Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008, the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009. Unlike the opposition, I rise to support these bills and to also speak in favour these bills. These bills put in place key components of the government’s $10.4 billion economic security package as part of its response to the global financial crisis.

Over the last few months we have seen an upheaval in the world’s financial markets which has resulted in the deterioration of global financial conditions. Originating from the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States, this crisis has had rippling effects across the globe. As a result of the financial crisis we have seen developed economies around the world experiencing a slowdown that is filtering through and impacting our economy. (Quorum formed) Despite the Australian financial system being in a strong position, Australian institutions have not been immune from global events and this has had an effect on financial institutions and has resulted in flow-on effects to our real economy.

It has not only been the developed economies around the world that have been affected by the global financial crisis. Developing economies are also being affected. An example of this is China. In recent days China has taken action to stimulate their economy with a package worth more than $8 billion. In response to the worsening economic conditions around the globe, the Rudd government has acted quickly and decisively to put in place fiscal policy designed to strengthen the Australian economy, to create new jobs, to stimulate the housing market and to help those most in need. Part of the government’s swift response has been the introduction of a $10.4 billion stimulus package, of which these bills are a key component. This package is designed to strengthen the Australian economy but also to provide financial assistance to those in our community who need it most. The Rudd government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy has five key measures. The first is a $4.8 billion immediate down payment for pensioners; the second is a $3.9 billion support payment for low- and middle-income families; the third is a $1.5 billion investment to help first home buyers to purchase a home; the fourth is $187 million to create new training places; and the fifth is an acceleration of the implementation of the three nation-building funds.

This package is a significant economic response to deal with extraordinary economic times. The government has been able to fund this package though the surplus it built into the 2008-09 budget. In May the Rudd government made tough decisions to ensure that there was a strong budget surplus to act as buffer in tough economic times. This decision has allowed it to respond to these emerging difficult economic times. Let us not forget that many of the budget measures that consolidated this surplus were opposed by the opposition, who wanted to play cheap politics with the budget process. The budget surplus has ensured that the Rudd government has the capacity to act quickly to implement our economic security package.

As I have mentioned previously, the government has targeted its economic stimulus package at those in our community who need financial assistance the most. Our pensioners, carers and families will all receive financial assistance through a one-off lump sum payment to be delivered from 8 December this year. I know that pensioners are doing it tough and through this Economic Security Strategy this government is providing immediate financial help. However, this initial down payment does not detract from the commitment of the Rudd government to long-term pension reform. Unlike the previous government’s lump sum payments, no group of pensioners will be missing out. Many disability pensioners and other groups of pensioners were very annoyed when they were not included in the coalition’s proposal to increase the rate of the single age pension. It seemed to them that the coalition did not understand that all pensioners were doing it tough. I, along with the rest of this government, have listened to those pensioners and understand that pensioners such as disability support pensioners deserve assistance too. I am therefore pleased that this government will be providing lump sum payments of $1,400 to single pensioners and $2,100 to pensioner couples. In addition, recipients of carers allowance will receive $1,000 for each eligible person in their care.

Providing assistance to families is also a priority for the government and as part of the Economic Security Package we are providing $1,000 for each eligible child to families who receive family tax benefit A. Additionally, families and dependent children who receive Youth Allowance, ABSTUDY or benefits from the veterans’ children scheme will get a $1,000 one-off payment. In my electorate of Kingston over 43,000 residents will receive assistance through these lump sum payments. This includes: over 15,000 age pensioners and self-funded retirees; over 7,000 recipients of the disability support pension; and over 1,000 recipients of carers payments. In addition, in my electorate almost 4,000 recipients of the carers allowance will be assisted with $1,000 for each person in their care. (Quorum formed)

I am disappointed that the opposition does not want to hear about all the families in my electorate of Kingston who are going to benefit significantly from this very important package. In total, more than 15,000 families in my electorate will receive the payment of $1,000 for each of their children. These announcements have been warmly welcomed by my constituents and could not have come at a better time.

