Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I am pleased that Senator Bob Brown is close to agreement with the government. I think he said it was a matter of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. In relation to my position, I indicate that I am still waiting for the piece of paper, let alone the biro, so I think we have a long way to go. It has been about 48 hours and 52 minutes since I last met with the Treasurer. I understand that I will meet with him again soon, and I welcome that opportunity. I indicate that I do not believe that any credible stimulus package will work in the absence of fast-forwarding already planned expenditure targeted at the Murray-Darling Basin, when you consider how many jobs are at stake; when you consider that communities are on the brink; and when experts such as Professor Mike Young, a leading scientist from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, says that time is running out for the Murray—for the communities along the Murray and for the ecosystems in the Murray. This money was set aside initially by the Howard government, when Malcolm Turnbull was water minister, and was added to by this government, but that expenditure will occur over a number of years in water buybacks and water infrastructure. What has happened so far in relation to exit packages has been pitiful. I will speak to that more when I move my amendments in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin.

In relation to this matter, I put on notice further questions and have not received answers to them. It would be good at this time to get an indication from the government as to whether they intend to answer those questions. I put those questions on notice to Treasury in the inquiry process, in relation to the modelling done on home insulation—what the price effects would be. These are questions that the government have taken on notice. There are questions on the stimulus framework and the modelling done in relation to that. There are questions about the timing of payments, with evidence of the pre-Christmas cash bonus taken into account. It is disappointing that Treasury has had to rely on handouts from George W. Bush’s administration rather than on our own studies of what has occurred with cash handouts previously. There is a question on why the government did not commission a household expenditure survey to indicate the extent to which the previous handouts were effective, in the context of formulating this package of handouts. I was gobsmacked when Treasury said that would be quite expensive. So is $10 billion or $12 billion worth of cash handouts. That is fairly expensive as well in the absence of appropriate empirical evidence. The government are meant to be evidence based in their approach, so you would have thought that that would have been the way forward.

I am also concerned about issues of investment return. There are some basic economic concepts. What will the investment return for certain investments be? Those questions did not appear to have been answered when my office last checked. There is a question on the time frame over which a return will occur and the opportunity costs of those investments. By putting the money in these particular sectors, what will it mean for investments in, for instance, health and the environment? These are things that need to be taken into account. Also, regarding the whole issue of the CPRS and the modelling undertaken in relation to that, I would have thought that the government’s CPRS proposal would have a significant economic impact, and that needs to be taken into account in the forward projections and the modelling in the context of this stimulus package. I do not understand Treasury’s claim that they have forecast only until 2010 when I understand that they have forecast up to 50 years ahead on the impact of a CPRS. Surely that should be taken into account with respect to this package and the long-term prognosis for the Australian economy.

I intend to say more about the Murray-Darling Basin and the economy and the jobs at stake there at a later time. I indicate that I am prepared to talk to the government in good faith and with goodwill, but time is running out. It is important to get the right stimulus package. It is important to get this right in the context of the Australian economy. It is important that we do not have a huge swag of Australians left out, because of the impact that that will have on the economy.

With those words I look forward to a response—or at least an indication of when a response could be forthcoming—to the questions on notice that I put to the government in the committee process, and I look forward to keeping this chamber informed of my discussions with the government. Senator Sherry has already indicated that the government does not support my amendments but it would be very useful to enter into discussions with the government as to the whys and wherefores of that opposition so that we can have a genuine dialogue in relation to the concerns I have raised with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin.