Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I want to thank all of those members who have taken part in the debate throughout the evening and, of course, into the wee hours of this morning. This is an important debate on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Of course, there is no doubting the severity of the global recession or the significance of the plan that we have put before the Australian people, and of course this debate has reflected the seriousness of the challenges that are facing Australia today, but there is unfortunately much doubt over the opposition’s commitment to jobs during this global crisis. In the last 24 hours we have witnessed a new first from an opposition leader and an opposition in this parliament. The opposition leader is the first opposition leader ever to come into this place and tell the Australian people that he is voting for higher unemployment—for less work for all Australians. That is a first in this parliament. That is the essence of the opposition’s position. That is the essence of the position from every one of his colleagues who have spoken in this debate right through tonight.

We have heard a lot of reasons why those opposite cannot support the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and cognate bills, but very little of it has been based on practical reality or policy reality. Very little of it has been based on any objective evidence whatsoever, because the overwhelming evidence from around the world, from expert bodies like the IMF, is absolutely unanimous: act now or face higher unemployment and slower growth for longer. Of course, the penny has not dropped with those opposite. The longer you wait, the greater the output loss—that is the evidence—and the greater the human damage that comes with that output loss. But those opposite are completely indifferent to the human damage that their approach will cause.

Of course, in the face of this evidence you can only conclude that the opposition’s bloody-minded and obstructionist approach is either blind ideology or simply a crude dash for naked political advantage at the expense of the Australian national interest. Shame on them! Their actions in this House today can do nothing but create greater uncertainty when, of course, the times demand certainty from our public officials. They demand certainty, not uncertainty and not the naked dash for political advantage that we have seen from those opposite in the House right through this very long night. Their actions in the House yesterday and today can only create greater uncertainty, the last thing that the Australian economy needs in the circumstances of a global recession.

I have listened through the night to all of their confected arguments: the arguments that they had not been briefed and that the legislation was denied to them. They are all false—nothing but a ruse to camouflage their naked power plays, their naked political objectives and their selfish, blind, ideological objection to anything that promotes the welfare and employment of the Australian people. How else do you explain their actions in all of these circumstances—that they would take this stance in the face of the strong opposition even of the business community? Last night I came back from a meeting of the Business Council of Australia in Melbourne. There was strong support for the government’s package. They understand how high the stakes are, but those opposite are so out of touch that they simply have not got a clue what they are doing in this debate.

The Leader of the Opposition is saying to business and to the broader Australian community that the country must simply stand still and mark time. That is what he is saying. We do not have any time to waste. We do not have time to waste just to suit the political timetable of the Leader of the Opposition. If waiting causes damage, he just says, ‘Bad luck.’ That is the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. This is really just about Malcolm Turnbull and his political objectives. It is not about the national interest or the Australian people. How else do you explain the blatant disregard in their opposition to the interests of low-income earners who will benefit from this package and who need the certainty in the environment that we are in at the moment? It is evident in his complete disregard for the truth when he talks about deficits and spending. There is a bitter irony here, because the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward a proposal for a permanent tax cut that would send the budget even further into deficit into the future permanently.

See this speech in context