Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Leader of the National Party made an important point there a moment ago, and I think it underpins some of the debate on this particular issue. The globe has not been in these circumstances before. A lot of the debate that we have been having has been based on what we have considered as normal economic conditions in terms of the last 20 to 30 to 40 years. The Leader of the National Party made the point that nobody really knows what will happen. No-one knew a year ago that Lehman Brothers would do what they did. No-one knew that there would be a virtual total collapse of the American economy. No-one thought that the growth rate in China would halve. People such as captains of business, economists and people in this building—I myself indeed—assumed that the growth that was being experienced would be experienced into the future. That has not happened, and I think if we were to keep looking at this package in terms of what we would normally do in relation to building the economy, I would not support this package either. But I will be supporting this package. In the last few days we have seen the parliament come together in this building and actually agree on something. We have also seen probably the worst activity of the parliamentary process in these days as well, particularly in relation to establishing or destabilising the confidence of people in our economy.

What the people wanted out of this was a process where both sides of the parliament agreed that there was a problem—and they do. There is a global problem. The world is saying that and we are saying it. No-one disputes that. The Prime Minister does not. The Leader of the Opposition does not. But we have this argument over this package. There is basic agreement that the economy needs an injection of sugar. If the honourable member for Kennedy were here, he would probably take that literally! But the economy needs an injection. Both sides of the parliament agree. I do not know what size that injection should be, and I do not think anybody in the building does, but I think we are in a situation where we are forced to take advice from people who might have a clue—and some of our Treasury people, in my view, are worth listening to. That is the only thing we can do.

I would spend this money differently. I agree with the school funding—I think that is good. The Leader of the Opposition does not disagree with the target of the strategy—we need an injection in the short term so that we can smooth out some bumps in the economy. Whether that injection is too big or too small, we do not know, but if it is too small it will be a complete waste of time to do it, in some senses. The injection of funds into schools—the 9,500 primary schools or whatever it is—will deliver something in terms of infrastructure. But again we really do not know what that is going to do in terms of unemployment et cetera. I imagine that it would be a positive.

The injection of funds into the councils—and I applaud the government on a previous arrangement in relation to that—is an injection into the communities. They will spend that money quickly on infrastructure. Admittedly it is not the Great Northern Railway line, it is not things that will take 10 years to build, but it will be infrastructure—social infrastructure and important infrastructure—in those communities. I do not see the opposition disagreeing with that strategy. There is a slight variation on the Pink Batts agenda, as to whether we encourage energy efficiency through the Pink Batts arrangement the government has got or through a slightly different version of the same thing that the opposition would do.

Where the real difference seems to come in is in terms of the cash handouts, which I am led to believe are about 25 per cent of the total package. So, in a sense, we have agreement about most of it. There is a little bit of difference in scale and some issue with the cash handouts. I do not think the government has really done enough to explain why that has to happen. My understanding is that this is about trying to inject money into the economy quickly. There is this debate about tax cuts and whether they would work and whether an injection frightens people so that they save the money instead of spend it. If they listened to this debate, they would be frightened. I am frightened! The parliament has not engendered confidence in the people through the debate.

There are two agendas running here. I think there were two mistakes made quite early. One was made by the government, asking the parliament to debate and decide on something as big as this in a hurry and dividing the parliament in the wee hours of the morning. I understand the strategy, but I think it was a bad ploy in terms of gaining the confidence of the people. And it gave the opposition an area to move in terms of another reason to oppose it.

The other mistake, in my view, was made by the Leader of the Opposition, when he dealt himself out of the game. It was very important, in my view, that the opposition stayed within the game, because we have established that they agree with virtually three-quarters of the package—there is some wiggle room in terms of the application of it. But, if they had stayed in the debate and moved worthwhile amendments and tried to improve or modify the legislation, they might well have been able to establish a better policy than the one that is there.

But, there again, they would have to establish their credentials for why they think that particular package will work and the government’s will not, and they have not done that, in my view. Both sides of this parliament agree there should be a package. There is a problem; there is a wave coming towards us—a cyclone, as I think the Prime Minister said. There is something coming towards us, and we are worried about it. It has something to do with economic growth, something to do with our trading position and something to do with employment. I do not think anybody, Ken Henry or any of us in this room, knows the magnitude of it. But I will be supporting this package and, as I said—

See this speech in context