Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked today.

What we have witnessed over the last week or so is a government that has stopped commentating and started governing, although I hasten to add that Senator Conroy is an exception—he backslided into his bad old habits in question time today. The shift by Mr Rudd and Mr Swan to make decisions and start governing is a good thing because commentating got the government into quite a bit of trouble early in its term. Mr Swan and the Prime Minister spent the first eight months of government talking the Australian economy down. They manufactured an inflation crisis. Why? Because, having inherited a strong economy, a strong budget position, strong employment, they sought a way to smash the coalition’s economic credentials. The overriding imperative was not to reinforce the economic fundamentals but to undermine the coalition. But in doing so, the government undermined their own credentials. We saw the Treasurer talking about a war on inflation; we saw a Treasurer talking about inflation genies and bottles; we saw a Treasurer egging the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates, which it did.

But what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have belatedly realised courtesy of the financial crisis—a real crisis—is that words do matter. When you hold the high office of Treasurer or Prime Minister, markets, regulators and Reserve Bank governors actually listen to what you say, and that is how Labor killed confidence, raised inflationary expectations and interest rates. Sure, it is legitimate to play politics in this business and in this place but, when it comes to the fundamentals of managing an economy, you have to play a straight bat in word and in deed. Labor, sadly, became convinced by their own rhetoric that the nation faced an inflation crisis and they framed a budget accordingly. It was a budget the government were proud to state was not stimulatory—it was a budget that contained new and higher taxes and had an objective of slowing growth and raising unemployment.

Thanks to Mr Swan and Mr Rudd, we had an interest rate rise at just the wrong time. We had growth slowing at just the wrong time. We had falling business and consumer confidence at just the wrong time. We had taxes rising at just the wrong time, and we had policy settings leading to rising unemployment at a time when the challenge to employers was about to increase. Labor’s first response to the international crisis was to claim these circumstances were unknowable. The former Treasurer predicted an economic tsunami and Mr Turnbull flagged his own fears about growth. Labor scoffed at them both. Regardless, it is the job of government to plan for the worst, to not let rhetoric override judgement. But the crisis is here; it has to be dealt with. One thing I do agree with Mr Rudd on is that Australia is probably the best placed economy in the world to deal with this crisis. One of the reasons for this is that Australia has responsible opposition prepared to give support to the government, prepared to back its security package for banks and prepared to back the government stimulatory package. And we will give those packages rapid legislative passage.

But there are two other reasons why Australia is well placed to deal with the global situation. The first is that the coalition established APRA, the world’s best prudential regulatory authority covering all deposit-taking institutions, banks, insurance companies and super funds. The second is that the coalition bequeathed to Labor a budget surplus and a government with no debt. We paid down Labor’s $96 billion debt with no assistance from them and no bipartisanship. Unlike Labor, on this side of the chamber we do not play politics with economic crises. Labor’s challenge at this time is to steer Australia through this crisis, to maintain growth, low unemployment and to stop the budget going into deficit. These are the benchmarks for the government. The government also needs to be transparent. They need to release revised budget forecasts so all Australians can know the true situation that the Australian economy finds itself in. This side of the chamber is giving bipartisan support to the government. This government has the opportunity to prove to the Australian people that the government is serious about putting the national economic interest ahead of partisanship.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in response to some of the claims that have been made in the chamber today. It is interesting that once again those opposite have a selective memory when they talk about transparency. We ought to at least go back in history and get some facts on the table. They talk about 1996 and what they did when they came into government. Let’s remind people of the transparency that was lacking when we had the children overboard issue. There was certainly no transparency there. There was no transparency when the former government attacked working Australians with Work Choices. There was certainly little transparency and little action when it came to the 12 interest rate rises that the working families of this country experienced under the last government.

The Rudd Labor government is responding to what is clearly the worst economic disaster that we have faced in our lifetimes, and we are acting with responsible policies. The position that the Rudd Labor government is taking is one that is very clear—that is, to protect the Australian economy. The package that was announced and put forward yesterday has been very well received by those people that are going to most benefit from this it.

