Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Well, we’ll get to it. I think that, through the scrutiny of this parliament rather than just the executive being belligerent and getting their package through, we have now seen, hopefully, confidence in what should be approved tonight.

On the issue of the alternative package, I listen and I wait strategically for amendments, but I do not accept a position of just voting no. I think: if there is an alternative package that is being promoted in the media then stump up and give us, the crossbenchers, and others in this chamber the opportunity to try and support it, negotiate on it and get the best outcome for the community. But, at the moment, nothing has been brought forward to this chamber to talk about, to negotiate on and therefore to promote.

The third point is the point about debt, and I think that is a fair point for all members of this chamber to consider, because it is a strong consideration for anyone who is thinking about the future. But the key moment for me, and I would hope for many people, over the last fortnight—it has been mentioned over dispatches in the debate tonight—was the evidence from Ken Henry, the Treasury secretary, last Thursday night. I thought he did an outstanding job in calmly and gently but passionately and rationally building the case to justify this package. He took questions from the coalition, from the Greens and from Independent senators and, I thought, batted away the questions brilliantly and promoted the case that this is necessary.

Remember that the reason I mention Ken Henry is that he owns the surplus as much as everyone else and he has as much to lose with regard to going into debt as anyone else. He has been the guard dog of the Treasury for the coalition and now is the guard dog of the Treasury for the Labor government. His advice on Thursday night, I thought, was strong, and I do not understand why his advice is now being ignored by those opposed to the package. There is a layman’s saying: ‘Why even have a guard dog if you want to bark yourself?’ That is something for reflection by anyone who is opposed to this. The apolitical advice from the head of the Treasury, one of the most eminent public servants in this nation, is strong and does build the case.

To conclude, I believe that the arguments not to pass this bill are weak but the arguments to pass this bill are strong. I therefore ask members of this chamber—not as Labor, not as Liberal, not as National, not as Independents but as private members of the people’s chamber reviewing a package from the executive, which was confidently explained last Thursday night by one of Australia’s most eminent public servants, the Treasury head Ken Henry—and colleagues in the other place to pass this legislation. Without question, it is needed. And now is the time.

Question put:

That this bill be now read a second time.

See this speech in context