Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why does the government believe the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is the most appropriate strategy for supporting jobs and sustaining economic growth? Are proposals for a smaller stimulus package based on tax cuts widely supported?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has put in place a $42 billion package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, in order to stimulate economic activity, to stimulate growth and to support jobs in the Australian economy—all critical to the wellbeing of working people in this country. We are in the face of extraordinary developments in the international economy. We have seen growth going backwards big-time in economies like the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, many parts of Europe and other parts of Asia. The opposition has put forward an alternative stimulus package, approximately half the magnitude of that advocated by the government, that is purportedly based on tax cuts—one would assume mostly tax cuts favouring the better off.

In a debate with me on Lateline a couple of Friday evenings ago, the now shadow Treasurer, then shadow finance minister, was asked to name commentators and economists who supported this approach—who supported the coalition’s alternative. He was unable to name a single one. He was unable to answer that question. Seeking to determine what the position of opposition members is on the opposition’s package, journalists on the doors today asked a number of members of the opposition what their package would have done with respect to the job losses at Pacific Brands. The opposition has been very keen to blame the government, to say that the government’s package had failed to prevent those job losses and to imply that their alternatives would have done something about those job losses. So I would like to run through some of the answers to these questions from journalists about what conceivably could have happened had the opposition’s package been in place.

First, the member for Tangney, who was perhaps the most honest, if a little bit gauche, said, ‘There’s no specific guarantee of that’—in other words, ‘No, our package would not have done anything.’ The member for Boothby was asked, ‘Would your package have prevented these job losses?’ and his answer was, ‘Let’s talk about the $10 billion stimulus package’—in other words, ‘I don’t want to answer.’ The member for Moncrieff was asked whether he could guarantee that the Pacific Brands job losses would not have occurred had the Liberal package been in place and he said, ‘That’s your assertion.’ Finally, the member for Gippsland was asked about the Pacific Brands issue and whether the coalition’s package would have prevented those job losses and he said, ‘The government’s spending should have been directed at small business.’ That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Liberal Party approach, given that Pacific Brands is hardly a small business.

This follows in the wake of the coalition’s absolute confusion with respect to the other part of the government’s package: infrastructure investment. When that legislation was put to the parliament at the end of last year the Liberal Party set a new record. For the first time in the history of this parliament, the members from one major party voted three different ways—some voted for the legislation, some voted against the legislation and some abstained.

Government Member:

Some of them got lost.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, some of them got lost, got stuck in the lift, went to the toilet or whatever. That added to the confusion, of course, because some National Party members voted against it. I note that, when the now shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, was asked by the media in the wake of his promotion why the coalition had supported the government’s $10 billion stimulus package and was now opposing it, his response was, ‘I wasn’t terribly involved in our response to the $10 billion package.’ I wonder what portfolio he held at the time. He was actually shadow minister for finance. Ten billion dollars was on the block and he ‘wasn’t really involved in the coalition’s response’.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tuckey interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister still has the call. I simply say to the member for O’Connor that, earlier in the week, when he rose on a point of order that was not a point of order, he was very charitably dealt with. I will listen carefully to the minister but, so far, I believe the minister is being relevant to the question.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tuckey interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for O’Connor does not have the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: relevance. I understand the remark that you have made with respect to the member for O’Connor, but I would direct you to standing order 86(a), where it is very clearly stated that a member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time, which means that you must hear the member for O’Connor’s point of order. Even if you dismiss it, under the standing orders you must hear it.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, in the past, chairs have used this device to get a message through to members.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members who will not get on their feet can scoff all they like, but the member for O’Connor was charitably dealt with earlier in the week. The minister has the call.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year, the member for North Sydney advised the House that the only thing that united the Liberal Party was hatred of the Labor Party. They must be getting more friendly towards us, because there is not much uniting them at the moment.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will bring my answer to a conclusion, Mr Speaker. In the space of 15 months, the Treasurer and I have been faced by no fewer than three shadow Treasurers and three shadow finance ministers. One wonders how many there will have been by the time we get to the election.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: relevance. The minister is being irrelevant and provocative, and I would ask you to sit him down.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has at this point in time returned to the question, but he will now conclude his answer.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The lines we are hearing from the opposition about the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan are completely confected, completely phoney and entirely hollow. What we have seen over the last two days is a couple of questions about the issues of jobs—and then straight on to a giant phoney distraction regarding SAS pay.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.