliott, Warwick Fairfax and Spalvins. On 20 October 1987, Black Tuesday, 25 per cent was wiped off the value of shares in Australia. During a four-year period, the banks lost $28 billion, and at least two were technically insolvent. ‘What do we do now?’ was the question asked in the halls of power, in the media and by corporate boards. Mr Speaker, I will tell you what they did. They put the whips to the galley slaves. Mr Government caused the problem. Mr Banks, Mr Big corporate CEOs, Mr Government and all the others would not take responsibility for it. They put the whip to the galley slaves and made them row harder. And this is what they did: they put interest rates up from 11.5 per cent in 1984 to 17 per cent in 1989—a 50 per cent rise. It is easily the greatest rise in interest rates in Australian history. Interest rates in Australia were far higher than in any other country on earth and far higher than Australians had ever seen in two lifetimes. Bankruptcies exploded; people were thrown out of their homes and out of work. Unemployment hit 11 per cent. The free market policies had reached their denouement in Australia on Black Tuesday, 20 October 1987. Manufacturing in Australia is all but gone now. Time does not allow me to elaborate on that, but let me say that, when I went into parliament some 33 or 34 years ago, I was very proud that my airconditioner, my television, my fridge and my stove were all made in Australia. In the average Australian home today effectively none of these things are now made in Australia. In 1984 when Mr Keating started removing tariffs, 79 per cent of the motor vehicles in Australia were Australian made. Last year only 19 per cent of the motor vehicles in Australia were Australian made. So manufacturing has gone. Agriculture, bereft of protection, rapidly collapsed, not because of lack of competitiveness but because the average OECD countries support tariff and subsidy levels of 49 per cent whilst Australia’s are only six per cent and falling. The non-OECD countries—the developing countries, as they are called—have super cheap labour; Australia does not. One can see this problem clearly if the federal government goes ahead with the last government’s plan to allow Philippine imports into Australia. Bananas are the biggest selling generic item in the supermarkets. They are a very disease prone crop and very labour intensive. For workers in Philippine agriculture wages are $4.2 a day; the Australian award is $17.80 an hour. The home market has only two people—an oligopoly—for farmers to sell their food to. The two big supermarket chains have 80 per cent of the market. Agriculture, like manufacturing, is vanishing and, more slowly but just as surely, so too are the giant retail industries. Sheep numbers are down 50 per cent. Cattle numbers are down 15 per cent. Dairy is down nearly 20 per cent. Wheat is seasonal; it would be wrong for me to quote wheat. With sugar, we are closing four mills every six years. Arguably, there are only 25 left. Mr Keating said on 14 May 1986, when the current account deficit hit $15,488 million, that we were in danger of becoming a ‘banana republic’. I saw him recently on the television in the Labor in Power series and he said, ‘I do not resile from that comment. It was a fair comment and a true comment.’ Mr Howard reminded him of this comment in a radio broadcast on 11 July 1995 when the deficit hit $25,326 million. Mr Howard went on to say, ‘Of course the overwhelming problem, the economic challenge above all else, is our continuing damagingly high current account deficit.’ Mr Speaker, I have listened today to the greatest stream of hypocrisy about the federal government racking up debt. The last government, the Howard government—or the Costello government, more accurately—racked up a debt of $400 million in the time they were in power. The other mob, Keating, racked up a debt of only $200 million whilst he was in power. When one considers that when Mr Keating took office as Treasurer the entire Australian debt accumulated over our hundred-year history was $23,000 million, Mr Speaker, you can get some dimension of just how badly Australia has been governed. When the Howard government fell in late 2007, the deficit had hit $668,574 million. While Mr Costello and his free-market economics balanced the government’s budget each year with great fanfare, he ran the economy so disastrously that this country’s budget was driven so deep into deficit that Mr Costello took the nation’s debt from $191.9 billion to $602.8 billion. So don’t let the opposition come in here and talk about debt. Let the Keating-Hawke governments and the Costello-Howard government be judged by their own words: ‘Banana republic’ and ‘The overwhelming problem above all else is our damagingly high current account deficit.’ The much-maligned John McEwen had a $2,000 million surplus in his last year. But the great triumphs of Mr Keating and Mr Costello took it to a $70,000 million deficit. They balanced the books of the government, but they did not balance the books of the country. Mr Keating took all of our savings and put them into superannuation—not necessarily a bad thing. Average savings as a percentage of household income in Australia is only 0.15 per cent—one-tenth of one per cent; in other words, virtually nothing. We have no savings outside of superannuation. Superannuation moneys went to the fund managers. All these inner-city dwelling, university trained experts—mostly screen jockeys—do not know anything about anything, except shares and property. All of this money was cut off to productive enterprise and all of it flowed into just two areas: shares and property. As the tens of thousands of millions of dollars flowed into shares and property, they became more and more inflated. All of the financial consultants I know sell a product that consists of blue chip, big corporation share portfolios. The housing market is so overblown that young couples simply cannot afford the debt servicing payments, but what is really terrible is that they are being sold contracts that they can never service. The banks selling or making these loans have absolutely no sense of responsibility. Whilst making a quid is admirable, to unscrupulously take advantage of such ambition is immoral and should be illegal. To put this into a moral context: when I sold life insurance and savings and retirement plans, if 10 per cent of our contracts lapsed we had to show cause to our company or be sacked from the agency—and quite rightly so. As Slater and Gordon’s Mr Damian Scattini put it so well at the Storm Financial public meeting recently, to sell a contract to people contracting them into losing their home if the share market didn’t continue to forever rise was, on the face of it, a gross breach of the duty of care, and they would be held to be responsible for that. Not only have the banks flagrantly breached their duty of care; they compounded the damage by precipitantly and without warning pulling the rug out from under the investors, selling shares in a woefully depressed market. Their sales of $500 million in securities further depressed the market. This appropriation package is good insofar as this calendar year Australians will spend $200 billion less than they did last financial year. In the Gordonvale coffee shop, a local businessman said he was going to buy a big truck this year; now he is not. Another said his wife and son were going to build three units this year; now they are not. You can multiply that by a million across Australia and get a picture of what is going to happen this year. People who sell nails and roofing iron will lose their jobs. Plumbers and builders will go broke. Blockmakers will lose their jobs; so will truck salesmen and diesel fitters. None of these people will have money to spend, so shops that sell clothes and appliances will retrench staff. That is the bad news. The good news is that we know how to deal with these depressions. We know now what Australia did wrong, and we also know what Britain, Japan and Germany did right during the Great Depression. The good news is that the government writes on a piece of paper, ‘I’ll pay the bearer of this piece of paper $1,000 in 15 years time and I will pay interest of five per cent each year.’ This has a technical name: it is called a treasury bond. The government prints 20 million of these and gives them to the Reserve Bank, who gives the government $20 billion to spend. The government does road work south of Cairns. A contractor buys a truck to do the work. The government builds three accommodation units in Mount Isa, so all those jobs that were going to disappear do not disappear. The truckie—a good, hardworking bloke who said he was not going to buy a truck this year—was a very conservative political supporter. He said: ‘Yeah, and who’s going to pay the money back? That’s what I want to know.’ Almost every speaker from this side of the House has said exactly that. There is precedent for it. That is exactly what the opposition said in 1932, condemning this nation to, as a leading economist said, ‘the worst depression of any country on earth’. The stupidity of the people on this side of the House condemns them; they have learned absolutely nothing. Chalky, the local RSL boss, said to his conservative supporter, who I’ll call ‘Joe’: ‘Clean the manure out of your ears—and out of your brain, too, while you’re at it. Who’s the money owed to?’ The cafe clientele laughed, for Chalky was right. The money was owed by the government to the Reserve Bank, and who is the Reserve Bank? The government, of course. Chalky then leaned over to me and said: ‘Hey, Bobby. Does Treasury know all about this?’ That is the burning question of the moment. Does Treasury understand this mechanism? They are going out borrowing money in a conventional manner, and I do not think that that is a very smart thing to do when you are looking down the gun barrel of a depression. It is a thousand times better than what has been proposed by the opposition, which appears to be to borrow no money at all and not to expand money supply whatsoever in a year that looks like it is going to be a depression, not a recession. For those who think this is some sort of economic theory from the backwoods of North Queensland, I can provide any member with the reference to pages in books by Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate in economics; John Maynard Keynes; John Kenneth Galbraith; or even George Soros. I regret to say that, before Christmas, I got out of the Parliamentary Library half-a-dozen or more books on the Great Depression and on economics in a depression. They were all available. In other words, no-one from here had applied for a single one of those books—they were not interested in knowing what you do in these sorts of situations. And still there is no request from anybody that any of those books be returned. That is depressing. Speaker after speaker tonight got up and made political points. Most showed a lack of even the most elementary understanding of economics. Thanks to John Maynard Keynes, the British hardly had a depression. They devalued 25 per cent; they reduced interest rates from five per cent to 0.65 per cent. Less than one per cent was the prevailing interest rate in Britain throughout that period. It took public works from £22 million a year to £112 million a year—Keynesian economics. So Britain hardly had a depression. Japan showed the most extraordinary growth throughout the Depression years. Takahashi Korekiyo devalued the yen by 30 per cent and raised, between 1932 and 1934, ¥830 million. This was on a total money supply of ¥11.9 billion at the time. He did this by issuing treasury bonds to the central bank—exactly the same as the process referred to at the Gordonvale cafe. He expanded money supply by 4.4 per cent per annum. In Australia, we contracted money supply during the Depression. Germany, with the great Schacht at the helm, showed the most extraordinary success, from 42 per cent unemployment or six million people, the year before Schacht, the solver of Germany’s hyperinflation, to only 400,000 unemployed by the end of 1937, the year before rearmament started. Schacht made a fiduciary issue: no borrowing; no bonds; just printed the money—the same as Theodore proposed to do in Australia. Schacht taxed heavily but provided a guaranteed income and accommodation to all. A moratorium was set up against farm foreclosures. The money was spent on the following areas: farming subsidies, financial assistance to farming, guaranteed prices for farmers, dams and irrigation, and drainage schemes for farmers. Over one million were employed and absorbed into these agricultural initiatives. Schacht put massive expenditure into the automobile industry. Huge factories were financed. Mass production exploded. The building of great autobahns was part of this program. Interestingly, the other major area was money for house repairs—a similar policy to the insulation proposal in the measures we are discussing tonight. Schacht was sacked for opposing money for rearmament in 1937, and later was the only German on record who spoke out publicly against the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews, as did his Lutheran pastor, Niemoller. Both were thrown into Dachau death camp and finished the war there. In conclusion: yes, in a depression you must borrow money, run a deficit budget, print money, expand money supply—all mean much the same thing. Fifteen months ago, such policies, as the opposition have said, would have been both irresponsible and dangerous. Now, with a depression in front of our country, it would be both irresponsible and dangerous not to embrace such policies. During the Great Depression, the banks, media elements, elements of the Labor Party—Joe Lyons for example—and the United Australia Party all tenaciously opposed Theodore and his expansionary policies. (Time expired) 374 00:38:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise today to speak in support of the government’s package of five bills introduced to give effect to this Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The bills include the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 and two appropriation bills to secure funds for a range of vital nation building infrastructure investments. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan is another decisive step by the Rudd Labor government in response to the global financial downturn. This $42 million plan contains important measures designed to protect jobs and boost activity in the Australian economy in the short term. It is estimated that the plan will support approximately 90,000 Australian jobs. It also contains measures that significantly strengthen the economy in the longer term. In doing so, the plan builds a solid foundation for the nation’s emergence from the global recession. It is a statement of optimism and capacity for action by this federal government in the face of an extraordinary situation—a situation that is not of our making. One of the major objectives of the plan is to promote confidence and optimism among Australian consumers by providing a range of tax bonuses and one-off payments. It is vital that Australians use these incentives to help stimulate activity within the economic sector. I will certainly be encouraging the residents of my electorate on the Central Coast to keep the money circulating, particularly within the regional economy, where I live and where my seat of Robertson is. The measures provided in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan will help support household budgets in what are very tough economic times. There is a recessionary climate sweeping through many of the world’s major economies at the moment. Australia does not remain unaffected by this significant downturn. In short, the Australian government cannot stop the global economic crisis, but we are in a far better position than many other countries to resist the worst of its impact. These are very challenging times for all Australians. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan is a decisive and bold package of measures designed to meet this challenge head-on. It represents the government’s second major economic stimulus package in just over four months, and together they have injected more than $52 billion into the Australian economy. The bills within the plan make provision for five key one-off payments of up to $950 which are targeted at low- and middle-income individuals and households. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 provides up to $950 in upfront lump sum tax bonuses for approximately 8.7 million Australians with a taxable income of less than $100,000. The Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 provides a further $950 as a one-off bonus payment to single-income families, farmers and farm dependent small businesses, families with school-age children and people returning to education and training. These bonus payments will have a significant and beneficial effect on many thousands of families and individuals in my electorate. The money disbursed into the economy of the Central Coast through these payments will provide an immediate boost to the regional economy. The payments will also bolster the household budgets of many of my constituents, assisting them to weather the storm, the financial challenges that all Australian households must now face. The two appropriation bills that are included in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan provide for a range of infrastructure projects as well. These programs will help strengthen the Australian economy in the long term, assisting the nation to emerge in a stronger position once the current economic cycle has passed. But there are also programs that can be brought quickly into realisation. The infrastructure programs will add directly to the demand for goods and services. They will provide a substantial boost to jobs as they come online, which is especially significant in regional areas such as my electorate. The areas of investment in which these programs will be undertaken are equally important. They also meet a real need in our community and will provide a valuable resource and build on our social infrastructure. These are long-term nation-building projects that will upgrade the nation’s roads and community infrastructure, refurbish our schools, build 20,000 new social housing dwellings and more than 800 defence homes. The plan will also assist households to create more energy efficient homes by funding insulation and increasing rebates for solar hot water systems. In addition to these measures, the bill provides important new incentives for small business. I am pleased to report that the thousands of small businesses on the Central Coast will, under the $2.7 billion business tax break component of these bills, be able to claim a 30 per cent investment tax rebate when buying eligible assets valued at over $1,000. I am particularly pleased too that the infrastructure enhancement programs contained in the plan will allow a major refit of the schools in my electorate of Robertson. The 47 primary, secondary, K-12 and special schools in Robertson—both government and non-government—will receive significant new buildings or refurbishments. Students, parents and teachers in Robertson can look forward to new or rebuilt libraries, multipurpose halls, new science and language labs and the renewal of school buildings. Every school in my electorate—like the 9½ thousand schools across Australia—can now plan ahead for the future. The practical assistance given to local schools by these measures will provide opportunities for the many schools in my electorate that have spoken to me about their needs. I have to say that one of the great pleasures I have in working in my electorate is visiting and meeting with these varieties of schools. I am very pleased to say that I have been able to meet with all but a very few of them already. A number of them have raised projects with me that may well come within the scope of this program. Schools like Point Clare Primary School, Mangrove Mountain Primary School, Davistown Primary School, St Edwards High School, Kincumber High School, Brisbane Water Secondary College and others will, I hope, all benefit and be able to bring to fruition the very important projects they discussed with me and which have the support generally of the whole school community. The Central Coast is an area of rapidly growing population where, historically, growth has outstripped the provision of infrastructure. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan will bring benefits to the region that will go a substantial way to redressing many of these problems. Increases in black spot road funding and in allocations for regional roads are a very welcome component of this plan. The $500 million expansion of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program under this plan will be welcomed by Gosford City Council, the council which covers the vast majority of my seat. The council has already benefited from $947.4 million provided by this Labor government since the election. This funding has delivered a number of major infrastructure projects to the Central Coast. They include five projects that were among my major election commitments to the people of Robertson. These five projects saw $929.85 million of infrastructure investment delivered by the federal government to Gosford City Council. They included $81 million for the Mardi Dam to Mangrove Dam water pipeline, a project shared with Wyong Council, to the north; $7 million to upgrade Gosford commuter parking station; $900,000 for a community sports precinct at Erina High School; $840 million to provide a dedicated freight rail track from Sydney to the Central Coast; and $680,000 to install CCTV security cameras in three central business districts on the peninsula. Federal funding for these projects has already been delivered to either the New South Wales government or Gosford City Council, who are now in the process of bringing the projects to the construction stage. In addition to these projects, I have fought hard to ensure that the residents of Robertson receive ongoing federal support for local roads, water supplies, utilities upgrades and vital community infrastructure items. So far this year Gosford City Council has received further ongoing funds from the federal government worth almost $18 million. This includes $1.58 million for local roads projects under the Roads to Recovery program; $4.5 million to help Gosford City Council upgrade water quality on the Woy Woy peninsula; over $2 million in round 1 of the financial assistance grants; $8.326 million in round 2 of the financial assistance grants; and $1.3 million in community infrastructure program grants. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan will help Gosford City Council even further in its efforts to provide a vital community infrastructure for residents. Gosford council can now plan to complete strategic projects held up by lack of funds, such as playgrounds, community and cultural centres and sporting facilities. The building of 20,000 new social houses and the urgent upgrade of more than 2,500 vacant social houses are important steps towards redressing a chronic shortage of low-income housing in my electorate and right across Australia. I am particularly proud of this initiative in light of the urgent and growing need on the Central Coast. Other members have spoken about the waiting lists and I have to say that, unfortunately, on the Central Coast the waiting time for state housing is now 10 years. That means that, in practice, it is inaccessible for most people. Again, I must emphasise my pleasure that small businesses will benefit, too, from the 30 per cent investment tax break. With my many years as an operator of a small business, I understand what a great help this can be. Homeowners and renters can get financial assistance to turn their homes into energy efficient dwellings. The solar hot water rebate will increase from $1,000 to $1,600 and will not be means-tested. The government will pay for the installation of ceiling insulation and renters will be helped to insulate their houses. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan is a comprehensive and timely package of measures that will certainly have a very positive impact on the Australian economy. In regional areas such as the Central Coast the plan will do much to shield local families, businesses and individuals from the global financial downturn. It will put money in people’s pockets and help support family incomes through these tough times. This support will sustain people’s confidence, optimism and hopes for their future and the future of their children. The bonus payments also will help stimulate spending on goods and services within my region on the Central Coast. The one-off bonus payments of up to $950, targeted at people on low and middle incomes, represent great news for the Central Coast economy. In addition, the nation-building infrastructure programs will impact positively on areas of vital concern to the region such as schools, social housing, roads, community infrastructure and energy efficient homes. The major program of refurbishing the schools of the Central Coast is a practical initiative that I am very pleased about, as will be all residents of Robertson as they become aware of it. I sincerely hope that the opposition will take seriously its responsibility to the Australian people by passing these measures without delay and without displaying the opportunism that I have become accustomed to in a very short time as a member of the government. The Australian people must not be held to ransom by the opposition’s delaying tactics. I commend the bills to the House. 377 00:52:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I rise tonight to oppose the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills because I cannot in good faith support something that amounts to a panic response to a problem that is confronting this nation. I also oppose these measures in protest at the way they were introduced into this House. There has been wide-ranging debate tonight and contributions from both sides of the House that I have certainly enjoyed. But we have to get beyond saying that having a question about a bill that represents the largest amount of money that any Australian government has ever spent in one go and expressing reservations about that when we have had a bit over 12 hours to look at it is opportunism or politicisation. I think that does this place no justice. I did not come down here to represent the electorate of Parkes to offer blind support to anyone. I worked very hard to obtain the seat that I occupy here and I will not exercise my vote without due consideration of the facts. There is no doubt that we are facing a time of great economic uncertainty. Unfortunately, in this debate, our side of the argument has been misrepresented. The extraordinary contribution by the member for Kennedy to say that the opposition has no contribution, no ideas and merely does not want to go into deficit is blatantly untrue. We certainly have ideas. Our concern with this package is that it is ill conceived. We believe that $42 billion is a grossly inflated amount to spend at this point. As the situation across the world unfolds, we need to have something in reserve. I think it is very risky to put all your hopes in one big shot. Half of this amount would have been more appropriate. Also some of the areas of spending are misdirected. Apart from that, we have seen very little detail of this proposal. I was speaking to someone from my electorate tonight and they said, ‘Why are you bothering to debate this all night?’ I have asked that myself. The sum is $42 billion and we are expected to make a decision in this place. I am fortunate that it is now five to one but I expect that we will still be here at seven or eight o’clock this morning. The point is: if I do not offer a contribution, if I do not explain my reservations with this, I am offering docile support. Certainly, the people of the Parkes electorate do not expect that of their representative. There is no doubt that $950 would be very welcome to a lot of people in my electorate. My electorate does not have a lot of wealthy people. For many of my constituents $950 is a lot of money. But the point that I raise with my constituents when I speak to them is that $950 actually equates to a $2,000 debt for every man woman and child. The appropriation bill that was put in with this legislation this morning, the one-page piece of legislation that is going to increase the government’s ability to borrow from $75 billion to $200 billion equates to a $10,000 debt for every man, woman and child in this country. As I said today to some of my own adult children who are working, in years to come when they are frustrated about the lack of construction in health, schools, roads, whatever it might be, they will have long forgotten what they spent the $950 on. It is the billions of dollars of interest that is going to be repaid over the years to come that is going to very much hamstring our future generations. It is absolutely astonishing that in nine months this government has taken our economy from a $22 billion surplus into this massive level of debt considering that Australia has probably been the best placed and least affected of the countries around the world by this economic crisis. There has been a lot of discussion tonight, particularly from the government benches, about the importance of investing in schools. You will get no argument from me. One of the members said that he had 60 schools in his electorate and many of them would be eligible for up to $3 million in expenditure. I have approximately 150 schools in my electorate. Not many of them have over 400 students. Not many of them will be eligible for major pieces of building construction. Once again this package will be skewed to the metropolitan areas at the expense of regional communities. As a new member going around my electorate I have found that universally at the schools I attend people sing the praises of the Investing in Our Schools Program of the previous government. I am not surprised that this government has reintroduced a spending package for schools, because they are run-down and in need of maintenance. There is no argument from me on that. But are we arguing the need to spend money on schools or are we arguing the need to borrow $42 billion at this point in time? Unfortunately, as is the wont of this government, rather than letting the school communities decide where the money will be spent, they have been quite prescriptive about where it should go. Two of the largest schools in my electorate, Narrabri High School and Coonabarabran High School, are in desperate need of a multipurpose centre but, as they are high schools, under this program they are eligible for a language laboratory or a science laboratory. I have primary schools in my electorate that are in need of things other than an assembly hall, but that is what is on offer to them. Fourteen billion dollars is a massive amount of money. I believe that amount could have been much less and could have been given to the local school communities to use at their discretion. The other thing that concerns me is the involvement of the state governments in this. I know that dealing with state governments has been a frustration for the previous government and for this one, but unfortunately we have to. The idea that a financial stimulus can be done quickly by filtering money through the state governments I am afraid is misplaced. Who knows where the world economy will be by the time a program is put in place and by the time the state governments can get their act together to work out where this money is to be spent? Quite frankly, it would be better if it were left up to the discretion of the schools. There are some massive problems with maintenance. At one of the high school campuses in Moree the toilet block offers no privacy for teenage girls. In this day and age that is a scandal. But by the time this package goes through the process and through the state government many months, if not years, will have passed. Another omission is health. Health is without question the biggest issue in my electorate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you heard the debate in question time about the issues at Dubbo Base Hospital and Greater Western Area Health Service. The people at the Dubbo Base Hospital in western New South Wales, which services 200,000 people, may have accepted this package if there were the possibility of a new hospital. But there is no money in it for health. I have a hardworking community in Gunnedah who are trying to build a rural health centre where medical students can be trained, in a facility attached to the hospital, to help grow the medical profession in rural areas and provide a much-needed service to a thriving rural community. There is nowhere in this package that funding for this can be obtained. The other great omission is aged care. I turned 51 yesterday—not an age that I am overly proud of but, seeing the Australian had me down as 60 years old in an article in January, I am quite relieved that I am still 51—so I am at the bottom end of the baby boomers. I have been saying to young people today that they will have to make places for my generation in their spare rooms to look after us in our old age, because we are looking at a huge crisis in aged care. The baby boomer bubble is coming towards aged care at a rapid rate. Aged care is struggling at the moment, and now is the time to provide for the baby boomers who are coming through and help us adapt to the changing face of aged care. I am sure anyone here would know that aged care has much greater need for higher care beds. We have moved away substantially from the hostel type accommodation. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to put something in place to cater for that, but unfortunately aged care missed out as well. Another area that has been overlooked is water. The use of water, the saving of water and the allocation of water is one of the major problems that we are facing at this particular time. If we are going to boost the economy through infrastructure spending, there would be no better time to replumb the Murray-Darling Basin, no better time to reengineer Menindee Lakes and put a substantial boost of water into the Darling and down to the lower Murray. But those sorts of projects have been ignored. Rural transport has been overlooked. Rural air services are in crisis. I have three or four towns in my electorate that have lost air services in the last couple of months. While that is bad enough for tourism and business people, the real crisis with the lack of air services is in supplying medical services. The Walgett Aboriginal Medical Service relies on fly-in fly-out medical specialists, whether they be heart specialists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, cancer specialists or whatever. They fly in and fly out. Without an air service, it then becomes a health issue as well as a transport issue. One of the reasons that these airlines are having trouble and lacking confidence in the future is the removal of the en route subsidy. It would not take a lot of money, but all these things could have been looked at if we were going to have a balanced approach to the spending package. Another area that missed out, of course, is the inland rail line. In previous times of hardship, if you look back in Australian history, you see that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built after the Great Depression. There was the Snowy Mountains scheme, built after the Second World War. Major infrastructure projects have had the ability to get the country back into focus. A steel Mississippi between Melbourne and Brisbane would have a major effect, not only growing the economy of Australia but also providing a backbone to grow the economy of regional Australia. This is not mentioned at all in this package. Another area that made for much merriment for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry this afternoon was the largesse—the $950—that is going to the 21,500 farmers. Until a short time ago I was a farmer, and to put it in context that $950 would not have fuelled my tractor up once. To think that farmers are going to be overjoyed to get $950, and for the agriculture minister to pillory members of the National Party today because he claims they do not represent their electorates, really shows that he is a minister out of touch with the portfolio. My farmers are terribly worried about government debt. I have not had one phone call from a farmer saying, ‘Why aren’t you sticking up for another $950?’ They are more likely to say, ‘What are we going to do after the end of March, when EC runs out?’ This is a joke. The minister for agriculture, at most times, is an approachable and very pleasant minister and at times I have had a great relationship with him, but to get up and use the dire situation that we are in today, use this $45 billion package to make cheap shots at members of this House, I think is grossly inappropriate. I am thinking that perhaps the minister for agriculture is a closet National. I know he does have a pair of RM Williams boots and a felt hat, and maybe it is the politics of envy rather than the politics of ignorance. The Prime Minister said he realises that the people in the bush are doing it tough, but there is very, very little in this package for the bush. If you talk to anyone out there in my electorate, they will say that they are used to tightening their belts, they are used to knuckling down and they are well aware of the consequences of a government that goes into massive debt. I am most upset at the way this legislation has been brought to the House and the fact that we are here at this time of the night to debate something of this magnitude with so very little opportunity for any research. 381 01:10:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 0 Ms CAMPBELL — I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. This government faces stark choices in its response to what is an unprecedented global financial crisis. The Rudd government has responded in a way which gives Australia, and indeed the people in the electorate of Bass, hope that one day this crisis will have passed and in its wake will be a stronger, more confident and infinitely improved nation. The Rudd government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan makes a virtue out of necessity. More than 9½ thousand schools across the country, 56 of them in Bass, will share in $14.7 billion to build new or to upgrade existing buildings. In Bass, we have 36 government schools, 13 non-government schools and seven Catholic schools. Each and every one stands to benefit. So too the many people who will be employed as a result. It is impossible to put a price on the value of education, and our students deserve to learn in environments which are conducive to striving for excellence. I am fortunate in this job in that I am able to visit schools across Northern Tasmania and see firsthand some of the amazing endeavours of both educators and students. I am proud to be part of a government which is committed to an education revolution. In fact, so committed is this government that just last month the schools across Bass shared in more than $1.7 million granted through the Rudd government’s computers in schools program. It is part of an education revolution. The Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan builds on that revolution. It acknowledges that not every school, be it state, private, independent or Catholic, has the basic building blocks necessary to provide an adequate learning environment. That is something which I have seen firsthand. As I said, I am fortunate in that I have spent time in many of the schools in Bass, one of which is Flinders Island District High School. In July last year, I was given a tour of the school by a passionate and committed Gary Sykes. Gary spoke with enthusiasm and determination about the endeavours of his amazing students. We saw artwork, projects and sporting achievements. What I also saw was substandard learning spaces. That is by no means a commentary on Flinders Island District High School. The education which its educators provide is beyond question and their efforts are reflected in the students. But some of the school’s facilities are better suited to the 1950s than the 21st century—and, believe me, this is not an isolated case. This is why this massive investment in education infrastructure is so vital. It will boost employment and improve the quality of facilities such as science laboratories, gymnasiums and libraries. I note that when the Prime Minister announced this stimulus package he made special mention of language laboratories and improving the environment in which our young people learn languages other than English. This is fundamental to our nation’s future and it is something which I have heard loud and clear from my electorate of Bass. Last year I took the opportunity of hosting a local 2020 summit. It was the only local summit of its kind in Tasmania, and one of the ideas which was generated and then fed into the Australian 2020 Summit here in Canberra was a greater emphasis on languages other than English in our schools. I am hopeful that, when the dust has settled from this global economic crisis we will have, through the endeavours of this government, a greatly improved nation. I am hopeful that there will indeed be a silver lining to what is an enormous cloud. This is not to make light of the fate which awaits the hundreds of thousands of Australians who face unemployment through a situation not of this country’s or indeed this government’s making. Make no mistake about it: those opposite may choose to criticise and they may seem to capitalise politically on this situation, but as a government we have chosen action over rhetoric, nation building over politics and decisive measures over sitting back and watching helplessly as our economy falters and our communities suffer. In my electorate 7,790 families will receive the back-to-school bonus. I know from my discussions with parents and with educators how valuable that assistance will be as children head back to school next week. And 1,465 people on youth allowance and 3,116 people on Newstart allowance will receive the training and learning bonus. That is $950 to support study costs. It has been said numerous times in this House over the last 24 hours, but I believe it can be said again: this government has taken decisive action to protect the future of Australian workers—$42 billion, 90,000 jobs and an unprecedented response to the increasingly severe global recession. We have faced much criticism from those opposite about the state of the budget. It needs to be remembered, however, that the global recession has wiped $115 billion off government revenue and has imposed a deficit on the budget. But, in the face of the most serious global recession since the Great Depression, we make no apology for choosing to support Australian jobs. We are laying the groundwork for a stronger, better nation when the global financial crisis has passed. That is something which has been acknowledged in Tasmania by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, by the education union, by the building industry and by the Tasmanian government. Across Bass and, indeed, across my home state, there is a high proportion of workers on incomes which make them eligible for up to $950 through the cash payment. Around 21 farmers will be eligible for the hardship payment. I would say in response to the member for Parkes that those 21 farmers are actually very grateful. He might like to look at Hansard, the media releases and the words that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has spoken in the last 24 hours. This is practical assistance for communities and a much-needed stimulus for the nation. This national plan is about building a better country. It is about better roads, better schools and a cleaner, greener climate. But, more than that, it is about people. This government brought into office a commitment to act on homelessness. For too long it was an issue which was put in the too-hard basket—but no more. Twenty thousand new social dwelling homes will be built and urgent maintenance carried out on a further 2,500. There are people who spend nights on the street in Launceston, Scottsdale, George Town and right across Bass, Tasmania and the country. There are too many people who sleep rough every night and too many people who rely on the tireless generosity of organisations like Launceston City Mission. This package is about roads, black spots, boom gates, community infrastructure, boosting economic growth by a half to three-quarters of a per cent of GDP and it is about bracing the economy against the onslaught of a global recession, but it is also fundamentally about people. The government is acting to reduce the number of people who will lose their jobs. We are acting to ease the financial pressure under which families and workers are struggling. We are acting in the face of economic adversity, and all those opposite can do is oppose—not because they are acting in the interests of the nation but because they are seeking to make political mileage out of a situation which should really be above politics. To that end, I commend the government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan to the House. 383 01:19:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. It is early morning here in Australia’s capital. While most of Australia sleeps, the coalition is seeking to ensure that the nation does not sleepwalk into a poorly designed, irresponsible and unsustainable package dreamt up by a panicked government. The only certain outcome of this package is waking up to the nightmare of decades of excessive debt and deficit. We are working to ensure that our nation makes wise choices and the right choices in the face of the current global economic downturn. There is no question that these are challenging times that require the best of all of us. However, the best of all of us needs to be embraced by a collaborative and cooperative approach that builds a shared purpose and purposeful action. This collaboration cannot merely be an event or gesture but must be an ongoing process of engagement—not the arrogant and intolerant ‘take it or leave it’ and ‘damn well take it now’ attitude displayed by Prime Minister Rudd and his inexperienced government. Surely no-one believes that now is the only time for action or decision, that some kind of financial and economic management auctioneer’s hammer is about to fall and that there will be no more time for bids, input or inquiry? This is an important time to take action, to make significant and important decisions and to honestly and openly review the success or otherwise of our interventions. We should adjust and refine our plans as we gain new insights and evidence, and anticipate and prepare for the actions, decisions and further interventions still ahead of us. We are lectured about the uniqueness and the immediacy of the risks and the dangers of the current global economy. Rather than embrace the care, consideration and thoughtful calibration such a characterisation would warrant, the Prime Minister uses this assessment as some kind of juvenile justification to avoid scrutiny, examination and any suggestion or canvassing of alternative courses of action. The Australian public is force-fed the line from the Prime Minister and his Labor government ministers that there is no template for action, no guidance and no pathway that exists based on previous experience, that this is all new and we lack a silver bullet. But we are simultaneously told by Mr Rudd that he, and only he, has the perfect plan that cannot be adulterated by any input, insight or contribution from anyone else and which certainly cannot be distracted by nuisance questioning. Which one is it, Prime Minister? No template, no sure thing? Or is it your TINA template—There Is No Alternative solution? It clearly cannot be both. Worryingly, the Rudd Labor government continues to apply its solution based evidence approach to policy development, where a preconceived course of action seeks out snippets of an argument, commentary or some little bit of analysis that might seem to validate or endorse what is a focus group tested, politically advantageous course of action. Beyond the selective, cherry-picked concoctions of self-serving commentary the Australian public is subjected to by Labor members of parliament is a choir of compliant, all too keen to please parroting and droning focus group tested mantras. This all too familiar brand of Labor politicking, perfected in dysfunctional and self-preservation-first inspired state and territory governments—and not all that evident in governments here in the Commonwealth until the ugly face of Labor’s new federalism appeared—is what we are facing with this package. We have seen in TV’s The Hollowmen mockumentary the whistle test—when big money draws a whistle. To get the reaction, just to make sure it is the right size that says there is a strong message, that this is big and we are serious, you have got to pass the whistle test. The favourable language and the presentational imperatives of an announcement and media sound bites make sure the action is dressed to impress. Witness the banner draped over the bills we are debating, the Orwellian National Building and Jobs Plan. So much of it has so little to do with any credible notion of nation building but is overwhelmingly concerned with Prime Minister Rudd and his Labor government ministers seeking to keep their jobs. It is not too interested in the jobs of Australians. This Rudd Labor government set of bills is clearly and indisputably more about political tactics and advantage than an economic strategy and the national interest. The most honest depiction of the legislation before the House is that these are bills in the form of proposed laws, but also bills in the terms of what future generations will face as the only certain outcome from what we are debating tonight. There is no question about the need for an economic stimulus. There is clear consensus about this. This agreed need for action, however, is just the starting point, the beginning of the conversation. The scale, nature, timing and the composition are all legitimate aspects of debate and an essential framework for considering what part of the plan might actually look like and what success will actually look like. Prime Minister Rudd has sought to exploit the anxiety of the Australian community and to use uncertainty and these unprecedented global events as a cover for his decision making and as a ready alibi to claims of error or evidence of ineffectiveness. He just says: ‘It is unprecedented. It is uncertain. How could you possibly hold me to account for these actions?’ We will hold the government to account, but we aim to enhance this nation’s response to the challenges that we face. Any attempt to evaluate Prime Minister Rudd’s prescription to cure the ills of the economy is rejected as either pointless or ill informed. He still says there is no template or precedent for effective intervention yet assures us that in some Labor la-la land there is such certainty, that they can claim some certainty and that this package is the natural love child of such certainty. How can you be so uncertain and so certain at the same time? We need to select the right course of action. With Labor’s assurances that we are on precisely the right track ringing in our ears, we look for some kind of guidance and are told there is none. We look for some kind of precedence to justify that and are told that will not be found, either. Then we are left to look to experience, and we are told by Treasurer Swan there is so little to be gained in looking to find guidance from political economic experts or economic academics. I do not think that is quite right. While academics might not be able to provide the answers and solutions to the current challenges and downturn, there is a template. That template is how you go about gaining the insights and formulating the plans of action that are required, how you seek to understand the impact of our interventions and how we learn from those things to shape more informed plans. We go through a reiteration; we constantly improve our actions, we learn more about the impact of our interventions and we move forward more knowledgeable as a result. This is called action research. This is not some new, unprecedented approach; this is a familiar plan, act, observe and reflect model. It is practical and inclusive, and you seek to gain new knowledge and new insights. You seek to find answers to questions you are not certain about. Above all, it is an accountable and adaptive approach. You need to define what it is you are trying to achieve. You need to be open and frank about what the problems are you are trying to solve. You need to take account of the vagaries of human behaviour and people’s reactions to events going on around them. You test and evaluate your actions and your interventions. You use those learnings to inform what to do next. It is an ongoing cycle where we learn and improve and, through that, we find our way forward. How does the Rudd Labor government’s approach stack up against this action research learning? It would require open and transparent declaration of what the question is, what the government is trying to achieve and what the problems are that we are trying to solve. If that is the purpose, why do we not hear what those solutions, what those goals and what those objectives are? If this is about economic stimulus, how does the action plan stack up against that goal and what have we learned? In the pre-Christmas cash splash, funded from the budget surplus created by the sound economic management of the Howard government, we were told that was supposed to kick along the economy. Despite the more-likely-to-work factors of the funding program going to pensioners and low- and middle-income families in the lead-up to Christmas, we learned that less than a third of that money has actually been spent. We know the vast majority used the payments to buttress their own personal balance sheets by paying off debt or boosting their savings in the face of uncertain times. In this package, the Labor government wants to repeat the exercise, but it has changed some things. This time the funding is not from the surplus but comes from damaging the Commonwealth’s own balance sheet by paying it to those who arguably have greater scope for discretionary expenditure than any pensioner could ever imagine and paying it at a time when the consumer momentum and pressure certainly does not look like Christmas. Does that make it more or less likely to be an effective stimulus? Is that going to be more targeted than the pre-Christmas payment? Surely the answer is less. As the shadow Treasurer asked during question time today, as the government boasted that there had been a $700 million boost to retail sales as a result of the pre-Christmas spend, where did the rest of the Rudd government’s $10.4 billion package go? Did the flow-through fraction of the government create the 75,000 jobs that were promised? No. We cannot even get an answer to these questions. There is no reflection on the actual performance to shape a more informed course of action; we are just going to do much the same, even though the evidence out there is that that earlier package did not go anywhere near achieving what the government claimed it was seeking to address. It will be much more of something similar, ignoring the obvious, less-likely-to-work factors and putting the price of the gamble on the national Visa card when the only certain outcome is the unwelcome gift of debt and deficit for future generations. The only thing the Rudd government appear to have learned is to not claim a job creation figure. They have ditched the idea of creating a job creation figure for the funds expended and talk in these woolly, unaccountable and unmeasurable terms of supporting jobs. The jobs impact is an unwelcome focus for the Rudd government, but that is what this should all be about. What is the impact on jobs? The use of one-off cash payments to pay down debt or boost personal savings is an entirely sensible, rational and prudent thing to do in the face of uncertainty and anxiety about the risk of diminished future economic and employment prospects. A cash windfall delivered in response to turbulent economic seas is sensibly and understandably used by many to batten down the hatches of their own personal finances and balance sheets. What would be a sensible human response to the modest percentage that seems to have flowed through to consumption from the pre-Christmas allocation—an increase in consumption that is likely to be even less from this current proposal? Would a business faced with the possibility of a one-off spike in activity that stemmed from a one-off cash injection change the structure of their business? Are they going to alter the number of people they employ? No. To look at one example, in the great city of Melbourne, my hometown, in the last week we have suffered under sweltering heat. I went down to Good Guys, a retail outlet in Frankston, and they do a terrific job. What I saw was a line and an excited group as everyone pushed to buy air conditioners and air coolers. What I saw was a business recognising that customers were doing something on a one-off basis. While the extreme heat meant the trains could not run because the tracks warped, while we could not sit under a tree because we do not have enough water to water our gardens, while we could not keep the electricity going because there is not sustainability and robustness in that system, people were looking to get some relief from the heat. What would a business proprietor do in a one-off, temporary change in circumstances? Are they going to go out and recruit more people? Are they going to change their employment profile? I think not. What they will probably do is grab the folks selling range hoods and cooktops, who were not all that busy, and say, ‘Hey! Come over and help out here temporarily.’ That is the impact of a temporary change in circumstances. Temporary action is taken as a result. This is why the coalition’s proposition of bringing forward the tax cuts is important, because that is a permanent change in circumstance. That provides a permanent basis on which greater activity would flow through the economy. That provides an opportunity for businesses to say, ‘Maybe we might not have this huge surge in activity but we might have a more sustained, robust, continuous increase in our activity.’ I am really surprised that members opposite are now heckling about the tax cuts. Is this the first sign? So quick is Labor to ridicule the tax cuts, are they now on the table? Are we going to not see these promised tax cuts come through? Is that what we are anticipating? So strong is the ridicule of the tax cut measure which we simply want to bring forward because we recognise that permanency brings about sustained behavioural change— RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr —A revenue-raising tax cut! 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —The member opposite is still heckling about the tax cut proposal. This is a revelation. It is half past one in the morning and Labor members opposite have rallied against the coalition’s proposal to bring forward tax cuts. I would say to those people listening—and I imagine there will not be many—I suspect these tax cuts are up for the chop. How could Labor go around ridiculing the idea of tax cuts as being so inappropriate and then simply go along with them? Watch this space: tax cuts promised are up for the chop. I think that is something we need to watch out for. Let us think this through. If you are looking for behavioural change, if you are looking to get confidence, if you are looking to nurture optimism in the face of these challenges, these temporary measures are not going to do it. They are viewed as artificial, unsustainable, and people behave accordingly. That is why the economic and employment security benefits, the job boost, the opportunity to promote genuine growth from these one-off cash splashes, are at best dubious and superficial and, more than likely, far from proven. Put simply, government expenditure simply runs through to the GDP figures and that is all it is really on about. Is the government really only interested in boosting its own GDP stats or is it interested in using this money to make more robust employment opportunities for Australia? Is the government simply looking to have its expenditure counted whether or not there is any beneficial impact on creating jobs or lifting and sustaining demand for goods and services? I raise this statistical aspect because I think it reveals the Rudd Labor government’s true motives. The House of Representatives is likely to sit all night because the government claims it is essential to pass this package so Commonwealth agencies have the time to gear up for the big spend to hit the streets at the time the Rudd government have chosen. Why have they chosen that time? Household stimulus payments distributed by Centrelink will appear in March. That will then prop up the March quarter GDP figures. The so-called tax bonus for working Australian families will be paid via the ATO in April and that will enhance the June quarter GDP figures. Two quarters of negative economic growth is the technical definition of a recession. The Rudd government is doing nothing more than trying to inoculate itself from the perfect storm of a Keatingesque economic climate, where the number out of work is up, the size of the deficit is up, the accumulated Commonwealth debt is up and the hardship stemming from Labor’s recession is up. The only job this is about is doing a job on the Statistician to push these numbers around so that these quarters of economic growth do not provide the basis for claims of a recession. Labor cannot afford to give this nation another recession, whether it had to have one or, as the argument is being made, it could not help but have one. This cash splash could be better used, as the opposition leader outlined, in permanent tax cuts. I was very interested to listen to the Lateline interview tonight with Professor Robert Shiller. He is credited with being one of the few who actually predicted the economic storm that we are currently managing. He equated the permanency of tax cuts with the normality of consumer spending patterns and the normal growing economy. He highlighted that one-off artificial payments are unlikely to change the essential character and content of the economy and therefore have little impact on the long-term benefits to the economy. In the few minutes that are left, I want to talk about some of the things that are and are not in this package. I have touched on the tax cuts. I think the Rudd Labor government would be well served to take the coalition and the opposition leader into their confidence and work through the reality of the impact of a permanent tax cut compared to the temporary, one-off cash-splash. The superannuation guarantee is important. Businesses that are struggling do not want to be asked by the Rudd Labor government to find more money and go and spend that money so that they might get 30 per cent back. That does not make sense. If your cash is tight, why would you want to spend 100 per cent to get 30 per cent back? It is illogical. If cash flow is tight, the relief that is available through the government playing a role in supporting the payment of superannuation guarantee payments is an immediate cash boost and cash flow advantage for small businesses. That needs to be looked at. The reincarnation of the Investing in Our Schools Program is welcome. We need to be realistic about how much of those resources we can get out in the time available and the impediments of state government bureaucracies and appropriate tendering practice. Funding for black spots and rail intersections has merit. The building industry measures are very interesting. I wonder why it is we are focusing on parts of the building industry and not all of it? Have you ever thought of the boost that could be available through renovation? Renovation does not have some of the development approval barriers that a new development or a new dwelling might have. It has speed and nimbleness. Why is that something that has not been canvassed? What of the backlog of development approvals that is bogged down in state government administrative appeal courts? There are about 1,800 cases in VCAT in Victoria alone, not to mention the thousands of cases that are sitting waiting for consideration in council offices. That involves people wanting to spend their own money on projects of their choosing, of design and characteristics that they have determined. Isn’t that something we should seek to liberate and to facilitate rather than decide how people should spend their money? As was pointed out to me about the insulation measure, getting insulation into people’s homes is very important. But as opposition leader Turnbull pointed out, there is a net economic advantage in making that investment. We should focus on encouraging and facilitating that investment. What about policy alignment? Do you know there is $300 billion worth of government activity going on that does not seem to come into this conversation? How can we be confident that these measures will actually be executed and implemented when there are so many lags on funding commitments that are already funded in the budget? Why not get on with the projects and programs that are already funded? Finally, what about self-funded retirees? Where is their support coming from? There should be an immediate reduction in the deeming rate. That is within the government’s purview. Get on with it. Those who believed Treasurer Swan and Prime Minister Rudd that the inflation genie was out of the bottle and the only way for interest rates was way, way up should expect the government to use its swanning around and cajoling with the banking sector to cut some slack for those people so they can convert over to variable rates. Finally, green building opportunities are everywhere. Open your eyes, Government, and get on with them. (Time expired) 388 01:39:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —I take great pride in contributing to this debate, with my colleagues on this side of the House, and to add my voice to the crescendo of voices not only on this side but outside this building. Every credible economic commentator, every school principal, every person dealing with the homeless issue, every builder, every businessman and tradesman, every industry representative and every business council representative in this country is adding their voice to the crescendo to say to those on the other side of the House, ‘Wake up to yourselves and get behind this package of bills for the sake of the country and the economy, and in relation to this investment in our children’s education, for the sake of our kids, for the sake of the future of this country,’ and I would also like to say, for the sake of regional Australia. I am very proud to represent regional Australia in this building on behalf of the people of Eden-Monaro. Not supporting this package of bills is, yet again, evidence of the failure of those opposite to look after the interests of the men and women of the bush. We have seen further evidence of that tonight, as I understand senators have blocked the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 and cognate bills. That is a tragedy for all of those involved in the horse industry in Eden-Monaro, which is one of the great horse culture regions of this country. They will be absolutely devastated that the legislation has been blocked—further evidence that the Rudd Labor government now represents the interests of the people in the bush, who have been totally abandoned by those opposite. There has been a lot of comment in this debate about the economic circumstances in general as this package of bills emerges. We have seen comment about the Deputy Prime Minister’s visit to Davos and her comments about the robustness of our basic economic framework. It has also been a great privilege for us to hear the voice of the member for Higgins for the first time in the year I have been in this building. I am sure the people of the electorate of Higgins are delighted by the massive production they have had from their member in this past year! But it was a privilege to hear him and also to hear him last night on Lateline. It was very interesting to hear him talk about the last 12-year period. He talked about the deficit they inherited and that economic framework, but what the Deputy Prime Minister was talking about at Davos was the foundation laid by the Hawke-Keating government. That foundation is what has given the economic framework strength. What were the key measures during that time? Of course there was bank regulation reform, which gave strength to our banking industry and put our big four banks in the top 20 banks of the world with a AA credit rating, which has seen them weather this storm and become beacons to financial institutions around the world. They floated the dollar and that is one of the key shock absorbers in the variation of economic circumstances. How welcome is that now? The falling dollar has assisted our exports and has certainly greatly assisted our tourism industry. For the electorate of Eden-Monaro that is a highly significant feature. We have enjoyed one of the best summer tourist seasons in quite a long time because of the falling dollar and the expensiveness of travelling overseas, along with falling interest rates and petrol prices. So the floating of the dollar was highly significant. The introduction and promotion of a collective bargaining system based on enterprise productivity helped to generate the prosperity we enjoyed during those 12 years, which members opposite attempted to destroy. I will come back to that point, but I give credit to the member for Higgins and the government for introducing in 1998 the APRA mechanism for regulating our authorised deposit institutions. That was a contribution to our regulatory framework, but that is it. Look for anything else in the 12 years of the Howard government and their contribution to the future of this county and you see that they dropped the ball in every other respect. How so? Primarily by putting monetary and fiscal policy in conflict, which generated the pressure on interest rates and inflation, and, more significantly, by failing the country on key infrastructure and skills needs. They dropped the ball for the future of this country. They played the Calvin Coolidge of our time and did not see what was coming. They laughed and scoffed at suggestions that the mining boom might not last. It is incredible when you think about how quickly their ignorance and their mindless optimism came to be exposed. The comments and prescience of the Prime Minister, which was scoffed at, have been completely borne out. We are still waiting to hear any kind of plan from members opposite. I was listening very carefully last night during the Lateline program to the member for Higgins when he was asked specifically by the presenter— RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr —He should get a life. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr KELLY —Yes, he should—and I should. I was waiting very carefully and patiently to hear the member for Higgins respond to the question of what he would do in the current circumstances. And I listened carefully to the member for Higgins today. I did not hear an answer; I did not hear a response. There is nothing coming out of the mouth of the member for Higgins that addresses this current crisis. There is nothing coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition—the man rapidly becoming known as ‘Milton Turnbull’. There is nothing coming out of the mouth of the shadow Treasurer, except the most extraordinary thing I think I have ever heard and I think the Australian community has ever heard: the suggestion that we should introduce tax cuts in order to raise government revenue. I am still to have explained to me how that could work. Watching the shadow Treasurer try and explain that on various programs has been almost like watching a butterfly have its wings pulled off. It is very sad to see. So we have had nothing—no contributions, no plans, no ideas—which just builds upon that decade of a barren plain of imagination that was the Howard years. Why is that? It is because what we are dealing with with those opposite is a do-nothing band of ideologues of the rampant free market, which is what got us into this problem globally in the first place. This was very apparent when they gained control of the Senate. This was when the extreme right-wing elements of those opposite were allowed to have their free rein—that extreme right-wing element that still captures and imprisons the Leader of the Opposition today and that also made life miserable for his predecessor, the member for Bradfield. What did they do with that power when they acquired the authority of the Senate to pass their legislation? Immediately, they launched on a process to dismantle the advances of those Hawke-Keating years in producing collective productivity bargaining. In the pursuit of the so-called free labour market Work Choices was introduced. Work Choices destroyed the basis upon which our enterprises were achieving productivity by destroying that team ethos that is so well understood by Australians in general. You cannot move your enterprise forward without the workforce and management lining up together, shouldering the burden, coming up with the strategies and ideas and making sacrifices at times to move an enterprise forward. We have certainly heard criticism of the Hawke-Keating deficit. Yes, we were in deficit at that period of time because it was a time of recession, and that is what happens in recessions. It is dishonest to raise criticisms about that, because every time there is a recession it is incumbent upon government to stimulate the economy, and revenues will fall and deficits will occur. Because those opposite do not understand that, they will never be capable of managing a recession or a global downturn in a way that deals with the social as well as the economic impacts of these crises on the people out there whom, I am very proud to say, the Labor Party represents and defends. The 90,000 jobs that will be saved by these measures will certainly be well appreciated. We have heard those opposite scoff at the impact of the first package of $10.4 billion that was introduced towards the end of last year. They say it was a cash flush which had no impact. But let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can absolutely attest to the fact that the impact of that package in Eden-Monaro was particularly well received; it was enormous. It gave us the best summer tourist season we have had in a long time. The benefits of that season will carry through for the rest of this year. Certainly the measures that supported our 25,000 welfare recipients and 10,500 low-income families were very well received by those people, but they also helped to sustain our small businesses. So there is no denying that that first injection had an enormous impact and has helped to sustain this country and its economy. The new measures will also be of magnificent support to the people of Eden-Monaro. There will be help for the 9,000 low-income families in Eden-Monaro who will get the back-to-school bonus, and the tax measures for low-income earners and single-income families will also be well received. The help for the 234 farms in Eden-Monaro which are under exceptional circumstances status will be very well received, let me tell you. But more important is the magnificent measure of nearly $15 billion to build the education revolution, which will benefit 62 primary schools and 19 high schools in Eden-Monaro. The benefit of multipurpose halls in regional and rural Australia just cannot be overestimated. The multiplier effect of having employment generated for this work in smaller rural and regional towns will be a real force in holding these towns together and keeping the economy going. It will have an enormous impact, and that is obviously not understood by those opposite. This is an investment in the future. There has been underinvestment in education by those opposite, but finally there will be investment in learning centres, libraries, science and language laboratories, and other facilities to help drive the future generations that will give us the prosperity that this country must have. My region has always been very concerned about the climate change issue. In a region like Eden-Monaro this issue jumps up and slaps you in the face. Certainly, people will be very appreciative of the insulation measure. The Clean Energy for Eternity movement, which has broad based support in my region, understands these practical measures. This measure will cover the 40 per cent of homes that have no insulation and will reduce our carbon emissions by 4.7 million tonnes per year and 49.4 million tonnes by 2020. As the minister for environment mentioned, this will be the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. This environmental issue will be complemented by the solar hot water initiative. The $6.4 billion boost to build 20,000 new public dwellings will also be very well received, particularly in my home town of Queanbeyan. The Home in Queanbeyan project, which sought to address the homeless situation in that town with the community’s own energy, will be ecstatically received. Around the electorate, in towns like Bega, we will see the repair of 2,500 dwellings that are unable to be used at the moment because they are run-down. I am very pleased to see that 802 defence homes will be added to the defence portfolio, and my colleagues in defence no doubt will be very appreciative of that measure. The roads measures will certainly be well appreciated. We have so many black spots and road problems in our region that this will no doubt see a focus that will probably be disproportionate to many other areas because of the challenge we face in road safety in Eden-Monaro. The $500 million in community infrastructure and the small business injection will be of benefit, and 4,013 students in Eden-Monaro will benefit from the training and learning bonus. I need to respond to the member for Paterson, who commented earlier that he was concerned that the deficit and the expenditure were going to result in a loss of funding for the Defence Force. This is incredible hypocrisy from those opposite when you consider that under the Hawke-Keating government we were spending $600 million per year on recurrent maintenance of the defence estate, yet the coalition allowed it to drop to $400 million per year, thereby not only not growing investment in maintenance in real terms but effectively ripping the guts out of the estate. I can assure the public that we will maintain our commitment to defence spending and the preparedness and support of our troops. I will finish by referring to that old Army expression that I love so much, which says, ‘Lead, follow or get out of the way.’ The coalition have failed to lead on preparing the country for and understanding the economic crisis or generating ideas to deal with it. They have failed to follow our lead in this respect, and so now it is time for them to get out of the way. If they do not then the wrath of the Australian people will well and truly become known to them, and we may not see many of them here in 2011. 392 01:54:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —In the debate tonight on the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills I think it is clear that we agree on one thing and that is that there needs to be some stimulus package. What we do not agree on is what form it takes and the potential impact not just for those who reside in Australia today but indeed for the generations to come. Before the last election we heard Kevin Rudd and the now Labor government tell Australia that they were economic conservatives. Yet today we witness a $42 billion package they want to rush through the House that will plunge our country into enormous debt. The sum of $42 billion is just shy of half the debt they handed over at the end of their reign in 1996. Who said history never repeats? Incredibly, Labor would like the coalition to give the spending of $42 billion a reckless stamp of approval without sufficient time to weigh up the impact on the future children of this nation. Just a click of the fingers and $42 billion of taxpayers’ money is spent. What is even more concerning is that this government is seeking approval to, if required, borrow up to $200 billion. This was not mentioned yesterday. If the Labor government is so confident that this package will work then why is it trying to slip through a parliamentary request to have a borrowing capacity of $200 billion? This will equate to a debt for every Australian of $9,500. The government has yet again displayed its lack of credibility when it comes to sensible economic management. The government is waving around its massive credit card, but who will pay back the debt? Future generations will be responsible for ensuring that the debt is repaid. With a high debt to repay, services will suffer and taxes will increase. The money has to come from somewhere. The government has yet to suggest a time frame or indeed a plan for when this debt will be repaid. People will welcome any type of financial relief, but the stimulus package has to be right for all Australians. As a parent I dread the thought that my children and their generation are going to have to pay back a debt created by a government of this generation. As shadow minister for veterans’ affairs I want to focus momentarily on the veterans and their dependants. May I say that they are entitled to support. Like all Australians, they deserve a future—a strong future without debt. This should be a future where debt is not a heavy burden. I note that some will receive payments under this legislation through the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme. While such payments in and of themselves are positive, as a responsible opposition we are obliged to consider the full impact of a $42 billion package and its ensuing debt. We must consider the result of a $9,500 debt for every Australian. The question needs to be posed. The government has raised expectations, both prior to the election and since that time, that the outcome of reviews and inquiries will result in expenditure to address issues important to the veteran community. Will these expectations be met? Will the government address the indexation of superannuation? Will all promises made to the veteran community be met after such a huge spend—$42 billion? Will such expenditure and future expenditure be put at risk? We can only speculate how our young people of today will be feeling five, 10 or 20 years into the future as they pay back manyfold the debt of the Rudd government policies. As not only a parent but also a member of this parliament I am committed to ensuring that the next generation is set for success. It is each generation’s responsibility to build a strong platform from which the next generation can launch forward and build a future—a future characterised by greater financial security, increased opportunities to engage in enterprise and a quality of life that exceeds their expectations. A government in debt will bring the nation to its knees. A government hampered by debt will become crippled, unable to deliver any help, particularly as we see unemployment rise. It was not long ago that our country was $96 billion in debt, thanks to a Labor government. It was the coalition government that paid off the debt, balanced the books and, in turn, created a surplus. The Labor government do not want the public to remember that the country was in a good state of affairs when they took over from the previous government. They do not want the public to remember that it is because of the previous government’s sound economic management that Australia is in a better place than other nations that are falling further into recession. The government have only taxpayers’ money, but this money is contributed by mums, dads, self-funded retirees, our defence personnel—both past and present—small, medium and large business, couples with or without children and single workers. It is their hard-earned money that goes into the Treasury, and it is those people who trust us to invest and spend their money wisely. The stance of the opposition may not be popular to some, but it is our responsibility to make sure that we are committed to ensuring that our country and her people have a strong future. It is our commitment and our responsibility to make sure Australia is the best place on the planet to live, to work and to raise children. We are committed to making sure that the money taxpayers provide to this economy is wisely managed and spent, which is why we believe changes need to be made to this package. We are not the party who are being selective when it comes to those who benefit from this package. We are not the party trying to sneak through a request for $200 billion of borrowing capacity, knowing it will plunge the country further into debt. Our focus here today is on fiscal discipline, as we look for practical solutions which will assist with the long-term future of this country so that our nation’s children are not made to pay yet again a debt left by Labor. The $42 billion package equals a debt of $2,000 for every man, woman and child. As a coalition we want to make sure that we can go to every Australian and give them the confidence that this package has been carefully and comprehensively considered. We cannot do that with the package in its current form. We cannot say that this is a well-considered and carefully prepared package when the Leader of the Opposition could not get all the answers to specific questions from the departments that have responsibility for delivering the measures in this package. The Prime Minister claims to be an economic conservative, so why would he put this country billions of dollars in debt in order to hand out one-off cash bonuses—a short-term gain for a long-term pain? A plan for jobs is what Australians need to see in the current climate of rising unemployment. We see a Labor government grandstanding on what they will deliver to help stimulate the economy. The media reported this and relayed the government’s news to all. Readers of Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph would have seen a table on page 2 which provided them with details on what they will receive as a tax bonus based on their household income. People from my electorate and other readers of the Daily Telegraph in Sydney who thought they were going to get a tax bonus are now finding out, on reading Wednesday’s paper, that the bonus will be based only on their 2007-08 income, not on what they are earning today. The Prime Minister failed to mention that there would be conditions when he announced this to Australia on Tuesday. I believe that, as more details come to light, there will be more disappointed people. We as a coalition are proposing that this government bring forward the 2010 tax cuts so that all income earners will benefit and, as a result, the additional money going into the household budget would assist all sectors of the economy. The country’s success relies on the leadership of its government, and its people rely on a government which gives them confidence. The language of this government, particularly the Prime Minister’s, has contributed towards the erosion of confidence and indeed added to people’s fears. This has again contributed to businesses cutting back staff and people locking in interest rates. What of the tens of thousands of couples and individuals who fixed interest rates only several months ago and are now paying higher mortgages than those who did not? The Prime Minister promised that in the $10.4 billion stimulus 75,000 jobs would be created. Where are those jobs? In what industries have they been created? How can Australians have confidence in a government that promotes a $42 billion stimulus package on the one hand while increasing the credit limit to $200 billion on the other? Let us reflect on Labor’s past record when in government. Again, let me highlight record unemployment and a $96 billion debt that took a decade to repay. If this package that Labor are proposing does not work then the people of this country will face the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and individuals, couples and families will face the challenge of paying for, contributing to and building a future without work. We will also face an enormous government debt and the potential for new and increased taxes. Our nation’s children are our future. Let us not give them a gift of debt. It is for these reasons that the coalition and I oppose this package in its current state. 394 02:08:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —The Australian way of life is one of hard work, prosperity and growth. It is a way of life that the Rudd government is protecting with every tool at our disposal as we confront the worst global recession since World War II. That is why the government released its $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan on Tuesday and that is why I have risen in the House this morning to speak on the importance of this vital initiative. As much as anywhere in the country, my electorate of Capricornia is one of the strongest drivers of prosperity and growth for the nation’s economy. We saw and enjoyed the boom of coal prices at the high levels of US$125 per tonne last year, with dozens of ships anchored off port to get the product to export. Unfortunately, in recent months, we have also seen the effects of the unwinding demand for our minerals, especially as China’s economy slows, which in turn has cooled expected prices for our coal by as much as 50 per cent, according to industry sources. I was in the eye of the storm in the north of the electorate, in Mackay, in December when Macarthur Coal and Xstrata announced that they would axe 410 jobs from operations in the Bowen Basin. Since then, there have been further job losses from the likes of Rio Tinto and BHP. In all, in the Moranbah region alone, the community has felt the hammer blow of 1,500 job losses in six weeks. As much as we Central Queenslanders know we still have much to be optimistic about, it is a stark reminder that no local community is immune from the effects of the global economic crisis unfolding around us and it underscores the need for action to boost demand in our economy and protect jobs. Job cuts are always painful and difficult, even more so when the people hit by them are people you have been working alongside and building communities with for the last 10 years, as I feel that I have been doing. They are people in the mining communities that I have stood beside watching football matches and sat alongside at school events and other community functions over the last 10 years. So the effects of the job cuts are something I can see personally see. In the long term, we can take solace in the forecast telling us the mining boom has a good long-term outlook and continues to employ some 30,000 workers in Queensland. But in the short term we as a government are determined to stay one step ahead during these challenging times. The Rudd government is acting quickly and decisively to provide immediate support for jobs and growth. This plan will add half a per cent to GDP growth in 2008-09 and about three-quarters of a per cent to one per cent to GDP growth in 2009-10. This is growth that is needed to support activity in our economy and protect jobs. It will support up to 90,000 jobs over the next two years. It is a decisive and bold package that we must deliver in the face of tough and unprecedented times. To give an outline of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, the initiatives that are proposed will provide free ceiling insulation for around 2.7 million Australian homes, build or upgrade a building in every Australian primary school, build more than 20,000 new social housing units and defence homes, provide $950 bonus payments to millions of eligible citizens, provide an investment tax break for businesses and significantly increase funding for local community infrastructure and local road projects. All up, it will inject $42 billion into the economy, shielding us from the worst effects of the economic downturn and adding the major benefit of delivering projects that will drive our nation forward into the future. Contrary to the claims by the opposition, the government is spending this money wisely. Large proportions of the nation-building fund will underpin vital infrastructure, safer roads, environmentally friendly houses and smarter schools. Going to the part of the plan that will see $15 billion invested in infrastructure in primary schools around the country, this week I have been in contact with school principals in my electorate, who are very excited about this concept and can see what these new facilities will mean for their schools—and I share their feelings about this. The $15 billion going to schools will see every school across the country build or upgrade a building, focusing on projects such as libraries, multipurpose halls and science labs. This will support jobs and improve our education system. It goes back to my earlier statement about laying the foundations for future growth and employment in the years and decades to come. Parents across Capricornia have also expressed support for this package because they can see that it will help them through tough times and stimulate the economy. It will help them cover the costs of school uniforms, equipment and textbooks as children return to school for 2009 and, very importantly, it will give them the confidence and support that they need as we all work together to try and overcome the challenges we face. The school building initiative will provide local communities with out-of-school-hours facilities and act as a hub for all sorts of activities. Schools with contemporary libraries and multipurpose halls will be permitted to apply for funding for other construction of buildings, so every school will benefit—and that is so much the point about the targeting of this part of the package. It is not just going into one or two schools; it is going into the very small communities right throughout my electorate, so it is really going to make a difference everywhere. All this will create jobs in local industry, both in the construction of these buildings and in the raw materials that will be used. Likewise, the government’s insulation revolution will create jobs too as we work to insulate the ceilings of 2.7 million Australian homes. Already, local insulation businesses in Rockhampton are talking about expansion and adding extra employees as they anticipate the increased demand. I can say that this will be greatly welcomed in Central Queensland, where high temperatures are a way of life for about five months of the year. The savings on electricity bills from reduced air-conditioning needs will be a great bonus for families that take advantage of this initiative, and these savings have been estimated at as much as $200 per year. Businesses in Australia will also receive a tax break of $2.7 billion. Small business, which is such a driver of our economy, can claim an additional 30 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets costing $1,000 or more, provided that they acquired these assets between 13 December 2008 and 30 June 2009, to be installed by 30 June 2010. For assets acquired between 1 July this year and 31 December, businesses can receive a 10 per cent tax break where the assets are installed by 31 December 2010. So, whether it is a cafe on East Street in Rockhampton buying a new fridge, a lawn-mowing business in Moranbah buying new equipment or the newsagent at Sarina buying a new computer small businesses across my electorate will benefit. I am also delighted that the program will increase safety on Central Queensland roads. The government has already pledged $270 million last year for the Bruce Highway—so badly neglected under the previous government—between Childers and Sarina, including $115 million to fix black spots and $20 million more for rest areas. I am in frequent touch with the Department of Main Roads and local motorists, and I know the importance of having safe roads, particularly in the case of the Bruce Highway. This new funding as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan will deliver $890 million on top of our other announcements and will deliver 350 additional safety improvement projects under the Black Spot Program. It will bring forward 200 new boom gates and other safety measures at high-risk rail crossings. We have already seen several of these black spots fixed in Capricornia—I think about three-quarters of a million dollars went into projects last year—and I look forward to seeing more of them tended to. After all, it is estimated that, for every dollar spent on the program, the community saves $14 in reduced road trauma costs. As a member for a large electorate, I also know the importance of good highways and roads in the regional parts of the electorate, so it is noteworthy that regional areas will also have roads tended to. The government will provide $150 million in 2008-09 to help the states and territories fund a backlog of maintenance projects on Australia’s national highways. This package is about the future of our nation. The government is doing the responsible thing by taking action to protect Australian jobs and the economy. That is why it is so imperative that the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills are passed through the parliament this week. I give this package my full support, and I urge the opposition to do likewise. 397 02:18:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —The first issue in speaking on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills this morning is whether a stimulus is required. Given the economic situation, given the global economic recession, it is clear that a stimulus is prudent and that it is sensible. The International Monetary Fund has said that governments should do what they can to fill the gap in aggregate demand. The second issue to consider is what should be the size of the stimulus. The opposition believe that there is a good case to be made for an economic stimulus of about 1½ to two per cent of GDP—something of the order of $15 billion to $20 billion. Our concern is that the government have hit the panic button and decided to spend about four per cent of GDP in one go, with the consequence that we will have budget deficits way into the future and that we will accumulate $70 billion of government debt over the next four years. The problem with the government’s approach is that all of us will be paying for this down the track. As the Intergenerational reports 1 and 2 have shown, the Commonwealth government does face in the future potential structural budget deficits. So to laden future generations with increased debt and expect them to bear the burden of paying it back is something that we need to keep in mind when we are accumulating debt as quickly as this. The third issue that needs to be considered is what should be the composition of the stimulus. In all of the 12 budgets that were prepared by the Howard government, one of the key priorities was to find spending which increased productivity or increased workforce participation. The tax cuts that were delivered year in, year out had the objective of both increasing participation and increasing productivity. The opposition have concerns about the composition of the package which the government have presented. That is why we think it is a better plan to proceed with income tax cuts. Specifically, we believe that the tax cuts, which are proposed for 1 July 2009 and 1 July 2010, should be brought forward to 1 January this year. Why we believe that is a better plan is because tax cuts provide permanent income. By cutting tax we improve people’s incentives to invest, their incentive to work and their incentive to save. It is good for the economy but there is evidence that this will also provide a lasting benefit. When we look back on the government’s previous stimulus packages—and I suspect when we look back on this one in the future—people will be amazed how little there will be to show for such a large spend. Another suggestion that we offer for the government to protect jobs is the idea of superannuation guarantee levy relief for small businesses. This is important to provide encouragement for small businesses to keep employees through this looming recession. Another suggestion we have for the government is renewing the Investing in Our Schools Program. This was an initiative of the Howard government. It was widely received by school communities. One of the key parts of this program is that it was the school committees themselves who decided what were the priorities in the Investing in Our Schools Program, which was specifically targeted at primary schools. As the Leader of the Opposition outlined, we believe a case could be made for $3 billion on a renewed Investing in Our School Program, with the possibility of more depending on the economic circumstance. We have suggested that there should be an insulation subsidy but it should be reduced or means tested. The reason for coming up with these suggestions is that we believe that there needs to be a balance, and what needs to be focused on is finding spending which will improve the productive capacity of our economy—finding spending which will make sure we see a lasting benefit in the economy. We also believe that there needs to be a balance between the fiscal stimulus and the problems of running up unsustainable budget deficits and accumulating debt. Let us look at previous economic stimulus packages. Prior to Christmas the Prime Minister had promised a $10.4 billion stimulus package, and that stimulus package was delivered. The Prime Minister stated that this stimulus package would create up to 75,000 jobs. Where are those jobs? What happened to those jobs? Who can find those jobs? The ABS labour force figures for December 2008 showed that, while these payments were being paid as part of this stimulus package, in seasonally adjusted terms the number of jobs in Australia actually fell. So the Rudd government spent $10.4 billion, a large component of it in December last year, and has very little to show for it now. It was absolutely breathtaking this week to see the Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and other members of the government now stating that from that stimulus package 75,000 jobs will be supported. Let us get this absolutely clear. Instead of the 75,000 new jobs which were to be created, we now have 75,000 existing jobs which will be supported. What does the Prime Minister do when he promises to create up to 75,000 jobs and it does not happen? He changes the promise. It was a quick substitution. I thought I detected some mild discomfort—I would not put it as high as embarrassment—on the part of the Prime Minister. I see the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion having a laugh at that. It is incredibly disappointing that the government have now lowered the bar. They actually no longer aspire to create jobs. They will simply support the jobs that are already there. I suspect that it will be some time before we hear the government talking about job creation. It reminds me of Winston Smith in George Orwell’s novel 1984. He worked in the records department of the Ministry of Truth. His job was to make sure that the past reflected the party orthodoxy and when he found things that did not square with party orthodoxy he had to correct the record and put the old documents in a memory hole where they would be incinerated. Unfortunately, that is what happened to the pledge to create 75,000 jobs. It has now become a new pledge, which is to support 75,000 existing jobs. As we have found out from this week’s document, there will be an additional 300,000 Australians joining the ranks of the unemployed over the next 18 months, and that is a human tragedy. Unfortunately, the government have been slow to recognise the threat to jobs. Throughout 2008, the government were in denial on job security and the risk to jobs. As recently as MYEFO, the government were forecasting an unemployment rate in 2010 of 5.75 per cent. That was clearly the most optimistic forecast of any around from any of the economic analysts. That has now been changed to reflect that the government’s forecast is that unemployment in June 2010 will be seven per cent. There are other economic analysts who believe that it will be much higher. JP Morgan, I think, say that it may be as high as eight or nine per cent. And this makes it absolutely essential for the Rudd government to do everything they can to address this crisis in jobs. One of the things we know is that unemployment rises very quickly and that, once people lose contact with a job and with the labour force, it can take years and years of unemployment before they return to work and, in some cases, they never return to work; they become discouraged job seekers and move onto government payments. The Howard government’s experience was that it took a long time to reduce unemployment to the level we got to in February last year of just below four per cent, which was the lowest it had been since November 1974. This is a big turnaround. We have gone, in just a few short months, from a $22 billion government surplus to a $22 billion government budget deficit. So it is absolutely critical that the parliament gives scrutiny to this bill. One of my concerns is that we will be paying for this package for years to come. And we do not know what the economic situation will be in 2010. We do not know what the economic situation will be in 2011. And, unfortunately, in this package, the government are spending absolutely everything. They have put all their chips on the table, spent everything they have and left nothing in reserve. The opposition believes that this is not a prudent way to manage money. We believe that it is more sensible to have a smaller stimulus package and just see what impact that has. As previous speakers have said, it took 10 years to repay the $96 billion of debt that was left by the last Labor government. Looking at this package, it is disappointing to see that there was nothing in it to support apprentices and no real focus on skills. There was nothing in there to support small business, which is the engine room of our economy. The opposition agrees that the economy requires a stimulus package. But the problem with these one-off payments is: what happens next? They might support retail spending for a month, but what happens when that money is gone? What happens in June, July, August or beyond? Another handout? Another stimulus package? There will not be the government resources left for that. This is a plan which will have very little in the way of a lasting impact on the Australian economy, and that is the reason that we have concerns about it. So, as I said, we believe that a stimulus package of the order of $15 billion to $20 billion would be more appropriate at this time. It is a real concern. The way the government have hit the panic button in a response to the global economic crisis and the looming recession does nothing for confidence,. The government’s response has been poor right from the beginning. They were slow to react to warnings on this crisis because they were fixated on attacking the economic legacy of the Howard government and claiming that inflation was out of control and that the ‘inflation genie was out of the bottle’. While many other countries were cutting interest rates and preparing stimulus packages, the Rudd government were cutting spending and egging on the Reserve Bank to put up interest rates. Then there was the bungled bank deposit guarantee which created turmoil in the banking sector. Then the government told us that their $10.4 billion stimulus package would create 75,000 jobs, but in December we saw 43,900 full-time jobs actually lost. While every person welcomed the cash payment last year, there is little evidence to suggest that this created a lasting stimulus to the economy. One of the biggest failures of this package is the absence of a skills focus and a concrete plan to protect jobs. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in a media release prior to the release of this package did say that any further economic stimulus package should have both a jobs and skills focus. The Australian Industry Group also proposed strong support for the apprenticeship system, particularly group training companies. But these calls have fallen on deaf ears. There are no incentives in this package for employers to retain apprentices. There are no extra training places. There is nothing to build Australia’s skills base. An Australian Industry Group survey recently found that manufacturing firms are expected to cut spending on training by 7½ per cent, on construction companies by 12 per cent and on service providers by 12.7 per per cent. And yet there is nothing in this package to support the retention of apprentices. In conclusion, I have emailed to constituents the approach that the opposition will be taking on this package and have been encouraged by the responses that I have received. The sentiments that come through are essentially ones that relate to the long-term interest of this country and what is in the long-term national interest. That is why we have taken the position that was outlined by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday morning. We believe that it is important that we do get the balance right. It is very important that we continue to have an economy that is managed soundly. It is profoundly disturbing to see the panic and fear in the Prime Minister, in the Treasurer, and in the Deputy Prime Minister as they respond to this looming recession. We think that there is a better way forward and that has been outlined by opposition members. 400 02:38:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Secker. It is indeed a pleasure, despite the hour, to get up and speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills and to put my full support behind the action of the Rudd Labor government. In passing, I find it bemusing that on the one hand previous speakers criticised us for doing too much and spending too much, while on the other hand they then read out a list of the things which we still should have had in the package even though they said that we were spending too much money—and I just needed to make that remark, I guess. Other speakers have said this, and at the risk of repeating it I must say it again and get it on the record from my perspective: these are absolutely extraordinary times. They are virtually unpredictable in many ways. Experts around the world have found it very difficult and have been found wanting in predicting exactly what is going to unfold other than to say that it is going to be very challenging and very difficult. We have seen banks fall over like one could never predict. Other countries, of our measure and more, have gone into recession already. It is very easy and very glib in fact for many members opposite to come into this place and just use rhetoric to criticise and lay their language to any word that they believe may somehow reflect badly on what we are attempting to do as a government. In fact, these are more than extraordinary times and there are enormous difficulties and huge challenges ahead of us. I am very pleased to be part of a government that are actually willing to put their toe to the line and give a commitment to this country that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure security of employment for people and to try to stay ahead of that threatening recession. For those reasons, quite simply, I am very supportive of this package. Of course, many of the details of these packages have been spoken about by previous speakers, but I want to particularly concentrate—very quickly, in the limited time I have—on the schools package, which is going to have a big impact in my electorate and my city and, I believe, around the country. In my electorate alone, there will be a positive effect on over 50 government and non-government primary schools. Some people opposite have been saying that we should leave it to the schools to decide. In fact, the schools are going to decide to some extent, because we are giving them an offer of several different options. One of the options offered is a school hall, which will have the caveat on it that it be used by the community as well—a very sensible provision, in my view, for many communities around this country. If schools already have that hall, they can build a library, and, if they are already lucky enough—and not all of them are, I might add—to have a modernised library, they can use the money for modernising their school buildings generally. So it really does end up being quite a choice of the school community as to which way they go with those offers. There is also the money for refurbishment of schools. It is not only primary schools, although every primary school will access this package. I think up to 500 secondary schools are going to be able to apply successfully for similar types of programs, in this case for science labs or language labs. Science has been a very big product of this government. A very big emphasis has been put by us on the need to develop science in this country. No-one could ever disagree with that as a thrust of policy. So in both of those cases I am really pleased to see what is going to be on offer for the education system. The other point I want to make quickly is on the question of homelessness. We gave a commitment through our Prime Minister at the beginning of our term that we would do something dramatic about attempting to pull in the terrible effect of homelessness on this country. Part of this package is in fact to accelerate that at quite a dramatic level. No-one should do anything but applaud that initiative. It is a good initiative. It is the correct thing that we should be doing. If it had been getting attention over the decade or more before this period then we would not have had the need to do what we are doing. The point of this whole package is simply that we as a government want to ensure that there is activity of an economic nature out there, that jobs are retained or created—who cares which, frankly, in the times in which we find ourselves?—and to make sure that that activity and those jobs are in areas where the community can gain and which can be long-term, good investment at the same time. It is not just throwing money out and hoping that there are employment opportunities but rather having it in areas where we know that the community, in one way or another, is going to achieve a good outcome as a result of that investment. It is very glib, in my view, and a bit cheap, for some members opposite to deride what we are attempting to do, when in fact quite a bit of thought and quite a bit of direction is being used by the government to try and get this package off the ground and generate the sorts of activity that we really do need. The other things that are going to happen will be the tax bonuses and the increased social security payments to families. In my electorate, I think that nearly 8,000 families are going to benefit from the back-to-school bonus. Nearly 3,000 students and people looking for work will receive a training and learning bonus, and 7½ thousand or more families receiving family tax benefit B will receive the single-income-family bonus of $950. These are substantial numbers of individuals and families that are going to be assisted by this package. Also, there is the tax office initiative where we are going to be paying bonuses to people within certain income categories—again, at the right level, for the right reasons. At a local level, my concern for my community is the pressure that the financial circumstances are going to bring to some families who have never before faced that sort of pressure, families around the country and in my town who believe, and rightfully so, that in the past they were okay—that they have managed, that they have their security firmly around them. They are the sorts of people who are now going to be added to the numbers of people with financial pressure on them. These are the sorts of initiatives that we need to give them confidence and to say, ‘Things are going to be tough, but we as a government are there with you and we are going to be doing all we can to ensure that you do in fact have a reasonably successful financial future.’ If the opposition want to take this grandstanding position and decide to vote this package down, I think they need to do so with great caution. The intent from us is quite true, and that is to put the money where we need it and to ensure economic activity. As I said, from my own community’s point of view, there are going to be a lot of people very pleased to get this assistance when it comes through. It is a privilege to be here to endorse this package and to explain to my community why I am endorsing it. I hope that through this debate some sense is reached and we see the successful passage of the package of bills that have been put to the House this evening. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—I would remind the member for Canberra that it is either ‘Deputy Speaker’ or ‘Acting Speaker’ but not ‘Acting Deputy Speaker’. 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —No disrespect meant. It is three o’clock in the morning. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Granted. 402 02:46:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON — I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. It is almost three o’clock in the morning and members of parliament have been making their respective contributions in what is a remarkable debate and, in many ways, a historic debate because today is the day that the Labor Party put into debt the future generation of Australian children. Of course, this is a territory not unfamiliar to the Labor Party, and anyone who follows the Labor Party and understands the way in which they have managed the economy over decades in previous administrations would recognise it as very much the way of Labor into the future. We thought these days were in fact behind us; we thought the lessons about plunging this country into significant debt had been learnt by the Labor Party, but clearly they have not. When we were in government over the last 11 years we recognised that one of the principal priorities from day one—from the first budget in the first term—was to pay down the $96 billion of debt that we had inherited when we came into government. We did that because we wanted to make sure that we removed that burden from future generations. We knew that an interest bill of, at that time, $8 billion per year would be unmanageable for Australians into the future if we did not take the opportunity to pay the debt down, to make difficult decisions to cut spending in certain areas. People will recall that at the time these were difficult decisions taken by a freshly elected government that had a difficult task to perform, and perform it it did. It is quite a tragedy for the nation at the moment that the government would undo all of that 11 years of work essentially in their first 11 months. To put this into perspective, the Australian public understands that when the Rudd government were elected they spent the first 12 months running around and, for their own political purposes, talking up the issue of inflation to the Australian people. This point is a very important part of the debate—that is, to look at the first period of the Rudd government and the way in which they handled the economy for their own political purposes, recognising as they do, with their media spin operation, that the strength of economic management still quite rightly and appropriately rested with the coalition. They believed that they needed to neutralise that strength. They believed that if they could discredit the coalition, despite the credible record we had when we were in government, it would serve their own political purposes well, not just over this term of government but, most importantly, at the start of the next election campaign. So they talked up the prospect of inflation, the threat of inflation. The Treasurer—Australia’s worst-ever Treasurer—the Hon. Wayne Swan, at that stage said, ‘This is about letting the inflation genie out of the bottle.’ That was his famous, or infamous, remark. It suggested that when the coalition were in government we had let the ‘inflation genie’ out of the bottle. The Treasurer, in charge of this nation’s books, talking in those terms, sending a message to the Reserve Bank of Australia, ultimately resulted in an overcooking of that monetary policy. It resulted in interest rates going up higher than they should have gone, and that is why corrective action has been taken in recent months. But that claim that inflation was essentially out of control was not made because of any substantive economic reason; it was made for political reasons by the Labor Party. So the first decisions taken by the government in relation to economic management were not based on good economic principles; they were based on what was going to get them through a media cycle and what was going to get them through the next election. It is important to understand that that was their modus operandi from day one, and it remains the way in which they conduct themselves to this very day. Make no mistake: this $42 billion spending package is designed more with politics in mind than with trying to provide some economic outcome. The reality is that the Australian people, I think, are now starting to see through exactly what this government is proposing and its reasons for it. I think the Australian public is starting to understand that this is a government that spent about $12.4 billion in December last year but now, barely two months later, is asking for an extra $41.53 billion—almost $42 billion—to spend on a stimulus, as the government describes it. People are starting to wonder what the next two months will hold: will this Australian Labor Party, under Prime Minister Rudd, be back in this chamber asking Australians to go into debt for another $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion or $40 billion in a couple of months time? This is the point that the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to make—that, if you are going to act in a prudent way, if you recognise that these are difficult economic times and we need to deal with the times as they roll, why would you expose yourself to potentially even direr times ahead by spending all the money available, and more, in the opening stages of what is predicted to be a very long economic downturn? Why would the Prime Minister spend all the money and run this country from a healthy surplus into a deficit in the first few months of this economic crisis? Why would this Prime Minister panic? Why would he, with his Treasurer, decide that it is good policy to plunge future generations into debt? This is a Prime Minister who does not have a good track record in relation to economic management. I outlined briefly the reasons why this government’s economic management in its opening months was deficient and flawed, and that is part of the reason why I think most Australians are very concerned. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of one Australian who is particularly concerned, and I will quote from a newspaper column today: IT wouldn’t have mattered what the Prime Minister announced in his fiscal stimulus package—it won’t be sufficient to counter the impacts of the current global economic difficulties. Kevin Rudd should stop talking down the economy. Yes, we do have problems but we are well-positioned to see our way through. Constant exaggerated and negative commentary creates uncertainty among investors and consumers. What is the point of providing a $10 billion fiscal stimulus and then scaring the recipients? Is it any wonder many people chose to save their portion of the stimulus. Rudd is talking up fiscal policy because it enables the Government to appear to be doing something. The truth is monetary policy, interest rates, remains the key economic driver at this stage of the cycle. This is why the Reserve Bank’s mishandling of monetary policy in the last half of 2007 was so damaging to the economy. A one-off fiscal stimulus, depending on size and form, will only take the edge off bad economic numbers in the short-term. It will do nothing to resolve the underlying structural problems in the economy. It is a political strategy more than an economic one. Australia is better positioned than most major economies to see out the current difficulties. Our problems are not as severe. The article goes on for a little bit. It was written by Michael Costa and appeared in the press today. Michael Costa is not known to be a friend of the Liberal Party or as a great neo-liberal; nonetheless, he is a former Labor Treasurer who has surely at least some credibility in relation to matters economic. He sums up, I think quite well, what the government is on about, some of the failings that they have realised already and some of their motivation for the way in which they are conducting themselves. The most important part of this is whether or not spending $42 billion of money that you do not have is going to provide assistance to Australians who are at the moment scared witless about whether or not they are secure in their employment and whether their families are going to be able to retain their home. People in this country at the moment, people who considered themselves in very stable employment, are worried about whether or not they will be the next to go. This is a government which will not guarantee the creation of one single job. In a $42 billion spend it did not guarantee one single job. In fact it is quite amazing that the rhetoric has changed. This again shows the impact of the hollow men in the Rudd government. They have changed the terminology from ‘creating employment’ to ‘supporting employment’. They are not creating jobs but supporting jobs. It is a telling nuance of words because this is a government that out of a $42 billion spend cannot look one Australian in the eye and say, ‘We are going to protect your job’ or ‘We are going to create new jobs.’ I think that is a damning indictment of the failure of this package. It does not serve to provide security to Australian families and it certainly does not provide security to Australian small businesses which already had great difficulty in securing credit. I have had some email me in the last few hours disgusted with this package. Small business is suffering at the moment and yet this package provides no tangible support to those businesses to help them with their ongoing cash flow. This government made an announcement in it, package in relation to accelerated depreciation for purchases of assets but that is of course no benefit to small businesses who are struggling to pay their GST bill, their wages bill, other suppliers to their business or whatever the case might be. These were people who were expecting, as part of a $42 billion package, some assistance to allow them the greatest capacity to keep people employed. Small businesses want to retain staff. Only 12 months ago we were talking about gross shortages of well-qualified staff. People in small business were screaming out for good people to join their business and to help grow their business. Now the first period of the Rudd government, after spending not just $42 billion but the money in the December quarter as well, still provides no certainty to small business. There was nothing in this package which said to Australian small business, ‘We will help you to defray some of the employment costs so that you can be best placed to keep on staff.’ It is an opportunity that this government has squandered to be able to say to small business, as the opposition leader has said, ‘Let’s look at whether or not the federal government could provide assistance to small business to pay part of their superannuation guarantee levy.’ That could provide some cash flow assistance to small business people to make sure that they had every possibility of retaining the staff that they have on their books at the moment. But there was nothing in this package for small business. When you look at the figures over the estimates, it is quite telling. The government puts out that this is a package of infrastructure to stave off negative growth in future quarters. But look at many of the commitments, particularly in relation to the infrastructure spend around social housing—the insulation measures, for argument’s sake. Insulation is a very interesting one. Out of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government commits to social housing, about $39 million in this current financial year will go to pay for that package. So most of the expense in these packages, particularly the infrastructure packages and those spends outside the cash handouts, will not come into effect until the next financial year anyway. The immediacy of the problem is with us here and now and the government argues that to stave off a quarter of negative growth and to provide some sort of stimulus it is important to do it here and now. But the government does not deliver that through this package—even on what it proposes. That is the absurdity of the Prime Minister standing up in question time today to somehow try to con the Australian people into believing that this is going to be a good positive outcome for them. This is a government which I think will be judged harshly at the next election because it has not addressed areas of urgency, including health and aged care, which we highlighted today. And, I might say, this was not an argument to extend the stimulus package spend by any stretch of the imagination. The point was that the government sent a message today that out of national infrastructure priorities not one dollar should be prioritised to health and aged care—aged care is an industry in crisis at the moment. That shows the empty rhetoric from this government over recent years. The coalition have taken a difficult and unpopular but necessary decision. We understand that Australians, when they read about it in the newspapers in the coming hours, will see that this is not the most popular stance that we could have taken, but it is the appropriate stance. It is important that we explain to the Australian people the reason we have taken this stance. Firstly, we do not believe that the quantum of the package is necessary. We believe that spending all the money—money that the government does not have—and plunging yourself into $40 billion of additional debt is not appropriate at this time. It is not appropriate for a number of reasons but primarily because we do not know how much longer this downturn has to play out. If the government is proposing to put out packages of $40 billion or $50 billion each quarter then we will run into significant debt very quickly and perhaps not with anywhere near the outcome that the government intends. Secondly, we have taken the decision that we have taken because we believe this money could be better targeted to provide the stimulus which is required but in more appropriate ways to get a better spend for taxpayers’ dollars. We have suggested somewhere between 1.5 per cent and two per cent GDP, or in the order of $15 billion to $20 billion, would be appropriate. That, on the limited advice that we have at the moment, could be made up in package form to provide support to the Australian business community. I say to Australian families who believe that cash payouts are appropriate at the moment: consider the longer term implications of such a policy. I ask Australian families to consider whether, if it were their own household budget, they would plunge themselves into considerable debt to enjoy the benefit of the cash and what it brings today only to see themselves having to pay it off for decades to come. Think about this in terms of the way in which you operate your small business. Would you plunge yourself into considerable debt? Would you extend yourself as far as the banks would lend on day 1 of an economic downturn? That is exactly what this government has done. This government has taken a reckless course. Whilst in the interim the position of opposition taken by the coalition may not be popular, my honest view is that our position will be vindicated in the longer term because at the end of the day we are charged in this parliament to take responsibility for the appropriation of taxpayers’ dollars and we do not believe by any reasonable standard that this government has appropriately spent taxpayers’ dollars. That is why the coalition has taken a difficult, necessary step and we will continue to fight for good economic management as we always have in this country to make sure we set up this nation for the decades ahead. 