Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is right, Senator Birmingham, it’s the lotto number. In fact, Mr Rudd recently tried to rewrite history in his attack on the neoliberals and the merits of an open market and a deregulated environment. But it is hard to argue against the facts, especially when his own Deputy Prime Minister said simultaneously in a keynote speech in Davos that Australia had a ‘better than world-class regulatory regime’. Mr Rudd has argued against the facts because he is arguing against former Labor prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who each played a role in opening up the market and deregulating the exchange rate.

Market activity and freedom to choose to trade and do business have led to more jobs, higher wages and increased wealth. There is no doubt about that, and we should especially thank the Howard and Costello coalition government, which left the Rudd Labor government the best economic legacy in Australian political history. Tony Abbott said in last Saturday’s Australian that the best way to combat the slowdown in business activity is by decreasing the costs of doing business and reducing the impediments to doing business. You reduce taxes, interest rates, red tape and regulation. But Rudd Labor are doing the opposite by allowing unions to interfere in the workplace, particularly in small businesses.

Reserve Bank board member Professor Warwick McKibbin said this about the package: ‘It risked turning what isn’t a crisis into a crisis.’ And what did well-known and respected economist Henry Ergas say in yesterday’s Australian about the Labor package? He said:

Australia entered the global economic crisis well placed but our fiscal position is deteriorating more rapidly than in comparable economies. This is due to policy decisions since the May budget, which will erode the projected bottom line by $29 billion in 2008-09.

The international comparisons are telling. According to the International Monetary Fund, average fiscal balances in advanced economies are set to deteriorate by 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product. In contrast, Australia’s fiscal balance will deteriorate by 3.6 per cent of GDP.

Moreover, expenditure on the Rudd-Bank and disbursements from the Building Australia Fund seem to have been excluded from the updated budget estimates, so the actual deterioration will be even greater, easily exceeding any previous peacetime fiscal expansion in Australia’s history.

Mr Turnbull and the Liberals admit that our opposition to Labor’s plans will be unpopular in the short term, but we believe it is the right thing to do. Mr Turnbull has put forward an alternative approach which is better targeted, more affordable and responsible. The objective of any package must be to protect and create jobs, support small business and strengthen our economy. Labor’s plan has failed on each test.

Spending on health and hospitals is omitted entirely from Labor’s plan. What about Tasmania’s health system? What about the Launceston General Hospital? In Tasmania the health system is in a state of disrepair. What about the desperate needs of the Launceston General Hospital, which is at 115 per cent capacity, as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President Brown? The delays to the redevelopment of the emergency department are hurting the community. We need better and upgraded facilities at the Launceston General Hospital—especially intensive care, coronary care, a day care procedure unit and better car-parking services, just to name a few. But there is not one dollar in this package for health, which is a great disappointment. Mr Rudd and Labor should sit down and negotiate a smaller and better targeted package rather than have the arrogant view that his government is infallible.

Mr Turnbull recommended bringing forward the 2009-10 tax cuts and also supporting small business through the payment of part of their superannuation guarantee levy. Small business is the backbone of our community. It is the productive industry and the jobs generator in rural and regional parts of Australia—particularly in rural and regional parts of Tasmania—and it should be supported. It appears that much of the stimulus package of federal funding is merely replacing state government funding requirements. Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett, as was noted in this chamber just a few days ago, said last week on ABC Radio:

We have projects in housing and in schools that are ready to roll, ready and waiting for this sort of injection of funding.

It seems the federal government is paying for already planned state government spending. Why shouldn’t the state government pay at least a portion—at least 50 per cent—of the development costs? The government is missing the point and is missing an opportunity. Future generations of Australians will have to pay for this decision. It took nearly 10 years to pay back the previous Labor government’s $96 billion debt. How long will it take to pay back Labor’s $200 billion debt? They do not even have a plan.

All this is on the back of a government who provided an unlimited bank guarantee, forcing 250,000 Australians with investment funds to have their investments frozen. I had constituents call my office and say that, because of a government decision: ‘We can’t get our money. We can’t get our capital. We can’t get our interest.’ That was very distressing for them and for those many thousands of Australians who could not access their funds. It is their money and they cannot access it because of the government decision.

Then on 24 January the government announced the establishment of the Ruddbank—in fact known as the Australian Business Investment Partnership—initially with $4 billion in equity; $2 billion from the Rudd government and $2 billion from the big four banks. It is designed to support the major commercial property developers and the big four banks. But I say it is a shonky, dodgy Labor government socialist experiment with taxpayers’ money.

Firstly, this policy on the run was announced by way of a 1½-page media release. I have it here in front of me; it is 1½ pages. There is no government legislation to back this up, no discussion paper and no other papers or information, yet we are talking about guaranteeing up to $30 billion of taxpayers’ money that could be at risk here. The banks have recently and publicly denied any offer of equity. The media release says:

The Government and the major banks have committed capital to this fund in equal partnership …

That is what it says, and this is from the Prime Minister. It goes on to say:

This Partnership will be initially capitalised at $4 billion, with the Government contribution of $2 billion matched by an equal contribution by Australia’s four major banks. The initial $4 billion capitalisation could be extended via the issuance of government guaranteed debt to create up to $30 billion of loanable capital.

Well, the banks have denied any opportunity of providing equity. They have said they were interested in providing a loan. So the government have already been found wanting. They have got it wrong, and it is a failure from the start; the Ruddbank is a dodgy deal.

Secondly, can the government please explain to the public and to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission how this deal is not anticompetitive? It is an exclusive deal with the big four banks. What about the other banks and the other financial institutions? Why is it exclusive to the big four?

Finally, I ask this question: what if this Rudd experiment does not work? What about the government’s next spending spree? Will we have any money left in the kitty or is it solely up to the next generation to pay for the problems and mistakes of this generation? This is not a good principle to follow. Remember that there is not a spending initiative that Labor will not support. What we need to do is question which spending initiatives are the right ones for this time and our circumstances. In conclusion, I am vehemently opposed to this legislation. I think it is in the worst interests of the Australian community. It will saddle us with debt and it will mortgage our children’s future.