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

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How many jobs have been created by the December $10 billion cash splash, and how many jobs will be created by the proposed March $11 billion cash splash? What will be the annual interest cost of financing the $21 billion of those handouts at current interest rates?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member, I think, asked a question in three parts. One was the impact on jobs of last year’s ESS.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am coming to it; I am just getting it right. The second was the current package and the—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have got that. And the third one was the interest rates. First of all, the government’s Economic Security Strategy was announced last October. It was delivered in December. As the honourable member would know, the full employment impact of that would not be known for some time. But, as the honourable member struggled yesterday with the most recently produced retail figures for the nation, to their collective dismay and disappointment, this country outperformed practically every other country in the world in terms of retail sales at that time. Obviously there will be some form of spillover of that investment into the support packages for households into the year 2010 as well.

Secondly, as the honourable member knows, the package that the government announced two days ago of some $42 billion represents, as we have said, a total employment impact in terms of supporting jobs of up to 90,000. On the breakdown of the individual components of that: I will of course provide those to the Leader of the Opposition later. I do not have them with me, but I will be happy to do so.

Thirdly, he asked a question about debt. On the question of the impact of the borrowings which would flow, I am advised that the interest payments would equal something in the vicinity of an additional 0.2 per cent of GDP at the time that they begin to be paid. If there is any variation on that, I will come back to the honourable member before the end of question time.

Could I also say to the honourable member who has asked the question that, as they seek, as is their democratic right—and they are members of this parliament—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know those opposite do not wish to actually debate that which is real here, which is: how do you deal with providing the stimulus which the Australian economy needs because of the global economic crisis? We have a program put forward. It is costed. The assumptions have been backed by the Treasury, and we stand by those because they represent for us a credible strategy to see Australia through this crisis.

The alternative is not just sitting on the fence, not just carping from the sidelines, but an avalanche of politically opportunistic negativity from those opposite. But here is the ultimate irony for those opposite. There they are, representing the forces of neoliberalism around the world. There they are representing the forces of unrestrained greed. There they are, representing the forces of unrestrained markets, representing the forces also represented by unprincipled merchant bankers operating with under-regulated markets—their entire ideology, which has brought this crisis about—and yet they are unprepared to lift a political finger to support this government’s efforts to deal with the consequences of that crisis. This is the ultimate irony, the ultimate hypocrisy of those opposite: the unrestrained greed, unprincipled merchant bankers, under-regulated financial markets—at the absolute core of neoliberalism—causing this crisis worldwide, and there they stand back, smugly, seeking to take political advantage of this government’s attempts to deal with the consequences of that crisis for working people. Those opposite have contested whether in fact they are really neoliberals. Remember, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has said in response to this debate on unregulated financial markets: ‘Let us simply let the market run its course.’

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would just ask the Leader of the Labor Party to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his proper title, please.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members should be referred to by their parliamentary titles.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition has said on multiple occasions, ‘Let the market run its course.’ That is the very heart of the neoliberal agenda which has brought about this mayhem on markets worldwide, with impacts on working people, who now pay the price through the loss of jobs right across the world and in our country as well. The Leader of the Opposition reinforced that in the debate in the parliament on Tuesday when he began citing as his new authority on fiscal policy Professor Taylor from Stanford University in the United States, who is himself one of the archdeacons of neoliberalism. Remember what Professor Taylor said? He always asks himself each morning: ‘What would Milton do next?’—that is, what would Milton Friedman do next? And then you have not just these statements of ideology but also the action itself of ideology, which is to block this government’s efforts in the Senate to actually deal with the stimulus needs necessary to repair growth, growth which has been undermined by neoliberal wanton behaviour around the world which has brought this crisis about in the first place.

So there you have this extraordinary contradiction—their ideology wreaking havoc on the world economy and them refusing to support any course of action to deal with the consequences of their ideology’s spectacular failure. How about, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you just stand up one day and say, ‘Maybe this neoliberalism, maybe this market fundamentalism—maybe we just got it wrong.’ How about a word of apology about all of those investment bankers around the world who creamed it, who scored tens and hundreds of millions of dollars out of this? How about just a word of apology which said you might have got it wrong? And how about a word of action to support a government’s efforts to clean up the wreckage after you? That is the moral challenge here, a moral challenge which has been failed by the Liberal Party corporately and by the Leader of the Opposition personally.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’d better change that title!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What deregulation? It should be re-regulation!

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except for labour services!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members for Indi, Dunkley and Moncrieff are warned!

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is it important for the government to seek expert advice in dealing with the global economic crisis?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Calwell will resume her seat until the House comes to order. I call the member for Calwell.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Calwell will resume her seat. I applaud the member for Calwell for referring to a member by their parliamentary title. I call the member for Calwell.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is it important for the government to seek expert advice in dealing with the global economic crisis? What does the advice indicate about various options for responding to the crisis?

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

The government is dealing with an unprecedented economic crisis consequent upon the global economic challenge, and naturally the government has sought advice. The government has sought advice from Treasury, from the IMF and from the financial regulators, and it is paying close attention to the opinions of market economists, to industry organisations and to governments of other major developed nations. Naturally in an economic crisis, Mr Speaker, you would expect that a government would pay attention to the advice, to the opinions, of people who know something about economics. Amazingly enough, this is not a universally held view—that in an economic crisis you might ask people like economists what they think about how to deal with it. In fact, the opposition believes that that is the last thing you should do—actually talk to economists. Twice yesterday the member for North Sydney said that the last people you would talk to about dealing with an economic crisis would be economists. He said on 2BL:

Economists will always go to extremes. Economists will say in downturns, ‘Spend, spend, spend.’

And then in the MPI he backed it up with:

They should not be listened to in those good times, just as surely as they should not always be the bible during bad times.

This is the guy who has just become the frontrunner for the member for Curtin’s job as shadow Treasurer. His view of economic advice is that, in order to be the Minister for Finance—and Deregulation—or indeed the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, the last thing you do is actually talk to economists, the last thing you do is seek advice from people who have got some expertise in that area. You wonder who in fact he would consult—maybe some faith-healers would be the idea, or numerologists or astrologers. I see him there in his office late at night with the lights off, with a ouija board out there, going: ‘Milton, Milton, are you there, Milton? Tell us what to do, Milton.’

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Government Members:

He said Milton, not Wilson!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on my right will come to order!

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of relevance: I listened carefully to the question to the minister for deregulation from the member for Calwell, but I heard nothing in it requesting a vaudeville show. Could the minister return to some facts and figures?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has the call.

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

I was mentioning Milton Friedman to make the point that in fact what the member for North Sydney said yesterday was not literally accurate, not precisely correct, because there are indeed a few select economists that he and the opposition do listen to—a few people like Arthur Laffer, John Taylor and Milton Friedman. And they just happen to be the people who believe that tax cuts for wealthy people and knocking over the rights of working people in the workplace are the solution to every economic problem. It does not matter what the issue, it does not matter what the debate, the answer is always: tax cuts for the rich and knocking over the rights of working people in the workplace.

It is not surprising, therefore, to hear the views of the member for North Sydney on Sunrise this morning, where he stated:

Broadly based tax cuts will provide long-term incentives for people to continue to work.

I wonder which people that would be. For the ordinary working people I know, their incentives to continue to work are to eat, to pay the rent and the mortgage. They do not need big tax cuts for the wealthy in order to have an incentive to work; they have to work.

It is hardly surprising that the Leader of the Opposition and his troops cannot make up their minds about whether Australia is going to have a recession or not. The Leader of the Opposition says that a recession is avoidable, that it may not happen. And yet we have had within the space of a couple of days the member for Sturt, the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Warringah all saying that it is a red-hot certainty that Australia is going into recession. It may well be just a coincidence, but I think all three of them are Costello supporters; I think they may all be supporters of the member for Higgins. The government in turn is interested in expert advice—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the minister for finance is not going to be relevant, if he is not going to have anything meaningful to say, then I would ask you to sit him down.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will address the question, and can I suggest that he brings his answer to a conclusion.

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

I will indeed, Mr Speaker. The government is acting in accordance with advice from Treasury, from the International Monetary Fund and the vast bulk of opinion both in Australia and around the world from expert economists, from industry organisations and all people with expertise in these areas. We are interested in taking action to protect and to sustain jobs and economic growth in this country, not to fight the obscure ideological and class-based battle for the rich which is the preserve of the opposition. We are facing in this country a global economic crisis that has largely been caused by investment bankers. The investment banker running the Liberal Party is so arrogant that he thinks he can run Australia from opposition in the middle of that crisis.