I know from going around my electorate speaking to pensioners that they have been finding it difficult to make ends meet as, week by week, the cost of living and accommodation prices have been steadily on the rise. I received a letter from Mr and Mrs Snowden of Hallett Cove, who wrote to say that they are delighted with the $2,100 payment to be received in December. They told me that they will spend this money on clothing, which they say they have been unable to afford on their current pension rate. Mrs Snowden writes that, with the rising cost of food and utilities, they end up spending their entire pension each fortnight, and now they will be able to afford to buy some new clothes. They are looking forward to the lump sum payment and are further looking forward to the pension review which will be carried out in February 2009.

I have also received overwhelming support from families in my electorate who have welcomed the announcement of these payments. Many parents have commented to me that, because of the increased cost-of-living pressures, Christmas celebrations this year were looking quite bleak. This boost will provide some assistance at this expensive time of year. Other parents have indicated they will use the money to get their kids prepared for the next school year by buying books, uniforms, shoes and stationery.

A central element of the Rudd government’s economic security package is a boost for first home buyers designed to stimulate housing activity and provide first home buyers with a better chance of entering the housing market. First home buyers are set to benefit enormously from the package, which doubles the first home owners grant to $14,000 for established homes and triples the grant to $21,000 for newly constructed homes. The housing sector is a critical part of the Australian economy, and it is estimated that this boost will help more than 150,000 first home buyers enter the housing market. This announcement has been welcomed by developers in my electorate whom I spoke with last week. They indicated that they have already seen this measure really improving their business.

I recently spoke in parliament about the crisis in housing affordability in my electorate and right around Australia. Housing affordability is an issue that is brought up with me all the time. Many people have found that the prospect of achieving that great Australian dream of owning their own home is out of their grasp. Parents also bring up this issue with me, with many concerned that their adult children and their grandchildren will not be able to afford to buy a house. This homebuyers measure as part of our economic security package, in conjunction with the Rudd government’s other housing policies, is targeted directly at helping more Australians own their own home.

The Rudd government’s economic security package provides $187 million to create 56,000 new productivity training places. These places will provide training and retraining opportunities for many workers to gain certificates II, III and IV in areas of skills shortages. Finally, our economic security package includes fast-tracking our nation-building agenda and accelerating the implementation of our three nation-building funds in the areas of education and research; health and hospitals; and transport and communications.

In the face of this global financial crisis, the Rudd government is taking decisive and responsible action. This is in stark contrast to the actions of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition’s immediate response to the financial crisis was that it was ‘hyped up’. The opposition now say that they want to take a bipartisan approach to the global financial crisis and support the government’s actions, but at the same time they continually criticise and talk down every part of our approach. Whether it is criticism of the government’s guarantee for bank deposits or of our economic security package, as we have seen in this debate in the House today, or the latest criticism which I read today in the Adelaide Advertiser where the Leader of the Opposition now opposes the lump sum payments that have been warmly welcomed by people in my electorate, or the attacks we have seen on the independent financial regulators—it all points to one fact: the opposition want to have it both ways. They want to say they support this package because they believe it is the right thing to do, but they want to snipe and criticise every part of this package because they want to gain political points. At no time have the opposition provided an alternative solution or suggestion. We have heard in this debate that they have been making suggestions and raising ideas. However, I have yet to see any of those suggestions or ideas put down on the table. This all points to the fact—

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

The bells being rung—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: a distinguished predecessor of yours, the then member for Page, Mr Causley, ruled that there could only be two quorums called on any one speaker on the basis that insufficient time would have passed. I draw to your attention that, if you are to be consistent with Deputy Speaker Causley’s ruling—which was not objected to, I might say, by the opposition at the time—then this calling of the quorum traverses that ruling of Deputy Speaker Causley and you are setting a new precedent.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard the Chief Government Whip’s comments. I would suggest that I am not setting a new precedent, but I will check the record and I will check the comments of the former Deputy Speaker.