Those opposite, under the leadership of John Howard and Peter Costello, failed over almost 12 years to deliver any significant benefits to pensioners in this country. They came forward with their political stunt of $30 a week, and now they want to claim all the credit for our policy! They neglected people such as age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers, war widows, veterans service pensioners, veterans income support supplement recipients, Department of Veterans’ Affairs gold card holders eligible for the senior concession allowance and aged singles and couples, all of whom will benefit from this policy.

Let’s be fair dinkum when we talk about this benefit, about transparency and about being a responsible government. There is no doubt that we in Australia have a very sound financial system. We give credit to the former government for the institutions that they established, but this crisis has been coming for a long time. In fact, it would be fair to say that it has been a decade in the making. We can all remember back to the dotcom boom, and unfortunately this is part of the bust process of the cycle that we are going through.

In terms of the way that this package has been received in the community, the community actually understand that a government has to look long term and that, when we are looking at reforming the pension, it has to be done in a constructive way and in a way that is going to take us forward over the coming decades. So we are making sure that our economy remains strong. Very important to that is what is happening in Asia. Obviously, we will feel some of the impacts of the global crisis that is confronting all of us.

In terms of leadership, the Rudd Labor government has shown the way and is showing that we are about creating a strong economy and ensuring that we are able to continue the growth in jobs. The injection of funds for first home buyers is going to be welcomed in our community. My office is already receiving emails and phone calls in relation to what that means to not only those people purchasing the homes but those in the building industry.

In announcing the packages that we have, we are addressing the needs of those that are most in need within our community. We are not about the stunts and political opportunism that we have seen demonstrated time and time again by those opposite. I have been through many campaigns, and I recall that in the last four election campaigns the Howard government’s mantra was spend, spend, spend—‘To win the next election let’s spend as much as we have to’. They were not looking long term at what was going to confront us. It was our good management out of this budget that has enabled us to secure a surplus to give us the security to get through the tough times. It is most unfortunate that those tough times have come far sooner than any of us would have wanted. (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senators Evans and Conroy. I will start with Senator Polly’s last comment about ‘our good management out of this budget’. If it was not so appallingly incorrect it would be laughable. The Labor government can only go down the economic path that they are choosing to go down because of the good economic management of the previous coalition government. There are no two ways about it. There is no other answer than that.

Our previous government is the reason that this country has the economy that it does, and it gave the current government the ability to make the decisions that they have chosen to make. What did we see after the end of the coalition government? What did Labor actually inherit when they came in? There was a $20 billion surplus and $60 billion in reserves. Let me just repeat that for anybody that might have missed it: a $20 billion surplus and $60 billion in reserves.

What is quite extraordinary is that those on the other side, from the Prime Minister right through their ranks, refer to ‘our surplus’. They are only able to do the things that they want to do economically, as I said before, because we left them that surplus. That surplus is there by dint of the previous coalition government and for no other reason. The only reason up until recently they could say ‘our surplus’ was because, unlike previous random Labor governments, they had chosen not to spend it straightaway. Previously, most Labor governments just chose to spend, spend, spend. But yesterday we saw the big spend coming. It did not even take 12 months.

It would be interesting to see the information and the assessments that those decisions were based upon, although unfortunately answers given today did not provide those things to this side of the chamber. It would be interesting to see exactly what advice the government received on the size of the package that would be appropriate to provide what they saw as the economic stimulus needed. It will be very easy to see how those decisions were made once those figures and that advice actually come out. But today there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that we are going to be told anything about the basis for the decisions that the government have taken surrounding the economy in the last couple of days, so we have no idea.

