Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The minister told us that this is the moment of decision. Well, we as an opposition suggested to the Senate yesterday that it was the moment of decision, and the Labor Party voted against putting their own package to the Senate. That is how urgent this package is to the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, the speech that the minister has just given is a speech that he gave exactly seven days ago when he said that this package was so important it had to be put through immediately and could not go to a Senate committee. And here he is, seven days later, pretending to give the same speech, with all the same jargon, but not answering a single question that I asked. Those questions were: what are we going to do with those savings in these amendments to the legislation; who is the deal being done with; and what is the money going to be spent on?

What is more, we were lectured and hectored last week that this package had to go through as is, because if it were delayed, let alone amended—to quote Senator Evans, the Leader of the Government in this place—it would be impossible to roll out by 11 March. So I ask: does the government amending its own proposals cause this huge economic Armageddon to occur that we were promised last week if the package were delayed? The government is now amending its own package, saying these amendments are okay, that it is okay to amend. Why wasn’t it okay to amend last week? All these problems that were going to be showered upon the economy if it were delayed seem, all of a sudden, to have evaporated. I think the Leader of the Government in this place owes an explanation not only to the Senate but to the people of Australia—and, what is more, Mr Rudd does as well.

It is nice to see that Mr Rudd has finally stepped down from his bulldozer and is actually talking with senators. Can I say this to those opposite: even Barack Obama, with his huge election victory under his belt, had the decency to consult with the Republicans to get together a package that would suit the nation. From day one, Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, has said: ‘It is my way or the highway.’ And when Mr Turnbull said, ‘We would be willing to discuss a package with you which is more modest,’ there was no interest whatsoever. But, of course, that is the huge difference between President Obama and Prime Minister Rudd. President Obama, even with a huge election victory under his belt, has the gravitas of statesmanship, the capacity to deal with opponents in a way that is truly nation building, unlike Mr Rudd’s bulldozer approach.

Senator Sherry, can I quickly take you to the small business issue on which you sought to attack us. If you had followed the debate at the committee hearing you would have known that I and other colleagues pursued these matters. And do you know what we were told? Those small business measures to which you refer are not even included in the legislation that we are debating. So guess what? We did not ask any questions in the chamber about them. How silly of us for not raising questions that are unrelated to the legislation! That is indicative of how anxious Senator Sherry was that we on this side filibuster—he wanted us to start asking questions about matters that were not actually in the legislation.

I recall the very strong evidence to the committee of certain people in support of this package because the economy needed an immediate stimulus of $950 in some cases and $650 in other cases. Now, all of a sudden, $50 can be slashed off and about $2 billion saved from this immediate stimulus—$2 billion cut off! Senator Sherry shakes his head. Possibly he is that far out of the loop that he has not even read the explanatory memorandums. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009, we are told, involves an overall saving of $435 million. The Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 involves a saving of $1,345.2 million. That, in rough terms, is about $2 billion.