Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Despite some welcome news today on the jobs front, it remains the case that there are two million Australians who either are unemployed or can't find enough hours to support their loved ones. So, while we can welcome the pleasing developments in the economy, we also need to acknowledge those troubling aspects of what we're seeing as we emerge from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost a century. Those two million Australians should not be so lightly dismissed by those opposite, who are so keen to engage in this self-congratulation, when what we're really seeing today, with the recovery in some of these jobs numbers, is two things. The first is the dividend that belongs to the Australian people, the credit that belongs to the Australian people, for the way that they've worked together and done the right thing by each other to try and limit the spread of this virus. That has allowed state borders to reopen and all of that. But, secondly, we need to acknowledge that, for two million Australians, the economy has not recovered sufficiently to provide jobs or to provide enough hours for people not just to get by but to get ahead—to provide for their loved ones but also to have the opportunity to meet the aspirations that they have for themselves and for their families. So, as always, we can welcome what is pleasing but we need to recognise what remains troubling about the Australian economy.

This bill before us now, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021, is essentially a budget bill, and the defining feature of the budget is that for the first time in Australia's history we've got well north of $1 trillion in debt. On this side of the House, we well remember that for some years in the aftermath of the GFC, another defining moment in the economic history of this country—in that case, recession was avoided, unlike this time around—those opposite engaged in a big national campaign based on a massive con, which was that somehow they could have avoided racking up a couple of hundred billion dollars in debt during the GFC. They described it then, when debt was a tiny fraction of what it is now, as a debt and deficit disaster. When it was $200 billion or $250 billion, they described it as a debt and deficit disaster. Now they preside over debt which is at $1 trillion and growing.

What we've said all along is that when things are difficult, when there is a case for government to step in and to support people's jobs and livelihoods and get them through a difficult period, obviously there is a role for government spending. That's why we've been so supportive of the programs that the government has implemented. In some cases, we proposed them. One of them, the key one, JobKeeper, was dismissed by those opposite before it was adopted. We welcomed the change of heart. We didn't rub their noses in it, because we wanted to make sure that we could get those wage subsidies in place, and to some extent they have done the job that we have asked of them. So that's important to recognise as well.

But one of the reasons why there's $1 trillion of debt in this budget and we don't have enough to show for that $1 trillion in debt is that, when you go through the budget, you discover that this is a budget riddled with rorts. Today, if the Senate allows the report to be tabled, we'll hear more about sports rorts, for example. We know about the dodgy land deals. We know about the billion dollars spent on advertising. We know about all the money that was spent on market research. We know about all the money that was spent on various other rorts and rip-offs. These things have meant that there is more debt in the budget than is necessary, or, put another way, that there is 'insufficient room'—to use the government's language—to do the right thing by people who are still struggling—those two million Australians that I mentioned at the outset.

As the member for Kingsford Smith spoke about this morning, we got a really important indication of the damage done to the JobKeeper program and to the budget more broadly by the fact that the government, who were solely responsible for determining the eligibility for JobKeeper, have sprayed around hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that made substantial profits. The member for Fenner deserves a lot of credit here for investigating that wastage and staying on the case when it comes to this unnecessary spending of JobKeeper on quite profitable companies.

We also know—and again my colleagues have done a lot of work here—that a lot of JobKeeper money has gone to puffing up executive bonuses. When the Australian people were asked to kick in taxpayer money to support each other's jobs and do the right thing by each other, I am certain that they were not signing up to pay taxpayer-funded executive bonuses.

See this speech in context