Senate debates

Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009; Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009; Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009; Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009; Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009; Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009

Second Reading

1:34 pm

Photo of Guy BarnettGuy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before speaking to the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and related bills before the Senate, as this is the first opportunity to do so I wish to respond to the worst natural disaster in Australia’s history. Words cannot express the depth of sadness and grief at the loss of life and the pain and suffering experienced by so many. Our hearts go out to the families and others affected. I have been overwhelmed in the last day or two by the donations of clothes and other items for those in need to my office in Launceston and I thank the generosity of those in northern Tasmania for those donations. I want to say thank you to the fire service professionals and volunteers, the police, the ambulance and other emergency service personnel and all volunteers involved in alleviating, at least to some degree, the stress, the grief and the pain of those affected by the Victorian bushfires.

With respect to the six bills before us, I would like to make a number of observations. Firstly, Labor’s economic spending spree will increase Australia’s debt levels to $200 billion or nearly $10,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. This debt will be a millstone around each Australian’s neck for years to come. The Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, has grabbed the taxpayers’ credit card and in a giant cash splash is running it up to the hilt. Mr Rudd wants to be the sideshow alley king where every player wins a prize. But credit card debt, like all debt, has to be repaid. We do not know what is ahead; we live in uncertain times. We need an economic stimulus package, but Labor’s spending initiative is too big, poorly targeted and irresponsible. Federal Labor is lassoing every Australian with a record debt and a record deficit.

The Australian Financial Review says today, at page 4, under the heading ‘$7bn interest likely, says Treasury’:

The federal budget will be weighed down by at least $7 billion in annual interest payments, according to Treasury and financial market estimates of the cost of servicing the commonwealth’s swelling debt.

If parliament this week authorises a $125 billion increase in commonwealth debt, the commonwealth will issue bonds to cover future budget deficits – and the annual interest bill will climb steeply.

That is what the Financial Review reports.

The government is throwing money around like confetti. Yes, it is true that getting between anybody and a bucket of money is problematic, but I ask those people, organisations and communities targeted to benefit from Labor’s plans to think of the future. The cash handouts of today will have to be repaid. I have three children and I want them to have the best possible start in life. Is it right for us to saddle each of our children with a $10,000 debt? The only way to repay the debt is via higher taxes or fewer services. This approach would give our children fewer opportunities and a very heavy burden to bear. We are placing a giant mortgage on their future. Going forward, which services must we cut? Will there be funding for our hospitals, Medicare, schools, roads or police?

We all know it is easy to spend and hard to save, and yet Mr Rudd’s mantra is ‘spend, spend, spend’. That is exactly what he said when he announced the pre-Christmas $10 billion spending package and promised it would create 75,000 new jobs. He promised that. He said it publicly; it is on the public record. But it has failed. In fact, unemployment rose in December and it continues to rise. By the government’s own forecasts, unemployment will rise to seven per cent by June 2010, with 300,000 more Australians out of work.

Amazingly, Kevin Rudd’s pre-Christmas cash splash included an estimated $80 million for over 69,000 Australian pensioners living overseas. The package was designed to strengthen Australia’s economy, not overseas economies. The government has its priorities wrong. Instead, Australian dollars were sent off overseas. The Italian economy, for example, received the biggest boost, with over 18,600 pensioners receiving in excess of $25 million. Greece and New Zealand have also received significant windfalls courtesy of Mr Rudd: approximately 5,700 pensioners in Greece received a total of $7.5 million and just over $6 million was hauled into New Zealand by over 4,500 Australian pensioners. The other big winners included the Netherlands, Spain, Malta and the United Kingdom, each receiving millions of dollars in cash bonuses. Even Croatia and Germany received in excess of $1 million from Australia.

I raised these concerns in the Senate last week, but they fell on deaf ears, as the government will not listen. It is not right to spend this sort of money in foreign countries, albeit on Australians, when it is our economy and Australian jobs that we are trying to protect. Mr Rudd’s pre-Christmas package was a one-off and was clearly designed to benefit the Australian economy. It was not designed to prop up overseas economies. So the Rudd Labor government needs to fully explain why such expenditure was necessary. I am aware that Australia has agreements with other countries whereby we are required to reciprocate payments, but this was clearly a one-off package designed to support the Australian economy, not to be sent overseas. Mr Rudd has clearly gone on a spending spree—is in a spending frenzy—and needs to be pulled into line.

Labor has put Australia on course for four consecutive record budget deficits totalling almost $120 billion. The debt legacy for future generations is humungous. It is in fact Whitlamesque in scope. According to the figures set out in the Economist magazine, this spending is in the order of 6.4 per cent of GDP, which is around double the average of the OECD countries. So why is it that we are spending at that level and going into that level of debt and deficit?

Interestingly, the United States President, Barack Obama, last week amended his economic stimulus plan to include tax cuts and tax credits, a proposal put up by his political opponents. President Obama met with his political opponents to discuss and negotiate the package. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, and the Liberals have been recommending tax cuts that will help deliver a longer term rather than just a short-term benefit. And, interestingly, I am advised that nearly every other OECD country that has put forward an economic stimulus package has one that includes tax cuts. It includes tax cuts. But Mr Rudd, with his arrogant, take-it-or-leave-it approach, will not even consider the Liberals’ suggestion. President Obama’s package was reviewed and scrutinised in the United States congress for weeks, but Mr Rudd demanded his $42 billion spending spree be passed, without scrutiny, within 48 hours. That is almost $1 billion per hour of debating time. It is outrageous—and Mr Rudd and the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, were not even present for the vote. Proper debate and scrutiny by the Senate was opposed by Labor. We are certainly looking forward to the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration and the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on the package, and they will be delivered later tonight.

I also wanted to refer to the independent assessment of the package released by the US Congressional Budget Office. It showed the package would have some short-term positive effects, as well as an increase in public debt and a reduction in welfare services. What this means is that life is full of choices, and from choices flow actions and consequences. There are trade-offs depending on the choices we make.

In short, Mr Rudd, known by some as King Kevin, believes that government knows best. He says this spending is patriotic, that it is the Australian way, and any criticism or opposition should be condemned. Mr Rudd says that his $42 billion cash splash will support more than 90,000 jobs, but he has no evidence to back this up, and Labor are not willing to even sit down and talk about it. The Prime Minister wants more government intervention so long as he is handing out the spondoolies. Rudd Labor has a proclivity to that old-fashioned, big-government prejudice.

What is so special about the number ‘42 billion’? There is no modelling available to support it, other than the government’s assurance that it will support—not create; support—90,000 jobs. As my personal assistant said just a day or so ago, the number 42 could be Mr Rudd’s favourite keno number; alternatively, it could be the answer to the meaning of the universe, if one reads The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy! So there you are. Why is it so special?

Comments

No comments