Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thought I would share my thoughts generally but also on this water amendment that Senator Xenophon has put forward. That way people could be a bit more clear with their vote. I may talk generally as well as specifically, if the chamber would allow me to do so.

This has been one of the most difficult and challenging weeks I have had in the Senate. The government’s $42 billion stimulus package is flawed. The Senate inquiry confirmed that. Knowing that it was flawed, the government should have agreed to crack open this package and act decisively on those flaws. It has not. Let us be clear: the $42 billion package may indeed save up to 90,000 jobs or create 90,000 jobs, but the $42 billion plan massively fails the 300,000 forgotten Australians who have been left behind by this package. Even after spending $42 billion, the government knows there will be 300,000 Australians added to the queue of unemployed. In good faith, we approached the government with a plan to give hope to those 300,000 forgotten Australians—a community based, grassroots employment plan called Get Communities Working. The government sees merit in such a program and does not deny that there will be 300,000 Australians added to the unemployment queue, but the government has stubbornly refused to make any substantial changes to its package.

In its desire to push this package through swiftly, the government basically has held a gun to the heads of the crossbenchers. We were damned if we voted for it; we were damned if we voted against it. Last night, around midnight, I walked around the streets of Canberra for an hour or so. It had been a difficult and frustrating few days of talks and negotiations with the government. I have said all along, as have other crossbenchers, that Family First wanted to support a stimulus package. I recognise that Australia does need a stimulus package, but I have reservations about this package. As I said yesterday, I found myself between two hard places and a rock. One of the hard places was the government; the other hard place was the opposition. So what is the rock? The rock is the Australian people who are hanging on in these desperate times.

Family First’s objective from day one throughout the negotiations was to give help to the 300,000 Australians who have been forgotten in this package. After spending $42 billion, there will still be 300,000 Australians added to the unemployed. So that was our objective: to give help and hope to one-third of a million Australians. That is why we proposed diverting $4 billion of the $42 billion stimulus package into a program called Get Communities Working. I was hoping the government would move on this.

Let us also be clear: an agreement on diverting $4 billion of the package to the Get Communities Working fund would have secured Family First’s vote, but, as the days of negotiation unfolded, it became more and more clear that the government was prepared to walk away from the 300,000 Australians and not try to give them some hope and help. My dilemma is that I am genuinely troubled and sickened by the thought of 300,000 fellow Australians being unemployed.

So what now? My vote has had to be based on substance and not swayed by smaller packages that may be all well and good in themselves but still offer little hope to the 300,000 Australians who will be added to the queue of the unemployed, with little hope of finding a job. Many may become sick of me saying this, but I want it to sink in: 300,000 Australians will be added to the unemployment queue. Yes, the government has agreed to establish a pilot of the Get Communities Working fund by allocating $200 million to a community fund, but this offer has in no way swayed my vote. How could it? How can I sell out 300,000 people and say, ‘I’ve won a $200 million package’? The two are not reconcilable.

My vote was not for sale for just a number of small packages. My vote is and has been based on 300,000 Australians who are the innocent victims of this war on the recession. My vote is based on two simple propositions: vote for the government’s package and save or create up to 90,000 jobs, or vote for the coalition’s plan. What is their plan? So you have two options: two hard places and a rock in the middle. Vote for a plan that denies 300,000 Australians any real hope or help, or vote for nothing. That is the dilemma. Our vote is not swayed by some smaller packages. We are thankful that the government may be giving some little hope, but that does not sway Family First. From day one I said we wanted to give hope to those 300,000 Australians.

I end with this thought. If you are on a ship going down and you are offered the chance to save some lives, you would save some even if you could not save them all. In other words, I may not have succeeded in saving 300,000 Australian jobs but I have certainly saved as many as I can.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Xenophon’s) be agreed to.