Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

As has been indicated by Senator Abetz, the government circulated two amendments during the previous contribution on this discussion in the committee stage. I thought it important that Senator Abetz and the opposition be shown the courtesy of being able to see those amendments for a period of time. He has obviously had the opportunity to read them, given the context of his question.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and seek leave to move the amendments circulated to the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet QC294:

(1)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 24), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(2)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 26), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(3)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 32), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(4)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 2), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(5)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 9), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(6)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 18), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

I wish to make some comments to the amendments to the Household Stimulus Package Bill. In response to the spreading and serious crisis in the world financial and economic system, as has been reflected by the increasing number of economies around the world that are moving into recession—and ever deepening recession—the Rudd government has made it very clear that it is committed to delivering a significant fiscal package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, of some $42 billion. This plan is absolutely necessary if we are to support the economy, jobs and growth during this period of deepening global economic recession—the deepest global economic recession that we have seen since World War II.

So 2009 is going to be a tough year, but the Rudd Labor government does not want to make it a tougher year. That is the essential reason for presenting this $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It provides immediate support for jobs, and it invests in the long-term economic growth of this country. Yet we have a position from those opposite, the Liberal-National Party, of trying at every turn to prevent the passage of this stimulus package. This package is an essential stimulus to protect the Australian economy, to which the Liberal-National Party’s response is: ‘No. Do nothing’—and in that classic description from the shadow Treasurer, Ms Bishop—‘Let’s just wait and see.’ The Rudd Labor government is not going to wait and see how serious the economic downturn will become. We are not going to wait and see. We are acting decisively.

The Liberal-National Party have decided the challenge ahead should just wait. They have no response. They have decided to continue their legacy—a pattern of underinvestment in our nation’s infrastructure. The Rudd government is not prepared to play politics with Australian jobs or the Australian economy, and this has meant securing the support of the minor parties and the Independents. The Rudd government has made some additions to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to ensure the passage of this important plan. They include making some changes to the size of some of the targeted payments to ensure that the package remains fiscally responsible.

The amendments to the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 that I am speaking to will reduce the amount of the single-income family bonus by $50. This means that single-income families who receive family tax benefit part B will receive a $900 bonus to complement the tax bonus for working Australians, which will also be reduced by $50. That is the next amendment we will consider.

The single-income family bonus is a payment complementary to the tax bonus to assist families who have only one income earner. Families with two income earners will receive two payments of the tax bonus. The adjustment balances the requirement for fiscal responsibility with the need to deliver fiscal stimulus now. I point out that most other comparable countries are delivering substantial fiscal packages.