Yet again, it is another example of the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister. On the one hand he is saying that he wants to be open and accountable, that he will hold nothing back from the Australian people and he will be open and transparent but, when asked, what answer do we get from the other side: ‘I am terribly sorry. It will come out in MYEFO. I will not talk about it now, blah blah blah.’ Senator Conroy’s answers were not actually answers, because they did not address the questions that were asked today—but, really, that is not out of the usual form because he chooses mostly not to answer any of the questions. Apparently that transparency, which the Prime Minister is so keen to talk about, is going to come a little bit later: ‘We will make these very important decisions now because they are very important for the economy.’ We know that Mr Rudd is an economic conservative—apparently he became one during the election campaign!—but we are being told that we, and more importantly the Australian people, are not allowed to see the basis for those decisions: ‘That will all come in the fullness of time.’ I would say that the Australian people deserve to be told that now—right now, today—by the Prime Minister. He keeps talking about transparency; he is the one that should give that information now.

What we are seeing is absolute hypocrisy from the other side of this chamber—from the government—talking about ‘our surplus’. They have not done it, they have not built it and they have not invested in this country to give it the economy that it has. That was clearly done by the previous coalition government. Anybody who thinks any different is barking up the wrong tree. There is no doubt that our former coalition government is responsible for the economic state of this country—no two ways about it. And, in true Labor form, the coalition was given a $96 billion debt when it came into office, which it paid off. The coalition fixed the economy, strengthened the country, allowed it to get through the Asian crisis at the time. For the government to turn around—(Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following up on one of the issues Senator Nash raised: if the former government did such a good job on the economy, why have we now inherited an economic crisis? The fact of the matter is that we have inherited an economic crisis because of the failure of the previous government to see and respond to the issues that have now arisen in not only the Australian economy but the world economy. Don’t leave, Senator Nash! I am going to talk about it. You want some answers and now you are leaving. Come and listen to the answers. Senator Nash, come back please! In the absence of Senator Nash, I will respond to the issues she has raised.

Honourable Senator:

Honourable senator interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Farrell as well, not Senator Nash.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Deputy President; I appreciate your advice, as always, in these things and I shall continue to address the chair. The reason we are facing the difficulties we are at the moment is that the former government failed to spot the problems that were on the horizon in the economy. There is no doubt that at the moment the world is facing the worst financial crisis that we have faced in modern times.

I asked the library to get some information on the last serious economic crisis of this nature and, of course, it was the Great Depression. I asked them to give us an indication of the triggers at that time. They have summarised it with three particular issues. The first was a fall in the export prices and sales. We are starting to see that now with the collapse in commodity prices and the effect that that is going to have on the mining sector. Secondly, they said a fall in overseas lending due to a reduction in government capital spending. Of course, one of the major features of this current crisis is the freezing of capital markets, so banks are too frightened to lend to one another because they are not sure if they are going to fail. So many banks around the world have failed, and the banks have stopped lending to one another. The third thing was a fall in residential construction.

We cannot do a lot about commodity prices—that is pretty much out of our control and will be dependent, particularly for Australia, on how successfully the Chinese and the Indian governments can deal with these issues. But we can control the other two issues, and that is exactly what the Rudd Labor government has sought to do on this occasion. I think the reaction of the senators opposite is an indication that they have been surprised at the speed and the scale of the Rudd government’s Economic Security Strategy.

Instead of lining the pockets of big business or lining the pockets of the rich, what Labor has done on this occasion is what you would expect the Labor government to do in the circumstances—they have redirected the resources of the Australian economy to the people who need it most: working families, low- to middle-income families, pensioners and people who are trying to buy their first home. When the history of what some people call the ‘panic of 2008’ is written, people will look back and see that the decisive action that the Rudd Labor government took on this occasion will be one of the crucial factors in turning around this crisis, stopping Australia from going into a recession or, worse, depression and directing the money to where it is needed most.

What have we done? What are the key features of this Economic Security Strategy? Firstly, it is to provide relief for Australia’s four million pensioners, carers, seniors and veterans. On 8 December, they will receive a total of $4.8 billion worth of grants. Single pensioners will receive $1,400, couples will receive $2,100 and carers will receive $1,000 for each person they are responsible for caring for. For 12 years the Liberal Party had an opportunity to do pensioners—(Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans, and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy, and I also choose to respond to some comments made by Senator Polley and Senator Farrell. But, firstly, I want to put on the record again the coalition’s support for this $10.4 billion package announced by the Prime Minister, because, if you listened to the comments that were made by Senator Conroy during question time, you would think that there was some huge doubt about our support for this package. His inflammatory comments really set out to mislead the Australian public about the fact that we are strongly supporting the government’s stand with this economic package in securing and looking after the interests of all Australians.

