Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

The government has put in place a $42 billion package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, in order to stimulate economic activity, to stimulate growth and to support jobs in the Australian economy—all critical to the wellbeing of working people in this country. We are in the face of extraordinary developments in the international economy. We have seen growth going backwards big-time in economies like the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, many parts of Europe and other parts of Asia. The opposition has put forward an alternative stimulus package, approximately half the magnitude of that advocated by the government, that is purportedly based on tax cuts—one would assume mostly tax cuts favouring the better off.

In a debate with me on Lateline a couple of Friday evenings ago, the now shadow Treasurer, then shadow finance minister, was asked to name commentators and economists who supported this approach—who supported the coalition’s alternative. He was unable to name a single one. He was unable to answer that question. Seeking to determine what the position of opposition members is on the opposition’s package, journalists on the doors today asked a number of members of the opposition what their package would have done with respect to the job losses at Pacific Brands. The opposition has been very keen to blame the government, to say that the government’s package had failed to prevent those job losses and to imply that their alternatives would have done something about those job losses. So I would like to run through some of the answers to these questions from journalists about what conceivably could have happened had the opposition’s package been in place.

First, the member for Tangney, who was perhaps the most honest, if a little bit gauche, said, ‘There’s no specific guarantee of that’—in other words, ‘No, our package would not have done anything.’ The member for Boothby was asked, ‘Would your package have prevented these job losses?’ and his answer was, ‘Let’s talk about the $10 billion stimulus package’—in other words, ‘I don’t want to answer.’ The member for Moncrieff was asked whether he could guarantee that the Pacific Brands job losses would not have occurred had the Liberal package been in place and he said, ‘That’s your assertion.’ Finally, the member for Gippsland was asked about the Pacific Brands issue and whether the coalition’s package would have prevented those job losses and he said, ‘The government’s spending should have been directed at small business.’ That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Liberal Party approach, given that Pacific Brands is hardly a small business.

This follows in the wake of the coalition’s absolute confusion with respect to the other part of the government’s package: infrastructure investment. When that legislation was put to the parliament at the end of last year the Liberal Party set a new record. For the first time in the history of this parliament, the members from one major party voted three different ways—some voted for the legislation, some voted against the legislation and some abstained.

See this speech in context