(Quorum formed)

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that you will check it. Although members attempted to call a quorum, Deputy Speaker Causley declined to accept that request—notwithstanding the fact that the quorum was not present.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Chief Government Whip for his comments.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to be very short and finish off. However, I would like to make the point that, unlike the opposition—who say they are going to vote for this but at the same time say that it is a bad piece of public policy, all to gain political points and try to have it both ways—the Rudd government takes this financial crisis incredibly seriously. Part of our response has been the development of the $10.4 billion security strategy. These bills before the House today are an important part of the government strategy and therefore I commend these bills to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognate bills. There is no doubt that there are those who will receive the benefits of this bill and will appreciate receiving it, and I support those in my electorate who will be part of that. But I notice that the announcement of the $4.8 billion in this bill for pensioners, carers, senior health card holders and veterans makes no mention of Newstart recipients. There are those in receipt of Newstart in my electorate who will miss out, and I hear about this on a daily basis from them. Equally, there is no doubt that the government’s stubborn refusal to make adjustments to the bank deposit guarantee has had a profound impact on the Australian economy. This artificial leverage to authorised deposit-taking institutions has led to the disastrous freezing of funds in superannuation accounts and other financial institutions not covered by the guarantee. The guarantee has also had serious implications for the projected budget surplus. In fact, the government’s handling—or mishandling—of the deposit guarantee was described in the Financial Review on 6 November by Laura Tingle as creating ‘a remote and unquantifiable liability’ for the federal budget.

The unlimited deposit guarantee and its subsequent impacts were clearly badly planned and a knee-jerk reaction, and the cause, effect and damage are now obvious. The government has chosen not to remedy the problem it has created. And, as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, to his knowledge this is the only government that has made the global financial crisis worse. In a practical sense, as reports of superannuation lockouts were aired and rumours turned to worries, which in turn turned to outright fear and a total loss of confidence, the government stood by this blanket guarantee—as it still does today—and talked loud and long about its immense success in handling the economic crisis. Try telling that to those who have had their funds frozen and those who have had to take out loans to manage their lives or their business. The effect of the loss of confidence and the confusion created by the government were such that one of my constituents actually complained to me that she could not buy a safe for love nor money. You call that confidence!

The imbalance in the financial sector is continuing to prevent many retirees from accessing their incomes. Sadly for these retirees, the government moved swiftly and confidently to ensure the funds remain frozen. These funds went to the same cupboard that confidence has been stored in since November 2007. This tale of mismanagement has more twists than the Walpole to Windy Harbour road in my electorate. After guaranteeing authorised deposit-taking institution funds to an unlimited amount, after creating the stampede towards these institutions and away from non-guaranteed institutions and after distorting the markets to such a significant extent in favour of the banks, the government whipped out its trump card. ‘PS,’ they said sometime later, ‘There is a compulsory fee for deposits over $1 million.’

Mr Rudd stood by the open doors of the big bank telling the public, ‘Quick, my friends, in here; I’ll look after you.’ But, after waiting until everyone was inside, he asked those with over $1 million to please stand up and proceeded to charge them for his services. Tragically, retirees, the middle-aged, young families, students—people from all walks of life—have been affected by this financial crisis. Unemployed, low-income earners, high-income earners, students, stay-at-home parents—people in every occupation—have felt the shocks of the global situation and the government’s mishandling of the deposit situation in Australia. I understand the intent of this package and its proposed stimulus. I realise that, by giving the funds to those with the most propensity to consume, one would assume that the money has the greatest possible effect on the economy. However, there are some people who fit this category but who unfortunately miss out on this bonus. As I said, the Newstart recipients have been excluded—or are they included? According to the print sheet that I have on the package, it is for pensioners, carers, senior health card holders and veterans. But Newstart recipients have to eat and they have to pay the rent. I have been contacted by numerous constituents from my electorate who either are on Newstart or know someone who is. They regularly remind me that they believe they have been left out of this package.

And what about those who have been affected by the fallout from the deposit guarantee? They have also let me know just what has happened to them. For instance, one couple have worked very hard to build up their retirement funds. The husband is retired and the wife was considering retiring next year, but those plans have been shelved. They have lost all the gains they have made in the past three years by diligently managing their own self-funded superannuation. They spread their portfolio, but, once the Rudd government guarantee deposits for banking institutions occurred, they were simply not quick enough to transfer their money into a bank before the managed investment funds froze capital withdrawals. My constituents have worked very hard over those years. They have not been a burden on the taxpayer’s purse and they do not want to be. I would like to know whether the government has factored in those same previously self-funded independent retirees and the many others across Australia who may be forced onto the pension as a result. What impact will this have on the budget surplus and forward estimates? My constituents are obviously not the only ones affected by the rush to withdraw from investment funds. I have also been in contact with the Busselton branch of the Association for Independent Retirees. This association is very active in my electorate, with other branches in Bunbury and Margaret River. I have been advised that more of their members have now had to speak to Centrelink, as their funds have been frozen or their income stream has been drastically reduced.

Western Australian business confidence was served another blow yesterday as Alcoa announced it had shelved its $2.2 billion expansion plans for its Wagerup alumina refinery. They cite the global financial crisis, falling demand and energy availability issues, and I well know just what this means to my electorate and to the broader economy. This news delivered a further shock to the south-west economy, particularly in my electorate of Forrest, where many businesses are still trying to recover from the disproportionate impact of the gas crisis following the explosion on Varanus Island in June this year. Many businesses were forced to source or install alternative forms of energy at considerable cost and capital expense. There is now a crucial need to source and access secure energy supplies for the future, and Alcoa has confirmed this need. A further concern for Alcoa to consider was the Rudd government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, to be introduced as early as 2010, and what effect it would have in the future on its investment and production in the south-west. Alcoa is not alone in its concerns of how its operations will be impacted under the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. The proposed ETS and the government’s process and timing is forcing many mining and resource companies to seriously consider and reconsider the additional cost of productions that such a scheme will make. In turn, this only provides more uncertainty for any future investment in the region, as industry tightens capital expenditure, reconsiders the timing of capital projects or shelves its investments entirely.

Small business confidence has fallen as well and is at its lowest in many years, and small business in my electorate is already suffering. I have car dealerships, the service sector, dry cleaners, hairdressers, lawnmowing and landscaping services and tourism operators knocking on my door. Current figures for overseas visitors have fallen for a second consecutive month by 7.6 per cent. Where now is the government’s five-point plan—the part of the plan that was, to quote Mr Swan, ‘to enhance labour force participation’? Those currently losing their jobs would dispute the effectiveness of this five-point plan. An economist from JP Morgan was quoted in the West Australian newspaper on October 23 as saying that one million people will be out of work by 2010. And where now is that magic inflation genie that was out of the bottle at three per cent some months ago, according to the Treasurer? It was the No. 1 priority of the government, we were led to believe. Inflation is now at a 13-year high of five per cent, and the Treasurer is curiously silent on the absence of the genie and its bottle. In fact, when delivering the government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, Treasurer Swan did not even know the latest inflation forecast. The West Australian newspaper reported:

The Treasurer, the man who with the Reserve Bank governor is supposed to be driving the economy, was like a schoolchild trying to find his homework as he sorted through briefing notes, dot points and then a 260-page document for the key numbers.

This is the same Treasurer who said that we have had 17 years of growth but this is threatened by an inflation problem that must be brought under control. But, in delivering the mid-year data, he had no idea just what the figure was on this apparent No. 1 problem for Australia. Treasury has admitted that prospects for commodity prices have weakened. In Western Australia, widespread job cuts and expenditure cuts are occurring in the mining sector. Rio Tinto, Fortescue, Minara Resources, Consolidated Minerals and Mount Gibson Iron are reported to be cutting hundreds of jobs. Contractors Worley Parsons have also cut jobs, and Treasury has also forecast slowing growth and rising unemployment.

After some confusion between the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Prime Minister as to when pensioners would receive an increase in the pension, the Rudd government finally announced and introduced legislation today to provide a $4.8 billion one-off payment to the nation’s four million pensioners, carers and seniors, to be paid in December. With cost-of-living pressures having risen considerably over the last 12 months and the underlying rate of inflation now at a 17-year high, this package is a welcome albeit overdue response from the government. Finally pensioners are being given some assistance after being denied by the government. However, the one-off pension bonus in Labor’s $10.4 billion package does not include an increase in the base rate. So, while pensioners will undoubtedly welcome the money, it does not come with a commitment from the government to raise the base rate. Pensioners cannot be sure under the Rudd government that they will receive an increase in the base rate of their pension in the future.

On one hand the government is providing funding and on the other it is taking it away. A recent unsuspecting victim is the Australian National Academy of Music, which will lose $2.5 million. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has hit a real discord with the Australian music industry, axing the academy’s entire funding from 1 January 2009. It faces closure at the end of the year, with less than two months notice. I would dearly like to know where the 54 students enrolled for next year, who had their places confirmed three months ago, will go in 2009, given that applications and auditions for other institutes are underway and many are already closed. One would consider that complete stripping of funds would first be negotiated with the academy. Instead, we see Mr Garrett taking his money and going home. I would like to know who is the real patron of the arts, because the only patron at work here is the patron for cut and run.

Mr Garrett recently stated that the academy is not the most effective or efficient model to support elite musicians. Mr Garrett has not only questioned the reputation of the Australian National Academy of Music, which has been working hard to develop since its inception over 10 years ago, but not even put funds into effective and efficient use, to use his own words. Our best and brightest musicians should not be forced overseas. Can you imagine the outcry if our elite athletes had to go overseas to further their skills? I put our best musicians in a similar category to those athletes. Whether they are future stars on the field or on the stage, both deserve to have the opportunity to attend Australian institutes where they can reach their full potential.

In my electorate of Forrest, we have a flourishing music scene, with original bands climbing over each other to get gigs. We also have the annual Western Australian Performing Arts Eisteddfod in the City of Bunbury, the biggest in Australia, hosting a record 2,200 participants this year in its 50th anniversary, and strong representation from the south-west region in professional settings across Australia. I am most concerned that the government is taking a decisive step backwards in this field, and I deplore such contempt for our Australian musicians. Cutting funding from an academy that was hastening to implement reforms with just over two months notice is not only abandoning the 54 applicants for 2009 but a massive step backwards for Australian music in general. When $10.4 billion can be found to support the Australian economy, surely $2.5 million can be found to support Australia’s best classical musicians. I call on the government to reveal its plans for the future of the ANAM.

The coalition supports changes to the first home owners grant. There was confusion, to start with, surrounding the eligibility criteria. It took a question in Senate estimates to clear the significant confusion in the industry and in my electorate of Forrest to define ‘newly constructed homes never before being occupied’. The coalition introduced the first home owners grant in July 2000, including a differential higher payment for new dwellings of $14,000. The initiative is part of the stimulus package that has been taken on trust by the coalition. We support the increase in a grant for new dwellings due to the need to provide a stimulus to the residential construction industry. I am concerned that questioning in estimates revealed that no modelling or advice was provided on the likely impact of the stimulus on house prices or rents. There is potential for the increase for existing dwellings to have an adverse impact on rents and artificially inflate house prices and hence home affordability.

Proposed changes do not address longer term issues in the Australian private housing market, and Australia faces a chronic housing undersupply, estimated to reach a shortfall of 200,000 dwellings by 2010, with annual undersupply growing to more than 50,000 in the same year. Undersupply is the key housing affordability challenge and the roadblock to Australians seeking to be self-supporting in the private housing market, whether renting or buying. The major cause of undersupply is the failure of state planning, infrastructure and land release polices, which have constrained supply—driving up rents and home prices.

Recent government initiatives also fail to address the real issues in the private housing market. The National Rental Affordability Scheme addresses the social housing sector but not the dynamics of the private housing market. The Housing Affordability Fund rewards, rather than seeks to reform, the failure of state governments by providing direct subsidies for taxes and charges. First home saver accounts are overly complex and are not being taken seriously by the banking sector and depositors. A comprehensive economic reform plan is needed to address undersupply in the Australian housing market.

To keep Australians in their homes, however, the Prime Minister must keep Australians in their jobs. Delinquency in home loans was significantly greater for Australian banks in the late eighties and early nineties, and is a third less than in 1996, before the coalition came to office, when unemployment was at 8.4 per cent. Strong growth in employment of more than two million jobs and in real incomes of more than 20 per cent under the Howard government assisted families to be self-supporting in the private housing market. According to the RBA, despite strong growth in real house prices over the last 25 years, growth in real disposable incomes of younger Australians in the home-buying cohort after paying for accommodation was higher in 2007 than at any other point. The new government forecasts show that unemployment will hit five per cent, putting an additional 200,000 out of work, up from the 134,000 forecast in the May budget. The biggest threat to the Australia housing market is rising unemployment.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the minister and for the benefit of the House, the Chief Government Whip made a point of order during that last quorum, and I want to advise the House that I, as Deputy Speaker, am obliged to count the House when the state of the House is drawn to my attention. House of Representatives Practice clearly states here that, notwithstanding that there have been cases in the past where a speaker has refused to call a quorum when there have been more than two against one speaker, in the context of that that is really in conflict with the principles of the responsibility of the Speaker.

