Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I resume my contribution to this debate that was so rudely interrupted by question time! Unlike those opposite, I believe not only that there is a global financial crisis but also that it is incumbent upon us to do all we can to try and deal with that both nationally and at the local level, particularly in my electorate of Braddon, which is on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Our economy is relatively strong, but we will not be immune from the global slowdown. That is why this government has taken early and decisive action. I would also like to place on the record that, contrary to what those opposite have said, they do not believe that this crisis is as serious as it is made out to be, and they are not prepared to offer their bipartisan support.

Where I live on the north-west coast of Tasmania, the Rudd government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy, which the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognates bills deal with, will ensure that more than 25,000 pensioners and carers receive lump-sum payments to help ease the financial pressure they are currently under, while also boosting the local economy. That is at the heart of the stimulus package and this Economic Security Strategy. I share with all members in this House the intention to localise this and to see the benefits of this for people who are feeling the difficulties that we are now experiencing. I know that it may appear like an Indian summer to some, but this financial crisis is here and the more we hear about it, the more we hear that people are being affected by a lack of confidence. I think it is really important that we in this House do everything we can to try and engender a positive attitude towards what is happening. A lot of this is attitudinal and comes from the top down. This strategy intends—and you can nitpick all you like—to stimulate spending, to stimulate the economy and to stimulate confidence. Without it we will have more dire consequences than we care to admit.

There are nearly 10,000 north-west families receiving family tax benefit part A in my electorate, and they will receive a $1,000 payment for each eligible child in their care. In real terms, this will help around 18,659 children in my electorate while easing the financial burden on parents in the lead-up to Christmas. These are real people experiencing real difficulties, and this is a real attempt to help them through difficult times. When you also factor in the uptake of the increased first home owners grant, the direct injection into the Braddon economy as a result of the Economic Security Strategy which we are dealing with will be more than $62 million. That is an additional $62 million on top of those benefits that were granted in the May budget and also in addition to those projects and commitments that are going to be rolled out in my electorate—and throughout Australia—particularly in relation to the Better Regions program.

So this is part and parcel of a strategic package to stimulate the economy; to assist families and individuals, small businesses and larger businesses—given our recently announced car plan—and, at the same time, to give confidence to those who want to invest through our banks and to borrow through them. So you can nitpick all you like; that is the intention, that is the aim and the Australian people endorse it strongly.

I know we can put any spin we like on polls, but I noticed that yesterday’s Essential Research poll had some very interesting indicators for us. In relation to keeping interest rates down, 56 per cent of respondents believed that this government’s attempts were good to very good. That is a sound endorsement of this economic package. In terms of economic management, 54 per cent believed the government’s performance was good to very good. Even on controlling inflation, 49 per cent said the performance was good to very good—and that was an 11 per cent increase on less recent polls. In terms of economic management, there was a 12 per cent increase on less recent polls, and on keeping interest rates down, there was a 25 per cent increase on less recent polls. That is an endorsement of a government that the opposition claim has a credibility problem in terms of economic management. The Australian people do not believe it. They did not believe that in the past election and they do not believe it now.

Included in our package to assist those who are struggling is $1,400 for single pensioners and up to $2,100 for couples—real money for real people experiencing real difficulties; $1,000 to recipients of the carer allowance for each person in their care; $1,000 for each eligible child for families who receive family tax benefit A; funding for 56,000 new training places, on top of an allocation of many more training places in the May budget; and, finally, up to $21,000 for first home owners in grants to stimulate demand, to stimulate spending and to stimulate confidence. As part of the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy this government will deliver, I estimate $19 million will go in immediate financial support to more than 10,500 families in Braddon. I reiterate that families receiving family tax benefit A will receive a one-off, $1,000 payment for each dependent child—real payments to real people for real relief. Families whose dependent children receive youth allowance, Abstudy or a benefit from the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme will receive a one-off, $1,000 payment for each eligible child. I think it is important for the record that eligibility for any payment is determined by a person’s circumstances on 14 October 2008. The lump sums will be made payable by Centrelink automatically in the fortnight beginning 8 December 2008. I would also add that, for the small number of recipients who claim their family tax benefit A annually as a lump sum payment through Centrelink, the one-off payment will occur when their 2008-09 actual income has been received from the tax office and their family tax benefit is reconciled.

I estimate that some $43 million will be allocated to the pensioners and carers of Braddon to stimulate confidence and to stimulate spending. The Rudd government’s Economic Security Strategy will provide $4.8 billion in lump sum payments to assist age pensioners, veterans’ disability support pensioners and carers. This is about people. It is not about airy-fairy words thrown around in this parliament or insults, tit for tat or whatever else; we talk about real people, individuals and families. And when you drill down to the local scene, such as to where I come from in Tasmania, I would like you to look at some of these numbers: 13,000 age pensioners will be positively affected, as will 3,494 carer payment and carer allowance recipients. Other benefits will be received by 5,641 disability support pensioners, 887 Commonwealth senior health card holders, 113 wife and widow pensioners and bereavement allowance recipients, 1,550 veterans service pensioners, 638 eligible war widows and those of pension age who receive parenting payment, special payment or Abstudy. Pensioners who were eligible on 14 October 2008 will be paid by Centrelink or DVA in the fortnight beginning 8 December 2008. I reiterate that, depending on the eligibility, the payment is $1,400 for singles and $2,100 for couples. The carer allowance recipients will get $1,000 for each eligible person in their care. That is real support for real people experiencing real difficulty.

Fifty-six thousand training places are being made available through this strategy on top of those training places that were allocated in the May budget to stimulate and support job creation, which is so vital not only for individual circumstances but to create confidence in our economy and our community. The increased funding will effectively double the existing Productivity Places Program and take the Rudd government’s total investment in training places to more than $400 million since April 2008.

To support people who are trying to get into their first home and to stimulate the housing industry to build new homes, from 14 October 2008 until 30 June 2009 first home buyers who purchase an established home will receive a $14,000 first home owners grant, an important boost to stimulate an important industry, to stimulate jobs and to stimulate confidence. That is what this strategy is all about. First home buyers who purchase a newly built home will receive a $21,000 grant. I know that members on this side, and I am sure members on the other side, have had people ringing up to get more details about this and are very pleased by it. If it is policy we share with the past and with other administrations, it is good policy. It is there to stimulate and that is what it is designed to do. It is a very important part of the strategy.

If they are not au fait with this, I remind members and others that as of Monday the 16th the deeming rate for something like 730,000 part-rate pensioners will drop, meaning they will receive a boost to their pension. Indeed, the deeming rate will drop from four to three per cent for the first $41,000 of single pensioners’ financial investments or the first $68,200 for couples. It will also cut the rate from six to five per cent for the balance of financial investments over these amounts. That is an important additional piece of support. This government has tried to act early, to be consistent in what it has done and to be decisive.

We have also acted to guarantee bank, building society and credit union deposits and bank funding. We will also provide additional protection to policyholders in the unlikely event that a general insurer fails. There are also new measures to ensure the continuing integrity, fairness and transparency of our markets, and that is why the independent regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, introduced a temporary ban on short selling. Transparency is vital to promote investor confidence. Investor confidence relies on the integrity of market systems and the institutions that serve the market. When properly regulated, short selling has a role in the operation of our markets, but it is prudent to restrict it at a time of heightened market uncertainty.

The government is also ensuring that the regulators who act as the guardians of our financial system are properly resourced. That is why we have approved extra funding for both the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC’s funding in 2008-09 is budgeted at $303.3 million, which represents an increase of about 85 per cent in real terms since 2000-01. The Prime Minister also recently announced that ASIC would receive additional funding of $10 million in 2008-09 and $20 million in 2009-10 to provide the front-line resources to undertake market monitoring and enforcement. These measures add to the government’s $10.4 billion economic security package, which will provide much-needed assistance to Australian families, pensioners and carers while underpinning growth in our economy. The Economic Security Strategy complements the Reserve Bank of Australia’s recent move to cut official interest rates and measures the Rudd government announced in the 2008-09 budget, which I alluded to earlier.

In concluding, I am proud that we are able to present an economic security package which seeks to stimulate spending in this country and confidence in our institutions and businesses and to assist people who genuinely need it. I know those on the other side share that sentiment. I ask them to show it by not nitpicking or tit-for-tatting on what is a very important piece of legislation.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may laugh. We are talking about real people, and I tried to localise that for you and drill down to show you how many people are affected. There will be something like $62 million going to people in my electorate of Braddon, on top of those stimuli that we introduced in the budget and through other measures. Those people are grateful for this, will benefit from it and do not take kindly to the funny games that you might like to play. We as a parliament have a responsibility to be positive and confident about our nation and to support what we are doing about that.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1918 Teddy Roosevelt wrote in the Kansas City Star words which are very apt for this parliament today:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President … is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

What we saw just a few moments ago was the government using its numbers in this House to prevent the opposition raising and debating a matter of public importance, that matter of public importance being the government’s response to the global financial crisis—probably the most critical public issue of our time. The Leader of the House, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, led the charge to prevent that debate being had.

Just a few seconds ago in the debate here the member for Braddon encouraged the opposition not to engage in nitpicking, by which he means asking questions. When that absurd, patronising remark was greeted with laughter, as it inevitably must be, he said, ‘You may laugh.’ He is happy to let us laugh but the government is not prepared to allow us to debate a matter of public importance—the matter of the greatest public importance today. While we support this legislation, while we support this fiscal stimulus and we will vote for it, and the government says you should look at what the opposition does—and we will vote for it, it will have our support and it will go through the House and it will go through the Senate with our support—nonetheless it is our duty to raise the issues of concern that we have with this and with every other action on the part of the government.

The Prime Minister seems to believe that it is somehow or other treasonable to question any policy decision of his. He has swallowed the Maoist doctrine to the absolute limit. It is not good enough simply to vote for legislation. You are not even allowed to raise a question—even the smallest question. Nothing less than absolute grovelling obedience is good enough for Chairman Rudd.

This is a democracy and this is a parliament, and from the time this global financial crisis went into the most challenging phase after the collapse of Lehman Brothers we have consistently reached out to the government and offered to work with it on a bipartisan basis. But what does that mean? To the Prime Minister ‘bipartisanship’ means lying down and letting the government walk over the top of you. To use the phrase that the Deputy Prime Minister uses repeatedly, ‘Get out of the way—just get out of the way.’ That is what they think of the opposition. The Treasurer described the opposition as ‘completely irrelevant’—his words not mine. That is the regard they have for the democratic process.

To us, bipartisanship means being prepared to sit down and work through these problems together. We are prepared to do this. Of course we cannot be bipartisan all the time. We are in a political contest and there are two sides to this parliament. But we are prepared to work with the government on this and those offers of bipartisanship have been rejected—and rejected contemptuously—to the extent that we get the absurdity that the government, in a rush, without even troubling to bring the Reserve Bank into the room, without even talking directly to the Reserve Bank governor, made a decision to have an unlimited deposit guarantee. We are the only nation in the world to do that other than, I believe, Ireland. The Treasurer, I note, said that Germany had, but he was wrong there. Germany did not have an unlimited deposit guarantee in the way we did—not at all.

The government did this. The Prime Minister did this. He told the world that he had acted in the closest consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank but had not spoken to him. He had had the time to bring the camera crews in and to roll up his sleeves. He talked about that yesterday. Do you remember, Mr Deputy Speaker? He loves talking about rolling up his sleeves. They came in and took a picture of him with his sleeves rolled up, although there were some shots with his sleeves rolled down which made me think that maybe they came in when his sleeves were rolled down and then he had to send them out again so he could roll them up. So he was very fastidious about how he appeared, but he would not, could not, speak to the people from the Reserve Bank who knew the most about the issues, the distortions and the problems that an unlimited deposit guarantee would have.

Within a few days the deposit guarantee started to create enormous distortions, and by the Friday of that week—five days later—the Reserve Bank had put pen to paper and was begging the government to act. The Reserve Bank governor wrote to Ken Henry and said, ‘We are going round and round on this.’ He said, ‘There must be a cap—and the lower the better.’ The Chief Executive of Westpac, Gail Kelly, said that the cap should be $100,000. She has no chance of that happening because $100,000 was the level we recommended, and the one prediction I am prepared to make is that the Prime Minister will never adopt anything that has been recommended by the opposition.

The distortions have been considerable. We have seen around 270,000 Australian accounts in mortgage trusts and cash management trusts frozen as a result of this unlimited deposit guarantee. We have seen the finance sector that is responsible for financing the bulk of automobile sales in Australia not being able to refinance themselves and therefore not being able to advance money for the purchase of motor cars. The knock-on effects in the motor industry at the retail level and ultimately at the manufacturing level and in components manufacturing and so forth are gigantic. This has been a direct consequence of the unlimited deposit guarantee. We do not suggest that the government intended to have these consequences. We do not suggest that this was their deliberate plan to create additional economic hardship. We know we are dealing with a global financial crisis.

The Prime Minister, who loves three-letter acronyms, describes the crisis as a GFC. The real issue is not that he has acted in response to the GFC but what the implications are of what he probably does not call, but ought to call, the KFC—Kevin’s financial crisis. It is the KFC that we are debating here because, while the government can say it has acted, the real point is that in its actions it has been, to the best of my knowledge, the only government of a developed country that has made the global financial crisis worse in its own territory. There is no question that, if the deposit guarantee had not been unlimited, the distortion would have been less, there would have been fewer people whose savings were frozen and finance companies would have been better able to finance their own books and been able to support their customers in the motor industry and enable cars to be sold. All of that is perfectly clear.

When we raise issues like this, the government says that we are being inconsistent or that we are nitpicking. But the government itself abandoned the unlimited guarantee—not, I might say, until after the email from the Reserve Bank governor to Dr Henry was published on the front page of the Australian newspaper. They needed a fair bit of prodding to admit they had made a mistake. Even then, they reduced it to $1 million and will not take any note of the advice they are getting from the chief executive of Westpac or, indeed, of similar advice to make drastic changes which they are getting from the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank. So why do we get this pattern of poor decision making? Is it just because they are so concerned with being swift and decisive that they cannot tell the difference between ‘swift and decisive’ and ‘rushed and bungled’? The answer is that the government’s approach to economic policy is purely political. They have no economic policy at all; it is all politics.

Let us cast our minds back to a year ago, 12 November 2007, when the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, delivered a speech which warned of the effect of the subprime crisis. This is what he said:

The collapse of the sub-prime US lending market … is now having reverberations around the world. And all of these things will buffet global inflation, they will buffet our economy, they will buffet exchange rates, they will affect growth and job opportunities. They will require careful management on the Budget, on tax, on structural policy, on industrial relations, on competitiveness, on investment.

That was very good advice. Yet when the government came to office they paid no regard to the subprime crisis at all. They only had one objective—and it was a political objective—which was simply to make a case against the Howard government’s economic management. But the problem was that all of the numbers were so good. All Labor’s debt had been paid off, the budget was in surplus and had been for many years, unemployment was at historic lows and growth was strong. What could they find? Ah, yes: inflation had come above the Reserve Bank’s target range. It was not by much—just by a bit. It had happened before; it had been managed before. But there it was; it had gone above the range. So they threw all of their rhetoric and political bile onto that issue and said that inflation was out of control. ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle’ were the famous words that will haunt the Treasurer for as long as he is a member of this House. He said that before the Reserve Bank met. He egged the Reserve Bank to put up interest rates. The Prime Minister, not to be outdone, said that an ‘inflation monster’ was wreaking havoc across the land—all of which inevitably raised inflationary expectations. What else could it do? If the Treasurer of the Commonwealth tells you inflation is out of control, what do you think? Do you think inflation is a problem? Of course you do. They talked the problem up and put upward pressure on interest rates, and so we had at the beginning of this year two interest rate rises.

What was the opposition saying? We, who get accused of being economically irresponsible or inconsistent—what did we say? We said that there was likely to be considerable downward pressure, if you like, on economic activity coming from the subprime crisis in the United States. We said that the Reserve Bank should be careful to stay their hand. We encouraged them not to raise rates but to stay their hands and watch developments elsewhere in the world. But that did not suit the political agenda of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Members on the other side listening to this can check to see if I am wrong. They went out and were the only head of government and Treasurer in the world who actively talked up inflation at that time. Everywhere else in the world, governments were recognising that the global credit crisis was likely to make economic times harder. It was likely to make credit less available, and that in itself is obviously going to slow economic activity. But no, here in Australia, our government went straight ahead in its war on inflation to slow economic growth.

They talk about consistency. We were completely consistent right through that period. But then the government, as part of their war on inflation, said that they were going to have a swinging budget with big cuts and it was going to hurt. An anxious nation waited for the axe to fall. What did the opposition say? The opposition were consistent. We said the budget should not be making big cuts in spending that would have an effect of putting downward pressure on aggregate demand and economic activity. For the same reason, we encouraged the Reserve Bank not to put up rates. We noted that any cut in spending that was going to have any material impact on inflation, and therefore aggregate demand, would have to be at least half a per cent of GDP—$5 billion or $6 billion—and we said that would be wrong. We were criticised for that—we were spendthrifts! But then the budget came out and it was far from being a contractionary budget. The best that my old firm Goldman Sachs could say about it was ‘at least it did not make inflation worse’.

So there was a case where the government failed to recognise a worsening global credit crisis and actually went out of its way to talk up inflation and threaten big cuts in the budget—which it backed away from—but still did nothing to stimulate the economy. That went all the way through until we came to the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the middle of September. Then, of course, the penny dropped. It was a very large coin that dropped. It was a very big bang when Lehman Brothers went down. The problems of systemic risk could not be avoided or ignored by anybody.

We recognised these challenges and we recommended that the deposit guarantee with a cap of $20,000 that had been announced by the government, which we certainly supported, should in these times be increased to $100,000. That was a reasonable suggestion; it was in line with what many other nations were doing. If you look at the United States, its deposit guarantee had been $100,000 until it was recently increased to $250,000. It had been $100,000 for many years. The British have introduced a cap of £50,000. In most countries in Europe it is €50,000, and so on. So it was perfectly in line with global precedent and it was designed to be set at a level that was high enough to give the vast majority of household and small business depositors—retail depositors if you like—comfort but not so high as to create distortions. That was our proposal.

That was brushed aside and the government went for an unlimited guarantee. How did they justify an unlimited deposit guarantee? The Prime Minister said again and again, ‘If we had adopted the opposition’s recommendation of a $100,000 cap’—which is what is being recommended by the chief executive of Westpac—’then 40 per cent of deposits in total value would be left’—in his words; not mine—‘unprotected.’ The vast bulk of those deposits is in the big four banks—the AA banks; among the most secure, stable, best regulated banks in the world. Again, to make a political point, what he did was suggest to the Australian public that deposits in every bank, no matter how big that bank may be, no matter what its ratings are, would be unsafe unless they had the protection of a government guarantee.

So I am here today to say I support this legislation. As I have said, the opposition will support it. So the government can look at what we do and they will see we are giving it the support that we promised we would. But we will not back away from our obligation to hold the government to account. The Assistant Treasurer in the House earlier today quoted a remark I had made. He quoted me as saying, ‘We will give the government assistance.’ And we do offer to give the government assistance. We offer them advice. They ignore it; they treat it with contempt. They ignored our advice on the deposit guarantee just as they have ignored our advice on the wholesale term funding guarantee.

As honourable members know, the government is administratively able to give guarantees to banks in respect of their borrowings offshore in the wholesale market. It is able to do that. This could involve taking on contingent liabilities in the hundreds of billions of dollars—an enormous scale. The Treasurer said that they would be detailed in MYEFO. They are not. MYEFO just says that they are unquantifiable. I do not regard that as detailing anything. But because the government cannot honour a guarantee without an appropriation bill being passed it means that those people who are seeking the benefit of the guarantee—the investors, the lenders—are not going to be able to get a clean legal opinion. So by its refusal to act prudently, by its refusal to heed the advice we have given, the government is likely to make the funding that it is seeking to guarantee either unavailable or much more expensive. We stand ready to assist the government. We stand ready to approach this issue on a bipartisan basis but it requires genuine bipartisanship, not a slavish adherence to the sayings, the dictums, of ‘Chairman Rudd’. (Time expired)

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure this afternoon to rise and speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and related bills. As many other members have said and as the commentariat is saying, we are certainly living through difficult times. The global financial crisis is placing increasing pressure on budgets already stretched by the rising cost of living. I know we are all in this House concerned about the impact that that is having on individuals and families in our various communities. This is especially true of a number of groups that the Economic Security Strategy will give welcome assistance to, such as age pensioners, disability support pensioners, carers and veterans’ service pensioners, just to name a few.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill is a key component of the government’s Economic Security Strategy to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of the global financial crisis. The Australian government is determined to take strong, decisive action on this issue. One way it is responding is by providing immediate financial support for pensioners and their families. The government’s Economic Security Strategy will deliver relief to over 5.2 million pensioners, carers and families who will receive these one-off payments. This package will provide for payments of $1,400 for people in receipt of various pensions, including the single and couple age pension and the single and couple disability pension. This payment will also include self-funded retirees who are in receipt of the Commonwealth seniors health card.

For the first time, lump sum payments will also be extended to recipients of the disability support pension. Our government acknowledges that they are doing it just as tough as other pensioners and people in our community who need this sort of assistance. Importantly, for carers there will be a payment of $1,000 for each person who is cared for. If the allowance is shared between two or more people, the Economic Security Strategy payment will be similarly shared. Where receipt of one payment of carer allowance depends on the person providing care for two care receivers, the payment will also be $1,000.

Many families will also benefit from the strategy payments. For each child who attracts a family tax benefit payment part A—(Quorum formed) As I was saying, for each child who attracts a family tax benefit payment part A on 14 October 2008, the government will make a payment of $1,000 to that family. Also, a payment will be made for each dependent child whose family receives youth allowance, Abstudy, or living allowance or education allowance under the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme.

Now, in my own electorate of Canberra, the number of people who will benefit are as follows: age pension partnered, 5½ thousand; age pension single, nearly 4½ thousand; carer allowance coupled, over 1,500; carer allowance single, over 600; carer payment coupled, 180; carer payment single, 164; Commonwealth Seniors Health Card partnered, 1,856; Commonwealth Seniors Health Card single, 751; DSP partnered, 1,789; DSP single, 2,587; and family tax benefit part A, 9,223. In other words, a lot of people, let alone the many in my electorate, are going to benefit from this strategy from the government.

The assistance is very, very timely. The payments will be delivered over the fortnight starting 8 December—if in fact, as the opposition has indicated, this bill is passed in a timely fashion, allowing for the processes of this place and Centrelink to happen in time. As has been said previously, many people are under pressure because of the global economic crisis. Whatever people use this payment for, I know that it is going to be welcome relief to many families. Importantly, it will help to kick start the cash economy that needs to happen. A lot of these pensioners really do live on very tight budgets, from week to week or payment to payment, and I know that they are going to use this money in very useful ways for themselves and for their families and it is going to make a big difference to their households.

This $4.8 billion package for pensioners builds on the $7.5 billion provided in the first budget. It brings the total new spending on pensioners since the election to $12.3 billion. The Economic Security Strategy package is only the start of the government’s reform of the pension system. This relief is really a down payment on the future long-term pension reform that this government is undertaking. We have previously acknowledged the need for pension reform and we are committed to it. However, we also realise that people need urgent assistance.

That is why the government’s Economic Security Strategy has been warmly welcomed by a number of diverse groups, including the National Seniors Association, Carers Australia, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, the Fair Go for Pensioners Coalition, National Disability Services and many others. For example, the Fair Go for Pensioners Coalition said it was welcome news that builds confidence and security among pensioners and seniors. Carers Australia have said that they are very pleased to see that the government has listened and is now taking some real, immediate action.

But where do the opposition stand on this package? We have just heard the Leader of the Opposition indicate their support. On 14 October, the day the package was announced, the Leader of the Opposition was saying that they were not going to argue or quibble with the government’s proposal. The next day he was saying, ‘We would have done it differently.’ It appears that the Leader of the Opposition has a bit of trouble holding the one position for longer than one day. On 16 October, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition appeared on Lateline stating:

We said in principle we would, of course support such a package.

She said ‘in principle’. All that we have heard from them since is the argument they had been running before this announcement about the need for pension reform in this country. The opposition had proposed immediate increases in pension payments for one or two groups or—I think at the very end of the argument—three groups within the pension community, excluding everybody else.

We said at the time that reform of the pension system is desperately needed and we are going to do a proper and full inquiry into that reform. There are many complications and many anomalies. It is a very complicated system and you cannot just turn around and feed $30 a week into one pension payment but not consider others. So we said that we would do a proper reform of the process. We have undertaken that. That reform will be known in the new year. We are looking forward to seeing the processes of that reform and the outcome of that particular inquiry. In the meantime, the economic crisis that has hit us, the rest of the Western world and in fact the whole world has meant that we needed to look at a more immediate solution. So, while that reform process is underway, we are making these payments to these people in the hope and the knowledge that they will help. (Quorum formed)

It is very evident that the opposition are determined that the 26,000-plus people in my electorate do not hear the full story. They will, because I will continue. The point that I want to make is that in the longer term, after proper consideration, there is a need for pension reform. We have a very good process underway. We are having an inquiry that will review the whole process of pension payments in this country. What we were not prepared to do and will not do is throw a few dollars as an increase to a pensioner for two or three groups of pensioners and ignore all of the others. In my electorate that would have meant a very large number of people would have got nothing; they would have had no increase in their living standard at all.

Because of the economic crisis and the decisive, quick and certain action of this government, these payments will go out to a very long list of categories of people who are receiving Centrelink payments. As I have indicated, in my electorate alone we are looking at around 26,000 or so people who are going to benefit in the short term from those lump sum payments. In the longer term, they will also benefit, hopefully, by the outcome of the Henry review into the pension system in this country.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has taken a decisive piece of action in proposing to give these payments to those in our community who definitely need this assistance the most and need it immediately. I am, like other members on this side of the House, looking forward to decisive action on the part of the opposition. They should cause no delay at all in the process of these bills. We can get this through, get royal assent and start the process quickly so that these payments—whether they are used for Christmas, to get washing machines fixed or whatever other reason—go to these people quickly.

I wish to remind the recipients of these payments that there is no need for them to make claim. The payments will not count as income for social security, family assistance or veterans’ entitlements purposes. They will be tax free. The payments will be made to people who received one of a range of social security and veterans’ entitlements qualifying payments on 14 October 2008.

I will repeat what has already been said by the minister in this House: those pensioners and seniors not actually receiving a qualifying payment on 14 October 2008 will still get this payment if they had claimed the qualifying payment by that date and later have their qualifying payment backdated to cover that date. Similar backdating arrangements will apply for qualifying cardholders. It is very important that people out there understand how simple we are attempting to make this process for them and how quickly we want them to get this relief. In the longer term, we look forward to the outcome of the full pension review that this government has undertaken. I thank the House.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like all members of the opposition, I rise to speak in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and other bills. I reiterate to the former speaker, the member for Canberra, who again called on the opposition to pass these bills without delay. Let me repeat, just as the Leader of the Opposition did just about 15 minutes ago, that we have said that we are supporting this package and supporting these bills and will do so in both houses. Those opposite complain whenever questions are asked. We have seen that on display today. They complain when the slightest question is asked on any topic. When they demand us to state our position and we state it, as we are doing here in this debate and as we will do when we vote on these bills, they are deaf to the issue.

As we debate these bills, it is worth reflecting on the wider economic issues that are confronting Australia and the world. It is the role of the opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear and as the shadow Treasurer and shadow minister for finance have made clear, to ask questions. For a government to be so sensitive to any question, that it complains that somehow the mere questioning of any issue means that there is not support for these measures or that somehow the opposition is being disruptive, is absurd and ridiculous. The demeanour of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and the complaints we have seen from government members almost suggest that question time itself perhaps should not take place. That is almost the suggestion. Certainly we saw today that while, on the one hand, the government repeat the importance of these issues, and we affirm their importance, on the other hand they have no hesitation whatsoever in preventing this side of the House—namely the Leader of the Opposition—from moving a matter of public importance. And what we have seen today is the government using their numbers to prevent a matter of public importance debate on the biggest economic issues confronting Australia and the world for several decades. That is what the government do.

It was interesting today: we had a ministerial statement prior to what should have been the commencement of the matter of public importance. In fact, in the two weeks prior to today there have been seven ministerial statements, which was pointed out in the press on the weekend by News Ltd journalist Glenn Milne. Today, on my count, makes it eight. Those ministerial statements have dealt with a range of issues, but not one of them has been on the topic of the government’s response to the global financial crisis. Part of that response is this fiscal stimulus package. There have been eight ministerial statements but not one ministerial statement from the Prime Minister. And then, when given an opportunity to debate a matter of public importance, the government’s first response, automatic response and knee-jerk response is to prevent debate occurring. Having had the opportunity for the Prime Minister to come into the parliament and make a ministerial statement, and having given up that opportunity, when presented with a fresh opportunity by the opposition their automatic reaction is to shut down debate.

As I have said, those opposite are sensitive to criticism. Our criticism has been of the government’s management of the economy throughout this year and the effect it has had on consumer confidence. As previous speakers in this debate have pointed out, and as the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer have pointed out, at the start of this year the government did not have an economic objective; they had a political objective. Their political objective was to try to undermine the economic legacy of the previous government. In trying to undermine the economic legacy of the previous government, they undermined the economic legacy of Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘Who could forget that infamous statement from the Treasurer that the genie had been let out of the inflation bottle?’ There was a similar statement from the Prime Minister. That had a detrimental effect; that had an inflationary effect in terms of expectations.

And then we move through to the announcement of the mid-year economic forecasts just last week. As we have seen so often with this government, the day chosen was the day of the US presidential election. When that press conference began, we began to see why. The Treasurer began his press conference and moved through some of the detail. I was here in Canberra watching it on the internal television. He was asked what his inflation forecasts and projections were. For a second I thought I had hit the mute button. I thought I had knocked it with my elbow. In fact, I am told the telecast was momentarily cut off because it was assumed the press conference was over. Eighty long seconds; 80 now infamous seconds.

It reminded me of an old movie, a great movie called The Right Stuff. For those who have not seen that old classic—I know my friend and colleague, the member for Dunkley has—it is a movie about the birth and success of the American space program. It is a great movie for those opposite to watch over Christmas. If they want to try to forget about Wayne’s performance, don’t watch The Right Stuff.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not so old.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the member opposite, it is not old; it is a recent movie. It came out in 1983 and it told the story of the first American astronauts. There is a great scene—the member at the table opposite, the member for Brand, has clearly watched it; he will know this scene—where the NASA ground control staff are waiting anxiously as John Glenn is making what is a very troubled re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere. They pause and go silent as the capsule enters that phase where all radio communication breaks down. There is a long silence and they wait anxiously knowing they cannot speak to the capsule and he cannot speak back. Last week that reminded me of the Canberra press gallery. They were like the NASA ground control staff, waiting for a sound, waiting for any sound at all. The only difference was the NASA ground control staff knew how long the wait would be. They knew it would be no longer than three minutes. But the poor press gallery thought, ‘Gee, we might be here till dinner time.’

The only problem with that comparison is that the title of the movie does not sum up the federal Treasurer. He does not have the right stuff, and that is absolutely obvious. We have had the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and numerous others, some in the press gallery, try to defend the fact that the Treasurer of Australia does not know his own inflation forecasts and projections on the basis that ‘it’s just another number’. There are lots of numbers in the budget—by definition the budget is full of numbers—and the poor Treasurer cannot be expected to know them. In fact, the minister for finance’s defence last week was that the public and the press could not expect him and the Treasurer to be parrots. I have to say that I think most parrots would learn those inflation forecasts and projections faster than the Treasurer. This defence, of course, as those opposite know in their heart of hearts, is a pathetic defence—the idea that all figures are equal, that no figures are more important than any others and that somehow the price of widgets or the number of 1953 Corvettes manufactured is as important as the inflation forecast.

The sad thing, as the member for Bradfield knows, is that the Prime Minister also did not know the inflation forecasts earlier in the year. The member for Bradfield asked the Prime Minister what the budget forecasts were, and unlike the Treasurer the Prime Minister summed up pretty quickly the fact that he did not know the answer and tried to get it over with in a lot less time than 80 seconds. He then spoke for a long time. So we have the spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer lecturing the country on inflation but not knowing what the forecast is—in the case of the Prime Minister, not knowing what the forecast is in the budget; in the case of the Treasurer, not knowing what the forecast is on an indicator of vital importance when he releases the mid-year update. On this defence that it is just another number, for a Treasurer this is like forgetting your home phone number and saying that is just another number. If we are to believe this, we are to believe that, when the Treasurer arrives home in Brisbane and gets in his Comcar, he is hoping the Comcar driver knows the number of the street. You would not get a more fundamental figure for a Treasurer to know at any time, let alone at the time when, in less than two weeks time, he will have spent a year lecturing Australia about the importance of that very figure.

Of course, what that 80 seconds sums up is so much about this government. The focus is on the stunt and the announcement, but what the Australian people are starting to realise is that, if the government spent more time doing the real work than focusing on stunts, the Treasurer would know the inflation forecasts and projections. In fact, it would be impossible for him not to know them. We saw the tenor of this also with the Prime Minister, and previous speakers have pointed this out. We saw it in graphic detail just a few weeks ago, when it transpired that in the emergency Saturday cabinet meeting the Reserve Bank governor was not consulted. What did we see in the lead-up to that cabinet meeting? We saw world leaders being rung by the Prime Minister, followed by updates every day in press conferences about the latest world leader or senior economic figure he had spoken to. Phone calls could be made all around the world, press conferences could be held and then an emergency cabinet meeting could be held on a Saturday, and in the time it took him to decide to roll his sleeves down and get the cameras in he could have got the Reserve Bank governor on the phone from Sydney, but he did not. You could not, if you had a starting list of people to consult, not have the Reserve Bank governor up near the top. It is just not possible. They could have Wayne Swan on the phone from Washington or New York, but they could not have the Reserve Bank governor on the phone from Sydney. That just sums up so much about this government’s approach.

For those opposite who will speak after the member for Canberra, let me save them time in their speeches. We have said we are supporting this legislation. They will speak, we will speak, at some point the debate will end and this bill will pass this House with the support of us. Then it will go to the Senate and the same thing will happen. Perhaps the speaking notes are out of date, but we have said that repeatedly. On behalf of our constituents and the wider Australian public, we say Wayne Swan needs to do better, and we say the government needs to start focusing on the detail, stop making excuses, stop focusing on spin, stop trying to shut down discussion on matters of public importance and have a ministerial statement on the issue. Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, has spoken everywhere except in a ministerial statement in this parliament. There is almost not a square inch in this building where he has not spoken, outside the spot right in front of that dispatch box, where he should be giving a formal, considered ministerial statement. He should have done that during the last two-week sitting period. He should have done it this week. He still can do it this week, and in the meantime he should not be asking his Leader of the House to shut down debate on a matter of public importance on what they say, and we agree, is one of the biggest matters of public importance on the economic front in the last 60 or 70 years.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognate bills before the House, and I begin by reflecting on some of the comments made by the member for Casey. The member for Casey said that he wanted to make it abundantly clear that those on the other side support the package, support the decisive action that was taken by the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago in announcing the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy. I was interested to note the comments of Senator Barnaby Joyce in relation to the lump sum payments that are to be made under this package. The senator said on 2GB radio:

I do have a concern that if you pay people in lump sums it can end up against the wall, and we don’t want that.

People go to work every day to pay their taxes, and they don’t like seeing it end up in poker machines or plasma TVs.

That sounds to me like a quibble with a capital Q. I know we are told by the Leader of the Opposition that they will not be quibbling, but an awful lot of quibbling has occurred since the announcement of this package. When we examine those criticisms, they really do not stack up. I will come back to this suggestion that all the money in the stimulus package is going to be spent on plasma TVs in just one moment—(Quorum formed)

Those on the other side are clearly very uptight as a result of not getting their MPI up, but I should point out for the benefit of the House that, if we go back and have a look at the records for the last parliament and we consider the number of occasions on which an opposition member moved that a government member be no longer heard, which is what we saw from those on the other side a little bit earlier today, we see that it did not happen at all in the course of the last parliament. So, if we want to talk about draconian measures in the House, then let’s have a look at some of the conduct that we saw from those on the other side a bit earlier today.

It is relevant to note that, whilst those on the other side did not have their opportunity to speak on the MPI, there is just the small sum of 36 members from their side listed to speak on this particular set of bills. As we have seen from the speakers that have preceded me, there has been no attention paid to the detail of those bills. It has been an opportunity to canvass the issues that they wanted to discuss more broadly. So, frankly, I suggest that these disruptive tactics be dispensed with so that the 31,000 residents within my electorate that will benefit from this package will have the benefit of this package sooner rather than later.

As I was indicating before I was interrupted, the decisive action that the government has taken has come in a number of forms. It has come in the form of lump sum payments to pensioners, carers and seniors and also family payment bonuses. I want to reflect on the impact that these measures are likely to have on individuals within my community. I note a number of articles within some of the local papers in my community. In relation to age pensioners, I saw that Mearl Fitzgibbons, a local resident, was quoted in the Penrith Press on Tuesday, 21 October. Mearl described the grant as ‘an early Christmas present’. She said:

I am very careful with how I spend my money as I don’t go to clubs or pubs—

contrary to what Senator Joyce might be suggesting is the norm.

I know some of the retired people spend their money at the pokies and pubs. If I did that I won’t be able to afford to live like I do. What I get now is enough to pay the bills.

Mearl, who retired 30 years ago, said she may use some of the grant money to purchase an air conditioner. But, wisely, she said, ‘I won’t plan anything until I get the money.’ So we are not talking about money being ‘up against the wall’. We are talking about legitimate expenses that will boost and bolster the living standards and the strength of the household budgets of pensioners within my community.

In relation to disability support pensioners I note that in the Penrith Press on Tuesday, 28 October Kevin Finlayson, a local identity, a great local individual, a great contributor to our community, was quoted as saying:

It’s come at the right time and will help put food on the table and make Christmas brighter. It’s so difficult to survive these days and every time we go to the supermarkets, something has gone up in price. I like steaks but I don’t even look at that section any more.

Along with Kevin, there is Anne Stratton, who says she will finally be able to buy a new bed with the government grant:

Thank God for this grant as it will help me a lot. I desperately need a new bed and will use some of the money to buy one. Food is so expensive these days and I always look for cheaper alternatives.

So, far from the money ending up against the wall, as Senator Joyce has suggested, I think we can see from those stories of Mearl Fitzgibbons, Kevin Finlayson and Anne Stratton that many people will be looking to these bonuses not only in order to deliver real benefits to their living standards but also to help them keep up with the rising cost of living.

Further to the comments that Senator Joyce has made, I want to make a plea to many working families, not just within my electorate but across the country, to do what I think is a national duty in the way in which they spend this money. I know that many people have come forward and said that it is up to the individual as to how they spend their money; and of course it is—we live in a free society. But I want to issue a plea to those working families around the country that are likely to benefit from the family tax benefit part A bonuses, the $1,000 per child that they are likely to receive in the first week of December. My plea is this: I call on those families to take this unique opportunity to dovetail in with some of the initiatives that we have already announced in relation to the education revolution—to make a significant investment in the educational future of their children and, at the same time, make a significant contribution to the economic prosperity of this nation.

I have had a look at some scenarios here and I think this is a really good deal. I think it is something we should be advocating to families, particularly low-income families, because I think this bonus payment can be one means through which we can make some inroads into achieving the education revolution that we are seeking to achieve. Of course, some families will need that money to meet the rising cost of living. If that is the case then those families will use that money as required. But there will be those who have the capacity to make some one-off purchases. Let us take the example of a family with two children, one in primary school and another in high school, with a household income below $111,000. I picked that figure because below that figure the family will be entitled to family tax benefit part A. Under the Economic Security Strategy that family will be entitled to receive $2,000—$1,000 for each of the children. With that $2,000, I will paint a scenario of what could be achieved for the educational opportunities of their children and at the same time for the future of our economy.

Let us assume that they purchase a laptop for approximately $1,000 and they then secure internet broadband access for around $659 a year. I have done the figures and that does add up. You can secure access for one year for about $659. Let’s throw in a $250 printer and a couple of printer cartridges. All of that can be achieved through $2,000 worth of expenditure. That will be delivering a stimulus into the economy. Let’s do it for Christmas. Let’s get the kids a Christmas present that will be an investment in their educational future. That is $2,000 worth of expenditure that is a bonus coming from the government. But just hold on a minute. By the end of the financial year that family will be able to obtain the benefit of another $1,000 in the form of a tax refund under the education tax refund. So that family can actually secure a $2,000 benefit and turn it into a $3,000 benefit. They are delivering an enhancement of the educational opportunities of their children whilst at the same time doing their patriotic and national duty to ensure that our economy continues to tick over. I call on families to seriously consider this as an option. I think it achieves not only their own private and personal domestic aspirations; it can be very much a central part of us moving closer to achieving that education revolution that we want while at the same time bolstering our economy.

Returning to some of the key elements of the package, the Economic Security Strategy has also placed some emphasis on first home owners grants and the need to provide further stimulus into the economy by kick-starting the housing market. The differential treatment of new dwellings compared to purchasing existing dwellings is an obvious example of how a government incentive can stoke along a little bit more activity in the housing market. The $21,000 grant that will be available to first home owners who acquire a newly constructed dwelling will be something that I believe will allow us to get the housing market moving. People talk about supply difficulties. In my local community there are several thousand lots ready to be developed. They are ready to be developed, the planning approvals have occurred, but the blocks are not moving. They are not being sold for the simple reason that at the moment people do not have the capacity to enter the market. I know that local developers and local real estate agents in my community have been glowing in their praise for this initiative, and I think that it will make a real difference. I hope that it will provide the spark that is needed to get our housing market moving again.

I will quote from one of my local papers, the Western Weekender, on Friday, 17 October. Let us bear in mind that it was only the Tuesday prior to that that the government made the announcement in relation to the ESS. Greg Taylor, principal of Stanton and Taylor in Penrith, said that local residents were already responding to the additional assistance. He was quoted as saying that on the Wednesday after the announcement was made, and it was reported on the Friday. He said:

We have already noticed today—

Wednesday—

an increase in inquiries from people who will be eligible to acquire the grant.

That is good news from Mr Taylor. In the Penrith Press on 21 October, Ralph Saporita from Glenmore Park Realty said:

We have had an unbelievable response since the announcement of the grant. We had been experiencing a downturn before the grant but I can see a 15% increase in the number of potential buyers.

Paul Dukes of Morris Dukes Real Estate was also delighted with the positive response, saying:

Its been phenomenal the past weekend, with Saturday being just amazing. Around 90% of the inquiries have been from first-home buyers. We have seen about a 70% rise in inquiries and we hope to sell about five or six properties by this week.

There you have it. Let us not be distracted by the machinations of those on the other side that we have been observing in this place. Let us have a good hard look at how these initiatives are playing out on the ground in communities such as mine. The down payment on long-term pension reform will make a significant difference when the money comes through to those recipients within my electorate. As I said earlier, there are a significant number of them—some 17,278 pensioners. Let us make the point that this includes the full array of pensioners and not just those pensioners that those on the other side sought to include within their ham-fisted attempt to come up with some pension reform.

On the other hand, we have the payments to those families that are eligible for family tax benefit A. There are 13,786 families within my electorate who will be eligible, providing further stimulus—$1,000 per child. That is in addition to the relief for pensioners, with single pensioners receiving $1,400 and couples receiving $2,100. In addition to that, in recognition of the difficult circumstances that we are facing, Commonwealth seniors card holders will also be provided with a lump sum of $1,400 for singles and $2,100 for couples. In the same way, we have seen those recipients of the carers allowance entitled to a $1,000 payment. So we are talking about a significant amount of stimulus being injected into the economy.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the history of economics, not just in this country but internationally, it is that, when steep and marked economic decline is about to occur, the faster we can act the more likely we will weather the storm. If there is a criticism levelled at the policymakers that steered this country through the last downturn in the late eighties and early nineties, it is that they acted too slowly—too little, too late. I do not think that sort of criticism is likely to be levelled at the Rudd government for the decisive action that has been taken.

I have to say that those on the other side who say that they are not quibbling, who say that they support the package, have consistently been making all these implications such as, ‘Isn’t this a little bit too much money? Isn’t this potentially going to stoke up inflation and create an inflationary problem?’ As with most of their commentary on the decisive measures that this government has taken, they want to hedge their bets, because the real game in town for the opposition is not about delivering a better economic outcome for the national economy or for households—it is much more simple than that; it is about trying to get a better political outcome. For them, the best political outcome is to hedge their bets and leave the options open so that they have as many positions on record as possible so that if the economy runs into trouble—and, inevitably, we are in for more difficult times—they can claim, ‘We told you so.’

I issue a challenge to those on the other side to tell us so now. If you believe that there is an alternative strategy that should be employed, come forward and tell us what it is. Just as the Hansard records my comments today, it will also note the absence of any alternative proposals being brought forward by the opposition. They are quibbling with a capital Q but offering no alternatives at all. They have become bankrupt when it comes to policy ideas. We have seen from the shadow Treasurer just how bankrupt they have become. Writing a chapter for a book on the future of the conservative parties you would have thought would be something that would be inspired by genuine belief about the direction of public policy in the country. But, rather than that, we see that it was plagiarised. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just under 12 months ago, the former government left this economy with no debt and a strong $20 billion plus surplus. Within 12 months the surplus is virtually all spent, and the community is being softened up for deficit spending and a return to debt. It took 12 years to build these foundations and only 12 months to undermine them.

The Howard-Costello government fixed the financial infrastructure of our great country. If we had not paid off the $96 billion debt left to the country by the former Labor administration, if we had not done the hard yards, if we had not had a plan and if we had not had some comprehensive, concerted effort to reduce and eliminate that debt then Australian taxpayers would have paid more than $100 billion over those 12 years in interest payments alone on Labor’s debt. Think of the millstone that would have been for our economy over the last 12 years. We would have paid $8½ billion a year in interest. If we had not paid off Labor’s $96 billion debt then Mr Swan would have forecast four deficits last week, not four surpluses, because $8½ billion dollars a year of taxpayers’ money in interest rates would have been going out the door.