406 03:06:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —The fact that we are still debating the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills at 3.05 in the morning highlights the seriousness the government places on this very issue. We live in extraordinary times and we face extraordinary challenges. We face a global financial crisis not similar to anything else any of us have ever lived through or have had to deal with. There may have been some similarities in events of the past, but they were not the same. There is no precedent for the nature of the financial crisis facing the world today because never before have the nations of the world operated in such an integrated global economy. So never before has the response required a cooperative international strategy to the extent that is needed now. Australia will continue to be affected by the economies of nations whose economies we have absolutely no control over. These are difficult challenges made even more difficult because we still do not know the full extent of the crisis. So it is crucial that, in the face of what is already known and presented with the best advice available, the government takes whatever action is both necessary and possible, and that it takes that action quickly to minimise the effects of the global financial crisis on the Australian people. As we have already seen, economists all have differing advice about what action should be taken and what the long-term effects of fiscal policy will be. But governments ultimately have to make decisions. That is what they are elected to do. Contrary to the assertions of some opposition members, these are not easy decisions for government and the government is acutely aware that at the next election it will be judged according to how well it has governed. The opposition leader in opposing the bills essentially raised three objections: firstly, the package is excessive and should have been in the order of $15 billion to $20 billion; secondly, tax cuts would have been a better option; and, thirdly, future generations will be forced to pay for this package. On the question of whether this package is excessive, I point out that $28 billion, or two-thirds of the package, will be for infrastructure and will be rolled out over the next two and perhaps three years. It is true that about one-third will be spent over the next few months. I also point out that infrastructure spending creates assets which in turn generate prosperity. Business and industry frequently borrow funds to invest in infrastructure. It is normal business practice. Another example I will refer to is that of the city of Salisbury. In the 1970s the city of Salisbury borrowed heavily to fund much-needed infrastructure. The city’s debt servicing ratio rose to in excess of 25 per cent. The debt incurred on infrastructure, however, not only created long-term wealth but provided the community with essential community services and facilities long before they would otherwise have been provided. The debt-servicing ratio is now at around 15 per cent and comfortably trending downwards. The city in fact prospered by borrowing money to build infrastructure. Finally on infrastructure, now is the best time to spend on essential infrastructure. Interest rates are low and construction work is likely to slow down so work will be done on time. In other words, taxpayers will get value for their money and that equates in real dollars to a savings in the long term. On the issue of future generations paying for today’s debts, I say this: essential infrastructure will have to be built sooner or later and therefore will have to be paid for at some stage. It is not an expense that can forever be avoided. It is just a matter of time. The fact is that public infrastructure built now will serve communities for decades to come. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for infrastructure costs to be spread over several years. The Leader of the Opposition also said that tax cuts would have been a better option. In referring to tax cuts, he said, ‘Every household benefits.’ I ask the opposition leader: how do tax cuts benefit the unemployed, the pensioners and the lower income earners who do not pay tax? In other words, as usual, the most vulnerable would be ignored by the opposition. The opposition also say that they need more time to consider these bills, that the $10.4 billion package in December has done nothing for the economy and that we should wait longer to see. The latest retail figures simply prove the opposition wrong on that matter. The opposition also talk about jobs but oppose the Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Either they are pretentious about jobs or they simply do not get it—or perhaps both. This package is about jobs because, whichever way you want to analyse it, it represents a $42 billion injection into the economy, and the net result is jobs—just as the $10.4 billion package in December was about jobs, the $300 million for local government infrastructure was about jobs, the $4.7 billion national infrastructure package was about jobs and the $6.2 billion auto rescue package was about jobs. In the absence of any alternative policies, the opposition are running a fear and smear campaign against these bills on the issue of debt. Let me remind opposition members about debt. In 1996, when they came to office, credit card debt was at $6.6 billion. In 2007 credit card debt had risen to $41.7 billion. This was real debt to real people and the Howard government essentially shifted government debt to personal debt. Over the same period, as we heard the member for Kennedy talking about earlier this morning, foreign debt had trebled over the time that the Howard government was in office. On top of that, we were left with a massive debt in unfunded schools, unfunded hospitals, unfunded public housing, unfunded broadband, unfunded roads, unfunded rail, unfunded shipping facilities and so on. Nor did the Howard government ever plan for the post-mining-boom era, which we now know is here. The Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan is about our country’s future, our future and our kids’ future. I commend the bills to the House. 408 03:12:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —Like so many before me, I rise to speak against the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. These are the bills comprising the so-called Nation Building and Jobs Plan—a very Orwellian phrase. This is the government’s fourth attempt in less than six months to stimulate the economy. No doubt the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has received some dreadful news from the Treasury, and what has he done? He has panicked. But panic will not save the economy. Throwing the kitchen sink at the problem—a phrase that has been used by some commentators—will not save jobs. The problem is the Prime Minister does not understand the fundamentals of the Australian economy, and the Australian public, quite rightly, suspect that he is making a lot of it up as he goes along—just like the silly made-up words and phrases in his essay. But what a misnomer—the ‘jobs plan’. In all of this $42 billion package there is no plan for jobs. The Prime Minister has not even claimed that any of this unprecedented spending will create a single job, but now we have this terminology that it is supposed to ‘support’ up to 90,000 jobs in this and the next financial year. The government has dispensed with creating jobs and now we are merely ‘supporting’ them, whatever that means. We do debate these bills in interesting times. This debate of historic proportions is undertaken against the backdrop of the Prime Minister having spent most of his summer break penning a pompous, rhetorical treatise on financial markets and the economy. The treatise is meaningless gibberish and is really just a fancy, convoluted justification for the political recasting of Kevin Rudd—the neo-Kevin. He would have us believe that he is no longer an economic conservative because over the Christmas break he bathed in the pure waters of socialism and was reborn as a neo-social democrat. Whilst we may not really know who the real Kevin Rudd is, what we do know is that by the time his Prime Ministership has expired, he will have had more reincarnations than that very popular fictional character, Dr Who. It is usual for political leaders to wait until they have left office to write their version of history and the justification for the policies they have implemented. But our incumbent Prime Minister feels he has to do it as he goes along. If you look at it, it does smack somewhat of insecurity and uncertainty in the Prime Minister. This is not a good mix in a leader in times of crisis. I bet on one thing: that the Prime Minister’s political memoirs definitely will not include details of discharging this government debt. And why? Because he will not—it will not be his government; it will be a coalition government that discharges this debt. At the heart of the Prime Minister’s doctrinal essay is a contradiction, one that has already been exposed by some commentators, but not too many. The Prime Minister rails against what he terms ‘neoliberalism’, which he states has brought us to our current position. All the blame is shifted back to the former government. This is from a Prime Minister who promised to end the blame game. It is just classic Orwellian doublespeak. He claims that his predecessor did little to regulate the financial system in Australia, yet, a week previously—as has already been commented on in the House—his Deputy Prime Minister was singing a different tune. In Davos, representing Australia at the World Economic Forum, she said that Australia has ‘open and competitive markets backed up by a world-class financial and prudential regulatory system’. We have seen the tag team fail. Whilst the PM was at Kirribilli House over summer poring over his essay and resurrecting the blame game that he so deplored a year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister was on the other side of the world giving credit to the former government. Whilst the Prime Minister states that his so-called neoliberalism triumphed about 30 years ago, he claims that the political home of neoliberalism in Australia is of course the Liberal Party itself. He was not too ashamed, of course, before and during the last election to pretend to be just like John Howard. That was then though, and this is now. Now he has recast himself—but such is the shamelessness and ambition of this political cross-dresser who is our Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, in this essay the Prime Minister does not actually say what the solution is in his thousands of words, apart from some possible names for his new world order: social capitalism devised by social democrat governments. Many of us, particularly those of the younger generation, remember the YouTube clips: ‘I’m Kevin and I’m an economic conservative.’ I think that today we do need to update those YouTube clips to: ‘I’m Kevin and I’m a social democrat who is going to leave a legacy of debt for you young people, your children and possibly your grandchildren.’ This brings us directly to the legislation we debate today in the House. As the House is well aware, the opposition will be voting against the bills in the House and in the Senate. We do believe in our heart of hearts that this is the wrong package and we believe it is irresponsible at this time of such an unprecedented crisis to have a knee-jerk reaction and, in doing so, to heavily mortgage our children’s future. As the opposition leader has said, ‘We know this decision won’t be popular, but it is the right decision.’ The Premier of Victoria, of course, is lining up to say how good it all is. It simply saves his bacon after having presided over years of neglect and mismanagement, particularly in the area of education. For instance, Professor Brian Caldwell said in 2005, when speaking about schools in my state: “I cannot name a developed country where the overall condition of school buildings is as bad as it is in Victoria.” And does anyone really believe the Premier when he says he is ready to spend the money? I was interested to read his comments the other day, where he said of the Prime Minister’s cash splash: “He wants to make sure that the funds they’re providing actually hit the ground, hit the ground running and that activity occurs quickly,” … “And I can guarantee him from Victoria’s point of view that there will be no unnecessary delays.” This is from a Premier who cannot even get the trains to run on time in Victoria, where a day where train cancellations number fewer than 150 is a good day! This is from a Premier who presides over massive infrastructure neglect, and two local examples come to mind. Firstly, the Hume Highway upgrade in my electorate, which was solely funded by the former coalition government to the tune of over half a billion dollars, was delayed for years—escalating in cost, of course—because the Victorian government would not contribute even a measly $6 million to cover half the cost of a state link road to the Hume. Secondly, the Victorian government announced details of the Wodonga rail bypass in 2001, but it was only in 2008—again, after a huge cost blow-out—that work actually began. Why on earth would we believe the Victorian Premier when he says that Victoria is raring to go? Similarly, in my own shadow ministry portfolio area, the government announced in 2008 that it would commence, at a cost of $114 million, the building of the first 38 of its promised 260 government childcare centres. To date it has confirmed funding agreements on three centres and has announced a process of seeking proposals for another two. It claims that these 38 centres will be operational by 2010—that is next year—yet only the first five are in their preliminary stages. How can the Australian people believe a government that cannot even get 38 childcare centres started, let alone 260? How can the Australian people believe the Rudd government’s promise on embarking on the single biggest infrastructure package when it cannot even deliver 38 childcare centres? And this is from a government that, when in opposition, said there was a childcare crisis. The Prime Minister cannot even guarantee that this stimulus package will work, and is it any wonder? Since winning office, the Prime Minister and his leadership team have made outrageous claims. They have feigned outrage and, in their Orwellian arrogance, even refused to consider any contributions other than their own. Are there perhaps more effective ways to stimulate the economy? For example, could we not give people some of their own money that the government has taken in taxes, a proposal put forward by the coalition—bring forward this and next year’s scheduled taxes instead of one-off payments, making it a permanent and regular increase in disposable income? No, the Labor Party will not have any of that. The immature approach of, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ is typical Labor tribal stuff. But they have admitted this is not a silver bullet. They have admitted unemployment will rise. They have said this is an unprecedented crisis, yet they are still going it alone. If they had succeeded with the measures they had already introduced, you could partially understand their stubborn refusal to consider some alternatives, but they failed. They failed and they are making matters worse. Let us go back a few months. After assuming office in 2007, the government told us that the greatest threat to the economy was inflation. The inflation genie had been let out of the bag. We even had a war on inflation. Then there was the need to bolster the budget surplus at around two per cent against GDP. Against the background of the government erroneously talking up inflation, we saw interest rates go up. We then saw the disastrous effect of the unlimited bank guarantee and the stream of self-funded retirees, whose money had been frozen, go to Centrelink. That was the Treasurer’s solution: go to Centrelink—no care, no responsibility. These were self-funded retirees, people who had made the sacrifices and planned for their retirement. The Treasurer, with no apology and no regrets, just pretended that the problem had not happened, saying in effect, ‘Let’s move on; let’s lurch on to the next disastrous knee-jerk reaction.’ The Prime Minister said that Labor’s first stimulus package would create 75,000 jobs. The $15.1 billion COAG package was supposed to create 133,000 jobs. These jobs have failed to materialise. None of the other stimulus proposals have actually delivered any results that the government can effectively point to. The member for Casey made a very interesting point. If it was so easy to solve the problem, he said, the opposition would have just doubled the stimulus package. We would have said that we could do better than that. We will provide an $84 billion-dollar package. But it is not that easy and the Australian public know that it is not that easy. Mr Rudd wants the opposition to ignore all these failures, all these bad calls, and hope that $118 million of additional debt, that will crush future generations, will ‘support’ 90,000 jobs—whatever the word ‘support’ means. Mr Rudd’s track record of jumping from one knee-jerk reaction to another without success has not given us or the Australian public a single reason to put our blind faith in him. As the opposition we have a job to do. It is an essential job and it is an integral part of our democratic system. We need to question, to analyse, to investigate. In essence, we need to hold the government accountable and to propose alternatives. That is what the Australian public deserve and that is what they expect. A vibrant opposition is a prerequisite for a thriving democracy, and in their heart of hearts most members on the other side know and understand that. We are told that unemployment is expected to rise to seven per cent. Gone are the days when unemployment in Australia had a figure three in front of it. Mr Rudd’s Christmas spending spree has obviously failed and now he is trying to have another crack. The Prime Minister today rallied against what he termed ‘free market fundamentalism’ and pointed this ideological bone at the Liberal Party. Let me inform the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House are not fundamentalists but we do believe in fundamentals. The fundamental approach to our economic policies is to be prudent, consistent and responsible. This approach is the very antithesis of what the government is proposing: plunging the budget into severe deficit, into the red, for generations to come and for future generations to mop up. We will have gone from a surplus of $22 billion to a deficit of $22 billion and this will grow to $118 billion over four years. As has been noted already, of course, that is more than the debt Paul Keating left the Australian public—$96 billion. That took 10 years to pay off. How long will $118 billion take to pay off? The frightening thing is that this is not the end of the spending. We have been asked as an opposition to tick off on a government credit card to the tune of $200 billion. Presumably, in a couple of months when the Prime Minister reacts again and gets concerned again about possibly getting into a technical recession in the months ahead, there may be another stimulus package. It could be $64 billion or $78 billion or $92 billion—we do not know—because they will want this carte blanche again. This short-term political expediency is more important to the Prime Minister, it seems, than long-term recovery and the long-term health of the Australian economy. Some commentators have noted that the Prime Minister prefers to spend billions staggered out over a certain period to affect quarterly figures and avoid the technical definition of a recession, which is two successive terms of negative growth. If that is what the Prime Minister is doing, it is really too cute by half, because the impact of this crisis and the looming gloom is not lost on the Australian people. When they lose their jobs this cuteness by the Prime Minister will not mean a thing. Not having a job will be the single greatest disastrous impact on many individuals and families. In this enormous package and amongst all these measures, what has the government forgotten? The government has forgotten to provide specific assistance for jobs. Small businesses, for example, who usually suffer, are not going to be beneficiaries of ‘Ruddbank’. They are not going to be the beneficiaries of the propping up of commercial property prices. Why doesn’t the government do something to positively affect the cash flow of small businesses, as the opposition has proposed? The opposition has proposed that the government pay a portion of the super guarantee levy on behalf of these small employers—but, no, the Prime Minister will not countenance that either. It will be the future generations who will have to bear the responsibility and the burden of the Prime Minister’s vanity and arrogance in not seeking a longer term solution and working together with the opposition on this. History tells us that Labor governments and budget deficits do indeed go hand in hand. The coalition, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are well aware, is committed to the creation of real jobs. That is facilitated when governments are responsible economic managers. You can have a crisis—you can have a recession—but what governments do can make the situation worse. We want to do our job as an opposition and ensure that government spending is of a high quality and that it reduces the burden on Australian taxpayers and their children, because that is what is in the long-term interests of the economic security of Australians and their children. The Prime Minister is very fond of making words up, and it is really beholden upon him to stop the silly games and the bureaucratic gobbledygook and look at the seriousness of what is happening in towns and suburbs right across Australia. When people suffer, it is real. You cannot spin it; you cannot take cues from The Hollowmen; it is a real problem and this is a serious issue. It is time for the Prime Minister, who is being neoliberal with the truth, to reconsider his spending spree so as not to consign future generations to crushing debt. I was there. I saw what happened to young people during the recession that we had to have. People who had done well at university and in their trades could not get the jobs they were qualified for and had their lives put on hold, effectively, for many years. If this government is not careful, it will repeat past mistakes. (Time expired) 412 03:33:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —The contribution from the member for Indi on the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills and related bills just shows that the opposition does not get it. There is a global financial crisis. It is not a financial crisis in Australia; it is not a financial crisis created by the government; rather it is a global financial crisis. We have markets crashing and financial institutions spiralling downwards. Listening to her contribution, one can only assume that the response that she favours is to leave it to the market and everything will be all right. On this side of the House we believe that it is beholden on government to offer real solutions and to put in place the best possible package to try to protect our economy and thereby protect the Australian people. The global financial crisis has had and will continue to have a negative impact on our budget, but to protect Australians we have developed this package. This is a very rounded package. It is a package that looks at generating an immediate stimulus to the economy by providing people with one-off payments. There has been much talk on the other side about the one-off payments that were made at the end of last year and how they were not spent or how they were spent. I have to report to the House that the feedback that I have received in my electorate is that people have used those one-off payments very effectively. In this package there is the back-to-school bonus in which a one-off payment of $950 will be made for each child to families who are entitled to family tax benefit A. There is the farmers hardship bonus of $950. There are training and learning bonuses. This package is in recognition of the fact that Australians are finding it difficult at the moment. It is in recognition of the fact that, if families have money to spend, our economy will be much better off. One of my constituents has a business supplying equipment to the disabled, and she reported to me that, with the bonus to seniors last year, she had an increase in business and that this year she has had a subsequent increase in the servicing of that equipment. This demonstrates quite effectively that the money that was given last year was used for the purpose for which it was given. There will also be a $950 tax bonus for people with an income up to $80,000, and a $650 bonus for people with an income between $80,000 and $90,000. There will also be a $300 bonus paid to taxpayers who have an income between $90,000 and $100,000. In these times, giving people bonuses is much better than giving them tax cuts because they will have money that they can spend immediately. It will inject money into the economy, which will ensure that our economy keeps ticking along. In addition, there is a massive investment in infrastructure through the money that will be ploughed into the building of schools as part of the education revolution. That will see every school throughout our nation becoming a hive of economic activity. The construction work that will be involved will keep that industry turning over. Initiatives have also been put in place in relation to the greening of our Australian homes. This is a good package; it is a sensible package; and it is a balanced package. It is designed to stimulate the economy and to invest in the long-term infrastructure of Australia. I commend the Prime Minister and the government for putting together this package, and I support it wholeheartedly. 413 03:38:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —At local time 3.40 am, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be debating the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills in the House. I am sure some would also say that it is a privilege to follow the last speaker, the member for Shortland, in this debate—although I am not sure about that; I am somewhat confused. I was note-taking during her contribution, and I wrote down that schools and this package equalled economic activity. That was confusing, but it may be the early hour that confuses me. However, when I heard that this package would also green the farms, it struck me that that was rather ambitious, and I gave up and thought we should move back to reality and do away with fantasy. This is the greatest, most arrogant insult to democracy that I have experienced in just over 10 years association with this place. We have been asked to approve legislation requiring in excess of $40 billion. We have been asked, in a grand total of 48 hours, to pass this legislation as a responsible opposition in Her Majesty’s government. What could be more insulting? Does this arrogant government believe that a responsible opposition representing the people of Australia should pass this legislation on their say-so? We have been given no absolute information about the efficacy of this program and, certainly, no time to contemplate it and give it the analysis it deserves. This is the biggest, most expensive package that has ever been put to this Australian parliament and we have been given less than 48 hours to consider the whole detail of it and make a decision on it that is in the interest of the Australian people firstly and in the long-term welfare of this nation. It is an insult. Everything that goes before it pales into insignificance. This is disgusting; this is horrible. This is the sort of thing that you could only imagine the government of losers led by one Kevin Rudd could come up with. I look to the wonderful media that serve this country and their reaction to the announcement of this package—the most expensive legislation that has ever occurred for this nation. We have been through two world wars and never has there been an occasion where we were asked as an opposition to contemplate bills that require so much of the taxpayers’ funds in addition to so much of the taxpayers’ future regarding their ability to pay back such an excessive loan arrangement. I looked at the popular press to gauge their reaction. I confess freely, the popular press are an institution that I have no particular love for but I have been convinced absolutely of their total embrace of this new Rudd government. This is the new Rudd government, by the way, that less than a year and a half since taking office is now running up a debt for this nation well in excess on a day by day basis of the debt that it left us with back in 1996 when we first took over the malaise that was created by the 13 years of ALP government. It left us with $96 billion of debt after that run of mistakes. It took us the best part of 11½ years to secure the nation’s financial security by paying off $96 billion worth of debt. Now, just 1½ years down the track of this new Labor government under Kevin Rudd, we are talking about projected deficits and national debt in excess of $100 billion. We know, history tells us, the records show, that when the Labor government last came into power it had some $16 billion worth of debt. Some 13 years later it had $96 billion worth of debt. It is not difficult maths. Labor had $16 billion worth of debt when they came in and finished up with $96 worth of debt. That is $80 billion dollars worth of accumulated debt in 13 years. That is excessive, you might think. Compare that with a commitment to $100 billion worth of debt in just 18 months. It is enough to curl your mo. I can tell you, my mob back home will know what it means. It will mean debt for their grandchildren. It will mean higher interest rates. It will mean general difficulties. Somebody on the government executive had the temerity to say to me across the floor yesterday, ‘Do you suggest that your farmers do not want $950?’ I can tell you that my farmers are saying to me: ‘$950? What will we do with that? We can’t even buy a motorbike.’ Through question time yesterday we heard a new mantra from the executive: tradies. What a wonderful institution this is when we can have a mob leading Australia so out of touch with reality that the word ‘tradies’ is a revelation. Tradies, tradespeople who have kept this country going decade after decade, are suddenly a new thing to this government. The word ‘tradies’ is a new discovery. It is amazing. At the same time, they grin and leer across the bench and accuse us of being out of touch with the electorate. Yet, to them, ‘tradies’ is a newly discovered word today. Over the Christmas period and prior to the Christmas period we heard about ‘schoolies’. That was the word that caught one’s imagination then. I guess the spin doctors, with the Rudd government well captive, thought that schoolies, tradies, chalkies will be something that will capture the imagination of the Australian people. It does not do much for me. I am a tradie and I was not enthused. I certainly was not enthused to the point where I would swallow this load of codswallop—this package that is going to put my children into debt and my children’s children into debt; the worst, most horrendous, arrogant act of any government in Australia since Federation. I just do not know where they get off, Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan. Somebody said to me today, ‘Are you writing a speech, because I believe you will be going quite late into the night?’ I said, ‘Actually, it will be the morning and, no, I am not going to write a speech because, really, does it need much consideration?’ Does this horrendous act by this government need any careful consideration for speech writing—a mere 20 minutes of invective against righting the ills perpetrated on the Australian people by this government? No, it does not. What this Rudd-led government is trying to do is con the Australian people into believing this is some bitter pill that they need to swallow. It is not; it is a con. It is more of the Rudd we have come to expect: all spin, no substance. For anyone across Australia who might eventually listen to my words tonight, I have a wonderful bumper sticker: ‘Rudd-a-dud-dud.’ It says it all. When you look at this package you see that there is some perfect symmetry. Investing in Our Schools comes to mind. That was a package that the Howard-led government introduced some years ago—one of the most successful funding programs for schools, both public and private, right across this nation, year after year. That very popular program, which infused dollars back into schools to create learning environments that were effective and that were complemented regardless of the bastardry of state governments that were neglecting the education system year after year, gave heart to P&C associations and made them aware that the Howard-led government knew about them and was prepared to invest in them. But suddenly, having cancelled that vital program, the Rudd government invents the idea of investing taxpayer dollars in education facilities—oh, wait, not education facilities, simply facilities at schools—and then tries to call it an infusion of dollars into our future via education. Actually it is assembly halls, art departments and—what else?—a number of things that do very little for true education but nevertheless try to score points for this dowdy government. But I digress. I am reminded by some of the spin on this package of very, very clever, very, very hollow men. There is an association of words, surely, when it comes to the idea of insulating ceiling spaces and hooking onto the popular concept of reducing energy consumption and, therefore, irrefutably saving the planet. I admire Kevin Rudd’s spin doctors for that association. It is very clever. It is nothing new, as the member for Higgins reminded us just this evening. There is nothing new about the idea of the tree huggers of this world wanting to put up a proposition of insulating ceilings at the cost of taxpayers across this nation. It will affect 2.2 million homes. There is no consideration for the homeowner who insulated their ceiling last week, mind you. We acknowledge, however, all of the homeowners who are going to insulate the ceilings of their houses tomorrow and, as a consequence, save the planet. I believe it is a bridge too far to decide to invest in 200 boom gates across this nation. We know that ceiling insulation, investing tax dollars from the taxpayer and saving the planet, can be easily identified by the Australian people, and the Rudd government will surely get a tick for coming up with such an innovative idea. However, boom gates to encourage a boom environment is surely too much even for the spin doctors of the Rudd government. I stumbled across this. Surely it could not have been as obvious as it first appeared to me. Nevertheless, there are many commentators in our popular media who tomorrow morning, I am sure, will realise that, as well-defined, well-intended and expensive as this package is, it does not come with a guarantee. It is the most expensive millstone that the Australian people, via their parliament, have ever purchased—a millstone that they in the future will have the opportunity to rail against, possibly for many decades to come. But this millstone has been declared by the Rudd government as a great opportunity to support 90,000 new jobs. During question time in this place today, when the executive of this Rudd government, so gung-ho about locking the Australian people into an eventual $100 billion plus of debt, were asked if they would repeat the words, ‘This will guarantee the securing of 90,000 new jobs,’ no, they would not. Pressed as they were, time after time, question after question, the best they could come up with was a paltry, very soft, ‘This might support some jobs into the future.’ The issue is jobs firstly, jobs secondly and jobs thirdly, because it is through the idea that this package will secure jobs that the government are trying to convince the people out there to support it, into which so much of our grandchildren’s economic success would be invested. But their own effrontery is such that they do not even have the courage to say that they will guarantee the creation of 90,000 jobs. They have backtracked from their initial position in now saying that this, the greatest amount we have ever been called upon to approve, will not guarantee anything. They say it will support the possibility of 90,000 jobs—the most expensive jobs that have ever been created in Australia, hundreds of thousands of dollars per position if one does the math. Do we believe it? Not for a moment. Do the Australian people believe it? According to the media, not for a moment. If, through a stroke of magic, suddenly I was the Prime Minister of Australia today, suffering the headlines that our current Prime Minister is now suffering as a result of this package being announced publicly, I would be absolutely ashamed—and rightly so, because along with my executive and my paid spin doctors I would have tried to con the Australian people into believing that this is some sort of guarantee; that this amount of money, an unprecedented amount of money, will somehow guarantee that we do not move into a recession; that all of those hardworking individuals out there who make up this nation will be guaranteed an ongoing job. It is all nonsense, because when the government were pressed on the issue they would not say there was any guarantee of a job for anyone as a result of this package. The only sure thing that will result from this financial deal is that our children and grandchildren will wear the millstone of financial burden around their necks into the future. Even this government, in trying to sell this dud of a package, will not say that at a point in the future, ‘We will go back into surplus budgets.’ They will not even say that. In trying to put the window-dressing around this package, they will not even say that this package will work. (Time expired) 416 03:59:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL — I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. Maybe it is because of the time of the morning, almost 4 am, or maybe it is just me, but the rantings of madmen sound even more ridiculous than usual. What ordinary Australians will not miss is that there is a global recession and that, while Australia is not yet there, this government, the Rudd government, is doing everything in its power to ensure that Australia does not slip into the same recession as the rest of the world. At this time in the crisis, there ought to be in this place, in this parliament, some sense and some logic about doing everything we possibly can as a government, as a parliament and as a nation to keep ordinary Australians in jobs, to support our schools and our education system, to support working families, to support the economy, to support retail and to make sure that in the future we can look back and say that we did everything in our power, that we did not leave anything to chance and that we took every measure and every step possible to make sure that Australia staved off a recession. I note that yesterday in question time the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister, ‘What are you holding back?’ My immediate thought was ‘the recession’. If the Leader of the Opposition is not sure about what we are trying to hold back, the answer should be very plain to him—a recession. No less than two days ago the Rudd Labor government made probably one of the most important decisions on our economy since the Great Depression. It was a decisive move by the government which showed action and leadership under adversity to stave off a recession which could have a devastating impact on our livelihoods. It was a decision that needed to be taken. It was what our government was elected to do. It is what the Australian people expect us to do. They also expect that the opposition will not play games with the economy, with their lives, with their livelihoods and with their families. What the opposition should be doing here is looking at the most important factors. As a parliament, we should be doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that we stave off a recession. The bills that we are debating have the intention of fighting an unprecedented economic downturn and relegating that economic downturn to the pages of history. Let me paint the picture. The outlook for the global economy has deteriorated sharply as a result of the global financial crisis. The global economy is now facing a much deeper and more protracted recession than previously expected. The United States of America is in a deep recession; Japan is in a recession; Europe as a collection of nations is falling into a recession; and, more specifically, a number of countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, have fallen into recession. The list goes on and on. Possibly of even more importance to Australia in terms of our exports and our economy is that China is also following those countries down the same path. Advanced economies are expected to experience the sharpest collective decline in gross domestic product since the post-war period. The key emerging economies of China and India are now forecast to slow markedly, with growth in China expected to halve in just two years. The global commodity boom, which has provided a significant stimulus to Australia’s growth and income over recent years, is winding back. The picture of gloom goes on and on. A startling revelation for Australia’s economy is that what keeps the wheels of government greased and turning and what gives the government the ability to provide services and move the economy—the tax receipts that government receives—have been wiped out by some $115 billion across the forward estimates. That has moved the budget into temporary deficit. This is not something that any government chooses to do. This is something that governments either inherit or are left with or that governments have no choice in. This is not something that any government would wish to happen. We would be happy if there were a surprise boom in government returns, in tax returns, as has been the experience over many previous years when there were unexpected windfalls to government. What the Rudd Labor government is doing is providing the absolutely necessary economic stimulus for putting money into people’s pockets. We are providing money for infrastructure and schools, and we are doing everything we possibly can to stave off a recession. The opposition in this place should stop playing games with people’s lives and support what we are doing. 418 04:05:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I rise to address Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills. I point out to the member for Oxley that there is no doubt that governments do have a choice about these issues, and this is a very real choice that your government is making now. It is the responsibility of those in opposition to place checks on government spending to ensure taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. It is the responsibility of oppositions to hold governments accountable. That is what we were elected to do, and that is what this opposition is doing at the moment. The government calls for bipartisanship, but it has shown absolute contempt for the parliamentary system by demanding the opposition pass its legislation through two houses of parliament in 48 hours. Can you believe that, Madam Deputy Speaker? A $42 billion package, Treasury forecasts predicting a government debt of $118 billion by 2012, asking for permission to nearly triple our borrowing limits to $200 billion, putting a married taxpayer with three children $29½ thousand in debt, and this government, with no prior consultation, demands that we pass these bills, unamended, within 48 hours. The government calls for bipartisanship, but is not even prepared to allow us to look at the legislation before tabling it in this place and demanding it be passed. It is ridiculous to think the government is spending $42 billion of taxpayers’ money while believing that its package is perfect and cannot be improved upon, and that we in opposition have not one suggestion worth considering. So much for bipartisanship! It is reckless, rushed and ill-considered. After all, just what could anyone do with $42 billion? What truly productive assets could we build for this nation? Perhaps we could build some ports, fix some roads, fix our health system or train some Australian doctors. Perhaps we could provide extra incentives to develop some new green electricity sources or even do something about our water infrastructure instead of just buying up and reallocating licences. But, no—the government do not wish to discuss any of these things with us. They are the holders of all knowledge. Only they have the answers. Is it because they know the situation is far worse than they are telling us that they are panicked into doing something, anything, just so that they can be seen to be doing something? At least they should level with the public and tell them the truth. The coalition believe both the size and some of the priorities of the $42 billion stimulus package announced by the government are ill-considered and leave little flexibility to respond to further challenges. It will not be a popular move for us to oppose the cash handouts, but it is right for the country and it is right for our children, and sometimes you have to do what you know is right even when you know it will not be not popular. It is, after all, the role of opposition to hold the government accountable to the people of this great nation, and that is just what we shall do. Perhaps the government should ask itself why we would do such a thing if we perceive it as being so unpopular. It is because we know the actions of the government will be a long-term handbrake on the economy. You will remember the former Treasurer Peter Costello’s response to the Intergenerational report: to establish the Future Fund to take some of the liabilities of the baby boomers off the shoulders of future generations, who are declining as a proportion of the population, so that, as we age and inevitably live longer, we will not be condemning our children to a life of comparative poverty, paying for our upkeep. That is why the previous government made the dramatic changes to the Superannuation Act to encourage my generation to save for their own retirement. That is why the government established the Future Fund. This scurry to drive Australia back into debt as fast as we can go undoes much of that. It loads our commitments onto future generations. If we allow this ill-considered package to pass, we bequeath our debt to our children. Treasury estimates show that within three years the government will have borrowed on behalf of every Australian man, woman and child $5,900. If you have a family of three, by July 2012 the government will owe on your behalf $29,500—either you or your children will have to pay that debt and interest. Retirees will owe the same amount and someone else will have to pay that as well. If you are under the age of 40 you may well remain in the workforce long enough to pay off the debts the government has incurred on your behalf; if you are older than that, almost certainly part or all of that debt will be paid for by your children and grandchildren. It seems we have economists crawling out from under every bush telling us it is not only acceptable but highly desirable that Australian governments take the taxpayer into debt to prime the stalled economy. By all accounts, if anyone does not accept the necessity of this course of action they have no understanding of a modern economy. It is well worth remembering, though, that all these voices now calling for governments to go back heavily into debt are the very same economists who 12 to 18 months ago could not see the freight train that was the subprime market coming towards them. The same economists who, firstly, could not see the end of the economic boom, who then believed it was just an American problem and who then believed that Australia would be immune because the Chinese economy would not be severely affected now want us to hock up our children’s future and spend our way out of trouble. As my colleague the member for North Sydney said so eloquently yesterday in this place: they will be the same economists who in 10 years tell us to cut the pension by $100, to cut health and defence budgets, to cut the employment programs because Australia is being suffocated by debt. It is always very easy to give advice when there is no responsibility, but we, the members of the Parliament of Australia, do have responsibilities and we will be held responsible for the debts we authorise the government to run up now, and I am happy to say that this package will not have my approval unless I have much better information than I am currently provided with by the government—and unless they are prepared to negotiate a position with us. How many times have we been told that running a country is just like running a household budget or a small business? Why is it then that every business manager worth his or her salt is cutting every bit of expenditure not absolutely essential for the day-to-day running of their company and we as a nation are going flat out to build up debt as quickly as we can? I have some experience with running a business long term and the energy it takes to pay off debts. Debt can be well worth it; in fact, it is often instrumental in building a business. But you want to make sure that you are getting something productive for your debt. Debt incurred for consumption is rarely one of the investments you look back on as having given you a return. The $10.4 billion cash splash in December and now the $12.2 billion splurge in this package are all aimed at consumption. They deliver not one income-earning asset for the nation. In total, last December’s package plus the cash in this package—$22.6 billion—almost double the amount of money allocated to saving the Murray. That puts it into context. We should make no mistake: government debt is a debt against the future and either we or our children will have to pay off the debt. When the recovery comes, the more debt we have the slower the recovery will be. Even more disturbing is that in this group of bills that the government proposes there is a bill enabling unauthorised borrowings to be lifted from $70 billion to $200 billion—alarm bells should be going off everywhere. What do they need the money for? According to the UEFO, they do not need an amount greater than $70 billion for another 18 months or more. Why the urgency to have it passed this week? What is the government hiding? What do they know that they are not telling the Australian people? It took 10 years to pay back the $96 billion debt left by the last Labor government. The interest on that debt was accumulating at around $10 billion per year. The potential obligations of this headlong rush into debt offer to become a suffocating burden on at least a generation. Is the government calculating the impact of $118 billion debt on the 2012-13 budget? How on earth do they calculate the interest costs on that kind of debt? What if that debt is $200 billion? Having committed to this astronomical debt, what capacity does the government have to respond to further challenges, or have they shot off their whole magazine in the first skirmish? The world economic crisis is in fact a Labor Party godsend. How else could they have ever justified the enormous spend to meet the high expectations they raised in the community at the time of the last election? Even the significant surpluses of the previous government could not have covered this enormous cash splash. How wonderful for the government! Spend whatever you want and blame the global crisis! How convenient to actually proudly claim political sanctity for their actions. Remember during the election how the now Prime Minister described John Howard as spending money like a ‘drunken sailor’? Excuse me! There are words to describe just how metaphorically inebriated the Prime Minister must now be by comparison, but they are extremely unparliamentary and I cannot use them in this House. This follows a familiar pattern: Labor governments drive us into debt and blame someone else. The Rudd government have not made one difficult decision since the day they got into office. They just spend, spend and then spend. They spent the Costello surplus, seized the Telecommunications Fund, grabbed the Higher Education Endowment Fund and then spent their own projected surplus. This government of the 42nd Parliament will never deliver a surplus despite the election hypocrisy of the Prime Minister. Now having exhausted every available bit of cash not superglued to the footpath they set about spending our kids’ lunch money. They are spending the tax dollars of a generation of children not in the workforce yet. Many of them are at primary school. The decisions we make here have the probability of affecting the taxpayers of Australia long after we have seen the back of the recession. History will remember this government for a very long time. Just 15 months ago the Prime Minister with his hand on his heart told the Australian people that he was an economic conservative. Well, we are telling him what a truly conservative party would do in this situation, and he ignores our advice. He refuses to negotiate anything because the only people in his opinion with any wisdom on managing the Australian economy are in the Labor Party cabinet. This is clearly a preposterous proposal. Australia’s most experienced Treasurer of all time sits on this side of the House. We have a wealth of experience and knowledge but the Prime Minister refuses to even talk to us. The Prime Minister committed to delivering surpluses on average through the economic cycle. It is now obvious what that economic cycle is: when Labor are in power they run up debt; when the coalition are in power we have to pay it off and wear the odium of being the financial misers. That is the Prime Minister’s version of an economic cycle. Every day in this House someone from the Labor Party asks us why the previous government did not spend more on national infrastructure while in power. It is because they were paying off the mismanagement, the wastefulness, the profligacy of the previous Labor regime—the $96 billion debt. And now we are heading back to exactly the same position and worse. Parts of this package do have merit and the coalition would have welcomed the chance to work with the government on it. The coalition is in favour of a more modest package of between $15 billion and $20 billion and a reintroduction of the Investing in Our Schools Program to the tune of around $3 billion. Schools know how good this program was and would welcome its return at a higher level. True, it is not the $14.5 billion that the government is proposing but it is also true that we are not expecting the students at school now to pay for their own libraries and recreation halls, which is what this bill is proposing to do. We would bring forward the tax cuts program for July. This would provide a targeted package to low- and middle-income earners. It would have a temporary impact on the budget but would provide a long-term benefit because those tax cuts are due to be implemented in August anyhow. We will back a house insulation scheme, but it should be means tested and have joint funding commitment from the owner and the government. I have serious doubts about the industry’s ability to supply the huge amount of material needed for the job proposed, and it is highly likely that much of it will be imported—thus exporting Australian tax to support jobs overseas. The no-contribution installation proposed by this bill will lead to a huge and rapid expansion of contractors chasing the government dollar, with the accompanying substandard work which happens when we have over-rapid expansion in any industry. Then, what next? When the money runs out or the program is completed, we will see the industry collapse and they will all be competing for insulation in the new-house-only market. By contrast, a more modest scheme, partially funded by the consumer, will provide a stimulus while ensuring the industry can at first cope and then cope when the program inevitably comes to an end. The government, even after this package, expects unemployment to rise to seven per cent in the next 17 months. There are no incentives to business to keep their staff employed. The coalition proposes temporary government assistance to help pay the superannuation guarantee. This would help all employers keep staff employed and provide help to exporters and the tourism, aged care, technology and education industries—not just to the insulation industry. There is absolutely nothing in this package for exporters. For those who have a limited understanding of economics, the recirculation of money is governed by the laws of diminishing returns. A portion of it, often the largest portion of it, is lost overseas every time the money goes around the merry-go-round. The only way this money can be replaced is with exports. Without exports, our economy is dead. But there is no recognition of that in this package; there is no realisation that the export dollar ultimately determines our standard of living. Remember when all the pundits said only a few months ago that China would not be affected by deteriorating markets—that they had an ample domestic demand to sustain their growth? Where are those economic geniuses now? Many of them are the same economic geniuses sooling on the government to go into extravagant levels of debt. There is no recognition of the importance of exporters to the Australian economy. Instead, the government is looking to a consumer-led recovery: exhorting Australians to spend their cash handouts on widescreen TVs, poker machines, coffee shops, computer games and movies, and telling us that this will save the economy. I am very pleased that the Treasurer has come into the chamber to hear this. Pardon my scepticism—and that is not to particularly denigrate any one of those particular products—but none of them earn those irreplaceable export dollars. Cash handouts are undoubtedly popular, but do they do the job? There is no evidence that the $10.4 billion cash splash before Christmas has provided the 75,000 jobs Mr Rudd said it would. Before we even know what the Christmas fistful of cash did for the economy, the government is going to throw another $12.2 billion in cash—our children’s money—out in the same manner. It is other people’s money to be paid back long after this government is gone. There is no regard at all for the parliamentary process. This is the highest level of debt as a percentage of GDP seen in this country in the last 40 years and there is no plan on how to repay that debt. It is dangerous and not publicly justified in a quantitative sense, and it is a wasteful package This legislation should not be supported. 422 04:23:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —in reply—I want to thank all of those members who have taken part in the debate throughout the evening and, of course, into the wee hours of this morning. This is an important debate on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Of course, there is no doubting the severity of the global recession or the significance of the plan that we have put before the Australian people, and of course this debate has reflected the seriousness of the challenges that are facing Australia today, but there is unfortunately much doubt over the opposition’s commitment to jobs during this global crisis. In the last 24 hours we have witnessed a new first from an opposition leader and an opposition in this parliament. The opposition leader is the first opposition leader ever to come into this place and tell the Australian people that he is voting for higher unemployment—for less work for all Australians. That is a first in this parliament. That is the essence of the opposition’s position. That is the essence of the position from every one of his colleagues who have spoken in this debate right through tonight. We have heard a lot of reasons why those opposite cannot support the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, but very little of it has been based on practical reality or policy reality. Very little of it has been based on any objective evidence whatsoever, because the overwhelming evidence from around the world, from expert bodies like the IMF, is absolutely unanimous: act now or face higher unemployment and slower growth for longer. Of course, the penny has not dropped with those opposite. The longer you wait, the greater the output loss—that is the evidence—and the greater the human damage that comes with that output loss. But those opposite are completely indifferent to the human damage that their approach will cause. Of course, in the face of this evidence you can only conclude that the opposition’s bloody-minded and obstructionist approach is either blind ideology or simply a crude dash for naked political advantage at the expense of the Australian national interest. Shame on them! Their actions in this House today can do nothing but create greater uncertainty when, of course, the times demand certainty from our public officials. They demand certainty, not uncertainty and not the naked dash for political advantage that we have seen from those opposite in the House right through this very long night. Their actions in the House yesterday and today can only create greater uncertainty, the last thing that the Australian economy needs in the circumstances of a global recession. I have listened through the night to all of their confected arguments: the arguments that they had not been briefed and that the legislation was denied to them. They are all false—nothing but a ruse to camouflage their naked power plays, their naked political objectives and their selfish, blind, ideological objection to anything that promotes the welfare and employment of the Australian people. How else do you explain their actions in all of these circumstances—that they would take this stance in the face of the strong opposition even of the business community? Last night I came back from a meeting of the Business Council of Australia in Melbourne. There was strong support for the government’s package. They understand how high the stakes are, but those opposite are so out of touch that they simply have not got a clue what they are doing in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition is saying to business and to the broader Australian community that the country must simply stand still and mark time. That is what he is saying. We do not have any time to waste. We do not have time to waste just to suit the political timetable of the Leader of the Opposition. If waiting causes damage, he just says, ‘Bad luck.’ That is the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. This is really just about Malcolm Turnbull and his political objectives. It is not about the national interest or the Australian people. How else do you explain the blatant disregard in their opposition to the interests of low-income earners who will benefit from this package and who need the certainty in the environment that we are in at the moment? It is evident in his complete disregard for the truth when he talks about deficits and spending. There is a bitter irony here, because the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward a proposal for a permanent tax cut that would send the budget even further into deficit into the future permanently. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten —Crazy! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Crazy. The opposition leader knows that two-thirds of the fall in the fiscal position over the forward estimates is explained by revenue downgrades imposed on this country by a global recession and by a halving of the growth in China. That is where the deficits are coming from principally—from the global recession—but speaker after speaker after speaker has told untruths about that in the House tonight. In their deception about the source of deficits they have been joined by that blast from the past, the member for Higgins, a man acutely embarrassed by his record of taking the proceeds of the mining boom, spending like a drunken sailor and building nothing that lasts for the Australian people. There was a refusal over all that time in the middle of a boom to invest in schools, to invest in social housing and to invest in communities. Our plan is to target a stimulus package with more than two-thirds invested in building things that will make Australia a much, much better place. But the opposition are contemptuous of these plans. They are contemptuous of the plan for our schools, for social housing, for energy efficiency and for building the capacity of local communities. You could hear the contempt in their voices as they talked about our investment plans for communities, for schools and, most particularly, for social housing. You could hear it in their voices, and that more than anything explains what they do not understand and what they do not get. Those opposite do not walk in the same shopping aisles as average Australians. If they did, they would be supporting this package, and they would not be walking around the corridors of this parliament, as they have done through this evening, skiting that they can stop the payments being made in March. That is what they have been doing: walking around the corridors skiting that they may be able to deny the Australian economy a vital boost in March and deny payments to low-income earners. This is unbelievable but it is a demonstration of how out of touch they have become and how their objectives are nakedly selfish and political and have absolutely nothing to do with the Australian national interest. The opposition is dripping with prejudice against people who might need social housing or whose kids go to rundown schools. They simply do not understand it. If you strip away all the confusing positions of the Leader of the Opposition, all you see is that what he wants to do is to give us a page out of the merchant bankers handbook—or the old version of the merchant bankers handbook before it had to be rescued to save the world and the country from them—because they do not believe that in these circumstances government does have an active role to play. In these circumstances, where you have such a sharp contraction of private demand imposed on this economy from without, there is only one body that can move in to protect the people, and that is what this government is doing: moving in to protect our people, to boost our economy and to cushion the effects of a global recession. The Leader of the Opposition is simply acting out of blind ideological prejudice. That means he does not believe the state should do what it can to give people a helping hand and help build the nation. But we on this side of the House have believed that for all of our history. We are acting in the national interest and those opposite are trashing the national interest. Every government, all the economic authorities and almost all of the economic experts around the world are urging decisive action to stimulate economic growth. Yet the opposition leader’s solution is to oppose positive measures to support Australian jobs, businesses and families. As I said before, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have no idea—none whatsoever—about the magnitude of the challenges we face and their impact on families and Australian businesses. They are just completely out of touch. The world is facing its greatest crisis since the Great Depression—the biggest single challenge we have seen in a modern market economy. It is bringing falling growth, job losses and budget deficits around the world. That is the unambiguous evidence of what is occurring right around the globe. We have a global recession. We have the slowing of China and the unwinding of the mining boom, and we have seen that wipe $75 billion from budget revenues in the last three months alone. Of course, that has pushed the budget into temporary deficit. The fall in revenue accounts for two-thirds of the overall borrowing that is required to protect the national interest—two-thirds of it, despite all of the untruths that have been told by those opposite in this House, including the member at the table. Obviously the government will need to borrow to finance a temporary deficit, but we are in a far better position than any other developed country in the world. We have more room to move on fiscal policy and monetary policy than just about every other developed country in the world and we intend to use it in the national interest. If those opposite are going to oppose us using that in the interests of Australian families and their employment then the costs will be on their head. The opposition need to tell the Australian people how they would fund the deficit. How would they do it? It beggars belief. If they cannot support our proposals it follows that they are in favour of either massive spending cuts or massive increases in tax revenue—that is, taxes up or spending down. That is the alternative they will be putting to the Australian people. That is exactly where they will be. We are the ones taking the responsible course of action in the circumstances. Those opposite are behaving in a reckless manner. They are economic wreckers and political vandals, and they have demonstrated that in the House tonight. The greatest failure of governments in these times is to fail to act and to fail to act decisively. This government is acting and it is acting decisively with a well thought out plan—$28.8 billion to build schools, roads, homes, communities and the energy efficiency we need for future prosperity and, of course, $12.7 billion to boost consumption so we can support jobs now. Let’s be really clear about this: without this stimulus our country will be worse off and more Australians will be out of work. It is that clear and it is that simple. What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is to leave this gaping hole in the economic defences of this country. That is exactly the proposition that he is putting to the people of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition wants long unemployment queues and he is happy to let more and more Australians go to the wall and more businesses go to the wall just to satisfy his own personal political strategy. The Nation Building and Jobs Plan is based on the reality that this is no time for half-measures; it is a time for bold action and it is a time to get things done. It is a time for everybody to roll up their sleeves and get on with it. What we really should be having in this House tonight is agreement upon these sensible, necessary measures given the circumstances that are occurring around the globe. Our plan strikes the best balance between supporting jobs now and building the homes, schools, roads and communities we need for future growth. It is a substantial package at about two per cent of GDP in 2009. It is absolutely consistent with the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund and it is weighted towards productive investment. One of our aims is to get the dollar to do double duty: to support jobs now and to do things that make Australia a better place. The infrastructure investment in this package accounts for $28 billion of the overall $42 billion cost of the plan. But consider this: if the opposition had their way, they would not be investing $14.7 billion in our children and our schools. Shame on them. If the opposition had their way, there would not be $6 billion invested in the construction of approximately 20,000 new public and community homes. Shame on them. There would not be $890 million for roads, boom gates, black spots or community infrastructure. Shame on them. And of course there would not be $2.7 billion to transform our housing stock into energy-efficient homes. What the opposition are voting for in opposing these bills are more job losses, more people losing their homes and more people losing their businesses. This is really serious. They are voting against direct support for consumption and for less immediate stimulus to the economy until the vital investment measures kick in that we have outlined in this plan. Our payments and tax bonuses are targeted at the people most likely to spend, in contrast to the proposal put forward by the opposition. We saw only yesterday in the retail trade figures for the month of December the biggest boost in more than eight years, which comes on the back of our Economic Security Strategy of last October. These figures show that our Economic Security Strategy did deliver a significant boost to consumption, to employment and to growth. There is no quick fix to this global recession and many of its effects are still to be felt. But this government is doing what it can to help see Australia through, and the most important thing is that we need to get going immediately. The sooner the legislation is passed the sooner consumers and businesses will act with confidence to invest and spend and the sooner that will boost jobs and growth in our economy. The sooner the legislation is passed the earlier we can get it underway, investing in the schools, investing in social housing, investing in our homes, investing in roads and investing in our community. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members will sit down. HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr Irons interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, sorry, you were not in the developed print at this late hour. To pre-empt— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Since I have been in the chair, I have noted that Western Australians seem to be on a different time than the rest of us. If you would just listen, I want to pre-empt any argy-bargy about procedure. I think that we actually understand what is about to happen. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —Yes, a guillotine. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kalgoorlie seems to think that he can come in here and rabbit on. Just be a bit careful. Under standing order 81, any member can move the closure. So I can go through the farrago. I can give the member for North Sydney the call, if he wishes to get a nano-second of the debate; I will then give the call to the Leader of the House. 426 04:45:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Manager of Opposition Business 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —We have the right to be heard— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call. 426 04:45:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That the question be put. Honourable members interjecting— 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Where is the member for Higgins? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question is that the motion be put. DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Those of us who have not been given the opportunity to put our point of view forward on this, would we be permitted to have our speeches incorporated in Hansard? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is not in the hands of the Speaker. Question put. 04:50:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 76 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 50 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Simpkins, L. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That this bill be now read a second time. 04:57:00 The House divided. (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 78 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 52 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 428 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr Pearce —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that the Prime Minister is not with us at the moment, I am wondering if you would consider extending the division so the Prime Minister might be able to join us. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Aston knows that that is not a point of order, and if it were not so late in the day I would probably deal with it. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —It is pretty early in the day! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —It is late in the day because today is yesterday. Having read that ‘in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today’, you will understand it. Question put. 05:02:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 78 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 52 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 429 Bills R4045 429 Debate resumed. A division having been called and the bells being rung— A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr Pearce —Mr Speaker, I note that the Deputy Prime Minister is not with us and I wonder if you would consider extending the division so that she might be able to join us? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will deal with the member for Aston at the completion of this division. I am tempted to make the member for O’Connor’s day! Question put. 05:06:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 78 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 53 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Aston is discharged from the House under standing order 94(a). The member for Aston then left the chamber. 430 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 430 Bills R4046 430 Debate resumed. Question put. 05:10:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 77 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 52 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 431 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 431 Bills R4042 431 Debate resumed. Question put. 05:16:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Dr MJ Washer) 78 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 52 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message received from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 432 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 432 Bills R4043 432 Debate resumed. Question put. 05:20:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 78 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 53 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 433 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 433 Bills R4041 433 Debate resumed. Question put. 05:24:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 78 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 53 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 434 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I put the question: That the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 434 Business 434 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 05:26:00 —I move: That the House next meet at 10.00 am this day. 434 05:26:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Manager of Opposition Business 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —May I take the opportunity to thank the staff of the chamber and various other staff. Honourable members interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I think it is important to thank the staff and various others who have stayed up all night. Given the fact that it is now 5.30 in the morning, and they will not get the opportunity to have a sleep—nor will many members of parliament—we will support this initiative to start the House at 10 o’clock, recognising it was the government’s desire to keep the House sitting. Question agreed to. 434 Adjournment 434 05:27:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —When moving the adjournment, I also was going to thank the attendants, the clerks, the Parliamentary Liaison Office and other staff members. We as members of parliament are well remunerated; they are not. I also thank the Comcar and other staff who have been kept waiting. Mr Speaker, I thank you also for your patience. I move: That the House do now adjourn. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 5.29 am until 10.00 am, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. 434 Notices The following notices were given: HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move— That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fit‑out of new leased premises for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in Sydney, NSW. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest to move— That the House: recognises the stateless circumstances of the Akha people of South East Asia occupying the remote mountain regions of Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and China; accepts that: a long five century history of manipulation and persecution endured by the Akha people has left them disadvantaged, disenfranchised and virtually voiceless; and the Akha people are fighting critical health outcomes through depressed economic circumstances and the utilisation of inefficient agricultural practices and that this situation leaves them as one of the most vulnerable nation groups anywhere in the world; and calls on: the United Nations to do more to prevent the persecution of this people group by the oppressive Myanmar regime which is forcing many Akha families to flee across the border to Thailand; the governments of Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and China to do more for this unique people group in their respective countries to assist them towards self determination; and AusAid to recognise the needs of this unique language group and fund sustainable agricultural aid programs to assist Akha people in growing good food to break the cycle of hunger and depression. 2009-02-04 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.33 am. The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank honourable members for being here. Unfortunately, the chamber does not have a quorum. Without the presence of an opposition member I cannot start the proceedings of the Main Committee. The Main Committee will stand suspended until 10.30 am or a later hour today. I thank everybody for their assistance. Sitting suspended from 9.33 am to 10.32 am 436 Constituency Statements 436 436 10:32:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr MURPHY —On behalf of the people I represent I again raise my very serious concerns about the conflict in Sri Lanka. On many occasions I have spoken of the violence and the violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. The many people who have been displaced and the families of those who have been killed surely deserve lasting peace. They deserve the chance to pick up the pieces and to resume their lives without the fear of violence, retribution and human rights breaches. I have heard too many heart-wrenching stories from many families who now peacefully reside in my electorate of Lowe. They are experiences that are difficult to retell and to comprehend, but if there is one thing that this appalling conflict has taught us it is that violence and a military solution is not the answer. Violence begets violence; war begets war. The never-ending cycle of violence has a devastating impact on humanity. Mahatma Gandhi got it right when he said, ‘An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.’ All reasonable people, be they Tamil, Sinhalese or Muslim, are demanding a negotiated political settlement to bring lasting peace to Sri Lanka. They are demanding a resolution based on resolute political will, not military might. They recognise, as all reasonable people do, that no political, cultural or religious dispute justifies the loss of so many innocent lives. To this end I am pleased that the Rudd government has persisted in its call for all parties in the conflict to move quickly to negotiations which take account of the reasonable aspirations of all people. It is vital that every effort be made to avoid civilian casualties and to act swiftly to mitigate humanitarian hardship in this conflict. That can never happen without a genuine ceasefire. The building blocks of self-determination cannot begin without a genuine ceasefire that is adhered to by all parties. Surely the people I represent here and their families in Sri Lanka deserve nothing less. The pain that many of them have already endured is enough. We must in their names and in their memory seize the opportunity to work together to bring all parties to the negotiating table. Apathy about the conflict is simply not an option. Working together towards an orderly coexistence which brings about peace and prosperity in Sri Lanka is the only option. This is the call from peace-loving Tamils and Sinhalese. It is the call from many national and international observers, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross. It is the call from my constituents and it is the call I repeat in this parliament today. If we are to emerge from the blindness and the darkness that so concerned Mahatma Gandhi, it is a call we must all embrace today. 436 437 10:35:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to acknowledge community volunteers; in particular, I acknowledge Judy Talbot from Brunswick Junction in my electorate. Judy was awarded one of the highest national honours, the Order of Australia Medal, on Australia Day for her outstanding lifetime services to the community. Judy is not only a tireless, passionate and dedicated contributor to Brunswick and the Harvey shire; she is also the first person ever from the little country town of Brunswick to receive the OAM. I am sure that her family, her friends and the whole community are very proud and are still celebrating her achievement. There are very few groups and organisations that Judy has not assisted at some time in her life. She has been a member and office bearer of the Brunswick Red Cross unit since 1965, and she has held the office of president since 1995. She has been president of the Leschenault region Red Cross, and she has worked as head steward of the widely respected flower section of the local show as a member of the Brunswick Agricultural Society. The Brunswick Show is widely recognised as the largest one-day show in Australia. Judy was also the society’s publicity officer for 20 years. She is a life member of the Koombana Bay Sailing Club. She has been the club commodore and was the publicity officer for 20 years and radio officer for 30 years. She is the publicity officer for the Brunswick Lions Club and was a volunteer for over 40 years before becoming an official member. Judy has also held the position of Secretary of the Brunswick-Burekup Anglican Ladies Guild. She is a member of the Brunswick Disaster Committee, a life member of the Brunswick Christian Primary School P&C and has been secretary of the Brunswick self-help group since 1992. She is a committee member of the Harvey shire Meals on Wheels and secretary of the Shire of Harvey senior citizens bus committee. With all of this, it is not surprising that Judy has received the Red Cross service award, the rough tough gold medal of the WA Yachting Association and a Harvey shire meritorious service award. The Principal of the Harvey Senior High School at the time Judy assisted their P&C also commented to me that he doubted the school would have been able to fund and build their gymnasium without Judy’s dedication and strong support of the project. The other thing Judy does is to encourage every community member. Local achievers all receive a lovely congratulatory note from her, and families who lose a loved one all receive a very genuine card or note from her. If you are in trouble, Judy is the first one to offer help. She is a wonderful example of the true spirit of small community volunteers in Australia. Congratulations to Judy. 437 437 10:37:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I wish to speak about the Dugandan Dive and the Cancer Council of Queensland. The Cancer Council of Queensland is the leading anticancer organisation in Queensland and provides a vital link between the public and people with cancer in Queensland. Currently, one in three Queenslanders will be diagnosed with this life-threatening disease. My family has been touched. I wish my father well: he is currently suffering from prostate cancer and bone cancer. It has been my privilege to go to the Dugandan Dive for the last three years. On Saturday, 24 January 2009 it was held at the Dugandan pub and the Dugandan oval. The event is known as the Dugandan Hotel annual skydive. Winnie Parker and her husband Gary have organised the Dungandan Dive for the last three years to raise funds for the Cancer Council of Queensland. The Dugandan Dive originated in 2007, and its genesis can be traced to Win’s decision to parachute-jump for her 50th birthday to try to overcome her long-held fear of flights and of heights. Win discussed her wishes with the locals at the pub, which is located just south of the township of Boonah. Win could hardly believe how many people dreamed of skydiving themselves. At the time, one of her staff members had just been diagnosed with breast cancer, so the decision of Win and Gary to do this provided a great opportunity for the Cancer Council of Queensland to promote its organisation in the Boonah shire. Sadly, a second staff member was diagnosed shortly thereafter. The Parkers approached a skydive company and learned that landings could be held on the oval just opposite the pub. A country carnival has been created. Rim FM 100.1 operates there. There are vocalists and musicians, and artisans and local businesspeople ply their wares. They have asked for donations, and in 2007 they raised $16,717. In 2008, $35,000 was raised. So far this year over $20,000 has been raised by the tireless team of staff and volunteers, as well as Win and Gary. Win said to me recently that it is nearly impossible to talk to someone who has not been affected by cancer. Nicole Baker, the fundraising officer of the Cancer Council of Queensland has been effusive in her praise of Win and Gary and the volunteers. In honour of the efforts of Win and Gary, the Cancer Council of Queensland has created a research grant which helps fund breast cancer research and the employment of a professor at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. This is an important activity in my area. Congratulations to Win, Gary and the local community. They are a tribute to the whole Boonah shire. 438 438 10:41:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I wish to raise again the issue of nuclear power and the Labor government’s secretive and hypocritical stance on the issue. It was reported in the West Australian on 24 January that the Rudd government has secretly maintained a role in a controversial US nuclear energy pact. This is indicative of the dishonest handling of this issue by the Labor government. In opposition, Labor attacked the coalition government for looking to the future of energy provision by having an inquiry into nuclear energy, headed by Ziggy Switkowski. Oddly enough, there appears to have been very little comment from the Left on this new-found interest, albeit previously unannounced, of Labor in nuclear power. No doubt, had it been John Howard who had suggested such a thing, there would have been marches through the streets by the usual cast of skeleton attired professional protesters flourishing the obligatory cardboard coffins. Now we find that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, apparently signed off on a proposal for Australian officials to participate in talks in Vienna last September on how to manage spent nuclear fuel. How can this sudden but admirable about-face by the government be reconciled with its ongoing antipathy towards ANSTO? My colleague Senator Eric Abetz and I have been on the public record highlighting this government’s budget cuts to ANSTO, which will lose $7.315 million under so-called responsible economic management and a further $11.3 million out of the former nuclear collaborative research program. This reprehensible and counterintuitive funding cut by the government is a clear indication that there is no logical planning, no sensible funding regime and total disingenuousness on the issue of nuclear energy. If this government had the courage to openly accept the reality of future nuclear power generation, as I know some of its more intellectually credible ministers do, it would not just covertly get behind the only real alternative source of baseload power but also fund its only dedicated nuclear research organisation properly. We do not want to be in the same situation with nuclear scientists that we have been in with trades trained Australians in the past. It takes many years to study to be a nuclear scientist, and you do not get the best brains for your country by slashing funding. I call on the minister to back his scientists and restore funding to ANSTO in the next budget. 439 439 10:43:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 0 Mr BEVIS —There are a number of aspects of the government’s stimulus package for the Australian economy announced yesterday which I am very keen to support. But today I want to make particular reference to the support for housing. I want to talk about two aspects of that. One is social housing, which is very much needed in many parts of Australia. I know that is especially the case in central Brisbane, with a number of people living rough and a number of people without affordable housing. There are a number of organisations that do wonderful work to support them, and I know that they will have been rejoicing overnight at the government’s announcement to provide funding to enable some 20,000 dwellings to be made available in the next two to three years. That will be a very tangible improvement in the quality of life for thousands of Australians, matched, I am glad to say, by a commitment to funds for maintenance. Any of us who have been into some of the public housing stock will know that maintenance is sorely needed. I am also delighted that Australian Defence Force personnel are to be recipients of additional accommodation as part of the government’s announcements yesterday. In Brisbane there are to be some 103 new dwellings created for Australian Defence Force personnel. In this place we often make mention of the work of our men and women in the defence forces—those on deployment and those here at home. We need to recognise that an important part of support for them is to ensure not just that the equipment that they use in their work, in combat and in trades, is up to scratch but that it is the best available. We also need to ensure that the living standards we afford them are of a high quality. That has not always been the case over the years, and I know that the current minister has a strong commitment to that, as I have had for many years. In Brisbane there are to be 30 new dwellings created in Upper Kedron, another 32 in Everton Park, and another 41 in another area of Upper Kedron, bringing the total to 103 new dwellings in Brisbane. That is part of a much broader package. But in Brisbane, it will, of itself, create some 88 jobs directly in the construction of those dwellings, with an indirect impact on another 200-odd jobs. That is 300 people who will gain employment in Brisbane or have their employment secured as a result of this initiative, plus more than 100 Defence Force personnel and their families who will get high-quality accommodation. The people in Gaythorne, the people at Keperra and those at the Enoggera army barracks will rejoice in that news, and I welcome it wholeheartedly. 439 439 10:46:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I fear that I will not have enough time to do justice to the gentleman I am going to speak about today, but I will do my best. One of the best things about being the member for Swan is meeting the great diversity of people who make up my electorate. From refugees and proud local veterans to the working disabled and senior citizens—each has a remarkable story to tell, and all make or have made a valuable contribution to our society. During the 2007 election campaign I met a man who had one of the most remarkable stories of all. When I met Fred Harper he was 100 years old, and it was after his and his father’s war medals had been stolen. I befriended Fred not only because he was a great bloke, in every sense of the typical Aussie bloke, but I considered him to be an Australian national treasure. Today it is my sad duty to inform the House that Mr Fred Harper, aged 101, of Redcliffe, Western Australia passed away on 29 December 2008, peacefully, in his sleep. Born in Adelaide in 1907, Fred and his family moved to WA where his father enlisted in the Army in 1914. Fred’s father subsequently became one of the legendary Anzacs who fought in Gallipoli in 1915. Following the war, Fred’s parents split up, and Fred and his brother were considered orphans and sent to the Clontarf Boys Home—a story which I can particularly relate to, as I was institutionalised myself at the age of six months. In 1941, at the age of 34, Fred departed Fremantle port to serve with the Allied forces in World War II in no fewer than three theatres: Egypt, Palestine and the Middle East. Having survived the war, Mr Harper returned with his medals to live a full life in the West. When Fred’s medals were stolen, it was with the generous help of the member for Bradfield, who was then the Minister for Defence, that it was arranged to get the medals reminted, and we presented them to Fred at an emotional ceremony in 2007. Fred married and had five children. His wife passed away in 1978, and he outlived one of his sons and one of his daughters. In the latter part of his life, he lived with his daughter Leonie and son-in-law John. I know they miss him terribly, and I think they are listening to me now acknowledging Fred in this place. It was an honour to invite Fred to Canberra as my special guest for my first speech last March. During his trip, I arranged for Fred to visit the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, where Fred was presented with a pack containing information about his father’s war experience and record. I believe this meant more to him than the medals he earned. At 101, Fred was still proud to hold a valid driver’s licence. This leads me to speak about something Fred’s granddaughter, Julie Fowder, said at his funeral about ‘Pop stories’. His great-granddaughter Chelsi did a reading at Fred’s funeral, very bravely and with plenty of emotion. At Christmas 2007, after claiming he was too tired and too hot to attend a family function on Boxing Day, Fred was spotted by family members cheekily driving down the Great Eastern Highway with his mate Ivan. When confronted with the fact that they had seen him when they passed him, he quickly replied that they must have been speeding. In this House we are particularly good at offering condolences for those who have died in the course of defending Australia; today, I speak about Fred. He was one of Australia’s national treasures, and I hope to continue to meet people with his spirit in my capacity as the member for Swan. 440 440 10:49:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I want to place on record my absolute delight about the latest round of the Australian government’s National Secondary School Computer Fund, which will deliver 450 new computers to seven local schools in Chifley. It is going to be really great for all those students in years nine to 12, great for the teachers and great for the parents. Of course, it is true that in Chifley many households already have a computer, but by and large we are an information-poor electorate. Therefore, having adequately resourced computers in our schools is really critical to the success of the students. This was an election commitment announced by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, during the 2007 federal election. We have committed $1.9 billion in funding new information and communications technology equipment in Australian secondary schools. I am delighted for the successful schools. St Agnes Catholic High School received 113 computers; Loyola Senior High School, 144; Mountain View Adventist College, 40; Tyndale Christian School, 114; Bethel Christian School, 22; and St Bishoy Coptic Orthodox College, nine. Blacktown Youth College received eight, and they also received 30 in the first round. I know that the Catholic schools have taken the option of buying an off-the-shelf computer and these are being rolled out very quickly. The state schools have opted to develop a ruggedised computer, and that is taking some time to roll out. No public school or high school in my electorate applied in round 2. I am glad that has changed, and I would encourage those high schools that were not part of round 1 to apply for round 3. I also say with great sadness that the extra money flowing to high schools and primary schools in my electorate, announced yesterday as part of the package, is now being opposed by the opposition. It is a worry as to whether or not we can get this money for every primary school in my electorate through what is a hostile Senate. I commend the government for taking this initiative. I can say that in the 12 years of the Howard government no comparable proposal was ever put forward. I do know that the students are really benefiting from these computers. 441 441 10:52:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —Citizenship of Australia is a deep privilege and honour, since this is a magnificent country; there is no better. Our opportunities are only as limited as our imagination. As individuals and as a nation we can become anything. Therefore, I want, in the Parliament of Australia, to pay tribute to and congratulate those new Australians who came from far away as the Russian Federation and as near as New Zealand, and from places as troubled as Afghanistan to places as stable as Singapore. There were so many people who became Australian citizens on 26 January 2009, and I had the distinct honour of conferring citizenship upon people from many parts of the world. I want to name them in the parliament because I know they will consider that to be something special. From Bangladesh came Mohammed Shafiul Haque, who said to me that he thought there was no better country than this one. From Paraguay came Nadia Carolina Alexander, who said that, while she came from South America, she thought that there was no better country than Australia because of the opportunities for her and her family. Both of those people live in my electorate, in St Lucia and Auchenflower. From the UK was John Martin Brown, who lives in Bardon. From the Russian Federation were Daria Aleksandrovna Chernykh and Aksinya Radaeva, who are both living in Toowong. They were very pleased to receive citizenship and felt the poignancy of the occasion. From Hong Kong came Wai Kei Cheung, who said to me that she very much loved the environment in Australia. Green space—ovals and parks—is not a signature of Hong Kong, as in our community. There are many more. In Middle Park in Centenary, there is Mr Ashwami Kumar Garg, Mr Shrey Garg and Mrs Shilpi Gupta, all from India. They said to me that whilst there was a rivalry with cricket, their loyalties were to our democracy, even though they came from a great democracy. While they still supported India in all other respects, they had a deep love for Australia because they knew this was where their children’s future lay. In Toowong, there is Miss Jiayin Li from China. She said that her future was with this country and she would be flying the flag for the rest of the day with real pride. There were many more from other countries that we are familiar with—for example, the Philippines and Ireland. They all have a great love for Australia and feel very proud to be citizens. (Time expired) 442 442 10:55:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —Good morning, colleagues. In May 1985, colorectal surgeon and avid runner, Dr Gordy Klatt, took the first step of a 24-hour walk and run around a track in Tacoma, Washington. For interest, he clocked up 83 miles and he raised $27,000 in 1985 to support the American Cancer Society. Out of that has grown the worldwide Relay for Life, which is now the world’s largest cancer fundraising event, involving 20 countries. On the weekend of 21 and 22 March at the Dial sports centre in Penguin in my electorate of Braddon we are holding the Relay for Life. We have an ALP team, which will consist of myself and the three state members for Braddon—Bryan Green, Steve Kons and Brenton Best—plus our office staff and friends. The Relay for Life is an outdoor overnight relay fundraising event, held all over the country. I am sure many members here are familiar with it. It involves teams of 10 to 15 people taking turns to walk or run around a track to raise money for cancer support and information services, particularly in Tasmania for the Cancer Council of Tasmania. As well as raising money for cancer research, the relay honours the lives of those touched by cancer and features a survivor’s walk as well as a candlelit ceremony to honour those who have lost their battle with cancer. In Tasmania more than 2,400 people are diagnosed with cancer each year and unfortunately 1,000 of those will die. One in three Tasmanians will receive a cancer diagnosis in our lifetimes. The disease touches us all in one way or another. Relay for Life attracts more than 7,200 people grouped in hundreds of teams at venues right around Tasmania each year. In 2008, Tasmania raised $1.2 million through Relay for Life, or the equivalent of $2 per head of population. The event is not just about the amazing experience of spending the weekend with others in our local communities; it is a fun way that a team can raise money in the lead-up to the day. If anyone listening would like to contribute to my campaign, I am in RG32 in Parliament House and shop 2, 32 Wilmot Street in Burnie. Finally, I am going to dedicate my walk in particular to my late sister-in-law, Marianne Langford Sidebottom, who unfortunately died of cancer at the age of 51 last year. 442 442 10:58:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to condemn the senseless and cowardly people who deliberately light fires in our community, causing enormous emotional and physical stress along with the economic losses and the threat to human life. Last week, as the temperatures soared in excess of 40 degrees, fires were deliberately lit in bushland around the townships of Boolarra, Mirboo North and Yinnar. I will offer my views in a moment on how we should handle these cowards in the future once we catch them. But I would like to reflect for a moment on the courage, resilience and determination of the people of Gippsland who fought this fire. Deputy Speaker, quite simply, the people were magnificent. The community rallied together and was well supported by firefighting crews from right across the state. From the strike teams on the ground through to the aerial water bombers and support staff at the incident control centres and at the relief centres it was an amazing community effort to combat these fires. It is when we see the spirit of country Australians at its best, standing together shoulder to shoulder against a common cause. Despite an extraordinary effort by firefighters, the losses to the community were substantial as more than 6,000 hectares of forested areas, plantations and private property was burnt. While dozens of properties were saved through the efforts of our firefighting teams, we did lose 29 homes. I inspected the damage on the weekend around the Boolarra area and, heartbreaking as it is to see one family home destroyed, to see 29 homes in a line is quite distressing. It is a devastating scene and all our thoughts and prayers are with those who have suffered such great losses. It is estimated that arsonists cost our nation $1.6 billion per year and the damage bill in Gippsland alone from these fires will be in the tens of millions of dollars. There are severe penalties existing for convicted firebugs in Victoria and I wish the police every blessing as they try to track down these offenders. But there is an economic, environmental and social imperative for us to do better at preventing fires in the future. I believe the penalties need to go beyond the initial punishment set by the courts. This week I have written to the Prime Minister seeking his support for a national register of arsonists to help prevent a repeat of this week’s fires. I believe we need a national database of people who have been convicted of such serious fire related offences. I am not unduly concerned about protecting their civil liberties in the future once they have shown a complete disregard for the safety and the rights of our community with such senseless crimes. We need to have a national database of every known firebug with strict reporting provisions which require these people to report any change of address and subject them to high levels of scrutiny and police surveillance if required. It would allow our authorities to check on these people during days of extreme danger when firebugs tend to be at their worst. The most serious offenders could be required to report to authorities on days of total fire ban. It is hard enough for our fire authorities to manage lightning, other natural events and accidents without the constant threat of criminal activity contributing to the fire danger period. As I said in my earlier remarks, the people of Gippsland performed magnificently during last week’s bushfires and I have written to the Prime Minister and sought his support for this practical matter that could help to reduce the incidence of these deliberately lit fires in the future. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 443 Bills R4014 443 Debate resumed from 25 November 2008, on motion by Ms Macklin: That this bill be now read a second time. 444 11:02:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to support the minor amendments to laws on social security and family assistance to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the SSAT. The SSAT is the first level of external review of decisions made by Centrelink about social security, family assistance, education or training payments. As of 1 January 2007 the tribunal is also the first level of external review of most decisions made by the Child Support Agency. By way of history, the SSAT was originally established in 1975 by the Hon. Bill Hayden to review appealed decisions made by the then Department of Social Security. It is now, as we know, a statutory body established under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to conduct merit based review of administrative decisions made under social security law, the family assistance law, child support law and a raft of other pieces of legislation. The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 set out the powers, functions and procedures of the SSAT. The SSAT is within the portfolio of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Administrative arrangements of long standing exist between FaHCSIA and the tribunal that have allowed the tribunal to benefit from the department’s administrative infrastructure. Those going to the SSAT are usually people whose interests are affected by a Centrelink decision or a Child Support Agency decision and who want to apply to the SSAT for a review of the decision. Centrelink appeals can be lodged at any time after a review of the original decision by the Centrelink authorised review officer. Yet before the SSAT can review a Child Support Agency decision it must first be reviewed by a CSA objections officer. Child support appeals must be lodged within 28 days of receiving an objection decision. The SSAT generally has the power to affirm, vary or set aside a decision under review. Where it sets aside a decision, the tribunal must either substitute a new decision or send the matter back to Centrelink or CSA with directions or recommendations for further action. Centrelink decisions reviewed by the SSAT typically relate to the following bodies of law: social security law, family assistance law, the Health Insurance Act, the Child Support (Assessment) Act, the Farm Household Support Act, the Student Assistance Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. In achieving this mandate, the SSAT’s statutory objective is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and informal, and, most of all, it must be quick. People who are appealing decisions by Centrelink or the Child Support Agency should never be required to hang out for decisions that would take months on end—hence the requirement for 28 days after receiving an objection decision. Appeal applications can be lodged with the tribunal in writing, in person or by telephone, though at present Centrelink can only make written submissions. This amendment bill, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008, will allow Centrelink to be able to make oral submissions to SSAT hearings and allow the SSAT to give oral reasons to explain affirmed decisions by Centrelink in social security and family assistance cases. This will bring these types of cases into line with child support cases, where the SSAT does not have the option to give reasons orally to the parties involved. Allowing Centrelink to make oral submissions in social security and family assistance reviews should—and I emphasise ‘should’—provide greater clarity for complicated or technical cases, and it is imperative that the parliament take its responsibility seriously and review the impact of these changes to ensure that the stated intent of making and providing greater clarity to complicated or technical cases is indeed realised. These amendments, again, should give social security and family assistance cases the same flexibility and efficient approaches which the SSAT uses in the child support system, and it is again incumbent upon the responsible minister, and indeed the parliament, to ensure that that flexibility and that efficiency in approach are realised. This bill further extends the term of SSAT members to five years rather than the current three-year terms that members serve. This should promote better planning and decision making through greater longevity, and it is again incumbent upon the minister and the parliament to ensure that better planning and better decision making are a result and that greater longevity does reap the rewards that we hope it will reap. Change for change’s sake is always a nonsense, but change that ensures greater clarity in complicated cases, greater flexibility and efficiency in approaches by the tribunal and better decision making and better planning is, on the surface, for the best. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the goals, worthy as they are, are indeed realised. I have said a number of times in this place that my electorate of Fadden, having grown by 31.6 per cent between the 2001 and 2006 censuses, is the fastest-growing electorate in the nation. As we all know, especially those of us with children, there are always growing pains, and where there are growing pains we need to look at them. Because of the strong growth of my electorate of Fadden, which the library estimates in 3½ years will be 19½ per cent oversubscribed in the numbers of people— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll interjecting— HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr ROBERT —I am looking across at the member for Oxley. I gather his electorate is going backwards. The electorate of Fadden is indeed going forward at a great rate of knots, so I deal with issues of Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and the SSAT on a regular basis. Because my office is dealing with these statutory authorities and the tribunal on a regular basis, I look forward to seeing greater clarity in complicated cases; I look forward to greater flexibility and efficiency and better planning and decision making. And, with hope for what these changes will do in that regard in the future, I indeed support this bill. 445 11:09:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 makes minor amendments to the social security and the family assistance law to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Whilst these amendments are minor in nature, I think that they are quite significant and that they will improve the way the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will operate. They will update some of the legislation that I will talk about a little bit later. The bill also makes technical amendments to several acts, primarily the social security law, to repeal references to redundant payments—and I will talk about that at length in a moment—or to repealed provisions, to correct cross-references, to correct misdescribed amendments and to address similar matters. This bill, as the previous speaker noted, will allow Centrelink to make oral submissions to SSAT hearings. I think this will improve the way the SSAT operates. It will allow Centrelink to elaborate on the reasons for their decisions. It will also ensure that we get a more balanced response. I think the SSAT plays a very important role. Any member of parliament who meets with their constituents regularly will know just how important is the ability to review and to make a merit based appeal to a statutory body that is at arm’s length from Centrelink, because invariably many of those reviews will result in the original decision being determined differently. It is important that the SSAT be able to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, because that benefits all parties. The amendments allow the SSAT to give oral reasons on a case-by-case basis. They also allow the SSAT members to be appointed for a period of up to five years. That is consistent with government policy and is a very prudent reform. All of that is in schedule 1. In schedule 2 there are two technical amendments to the Social Security Act. The bill repeals redundant references to the disability wage supplement and to the rehabilitation allowance, which are no longer paid under the social security law. The rehabilitation allowance was phased out in 1991, when a disability reform package was introduced. At that particular time I was working in an area where a number of my clients were in receipt of the rehabilitation allowance. It was in fact identical to the disability support pension as to the benefit that was paid and as to the way that it operated. At that time a number of my clients moved to the disability support pension or remained on the rehabilitation allowance. There would be no reason why a person should still be on a rehabilitation allowance some 18 years later, because it related to a person undertaking a rehabilitation program. It was a very structured program. There could be a formal training program. There could be an on-the-job training program. The rehabilitation allowance was provided to a person specifically for that reason. Since that time people have been on Newstart. Special provisions were put in place at the time of the disability reform package being introduced in 1991. That disability reform package did benefit people with disabilities because it had a holistic approach to helping those people enter the workforce. Unfortunately, under the previous government that became very fragmented and it was very difficult for people with disabilities to actually re-enter the workforce. One pleasing aspect is that there has been an increase in the number of people with disabilities moving into the workforce. I congratulate the government, especially the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Gillard. The government has looked at what happened back in 1991, has looked at the changes that the previous government made and has been determined to ensure that people with disabilities find employment. Given the fact that we are moving into a time of economic uncertainty, it is going to be even harder for people who have disabilities to obtain employment. This legislation phases out that rehabilitation allowance and brings it in line with the rates of disability allowance under the current legislation, with an additional supplement. It also makes three technical amendments. It repeals redundant provisions, headings and references, repeals provisions to correct cross-references and corrects misdescribed amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, the Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Act 2007, the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act. This legislation brings Centrelink deliberations into line with child support deliberations, where parties have the right to give oral submissions. It is a very sensible amendment, one that I am pleased to see the opposition support—unlike their decision today to oppose the economic stimulus package, which stands to benefit millions of Australians. Their decision will jeopardise the economic security of Australia and I feel that the opposition really need to revisit the decision they made today in their party room. The opposition need to look at the impact of their decision to deny Australians the package, which has been well thought out and worked through by the government. I feel that the opposition will stand condemned if the legislation does not pass through the Senate, as it will have enormous impact in Australia. I conclude my comments in relation to this legislation by saying that I support it wholeheartedly. It brings the legislation into line, gets rid of redundant aspects of previous legislation and brings the Centrelink component when the Social Security Appeals Tribunal looks at cases into line with the child support component. The increase to the five-year term is, once again, in line with government policy. 447 11:18:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Shortland. I do not think anyone in this House doubts that she cares about her constituents. I do note, however, that she was very quick to compliment the present minister. I have no doubt that the minister is doing her job as well as she can, but as to the member for Shortland’s comments on people with disabilities being welcomed back into the workforce being a good thing, I just point out to the House that that was part of the reforms that the previous government brought in, and it is good to see that the present government is continuing with those reforms. Whilst I take note of her advice concerning— 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—The member for Shortland on a point of order? 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I would like to ask the member if he could provide details of the reforms that the previous government— 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —I point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is a requirement that I be asked whether I am prepared to accept a question. At this stage I am not prepared to accept a question. She has tried that one on me before, Mr Deputy Speaker! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please continue. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —Whilst I take note of her advice to the opposition about our opposition to the make-up of the stimulus package, I can assure her that I fully support the action taken by our coalition in opposition and will argue the merits of our position quite strongly and vociferously. Coming back to the matter before us, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 makes a number of amendments to the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. My role as a member of parliament, as with other members of parliament, involves regularly dealing with constituents who approach my office with Centrelink or Child Support Agency decisions with which they do not agree. I frequently refer them to the SSAT and encourage them to exercise their rights of review and appeal. Indeed, a member of my staff is a former SSAT member and reminds me that the tribunal offers a mechanism of external review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Certainly for a number of my constituents their appeals to the tribunal have resulted in outcomes to their satisfaction. I have admiration for Centrelink staff and fully understand that in implementing complex government income support policies—more so of late—they encounter frustrated clients. These are the same clients who frequently contact my office to vent their frustration at the inequities of the Rudd government’s income support policies. I might also take this opportunity to thank my front office staff, who also deal professionally and empathically with unhappy and sometimes very angry constituents. The economic stimulus bonus is one of those issues that has caused some angst amongst my constituents. While I welcomed it in December for the more than 30,000 people in my electorate who received a bonus, the reality is that the benefit for many was short lived. Once the bonus was spent, pensioners and families still struggled to pay the increased costs of living, such as the electricity bill. Many of them will be facing quite a huge increase in their electricity bill in view of the 48-degree temperatures we have experienced in large parts of my electorate. That bill will no doubt be a big one. They still struggle with the increased costs of a weekly basket of food and medicines and fuel—increased charges that pensioners, veterans and families face every day. I will take this opportunity to point out a flaw in the administration of the economic stimulus bonus payment that has come to my attention. Under the Howard government, if a person qualified for an income support payment on budget day when the bonuses were announced, they qualified for the bonus. Not so under Labor. In order to receive the bonus in December a person had to be eligible some two months earlier, on 14 October 2008. Take the case of a 50-year-old constituent in my electorate. On 17 October 2008 the constituent and his wife, also in her 50s, were awarded custody of their three young grandchildren by the court. They have asked me not to use their names, because of concern for these children, and I think we can all understand that. At a time when they are of an age to contemplate a quieter life or even retirement, this couple took on the care of three very young children, the youngest of whom is only three years of age. The constituent and his wife receive family tax benefit for their grandchildren but were denied the bonus. They were not paid the $3,000 economic stimulus bonus because they were not in receipt of family payments on 14 October. They missed out by three days. In December the bonus was paid to the children’s mother because the children were in her care on 14 October, notwithstanding that in December she had not had to care for her children for two months, and further notwithstanding that the courts have determined she was not fit to care for the children. The bonus did not reach the children, and it certainly did not reach my constituent who was looking after the children. I understand there has to be a line in the sand, and a start date is the essence of any law. The Rudd government should have made provision for those who came onto allowances in the intervening period—between when the bonus was announced and when it was paid. It is patently unfair to the couple, who now have to provide beds, clothing, toys, school fees and uniforms for their grandchildren, as well as the two months of looking after the children. I give notice to the minister that I will be seeking her intercession for an ex gratia payment equal to the bonus for my constituent. A further constituent approached me about a similar outcome. Mr Peter Olsen, living in an isolated rural area, has been a long-term recipient of a disability support pension following diagnosis of a serious and potentially terminal condition. Mr Olsen received a one-off offer of temporary employment for a few weeks. After medical advice he undertook this employment and when it ended he went back onto the disability support pension but because he was working for those first few weeks he received no payment of pension on the test date of 14 October 2008. This also means that Mr Olsen received no bonus, despite being back on disability support pension a few weeks later—certainly in December when the bonus was paid. Notwithstanding that he received a pension payment for 13 October, he missed out on the bonus by one day. What is particularly irksome to Mr Olsen is that at no time was he advised that he would not be receiving the bonus. At the very least it might have been prudent for the Rudd government to make clear to Mr Olsen and other pensioners in this unusual situation that they should not count on receiving that bonus, which as long-term social security recipients, they had understandably been expecting. Regrettably, Mr Olsen has precommitted the bonus funds and finds himself in financial difficulties. I seek the minister’s discretion in this case. Apart from those anomalies I support the legislation, as does the opposition. We think it is important legislation and that is why we support it in full. 449 11:28:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. As the member for Shortland said, this bill will make a few technical amendments to social security law and family assistance law to improve the efficacy of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the SSAT. It does it by way of schedule. Schedule 2 makes some technical amendments to repeal redundant references to the disability wage supplement and the rehabilitation allowance, which are no longer paid under our social security legislation. The disability wage supplement was rolled over and put into the disability support pension in 1997. Schedule 3 makes very technical amendments to repeal redundant provisions and cross-referencing in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Act, Native Title Amendment Act and various pieces of social security legislation. It is schedule 1 that I really want to talk about today. It makes a number of amendments to improve the operation of the SSAT, allowing Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT in its hearings, and allowing the SSAT to give oral reasons on what are often known colloquially as affirmed cases. It will allow the SSAT members to be appointed for a term of five years, and that is consistent with a whole range of other tribunals and bodies. It is important to note that as federal members of parliament we probably deal with matters of social security and child support and family law more than any other issues. People also need to understand how and why decisions are made which affect them in their daily lives, whether it is in the case of various types of social security payments made to them, payment of child support or how the family law situation and system interposes upon their lives. About 4½ million Australians receive an income support payment and about 1.6 million parents are in the child support system, which is governed by the Child Support (Assessment) Act and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act. The federal government makes transfer payments in the income support system, in terms of social security, of about $70 billion each year. That is a huge sum of money. About $2.8 billion is assessed to be paid in child support cases each year, and if every parent who was supposed to pay child support did pay it, then it would be a lot more. Given the size of the numbers we are talking about and the amount of dollars we are talking about, it is important that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal operates efficiently and effectively because it affects the daily lives of Australians, particularly people in my electorate, including in Ipswich and the rural areas in Oxley. The SSAT is the first level for external reviews of decisions made by the Child Support Agency and by Centrelink that deal with issues of social security payments, family assistance and education and training support. The objects in terms of statute governing the SSAT are that the mechanism of review is to be fair, just, economical, informal and quick. But that said, a lot of the indicia of a court system can be seen in the SSAT. The SSAT was originally established by the then member for Oxley, the former Governor-General, and a very prominent member of Ipswich, Bill Hayden. He established that the purpose of it was to review appeal decisions made by what was then known as the Department of Social Security. It took a Labor government to do that, and Bill is to be commended for the work he did in that regard, as well as other reforms such as Medibank that he brought in during his tenure. The statutory body, as I said, is governed by the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and it hears cases. People who have been affected by the decisions of Centrelink or the CSA have a right to apply to the SSAT for a review of that decision. In my previous life as a lawyer, I operated in these areas regularly. Centrelink appeals are lodged after review by the Centrelink authorised review officer of that original decision. It is the same thing under the child support legislation, where a CSA objection officer also hears a review from a departure order which is being sought as a result of an administrative decision made by the Child Support Agency upon application by someone seeking child support. Twenty-eight days is the time to lodge the objection and it costs nothing to appeal to the SSAT, which is important. The SSAT usually conducts hearings face-to-face; people are usually in the same room. The hearings from Centrelink and from the CSA are hearings de novo. In other words, they are not appeals on matters of law, they are not appeals on matters where irrelevant considerations were taken into account or, for example, where material fact was left out. So they are not legalistic, if you know what I mean; it is really to review the whole thing yet again. That is why it is important for people in Australia to ensure that they know that the SSAT hears these things and hears them in a way which is fair and just. The CSA, the Child Support Agency, is entitled to make oral submissions. It needs to seek leave of the SSAT to do that, but it is entitled to make oral submissions rather than, in the circumstances, in the very legalistic way of giving a brief. The applicant in those sorts of proceedings is entitled to make submissions as well, as is the respondent—and there is scope, usually, for cross-examination. So the SSAT is run in a courtroom like manner. It is also entitled to compel people to appear before it. So we are talking about a body that has tremendous powers and that the average Australian can deal with as a result of decisions made in terms of child support and Centrelink payments. In addition to simply supplying the information it already has, the CSA has the capacity to comply with requests made under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act. In other words, the SSAT can exercise powers to compel the CSA to make submissions and comply in terms of the provision of information. This whole process is to ensure that we speedily get through the legal technicalities, get past the legal forms, the rules of evidence et cetera and that a proper consideration or review takes place. It is extremely important that we ensure that the way in which these tribunal hearings are conducted is fair. Currently, the secretary of FaHCSIA, the secretary of DEEWR or the Centrelink Chief Executive Officer may only make written submissions to the CSA but not oral submissions. That has resulted in a number of adjournments. If you have ever been involved in these types of processes, you can see how adjourning the matter would really irritate people—and that happens whether it is the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court or a body dealing with child support reviews. Nothing irritates the average Australian more than going to a tribunal or court and finding they have to go away again because some legal technicality has not been complied with. This measure brings the SSAT operations under social security and family assistance, in line with the kind of SSAT operations under the child support jurisdiction. It increases the flexibility and efficiency of the SSAT by providing Centrelink with the option of making oral submissions. That is a very important improvement in the operation of the SSAT. It will help in fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure that it is quick, economical, just and equitable, and informal in the way in which it operates. The more we ensure that these proceedings are less adversarial, the better for the average Australian. Another change will be on affirmed cases. The SSAT hears decisions of the child support review officer, the objection officer, and Centrelink hears the initial review of the objection. Currently, in cases that deal with social security, they have to give out written reasons. Where decisions are made that simply affirm the decision that was made in the first instance or on review, why shouldn’t they be able to give those decisions orally, and not be subject to the legal technicalities of providing written reasons? A party has the right to request that, and in those circumstances written reasons will be provided. This reduces the time it takes to make decisions, because nothing takes longer in our legal system than the people who preside over tribunals adjourning the case to provide written reasons. Sometimes, months if not years go by before decisions are made by judges and magistrates, and that irritates litigants so much. So the idea of oral submissions or reasons being given in cases where the decision made in the first instance is affirmed is a very significant reform for those people who interface with the SSAT. The final reform deals with the terms of appointment to the SSAT. It extends the maximum period of appointment from three years to five years, which is in line with many other bodies. So what we are talking about here is increasing the transparency of the merit based selection involved in appointing statutory office holders to the SSAT. It will ensure that they are appointed for a period of a duration which allows them to get across the jurisdiction and get across how they can operate. I sometimes wonder whether three years is simply too short. We see that in a lot of appointments. Five years allows people to get across the jurisdiction much better when they are presiding, and other agencies appoint on that basis through this parliament and through ministerial decisions. This is an important reform that we are dealing with today. It might sound technical, it might sound unsexy and it might sound like it is not the sort of legislation that people will go home and read about, but it deals with people’s everyday lives—and the people in my constituency of Blair deal with the SSAT, Centrelink and the Child Support Agency every day. This is a great piece of reformist legislation. It is typical of what Labor governments can do when they talk about law reform. It is typical of what Labor governments can do to help those who are in need, those who face the rigours of legal proceedings, those who face the bureaucratic rigours of big governments. What we are doing here is helping the average Australian to improve their chances in court proceedings and streamlining our legal procedures. That is a great reform, it is a great initiative, and I commend the minister and the government for introducing it. 452 11:41:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. In Cowan, just as in all the other electorates, matters arise where the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is required to re-examine the decisions made by officers of Centrelink or the Child Support Agency. It is essential that these often emotional matters be resolved quickly and transparently. The SSAT clearly appreciates the importance of these points because its aims include providing a review that is ‘fair, just, economical, informal and quick’. That is all very important, but the specific aim of this bill is to amend a number of items of legislation that will enable the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to work better, including granting Centrelink the ability to make oral submissions to the SSAT or speak at hearings. It will also allow the SSAT to state its affirmation of cases orally and enable appointment of members to the SSAT for five-year terms. It is my intention today not to mention or comment unnecessarily on every other act that this bill will amend but rather to speak on the substantive measures and their relevance to the electorate of Cowan, so I will state right from the start that it is my intention to speak only on the substantive measures involving oral submissions and periods of appointment. With regard to the first aspect of the bill, the interaction of Centrelink with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, this bill will enable Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT whereas previously only a written submission was possible. This is an important improvement if you want to deliver transparency and fairness, because so often the context of individual cases is difficult to express in written words. An appellant would be better able to seek fairness in an SSAT decision if a Centrelink officer was able to speak and then clarify any additional points during a review. This would also bring Centrelink into line with the Child Support Agency, which is allowed to appear at hearings when required. The period that a member of the Appeals Tribunal holds office is set out in schedule 3 part 1 clause 4 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. However, I wonder why there is the need for item 23 in this bill before the parliament today. Why is there a need to appoint a person for five years when their performance can still be judged after three years, and then a decision can be made as to whether they continue under reappointment? It is fine for the executive director to be appointed for five years, but the members should be assessed every three years and this would appear to be the more appropriate course of action. However, we will see how the appointments and the actions of members of the SSAT go in the future. I would like to see the SSAT strongly support, where possible, the principles of what social security is truly all about. I imagine that all of us here in parliament would agree that welfare payments to the younger and able-bodied members of society are just a temporary means of support until such time as they can find employment and once again support themselves. I certainly look forward to a more consistent approach to welfare support and an end to those rare and inappropriate comments you hear when a person on Newstart starts talking about how much they ‘earn’. I think John F. Kennedy got it right in his inaugural speech when he said: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.’ I recently visited and congratulated the ladies who work down at the Uniting Church’s outreach program in Girrawheen, in Cowan. These ladies, known as the Wednesday Club, volunteer to operate the food bank and the second-hand clothing store down on Salcott Road in Girrawheen. They provide a great service to those who are struggling to make ends meet. Every eight weeks, families can attend the food bank, make a gold coin donation and pick up a hamper of food. I congratulate Maureen Le Bretton, Agnes Brunton, Carole Zielinski, Diane Alexander, Lorna Phillips and Maureen Lambert for the great work they do. They provide examples of the very best of the Australian character with the fabulous work they do under the auspices of the Uniting Church in Noranda, and it makes me proud to be their federal representative. I know that the vast majority of their clients greatly appreciate the effort that these ladies put in and respect the sentiments behind this sort of support. Unfortunately, as with all things, there are some people who do not appreciate that support or respect the sentiments behind it. There are some that abuse this support. The forms of abuse range from somewhat rare cases of verbal abuse to those who think that, just because the surnames of husbands and wives are different in some cultures, this means that the wife can show up one week and the husband the next, just to try to maximise what they can get, knowing of course that this then takes away opportunities from others who might need that support. This is not to say that the abuse of the good graces or the intentions of the food bank is confined to one group. No, the small number of people involved in poor behaviour range across a number of different groups in the community. It may be recalled that I mentioned the need for a gold coin donation to participate in the food bank. This is a modest sum that goes some small way to offsetting the outlays that the Noranda church puts into the food bank. They receive no donations. They have to buy it all. It is therefore disappointing that, when asked for that gold coin donation, some people pull a $50 note out of their wallet and then ask for change. Other clients seem to have spent their money on purchases such as body piercings, cigarettes, flash clothes or other excesses that all demonstrate that they prioritise those matters above having good food on the table. Again, I make the point that this is a matter of priority. As parents, as leaders, we should first be thinking about putting good food on the table for our children and supporting our families before spending money on things that are purely excesses. The tragedy is that these sorts of people take some of the capacity of the Noranda Uniting Church and other philanthropic organisations within Cowan and elsewhere away from the genuinely disadvantaged and those who are in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own. Once again, I applaud the efforts of Maureen Le Bretton, Agnes Brunton, Carole Zielinski, Diane Alexander, Lorna Phillips and Maureen Lambert from the Uniting Church in Noranda and other individuals and organisations that are committed to the support of those that struggle in this nation through no fault of their own. It is a shame that there are some who abuse the goodwill and the systems in place to provide assistance, whether that is through the non-profit sector or through government welfare support payments. While it is a sad reality that there are and always will be those who abuse the good intentions of others, this bill is about improvements to the system, and I look forward to those improvements being implemented. While I have reservations about whether the extension of the maximum term for a member of the SSAT to five years is really going to be of benefit, I look forward to seeing the benefits of all the changes applied to the cases that affect my constituents in the electorate of Cowan. In conclusion, I look forward to this bill providing a more effective appeals system and I look forward to the best use of social security assistance for Australians—and that assistance should only be taken up by those who are really in need of it. 454 11:50:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. This is a good bill. It makes a number of needed amendments and draws into line things that are widely supported and acknowledged across the parliament and the community as things that would make the current system work a lot better. The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the current social security and family assistance laws in relation to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the SSAT. While the system that we have in place could work better, it currently performs well. There are always opportunities for problems to arise and for incorrect decisions to be made. Sometimes, better systems need to be put into place. But it is good that we actually have an appeals mechanism so that people can appeal decisions that are not in their favour. The original Social Security Appeals Tribunal legislation was introduced by a former member for Oxley, the Hon. Bill Hayden, so it would be remiss of me not to mention him in my comments today. It was Bill Hayden who reviewed the appealed decisions made by the then Department of Social Security. Putting in place the SSAT system was a great move forward in ensuring that decisions made in the bureaucratic process are the right decisions and that people have the opportunity to seek more information and to challenge decisions or better understand why decisions are in fact correct. The SSAT has since become a statutory body. Under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 it conducts merit reviews of administrative decisions made under social security law, family assistance law, child support law and various other pieces of legislation. The amendments in this bill will allow the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to give oral reasons on affirmed social security and family assistance cases. It will review cases that affirm the decision made by Centrelink and it will bring those jurisdictions more closely into line with child support and how those systems work. It is important that that change is brought forward and used. In the discussions we have with our constituents, often cases arise where there is miscommunication or misunderstanding or somehow people just do not quite comprehend what is going on around them. Sometimes that cold letter informing people of a decision by a department does not meet people’s expectations. It is certainly a harsh method. I can understand that that is necessary—obviously, these things need to be clearly spelt out—but giving an oral submission and sitting down with people and discussing these things will enable them to better understand what the decisions are, how those decisions come about and how the system works. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I support it very much. As in the child support sphere, the oral decision arrangements will be subject to the right of the parties to request written reasons if they prefer. I think that needs to be there also as a backup system to confirm what people have heard orally. What has been explained to them can also be provided in writing. The SSAT amendments to allow Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT also mimic the child support arrangements, which will bring in continuity and similar arrangements across a whole range of those legislative areas and the departments and services that people access. That is very important in getting people to understand how they work. Often the people who access one of those areas will automatically have access to all the other areas as well. I think it is important to cut down the complexity of the systems that are in place by making them uniform across the different departments. Centrelink will now be able to ask the SSAT for permission to make oral submissions to it, and the SSAT will be able to order Centrelink to make oral submissions as well. This will increase the flexibility and efficiency of the SSAT and it will help to avoid costly and inefficient adjournments. I think it is a sensible way forward. It is obviously supported by everyone in this place. It is something that I am happy to be a part of. The new power will generally be used in complex cases where further explanation may clarify a complicated or technical matter and assist the SSAT to reach a preferable decision. The amendments to allow SSAT members to be appointed for a term of up to five years, in place of the currently allowed term of up to three years, will also bring the SSAT in line with government policy that appointments of statutory office holders are generally to be made for a period of five years for reasons of stability, efficiency and good governance. The remaining amendments in the bill are purely technical in nature. They do not raise any substantive issues or matters, but they do tidy up the legislation by repealing redundant references, correcting cross-references and addressing similar matters. All in all, I am more than happy to be part of a government that makes these changes and tries to address some of the issues by making people’s lives a bit easier. Any appeals they make about departmental and government decisions will be easier to understand, and I think that is a step in the right direction. I fully support the bill. 455 11:56:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. In the present world situation, with millions of people going to the wall financially, it has become a lot more fashionable, even on the conservative side of politics, to speak about mercy, or what Shakespeare called ‘that twice blessed gift to the unfortunate, those on whom the shafts of fate have unfairly fallen in a time’—like now—‘of strife’. This bill amends, broadens and makes more merciful legislation first passed a generation ago in another era of strife, 1975, following the actions of Bill Hayden, a great Australian, a great Labor leader and a great Governor-General, when he was the Minister for Social Security. It set up the SSAT, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, whose purpose was to help the unfortunate, the people with disabilities, the elderly, single parents and their suffering children, to keep a roof over their heads, adequate food on the table and blankets on the beds when the basic things could be threatened by bureaucratic errors and injustice in the Department of Social Security, which was then in charge of their lives. The responsibilities of the SSAT have grown since then. It now reviews, questions and sometimes overturns decisions made under social security law, family assistance law and, since 2007, child support law. But its aim, then as now, is to rescue those who have fallen between the cracks of our society, however briefly and however unjustly. It helps those who are suffering from want, poverty, panic or homelessness because of a lack of legal advice, misinformation or errors in proper bureaucratic process. It helps those who have lost what may be the only lifeline for themselves and their families. It is there to give to those in need a system which gives not just the theoretical right but the practical power to challenge incorrect or unjust decisions made regarding eligibility for allowances, their rate, their duration or their perceived doubling up. The SSAT strives to be fair, just, economical, informal and quick. It does not rely upon lawyers. It does not charge for an application to review a benefit. It provides reasonable travel and accommodation expenses and interpreting services to help people make their case. In 2007-08 there were over 13,000 applications lodged with the SSAT, with the number of Centrelink related applications increasing by 35 per cent to 11,596. The main reason for the increase was Centrelink rulings on the Newstart allowance and alleged participation failures, where Centrelink ruled that a receiver of the allowance had not done enough to meet their responsibility to find work. Of the 11,000 cases, 27 per cent, or over 3,000 cases, saw the complaint upheld and Centrelink’s original decision overturned. This shows that Centrelink is a professional, humane organisation that gets it right most of the time, but it also highlights that no system is perfect and there is a need for an independent mechanism of review that is accessible to all Australians. Of course, the case details and the results are confidential, given that they deal with the personal circumstances of people. I would like to provide an example, in summing up, of how the SSAT can work to bring about a just and fair result for someone who is doing it tough. A single parent receiving the parenting payment for looking after a son with severe autism was penalised by Centrelink, who ruled that because she was still legally married, although not living with her husband, she should never have been given the single parent pension in the first place. This left her with a sizeable debt to pay at a time when money was needed for her child with autism—a debt to be paid with money that she did not have and could not earn while she was still looking after herself and her son. The review found that Centrelink had acted incorrectly and had not found sufficient evidence to prove that the couple had remained in a relationship, that Centrelink in this case had jumped the gun. The SSAT found that the money supplied by her former husband was for the care of the child only, that there was not evidence of an ongoing relationship between them, that they were no longer living together and that Centrelink in this case had erred. This common-sense decision delivered a fair result and saved a family and a working mother tens of thousands of dollars. Another valuable aspect of the SSAT provides feedback to Centrelink and the Child Support Agency as to how they can improve their performance in their dealings with clients. In this role, it has helped us develop a pension system that is more responsive and humane towards the vulnerable people that it aims to assist. The SSAT has been performing a valuable service on behalf of vulnerable Australians for 34 years, and this bill will help it continue that work. In summary, several acts within the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and related portfolios are amended by this miscellaneous measures bill. The amendments are minor and technical only. The minor amendments in the bill are to the social security law and the family assistance law. These amendments are to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, including allowing oral evidence and oral decisions in certain circumstances. Oral decisions will be available where the decision of Centrelink is being affirmed. All parties retain the right to request written decisions within 28 days. Oral evidence is likely to be used in complex cases where further explanation may clear up complicated or technical matters and so help the SSAT reach the correct and preferable decision. It should also help avoid costly and inefficient adjournments. The bill also extends the term of appointments for members of the tribunal from three years to five years, in line with government policy announced by the Special Minister of State in February last year. Lastly, the bill makes technical amendments to several acts, mainly to the social security law. The technical amendments are to repeal redundant provisions, to repeal references to redundant payments or repeal provisions, to correct cross-references, to correct past amendments that failed for technical drafting reasons and to address similar matters. In conclusion, these amendments further show the Rudd government’s unbending commitment, whatever the budget’s bottom line and whatever the outcome of the present meltdown, to a just and fair Australia where those least blessed by genetic fortune or marital fortune or the fair winds of our times, the circumstantial roulette of a life on earth which brings plenty and prosperity to some of us and privation to others, can at least have a clear, uncomplicated voice, putting their case for mercy and offering sheltering arms against the harsh winds which blow in a time of strife, such as all of us are facing now. I commend the legislation to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 457 Condolences 457 Debate resumed from 3 February, on motion by Mr Rudd: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 4 January 2009 of Private Gregory Sher, killed while on combat operations in Afghanistan, and place on record its appreciation of his service to his country, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. 457 12:05:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today as the shadow minister for defence science and personnel and assisting shadow minister for defence to put the opposition’s support for this motion, joining with the government in the condolence for Private Gregory Michael Sher, who lost his life in Afghanistan on 4 January 2009, and extending our thoughts and prayers to his friends and family. Private Sher was born in South Africa in 1978, moving to Australia with his family in 1986. He joined the Army in 1989 as an army reservist infantryman and deployed to East Timor in 2002. In 2004, he completed the commando selection course and joined the 1st Commando Regiment, going on to complete a suite of difficult and demanding Special Forces courses required to become a qualified commando. For his service in East Timor, Private Sher received the Australian Active Service Medal, the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor Medal and the Infantry Combat Badge. Private Sher has also now been awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the NATO Medal with ISAF Clasp, the Australian Defence Medal and the Returned from Active Service Badge. As we have heard, Private Sher was killed by rocket fire by Taliban insurgents against the Oruzgan province patrol base a few days into the new year. Sadly, he was 30 years of age. Five days later, in a hot and gloomy airport hangar in Victoria, colleagues and I joined Private Sher’s parents, Yvonne and Felix, and brothers, Steven and Barry, along with his partner, Karen, in attending the ramp service that brought Private Sher home. During that service, a young soldier who I will identify only as Keith spoke over the flag draped coffin of his friend and colleague. He spoke from one family to another, not of the sorrow they felt in Greg’s loss but of the virtues of his life. It is a sad and difficult duty to bear witness to the loss of a young soldier, and I pray that my colleagues here and I never get used to it. Yet it was on this occasion a rare honour to witness the dignity and devotion with which a soldier paid tribute to his fallen comrade. We are here today to pay tribute to the courage and sacrifice of Private Gregory Sher. I fear my words can do little when compared with those of that soldier. So, with his permission, I would now like to share with the chamber part of that speech: Very shortly, the Commanding Officer of the 1st Commando Regiment will present Private Sher his medals. This is a very special occasion for any soldier, and, for the members of his unit, the chance to share with you the many accomplishments he has achieved. We (his military family) are so proud of him and we want to share with you the reasons why. Greg Sher’s entire military career is characterised as one of being a “volunteer”. Greg was a volunteer when he decided to first join the Australian Army Reserve in 1998. Greg was a volunteer when he completed his recruit and infantry courses and commenced his career as a Rifleman with 5/6 Royal Victorian Regiment here in Melbourne. Greg was a volunteer when, after completing 5 months of build-up training in Darwin, deployed with 5/7 Royal Australian Regiment to East Timor for over six months in 2002 & 2003. Greg was a volunteer when, after earning the Australian Active Service Medal, the UN Transitional Authority in East Timor Medal and the Infantry Combat Badge, set his determined sights on a path that would ultimately lead him to obtaining a green beret as a qualified Commando within Australian Special Operations Command. Greg was a volunteer when he looked east out over the suburbs of Melbourne to the Dandenongs and saw, in the fire access track that splits the mountain, a suitable training ground. Greg was a volunteer, when early on any cold and wet weekend morning, when others were enjoying a warm coffee and hot breakfast at home, he was moving his little (but very strong) legs up and down the “thousand steps” or the “fire access track”, pausing only to re-tape his bloodied feet, motivate his fellow soldiers to keep going or quietly add more weight to his own pack. You see, for close to six months, Greg volunteered to put himself through enormous physical and mental hardship just to make sure that on the day he showed up for his commando selection course he was physically and mentally ready. And ready he was. Greg passed the gruelling commando selection and training course in 2004, going on to obtain a whole suite of commando and special forces qualifications. As a very humble man he was not one to boast about his skills. But just some of the courses that Greg volunteered for and completed included: the infantry reconnaissance course; commando urban operations course; advanced close quarter battle course; commando amphibious operations; close quarter fighting course; special forces roping; special forces heavy weapons course; military driving; special forces demolitions; the combat first aid course; and his military parachute course, (to name but a few). For each of these Greg was a volunteer. For each of these Greg stood out amongst his peers. But, for us in his unit, you need to know that Greg meant so much more than his many operational and special forces accomplishments. Greg was selected to serve within special forces because he had the attributes we were looking for and few have; attributes such as toughness, resolve and intelligence. But for Greg, one attribute stood out amongst all others, and it was his “compassion”. It is in this regard that Greg best personified the special forces soldier—the unique combination of the best team player who is still in so many ways an individual. Greg’s compassion as an individual came out in many ways. One of those was in his justification for why he was a soldier. He saw his role as a soldier being to help those that he loved and to do his part to make the world a better place. Greg was, as many soldiers have said to me this week, a truly rare and inspirational person. I know for me, whenever I saw Greg I felt like a whole room just lit up and I wanted to talk to him about everything. He was a well-read man who would enjoy a considered and meaningful discussion on any world issue. Last night I asked those soldiers closest to Greg what he wanted to talk about most when on gun piquet in the middle of the night. They said “Nothing. Because he would rather listen to you.” He would become so genuinely engrossed in what was important to you, what your dreams were and, when you were finished; say how “awesome” it was. Even if he had just heard the biggest load of rubbish, he would still find what you had to say interesting. He would still find what you had to say important. He would then tell you something about you that he really liked and in a way that you knew was heartfelt. He cared about other people and he made you feel good. For his compassion we went beyond just respecting him. We loved him for it. Another attribute Greg had in abundance was his determination to constantly improve. Even during the worst of days, when any other soldier would feel beaten and be tempted to give up, Greg’s resolve and strength was unwavering. He would say to his friends “When it’s really bad. I take it all in; I step back; regroup… and I come back stronger.” Whether it was mastering a new amphibious craft, honing his weapon change over drills, improving his fitness or learning how to improve new medical skills, he always sought to better himself. Greg always came back stronger. And his motivation for improvement was not one of competition but instead reflected his desire to better serve his team-mates. Greg did not want to let anyone down. And he never did. Over time we will learn more about how Greg had an infectious laugh, how important his Jewish faith was to him and how determined and driven he was. But before we present Greg with his medals for his service in Afghanistan, please indulge us for a moment more. Greg’s brothers will be very aware of a very short but moving poem that Greg used to motivate himself when times were hard or he felt down. He often had a copy on him, knew it off by heart and spoke about it regularly … It is called Invictus (Latin for “Unconquered”) and it is by William Earnest Henley, who wrote it from his hospital bed: Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed. Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds, and shall find me, unafraid. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. Greg, previous generations once bestowed the label of the “Greatest Living Australian” to a Jewish soldier from Melbourne called John Monash who, like you, began his military career as a reservist in the Victorian Militia and, like you, volunteered for everything he could and, like you, never stopped trying to improve himself and, in doing so, stood out amongst all others. Greg, we know that our generation’s place in the story that is Australia is still being written. We know that it is being written in the jungles of East Timor and, as we speak here today, by our closest mates in the snow-covered caves of Afghanistan. We don’t know what the final story of this generation will be, but we do know that on a rock in Williamstown, on the war memorial in Canberra, in our history books and in our hearts, there will be several chapters devoted to a young Jewish man who, at this time in Australia’s history, stood up and said “I am Greg Sher and I am ready to serve”. Greg, from that day in 1986, when you, with your brothers and your parents, first volunteered to journey so far and become Australian, you have volunteered every day since. You have made Australia and this world a better place. You have demonstrated to all of us what it really means to be the master of your fate and the captain of your soul. We are all so much better for knowing and loving you. We salute you my friend and we will never forget you. When I heard that eulogy along with my colleague the member for Hunter, I thought it was very moving. These were Australia’s finest and bravest coming together to pay their respects to their comrade. I cannot add to the eulogy, because its words encapsulate the life of Private Gregory Sher. But we must never forget the courage and the sacrifice of such young men nor the grief and loss endured by their families and friends. To Greg’s comrades and colleagues still serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere and whose jobs are difficult and dangerous in often harsh and bloody environments, I simply say that we are proud of your service to your country. Please know and understand that we are committed in our service to you. May Greg Sher’s soul rest in peace. 460 12:17:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I begin by thanking the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and indeed all of those who will make a contribution to the debate on this very important condolence motion. For a defence minister such motions bring both pleasure and pain. The pain is obvious as we are reflecting on the loss of one of our own; nothing is more difficult for a defence minister. The pain far outweighs any pleasantness but there is pleasure. The pleasure comes from an opportunity to pay tribute to a great Australian, an Australian who made the ultimate sacrifice. He gave everything for his nation in a most courageous and professional way. We can all be very proud of all the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We can certainly be proud of Private Gregory Sher, who was a highly trained soldier, a very effective soldier and a soldier of great courage. He is truly one of our finest in the Anzac tradition. There are a couple of things which make Greg Sher’s loss not unique but maybe unusual. The first is that he is the first reservist we have lost in Afghanistan. That is sad, but it also helps to highlight the important role our reservists play in the Australian Defence Force. It demonstrates to the Australian community that reservists can reach the highest levels of training, professionalism and expertise—and Greg Sher certainly did that. It highlights to the broader community the important role they are playing in defending Australia’s national security. The second somewhat unusual—and, I would say, very unlucky—thing is that we lost Greg Sher while he was within one of our forward operating bases in Afghanistan. That is unlucky. Despite his high level of training, expertise and skill, nothing could have saved Greg Sher. He was literally a person standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. When reflecting on these events, I think it is always important that we ask ourselves, as members of parliament, how we can say thank you for the sacrifices of people like Private Greg Sher. Of course, the most important thing is to commit ourselves to never forgetting his deeds and his sacrifices. Before the parliament today, I certainly make that commitment personally. He will take pride of place with those who went before him in one of our most important institutions, the Australian War Memorial. The second thing is not so much a thanks directly to people like Private Greg Sher but a thank you that recommits us to ensuring that those who come after him, and indeed those who still serve, have all the capability, protection and training they need to allow them to do their job as effectively, efficiently and safely as is possible. This is an absolute priority for me and I know an absolute priority for the government. I have often said publicly that military planners spend a lot of time thinking about hedging against the improbable, and that is very important, but we need to spend at least equal time planning for, funding and creating the capability and training we need to ensure that the people who are doing things now on a daily basis in the most dangerous of circumstances have all the protection and capability they need and deserve. Again, I recommit myself to that very important cause. The third thing, of course, is to finish the job, just as Greg’s mates finished their job by continuing on with their important mission despite the loss of Private Greg Sher. And they did so very successfully. Indeed, they met their main objective when they removed from the equation Mullah Abdul Rasheed, a key Taliban leader. Disrupting the insurgency leadership is crucial to better progress in Afghanistan and that is what Greg and his mates were going out to do after they were to leave that forward operating base on that fateful day of 4 January this year. Afghanistan remains a great challenge but we must follow the job through. We must ensure that Greg Sher and the seven other Australians who lost their lives wearing the Australian uniform, and indeed the Australian recently lost wearing a UK uniform, did not give their lives in vain. Again, I say to those still mourning the loss of Greg Sher that we intend to continue on with our determination to ensure that Afghanistan does not once again descend into a breeding ground and a safe haven for those who train for and plan their acts of terror and give them application around the globe, including in our own backyard in this region and potentially right here in Australia. That is our most important task: ensuring the government in Afghanistan is able to take care of its own security in the long term and a government in Afghanistan, which, unlike the former Taliban regime, is not prepared to give a safe house to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda—groups which are prepared to perpetrate those acts of terror in the name of their extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism. Of course, there are other important tasks in Afghanistan, the least not being the opportunity to lift the Afghan people out of a life of abject poverty, to promote human rights—for example, giving women equal rights and the opportunity to secure an education—and to turn off that drug flow that produces around 90 per cent of the world’s opiates. They are drugs that fund terrorism both within Afghanistan—the money is used against our own troops—and around the globe. Some of those drugs obviously end up on the streets of Australia and in the arms of young Australians. So the best way we can thank Private Greg Sher and those who went before him is to finish the job. As I said, we continue to remain committed to the job. There has been a lot of speculation recently about whether we would be asked to do more in Afghanistan and, as I have said publicly on a number of occasions, we will always consider any request from our allies to do more, because this is an important project. But there are some threshold issues: we would expect those undercommitted NATO countries to do more, we would expect the coalition to produce a new plan for greater success and we would expect the request to come with some strategic justification—that is, not more numbers for the sake of more numbers but as part of a broader plan to produce that greater success. And of course the risk analysis is always very important—that anything additional we might do carries acceptable risks in terms of the risk it poses to those who are fighting under our flag in that theatre. It remains to be seen whether any such request comes forward, but they are the conditions under which this government would give any further consideration to doing more than we are as a non-NATO country fighting a NATO mission. We are the largest non-NATO contributor and the 9th or 10th—the number fluctuates—contributor overall. The other pleasant thing one experiences in the difficult event of losing a soldier is the opportunity to meet their family and mates. It never fails to amaze me how close our ADF community is and, when you break that down, how close particular units are—for example, the special forces family. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of the people who trained with and worked with Greg Sher—and indeed trained him—and they are a wonderful group of people, committed to their work. I know they provided great comfort to Greg’s family and I want to pay tribute to the way they have handled the situation and for the support they have given to Greg’s family. It has been absolutely wonderful. The member for Paterson read into the Hansard the eulogy for Greg Sher, presented by a very impressive young captain at the ramp ceremony when Greg returned home. It is interesting to note that the eulogy was written by a few mates in the pub late the evening before. I think there could be nothing more Australian than to have collectively scribed their tribute to their mate over a few beers in the pub the evening before. I thought some of them looked a bit tired that day. We would not deny them that. Greg’s family and friends have established a website, which is quite unusual. It is www.gregsher.com, and I recommend it to members of parliament but also the broader community because if you go into that website you will see the extent to which Greg Sher was both loved and respected. There are pages and pages of tributes from a whole range of people who knew Greg Sher in various forms throughout his life, whether it was at school, in his work or through his involvement with the Australian Army. I recommend it; it is a wonderful tribute to a wonderful Australian. Lastly, the family—what a wonderful family the Shers are: Greg’s dad, Felix; his mum, Yvonne; his brothers, both of them wonderful people; and his partner, Karen, who as much as anyone of course is feeling his loss very strongly. Families react differently to tragic events like this. Some cannot stop shedding tears. Others appear to be, if you like, much stronger, but on the inside the result is just the same. The Shers have been very, very strong and very appreciative of the way the Australian Army have dealt with their loss. Felix specifically asked me to pass on his thanks during the condolence debate today. He was in awe of the way the Chief of Army and those under him have supported the family through their most difficult time. I should say that since becoming the minister that has been my experience on each occasion we have lost a soldier in theatre. The Australian Army are very good at taking care of their own and very good at helping, in any way that they can, the families who have tragically suffered a loss. I thank them for that and pay tribute to them. To Felix and Yvonne, to Steven and Barry, to Karen and the broader family and all Greg’s friends: I extend once again my deepest sympathy. One thing common amongst these families is that they always say that their son was doing what he wanted to do, he understood what he was doing, he knew the risks and was prepared to take those risks, and he fully believed in what he was doing for his country. The Sher family certainly fall into that category, and for that I pay tribute to them. They have been supportive of Greg in his ambition to rise through the Australian Army and his skill competencies and they remain supportive of his decision to deploy to Afghanistan, even though the outcome for them has been so tragic. As others have said, Greg was a member of the commandos; indeed, the 1st Commando Regiment, based in Sydney, but more specifically the 2nd Commando Company, based in his home state of Victoria. He previously had deployed to East Timor and was a highly decorated soldier. I will not go through the list of his awards again. That has already been done by others. Again, my deepest sympathies to the family and my thanks to Greg Sher for what he did for his country. He is truly a great Australian. 463 12:32:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —Benjamin Disraeli said that the legacy of heroes is a memory of a great name and the inheritance of a great example. Private Gregory Michael Sher is indeed a great example to all Australians, and it is with great pride mixed with some sadness that I rise to honour this fallen warrior, the eighth since 2002 to give his life serving our country in Afghanistan. I pass on my sympathy and support to his family: his parents, Felix and Yvonne; his brothers, Steven and Barry; his grandmothers, Sylvia and Molly; his partner, Karen; and his aunts and uncles, Bertha and Harold Milner, Hazel and Alan Fine and Rael and Diana Dushansky. Greg was 30 years old, a young man to lose his life fighting on a foreign battlefield. As we age in this place and around the country, age shall no longer weary Private Sher. Remembrance Day this year will see his name etched on the roll of honour, as Remembrance Day last year saw so many names etched there. As the ancient adage has taught us, ‘Good men must die but death cannot kill their names.’ Private Sher was killed in a rocket attack in Oruzgan province at the hand of Taliban insurgents. He was serving with the Sydney based 1st Commando Regiment as part of the Special Operations Task Group. Yet he was born a long way from these shores, in South Africa, and moved to Australia with his family in 1986. He fully embraced our great nation as his new home and joined the Army in 1998 as a reserve infantryman. In 2002 he served in East Timor and was subsequently awarded the Australian Active Service Medal, the UN Transitional Authority in East Timor Medal, the Infantry Combat Badge, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the NATO Medal and the Australian Defence Medal. His family describe him as a man of purpose and committed determination, a quiet achiever who always got the job done. I think we would describe him as a deadset hero and a man who truly put sacrifice above self. Private Sher and those like him are beacons of inspiration for others who strive to defend freedom, restore peace and hope and provide a better future for the people they serve—those of Afghanistan. He fought for those who simply could not fight for themselves. He stands tall, as a man who believes that all people, wherever they may live, should have the opportunity to live in a better world that is free from violence, intimidation and repression. I know it can only ever be a small comfort to his family, but Private Sher sacrificed his life doing what he loved: soldiering and serving his country. The saying, ‘We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm,’ is attributed to George Orwell. If freedom is indeed the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it, then Gregory Sher stands tall in this nation’s history as a man who had the courage to defend what he believed to be true—in the great tradition of Pericles, the ancient warrior, statesman and king, who founded the Athenian empire 2½ thousand years ago and led that nation for the first two years of the Peloponnesian War. Pericles once said that what you leave behind is not what is engraved on stone monuments but what is woven into the lives of others. The Minister for Defence has just spoken eloquently about Private Sher’s mates. He painted a picture of the boys having a few quiet ales together in the pub the night before Private Sher’s funeral, reflecting on his life and drafting his eulogy. The minister painted a picture of what Private Sher had woven into the lives of others. Such memories cannot be outdone or outshone through monuments of stone; they live and breathe every day in the lives that are left behind. This parliament is very proud of Private Gregory Sher. We thank his family for the great sacrifice they have made. It is unimaginable what it would be like to lose a son, but Private Sher died fighting for his country. He died proudly. He died a soldier’s death. 464 12:37:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —Over the past year and a half in this place, I have come to appreciate that we do experience some very special moments and chances to contribute on very significant issues. This is definitely one of those moments. I deem it a very great privilege to be able to speak on this condolence motion for Private Gregory Sher. He was truly a great Australian, an extremely proud Australian. He lived all of his formative childhood years in this country and considered himself an Australian. He did not really know much about his background in South Africa; he was very proud to be an Australian. His family, his brothers and his partner admired and understood that about Private Sher. As we have heard, Private Sher was killed in a rocket attack. During my year in Iraq, I came under rocket attack many times in that place and watched the destruction and devastation that can be caused by those attacks. I know what it is like to sit there and wash from your gear the blood of your friends; those consequences become apparent from those attacks. Today I send out my thoughts and prayers to Private Sher’s colleagues, because I know the impact of that experience on them. But I also know that, being the proud professionals they are, they will use this experience to steel themselves for further effort in our cause in Afghanistan. I salute their service. I have spoken to Private Sher’s family, and they are wonderful people—Yvonne and Felix, Stephen and Barry, and Gregory’s partner Karen. They have made wonderful contributions to the Australian community in their own right. It was wonderful to hear Felix talk about the Australian Defence Force and the reserves who serve it. It was wonderful to hear his encouragement for those members, and for people who think about joining the ADF, to continue in that path. He understands the importance of that service and what it means to this country and the international community. So I salute the family of Greg Sher as well. We have heard a lot about Greg’s biography, his background, and I will not go over that ground. I thank the members for Fadden and Patterson for their contributions, and I particularly thank the minister for his. But there is one aspect that I would like to highlight about Greg’s service—that is, he was a reservist. It is a privilege in my work in this portfolio to be responsible for the reservists. I do not think people truly appreciate, given that Greg Sher was a commando, what extra effort is required to achieve the qualifications of being a commando in the special forces, to pass all those courses we have heard about and at the same time to be an ordinary citizen going about your day-to-day life. Effectively, our reservists amount to twice the soldiers because of what they contribute to the community and then the extra effort they make, those extra yards they go, to serve this country as reservists. We are so well served by our reserves. In recent years we have become more and more dependent upon that service. In the last financial year, over 1,800 man-years of service was provided by reservists employed on continuous full-time service and a further 4,500 man-years of service was delivered using reserve days. In addition to that, of course, we have had 3,000 reservists serving on ADF operations, both overseas and within Australia. Over the past two years those operations have included individual deployments involving particular specialties and skills. Our reservists have provided capability bricks in the Middle East and East Timor, carried out border security and UN duties and also served as subunit groups in the Solomon Islands. They took part in Operation Acolyte, which supported the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, in Operation Deluge, which was the APEC effort in Sydney, and in Operation Testament for the Papal visit to Sydney. So we are entirely dependent on our reserves to maintain our operational tempo. They are out there making every effort and committing themselves to the extra effort that is needed to prepare themselves for these operations, make that separation from their businesses and their employment and then come back and pick up the rope again to continue on. It was very special for me to welcome back recently the company group at Holsworthy from the Solomon Islands. I salute the service that our reserve forces are doing in the Solomon Islands. It will be a privilege to visit them later in the year. So that is a special thing to note about Private Greg Sher. We have heard that Private Sher was also a member of the Australian Jewish community, and a very proud member of that community. That community has contributed great things to this country over the years. In fact, as has been referred to, our finest commander, Sir John Monash, was a member of the Jewish community. Private Sher was someone who imbibed the values of that faith very deeply. One key principle of that religion is the concept of the Mitzvot, in effect the need for every citizen to do good deeds. Private Sher lived that credo in his day-to-day life, not just in his ADF service. He also imbibed the philosophy of the great Jewish philosophers over the years—this is really something we should absorb in relation to our struggle in Afghanistan and internationally against terrorism, or Islamist extremism—that there are great daunting tasks in front of us and we sometimes face them and say: ‘What can I do? This is a long battle; it will never be won through anything that I can do. I can’t see the end of this, maybe even in my lifetime.’ But the philosophy of these great Jewish philosophers was, ‘Certainly you may not be obligated to complete this task, but it is up to you to make your contribution, to make a beginning and to make an eventual contribution to success.’ Private Sher understood that—he understood that we were involved in an international struggle against this extremism. He understood the effort and the sacrifices and the threats of his coreligionists in Israel, and that these integrated and networked groups—Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, the Jemaah Islamiah group—all have similar characteristics at their heart. It only takes a cursory reading of the charter of Hamas to understand the medieval and desperate ignorance of these people and the destruction and negativity and nihilism that they represent. I think it is important for us to understand that we are not involved in an international war on terrorism. We should take these opportunities when we have these casualties to continually remind the Australian public about what it is we are engaged in in this struggle at the present time. It is in fact a war on ignorance. That is what is at the heart of this struggle. That effort must be fought on many levels and the minister has made comment many times about the different levels, nuances and sophistication that we must bring to the effort in Afghanistan and about how it cannot be won purely as a military effort; how it must be won on many levels. So this is going to be a battle as much in the classrooms and madrasahs as it is in the battlefield. Notwithstanding that, we still need warriors like Greg to deal with those whose goal it is to deal out death and destruction to the innocents. So we continue to need people to join our struggle, to join the defence forces and to join the reserves, to make our contribution to that international effort. We have physically lost Greg in that battle, but as a member of the ADF I know and understand that you never lose one of your own. We will always preserve the memory of Greg in our hearts and our minds, and Greg has now added his own page to the proudest history in this country, the Anzac history. I salute Greg and I salute his family. 