For the benefit of the Chief Government Whip, I have checked with House of Representatives Practice. Firstly, I have accepted that taking a point of order during a quorum has not been the general practice in the past but I did accept that as a point of order, given the nature of the quorums that have been called. But also, according to page 268 of House of Representatives Practice, I as Deputy Speaker am obliged to accept a quorum and to do a count of the House. The Chief Government Whip drew my attention to Speaker Causley’s ruling, and it really is in conflict with the general principles and the historical record in terms of the role of Speaker when it comes to quorums.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much, Deputy Speaker Scott. I did appreciate the fact that you did take that point of order, and I do not want in any way to dispute your ruling but I think my best course of action would be to consult Chamber Research because I am very familiar with Speaker Causley’s rulings. I saw him in his chambers and we reached an understanding about these matters. In relation to practice and in relation to the advice you have offered the House, I think you are perfectly correct in relation to House practice but that was not the path that Speaker Causley went down.

Speaker Causley pointed out that in the New South Wales parliament there was only one quorum allowed a day and that that might be something that the then opposition might want to avoid. I can also advise you that he declined to accept his attention being drawn to the state of the House after two quorums had been called. I reiterate that I am not disputing with you at all, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think in your quoting of House of Representatives Practice and in your interpretation of House of Representatives practice you are entirely correct. I think the path is open to me to do a bit of research and perhaps take the matter up with the Speaker, if you would not see that as reflection on you. Perhaps we could resolve it by way of discussion with the Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chief Government Whip. I hope that that has cleared the matter up for the House before I call the minister, because those principles, I think, are very important to us all in this place. But Speaker Causley’s ruling was in conflict with the general principles and historical record of the House of Representatives practice of the past.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The convivial exchange that you have just had with the Chief Government Whip is in anticipation of further disruption to this debate on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognate bills by the coalition. Given the high likelihood of that based on the coalition’s behaviour in the last couple of hours, I will refrain from seeking to give a full economic exposition of the origins and effects of the global financial crisis, because I believe that the flow of that argument will be disrupted. Suffice to say therefore that I will concentrate on a number of points that have been made by opposition members, including the most recent speaker, who has indicated opposition to key elements of the government’s economic strategy.

I would like to take the parliament through the litany of different positions occupied on the overall economic strategy pursued by the Rudd government during the course of the last few weeks. You need to be pretty much on the ball on a daily basis to follow the various proclamations of the Leader of the Opposition. Some may interpret generously that the different positions articulated by the Leader of the Opposition are merely a matter of incompetence or poor concentration. That would not, in my view, be a correct interpretation. In truth it is very well calculated. It is very deliberate and it is an attempt to place every possible position on the record so that the opposition leader, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, will be able to say that he got it right. It is as simple as that. It is a very anticipated interruption that is about to occur—

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

The bells having been rung—

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Melham interjecting

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Banks might consider his interjection—firstly, he is interjecting out of his chair—and the reflection on the chair.

(Quorum formed)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was making before this latest very rude interruption is that the opposition leader has occupied a range of positions on every aspect of the global financial crisis and on every aspect of the Rudd government’s response. He started quite early on by saying that ‘Kevin Rudd has hyped up this crisis’. Here is the opposition leader saying that the whole financial crisis has been hyped up by the Prime Minister of Australia, yet one day later the opposition leader had this to say:

… it is undoubtedly a very grave, the gravest global financial crisis that we’ve seen since the Great Depression …

So one day he says the whole global financial crisis has been ‘hyped up’ by the Prime Minister of Australia—who caused the global financial crisis in Europe and in the United States, who caused these countries to go into recession!—and the next day this is ‘the gravest global financial crisis we have seen since the Great Depression’. Then he went on to say this:

… these are huge convulsions, financial and economic convulsions around the world of a kind very few, only people really who were, you know, alive during the Great Depression would have seen financial changes the equal of this.

