Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cormann, I will take that interjection: that is if they have got a job. This package should be about productivity and job creation, not handing out buckets of money in a cash splash that is going to disappear to China or goodness knows where else like the last $10 billion did. This should be about productivity and about creating real jobs. It is an irresponsible package.

The Prime Minister and all of the ALP—again, because they are like parrots and they all keep saying the same thing; an original thought might be a little bit tricky—are constantly talking about decisive action. They think that if they say ‘decisive action’ for long enough, the Australian people will believe that everything they do is decisive. I do not know. Senator Conroy was in here this afternoon talking about ‘decisive action’. I wonder if he popped out to his Weet-Bix this morning and said, ‘Gee, this is decisive action as I’m eating my breakfast!’ Everything is decisive action. It does not matter if it is or not; everything is labelled decisive action in the hope that the Australian people will eventually believe that they are actually taking decisive action. They are not. It is not decisive action; it is irresponsible action. What we need from the government is not decisive action that means nothing; we need responsible action. This package is irresponsible. It is an irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money. Quite often we have said that in this chamber about a number of other things, but never, never, never about $42 billion in one hit—never! This is an unprecedented amount.

And the amount of funding in this that is just going to completely disappear is extraordinary. If we are going to do a government spend, it should be targeted at productivity, it should be targeted at job creation and it should be targeted at infrastructure. If we are going to give our children a debt burden for years and years and years, then there should be infrastructure to show for it. We should be talking about inland rail, we should be talking about dams, we should be talking about water infrastructure—the important things. Not ‘here’s $950 in your wallet’ in the hope that maybe not all of it will be saved. There is no doubt some of it will be saved, which, in general, is a very good thing, but not for the point and the purpose of what the government are trying to do. They are trying to encourage spending. They have got no idea where that $950 is going to end up. They have not got a clue, and yet there is nothing targeted for solid, substantive infrastructure that is going to provide a sustainable future for this country.

The $10 billion package before Christmas, as my colleagues have already referred to, was an absolute failure. What happened to the jobs that were going to be created? At best, in a fairies-in-the-garden scenario, you could say the jury is out. But, lo and behold, now we have another $42 billion—‘Give us the tick on this. We are not sure if the first economic stimulus worked. We really haven’t got a clue about that. I know: we’ll just go and get another $42 billion and we’ll throw that after the $10 billion. A bit more money might work.’ That sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it? It has the ring of previous Labor governments about it. A bit more money! They are throwing money after money. Is there any substantive thought? No. Is there any sustainable future? No. Are there any infrastructure priorities? No, they just throw out more money. Most of my colleagues and I were absolutely flabbergasted—that is probably the only word I could use—when we saw the legislation come through that said, ‘Current borrowings are $75 billion; we want to increase it to $200 billion.’ It is a bit like going into the bank and saying: ‘Look, I have my MasterCard here. I’d like you to just rack it up $200 billion, thanks. We aren’t sure what we’re going to spend it on. We don’t have any idea. We haven’t put any thought into that’—