466 12:46:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —On the first Sunday of this year an event took place in Afghanistan, a tragic event which took the life of one of our very good soldiers and a great Australian. That event is an example of the risks that are taking place every day for our servicemen overseas. I would like to make some comments today on the life and the service of Private Greg Sher. I will attempt to do it justice, though I have no direct knowledge of Greg nor was I at the ceremonies where others paid tribute to him. My past has some similarities, insofar as I wore the same sort of uniform as Greg. I would like to begin by talking about the comments that others have made in their writings about Greg—and I know of the great involvement of the member for Melbourne Ports in this matter. From what other people have said about him, Greg Sher seems to have been the classic special forces soldier—the sort we have all met through our service or our involvement with Defence. He was not a big man at five feet eight but he had a tremendous heart—not someone who was just physically tough but an all-rounder. He was genuinely interested in others—his mates and those around him. He was positive, enthusiastic and compassionate. He was a genuine and authentic person. Mention has been made about the fact that he was a reservist. This is a very important aspect. It was typical of those who had not actually served with the reservists to be somewhat critical of them. They were considered part-timers or chockos. Yet when you work with these guys you begin to realise that they are really committed. They love what they do on a part-time basis. They love to serve this country. They make their contribution in civilian life, as most Australians do, and then they give up their weekends and holidays. Then you have people like Greg, who joined the Army Reserve in 1998 and who by 2004 was seriously committed to undertaking the selection course for the Commandos. That is serious training and commitment to a cause. It comes through very strongly that he seemed to enjoy what he was doing. That is fabulous. He was genuinely committed to the service of this country and to his friends, and he was in a great situation where he enjoyed what he was doing. He was so very keen to participate, move forward and make an even greater contribution. What also struck me was that in this country we try not to refer to people by names that would possibly be perceived as denigrating them on religious grounds, and yet in 5/6 RVR, the 5th/6th Royal Victoria Regiment, his initial unit, and then later with the Commandos, Greg was called first ‘the Jew’ and then ‘the Super Jew’. He was clearly comfortable with that. He was a man who was not afraid to be defined by his religion. But obviously his greatest definition was great actions and great commitment to his cause. What we see in Greg is the very best, an example of the very highest level of commitment by an Australian in the reserve service of the defence forces. I also think of the great contribution that Jewish South Africans have made to our country. In Perth, in particular, we have a lot of people from South Africa of the Jewish religion. They make a fabulous contribution. They are involved across many sectors of the community. Private Greg Sher was an example of someone who took that a long way further. He put his life on the line for his friends and for a cause. It was clearly a job that he wanted to do and that he was fully committed to. He went a little bit further than most Australians in what he was prepared to do. Greg made a great contribution to this country. It is a terrible situation when someone so committed, someone so authentic, such a good bloke, eventually gives up his life for that cause. I am sure that nothing we can say here will ever take away the pain and the hurt that his family and his partner, Karen, feel. Possibly, through the comments that I and others have made today, they will feel some alleviation of that pain. Greg Sher was the sort of guy that we could all look up to. He was five foot eight, but the stature of the man was clearly above most of us. I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the contribution he made to this great country, the cause he fought for and died for. Sometimes it gets to the point where, for our freedoms, for the defence of the weak and defenceless, you just have to fight. This is something Greg knew and something he died for. I pay tribute to his sacrifice. He was a great Australian and we will miss him greatly. 467 12:54:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —It is only a little over two months since I spoke in this chamber on the death of Lieutenant Michael Fussell on active service in Afghanistan. It is with great sadness that I rise again to record the death of another brave Australian soldier. This time, however, the sadness I feel is a bit more personal because the death of Private Greg Sher in Afghanistan on 4 January struck very close to home for me. The minister asked me to participate in the ramp ceremony, which I cannot say I appreciated or enjoyed doing, but it was my sacred duty that I did. It was an important thing to do on behalf of the family, but it is the hardest duty I have ever done since being elected, standing opposite that family as the body came back from the C17 through that group of his colleagues, the commandos with their green berets on. Standing opposite Felix and Yvonne as their son was returned in a casket was very hard for all of us who participated in it, but one can only imagine what the family has suffered and will continue to suffer through all the years with the loss of their precious eldest son, Greg Sher. Greg had the honour of being a member of 2nd Commando Company, which is a subunit of 1st Commando Regiment, based in Sydney. It is the first reserve unit to have the honour of being included in formations eligible to go on active service in Afghanistan. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their remarks about Greg in the House yesterday and the defence minister and the parliamentary secretary, the member for Eden-Monaro, for their comments here this morning, as well as members of the opposition. I want to thank them on behalf of the family, because they have really appreciated their input and the sensitive way that particularly the minister, who has regularly been in contact with the family personally, has treated them. I also want to thank all of those people who participated in that enormous and moving funeral at Lyndhurst on that blistering hot day in Melbourne, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard; the Leader of the Opposition; the Prime Minister; and the Minister for Defence. We also had a couple of very senior military leaders present there: the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General David Hurley. I know this mark of respect by the country’s political and military leaders was deeply appreciated by the Sher family and indeed by the 2,000 people who attended the funeral. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my deepest condolences to Felix and Yvonne Sher, to Greg’s partner, Karen Goldschlager, to his brothers, Steven and Barry Sher, to all his family and to his colleagues in 2nd Commando and the Community Security Group, which he professionally worked in for some years. There were busloads of proud, leathered, former commandos who attended the masterfully organised funeral service, along with Deputy Premier Rob Hulls and, very interestingly, former signaller in 2nd Commando Minister Tim Holding, who is the local member. He was there with a bevy of orthodox rabbis. I want to record their names, because I want the family to know what honour was done to them. They were Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Groner, Rabbi Dovid Rubinfeld, Rabbi Meir Schlomo Kluwgant, Rabbi Sholom Mendel Kluwgant, Rabbi Mendel Groner, Rabbi Stephen Boroda, Rabbi Stephen Link and Rabbi Faitel Levin, and of course Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn officiated at the ceremony. Greg Sher, as was said, was born in South Africa in 1978 and came to Australia with his family as a child. He joined the Army Reserve in 1998 and later trained to be a commando, a particularly skilled branch of the Army but also one with a high level of risk, as he knew. He was deployed to East Timor in 2002. For his service there he received several awards, including the Australian Active Service Medal, the UN Transitional Authority in East Timor Medal and the Infantry Combat Badge. In Afghanistan he was awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the NATO Medal and the Australian Defence Medal. Greg Sher was the first member of the reserves to be killed in Afghanistan. He is the first Jewish member of the Australian defence forces to be killed in action, I think, since the Second World War. I think he is the first reservist to die since Vietnam. His friends and his family are also very proud. They are proud to have given Australia such a fine young man, willing to risk and ultimately lose his life for his adopted country’s service. They are also proud that he died working to free other people from tyranny and oppression. They are proud that a first generation immigrant family could participate in such an elite unit as the 2nd Commando. I have spoken in the House before about Sir John Monash, regarded by many historians as Australia’s greatest military commander. Like Greg Sher, John Monash was the son of Jewish immigrants, this time from Prussia, not from South Africa, who came to Australia in search of a better life and who valued above all the freedom, equality and opportunity that they found in this most fortunate of countries. In the First World War, as today, all members of Australian forces were volunteers. History has taught us many hard lessons, and one of them is that freedom is fragile and can never be taken for granted. Both John Monash and Greg Sher willingly volunteered to serve Australia because they knew Australia was worth fighting for and because they wanted other people to enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy here. There is a certain irony in the fact that the people whose freedom Greg Sher died for were Muslim Afghans, the long-suffering people of Afghanistan. As the member for Eden-Monaro alluded to, a very small number of people in Australia have sought to foment conflict between Jews and Muslims here based on hatreds imported from other parts of the world. Greg Sher’s life and death show that such efforts have not succeeded. He was a soldier who went where he was ordered to go but he was also a citizen, a very intelligent and very well-read citizen, who knew exactly what he was fighting for and why. For him, the right of Muslim people in Afghanistan to live in freedom and security was just as important as the right of people in Australia or any other country to do so. As I said in my speech on the death of Lieutenant Fussell, we in this place have no right to send young Australian men and women to risk their lives in foreign fields unless we are certain that the cause for which we are sending them to fight is a just one and that our objectives are clear and attainable. That was not the case, for example, in Vietnam, but I believe that it was very clearly the case in East Timor, where Greg Sher served with our peacekeeping forces. I also believe that this is the case in Afghanistan, although, as the Minister for Defence has explained to many people and as our military chief says, the task is a much tougher one. The defeat of multinational terrorism based in Afghanistan is vital for our own national security as well as for the people of Afghanistan. We are fighting in Afghanistan to give its people the chance of a better future free from violence, oppression, corruption and extremism. None of our boys who have died there died in vain—not Private Greg Sher, not Lieutenant Michael Fussell, not any one of the honoured eight. Counterinsurgency fights are often long and bitter, but I believe that we and our allies can achieve our objectives if we persist and that the sacrifices we are asking of our service personnel and their families will, in the long run, be worth while. That is certainly what Greg Sher believed, and we should honour his memory by ensuring that we do not fail in our mission. As the member for Eden-Monaro said, I salute Greg Sher and his family. He would probably describe himself by the line in the poem Invictus, which he kept with him all the time and that is noted by all of his military colleagues as something that was very dear to his heart: captain of his soul, master of his fate. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Committee. Mr MARLES (Corio) 13:03:00 —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1.03 pm to 4.15 pm 469 Condolences 469 Debate resumed from 3 February, on motion by Mr Rudd: That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 1 February 2009 of the Honourable Peter Howson CMG, a former Federal Minister and Member for Fawkner and Casey, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. 470 16:15:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I am honoured to speak on this condolence motion for the late Peter Howson, who was a member of this parliament and a minister in a number of governments. For most of his career Peter was the member for Fawkner but, for his final term in parliament, he was the member for Casey. He was in fact the first member for Casey. The seat was created in a redistribution which meant that his seat of Fawkner was abolished, and he took the opportunity to offer himself as a Liberal Party candidate for the new seat of Casey for the 1969 election. He served as the member, winning in 1969 and losing in 1972 when the tide took out a number of seats with the election of the Whitlam government. I had the privilege of meeting Peter on a couple of occasions. Others, particularly the member for Higgins, who knew him very well, have said in the House that he remained a very active and vibrant member of the Liberal Party, of which he was so proud. I met him shortly after my election as the member for Casey at a Liberal Party state council. Following meeting him I took the opportunity to read his diaries. I had heard about the Howson diaries and he motivated me to have a look. They are extensive diaries and a wonderful political read, I would say, for all members of this House. They cover all the major events throughout his time as a member of parliament. I found the diaries to be fascinating reading on many levels. They are very candid. The member for Higgins said in the House yesterday that he was one of the first to read them because he read them in his capacity as a lawyer and he had to clear them for defamation. I found them fascinating inasmuch as they illustrate how some things never change about electoral politics. In those diaries he goes through in some detail the difficult tasks of preparing for election day. He talks in great detail about moving out to the electorate of Casey, campaigning in that first election and preparing for the next one. He talks about some of the great volunteers for the Liberal Party, some of whom are still there as great supporters today. He talks about the suburbs and the public meetings he had and how the suburbs were very different at that point. There has been a lot of growth and urbanisation in the period since he was the member for Casey. Peter talks fondly about going to a meeting of the North Croydon branch of the Liberal party, which was a very active branch then and still is today. His story, which is told so well in his diaries, is a great story about the Australian parliament. He was part of the generation that fought in the Second World War. Born in England, he came to Australia immediately after the war and became interested in politics. He arrived in Australia at the time when the Liberal Party had just been formed, and he worked tirelessly and ran as a candidate a couple of times before he was successful as the member for Fawkner. The measure of the man was very much in his great contribution as a member of parliament and in his wonderful dedication to public policy, not just in his ministerial career but also after his time as a member of parliament. He remained politically active and dedicated himself to the issues he believed in, particularly Aboriginal affairs. He did that every day of his life. We are sad that he has passed away, just short of 90 years of age, but in this condolence motion we pay respect to him for everything he did here in this parliament and everything he did for his constituents in both the electorates he represented in Melbourne. 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Committee. Ms HALL (Shortland) 16:21:00 —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 471 Miscellaneous Consideration resumed from 3 February 2009. 471 16:22:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —On indulgence: I rise today to speak about the investiture of the Victoria Cross for Australia with SAS Trooper Mark Donaldson. Trooper Donaldson was involved in an incident on 2 September 2008 in Oruzgan province, Afghanistan, that resulted in him being awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. He was invested by Her Excellency the Governor-General of Australia at Government House, Canberra, on 16 January 2009. In acknowledging his bravery, this House notes that the Victoria Cross is the pre-eminent award for acts of bravery in wartime and is Australia’s highest military honour. It is awarded to persons who, in the presence of the enemy, display the most conspicuous gallantry; a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice; or extreme devotion to duty. The incident for which Trooper Donaldson was invested with the Victoria Cross occurred in September last year when Australian special forces, moving in convoy with US and Afghan soldiers, were ambushed by a superior number of well-placed Taliban fighters. The ambush was initiated by a high volume of sustained machine-gun fire and rocket propelled grenades. Such was the effect of the attack that the combined patrol suffered numerous casualties, lost the initiative and became immediately suppressed. Nine Australian soldiers were wounded in the 2 September ambush, the highest number of casualties in a single attack since Vietnam. It was over two hours before the convoy was able to establish a clean break and move to an area free of enemy fire. During that time, Trooper Donaldson—who prior to his investment had been referred to in previous accounts only as ‘Trooper F’—deliberately and repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire in order to draw the fire away from his injured colleagues. In the early stages of the ambush, he moved rapidly between alternate positions of cover, engaging the enemy with 66 mm and 84 mm anti-armour weapons as well as his M4 rifle. This selfless action alone bought enough time for those wounded to be moved to safety. When the Afghan coalition interpreter, who had been shot, fell from one of the humvees, Donaldson ran to his aid, crossing 80 metres of exposed ground under heavy machine-gun fire to reach the wounded interpreter. He then carried him on his shoulders back to the vehicles, where he administered first aid before returning to the fight. Trooper Donaldson displayed the kind of selfless heroism that history never forgets. There is no greater honour for an Australian soldier, and we know that this honour is shared in some small measure by his friends and family, by his wife Emma, his young daughter Kaylee, and by his colleagues at home and those still serving in Afghanistan. Trooper Donaldson’s distinguished career began with his first posting to the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville, Queensland, in November 2002. It was during this time that Trooper Donaldson decided to pursue his ambitions and join the Special Air Service Regiment. In February 2004, he successfully completed the Special Air Service Regiment selection course and was posted to the regiment in May 2004. He was then posted to 1 Troop, 3 SAS Squadron. Since that time, he has been deployed in operations in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. Trooper Donaldson remains posted to the Special Air Service Regiment in Perth, Western Australia. Trooper Donaldson is the first recipient of the Victoria Cross for Australia which was created in 1991, before which Australians were eligible for the Victoria Cross and other awards under the imperial system of honours. The medal, inscribed with the words, ‘For valour’, is the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a soldier. Trooper Donaldson’s actions displayed exceptional courage in circumstances of great peril. His actions are of the highest accord and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the Special Operations Command, the Australian Army, and the Australian Defence Force. Tradition also holds within the armed service that even the most senior officer will salute a Victoria Cross recipient as a mark of respect, so Trooper Donaldson will now enjoy a salute rate equal to that of our CDF. Trooper Donaldson now joins a rare few who will forever be remembered and revered. We stand united today in saluting this young man’s courage and bravery and thanking him and his colleagues for the incredible work they do. 472 16:26:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —As the member for Paterson has indicated, the Victoria Cross is the highest award for bravery and valour in action. The award is, of course, not handed out lightly. Indeed, until recently an Australian had not received a Victoria Cross for some 40 years. Those who are awarded the Victoria Cross, by virtue of that fact enter a hall of legends. Typically they share a number of attributes. They are typically highly skilled, usually super fit and, of course, full of courage. Selflessness is a typical trait, and they are dedicated to their task and their duty. While I cannot say I have known many of them—I have known a couple but have read of others—I sense that modesty is usually present amongst those in this sort of elite club. I, with others, had the honour of attending the ceremony at Government House recently when Trooper Mark Donaldson received his award. It really was a great privilege to be there and to meet him, and to talk with him and his wife and his daughter and his other relatives and friends. There you got an additional sense, talking to friends and family, about the man—what he is, what he has been, and what made him the hero he is today. I also had the opportunity to speak with some of his mates, and, indeed, have a beer with some of his mates—those who were there with him on that day when our troops encountered a terrible ambush in Oruzgan province. I recommend to all Australians with an interest in the issue—in military history, in our military affairs—to read the full citation. The Prime Minister read part of it in the main chamber yesterday, but he made the point that he had only read a selected part of the citation. To get a full appreciation of what Trooper Donaldson did you really do need to read the full citation. At the risk of putting it in simplistic terms, on the occasion of the ambush he exposed himself and drew fire so that the wounded could be dragged to the relative safety of the vehicles. He then proceeded to break contact with his comrades. There was no room in the vehicles because the wounded were taking up all of that space. Trooper Donaldson broke contact on foot, moving with the vehicles, returning fire all the way. As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, he then noticed that one had been left behind. A member of the ANA, an interpreter—an important part of the unit at the time—had been left behind, some 80 metres back, in open ground. Trooper Donaldson ran back, returning fire all the time. He picked the guy up, put him over his shoulders, ran back another 80 metres or so to the vehicle and put him in the vehicle. He applied first aid. Of course, our special forces soldiers are highly trained in first aid. He then returned to the fight. The incredible thing is how Trooper Mark Donaldson is still alive today. It is probably a reflection of not only his courage but a little bit of luck he had on that occasion. But, as we all know, you make your own luck, and highly trained soldiers are very good at doing that. The whole event serves another very good purpose. The publicity surrounding Trooper Donaldson’s valour provides us with a fairly rare opportunity, as people close to these things, to share with the outside world exactly what our boys are doing on a daily basis. They are doing fantastic work disrupting the insurgency, taking enormous risks every day in very, very difficult circumstances. It is a good thing that we get an opportunity from time to time to portray a picture for the Australian community of what these guys are doing on a daily basis. I said in the House months ago, in response to a condolence motion, that we are a nation which loves its sport. We revere our sporting legends. We respect them and talk about their speed, their skill, their strength and their courage on the field. Yet those are all the attributes shared by these special forces soldiers. For them, of course, the stakes are so much higher. It is not just about a trophy at the end of the season. These guys are fighting for the security of their nation and literally fighting for their lives. Each day, as they proceed out into theatre, they never have any assurance as to whether they will return in one piece. Today we pay tribute to Trooper Mark Donaldson, who, as I said, joins an elite group. It was great to have Keith Payne at the ceremony at Government House too. He is a great Australian who was awarded the VC as a result of his actions during the Vietnam War. So we pay tribute to Trooper Mark Donaldson today, but we also pay tribute to those who were in that battle with him on that day. We pay tribute to those who will be out there today, as we speak, and again tomorrow and the day after and the day after that. We pay tribute to all the men and women who are deployed overseas, doing good work for the broader Australian community. We have lost nine young Australians in Afghanistan, eight in the Australian uniform and one, young Stuart Nash, fighting under the British flag. It is nine too many. As I said on the condolence motion for Private Sher this morning, we as policymakers have an obligation to ensure that they have not given their lives in vain. We must do all we can, as a relatively minor player in the Afghanistan campaign, to ensure that NATO has a properly resourced and coordinated plan to win in Afghanistan. We have an obligation to ensure that, whenever we make decisions about deploying our troops, the proper risk analysis is undertaken and we have a clear picture in our mind about why we are there and, therefore, our basis for justifying sending our young people into such a high-threat area of operations. Today, in addition to paying tribute to Trooper Mark Donaldson, we pay tribute, as I said, to all the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are taking great risks, on a daily basis, so that those of us who treasure freedom and democracy and the things on which we base our nation can continue to enjoy our way of life and so that Australians around the globe, not just those on Australia’s mainland, can travel in relative peace and safety. It is a great privilege to be in the federal parliament and indeed to be the Minister for Defence on such a rare occasion—when the Victoria Cross is awarded to a fine Australian soldier. For that opportunity I am truly eternally grateful. 474 16:35:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to honour Trooper Mark Gregor Donaldson VC, only the 97th recipient of the Victoria Cross in Australia and the first in 40 years and, of course, the first to receive the VC of Australia. The Victoria Cross is awarded only for the most conspicuous acts of gallantry. On 16 January 2009 Trooper Donaldson received his VC for such acts while serving with the Special Operations Task Group during Operation Slipper in Oruzgan Province in Afghanistan. Trooper Donaldson was born in Newcastle, New South Wales, in 1979. He graduated from high school in 1996 and enlisted in the Australian Army on 18 June 2002, entering recruit training at the Army Recruit Training Centre, Kapooka. Clearly the boy could shoot. He was awarded best shot and best at physical training in his platoon. Subsequently he was allocated to the Royal Australian Infantry Corps and posted to the School of Infantry. He excelled in his initial training, again being awarded recognition as  best shot and best at physical training and most outstanding soldier in his platoon. Subsequently he was posted to the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment in Townsville. Trooper Donaldson decided to pursue his ambition to join the Special Air Service Regiment and, after completing the Special Air Service Regiment selection course—with which, in itself, it is no mean feat simply to be standing at the end of what I know as the Carter course—in April 2004 he was posted to the SAS Regiment. In May he turned up at the front door, posted to 1 Troop, 3 SAS Squadron. He was then deployed to operations in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. He was married to Emma and has a daughter Kaylee. In August 2008, Donaldson was wounded in action during night-time operations in Oruzgan province. Then less than one month later, on 2 September 2008, while travelling with a combined Australian, Afghan and US convoy, the convoy was ambushed by a large contingency of Taliban armed with machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The convoy was overwhelmed by numbers and sheer gunfire for two hours before being able to extricate themselves to a safe area. Several casualties were suffered on the patrol and Donaldson deliberately placed himself in enemy fire to allow the wounded to be carried to safety. He constantly changed positions to find a vantage point while engaging the enemy. The disregard for his own safety allowed time for the wounded in his convoy to move to safer ground. Those who were not wounded, including Donaldson himself, were required to run beside the vehicle to exit the ambush area. Donaldson noticed, though, that, 80 metres behind the convoy, a wounded Afghan interpreter had been left behind. Again, Donaldson put his safety behind that of others and ran 80 metres to assist the Afghan interpreter. Running over open ground, Donaldson came under intense fire from the enemy. He picked up the wounded man and ran back to safety, carrying and then administering first aid to the coalition force interpreter, constantly being fired at by the enemy with machine-gun and rocket fire. This was an Afghan interpreter—not an Australian citizen but a man of Afghan background whom Trooper Donaldson risked his own life to go back and recover. The full citation for the Victoria Cross is worth a read for all Australians. It exemplifies bravery in the extreme. The Victoria Cross is the pre-eminent award for acts of bravery in wartime and is our highest military honour. It is awarded to people who, in the presence of the enemy, display the most conspicuous gallantry, a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty. The Victoria Cross was created by Queen Victoria in 1856 and made retrospective to 1854 to cover the period of the Crimean War. Until the Victoria Cross for Australia was created in 1991, Australians were eligible for the VC and other awards under the imperial system. The Imperial Victoria Cross was awarded to 96 Australians—91 received the Victoria Cross while serving with Australian forces and five Australians received the award while serving with South African and British units. Australians were first recognised for their gallantry in the Boer War and of course more recently, with Keith Payne, in the Vietnam War. Six VCs were awarded in the Boer War, 64 in World War I, two in North Russia in 1919, 20 in World War II, four in Vietnam and, of course, one in Afghanistan. Nine of the crosses awarded in World War I were for Australians at Gallipoli. The Victoria Cross for Australia was instituted in the Australian honours system by letters patent on 15 January 1991. It replaced the imperial award. The first to receive the Victoria Cross was Captain Sir Neville Howse during the Boer War. He also served in World War I and later as the Commonwealth Minister for Health, Defence and Repatriation. The most recent recipient, Keith Payne VC OAM, received it for gallantry during the Vietnam War on 24 May 1969. While under heavy enemy fire, he instigated a daring rescue of more than 40 men, many of them wounded, and led the party back to the battalion base. The Governor-General awards the Victoria Cross, with the approval of the sovereign, on the recommendation of the Minister for Defence. It may be awarded posthumously. The Victoria Cross is designed in the form of the Maltese Cross. In the centre of the medal is a lion guardant standing upon the Royal Crown. The words ‘For valour’ are inscribed below. The Victoria Cross is suspended from a bar by a crimson ribbon. On the reverse of the cross the date of the act of bravery is inscribed, along with the name, rank and unit of the recipient. The Victoria Cross has, from the first, been made by Messrs Hancock, London jewellers, and is hand fashioned. The metal used is taken from the guns captured from the Russians at Sebastopol during the Crimean War from 1854 to 1856. To quote the Anzac Day website: The glorious fellowship of the Victoria Cross remains unique, it has no order nor chapel. …                     …                   … It is confined to no caste, imposes no religious requirement nor colour bar. In the words of the Warrant ‘Neither rank nor long service, nor wounds, nor any other circumstance or condition whatsoever, save the merit of conspicuous bravery’ shall entitle a man to the award. There are only 10 surviving members of this grand fellowship alive today. Words simply fail to express the unsurpassed heroism shown by these recipients. They stand tall and alone and separate by their sheer deeds. If freedom is indeed the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it, then Trooper Donaldson VC stands tall in our nation’s history, especially in our nation’s modern military history. As I said previously in the House, in the great tradition of that ancient warrior, statesman and king, Pericles, who founded the great Athenian empire 2½ thousand years ago and led that nation during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War, ‘What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.’ Trooper Donaldson risked his life to save an Afghan national, crossing 80 metres of ground criss-crossed by machine-gun fire. His heroism inspires countless generations and touches lives around the world. It stands as a true testament of the capacity and the calibre of man. We honour him today. 476 16:43:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —It is a great privilege to be able to speak this afternoon on a positive note in that, wonderfully, Trooper Mark Donaldson VC is still with us, which is something in itself to celebrate given that so many past Victoria Cross winners were awarded it posthumously. Of course the acts that are involved in achieving the award of a Victoria Cross obviously involve a great deal of personal risk, being risk to life and limb. It is wonderful that we have a living VC member with us now in Trooper Donaldson VC. Just saying those words ‘Trooper Donaldson VC’ really does send a tingle up the spine. When I first heard the news that we had a new VC for this generation, I was really excited and thrilled, as I have in my portfolio responsibilities for the honours and awards issue. Also, the day that the actual award was presented to Trooper Donaldson at Government House was a memorable occasion because, as has been mentioned, Keith Payne VC was present. In effect, we had the two representatives of the book-ending of the VC in Australian recent history in that Keith Payne was awarded the last of the imperial VCs and then, after a 40-year intervening break, we had Trooper Donaldson being awarded the first of the VCs for Australia. It was wonderful to have the two of them there together. Keith Payne observed that he did not understand how Trooper Donaldson had actually survived that engagement. You read these words of his engagement on that day and they roll off the tongue when you say, ‘He moved rapidly between alternate positions of cover, engaging the enemy with 66 millimetre and 84 millimetre anti-armour weapons as well as his M4 rifle.’ But to reflect on that for a second, he was, in effect, utilising three different weapon systems in this engagement. Of course, none of them are light or easy to be proficient with in the circumstances of a hot engagement. It just goes to illustrate the incredible professionalism of the special forces personnel that he was able to effectively use those three weapons systems at the same time. Really, that should tell people of the standard of the special forces soldiers that this country is so privileged to have at its service. Trooper Donaldson VC is not a stranger to the risks that he was taking when he was involved in this engagement because on 12 August 2008 he was wounded in action in a night operation in Oruzgan province. So it is not as if he did not understand the risks that were involved in what he was doing. I think that adds an extra element to the impressiveness of his particular physical actions and courage on the day, and certainly they were in the finest traditions of the VCs as so many of the Australian VCs have involved the rescue of mates and the selflessness of looking after fellow soldiers serving in those environments. As the member for Fadden pointed out, he rescued an Afghani interpreter, so his selflessness was not only extended to Australians but also to his Afghani colleague. Trooper Donaldson VC has also served in East Timor and Iraq as well as Afghanistan. He has only been a member of the Australian Army since 18 June 2002. So, in these short years, this individual has had three significant deployments, and we certainly have come to rely very heavily in recent times on our special forces in these environments. The reason is that the special forces soldiers, with their incredible professionalism and skills, give us the rapier that we need to deal with these counterinsurgency situations. You have a couple of options when you are in these circumstances. You can try to fall back on firepower and incur some of the massive collateral damage that is sometimes involved with that. In a counterinsurgency environment, that will often entail a loss of support amongst the general community and alienation, pushing people into the arms of the insurgents that you are fighting. And so to have this capability where we can isolate the enemy to engage with them as a rapier in a directed, targeted and surgical operation gives us and the international community great capability of pursuing our efforts in this counterinsurgency struggle that we are engaged in at the moment in Afghanistan. During the break we had a discussion in the community about the comparisons of courage. Certainly since I have been in this place I have come to appreciate very much the political and moral courage of the people who enter parliament on both sides of this House. I particularly think of people like the member for Kooyong and the great courage he has displayed in his political life. But I do think it is wrong to compare that courage with the courage of a VC winner like Trooper Donaldson. Unless you have actually stood there and faced the physical threat of having your limbs ripped from you, of having 7.62 millimetre rounds tearing through your body, hot shrapnel burning into you, seeing comrades or colleagues or other people in the vicinity torn apart by explosives, knowing that any moment of your existence in those theatres could be the last on two legs or with all of your limbs and faculties, or of your time on this earth, then I think you just cannot compare the respective levels of courage that are required in those circumstances. Upon reflection, those who might have made that comparison will think better of that. As I say, I certainly would not want to detract from the courage that is required in politics in this place, but Trooper Donaldson VC occupies a special place in the esteem of this community for the special courage that he has displayed. The VC is a very distinct part of our culture and history. It resonates so deeply with Australians, and that is because it really does encompass the values that Australians hold most dearly—the values of not only the physical courage to face the enemy but also the courage to look after your mates and to put your mates and your unit before yourself. Lastly, I would like to highlight the fact that Trooper Donaldson VC, by his actions and by the award of this decoration, has served as an incredible inspiration to the rest of his colleagues in the ADF. The news of this award went like an electric current right through the Australian Defence Force. It has inspired his colleagues and comrades and all of us who have worn the uniform to aspire to better and higher, to match the achievements of Trooper Donaldson, at least in effort if the circumstances do not offer opportunities requiring the physical courage that he displayed in that situation. I salute Trooper Donaldson and I salute the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are contributing in whatever way they can in tribute to the courage and the sacrifice of all members of the Australian Defence Force in our operational commitments. 478 16:51:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I rise today to make my own tribute to the efforts of Trooper Mark Donaldson VC. A lot has been said so far today and I do not intend to go back over the same ground, but I would like to begin by talking a little bit about the terrain and the circumstances—a bit like the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, did—to put his effort into some sort of context. I have never been to Afghanistan, but I have travelled through Pakistan, up through the Khyber Pass, and have been able to observe the valleys of Afghanistan below. I believe that the ground is very similar. The ground is just made for ambushes. The terrain is very difficult for vehicles, and in many ways it gives great possibilities to those who look to set ambushes and attack the coalition forces that fight so hard for democracy, the preservation of democracy and the freedom of people in Afghanistan. So the risk of ambush is a real, present and in fact realised danger, as we have seen and as we are seeing through the citation regarding the awarding of this Victoria Cross. I would also like to make some comments on the weapons that Trooper Donaldson used during the engagement. The M4 is a rifle four to five kilograms in weight. We should also remember that the equipment that Trooper Donaldson would have been wearing would have had some weight in it as well, because he would have carried ammunition and other supplies on him. The 66-millimetre anti-armour weapon is a one-shot article of weaponry, but again we are talking about seven or eight kilograms there. It has a very short range—up to 150 metres. He would have had to carry this with him as well while he was doing this movement and engaging the enemy in the combat zone. Then there was the actual 84-millimetre anti-armour weapon, which we know as the Karl Gustav. Again, this is a significantly heavy weapon. My recollection is that it is somewhere between 15 and 20 kilograms—no, in fact it would be more than that. It would be about 25 kilograms, and the round that is fired would have to be six or seven kilograms. You can fire the weapon either on the shoulder, which is obviously a very exposed position, or there is a small stand so you can fire it from a lying position. When you fire it, it seems to suck the oxygen out of the air around you. It is like being hit in the chest by a medicine ball thrown hard. If you made the mistake of having the venturi—the blast distribution device which restricts the recoil on the weapon—at the back it would be just above your bottom and would blast down your legs and your legs would be badly burnt; you would be on fire. So these sorts of weapons are not light and they are not easily deployed. Also, the ability to engage the enemy when they are shooting back at you—the two-way firing range—requires great presence of mind. As was referred to by all the previous speakers, all Defence Force personnel in the Australian services are well trained, but those in the special forces are the best in the world, in my opinion, and they are very, very well trained. It is no surprise that we send those guys if we want a job done like the job we need done in Afghanistan. There have been plenty of mentions of Trooper Donaldson being a hero, and there is no doubt that he is a hero, in the truest sense of the word. When someone puts their life on the line for others, for the defenceless—for the wounded, in this case—there is no doubt that they are a hero. While he might be uncomfortable with the term, the view of the Australian people is rightly that this is the sort of man that is a great hero. It is a real shame, though, that we have people involved in sport or in other capacities who are also called heroes. When you make a decision, when you are just trying to push through a pain barrier in sport, when you take a mark on the football field or a catch in cricket and win a game, that is great—but there is simply no comparison between an event on a sporting field and someone putting their life on the line for others. I think that those who call sportspeople ‘heroes’ greatly devalue the word. However, in the case of Trooper Donaldson we have a modern, contemporary example of someone who is a hero and who epitomises what is great about Australians—the mateship, the commitment to a cause. This is someone that the nation is justifiably proud of, and I am sure his unit, the SAS Regiment, and his family are proud of him as well. Despite the tragedy that occurred in his youth, the loss of his mother—he was orphaned by the time he was 19—Trooper Donaldson has risen well above the circumstances that fate dealt him early in his life. Just in closing, I would say that the operations in Afghanistan are about the defence of freedom and democracy. That is what is at stake. Sometimes you just have to fight. Sometimes there is no other course of action but to pick up weapons and fight. Tragically, sometimes people have to be killed. In protecting the wounded Afghan interpreter, Trooper Mark Donaldson VC saw his duty; it was clear, and he acted with ‘conspicuous gallantry’ to save that man. Throughout the entire action, over some four hours, he kept presence of mind, used his training and used his personal courage to do what needed to be done. People would say that he had done his best even if he had not done these things. If he had tried and not succeeded because the circumstances had possibly been too much for an ordinary person then people, knowing the circumstances, would probably have cut him a break. But Trooper Mark Donaldson’s professionalism, presence of mind, courage and character saw him through, as they saw a lot of people through that day. It is my honour to at least say some words to try to add my appreciation to the salute that this nation has given Trooper Donaldson, the award that this nation has given him and the respect that this nation will always have for him and all those who serve in the uniform of this great country, including those who unfortunately die in the service of this great country. We are proud of them all. I think Trooper Donaldson deserves all the accolades he has received but above all the greatest respect from a grateful nation. 479 17:00:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —It is indeed a great privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to join with others, including the previous speaker, the member for Cowan, in congratulating Trooper Mark Donaldson on receiving the prestigious Victoria Cross for Australia. As others will have said, Trooper Donaldson, aged 29, is the first Australian in almost 40 years to be awarded the Victoria Cross, the Commonwealth’s highest military honour. We know that Trooper Donaldson was born in 1979. He left his home in New South Wales to join the Australian Army in 2002. We have read of the tragedy of his early life and the fact that he was orphaned. But it should not surprise us—this is a really good and great Australian story—that someone who had much hurt and pain early in his life has now made an enormous and historic contribution to the Australian record. At the Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka, Trooper Donaldson was awarded prizes for best shot and best at physical training in his platoon. Given what we now know, it should not surprise us to learn that he was later presented with the award for the most outstanding soldier in his platoon at the School of Infantry in Singleton. In 2004 Trooper Donaldson completed the Special Air Services Regiment selection course—no easy feat—and was subsequently deployed on operations in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. On 16 January this year, at an investiture ceremony to mark the occasion at Government House here in Canberra, Her Excellency the Governor-General of Australia presented Trooper Mark Donaldson with the Victoria Cross for Australia. I had the privilege of attending that ceremony, where Trooper Donaldson was accompanied by his wife, Emma, and daughter, Kaylee. It transpired that I had previously met Trooper Donaldson at the SAS headquarters at the Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne, in Perth, on the range during a visit last year. As we have learnt, Trooper Donaldson’s receipt of this most significant of awards comes as a result of conspicuous acts of gallantry in action which he displayed during an incident on 2 September 2008. As others have said—and it is now clearly on the public record—Trooper Donaldson displayed exceptional courage under incredibly dangerous circumstances. The incident occurred when an Australian, US and Afghan vehicle convoy was ambushed by a numerically superior enemy. Again we know from the public record that Trooper Donaldson saved the life of a severely wounded coalition interpreter. While doing so, he exposed himself to intense and accurate machine-gun fire, placing himself in danger to assist another. As Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, I am constantly aware of the outstanding achievements of our service men and women. Indeed, less than a month ago I was in Afghanistan with the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. During the visit I saw firsthand the professionalism and dedication of the serving Australian Defence Force personnel. But clearly, as the record again tells us, we do not often have the opportunity to pay tribute to exceptional courage and self-sacrifice of the type displayed by Trooper Donaldson in September last year. Because of the rarity of the award that he has been given, Trooper Donaldson now joins 96 fellow Australians who have also received this prestigious award. In the Boer War, six Victoria Crosses were awarded. A total of 64 were awarded in World War I. Two were awarded in northern Russia. Twenty Victoria Crosses were awarded in World War II, and in Vietnam four Victoria crosses were awarded. Trooper Donaldson, not long after he was given the distinction of this great award, put the award on display at the Australian War Memorial, where it joins 62 others, so that it can be shared with the Australian community. This, of course, is the largest publicly held collection of such medals in the world. Trooper Donaldson’s resolve to return to combat operations in Afghanistan is further testament to his commitment and dedication to his service and his country. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday: Through his deeds, Trooper Donaldson has brought a great honour upon himself, his family, the Australian Defence Force and our nation. We should know that the intense battle that led to Trooper Donaldson being awarded the Victoria Cross also saw other exhibitions of great heroism and courage. I want to now take the opportunity to publicly acknowledge another Australian soldier, one of Trooper Donaldson’s comrades, for his actions in this battle. As part of the Australia Day honours, a second special operations command soldier has been recognised for his exceptional service during the same conflict for which Trooper Donaldson was awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. Lance Corporal S, who has protected identity status and so cannot be named, has been awarded the Medal for Gallantry, the second highest award we can make in the military. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate Lance Corporal S for his outstanding courage and his extraordinary efforts. During this incident, Lance Corporal S ‘selflessly exposed himself to enemy fire to protect a severely wounded Australian soldier’, ultimately saving the life of his comrade. This is yet another example of the self-sacrifice, courage and exemplary professionalism which is displayed often by Australian serving personnel but most particularly on this day of struggle, when Australian soldiers were wounded, by Trooper Donaldson and Lance Corporal S—and on a daily basis by their fellow service men and women who remain deployed on operations. You meet some tremendous people in your life, Deputy Speaker Schultz, as I am sure that you have in the course of your work. But I am constantly amazed by the extremely high standards that are set by the Australian military. That is not to say that there are not some rogues and that they do not enjoy a drink on occasions. But the underlying features of their work are their commitment to and love for one another. They show great teamwork and have great respect for their comrades. I was delighted that the comrades of Trooper Donaldson and Lance Corporal S were at the investiture ceremony at Government House. I know that they enjoyed the celebration of the occasion. I am also aware that Trooper Donaldson VC talked at the time and subsequently about the commitment that he has to his mates and the commitment that they share for one another. He remarked that he did nothing outstanding but that they all would have done it. The fact is, though, that he did something really outstanding and is deserving of this great award. At the investiture it struck me just how important this award is, and what great status it has—not only in the general community but within the Australian Defence Force—when, after Trooper Donaldson had been awarded his Victoria Cross by the Governor-General, Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston walked up to Trooper Donaldson and saluted him. It is a tradition that senior people salute Victoria Cross recipients, regardless of their rank, in recognition of the courage and professionalism that they have exhibited during the course of their service and which has been recognised through the awarding of this great medal. It has been a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate—although it is not so much a debate as an opportunity to express our feelings about this award and about Trooper Donaldson and the lance corporal whose name we cannot know. We congratulate them on behalf of a grateful nation. 481 17:14:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I join with and acknowledge the remarks of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. This is a debate in which we can all agree wholeheartedly on paying tribute to Trooper Mark Donaldson and Lance Corporal S, as the minister referred to him. During my maiden speech, I acknowledged and paid tribute to the commitment of those who are in the Australian defence forces and those who have been in the Australian defence forces in the past, particularly those who have given their lives in defence of our great country, our great free land. A time like this is, of course, an opportunity to again acknowledge the commitment these people make to our country, to our democracy and to our freedom—because, without a strong defence force and strong policy to defend our freedom, there are threats in the world that wish to take it away. These people fight day in, day out in faraway places, and they have done so for many, many years. I think this is a great opportunity for both sides of this House, and it is pleasing to see such agreement in these sorts of matters on paying tribute to our Australian defence forces. In particular, in this case, the acts of Trooper Mark Donaldson simply go beyond words. The member for Cowan commented on how the word ‘hero’ is thrown around too much at our sporting champions and the like, and he is probably right. The media and others seek words to explain feats in all sorts of ways, but there is nothing that can actually explain the sort of behaviour and acts that Trooper Donaldson engaged in on that day in Afghanistan in September last year. While reading the citation, it is hard to imagine that a Hollywood producer could come up with such a scene: ambushed, running across a stretch of 80 metres of exposed land, firing three types of weapons and carrying across an Afghani interpreter—not an Australian mate of Trooper Donaldson but someone who he probably knew only a little bit but was willing to sacrifice his life to rescue—exposing himself to live fire. It is quite an extraordinary thing to think you could do. It is something that I imagine Hollywood scriptwriters would struggle to come up with, but this act occurred, and it occurred under our flag. It is something that we should all be very proud of. I know all members of this House are very proud of what he has done. There are 96 others who have been awarded VCs—which first began in 1856, as I understand it—through our history. The VC, to me, brings back images of Gallipoli. I could be wrong on this, but I think several VCs were awarded for the acts that were undertaken in that battle at the Nek in Gallipoli where they jumped out of trenches and ran at machine guns. It is just impossible to imagine—and, thankfully, it is something that does not occur today. While that does not occur, the same courage, displayed by Trooper Donaldson, does, which is a great thing. Many in this place have reflected on what the citation has said and what Trooper Donaldson did, and now of course we acknowledge Lance Corporal S as well. I will not go into that too much, except for acknowledging exactly how great the acts were. But I think it is worth reminding ourselves why we are in Afghanistan and why our troops are displaying this sort of courage. The Afghanistan commitment from Australia occurred after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 on the United States. We invoked the ANZUS treaty, went in with the United States of America and several other countries and took on terrorism in its home, in effect. It is a battle which continues and which will continue for some time yet. It is a sacrifice that eight of our troops have already made and potentially more will make. We in this place—particularly those in leadership in this place—are the ones who have the obligation of making those decisions and commitments, and we should never take those decisions lightly. I know those decisions in the past have not been taken lightly. But what we do there is important. We are fighting for our freedom. We are fighting for democracy. We are fighting for the values we hold true. And I think in that respect it is very important that the government consider in great detail the request that the new President of the United States is making about additional commitments to Afghanistan. It is a battle that we should win and that we must win. On that note, I will conclude by saying that we salute Trooper Donaldson, as the head of the Australian Defence Force did. 482 17:20:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —Mr Deputy Speaker, I too seek your indulgence to make a brief statement in respect of Trooper Mark Donaldson VC. I do not personally know Trooper Mark Donaldson, nor have I met him, but I have taken the time to listen to other speakers and to read about him, both out of respect for him as a person and as a soldier, and out of respect for the men and women who wear the Australian Defence Force uniform and who Mark represents. My personal interest arises because, over the years, I have developed a close relationship and friendship with many serving and retired Defence Force members and with most veterans’ organisations in my community. Only last Friday, I attended the 10th anniversary dinner at the Lutheran village RSL. And on the 19th of this month I hope to attend a service to commemorate the bombing of Darwin, at the Salisbury RSL. Through those relationships, I have learnt a great deal about the defence people who have served and who presently serve our country, and my respect for and admiration and appreciation of them all has grown immensely. So when Trooper Mark Donaldson was awarded a Victoria Cross—an award issued, I believe, only 96 other times previously in Australia’s 153 year history of that award—it became evident that Trooper Donaldson had demonstrated extraordinary bravery and extraordinary personal qualities. My interest was also aroused because Keith Payne, who was the last recipient of the Victoria Cross, for his actions 40 years ago in Vietnam, is a person whom I have met and spoken with on several occasions. I want to briefly reflect on Keith Payne and what led to him being awarded the Victoria Cross. It is reported that, in May 1969, Keith Payne was commanding the 212th Company of the 1st Mobile Strike Force Battalion in Vietnam when it was attacked by a strong North Vietnamese force. His company was isolated, and surrounded on three sides. Payne’s Vietnamese troops began to fall back. Payne, by now wounded in the hands and arms, and under heavy fire, covered the withdrawal before organising his troops into a defensive perimeter. He then spent three hours scouring the scene of the day’s fight for isolated and wounded soldiers—all the while evading the enemy, who had kept up regular fire. He found some 40 wounded men, brought some in himself, and organised the rescue of others, leading the party back to base through enemy-dominated terrain. Payne’s actions that night earned him the Victoria Cross, which was gazetted on 19 September 1969. Of particular note is that Keith Payne has never stopped caring for his defence colleagues. I have met with Keith Payne because he has travelled, on occasions, from Queensland to South Australia to support his Vietnam veteran colleagues in South Australia, with whom I have a close association. He never stopped caring about his mates. As with Keith Payne, I suspect that Trooper Mark Donaldson’s actions in Afghanistan reflect more than just a spontaneous act of courage but, rather, an underlying special quality about Trooper Donaldson’s character. The actions which led to him being awarded the Victoria Cross are quite remarkable. The Prime Minister and other speakers have detailed the heroic actions of Trooper Donaldson in Afghanistan, and I do not intend to repeat what has already been said. I do, however, want to quote what Trooper Donaldson said when asked about the incident that he was recognised for. He said: I’m a soldier … I’m trained to fight … It’s instinct and it’s natural … I just saw him there, I went over there and got him, that was it. In other words, he did what came naturally to him—at least, that is my interpretation of what he did. It was interesting to hear the Minister for Defence earlier on use the word ‘modesty’ in his description of some of our defence people; it seems to me that it certainly applies in the case of Trooper Mark Donaldson. As with Keith Payne, what I have just quoted truly says a lot about Trooper Donaldson’s character: it is the character of a person who genuinely cares for others. It also says a lot about the ethos of the men and women who serve in Australia’s defence forces. It is not a role all people are up to, and those who do serve deserve all the recognition they receive. It must be a terrible thing to be caught up in military conflict. I could not help but listen to the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support only a few moments ago when he was talking about what it is like to be caught up in the midst of conflict. I took his words seriously because I know that he knows what he is talking about as someone who has been in that situation. It certainly made me think very carefully about what it must truly be like. He too referred to the analogy that is often used comparing sporting greats and military people; I cannot help but agree with the parliamentary secretary’s interpretation of who the true heroes are. As the first recipient of the Victoria Cross for Australia, Trooper Mark Donaldson has rightly earned himself a place in Australian history. Of greater significance is that he has undoubtedly earned himself a place in the heart of the wounded coalition force interpreter he rescued; in the hearts of his fellow Afghan, US and Australian soldiers, whom he protected and cared for; in the hearts of his fellow soldiers, whom he continues to serve with; and in the hearts of the people of Australia, who value our defence men and women. Trooper Mark Donaldson clearly embodies the very best qualities which distinguish the defence men and women of Australia and the very best in human nature. I take this opportunity to add my personal admiration and pay tribute to Trooper Mark Donaldson for his much deserved recognition in being awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. 