This is from the same Leader of the Opposition who said it was all hyped up. So that is his position on the overall global financial crisis.

How many different positions has the opposition leader occupied on anticipating the global financial crisis? Well, as in every other case, many different positions. He said that nobody could have seen the global financial crisis coming. That was on 30 September. He said:

There is nobody that would have predicted these events a year ago or even a few months ago.

Then he said on 15 October—

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you telling the truth?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I completely object to the remark that was just made then and I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kalgoorlie will withdraw the statement.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have simply asked the speaker whether he is telling the truth.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly right, and the member for Kalgoorlie would know by now that that is actually the one word that is unparliamentary.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want to move a substantive motion, pal, do it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the minister to resume his seat and ask the member for Kalgoorlie to—

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply raised the question because the last time this speaker was at the dispatch box he in fact mentioned an extreme falsehood, and I was simply checking whether he has got it right this time.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is reasonable, but to be fair to everybody the one—

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is offensive to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I appreciate the member for Kalgoorlie’s assistance.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is absolutely wrong about that and I am quite happy to debate that very matter—in here, outside, anywhere you want, including with the shadow housing minister—about the plagiarism that occurred and that I reported in this place yesterday. She was caught absolutely red-handed and red-faced. That is her problem, and do not try to cover up for it.

When we go to the different positions of the opposition leader on predicting the global financial crisis, he was saying this could not have been predicted a year ago or even a few months ago, and then he said on 15 October:

With the benefit of hindsight, Governments should have acted a lot earlier. Regrettably, Mr Rudd’s Government missed the warning signs at the beginning of the year …

This is a global financial crisis that ‘nobody could have predicted’, according to the same man, ‘even a few months ago’. So there is his position on anticipating the global financial crisis.

We are debating the Economic Security Strategy. What did the Leader of the Opposition declare on that? He said when it was announced:

… we are not going to argue about the composition of the package or quibble about it. It has our support. It will provide a stimulus to the economy, that’s for certain.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Morrison interjecting

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that right? Does it have their support? Spokespeople, including one at the table here, have criticised each and every dimension of the Economic Security Strategy. Let’s start going through them. There is the first home owners boost. This is the fellow who said the market is tight. The opposition leader said, ‘No, the market is not tight’—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Morrison interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook can ask questions at question time but not now across the table.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the issue of the age pension and the benefits to families, we had the Leader of the National Party in the Senate saying it is going to ‘end up against the wall’. The member for Mitchell suggested it was an unfair package for families. Time and time again they have criticised every single dimension of this Economic Security Strategy, just so the opposition leader can say, ‘I occupied that position at some point in time.’ (Quorum formed) Now we turn to the financial stability measures—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Parliament is still in session, thank you.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that were put in place by the Rudd government when the Rudd government acted early and decisively. The Leader of the Opposition, on the financial stability measures that were announced, said on 12 October:

We welcome this measure, we support it and we will give the Prime Minister every assistance.

He said every assistance! Just 10 days later, he said:

But let me say this: the policy that was announced on the 12th of October was a failure …

Here we have him, 10 days before, saying, ‘We welcome the measure, we support it and we will give the Prime Minister every assistance,’ and then 10 days later saying it was a failure.

Then on 27 October—that is a day ending in ‘AY’, so that would be a different position again—the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘The unlimited bank deposit guarantee was a very big policy blunder.’ So he said, ‘We welcome the measure, we support the measure, we will give the Prime Minister every assistance,’ and shortly after that he described it as ‘a very big policy blunder’.

