Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills this evening. The bills are intended to support the government’s stimulus package, for want of a better word. When I first was re-elected to this House, I made a commitment to the electors of Canning that I would do the best I could to ensure that they—many in my electorate are low socioeconomic earners—would be able to keep as much as they could of the moneys that they earned. Some people would loosely call this the group of the working poor. Not many people would actually appreciate that tag, but it describes a group of low socioeconomic people who are just above the basic wage, who are above the dole and who want to work. One of the things that we can do for this group of people who have a great work ethic and want to work is to allow them, when they work, to keep as much of the moneys that they earn as possible. This is called incentive.

I think incentive is something quite fabulous, because it motivates people to be in the workforce and to have all the right intentions about earning funds to buy their own home, to support their own families et cetera. One of the best ways you can do this is to ensure that taxes are lower. We as the previous government made sure that we lowered the thresholds so that more people could keep a greater amount of moneys that they earned. When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, spoke this morning on this legislation, he made it quite clear that we were not just saying that we did not support the bill in toto, that there were elements of the bill—for example, the schools initiative—that were quite fine but that it had missed many other targets that the community has expectations about. He pointed out that tax cuts were an alternative arrangement. We have heard a raft of people in this place today pooh-poohing tax cuts. They do not quite understand that tax cuts go to all earning Australians. It is a fair way of redistributing wealth and income, because it allows the people who earn funds to keep more of them. I think my commitment to the people of the electorate of Canning, in saying that I would support their ability to keep as much of the moneys that they earn as possible, is deliverable through tax cuts. It is a very sensible measure, and it is an alternative that we have offered up today and that we continue to put on the plate.

We are in crucial economic times both internationally and nationally, yet Australia is going to weather this storm better than any other country. We might ask why. We will not go through all the reasons, but anyone here with half an ounce of understanding of where this economy has been in the last 10 years would understand that when the Howard government first came to the treasury bench in this place it inherited a massive debt of $96 billion. It took almost 11½ years to pay off. Then there was a $10 billion Beazley black hole, as we called it, in their budget forecasts. So that added to the problems. By the time the coalition had left government not only was the economy in such sound condition that it was called the ‘wonder down under’ but also there was no government debt; it had all been retired. In fact there was a $22 billion government surplus and there was a $60 billion Future Fund, providing for liabilities into the future.

When the Rudd government decided to address the global crisis, which engulfed the rest of the world earlier this year, they spent half of the surplus. We thought: ‘That’s right. The surplus has been preserved. In these sorts of times it is probably a logical move to make.’ But what we did not expect was the stimulation on the stimulation. While I am on stimulations, I tend to concur with the tongue-in-cheek comment made by Andrew Bolt this morning when he said that the biggest stimulation he got out of today was seeing Mitchell Johnson’s partner, Jessica Bratich, at cricket’s Allan Border Medal presentation last night. I must say, I tend to agree with him, looking at the photo in the paper. Some people see the stimulus package in quite a different light. For example, today in this House I met one of my constituents, who had his young disabled son here too. My constituent said:

I can’t understand this. I’m going to be getting this money. I’m happy to take the money, but they’re throwing it around like confetti. It’s a bit of a worry, isn’t it?

Another constituent, from Canning Vale, emailed me tonight and he said:

As a member of your electorate, I would like to say to your current government money handouts are a slap in the face for someone who works hard. I do all the overtime I can to make money. This takes me over $80,000 for the handouts. I should go on the dole or work minimum hours like others do. I do not pay a premium in tax for the government to give it out to people they think need it. What about those who pay the tax? The government apparently does not care about us. Perhaps I should claim a deduction on next year’s tax for the money.

A very unhappy taxpayer: Mr Williamson from Canning Vale. I will be telling Mr Williamson from Canning Vale that it is not my government, I did not support them and I will explain to him that they are throwing the money around like confetti. In Western Australia some years ago, before he passed away, there was a bloke called Naughty Don Rogers, a car salesman—probably in the same vein as the Prime Minister. He used to stand there in the ads saying: ‘I’m going mad with money. I’m throwing money around. Come and get the money.’ This is what is happening: the government are going mad with money and they are throwing it around the place just like confetti, in many irresponsible sorts of ways. We do not prescribe to the Naughty Don theory of throwing money around. We think it should be well targeted and well advised.

See this speech in context