484 17:27:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion in relation to the award of the Victoria Cross for Australia to Trooper Mark Donaldson, because Australia, despite being a young country, is one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies and almost from our beginnings as an independent nation we have been defined by the actions of our service men and women. From Gallipoli and the jungles of Kokoda and Vietnam to modern-day Iraq and Afghanistan, our service personnel have done us proud. They have defined this country in the eyes of the world. But why have the military defined this country in the eyes of the world? I think the words of Winston Churchill give an insight into why. He said: Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities, because … “it is the quality that guarantees all others.” I think that is a very important point that Churchill made, that courage is the quality that guarantees all others. Only recently, in the awarding of the Victoria Cross for Australia to Trooper Mark Donaldson, we have seen courage on display, courage writ large. I would like to recount to the House the citation he received, which says: On 2 September 2008, during the conduct of a fighting patrol, Trooper Donaldson was travelling in a combined Afghan, US and Australian vehicle convoy that was engaged by a numerically superior, entrenched and coordinated enemy ambush. The ambush was initiated by a high volume of sustained machine gun fire coupled with the effective use of rocket propelled grenades. Such was the effect of the initiation that the combined patrol suffered numerous casualties … lost the initiative and became immediately suppressed. It was over two hours before the convoy was able to establish a clean break and move to an area free of enemy fire. In the early stages of the ambush, Trooper Donaldson reacted spontaneously to regain the initiative. He moved rapidly between alternate positions of cover engaging the enemy with 66mm and 84mm anti-armour weapons as well as his M4 rifle. During an early stage of the enemy ambush, he deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire in order to draw attention … away from wounded soldiers. This selfless act alone bought enough time for those wounded to be moved to relative safety. As the enemy had employed the tactic of a rolling ambush, the patrol was forced to conduct numerous vehicle manoeuvres, under intense enemy fire, over a distance of approximately four kilometres to extract the convoy from the engagement area. Compounding the extraction was the fact that casualties had consumed all available space within the vehicles. Those who had not been wounded, including Trooper Donaldson, were left with no option but to run beside the vehicles throughout.  During [the extraction], a severely wounded coalition force interpreter was inadvertently left behind. Of his own volition and displaying complete disregard for his own safety, Trooper Donaldson moved alone, on foot, across … 80 metres of exposed ground to recover the wounded interpreter. His movement, once identified … drew intense … machine gun fire from entrenched positions.  Upon reaching the wounded … interpreter, Trooper Donaldson picked him up and carried him back to the relative safety of the vehicles then provided immediate first aid before returning to the fight. On subsequent occasions during the battle, Trooper Donaldson administered medical care to other wounded soldiers, whilst continually engaging the enemy. Trooper Donaldson’s acts of exceptional gallantry in the face of accurate and sustained enemy fire ultimately saved the life of a coalition force interpreter and ensured the safety of the other members of the combined Afghan, US and Australian force. Trooper Donaldson’s actions on this day displayed exceptional courage in circumstances of great peril. His actions are of the highest accord and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the Special Operations Command, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.  I make this contribution today not only because of the merit of these very courageous actions by Trooper Donaldson but also to recognise in this House that Trooper Donaldson grew up in Dorrigo, within my electorate. He is certainly a very well-known member of the Dorrigo community. Regrettably, the dangers of military service were brought home to our region quite recently by the tragic death of Sergeant Matthew Locke, a young man who came from Bellingen—also within my electorate. I think it is totally appropriate that, within this House today, we recognise the great deeds of Trooper Donaldson. We should also recognise the efforts of all Australian Defence Force men and women who serve wherever they are asked and do the duties which they are asked. They do Australia proud. They are always there. They always do their share of the heavy lifting. They are a tribute to this country. 485 17:32:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —Trooper Donaldson was not personally known to me; however, his story is certainly one that has captured many of us, including me. In particular, I acknowledge the connection with the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, with his growing up in the town of Dorrigo in the electorate of Cowper. His award of the Victoria Cross has been followed very closely by many residents on the mid-North Coast. I just want to put on the record how incredibly respectful of him and his actions we all are, and I do that on a number of fronts. Firstly, I address his achievement as an individual trooper. We have heard, from the Prime Minister down, the commendation he received with the Victoria Cross, so I will not repeat that for the record. But it is hard to read the account and not put yourself in that situation and ask yourself the ethical question: ‘Would you do the same?’ It is very hard to say yes, which makes it an extraordinary act which has been performed. Trooper Donaldson’s commendation is certainly well deserved. Secondly, it is hard not to mention his team and his fellow troopers. This is an opportunity for the parliament to send a very strong message of thanks to his colleagues. I know that Trooper Donaldson would certainly want his colleagues recognised also—those who served alongside him and continue to do so. We are incredibly thankful for the ongoing work that you do. Thirdly, as a young man from the mid-North Coast, he is, without doubt, an example to others—so much so that, when I was doing the rounds of the electorate, as we all do on Australia Day, he was one of my two examples in the Australia Day speeches to the young people in the audience. The other was Nancy Bird Walton, who died in the week before Australia Day and who was also from the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. They are two examples of people who grew up in small towns in a regional area and yet went on to do extraordinary things for their country. Dorrigo has an old dairy farming connection. The dairy farming term is, ‘He is a lead cow’—he is an example for others. Trooper Donaldson’s story is a leadership one, and hopefully it is an example to others from the region. In their teenage years everyone goes through a time when they wonder what it is all about—whether there are opportunities and whether there will be a future. The example that the Trooper Donaldsons of the world provide to the young people of the mid-North Coast is that, yes, there is a future. If you work hard and pursue whatever interests you have you will be successful. I thank him for being such a fine example and such a fine lead cow. Fourthly and finally, I want to acknowledge, as a young father myself, that it was very noticeable in the media reports of the award presentation and, a week later, of the subsequent return of the medal to the national estate, that Trooper Donaldson has a young child and a very obviously loving wife. Whilst the Victoria Cross and commendation stand alone, regardless of personal circumstances, it was certainly very hard for me not to recognise and acknowledge his wife and child in the media images and then to reflect on his decision making process in the line of fire, and the increased decision making with regard to family that goes with that. It would be very hard for those issues of family and the love of family not to come up in what were extraordinary circumstances in the line of fire. Because I have three young children at home it particularly struck home to me that here was a man doing incredible things while he had a family at home whom he must have been thinking about and whom he certainly would love dearly. In short, I have a direct message to Trooper Donaldson, if he takes the time to read Hansard. It is very much a thank you on behalf of the parliament of Australia. He has certainly done himself proud. He has done his fellow troops proud. He has done his region—the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, where he grew up—proud. He has done his nation proud. The final point, which I think is important to most of us here, is that he has certainly done his family proud. So, Trooper Donaldson, in short: thank you. 486 Bills R4036 Cognate bill: 487 Bills R4037 487 Debate resumed from 3 February, on motion by Mr Tanner: That this bill be now read a second time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on this bill I advise the committee that in the House it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. 487 17:38:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —There is an ugly fellowship—a not-so-secret society—that exists today. I call it the deficit or debt club. It remains unique. It knows no bounds or restraints. It is confined to no faction. It imposes no intellectual requirement and no geographic location. In the words of the mantra: union membership is required and blind adherence to collectivism is needed. No other circumstance or condition whatsoever, save the merit of lazy spending, shall entitle a Labor leader to membership of this fellowship as all post-war Labor leaders have received it. I rise today to make comment on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009, yet it is difficult to make comment on appropriation by a Labor government of some $3 billion without contextualising it with what the Labor government is doing with respect to its attempt to spend $42 billion—money it does not have. If the Prime Minister simply put his hand in his pocket and threw in a dollar coin, at least it could be said that he had raised some of it. So today we draw a line in the sand, a line that divides the experienced, prudent economic management of the coalition with its track record from a panicked and deficit-ready government. We draw a line in the sand that divides the coalition, which paid off the last of Labor’s government debt of $96 billion, from this government—which this morning put forward a bill for an act of parliament of one page that seeks to increase the bond issuance and therefore takes the national debt to $200 billion. We draw a line in the sand that divides the coalition, as best able to manage money, from Labor in a long line of deficits from Whitlam, Hawke, Keating and now the Prime Minister. Today the Prime Minister has demanded that the parliament approve his plans for $42 billion within 42 hours—a billion dollars an hour—and has refused to discuss let alone negotiate the package with the coalition, so today we draw a line in the sand. Almost all economists agree that the recession has a long way to go. It will not be a V recession. The Lord knows we hope it will not be an L recession. But it will be a U recession, and this Labor government is panicking. It has fired all its bullets at the first engagement. Rather than a few, well aimed shots and then working in concert with others around it, it has blattered off the full magazine. Let us look at the history of Labor governments as we look at Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4), because leopards do not change their spots. They apparently just hide behind economic conservatives. The Prime Minister before the election may well have stood with glass and the skyline of Brisbane at his back and said in his nonchalant way, ‘Some people have described me as an economic conservative.’ I spend time in my Gold Coast seat of Fadden and, when I go to Brisbane asking whether there is anyone out there who would describe this member of the deficit- and debt-laden fellowship as an economic conservative, you can hear the whisper of silence. Mr Whitlam had a massive increase in spending and a massive increase in tax revenue to cover it and the Australian people, after being on a high through the ‘It’s Time’ campaign, threw him out on his ear where he belonged. The Hawke-Keating government came in ’83. In the first year of the Hawke government, debt increased by $7 billion up to $16 billion. By the time the nation threw out the subsequent Keating government, $96 billion in debt had been accumulated. Over $60 billion in public servant super liabilities had been left to go and grow. In 1996 there was $8 billion in interest payments per annum. By the time that debt was paid off and $60 billion was put away in the Future Fund, the combined amount of money that had to be raised to cover the debt and the future fund liabilities and to pay the interest was something like $200 billion—and it took the coalition 10 years to pay it off. Now this Rudd Labor government is seeking to raise $200 billion of debt again, because that is what Labor governments do. That is what the fellowship of the deficit debt club does. You cannot enter the fellowship without thrusting the nation into debt, because that is all you know. This debt is not productive debt. It does not look for tax cuts or for R&D expenditure in cuts. It does not look for cuts in capital gains tax to get cash flow back into businesses. It does not look to cover superannuation liabilities to restore cash flow. This is as Obama-esque as it comes in funding all of Labor’s pet projects under the guise of the global financial crisis. Is it any wonder that not a single House Republican voted for Obama’s package? Not one did, because in Obama’s $800 million package they would be lucky to have $100 billion worth of actual productive expenditure. The rest of it is all typical left-wing pet projects. Now Prime Minister Rudd joins the fellowship of the deficit and debt club. In 2008-09 he had a budget surplus of $22 billion—granted, a lot of that was from cheeky accounting tricks and other things put into it. It will now be a $22 billion deficit—a fairly impressive performance and turnaround for a first year in office. In his first year in office, how has he contributed to this great, unique fellowship of deficit and debt? A $44 billion turnaround in his budget position would have to be history-making. His $10.4 billion cash splash proved to be ineffective as an economic stimulus. That is not to say the people who received it did not appreciate it—I am sure they did. But looking at the spending increase in retail sales of a mere 3.7 per cent seasonally adjusted, with a maximum of a $500 million increase even though increases were building in November, let us say that the increase did not continue but stopped and that $500 million extra is due to the stimulus, which means only five per cent of the stimulus was spent. No wonder that has been no stimulus at all. That follows the US example where $125 billion was put into the economy and the figures showed a sharp increase in income but no reciprocal increase in expenditure. Now we have $42 billion, all debt. Every single cent will be borrowed. We are expecting a budget where the forward estimates may well have debt going out to $115 billion. And we have that offensive one-page bill which seeks to raise $200 billion in debt to the issuance of government bonds. How any Labor parliamentarian can sleep at night is absolutely and utterly beyond me. When questioned how the debt will be paid off, we had the Treasurer stand and say, ‘As soon as the economy starts to grow above the trend, we will start to pay the debt back.’ What does ‘grow above the trend’ possibly mean? He then wanted to say, ‘As soon as growth automatically kicks in, we’ll start to pay the debt back.’ Does he stand there, praying to the great financial gods and saying, ‘Please grow above the trend, please automatically kick back in.’ It is no plan to pay off one-fifth of a trillion dollars to say, ‘As soon as growth increases above the trend or growth increases automatically we will pay back the fifth of a trillion dollars we sunk this nation into.’ If you add in state Labor debt, which is approaching $100 billion, we now have a combined debt position put in by the Labor governments of this country approaching one-third of a trillion dollars. How in the name of all that is decent, how in the name of our children’s futures, is one-third of a trillion dollars going to be paid off? I guess Labor do not care because after the failed Whitlam experience the coalition took care of it; after the appalling, abominable Keating years, the coalition took care of it. I guess in their haphazard thinking deep down, in places that they do not talk about at parties, after the failure of the Rudd government and the one-fifth of a trillion dollars largesse being left to the children, they are hoping and probably praying that the coalition will come in and pay it all back again. The largesse does not stop here. There is a political strategy but clearly no economic one. The Prime Minister has declared 12 wars: wars on drugs, cancer, inflation, unemployment, global unemployment, whale hunting, Aboriginal disadvantage, downloads, pokies, alcopops, doping in sport and bankers’ salaries. Wars cost money. If you are going to declare war on a problem, I expect the community would expect to see solutions and solutions will cost money—$42 billion in debt being thrown away, on top of existing debt provisions, $200 billion more in total, and here we have 12 unfunded wars. We also have 160 unfunded reviews, summits, commissions, inquiries and conferences, all reporting back within the next 12 to 18 months, all with a range of recommendations which, I suggest, will cost money. Perhaps that is where some of the fifth of a trillion dollars is going. Have you had a look through Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009? It may simply be a mere $3 billion, but it will be $3 billion borrowed from the future of our children. There is $13.95 million for climate change and the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I gather that is for advertising, to put some more scare campaigns out there about what is happening rather than speak scientifically and legitimately about the science—an appropriate response. There is $101 million extra for solar panel rebates, rebates the government said were not needed until the coalition pressure overturned them and Minister Garret saw sense. There is $10 million extra for the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to meet higher costs of the broadband project assessment process. This was the $4.7 billion broadband project, an election promise. Prime Minister Rudd said today that all promises will be met, but this promise was that within six months we would have the tender process well and truly finalised and ready to go. Here we are, 13 months later, and it is nowhere near finalised and we have an appropriation for $10 million more to meet the assessment process costs. We have a real increase for Defence of $278 billion due to ‘other expenditure reduced’—something like $580 million reduced. Labor is selling the future of our children by loading them down with debt. Whilst these appropriation bills and some of their major areas are not contentious and will be passed by the coalition, there is no way known on this green earth that we will stand by on this $42 billion unproductive giveaway and allow its passage through the House or the Senate. The ugly fellowship of the deficit debt club knows no bounds, it knows no restraints, and after question time today it knows no hide or cheek. It belongs to no faction, there is clearly no intellectual requirement and there is no geographical location. Union membership is binding. Adherence to collectivism is needed. No other circumstance or condition whatsoever, save the merit of lazy spending, entitles a Labor leader to membership of the fellowship. Prime Minister Rudd has now shown conclusively that he will join Whitlam, Hawke and Keating as members of the fellowship who have loaded the future children of this nation with unproductive debt. 490 17:52:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I have to say that that was one of the most interesting and strange contributions to any debate I have ever heard. The previous speaker, the member for Fadden, mentioned intellectual capability. It really has me worrying about the future of the opposition, of the Liberal Party, if what he portrayed to this House tonight was some form of intellectual capability. I think the other side of politics in this parliament is in real trouble. I note that he was highly critical of President Obama, attributing the budgetary problems in the US to his leadership, which only demonstrated to me that not only does he have a very limited understanding of economic matters but he really is not up to date with what has been happening in the US. The enormous budget deficit that exists there can fall squarely on the shoulders of President Bush, whom I think the previous speaker may consider to have been an outstanding president and somebody whose policies, plans and legislative program he would have followed—but enough about the previous speaker. Let us talk about the legislation that is before us tonight, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009, which are for about $3.1 billion. There are a number of important items in this legislation. It looks at climate change. It makes provisions for health. It makes provisions for the Human Services portfolio and AusAID. I must say I am extremely proud of the contributions that this government has made in the area of overseas aid assistance to developing countries. It is something that has been long overdue and something that I know all of us on this side of the House are very proud of—and I know that there are members on the other side of this House who are also very pleased with the action that this government has taken in relation to overseas aid. I would also like to spend a little bit of time on the stimulus package that was presented to parliament last year, the Economic Security Strategy package. It gave the $1,000 bonus to families receiving family tax benefit part A; the $1,400 one-off payment to single pensioners; the $2,100 one-off payment to pensioner couples; the $1,000 payment to those who receive carer allowance; the first home owner grants of $21,000 to buyers of newly constructed homes and $14,000 to people purchasing established homes; and of course the 56,000 new training places. There has been much comment in the House by the opposition on the effectiveness or noneffectiveness of these measures. I have to report to the House that not only do the figures that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer presented support the fact that they have been very successful measures but so does the news I bring to this parliament from the electorate that I represent. There has been no end to the number of pensioners contacting my office saying how welcome that bonus they received before Christmas was, how they have put it to really good use, how they were able to do things that they were unable to do before—pay for things, buy things—and just what it meant to them at Christmas. I have even had letters that constituents have asked me to hand-deliver to the Prime Minister because they were so grateful for the help that they received. They utilised that help and they wanted the Prime Minister to know what they used that money for. I have a friend who has a business that is called Walk on Wheels, which supplies motorised scooters to elderly people, and services those scooters. My friend reported to me that they had an enormous increase in sales of their scooters prior to Christmas, and she attributed it very much to the bonus that pensioners received. The other interesting aspect of this is that, in January, as part of her business protocol, she rings around and talks to those pensioners who have purchased scooters, and she reported to me that this year every pensioner she rang to ascertain whether or not they needed their scooter serviced actually undertook to have that servicing done. She said that was very different to what usually happens. It is obviously good for her business, but it is also good for the safety of those pensioners who rely on motor scooters to get around. So for pensioners the bonus was very welcome. Families have also found it very useful. Some of the families in my electorate have been able to purchase things for their children or organise their sporting equipment—things that they would not otherwise have been able to do. I had one mother come to see me. Her children all played representative sport. She reported to me that that bonus had enabled her to buy the equipment that her children needed. So those people who are being very negative about the last bonus should talk to people in their electorates, because I know that that money was put to very good use. Then we need to look at first home buyers. I have been going out and looking at homes with a first home buyer. I know it is very difficult to actually find established homes around the price that first home owners who are entering the market can afford, because there has been such a take-up of the first home owners grant. There have been a number of people who would not otherwise have been looking for houses who have decided that, given the fact that this grant is there, they are going to buy their first home. That is very good for those people, and it is also very good for our economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see that the first package was well and truly utilised for the benefit of people within the electorate of Shortland. They truly appreciated what the government did. The other aspect of Appropriation Bill (No. 4) that I would like to concentrate on is in relation to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. There was $300 million allocated to councils. In the Shortland electorate there are two councils: Wyong Shire Council and Lake Macquarie City Council. Wyong Shire Council was allocated $1.529 million and Lake Macquarie City Council was allocated $2.117 million. I must say that both councils have chosen projects that are worth while. Both councils have chosen projects that will provide much-needed infrastructure for their local government areas. DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —That is a little bit loud. It is interrupting my— 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Could I ask the honourable member for Tangney to speak a bit softer, please. DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —Thank you, Member for Tangney. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —It was a bit rich. He was louder than the speaker! 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —He was louder than I was, yes! Thank you. I had to stop there because it was interrupting my train of thought. I do not present written speeches, so I needed to be able to gather my thoughts rather than listen to what the member for Tangney was saying on the telephone. In both local government areas, the councils have consulted with the community, looked at projects that were ready to go and chosen wisely. They have chosen projects spread throughout their local government areas so as to provide benefits to all their residents. They will provide not only infrastructure but jobs for people within those local government areas. I welcome their embrace of the money given to them. I know that the projects they have chosen will be extremely useful and worth while in the community. The money that was provided through the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will see much of the neglect of the previous government addressed. Obviously there will be still more to do. Our next budget will address some of those issues. This week there were some steps taken to address some of the neglect of the past and to look at stimulating the economy yet again. This week we have had the second economic stimulus package. The first area I would like to concentrate on is the money going towards building schools for the future. DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen —You could build 15 nuclear power stations with that money! 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —We are not investing our money, as the member for Tangney would like us to, in nuclear power stations. Rather, we are investing money in a way that will enable children to attend schools that are not run down and neglected and where there are science blocks, and to attend high schools where there are language laboratories. I think this is an excellent way to create jobs. It is not only creating jobs in the construction industry but also building infrastructure that has been long sought after. I have many schools in my electorate that applied for funding under the previous government’s program, and the approach was very subjective. This is long-term investment to improve the quality of facilities. I talked about the high schools and primary schools, about gyms and libraries. This is for multipurpose halls and libraries. We are looking at around 500 new science laboratories being built in schools and at providing $200,000 to schools for maintenance, renewal of buildings and minor works. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —That’s nice, but where’s the job going to be next year? 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —If this maintenance work is not done, the schools will deteriorate and the people who could be doing that work will be unemployed. I believe that this aspect of the stimulation package is particularly important because it is building the education revolution. It is not just providing computers and all the other things that are so important but concentrating on investing in our schools, our future and our children. Whilst investing in our schools, our future and our children, we are providing jobs within the construction industry—which has been very adversely affected in this downturn. This $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan that we are currently debating downstairs and will be debating well into tomorrow, and which I will be speaking on, I think, at about 10 minutes to 4 o’clock in the morning, will provide insulation for 2.7 million homes—that is, free ceiling insulation. It will also upgrade buildings in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools. It will build more than 20,000 new social and defence homes. Under the previous government money was ripped out of housing, and social housing, public housing, declined enormously. In the Shortland electorate the waiting time for a public house is 13 years. Somebody who is in desperate need of housing has to wait 13 years! It is absolutely disgraceful. You put this together with the National Affordable Housing Strategy which invests money in the private sector—and I might add that there has recently been housing approved under that scheme in the Shortland electorate—and you have a real attempt by our government to address the housing shortage in this country. I might add also that in the Shortland electorate the vacancy rate within the rental market is 1.8 per cent and, when three per cent is presumed to be a crisis level, 1.8 per cent is untenable. The package will invest money in housing and, at the same time, invest money in construction and in the future. Unlike the previous government, which missed every opportunity to prepare for the future; unlike the previous government, which thought that the mining boom would never end; unlike the previous government, which allowed the worst skills shortage in Australia’s history to eventuate; unlike the previous government, which just sat on its hands; the Rudd government is acting now for Australia’s future to ensure that we handle the global financial crisis much better than it would have been handled under the previous government and much better than most other countries in the world. (Time expired) 493 18:12:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I rise to speak about Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009 and two rather interesting realities. The first is that probably two per cent and maybe as much as four per cent of North Queensland is currently under water. You can fly for hundreds and hundreds of kilometres and not see much land—virtually no land at all. Australia is a dry continent but the north-eastern quarter of Australia is not dry, nor is the north-western quarter. They are not dry places at all. The extraordinary fact about our country and the reality of government and where it has dismally failed our country is that the top third has 300 million megalitres of water and the bottom two-thirds has only 80 million megalitres of water. It is really very dry, and 95 per cent of our agricultural production comes from the dry area. There seems to be something very strange here. Our water comes in a great rush, as it is doing at the present moment, and then it is all gone. We need to build little receptacles to hold some of that water back so that we can use it later in the year or in our dry years. They are called dams. Every other country on earth has maybe seven or eight per cent of their entire rainfall run-off retained and available through dams and irrigation systems. For those that say these things are destructive, the Chinese built most of their canal system 1,000 to 2,000 years ago and 1,300 million people attest to the sustainability of their agricultural approach. The second thing that dominates the current consciousness is, I think, the financial crisis. The most powerful leader on earth now is a man called Barack Obama and when he was asked whether he would give tax concessions—that is really a handout to people—he said no. He said that they were going to expend money that would provide jobs into the future. A lot of what the previous speaker said was very laudable, but her basic premise is that of the current government. Yes, I applaud the current government for what they did before Christmas. Yes, I applaud the current government for spending money in the building and construction industry. But not one single permanent job will be created by the current government program—not one. If you look back to the Great Depression in Australia, you see that it was characterised by the hopeless failure of government in Australia. And if the Prime Minister is looking for advice from Treasury here, well, you can thank them for a country that has no manufacturing base, a dwindling and negligible agricultural base and a mining base that has collapsed because of world prices, which we in the mining industry know are cyclical. Any person in the mining industry can tell you: ‘Do not rely upon the situation that exists.’ They would have told you three years ago, they would have told you four years ago and they would have told you two years ago: ‘Do not rely on this. This is a spike in the market.’ I come from the mining industry, and I have been in and out of mining all my life. That was what I was doing before I came into parliament. But I was not someone who worked as a labourer, although I did for quite a long time, in the mining industry. I owned my own mines, I found my own ore reserves and I floated my own company. I know the industry inside out and backwards. My entire livelihood for almost all of my life has depended on knowing that industry, and I was Minister for Mines and Energy in Queensland. And I can tell you that only Third World countries rely upon mining. That is for African countries, not for advanced countries. If you base your economy around mining, you are so foolish—and I say that as a person who represents the mining industry. I am sorry that the current government policy does not agree with the policy of the American President. He is looking at creating jobs out into the distance. Every single thing that this government has done in this great package of expenditure has provided jobs for two or three years, that is all. At the end of two or three years, it will all be gone. Wherever I go in the northern half of Queensland people say, ‘Do you ever get sick of bashing your head up against a wall?’ And I suppose that you really have to say that. Currently, the state government of Queensland has done a dirty, filthy, slimy deal—for which the AWU is going to stitch them up very shortly—with the Greens to get their support in the forthcoming election. They are very stupid people. Didn’t they see what Mr Latham did in Tasmania? Yes, you will get five per cent of the vote from the Greens; you most certainly will get their preferences. But the 95 per cent is what I would be going after in an election. It is the mistake Mr Latham made, and the mistake the Queensland government is making now. If you take 25 per cent off each of those sugar mills, they will all close—every single one of them. They could not possibly take a 20 per cent reduction in their gross. They will all close and 50,000 people will be out of work. This government has given the stamp of approval to the last government’s decision to bring bananas in from overseas. I don’t know whether I live in a lunatic asylum! Does anyone look at the figures? Australia is a net importer of food, in fruit and vegetables. We no longer feed ourselves. We went from a $400 million surplus to a $50 million deficit, to a $90 million deficit, to another $90 million deficit, and last year it was a $300 million deficit. That is something we can be proud of as a nation: we can’t feed ourselves! If you bring the bananas in, it will blow out to a $700 million deficit, assuming there is no growth, which of course would be a ridiculous assumption. So there is no doubt that one-seventh of our fruit and vegetables next year will have to come from overseas. We will not employ Australians to grow and produce fruit and vegetables and their downstream products; we will provide jobs to people overseas. Does anybody think about this parasitic economics, where you go and borrow money, you print money or create money, and then you go and spend it on self-indulgence? Sure, it will be nice to have a lot of new schools. Sure, it will be nice to have a lot of community halls. Sure, it will be nice to have plenty of work doing up our houses. But what happens in three years time? The argument of the current government against the last government is, ‘You blokes have based it all on the mining industry.’ I do not know. The current government seems to be basing it upon nothing at all. I do not know whether anyone is cognisant of the current account. I am only a lowly Cloncurry boy; I would not know these things. But Mr Keating, who was Treasurer of Australia for 12 years and Prime Minister for another four years, said, ‘When the current account is $15,000 million, we are going to be a banana republic.’ The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, who was himself Treasurer for some four or five years and then became Prime Minister for 12 years—a man who should know—reminded Mr Keating of this and said, ‘You said we would be a banana republic at $15,000 million but it’s now $23,000 million.’ I am only a simple Cloncurry boy, but it is now $75,000 million and rising. That means that this country has to borrow $75,000 million from overseas this year. I am rather intrigued to know who is going to be loaning us $75,000 million. That will be very interesting indeed. Substantially, money has come from the Americans. It came from the Arab countries, from China, from India and from Brazil, those countries that are going forward at a hundred miles an hour—the BRIC economies, as they are called. They have a lot of money to spare. They have been very competitive and they have given money to the Americans to invest, who have loaned it to us. But that most certainly will not be occurring this year. So it will be rather intriguing to find out. We are talking about a $20,000 million package for this year. The whole package is over three years. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you what it should be spent on. Firstly, this government should decide that we will put ethanol in our petrol tanks and not petrol. Petrol destroys the atmosphere and is causing global warming—I do not know about that, but it is certainly causing problems in the ocean which will get worse. Why would you not use ethanol? We have a record flood in the Burdekin River, the third-biggest river in Australia. The Murray-Darling, which produces 60 per cent of our agriculture, has 22 million megalitres. The Burdekin has 12 million megalitres, so it is smaller but not all that much smaller than the Murray-Darling. It is running at a record height. I have not seen it—I left before it really rose—but it is at the highest level in white man’s history. Surely we can build a dam in the Upper Burdekin to hold some of that massive outflow and use it to produce ethanol? A dam was proposed at Hells Gates above Charters Towers to hold a tiny bit of these flood waters back. This year, the Burdekin River will probably run 20 or 30 million megalitres. We just want one million megalitres a year out of it; that is all. If you give that to us then we will give you 1,200 million litres of ethanol every year. At maybe a dollar a litre, we will produce $1,200 million of wealth. That will not stop in two or three years time, as this program will. That will go on forever and ever. We can produce our fuel forever and it is not harmful to the environment. At Georgetown, the Gilbert River is nine million megalitres. Remember that the Murray-Darling, which produces 60 per cent of our agriculture, is 22 million megalitres. This one is nine million megalitres. The Gilbert River is very suitable for farming. You can get 2,400 million litres of ethanol a year out of a moderate scheme on the Gilbert River. The deputy head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in Queensland observed to me that there are fools out there who talk about the Bradfield scheme. I said, ‘Sonny’—and I used the word ‘Sonny’—‘what university degrees do you have?’ He said, ‘I’ve got a degree in engineering.’ I said, ‘And what have you built?’ He had not built anything. He had not even built a hole in his backyard. He had built nothing in his whole life. He was a very young person and a quite intelligent person too. I said: ‘Dr Bradfield built the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He built the Story Bridge in Brisbane. He built the University of Queensland, the beautiful old sandstone building there. He built the underground railway system in Sydney and he built two of the biggest dams in Australia even to this day. He may know a little bit about what he is talking about. I have to say, with all due respect to you, you do not have any experience at anything that would qualify you to make an authoritative statement like that.’ Dr Bradfield’s scheme is nothing very dramatic. It just takes a little tiny bit of the flood waters from where it rains all the time at a very high level—in Innisfail, Tully and the heartland of the electorate of Kennedy—and puts it back through the ranges. We can only do a little tiny bit at the top, but it is a very big picture if you put it out on to the western plains. The western plains currently have an area the size of Tasmania where all flora and fauna have been destroyed by prickly acacia trees. That is how we are husbanding the resources of Australia. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We should replace the prickly acacia tree with ethanol-producing crops. Ethanol from sugar cane reduces CO2 emissions not by 29 per cent, like corn ethanol does, but by 194 per cent. Not only is that magical in itself but also with sugar cane we will be producing about 1,000 megawatts of electricity, so there will be another $400 million or $500 million in electricity income coming in as well. Once again, this is something that will go on forever. It will create jobs for forever and forever and forever. If that power station, which also has coal, is built, it will supply much-needed power to the greatest mineral province on earth, the north-west mineral province. I am being quite technical. It produces $13,400,000 worth of product every year. There is no area as small as that in the world that has anything like that amount of mineral production. But, big as it is, we have 500 million tonnes of iron ore that has not been touched. We have the Roseby copper, silver, lead and zinc deposits and the Rocklands deposits. The Cannington will double its size, and that is BHP’s most profitable mine in the world—or it was the last time I looked. That is the biggest mining company on earth and its most profitable mine and it wants to double it in size. None of the other projects—not the oil shale nor the vanadium at Julia Creek, which are world-class resources, nor the iron ore, silver, lead, zinc or copper—are as big. Joe Gutnick is proposing an eight million tonne a year phosphate production operation. If we could convince him to process that in Australia, that would be $8,000 million a year for the Australian economy. But, however you look at this, if you can enable and facilitate these mines to open we will double that $13,000 million production. This is not just a job for the next two or three years. Mount Isa Mines started operation, I think, in 1926—at the latest, 1929. It is now 2009. That mine has been operating for 80-odd years. It has created great wealth for Australia for 80 years. We have people being put off at the giant nickel plant in Townsville. I do not doubt for a moment that we will be putting people off at the giant zinc plant in Townsville. Both these plants employ a thousand people. But they have very expensive electricity. People must understand that aluminium, for example, is just congealed electricity. The vast bulk of the price of aluminium is electricity. If you have cheap electricity you will get aluminium processing. If you have cheap electricity you will get nickel processing and zinc processing. If you do not have that, then these great projects will close down or they will find it very difficult to keep going. There is not a single baseload power station in Northern Australia. If you were to draw a line across Australia stretching from Rockhampton across to Geraldton, you would find that there is no baseload power north of that line. Yet all of Australia’s mineral wealth—except for coal, of course—is north of that line. It is crazy that you would put the power stations away from where you need the power stations if you want to be internationally competitive. It costs an awful lot of money to take power great distances. But if you were to build the Hells Gates dam and you built a power station beside it on the coal reserves there, you would produce 500 megawatts of hydroelectric power and renewable power from bagasse, and you would produce 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired power. The proposal that we have there is for zero-emissions power—but that will be a story for another day. The great Dr Bradfield proposed that we fill up Lake Eyre with water. I do not think it would be a good idea to fill it up with water from North Queensland. But if you were to dig a ditch and fill it up with water from the Spencer Gulf, it would cost about $3,500 million. And you could put 100 square kilometres there under salt production. You have a giant lake of which you could take a small proportion—I am not quite sure of the exact proportion, but 100 square kilometres would produce $2,000 million worth of salt every year. It could be barged out in the irrigation ditch through which the water comes in, at virtually no cost at all, and we would become one of the great salt producers of the world. One of his alternative proposals was to fill Lake Eyre with a ditch dug between the lake and Spencer Gulf. So I stand up today and say Joe Gutnick—to be very specific—says: ‘Yes. I will open up that mine and I will build a phosphate plant here and I will process that phosphate into diammonium phosphate—which is very, very valuable: $1,200 a tonne—and maybe send two-thirds of it overseas unprocessed because my partners are Indian and they want it unprocessed. So we will do that for you. We will produce $4,000 million or $5,000 million dollars worth of income for Australia. But I need land to build houses for my workers on’—land which our forebears fought and died for at Eureka—‘and I want some water. I want some electricity. We are on a 90-days water supply.’ Now we are in a record flood but, you know, a month ago we were on 90 days supply—to close down all the mining operations in north-west Queensland! ‘If you give us that electricity and that water, we can give you $20,000 million a year, and jobs that will be there year after year, out into the foreseeable future—or even the unforeseeable future. Those are the wonderful things we can do for you.’ We plead with the government to redirect some of that money away from self-indulgence, from nice little things that are wonderful to have. You have to sacrifice yourself to build for the future, as Barack Obama has said. (Time expired) 497 18:32:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I am supporting the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is for $2.05 billion and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is for $1.04 billion. These additional estimates bills seek authority from the parliament for additional expenditure of money from the consolidated revenue fund in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the budget. The total additional appropriation being sought through additional estimates bills No. 3 and No. 4 this year is $3.1 billion, or about 4.1 per cent of total annual appropriations. The total appropriations being sought this year through Appropriation Bill (No. 3) of $2.05 billion arise from changes in the estimates of program expenditure due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases and program take-ups, reclassifications from policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget, and many new policy initiatives that have been welcomed by the community. I will try to go through both of these appropriation bills and look at what is there. There is a vast array of particular funding items, but it is important to go through them all because the bills set out part of the Rudd agenda in terms of how we assist Australia on a range of issues, many of which were neglected for many years under the coalition. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides additional funding to agencies for expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution, for payments to the territories and to local government authorities, and for non-operating purposes such as equity injections and loans. In particular, in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 4), I would like to talk about, later in my contribution, the local government authorities’ money and the plans for that money in my electorate, particularly from Wyong council, and just how welcome that has been. The principal factor contributing to the additional requirements since the 2008-09 budget is the proposed increase of $791.2 million in payments to states, territories and local authorities. The main items under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 include $157.2 million to AusAID as part of the government’s commitment to increasing Australia’s overseas development assistance over the long term. The Department of Defence will be provided with $87.8 million to reimburse it for the costs of extending Australia’s military participation in stabilising and reconstruction activities in Iraq to 30 June 2009. There is $307 million to address pressures in a number of areas, including the graded other ranks pay structure review, superannuation, rental allowances and higher fuel costs. This funding is matched by reduced estimates for Defence in later years. There is $153 million for Defence to meet additional costs arising from movements in exchange rates and $29.4 million to cover unavoidable overspends on operations in the previous financial year which are funded by the government on a no win, no loss basis. The sum of $21.3 million from this appropriation bill will go to the Department of Health and Ageing to increase the number of organ donations and transplants across Australia by implementing a comprehensive set of initiatives. The substantive legislation in relation to this has already passed, as has most of the substantive legislation in relation to these appropriation bills. In terms of organ donation, Australia on the one hand is a country that has been internationally recognised for its strong record of successful organ transplants. More than 30,000 Australians have received transplants in the last 60 years and we have been leading the world, right at the cutting edge, in the tremendous work in transplantation that our doctors and health professionals have done. But on the other hand, ironically, we have one of the world’s lowest rates of organ donation. Demand massively outweighs supply in Australia, and the consequence of this is that a substantial number of people will die while waiting for suitable organ donations. In fact, in Australia about 200 organs are donated each year on average, with 1,800 people on the waiting list. So there is a shortfall of around 1,600 each year. That is why the legislation that passed through this place last year went to set up a comprehensive national system that will assist with organ transplants. The appropriation bill that we are discussing today allocates $21.3 million to make sure that that aim of increasing organ transplants—something that is vital for this country—is achieved. Also for the Department of Health and Ageing there is an additional $7.5 million to be provided to increase the number of places available under the general practice placement program. Another item under the same department is a return of $21.4 million to the diagnostic imaging industry as part of the recently expired memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the industry, and $14.4 million goes to the department to meet costs associated with the increased uptake of a breast cancer drug provided under the new Commonwealth program. These are all good initiatives. These are all initiatives that have come in the first year of the Rudd government. These are all initiatives that show that the health and wellbeing of Australian citizens is at the forefront of this government’s mind in deciding policy steps that need to be taken and need to be implemented. Thirty-nine million dollars will go to the Department of Human Services for a Job Capacity Assessment program to meet higher than expected demand for assessments. This will provide for an additional 139,555 assessments to be undertaken in 2008-09. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will receive $101 million to meet the increased demand for household rebates under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. This is a program with a very high demand. This is a program that, after the Rudd government made changes in the budget, we were told was going to founder because there was not going to be enough uptake. There has been quite the reverse. What we have in fact found is that this program has been so popular that additional funding that was not envisaged has been brought forward to meet the high demand. This is good for Australia. This means that we have people taking advantage of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. This means that in terms of renewable energy, Australians are keen to move in that direction where they have an opportunity and government incentive. There is $61.6 million being made available to assist small block irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by drought who wish to cease irrigation farming but stay on the farm. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will receive $57.1 million and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be provided with $4.5 million. For the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, an additional $59.4 million will meet commitments for which funding was provided last financial year but, because of program delays, payments were not able to be made until the current year. From that funding, $43.4 million is proposed to fund drought assistance grants to irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin and $16 million is proposed for the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement to enable the department to meet commitments that were entered into in 2007-08. Again, these are important initiatives. These are initiatives that go to the green credentials of the Rudd government, initiatives that have been dramatically built upon in the legislation that is being debated in the main chamber at the moment, but which the opposition are seeking to reject, in relation to the latest stimulus package. But these earlier initiatives are very important for making sure that the commitments we made to renewable energy and to trying to repair some of the damage that has been done to the Murray-Darling Basin are commitments that we take very seriously. This appropriation bill, in part, provides funding for that as well. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research will be receiving an additional $93.3 million, and that is proposed to meet the increased cost of the LPG Vehicle Scheme arising from the additional customers who are expected to access the scheme in 2008-09. It is good that the government is having to provide this additional money, because it shows that where this government has put in place incentives for the community to take on board new technology that is green, that is going to decrease the carbon footprint, Australians are not only willing but also eager to take it up. Again, it is an example of an oversubscribed scheme that needs to be topped up. There is $37 million for the Ethanol Production Grants program to meet an anticipated increase in expenditure due to the New South Wales government’s two per cent ethanol mandate, their expansions of the Manildra facility at Nowra and CSR’s facility at Sarina, and a new ethanol production facility at Dalby. In the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism there is a reallocation of $99.4 million for the establishment of a global carbon capture and storage institute. The institute will accelerate the take-up of carbon capturing projects by facilitating demonstration projects and identifying and supporting necessary research on related topics, including regulatory settings and regulatory frameworks. Funding in 2008-09 will be provided by the redirection of amounts from the National Low Emission Coal Initiative, formerly known as the National Clean Coal Fund. This additional funding is also partially offset by savings in other programs. Australian financial regulators, who in the last 18 months have been under more scrutiny than ever before, will receive $21.5 million in 2008-09 and $83 million over the next four years to help maintain the strength of Australia’s financial system during the global financial crisis. This will provide the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority with an additional $9 million in 2008-09 to meet the increased demands being placed on it to undertake a range of additional supervisory services. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will receive an additional $10 million to undertake market monitoring and enforcement activities, while the Department of the Treasury will receive $2.5 million to ensure Australia’s regulatory environment continues to be world’s best practice and to pursue reform of the global financial architecture. There is probably no more important time than now for this to be taking place—making sure that our regulators, who are amongst the best in the world, remain that way by making sure that we properly fund them. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is to receive $18.8 million to account for the impact of foreign exchange fluctuations. Again, this is an important appropriation that needs to be there. It helps our ability to make payments to both the international peacekeeping organisations and other international organisations on behalf of the Australian government. With its long-standing support of the UN and other multilateral peacekeeping and peace related operations, Australia has a good name in international peacekeeping. Australia continues that tradition today and is an active contributor of personnel and financial support to the UN and other multinational peace operations throughout the world. Our personnel, both military and police, are currently present in countries including Cyprus, Egypt, Sudan and Timor Leste. This country’s peacekeeping roles also include being part of multilateral peace operations in the Solomon Islands. Australia is an active participant in efforts to further improve global peace operations. Australia’s contribution to global peace operations is a demonstration of our commitment to the UN Charter and efforts to resolve disputes through the international system. It is important that this work is done. I would like to talk, in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009, about the $300 million for the regional and local infrastructure program, of which $250 million is being distributed to local councils. In my electorate we have two councils, one of which, the Gosford Council, is predominantly in the electorate of my colleague the member for Robertson, with a small part in my electorate. The Wyong Shire Council is the shire council that covers the majority of my electorate. Both of these councils received around $1½ million out of this fund, which was a tremendous boost to them. In the Wyong shire amongst the programs that this is funding is an upgrade of the netball courts at Wyong. This is very important. The Wyong netball courts are amongst the busiest in New South Wales. By upgrading them and building new courts it will enable the area to put bids in for state championships and the like, as well as providing first-class facilities for the locals on a weekly and daily basis. There was also money that went to the establishment, at Canton Beach, of a second disability playground, which is vitally important. Only last year, through fund raising and local government efforts in the Wyong shire, we established the first disability park on the Central Coast at Long Jetty. That was almost completed but a small amount of money coming from the $1½ million for Wyong shire will also go to complete the disability toilets at Long Jetty. Not only is this money providing local infrastructure in my electorate—and electorates right around Australia—but by doing so it is providing local jobs where they are needed in particular projects that are ready to go, starting to work right now. It was interesting to gauge the response of the community and the elected council to this. The mayor of Wyong shire was absolutely lavish in his praise for this particular initiative, and could not say enough about this Rudd government initiative. One might ask: ‘Well, is this mayor a Labor mayor? It is Wyong shire; is this someone who has spent his life in the Labor Party and is his public appreciation of this initiative in some way a payback to the Labor Party?’ Quite the contrary; this particular mayor at one stage was the state Liberal Party member for The Entrance. But he can see— B36 Neal, Belinda, MP Ms Neal —He saw the error of his ways. HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr CRAIG THOMSON —He saw the error of his ways, saw the wisdom of this particular initiative by the Rudd government and has been lavish in his praise and support. These types of programs are reaching through and getting to all levels of the community, and the community and their representatives, whether their history has been on the other side of the political spectrum or not, cannot but support these great initiatives that the Rudd government has brought about. For that reason, there is broad support in the electorate and with those local elected councillors. There are literally a dozen other very important initiatives in these appropriation bills. Clearly, the time available is not going to allow me to go through them in any detail that will give any real justification for the importance that they actually have to the community. But going through and touching on those initiatives that I have mentioned so far in this contribution gives a taste of the important work that this government has undertaken not just in the May budget of last year but since then and incorporated in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). These are important bills. This is important work. This is nation-building work that has been carried out by the Rudd government. These works provide jobs locally. They ensure that the community is involved in many of these issues, and they are broad-ranging issues. What I have touched on today is the importance of issues going to the environment and the uptake that we have seen from the Rudd government’s initiatives in relation to that area, to health and the important role that the government has played and continues to play in trying to encourage greater organ donation, and to the direct stimulus to the local economy through the local council initiatives. These are very important initiatives that these two appropriation bills incorporate, and I commend both of these bills to the House. 