The government would not have had the $10 billion that is the subject of this bill; it would not have been available. This is a bill which we support and, like all the other measures of the government, we reserve the right to be able to ask legitimate questions about the effectiveness, the structure and the way these things will impact on individuals around the country. If we had not built the record surpluses and created multibillion-dollar reserves, Australia would be far worse placed to deal with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We would not have been in a position, as we are now, to spend $10 billion as a fiscal stimulus. This option would not be available to us. We started with 20 per cent of GDP as debt 12 years ago. Now it is zero; in fact, it is negative debt because of the massive reserves that we have built up. Compare that with United States and most of the OECD, who have 50 per cent of GDP in government debt today. How well placed are they to deal with this crisis compared with Australia? Why? This job was done through financial management over 12 years. In 12 months those foundations have been undermined severely.

All of this effort to remove the debt took measured judgement. It required accountability, and we were accountable. We did not object to people asking questions, because it helped us get policy right and it helped us make right decisions. It required an ability to listen, which is something very foreign to those on the other side of the chamber. It required resolve and it required considered, informed responses seeking the right advice, not making a decision about an unlimited deposit guarantee of great consequence which has subsequently been one of the biggest bungles we have seen in economic management for a long time. They took that monetary policy decision of great moment and did not even have the Reserve Bank in the room. They did not even ask the Reserve Bank’s explicit advice about the merit of such a proposal or how it should be structured so that there would not be a lot of unintended consequences.

This is an approach of ill-informed responses and ill-informed decisions. Yet what do we see with this government in the face of a financial crisis? We see in many respects, as I look across the chamber, a rabbit in the spotlight. They spent 11 months doing nothing, taking no decisions. We saw all talk and no action. That is what you hear all around the country. What do a lot of people who voted for you on the other side of the chamber say to me? It is deep disappointment: ‘They are all talk and no action.’ Not being used to taking decisions for 11 months, when they finally took a decision and introduced an unlimited deposit guarantee it was rushed, it was bungled, it was not well informed, it was not coherent, it was not logical and consistent, it was not easily followed and understood and it was not a plan where all the elements stick together. This is not a coherent strategy to deal with the deep malaise that could confront us if we do not act properly.

Anyone who dares to probe, anyone who dares to question and anyone who dares to make suggestions is not answered. They are defamed, they are put down, they are ridiculed and they are vilified. It is a form of McCarthyism. If anyone asks questions about infrastructure funding, they are accused of being against nation building. If anyone asks questions about the government’s response to climate change, they are labelled a sceptic. If anyone has any questions about immigration, they are called a racist. If anyone questions any of their economic documentation or reports, they are accused of attacking Treasury officials. This behaviour is a part of a broad, deliberate campaign to silence any legitimate questions. It is a form of McCarthyism by those opposite. They fear being accountable, but the nation will suffer and their government will suffer if they are not accountable. You make good decisions by being held accountable. You do not make good decisions by silencing people and by ensuring that no-one else has a point of view that is considered.

It betrays a state of mind in this government which is defensive and which in many respects is lacking confidence. It is a state of mind lacking an instinct for managing an economy. They do not know what they do not know. We saw today the arrogance of ignorance again on display in this chamber from those opposite. It betrays a government which has no plan. It has no plan; it has got a political strategy but it has not got an economic strategy, and that is the problem. So when we ask legitimate questions about the economic advice on which these critical decisions rest, we are accused of vilifying Treasury officials. For example, my comments yesterday were not directed at the Treasury.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were not directed at the Treasury. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is a government document.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in government; you had better find out about government documents that are not Treasury documents. It is the Treasurer’s document and the Treasurer is entitled to change it. It is a government document. My comments have been deliberately misconstrued, by the government, as an attack on Treasury, and this is an attempt to silence anybody who asks legitimate questions of the government. The opposition reserve the right to ask legitimate questions about how well thought through these government programs are; how they will affect individuals; and how they will affect jobs, businesses and the lives of people around Australia. We reserve that right.

Instead of attending to the questions surrounding the government’s deeply flawed, rushed, and mismanaged emissions trading scheme, Senator Wong sees fit to obfuscate—rather than answer any objections—by calling many in the coalition climate change sceptics, including me.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not a climate change sceptic; I am a Rudd sceptic. I do not see the ability on the other side of the House to manage this serious issue in a way which not only protects and strengthens our great economy but, at the same time, protects the wonderful environment that we have and the world environment. I do not see that ability.

In relation to infrastructure—and we have the minister here—on the first question asked of the minister about Infrastructure Australia his response was:

… I predict we will see nitpicking around the sides because they do not really support nation building …

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, we see this McCarthyism. As soon as you make any point or question any issue about infrastructure, you are against nation building!

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a lot of nonsense that is: ‘You are against nation building. You are a sceptic. You are attacking Treasury officials.’ It is a form of McCarthyism, vilification, pigeonholing—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right, there are ample opportunities in this place to have your views heard. The member deserves to be heard in silence.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the minister for infrastructure said:

And the opposition should get out of the way and support Labor’s agenda.

He said that the opposition should support these funds. He said that the former government was against nation building. He said that the legislation for these funds would be introduced in the coming weeks. Well, of course, that was months ago; and where is the legislation? It is not here. Who is undermining nation building? It was to be a rapid program of introducing new infrastructure projects. We thought the legislation was arriving weeks ago. It was held up. Why was it held up? It was held up because the Minister for Finance and Deregulation was concerned about the minister for infrastructure requiring a lot more ministerial discretion. Yet we heard about objectivity. We heard about the way these projects would be assessed. And now we find out that a minister in the Labor government is concerned about the Minister for Infrastructure Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and his desire to see a lot more ministerial discretion embodied in that legislation. Well, we await the legislation.

Whenever questions are raised about the great failures of state Labor governments we are accused of playing the blame game. Again, this is McCarthyism! In every area of questioning, they have some technique to silence those who are asking the questions. Yesterday, when asked about New South Wales cutting jobs, raising taxes and dumping infrastructure spending, the Prime Minister said:

This government has embarked upon a course of action which does not simply perpetuate the blame game of the past.

Again, this was an attempt to intimidate us, to vilify us and to silence us. No doubt, with the new bodies that have proliferated around COAG, the government has an agenda that is, in many respects, not accountable. I am sure when I raise the fact that nobody is ultimately responsible for the works of these bodies I will be accused of the blame game. Just watch this space!

Rather than silence critics, the government should be listening to people. In the last 24 hours Exxon Mobil, Nyrstar, and Alcoa have all said that they are reconsidering their investments, which will affect the jobs of thousands of Australians. This government needs to listen. It needs accountability. If it is going to take solid decisions and if it is going to alter its plans to fit in with good judgement and good decisions then it needs to be accountable. It needs resolve. It needs considered, informed responses. Ridiculing, defaming and pigeonholing critics with a form of McCarthyism is no way to put in place a coherent strategy to deal with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It is no way to run a country.

On this side of the House we support a stimulatory package. In this context, on this bill, we have taken the government on trust and we will support this package. We have taken them on trust. None of our questions have been answered on this or any other matter but we are taking the government on trust and we will support this bill. But we will not resile from our responsibility to keep the government accountable. (Quorum formed)

Debate interrupted.