Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Today we had the release of the new so-called fiscal package. The only way that we can judge this current package is on the last one. That is the only way that we can with some semblance of veracity work out what this package might do. I note the claims that were made before the release of the last package. It was claimed that it was going to create 75,000 jobs but we now know that those jobs do not exist. It was a flop; it was a fiasco. The Australian people were taken for a ride. The debt is there—we have to pay that back—but the package had no real effect.

I noted one of the last questions asked by one of the reporters of Mr Rudd today. They asked how this package related to current IR policy and the ETS. He conveniently talked about IR doctrine but deliberately ignored the ramifications of the ETS on Australian working families and on jobs because he knows, we know, you know and Mr Howes from the AWU knows that it will put people out of work. The reality is that it will be completely regressive on the whole concept of keeping people in work. The Labor Party selectively feign concern about the economy, but at the same time they are belligerent and maligning in that they wish to go forward and put people out of work by reason of a new tax which will be completely regressive and will dampen down the Australian economy. That is a fact. They cannot possibly bring in a tax on all things without putting people out of work.

Now we have this morphing of the lexicon by the Labor Party. They are no longer creating jobs; they are ‘supporting’ jobs, whatever that means. So, of the 10,749,400 people who were in work in December, which ones will actually be supported or, if there are only 90,000 people still in work at the end of the day, will Labor say, ‘They were the ones we were supporting’? It is a very rubbery and deceitful way to go about delivering a supposed outcome to the Australian people. Then we have this fanciful and ridiculous idea that we are going to reinvigorate the economy through ceiling insulation. It has become Disneyland stuff, the idea that we are going to have armies of green people ascending through people’s roofs to bring back to Australia a sense of economic balance and hope.

These are the sorts of things that we see at the front end of this package. We also see at the front end that this package is going to be about schools. The government are going to build multipurpose halls as a way of reinvigorating the Australian economy. It is a great metaphor, but is it actually going to do it? These are the questions that the coalition will be asking. We demand on behalf of the Australian people that you not waste this $42 billion like you wasted the last lot of money in the last stimulus package. We demand the capacity to do this job in the Senate and to make sure that you are held to account. We will not be railroaded into this moral sense of, ‘We demand that you agree to this right now and, if you do, everything will be fine.’ We see what Senator Evans is up to. He said it today. He said, ‘But you agreed to the first fiscal stimulus package.’ I hate to inform him that some of us did not. Overall, there was a sense of scepticism and a sense of trust that you would do the right thing, but you did not. There was no modelling on the last package. From what we can see at this point in time, there has been no modelling on this one, just fanciful ideas and ridiculous little trinkets bundled up into a package and forced on us to give the Australian people the sense that you are doing something. Doing something does not necessarily mean doing the right thing. What will be determined by the proper process of this Senate is whether you are doing the right thing.

We can see right now the battles that are going on in the Labor Party as the Labor states line up to basically just take the money and put it in their bank accounts. You say, ‘We are going to stand up to the states.’ You have not so far; you have been unable to stop the buck going anywhere. You have these mountains of debts in state governments who are chewing your head off. Now we have the true question of whether this government has the capacity to deliver to its people basic services such as rail and health. The fact is that services are falling to pieces around the ears of the Australian Labor Party. That is what is going on. If you are going to ride roughshod over the Australian budget and take the Australian people— (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it extremely interesting that the coalition nominated Senator Joyce to speak in this taking-note debate on such an important day—the announcement of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support jobs. To me, that is a clear indication that the Liberal opposition has little to say in response to our nation-building package. I presume that this equates to some kind of support, so I look forward to hearing what other contributors to this debate say this afternoon. This package is unprecedented because we are facing an unprecedented crisis. The Labor response has been comprehensive and forward thinking with substance to try to address the crisis here in Australia.

We know from the contributions of my colleagues during question time that our tax receipts have been reduced—in part, obviously, because of the slowing of the economy but particularly because of the slowing of the global economy and the impact on our capacity to engage and sell our exports. We are faced with a global recession, having already pushed our budget into deficit even before we take this decisive policy action with the $42 billion package announced today.

This package is historic, it is visionary and it targets all of the key areas designed to assist Australia in getting through this difficult time. But it does so with an eye to the future. The focus on Building the Education Revolution and investing in our schools is unmatched. We know there has been investment in schools’ programs before, but never to the degree that has been proposed by federal Labor today and never with the degree of integration with the roles that schools play in our respective communities. Some of the elements of that particular package and Building the Education Revolution include large-scale infrastructure investments in libraries and halls in primary schools, special schools and K-12 schools across Australia to the tune of $12.4 billion. Having worked in the sport portfolio and the local government portfolio previously, I can tell you that this is so needed in communities, whether they be outer metropolitan, inner city, regional or rural. It is this kind of investment that stitches communities together. By targeting this particular package in this way, not only will we drive opportunities for local businesses and jobs but also we will provide the kind of social infrastructure that will allow these communities to consolidate, build and grow through very difficult economic times.