I would like to take up a couple of comments that were made, firstly, by Senator Farrell in his suggestion that we are surprised by the government’s response to this crisis. You’re damn right we are! It is the first time that you guys—as Senator Fifield so clearly articulated—have realised that you are on the government benches and you are in a position to actually govern this country, as opposed to commentating and calling for another inquiry. In nine months, it is the first time that you have actually decided to do something in a positive, constructive way, so I support your comments. I can well understand why you think that we are surprised, because I tell you: we are.

I would also like to respond to a couple of comments that Senator Polley made. The first was her suggestion that the Howard-Costello government had not been transparent in government, and she cited instances in 1996. I would suggest that the greatest arbiters of that, those who have the best judgement are the Australian public themselves. I draw to your attention that such was the so-called problem with transparency in the way the coalition government managed this country that we actually won three elections after that, so I would suggest to Senator Polley that transparency was not the issue of the day. I would also like to pick up on her comment about our approach to government, which was ‘spend, spend, spend’. If that had been our approach, they would not have been left with a $22 billion surplus buffer which now provides them with the capacity to deal with the current global financial crisis, as opposed to the $96 billion debt that we were left.

In this chamber, we have been strongly arguing the case to ease the burden for all single age pensioners, for over a month now, with the immediate relief of an increase of $30 to that pension payment. I found it extraordinary when I heard the Prime Minister outline the package. It was nothing less than a bald-faced backflip on everything that the government had been responding to in relation to our strong advocacy of helping pensioners out now—not for the long term, as was being suggested by the government, in the next budget, but giving them some relief now, which is what they so sorely need.

It is interesting to note the government’s approach to these matters. If the idea does not come from them, if it is not a brainwave that they dreamed up overnight themselves, then they do not consider it to be good public policy and they do not consider it and take it on board. This is what happened, certainly, in relation to the increase that we proposed for pensions.

On Friday, 10 October, I heard Malcolm Turnbull speak and suggest that deposits should be secured by the government up to $20,000. But, once again, the government chose not to listen. The arrogance of the government dictates their extraordinary behaviour. Unless they come up with a good idea and therefore deem it to be good public policy, it is not going to fly. Here they have gone into a huddle, sought advice, repackaged it and called it by a different name, and now they promote it as good public policy. The good news for them is that we support this policy because it is something that we have been advocating for some time, so we are delighted with the strong fiscal stimulus that this will provide. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I will take the opportunity, now that there is not a sixth speaker in this debate, to correct the record on two matters. Firstly, Senator Farrell, during his speech taking note of the answers given in question time today, framed Senator Nash. That was very concerning, because Senator Nash has a range of appointments today. She had to leave the chamber, as do many senators after debate, after question time. In fact, Senator Nash at short notice agreed to participate in the debate, and we thanked her very much for rearranging her diary, after which she went back to those commitments. It is important, when a senator stands up in the chamber on broadcast day and shouts out that a senator is rushing from the chamber and will not stay and listen to the debate, that we correct that record. That is the first item.

The second item is about Senator Conroy’s answers during question time today. It has been highlighted through the debate, and I wish to restate again in response to government senators, that we do support the measures. We are very supportive of these measures, but we want scrutiny. We want clarity about what the measures exactly are. We are going to be expected to vote on these measures without any clear indication of modelling, of the financial arrangements or of whether or not this government can carry us through to the next election without leaving us in a serious deficit. It is important that we get these matters on the record. It is important that we ask these questions, and coalition senators have done exactly that today. They have inquired as to why the government will not be transparent, especially when the Prime Minister stands up and purports to be the most open and transparent Prime Minister that this country has ever had, yet we get no detail and no clarity on these important and very significant financial measures.

Question agreed to.