502 18:52:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I rise in the House today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. I want to make reference to the fact that I will be quoting extensively from a study, which has come from the Australian Local Government Association, titled the National financial sustainability study of local government. It is a PricewaterhouseCoopers report that was released in 2006. But, whilst I quote extensively from the study, it is not verbatim. I just wanted to put that on the record for Hansard. This report has drawn upon studies by Access Economics for state local government associations in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales, as well as a detailed analysis by the Municipal Association of Victoria. The research was complemented by financial analysis of over 100 Australian councils. I rise to speak specifically on this because I would like to go to the possibility of a constitutional recognition for local government. Within my speech on this appropriation bill, which deals with local councils and local government issues, I will also try and touch upon the drought relief and drought measures within this bill. I want to talk about some of the issues associated with drought and a single desk, particularly for wheat growers within my electorate, but I do want to raise the issue of whether or not we should constitutionally recognise local government. I was formerly a councillor of Wagga Wagga City Council. I was Deputy Mayor of Wagga Wagga City Council prior to coming into this House. Local government, being the government closest to the people, deserves recognition. I personally believe that we need to revisit the issue of constitutional recognition of local government. It is a fact out of this report, and I know, through working closely with local governments right across my electorate of Riverina and beyond, that local government is responding to rising community expectations. There has been significant cost shifting, particularly from the New South Wales state government, to local governments. In the last few years what was once a New South Wales state road has been downgraded to a local road so that it has gone off the New South Wales government’s books. It is incumbent upon local government, when the supply of medical infrastructure is low or doctors are not available, to try and find solutions and resolutions. There is a growing expectation that local governments will provide the range of essential services and infrastructure that underpin local communities. The growth in input prices generally has exceeded the average rate of revenue growth, resulting in a significant number of councils who are now developing financial deficits. That is significant, because many decisions are imposed upon local government. Take, for interest’s sake, when there was a separation of land and water. The proponents of separation of land and water did not anticipate the impact that separation would have on local government, particularly in my electorate of Riverina. Water was always the most extensive of financial assets in land and water, particularly in the MIA and around the Hay area. When the water value is high, you have a separation and there are no rates applied to water, council is left with an enormous shortfall of revenue with nowhere else to get funds. Rates revenue then comes only from land, the value of which may go down by two-thirds. Yet, local government is still expected to provide the same facilities. So there has been a tendency for local governments to defer or reduce expenditure that could aid and abet infrastructure renewals in their local government areas. Councils may have no option but to cut back on the level of local community services and infrastructure, for the very reasons that I have just pointed out. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report says that up to 30 per cent of local government councils might not be sustainable, and I think that is a tragedy. I think it is an absolute tragedy. That report is consistent with state based reports that between 25 and 40 per cent of councils in states could be financially unsustainable. This report, which was done involving local government, called for a range of reforms to deal with the national total backlog in local government infrastructure renewal work. That was worth an estimated $14.5 billion. During our term in government, we delivered Roads to Recovery money directly to local governments and they directly spent it. No money was siphoned off by the state bureaucracies. I believe that should take place in health initiatives. I lobbied hard when we were in government to get health money delivered directly to local governments, and we succeeded in many of the programs that we put in place. But there is a greater need to deliver money directly through local government and to bypass states. Am I a proponent of the dissolution of states? Probably yes. I am certainly not a proponent of local government not getting recognition. Many community centres and aged-care facilities, health clinics and sport and recreation facilities were established in the 1950s—and earlier—and are not being sufficiently upgraded because local governments have a lack of funds. A detailed analysis by Access Economics of over 441 councils completed over 2005-06 across four states—New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria—found that the average infrastructure renewal backlog per council was $20.8 million. This is significant because they seem to have to provide an enormous number of services that were once provided by the states. If this average result is applied across 700 councils, the aggregate national renewals backlog would be, according to this report, around $14.5 billion. The estimated funding gap to clear the backlog and to cover the annual underspend on renewals was estimated in this report to be $3.1 million per council per annum, or a $2.16 billion package nationally. This indicates the plight of local government. But the sustainability problem is typically more acute in our smaller councils, which are primarily in rural and remote areas. It is a significant issue for numerous regional and more remote communities, and local government is generally the only institution present in many of the economic activity drivers in these areas. So it seems that over the past 30 years the range of functions that has been undertaken by local government in Australia has expanded well beyond the physical infrastructure of roads, rates and rubbish that we have always seen, and it does include an enormous number of important social and human services. Again, as this report indicates, this has come about through a combination of community pressure and expectations, state and Australian government inducements, and the withdrawal of services by other levels of government. For many of the 60 per cent of councils that are rural or remote, static or declining populations have tended to translate into static or declining revenue. Councils in agricultural areas have more pronounced viability problems than their metropolitan counterparts. These councils typically appear to have a relatively larger scope for internal reforms, but they battle against lack of scale, so they cannot share resources because of the tyranny of distance and the expectations of their community, and they really do require additional funding for community infrastructure. There were programs that were funded under the old Regional Partnerships program that renewed and built community infrastructure. Whilst I stand, I will declare that I had enormous success in my Regional Partnerships projects. Each one of the projects in my region stacks up on its own merit and I will back them 1,000 per cent. Each delivered, in spades, benefits to the community. I will never, ever say that the applications from the communities that I represent were funded on the basis of anything but merit. I have local governments and councils that are having to refurbish community centres and public halls, and upgrade senior citizens centres—make provisions for senior citizens centres. They are responsible for the renewal and refurbishment of theatres, galleries and museums. Hay used to be an area I represented, and that little town has five museums, including curators. It is just an extraordinary town. I love Hay—I was so sad that it was removed from my electorate—and I will continue to represent the needs of Hay, because it is a vibrant, can-do community that continually gets kicked and knocked back because government decisions impact on it enormously. There is also responsibility for the enhancement of main streets and the upgrading—in more coastal areas; certainly not in mine—of boat ramps, jetties and wharves. Above all there is the upgrading of recreational facilities to enable communities to come together: swimming pools and playing fields. These are essential recreational facilities for rural and regional communities. Councils are also responsible for the improvement of park equipment, such as playgrounds, benches and barbecues, because the people who inhabit rural and regional communities also have an expectation that they deserve a quality of life and deserve to enjoy these things. Local governments and councils have an amazing amount of responsibility that is certainly not understood. I tried desperately—and I will continue to try—to get what I call the Runways to Recovery Program funded, the R2R of aviation, for airports in rural and regional communities to upgrade and maintain aerodromes, airstrips et cetera. The airports are used to fly in essential services such as health services, including mental health services. In many cases the fly-in services provide the only access that these communities have to health services. There are libraries and information centres. I note that the Prime Minister’s package includes upgrading libraries. That could certainly help local government. Then there is the refurbishment of kitchen and council facilities which provide meals on wheels. These are things that local governments and communities provide for members of their communities. These are things that fall to the local governments to do. I stand here recognising as best as I can the enormous job that local governments do. Why shouldn’t they have constitutional recognition? Why shouldn’t they be completely included in budgetary processes et cetera? I feel very strongly about this, and I felt that this evening was an obvious time to raise this issue. I will finish by highlighting the impact that the dismantling of the single desk last year had on my electorate. I have farmers who are at breaking point. They have just tried to market their grain and have been told that the 27 tonnes of prime hard wheat they have just delivered out of the millions that they should have is worth less than the price of feed wheat. That was just a few months ago. We have imposed this significant decision on the people who live in rural and regional Australia. They are incensed about the decision to deregulate the export wheat market in a year such as we have just had. It has been a horrible year. Of all the years to make a decision of the magnitude that was made by the Rudd government and the minister! We were staring down the barrel of the subprime collapse. It was certainly not the year to irreversibly put wheat farmers against the wall. In the month the Labor Party deregulated the wheat desk they concentrated on workplace changes and the rights of unions to again dominate a workplace and to collectively bargain in the sole interests of workers yet the minister removed the right of growers to collectively bargain with their grain. Minister, you have taken away their rights. You have given rights to every other Australian and have removed the rights of my growers to collectively market their grain. They are now at the mercy of these grain traders who are simply not able to be found. They have picked off my growers one by one. It is a tragedy. I will continue to outline and highlight this tragedy not because it is a political issue but because it hurts and burns my heart and my soul intensely to see the people I represent so badly affected by that decision. The pools that are operating at the moment are ineffective. They do not have the advantages of a large national pool. There is no parcel of grain accumulating with enough hedging attached to it to offer any sort of competitive pricing. I have had AWB openly making it very clear to growers that the pools will open and close as they please and that sellers should lock in early to avoid missing out. There is no sense of security. The growers have been decimated by drought and have been hurt in recent years through forward selling grain. A large national pool would have carried stock from previous years into a weaker harvest and not have left our growers exposed to the weaker position that they now find themselves in. I think all growers would concede that, whilst the highs of the pool may not be the one-off extreme high-buyers or risky futures-swaps might offer, the plummeting lows could certainly have been ridden out and their effects cushioned. The price of Australian grain has fluctuated substantially through domestic consumption and demand. During this drought the demand has been worth $100 per tonne to the grower, which effectively has meant that grain has been worth more than the US futures price. Our basis has gone from positive to negative, however, and is now negativing our grain to the tune of A$40 to A$50 per tonne in comparison with US futures pricing. We have a tragedy. There is not a single national pool to ride the current lows and carry grain for longer periods to ensure a greater average return coupled with an upfront payment to keep farming entities afloat into sowing. It is a harsh reality that our bank managers are not willing to sit back and let farmers carry their grain to attempt to avert the current paltry returns. Much was made during that inquiry by both Liberal and Labor senators of the fact that grain could be stored on-farm or warehoused at receival sites. I kept saying, ‘This cannot happen; this is simply a nonsense,’ and that is exactly what it was. Until a few days ago farmers in our area were holding prime hard grain valued at $270 per tonne. Its value has now fallen to less than $240 per tonne. If they were to hold this grain, as was suggested in this inquiry, and store it on-farm, it would cost them 10 per cent interest on their overdrafts, which would easily take off $13.50 per tonne. Six months of warehousing at receival sites would have cost $1.25 per tonne per month in storage fees, which would equate to about $7.50 per tonne. So, before growers could even get out of bed they would need to be looking at $300 a tonne to profit if they held onto the grain. This is what we were trying to explain. This is just a nonsense. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) talks about drought. I talk about reality. This is a travesty of justice. This has been imposed upon the people I represent. I detest what has been done. I feel strongly about this, and I will not stop raising it until some relief is given to those people who have been so badly affected by the policies of this government. 506 19:12:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I would like to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Riverina. I assure her that she took me on a trip down memory lane there, from when I coached in Temora. I have some friends who live in Temora, Mimosa, Ardlethan and Ariah Park who are farmers. She will be happy to know that I have invited them to come to this place later this month to meet directly with Tony Burke. It is a meeting that Tony is very keen to have with young farmers, so they can say first-hand how that system worked and be able to put their concerns to him. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs Hull —Thank you. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —No worries. I appreciate that. I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009. These additional estimates bills are presented during a crisis that is unprecedented in our lifetime, a time where strong and decisive action to support jobs and the economy is required. The additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for additional expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. I will outline some of the major appropriations processed in the bill that are particularly significant to the people in my electorate of Solomon. This bill provides the Department of Defence with an additional $87.8 million to reimburse it for the cost of extending Australia’s military participation in stabilisation and reconstruction activities in Iraq to 30 June 2009. The Department of Defence will also be provided with $153 million to meet additional costs arising from movements in the exchange rate; $29.4 million will also go to the Department of Defence to cover unavoidable overspends on operations in the previous financial year, which are funded by the government on a no win, no loss basis. Very importantly, the Department of Defence will be provided with $307 million to address pressures in a number of areas, including the graded other ranks pay structure review, superannuation, rental allowances and higher fuel costs. Well over 5,000 ADF men and women are based in Solomon at HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin Naval Base and Headquarters Northern Command located at Larrakeyah Barracks. The Australian Army has a large presence at Robertson Barracks and NORFORCE is at Larrakeyah Barracks, and of course there is the Royal Australian Air Force at RAAF Base Darwin. Defence personnel and their families are an integral part of our vibrant city in the north. I must say that both during the campaign and since being elected I have been extremely fortunate in meeting so many members of our Australian Defence Force community. I know these commitments by the Rudd Labor government deliver for the Australian Defence Force community. These bills demonstrate our government’s strong commitment to the Defence Force and, through a significant military presence, they also build the economy of Solomon. On 19 February, we will remember the bombing of Darwin, a significant event in the history of Australia. These measures show that the Australian Defence Force and their families are front and centre with the Rudd Labor government. They build on the existing funding programs, from child care to health care to housing. It was fantastic to hear the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel reply to my question regarding the role Defence Housing Australia will play in yesterday’s announcement in parliament of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. As a result of our package, the government will provide $251.6 million to the Defence Housing Authority to construct 802 dwellings in metropolitan and regional centres. Importantly, these new houses will not be built in just one or two areas of the country. Seventeen different regions across Australia will benefit from the initiative, including 185 new houses to be built in Darwin. Not only will this ensure Australian Defence Force personnel have appropriate, quality housing available to them but it will also mean a huge boost to the local construction industry across all 17 regions. Building will commence in April this year and continue until mid-2011. The government will continue to support employment initiatives for spouses, assistance with housing, relocation, childcare programs, health care, the transition to civilian life at the end of a military career and a number of other support services. As many of my colleagues often say, it is ‘recruit the member, retain the family’. I know these types of initiatives are of great benefit to the fantastic Defence Force personnel and their families who live and work in Solomon. Back in December the government brought all the mayors and shire presidents from around the country to Canberra. It was a historic moment and one I was proud to be involved in. Not only were partnerships between federal and local government strengthened but also it was about setting local infrastructure projects that would be federally funded. The two lord mayors in my electorate—Graham Sawyer, the Lord Mayor of Darwin, and Robert McLeod, the very enthusiastic Lord Mayor of Palmerston—had a fantastic time. This bill appropriates $300 million to local councils and shires across Australia, including $250 million to be allocated between all councils through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. As we heard yesterday, the government will provide an additional $500 million over two years to expand the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. These are fantastic initiatives by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, bringing the federal government to a greater understanding of and being of greater assistance to local government. These are grassroots projects. They help local businesses to create local jobs at the grassroots level. As the member for Riverina touched on, it brings local pride and builds community. That is what we are all about. We have gone so much away from building community in the last 12 years. In Solomon, councils have been allocated $661,000. This money would never have been allocated under the previous government; it would not have happened. They would never have brought all the lord mayors to Canberra to talk to them about how federal government could assist local government. There was $313,000 to the Darwin City Council and $196,000 to the Palmerston City Council. I know the money was extremely well received. Both my lord mayors, Graeme Sawyer and Robert Mcleod, are very passionate about their patch and what they can do. It is just the shot in the arm that both councils and local contractors needed and something that I know that the people of Darwin and Palmerston are particularly happy about. This bill provides funding for local projects—things like community centres, swimming pools and sports grounds—projects that will need to meet the program’s guidelines and be approved by the government before funding can be provided. I have been working with, and will continue to work with, councils and shires in my electorate to put forward projects that our community really needs. This means worthwhile projects that stimulate our local economy and support jobs in our communities during this global financial crisis. The Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is yet another example of our government taking decisive action at a local level to support our local economy through these types of initiatives. These are unprecedented times. Many countries around the world have already slipped into, or are slipping into, recession. We have two options. We can either sit on our hands and do nothing or we can act swiftly and decisively to continue to grow Australia’s economy and to continue to save Australian jobs. This bill will also provide almost $100 million to establish a global institute to speed up the development of carbon capture and storage technology. Through this institute the Rudd government will work cooperatively with other countries to help reduce the amount of CO released into the atmosphere. The government has offered to host the institute in Australia and would continue to contribute up to $100 million per annum towards its operation. Developing and commercialising this technology is vital for Australia’s future. In fact, CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Geoff Garrett said that the initiative would significantly reduce the time frames currently projected to develop and deploy critical carbon capture and storage technologies on a commercial scale. Australia has already held informal consultations with industry and foreign governments over a possible model for the institute. This will pave the way for its commercial deployment across the world by the end of the next decade. It is an initiative that proves once again that we on this side of the House are serious about climate change. The commitment was again apparent yesterday with the second stimulus package initiative and the Energy Efficient Homes Program, for instance, which will assist in the insulation of homes and the rebate for solar panels to assist in reducing our power consumption. This is an unprecedented financial crisis, a crisis of a magnitude never seen before. Australia is not immune to it. It will be a hard year, a hard fight. However, it is a fight we will win. The decisive action in this crisis by the Rudd Labor government will enable us to fight through these uncertain times. I commend these bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Laming) adjourned. 508 19:23:00 Main Committee adjourned at 7.23 pm 509 Questions in Writing 509 509 500 509 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 December 2008: In respect of funding currently made to employment services providers, what percentage was spent in the 2007-08 financial year on jobseekers: (a) with a Job Seeker Classification Instrument rating of (i) 0-19, (ii) 20-28, and (iii) 29 plus, and (b) who have had a Job Capacity Assessment. 509 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The fees paid to service providers and other expenditure for the various employment services programs are not directly based on Job Seeker Classification Instrument score ranges of this kind, or by the individual job seeker’s participation in Job Capacity Assessment. As examples, the amount a Job Network provider may expend in Job Seeker Account funds to purchase assistance for a particular individual, or the service fee paid to a Work for the Dole provider are not set on the basis of the job seeker’s JSCI score. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations does not, therefore, record employment services expenditure information for specific job seeker categories of the type specified by the honourable member. It is not feasible to provide an answer to the honourable member’s question as highly extensive and unreasonable resources would be required for the Department to develop the capacity to report employment services expenditure in the requested detail. 509 509 501 509 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 December 2008: In respect of the tender process for the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12, how many: (a) staff of her department worked on the tender assessment panel; and (b) hours were worked on the assessment. 509 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The assessment process is currently being undertaken, therefore this information is not yet available. 509 509 502 509 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 December 2008: In respect of the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: how many tenders were received by 17 November 2008. 509 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor — 438 tenders were lodged in response to the Request for Tender for Employment Services 2009-12. 509 509 503 510 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 December 2008: In respect of the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: of the tenders received by the 17 November 2008, how many were received from companies whose head office is overseas. 510 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Tenderers for Employment Services 2009-12 that are foreign companies are required to be registered under section 5B.2 of the Corporations Act 2001.  This registration requires companies to have a registered office within Australia. The tender document did not request information regarding the tenderer’s head office as it is not material to the tender process.  The Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (January 2005) require that “Procurement methods must not discriminate against potential suppliers due to their degree of foreign affiliation or ownership, location or size”. 510 510 504 510 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 December 2008: In respect of the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: what mutual obligation requirements will people over 50 have to undertake. 510 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Under existing arrangements, job seekers who are 50 years and over do not have an annual Mutual Obligation requirement. These job seekers will not have an annual work experience activity requirement under the new employment services but will be able to participate on a voluntary basis in the full range of work experience activities. 510 510 505 510 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 December 2008: In respect of the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator program: what is the maximum number of commencements for which the program’s provider will be paid over the duration of the current contract. 510 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No funding is payable in respect to commencements. A job placement fee is payable to the provider for each eligible employment placement after the job seeker remains in the job for a minimum of four weeks. The maximum number of job placement fees that can be paid to the provider of the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator service is 1500 annually. 510 510 506 510 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the recent tender for the provision of Employment Services from 2009-12, what proportion of tenders incorporated subcontracting for provision of: (a) stream 4 servicing; and (b) Work for the Dole work experience. 511 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The assessment process for Employment Services 2009-12 is currently being undertaken. 511 511 507 511 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the Productivity Places Program, on what date did: (a) New South Wales; (b) Victoria; (c) Queensland; (d) South Australia; (e) Western Australia; (f) Tasmania; (h) the Northern Territory; (i) the Australian Capital Territory; provide the Implementation Plan specified in the COAG communique of 29 November 2008. 511 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 29 November 2008 COAG agreed to consider a National Partnership for the delivery of training under the Program. The Agreement was not signed at the COAG meeting of 29 November. Once the Agreement is signed a State or Territory will be required to submit an Implementation Plan. Queensland and South Australia signed the Agreement in the week of 15 December 2008 and submitted draft Implementation Plans for consideration. 511 511 508 511 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received a Participation Report for failing to attend job interviews in 2008 during: (a) August; (b) September; (c) October; and (d) November. 511 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Failure to Attend Job Interview’ recorded against their names for each month from August 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who Failed to Attend Job Interview** August 2008 218 September 2008 228 October 2008 192 November 2008 114 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 511 511 509 511 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received Participation Reports for failing to attend interviews with their Employment Services Provider in 2008 during: (a) August; (b) September; (c) October; and (d) November. 511 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Failure to Attend a Provider Appointment’ recorded against their names for each month from August 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who Failed to Attend a Provider Appointment** August 2008 6 566 September 2008 6 806 October 2008 7 354 November 2008 6 030 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 512 512 510 512 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received Participation Reports for failing to comply with their Activity Agreement with their Employment Services Provider in 2008 during: (a) August; (b) September; (c) October; and (d) November. 512 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Failure to Comply with Activity Agreement’ recorded against their names for each month from August 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who Failed to Comply with Activity Agreement** August 2008 7870 September 2008 8088 October 2008 8325 November 2008 7661 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 512 512 511 512 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received Participation Reports for failing to attend a Work for the Dole interview in 2008 during: (a) August; (b) September; (c) October; and (d) November. 512 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Failed to attend a Work for the Dole appointment’ recorded against their names for each month from August 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who Failed to Attend a Work for the Dole Appointment** August 2008 297 September 2008 334 October 2008 338 November 2008 339 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 513 513 512 513 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received Participation Reports for failing to attend their Work for the Dole activity in 2008 during: (a) August; (b) September; (c) October; and (d) November. 513 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Failure to Attend Work for the Dole’ recorded against their names for each month from August 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who Failed to Attend Work for the Dole** August 2008 597 September 2008 667 October 2008 645 November 2008 567 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 513 513 513 513 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received Participation Reports for failing to attend a Job Capacity Assessment in 2008 during: (a) August; (b) September; (c) October; and (d) November. 513 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Failure to Attend a Job Capacity Assessment’ recorded against their names for each month from August 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who Failed to Attend a Job Capacity Assessment** August 2008 16 September 2008 25 October 2008 14 November 2008 11 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 513 513 514 514 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many Job Search Support Only job seekers were on the Job Network caseload as at 1 December 2008. 514 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 28 November 2008, there were approximately 140,000 Job Search Support Only (JSSO) job seekers on the Job Network active caseload. 514 514 515 514 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: if a job seeker is undertaking work experience and is unsuccessful at finding employment or undertaking training, how many (a) hours a week will they be required to participate, and (b) weeks in a year will they be required to undertake a work experience activity. 514 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Information on participation requirements for Work Experience activities can be found on page 27 and at Table 2.2 page 28 in the Request for Tender for Employment Services 2009-12. 514 514 516 514 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the Work Experience Phase of the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: if a job seeker chooses to undertake training through the Productivity Places Program (PPP), but is unable to commence within the six week time frame due to a lack of places, or the course not commencing within this time frame, will job seekers be required to undertake a work experience placement until they are able to commence their desired training. 514 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Job seekers are required to choose and commence in a Work Experience activity within six weeks of starting in the Work Experience Phase. Work Experience activities include: Work for the Dole activities, including Full-Time Work for the Dole activities. (It is anticipated that Work for the Dole activities will continue to be the primary means of undertaking Work Experience) Green Corps environmental activities part-time study (for example, through the Productivity Places Program and other accredited vocational training) part-time or casual paid employment brokered unpaid work experience placements Voluntary Work in the community and not-for-profit sector paid or unpaid work in social enterprises Drought Force farm-based activities Defence Force Reserves placement in other Australian Government or state/territory government labour market or appropriate training or skills development programs, including Language, Literacy and Numeracy and Indigenous programs such as the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP), and participation in non-vocational programs and services (where appropriate). Certain Work Experience activities can be combined by a job seeker to meet their Work Experience Activity requirement. These are: part-time paid work part-time study Voluntary Work Defence Force Reserve services, and brokered Unpaid Work Experience placements. Information on the range of Work Experience activities can be found at Clause 2.8.5.5 on page 30 in the Request for Tender for Employment Services 2009-2012.  Information on combining activities to meet Work Experience Activity requirements can be found at Clause 2.8.5.6 on page 34 of the Request for Tender for Employment Services 2009-2012. 515 515 517 515 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the monthly allocation of training places via the Program Information Management System under the Productivity Places Program: (a) how many places were allocated in December 2008 to (i) New South Wales, (ii) Victoria, (iii) Western Australia, (iv) Queensland, (v) South Australia, (vi) Tasmania, (vii) the Northern Territory, and (viii) the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) when were these places filled in each State and Territory. 515 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The total number of places allocated under the Productivity Places Program during December 2008 is set out below. Total places allocation for December 2008 State/Territory Allocation NSW 2 360 VIC 1 802 QLD 1 445 SA 540 WA 736 TAS 166 NT 78 ACT 125 Total places for December 7 250 Registered Training Organisations may enrol job seekers over the course of the month. As at 19 December 2008, all training places at the Certificate III level had been used in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. The training places in New South Wales and Victoria were used on the day they were allocated. 516 516 518 516 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers received a Participation Report in: (a) January 2008; (b) February 2008; (c) March 2008; (d) April 2008; (e) May 2008; (f) June 2008; (g) July 2008; (h) August 2008; (i) September 2008; (j) October 2008; and (k) November 2008. 516 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of job seekers had a ‘Participation Report’ recorded against their names for each month from January 2008 to November 2008: Month Number of job seekers who had a Participation Report** January 2008 15 604 February 2008 16 082 March 2008 14 482 April 2008 14 861 May 2008 13 920 June 2008 12 270 July 2008 13 681 August 2008 11 071 September 2008 10 986 October 2008 11 265 November 2008 9606 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 516 516 519 516 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 3 December 2008: How many job seekers have received: (a) one; and (b) more than one; Participation Report since July 2006. What are the employment outcomes for job seekers who have received: one Participation Report; and an eight week suspension of income support payment. 516 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 (a) and (b) The following number of job seekers received one, or more than one, Participation Report from July 2006 to November 2008: Group of Participation Reports Number of job seekers** Received one Participation Report 157 134 Received more than one Participation Report 111 682 Total 268 816 ** Data extracted from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Participation Reporting Data. 2 (a) and (b) In relation to the question regarding employment outcomes for job seekers who have received: (a) one Participation Report; and (b) an eight week suspension of income support payment, the Department is unable to provide a response, due to the complexities of extracting the data and it would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. 517 517 527 517 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the Work Experience activities to be offered under the Employment Services Contract from 2009-12: (a) where eligible, will participants take part in a work experience activity for 26 weeks out of every 12 month period; and (b) will job seekers maintain bi-monthly contact with their Employment Services Providers during the 26 weeks of the year that they are not undertaking a Work Experience activity; if not, will the minimum contact revert to monthly face-to-face meetings during this period. 517 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I refer Dr Southcott to page 27 of the request for tender for Employment Services 2009-12. I refer Dr Southcott to page 27 of the request for tender for Employment Services 2009-12. 517 517 528 517 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of The Future of Employment Services in Australia: A Discussion Paper (Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, May 2008): which unemployment benefits are included in the analysis indicating that by March 2008, one in four job seekers were unemployed for five or more years. 517 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The unemployment benefits that are included in the analysis indicating that by March 2008, almost one in four unemployment benefit recipients were in receipt of benefits for five or more years as referred to in The Future of Employment Services in Australia: A Discussion Paper are Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (Other). 517 517 529 517 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: What percentage of the Job Network active caseload has been unemployed for five or more years. 517 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 12 December 2008, approximately 10 per cent of the current Job Network active caseload had been unemployed for five years or more. These figures relate to the Job Network Active Caseload and do not equate to the numbers of people in receipt of unemployment benefits for this period of time. 517 517 530 518 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the tender for Employer Brokers under the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: how many tenders were received: (a) in total; (b) from employers; (c) from groups of employers; (d) from employer organisations;(e) from unions; and (f) from employment service providers. 518 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 69 Tenders were received from organisations wishing to become Employer Brokers under the Employment Services Contract 2009-12. , (d), (e) and (f) The assessment process is currently being undertaken. 518 518 531 518 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the tender for Employer Brokers under the new Employment Services Contract 2009-12: will organisations who are successful at tendering for employment brokerage services be required to offer these services nationally; if not, will he guarantee that every State and Territory will have an employment broker. 518 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In order to receive funding for the Employer Broker activities, organisations must be a member of the Employer Broker panel. Initial selection of panel members is being conducted through the Request for Tender for Employment Services 2009-12 process. The Employer Broker Panel is a single national panel. Tenderers were required to indicate the states or territories in which they are willing to provide services. The tender evaluation process is currently underway and I can not comment on the results of the Request for Tender process. 518 518 532 518 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the Government’s decision to close the Centrelink Office in Currie Street, Adelaide: (a) when was this decision made; (b) why was it made; (c) where will the job seekers who attended this office now be serviced; and (d) to where will the Career Information Centre be relocated. 518 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 21 November 2008, the landlord served Centrelink with a notice to vacate the building by 24 December 2008. The landlord’s eviction notice was acknowledged on 24 November 2008 and acted upon by Centrelink. The existing lease at 55 Currie Street expired on 31 July 2008. Centrelink has been negotiating a lease renewal at 55 Currie Street since November 2007, but has been unsuccessful in agreeing to terms with the landlord. Approximately 80 per cent of the customers who regularly use Currie Street do not live in the Adelaide CBD and these customers continue to have access to their local Customer Service Centre (CSC). The current customer base will be serviced by a combination of appropriately targeted out servicing and CSCs. Within six kilometres of the Adelaide CBD there are three CSCs, at Norwood (3.37km), Torrensville (2.82km) and Enfield (5.68km). Customers who visit the Adelaide CSC are advised of the changes and letters have been sent to customers who will be allocated to new offices advising them of those new arrangements. Centrelink will relocate the Career Information Centre to Naylor House in Pulteney Street, Adelaide. 519 519 533 519 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Will Career Information Centres be retained in every State and Territory. 519 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. 519 519 534 519 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the Australian Apprenticeships Centres: Has she undertaken any consultation on their future role; if so, what consultations have been held. How has their performance rated against the five key performance indicators in the 2006-09 contract. What funding will the Government provide for Australian Apprenticeship Centres from 1 January 2010. Does the Government plan to transfer responsibility for the Australian Apprenticeship Centres to the State and Territory Governments. Has any funding within the National Skills and Workforce Development COAG Agreement been allocated to the Australian Apprenticeship Centres, or a body fulfilling a similar role. 519 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Has she undertaken any consultation on their future role; if so, what consultations have been held? The Minister for Education has not undertaken any consultations on future arrangements for support services for Australian Apprentices.  No decision has been made regarding future arrangements for support services for Australian Apprentices. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will continue to liaise closely with all stakeholders in the coming months regarding future arrangements. How has their performance rated against the five key performance indicators in the 2006-09 contract? The Australian Apprenticeships Support Services (AASS) Contract 2006-2009 has five Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). KPI 1 - Accuracy The data below is based on the monitoring periods that have been finalised to date. This includes the monitoring periods from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2008. This data has been consolidated to provide the average national outcome. Benchmark National average Measure A - Overall accuracy in the administration of AASS 96% 98% Measure B - Training contracts processed within 10 day turnaround 90% 87% Measure C - Claims processed within 10 day turnaround 90% 90% Measure D - Advice letters processed within 10 day turnaround 90% 81% Measure E - Accuracy of assessments for incentives eligibility 90% 97%   KPI 2 - Satisfaction Level The satisfaction survey measures the level of satisfaction of employers and Australian Apprentices with Australian Apprenticeships Centres service delivery. The data below has been consolidated to provide the average national outcome. 2008 data has not yet been finalised and is therefore unavailable at this stage. KPI 3 - Marketing and Promotion KPI 3 is a qualitative measure of how satisfactorily each Australian Apprenticeships Centre has met or not met the intended marketing and promotion objectives and strategies as detailed in their annual Business Activity Report.   KPI 4 - Key Priority Groups KPI 4 is a qualitative measure of how satisfactorily each Australian Apprenticeships Centre has met or not met the intended objectives and strategies. This includes: Servicing Key Priority Groups (including Indigenous Australians, people with a disability, Australian School-based Apprenticeships and mature aged workers); and Skills shortage Occupations Business Plan. Rating Key Priority Groups 97% of contracted provider results were rated as satisfactory Skills Shortage 95% of contracted provider results were rated as satisfactory   KPI 5 - Retention and Completion Rates KPI 5 is based on completed monitoring periods up to 31 December 2007 only. This is due to the time lag between commencing and reaching the six month point of an Australian Apprenticeship. Consequently retention is always reported one or two monitoring periods after the commencement date. The benchmarks for retention and completion rates are based on the historical rates as at 30 June 2005. For the retention measure, 86% of Australian Apprenticeships Centre contracts have achieved within 10% of their benchmark or above. For the completion measure, 94% of Australian Apprenticeships Centre contracts have achieved their benchmark or above. (3)   What funding will the Government provide for Australian Apprenticeships Centres from 1 January 2010? The Australian Government is currently considering the future arrangements for Australian Apprenticeships Support Services in line with exploring strengthening linkages and pursuing better alignment of servicing arrangements for Australian Apprenticeships. No decision has been made regarding future arrangements for support services for Australian Apprenticeships. The Department will continue to liaise closely with all stakeholders in the coming months regarding future arrangements. (4)   Does the Government plan to transfer responsibility for the Australian Apprenticeships Centres to the State and Territory Governments? No decision has been made regarding future arrangements for support services for Australian Apprenticeships. (5)   Has any funding within the National Skills and Workforce Development COAG Agreement been allocated to the Australian Apprenticeships Centres, or a body fulfilling a similar role? The National Skills and Workforce Development COAG Agreement does not allocate funding for support services for Australian Apprenticeships. 521 521 539 521 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 4 December 2008: What action has been taken to address the reported high turnover of staff in his department (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2007-08, page 260). 521 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The DEEWR Annual Report 2007-2008 (Table P3.6, page 260) shows that 1286 people separated from the former DEST, former DEWR and DEEWR between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2008. The report indicates that a considerable proportion of these separations (355 or approximately 28%) were initiated by the Department, mainly through the expiry of non-ongoing employment contracts. The majority of the balance of separations (916 or approximately 71%) were initiated by staff. DEEWR’s voluntary staff turnover for the 2007-2008 year was 16.61%. This result places DEEWR between the median (12.83%) and the 75th percentile (17.58%) of a benchmark of a number of Federal Government agencies (Infohrm HR Benchmarking Program). While this rate is slightly higher than the department’s target range, it is not unexpected given the level of organisational change over the past 12 months. DEEWR continues to monitor voluntary staff turnover and has a range of strategies to ensure we retain the workforce capability required to deliver our business including: an attractive and flexible set of employment terms and conditions a performance management system that engages and supports all staff to achieve their full potential recruitment and orientation processes that are effective in bringing new staff into the organisation promoting strong employee engagement through improved leadership and enhanced career and learning opportunities. 521 521 540 522 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Will the reported increased staffing levels in her department be maintained, or will redundancies occur as a result of the efficiency dividend (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2007-08, page 260). 522 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendon O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The increase to DEEWR staffing levels from 30 June 2007 was the result of the creation of the new department which combined three distinct entities: the Department of Education, Science and Training; the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations; and the youth and child care function from the Department of Family, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. DEEWR expects its staffing levels to reduce during the 2008-09 financial year as a result a number of government decisions including the decision to increase the efficiency dividend from 1.25 per cent to 3.25 per cent. DEEWR is not expecting to offer redundancies as a result of the efficiency dividend. 522 522 541 522 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: What proportion of reported increased staffing in his department is at the Senior Executive Band 1 or above (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2007-08, page 260). 522 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The 2007-08 Annual Report for Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is the first report of its nature for the Department. It contains staffing data as at 30 June 2008. It does not contain previous year data. Dr Southcott refers to page 260 of the annual report in his question however, this is no commentary on this page referring to staff increases. It is therefore not possible to answer the question. 522 522 542 522 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 4 December 2008: How many graduates were employed by his department in 2008; and of these, how many were initially taken on under the department’s graduate program. 522 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In response to the above questions, the Agency provides the following information: The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) is unable to provide information on how many graduates were employed in 2008 as it does not collect this information. DEEWR conducts an annual graduate program. 181 graduates were engaged for DEEWR’s first graduate program, with 170 completing the program in 2008. 522 522 543 522 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 4 December 2008: How many graduates of his department have been offered paid positions in his department in 2009. 523 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) has offered 100 graduates paid positions in the 2009 graduate program. 523 523 544 523 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 4 December 2008: What cost savings have been made by her department from introducing Voice over Internet Protocol telephones. 523 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr Brendan O’Connor —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The former Department of Employment and Workplace Relations commenced a project in December 2006 to transition to Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) technology over a period of approximately 12 months with expected savings and improvements in administration and support of the Department’s telephony system. Savings from the project were expected to accrue only after full implementation which was planned to be completed early in the 2008/09 financial year. Due to the machinery of government changes and the resulting merger of the Department with the Department of Education, Science and Training, the scope of project has increased and the project is now scheduled for completion in the 2009/10 financial year. The Department anticipates that savings from the deployment of this technology will now begin to accrue during the 2009/10 financial year. Based on original estimates, these savings are expected to be approximately $800K per annum over the costs of maintaining the Department’s traditional telephony systems. 523 523 545 523 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Has her department made any provision in the 2008-09 or 2009-10 Budgets for advertising expenditure relating to Fair Work Australia; if so, what sum has been budgeted. 523 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No, my department has no provision in the 2008-09 or 2009-10 Budgets for advertising expenditure relating to Fair Work Australia. 523 523 547 523 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 Mr Katter asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Will he provide a comparison between the damage done to the Great Barrier Reef by Agricultural production and that done by urban settlement. Given Green Cane Harvesting (GCH) and its protective ‘trash blanket’ of organic matter have obviated the need for cultivation and thereby reduced erosion to near negligible levels and similarly reduced herbicide requirements, will he provide figures quantifying the reduction in (a) sediment, (b) fertiliser, and (c) chemical run off following the introduction of GCH. Can he indicate what volume of (a) nitrates, and (b) phosphates are outletted onto the reef from (i) farming, and (ii) non-farming city and town activity. What action has been taken to (a) reduce waste from urban activity, (b) provide riparian rock training walls, and (c) assist farmers to make further improvements. Can he advise what quantitative evidence exists of reef destruction in light of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s (GBRMPA) claims that the health of the reef has improved. Can he provide quantitative and specific data to support GBRMPA’s claims. 524 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: A significant body of work has been undertaken in the last 20 years that has quantified the impacts of poor water quality on marine ecosystems, especially coral reefs. The main contaminants affecting these marine communities are excess nutrients, sediments and pesticides. The reef communities don’t distinguish where these contaminants come from, just that there are too much of them. A synthesis of this research was released recently at the Reef Summit to support the latest Scientific Consensus Statement. This report highlights again that agricultural run-off contributes the bulk of the contaminants entering the Great Barrier Reef. Green Cane Harvesting indeed improved protection of soil from erosion. Coral coring research undertaken by the University of Queensland in 2007 in the Mackay Whitsunday region indicates a reduction in sediment being incorporated into the coral skeletons in this area with the widespread introduction of this practice in the mid 1990s. However this practice does not affect either nutrient or pesticide applications, which are not activities associated with harvesting. These are activities associated with planting and growing crops and so have not been reduced by Green Cane Harvesting in any significant manner. A number of assessments have been published in the last 5 years, including most recently the Scientific Consensus Statement on Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef, and all are consistent in their findings. Between 80 and 90% of the loads of sediment, nutrients and pesticides entering the Great Barrier Reef come from diffuse sources in agricultural lands. The Government has supported a range of actions to address the improvement of water quality in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. For example, by far the largest urban source is nutrient output from sewage treatment plants. The Government has been supporting the upgrading of urban sewage treatment facilities in Queensland, from secondary to tertiary treatment (that is removing nutrients), for many years and strongly supports Queensland’s policy, which requires the upgrade of all coastal sewage treatment plants to this high standard by 2010. Further the Government is providing $200m through its Reef Rescue package, over the next 5 years, to support on-ground-actions to improve water quality in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, much of which will be targeted at supporting farmers improve their practices. The Government has been supporting the Queensland Wetland Program for the last 4 years, which has included around $8m for on-ground works, like riparian rehabilitation you describe. Further financial support for this important work is earmarked in grants recently announced to Regional Natural Resource Management Bodies this year. Quite the contrary, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not made any claims in recent times suggesting the overall health of the Great Barrier Reef has improved. While it is true that by world standards the Great Barrier Reef is arguably the best managed and healthiest system in the world, this is a relative situation. It is true that some aspects of reef health have improved following the rezoning in 2004, including the bounce back of some specific fish species. However, the Authority’s view is that the Great Barrier Reef remains under significant pressure. This in particular relates to the growing impacts induced by global climate change and the impacts from poor land practices driving a decline in water quality, which underpins the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. This is why the Government has recognised the importance of addressing this insidious problem and is investing significant resources through programs like Caring for Our country. Again I reiterate that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not made any such claim. I would direct Mr Katter to the most recent publication by the Authority on the Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef - a Vulnerability Assessment to answer his question on the depth of the Authority’s concern with regard to the pressures on the long term health of the Great Barrier Reef. The publication is available on the GBRMPA web site and hard copies are available upon request to the GBRMPA. 525 525 \549 525 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 Dr Jensen asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the construction of Roe Highway Stage 8, west of Kwinana Freeway: (a) does the Government strongly support this project; (b) what level of funding will the Government provide for this vital transport link; and (c) are there any other actions, proposals or decisions of the Government relating to this project, especially any environmental restrictions on the use of land reserved for the project. 525 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (a) (b) (c) The Government has made no funding commitment to the extension of the Roe Highway beyond the Kwinana Freeway. The Government is aware that there is a range of community, environmental and economic issues that would need to be addressed by the Western Australia Government in the planning and development of such a project. 525 525 551 525 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Under the National Affordable Housing Agreement, will the Government support community housing providers to hold title to their capital properties, enabling them to leverage those capital assets to reinvest in expanding their social housing stock; if no, why not. 525 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As part of the National Affordable Housing Agreement, the Australian Government and States and Territories have committed to a range of ongoing reforms in the housing sector, including enhancing the capacity and growth of the not-for-profit housing sector. Under the National Affordable Housing Agreement, State and Territory Governments will continue to be responsible for deciding whether community housing providers hold title to properties funded by government. 525 525 552 525 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Does the Government intend to follow through on the commitment made by the former Coalition Government to fund the national rollout of the Rotary Youth Driver Awareness Program; if not, why not. 525 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government is committed to improving young driver safety. The Government has committed $17 million over five years to implement the keys2drive election commitment. The keys2drive program, being developed by the Australian Automobile Association, will encourage learner drivers across Australia to get more on-road experience prior to gaining their licence. It will also assist supervising drivers to become better informed in undertaking their important role. The Government recognises the contribution being made by several education programs such as the Rotary Youth Driver Awareness (RYDA) Program. However, given the scope and focus of the keys2drive program, the Government does not intend to fund the national rollout of the RYDA program. 526 526 554 526 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 Mrs Markus asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 4 December 2008: What was the number of employees in his department as at: 1 July 2007; and 1 July 2008. What is the forecast number of employees in his department for 1 July 2009. What were the locations of offices in his department which were closed during the five years before 1 July 2008. Does he have plans to close any offices in his department before 1 July 2009; if so, which ones. 526 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 1 July 2007 there were 2372 employees. On 1 July 2008 there were 2355 employees. The forecast number of staff in the Department for 1 July 2009 is 2085. No. No.