I congratulate my colleagues on the thoughtfulness that underpins the announcements today. This is in stark contrast to what we have heard from the opposition—certainly from Senator Joyce but also I presume from the coalition opposition generally. For whatever reason, they decided to have a climate change deniers’ rant on this important day instead of discussing the primary issue and focus of question time today, which was the state of the economy and Labor’s second stimulus package. Why on earth they chose not to focus on these critical issues I do not know.

I know my colleagues will address some of the other issues, but in summary, yes, there is an investment package for building insulation. Why? Because we are facing several challenges at the moment. One of them, of course, is the global financial crisis and the impact on our economy, but another one is climate change. How clever and how forward-thinking is it to not only combine the two and look at stimulating the economy but also rectify the significant problem of energy inefficiency in our suburban homes? The insulation program is perfectly designed to address both of those issues in a thoughtful and visionary way that will stimulate jobs where they are needed during economically tough times. I would also like to mention the investment into housing of 20,000 new social and defence homes, again targeting where the need is at a time when we need to stimulate jobs and to specifically resolve a social crisis that the Rudd government has identified as a priority area. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi asked a very simple but important question in question time today: how many jobs were created as a result of the government’s first stimulus package? Had any jobs been created the answer would have been a very simple one, but what do we have? We have the minister standing there for two minutes rambling on about how the stimulus package had protected jobs. In other words, no new jobs were created. And I hasten to tell the minister that there is a big difference between protecting jobs and creating jobs, especially when the Prime Minister of Australia told the people of Australia last year that the first stimulus package would add 75,000 jobs. It does not auger well for Labor’s second stimulus package. Actions speak louder than words. How things have changed.

After only 14 months of Rudd and Labor, Australia is less prosperous, our economy is rapidly getting weaker and the outlook for Australian families is more uncertain than ever. The Rudd government are not measuring up. All we hear from Mr Rudd is blame-shifting. They tell us that jobs are being lost due to the global financial crisis and, most recently in Mr Rudd’s latest essay, the neoliberal policy of wave after wave of tax cuts. Since when have tax cuts been bad for the economy? Of course there is a global financial crisis; we all acknowledge that. However, it is the gross mismanagement by the Labor government and their policy approach to the global financial crisis that have resulted in the Australian economy being where it is today.

On this side of the chamber we advocate that every element of government policy should be focused on effective measures which will ensure that employment in Australia remains high, not focused on measures that will result in jobs being lost. On this side we believe in policies that will create jobs, not destroy jobs. However, despite the current economic environment, the Labor Party continues to introduce policies that are irresponsible and will result in job losses, despite its rhetoric about the creation of jobs.

Those opposite are ignoring the lessons of incompetent past Labor governments. You cannot spend your way out of trouble. You are introducing policies that will do long-term harm to Australia and Australians. Look at your approach to industrial relations; look at your approach to an emissions trading scheme—they are policies that will result in job losses. In fact it was farcical to hear the Prime Minister, today, say, ‘It would take my breath away for the government to consider new taxes during a time of economic crisis.’ Has he conveniently forgotten his plan to slug Australians with one of the biggest new taxes we have ever seen—the ETS? The coalition is committed to one of the most important objectives of economic management in ensuring that every Australian has the opportunity to work, which is a fundamental responsibility of responsible government.

Let me say it slowly again for those on the other side of the chamber, who do not seem able to grasp the most basic filter against which all policies need to be implemented: jobs, jobs, jobs. And I mean job creation, not job losses. What are those on the other side committed to? We all know; we experienced it last year—spin over substance. Australia was in a position of strength at the outset of the global financial crisis thanks to the sound economic management of the former Howard government and Peter Costello. What do we have now? You on the other side have destroyed the Australian economy. It is not an achievement to be proud of. I will quote your Prime Minister on Sky News today:

… nobody likes being in deficit.

And I don’t like being in deficit at all …

This is not a question of choice. This is what we are required to do.

Just remember, Mr Rudd, this is your deficit—it is of your own making and because of your mismanagement of the economy. Stop blaming the global financial crisis, start taking responsibility and start creating policies that create jobs, not destroy them. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very curious to hear the opposition trying to find their way around the economy and the economic package. They acknowledge that there is a global financial crisis, but then they say that Australia should be totally immune from it, that there should not be any job losses and that there should not be any impact on the budget. They imply that the Rudd government has caused this situation. I presume that they will get their strategy sorted out eventually. It is very interesting to hear the Liberal Party talk about these kinds of issues and make grand statements like ‘not spending your way out of a crisis’ while not actually addressing what the government is doing, saying what is specifically wrong with the stimulus package that they supported last year, or putting forward proposals which they believe would create jobs. As I said, I look forward to hearing their response when they have sorted out their views on the economy and the economic package.