That is the problem here. The Leader of the Opposition is sacrificing the important national interest at a time when we need to stabilise the situation here in Australia and to instil confidence in our business community, including our small business community. The undermining that has been going on by the Leader of the Opposition has occurred every day. Most recently, talking about instability, the opposition has attacked the leaders of our most important financial institutions and regulatory authorities, our government institutions and regulatory authorities. They were cowardly attacks. They should be withdrawn. The Leader of the Opposition should repudiate the frontbench of his opposition, who, along with backbenchers, have systematically sought to undermine and pour scorn over the reputation of some of the most respectable, decent human beings and the job that they do on behalf of the Australian people. They have come into this chamber, gone to the doorstop interviews and taken every opportunity to destabilise our financial institutions by attacking personally the leaders of these institutions.

The member for Goldstein, a senior frontbencher, has said that he was not attacking the Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry. He was talking about manipulation but he did not think that Ken Henry would manipulate the economic forecasts. Well, it would take two to tango. It would take the Secretary of the Treasury to agree to some sort of manipulation. So this is a direct slur on the Secretary of the Treasury by the member for Goldstein, a senior frontbencher. The opposition leader had every chance today to repudiate him, to ask him to apologise or to get up and say, ‘We have full confidence in the Secretary of the Treasury and we have full confidence in the Governor of the Reserve Bank,’ but he will not because he knows that this is orchestrated. He has got his backbenchers, including the member for Canning, who is here in the chamber today, doing his dirty work. (Quorum formed)

It is great that the member for Canning is here, because he has an opportunity in about nine minutes to apologise to the Secretary of Treasury, to apologise to the Governor of the Reserve Bank and to apologise to the people of Australia.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite well knows that on the issue of the Reserve Bank governor I have given an unequivocal apology.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Canning does not have a point of order. The minister has the call.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are cowardly attacks, they are orchestrated and they do continue, and the Leader of the Opposition has turned down the opportunity time and time again to discipline his backbench and to discipline his senior frontbenchers because he is in on it. He is in on the caper. He wants this to happen. He wants the destabilisation of our financial institutions and he wants the destabilisation of the Australian economy; and he wants that destabilisation for one reason and for one reason only—to advance his short-term political interests. That is what he wants to do—to advance his short-term political interests at the expense of the national interest. He is a disgrace. The coalition is a disgrace on this. You should be more responsible. You should take a greater responsibility to the Australian people but you will not, because you see some short-term political gain. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

’Oh!’ he says, as if he is so offended. Here is the opportunity for the member for Canning to come in, stand up, apologise and get out of this recidivist behaviour that he displays all the time, seeking to undermine our institutions.

In terms of the financial stability measures put in place that have been so heavily criticised by the Leader of the Opposition, who described the unlimited bank deposit guarantee as a very big policy blunder, the Business Council of Australia has written to the Prime Minister. This letter, which supports the financial stability measures, says:

Given the aforementioned strength of the Australian financial system, it could well serve as a role model for the development of the best global response.

So here we have the Business Council of Australia saying it is a ripper, it is a great initiative, and we have got the Leader of the Opposition saying it is a very big policy blunder. I would like to see the next meeting that occurs between the Business Council of Australia and the Leader of the Opposition, because in another area—long-term economic reform, which must continue through this global economic crisis; and we are committed to it—the Leader of the Opposition has his shadow minister for industrial relations, who orchestrated the rejection in the Senate of a very important measure in relation to occupational health and safety and the harmonisation of occupational health and safety measures in this country. And he is doing that as a Western Australian. He should know better, but, no, he is again repudiating the view of the Business Council of Australia and every respectable business organisation in this country who wants to see harmonisation of occupational health and safety and who wants to see good economic reform under this government—and who will see good economic reform under this government if you would just get out of the way; if you would stop being deliberately obstructionist for your short-term, miserable political gain. That is what you are doing.

You should get out of the way and let the reformers get on with the job of undertaking the economic reform that is necessary to rescue this country from the situation where, under the coalition government, we had the member for Higgins, the former Treasurer of this country, saying in 2007, ‘Productivity growth is at or ahead of the previous productivity cycle.’ Do you know what productivity growth was in the year 2007? It was not two per cent; it was not one per cent; it was not half a per cent. It was nothing—nil. The then Treasurer of this country said, ‘You beauty, we have got productivity growth down to zero.’ What a great achievement! There was zero productivity growth, which shows the sloth of the previous coalition government, which shows the complete disinterest in economic reform of the previous coalition government.

Debate interrupted.