Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will give you an update from the Housing Industry Association. You should not talk about debt, mate, after Sky TV last week. You should be very quiet on debt at the moment. The Housing Industry Association is not a friend of the Labor Party. They are an organisation that is not a signed up member of the Labor Party. The HIA chief economist, Harley Dale, had this to say just today: ‘The consequences of this policy’—that is, our stimulus package of 12 October—’have been more construction activity’—tick—’more jobs’—tick—’and more demand in manufacturing and retail sectors in the first half of 2009 than would otherwise have been the case’.

The substance of this MPI is that the government, through all its activities, has made things worse. That is what the previous speaker said: everything that the government has done has made things worse. I will tell you what: if there was anyone out there making that case other than the opposition you might take them seriously. But whether it is economists or industry representatives, all of the evidence, argument and experts are on one side and the opposition are on the other. If you ask the opposition why they took this approach, why they decided to oppose the stimulus package and why they opposed the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and who advised them to do that, you will hear deafening silence. No-one advised them to do that. They made the decision all on their own for political mischief’s sake. It is all about politics.

If we wait here and listen carefully after asking whether anyone gave them the advice that they should oppose the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—after asking who was the economist or erudite person who told them that it was a good idea to oppose stimulus to the economy at a time of global recession—it sounds like there is nobody there. The only people there are the Crosby Textors of this world, who say, ‘Paint the Labor Party as the party that is miring people in debt and, if that doesn’t work, accuse them of throwing people overboard.’ That is their approach.

This government’s approach is pretty different. It is about creating, supporting and generating jobs in local communities, particularly the ones that need it, whether that is through stimulating the economy by stimulating the retail industry, stimulating the economy by stimulating the housing industry or stimulating the economy by creating jobs at the 9,750 schools across the country. There is a construction site in every school, big or small, across the country in every town, whether a big town like Sydney or a small town like Deniliquin. There are construction jobs everywhere. That is what the education revolution is all about.

I cannot help quoting the AMP chief economist, who only recently said, ‘In other words, the recession would’ve been a lot deeper if it weren’t for the stimulus.’ Isn’t that interesting? Tony Abbott was on Lateline the other night and he conceded that the stimulus was working. He conceded that it was having the desired effect; it was stimulating the economy. But then he said, ‘But if you stimulate the economy, you’ll make the recession deeper and worse.’ I thought I had better have a look at this. Surely by stimulating the economy—by creating jobs—you cannot be making a recession deeper or a recession worse. And according to the AMP chief economist, that is a nonsense argument.

The Liberal Party’s approach to this is: ‘It doesn’t matter how many jobs people lose; don’t worry about the social impact or the human cost. Don’t worry about that. Try and minimise the amount that you spend and let people lose their jobs as a consequence.’ But the less you stimulate the economy, the more jobs that will be lost, the less tax that will come in and the more you have to pay in unemployment benefits. The longer the recession, the deeper the cost and the more social casualties there will be as a consequence. And that is what the economists say. Where is the evidence from them and where is the evidence from anybody that supports their arguments? Again, there is deafening silence.

This is a government which is doing things nationally and on the ground. In my local community, like in every other community around the country, money is being injected to create community infrastructure and that is creating jobs on the ground, whether it is arts centres or car parks—such as another car park in the electorate of Lindsay. There are projects all throughout the country that are creating construction jobs and other jobs across the country.

I was with the Prime Minister in the electorate of Blaxland—my electorate—just last week. In fact, it was the first time a Prime Minister had been to Blaxland in 13½ years. The only time the government ever came to Blaxland in the past was to rip jobs out of it. They ripped 650 jobs out of it by shutting the tax office; they ripped 150 jobs out of it when they shut the immigration office. But this Prime Minister came to Blaxland to help build, create and generate jobs, along with the minister. They are working with people like Bill Kelty and Lindsay Fox—people who have a history of creating jobs and supporting employment in this country—to come up with local solutions to local problems. That is what the budget will be about tonight: creating and generating jobs. This is not the Liberal Party’s approach with all its human cost, which is all about ripping money out of the economy. (Time expired)

See this speech in context