The Rudd government has today announced a $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This Nation Building and Jobs Plan will protect, support and create jobs because it is a very well-targeted package. It is well targeted to those very areas that the former government did not address when it had money rolling in. The terms of trade were excellent, we had a resources boom, had a good global financial situation and had money rolling in in the form of taxes. What it did not address was infrastructure, training, education or an environmental strategy. In developing this package, the Rudd government is not only responding to the current global financial crisis but also making sure that those things that were neglected previously are not neglected this time, despite the handicap it faces of a global downturn.

The lack of work on infrastructure around Australia meant that Australia did not benefit in the way it could have from its export potential and from its job creation potential during the time of the former government. This applies even more so to training and education. It was acknowledged that there was an acute crisis in not only building and construction trades but also other areas like engineering and science. We just did not have enough of these people to ensure that we took advantage of those good economic conditions during the time of the former government. Further, the former government did not ensure in any way that its environmental strategy meant a sustainable future and continued economic growth for Australians.

The government’s plan not only addresses the fact that we will have a $115 billion hit on our budget revenues but also makes sure that we will be well placed in the future to recover from the current economic situation and go on to build a stronger Australia. The jobs plan provides immediate support for jobs and growth in our economy. It will stimulate growth of about a half of one per cent of GDP in 2008-09 and of around three-quarters to one per cent in 2009-10. It will support up to 90,000 jobs over the next two years. That is a wonderful achievement when we see Europe, the United States and China in dire economic circumstances. There are countries around the world that are already in recession, and some of them are almost in economic meltdown. The fact that our government can put together a package that will mean we will have that kind of result over the next couple of years is an excellent response.

The forecast budget deficit for 2008-09 is $22.5 billion, or 1.9 per cent of GDP. Australia will have to go into deficit to allow this package to be implemented, but the government is committed to restoring the economic situation. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today to take note of the answers by Senator Evans to questions from Senator Bernardi regarding jobs and specifically the number of jobs created as a result of the first economic stimulus package announced before the last election and implemented by the Rudd Labor government. It was a simple question: how many jobs were created? And the good senator was unable to answer that question. In fact, he fumbled and gave a spiel that went on and on, without providing any answer—not even an estimate.

Prior to the election, the Prime Minister announced that the economic stimulus package would add 75,000 Australian jobs to the Australian economy. This is a point that Senator Cash made well and persuasively in her contribution to the Senate. Seventy-five thousand jobs is a lot of jobs, and they would deliver growth and development and good results for 75,000 families. That would have been a good thing, but it has not eventuated. We do not know exactly how many jobs have flowed from the package, and even the government do not know.

One of the key points here is that the government have not done their homework. They have not done their modelling. They have not done the research. We are concerned that the package was a knee-jerk reaction. We are concerned—and this is a growing trend with the Rudd Labor government—that it is all spin and no substance. The government are into the headlines and the quick political fix. They are good on the PR to get the headlines and attract media attention, but in terms of delivering long-term solutions—growth, development, jobs and security for Australian families—they are deficient big time.

An example in the last 10 days of these flaws was the announcement of the Ruddbank. It was a 1½ page media release announcing a $4 billion initiative, which comprises equity from the Australian government—taxpayers’ money of $2 billion—and equity from the banks of $2 billion,. It will provide from $26 billion to $30 billion for commercial property loans into the future. This announcement was made in a 1½ page media release. There was no detail, no homework, no modelling and no evidence to support that this was the way to go. The Prime Minister announced at the time that this initiative would save 50,000 Australian jobs. Where is the evidence of that? Where is the evidence that jobs are either going to be created or going to be saved?

They have been found out with respect to the first economic stimulus package. ‘Seventy-five thousand jobs will be created.’ Well, they have not been created. Where are those jobs? In terms of that first economic stimulus package, let me just ask this question. I understand, based on the figures provided by the government, that an estimated $50 million has been paid to some 70,000 Australians overseas. Well, the package was designed to stimulate the Australian economy, not overseas economies. So what is the rationale behind providing those funds? Surely the Australian economy should be the focus, the objective—not overseas economies. I hope the government has a good answer to that. Is there a need for a review of our policies in this regard? An estimated $50 million of taxpayers’ money has gone overseas as part of that economic stimulus package.

With respect to the Ruddbank, I think it is very much a dud and a dodgy proposal. It seems to me to be, indeed, anticompetitive. Why is it not anticompetitive, when the funds are only going to the four big banks? This will help the big banks. Yes, it may create one or two jobs at the big banks and it will certainly, it seems, help commercial property developers. But what about the mums and dads, the normal families out there that need support during this time of insecurity created in large part, in substantial part, by the Rudd Labor government. There is little evidence to support the merit of the Ruddbank proposal. This government should be aware of that from statements in the Financial Review today. The editorial was scathing in some of its observations. It says this about the 50,000 jobs:

ABIP has generated confusion and mistrust—

that is, the Ruddbank—

partly because Prime Minister Kevin Rudd chose to sell the initiative as one to save 50,000 property-related jobs. That is not the goal— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.