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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister please explain to the Senate what the impact of the failure to pass the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan package would be?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Would you consider that question to be hypothetical and rule accordingly?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will review the question at the end of question time.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that Senator Macdonald may be nervous about the extraordinary decision taken today by the opposition to oppose the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I think it is an extraordinary day in Australian politics. In the middle of a global financial crisis, when all economies are under enormous pressure, where the IMF has revised downward its projections for the economies on at least three occasions in recent months, where it is predicting that we will have negative growth if we do not act decisively now, the government have taken strong and decisive action to try and protect jobs, boost the economy and assist families. In taking that action, we followed the advice of all the international economic organisations and have mirrored action taken in all the Western economies around the world to try and protect their economies from the worst impacts of the global financial crisis. When the government take important, decisive action, what do the opposition do? They say: ‘We’re going to vote against it and we’re going to attempt to block your attempts to bolster the economy and protect Australian jobs.’ They want to stop us protecting Australian jobs. That is the extraordinary position we are in today.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will not give you the call, Senator Macdonald, until there is quiet. It is as simple as that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I again raise the point of order under standing order 73, that this question is hypothetical. The question asked was about: ‘if this package were voted down’. Surely the opposition’s view is known, but the Senate comprises other people besides the opposition. The question is hypothetical—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you can tell from the interjections from the other side that they know that what I am saying is 100 per cent true. This question is hypothetical and should be ruled out of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I undertook, I will review the question at the end of question time and get back if necessary.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order, clearly the senator is looking at standing order 73, which goes through a range of matters about which questions shall not be asked, such as ‘for an expression of opinion’ and ‘for a statement of the government’s policy’ and so on and so forth. It also includes in (g) ‘hypothetical matter’. In this respect, a question has been asked of the Leader of the Government in the Senate about these issues, and it is quite within the remit of this government to ask that question of the leader and for the leader to deal with it. Within that, we are talking about a real issue that is confronting us; it is not a hypothetical matter. But, of course, even within the framework of standing order 73 on rules for questions, there has always been—although it is not conceded in this instance—broad latitude to provide for the answer to the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig, I have already indicated to the chamber that the question will stand. I will review the comments that have been made, and the points of order by Senator Macdonald, at the end of question time and get back to the chamber if necessary.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand the extraordinary sensitivity that Senator Macdonald and the Liberal Party have about this issue, because it is incredible to think that their position now is that they do not support us trying to protect Australian jobs. They do not support us providing assistance to families. They do not support us providing assistance to small business. They do not support us trying to ensure that this economy grows and that people continue to have jobs. They are so out of touch that they would rather make smart alec debating points than examine the real needs of this economy and the need to protect Australian jobs. I urge them to reverse their decision.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators that there is a time for debating answers at the end of question time. That is why we take note of answers at the end of question time. That is the appropriate time.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister please detail to the Senate the impact on low- and middle-income earners and families if the package is not passed?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Australian families know, the government is attempting to provide them with financial support, both to support them and to boost economic activity to protect jobs. People know jobs are threatened. We have already seen large numbers of redundancies. This is a real economic crisis. What we want to do is support families. We are trying to give 8.7 million individuals a tax bonus of $950. But the opposition say, ‘No, don’t do that.’ We are trying to find a way to give 2.8 million children $950 as a back-to-school bonus. It is $950 to help families meet the costs of getting the kids back to school. But the opposition say, ‘Don’t do that.’ We want to help 1.5 million single-income families with a bonus, but the opposition say, ‘Don’t support Australian families; we’re going to stop you giving them the economic support you propose and protecting Australian jobs.’ Wake up to yourselves. You are so out of touch. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle and Senator Carr, I am waiting for a question from Senator Farrell.

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

Mr President, I ask another supplementary question. What will the impact on delivering essential community infrastructure be if the government’s package is not passed?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government’s plans include a $28 billion investment in infrastructure—investment in schools, housing, local roads. This investment will benefit communities for the long term but will also provide jobs now. It will employ Australians who are under threat from the global financial crisis. So we are investing in the future—investing in infrastructure, investing in our schools and our roads—and we are providing jobs. But the opposition say: ‘Don’t do that. Don’t invest in Australia. Don’t invest in jobs. We’re going to do everything we can to stop you providing that support to the Australian economy.’ Every P&C in Australia should tune in to the opposition saying: ‘Don’t build them a new hall. Don’t replace classrooms that are in need of reconstruction. Don’t help Australian communities. Don’t help Australian families.’ The opposition is so out of touch with Australians. I urge them to change their minds.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann, you will withdraw that comment.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stand up and withdraw. That is the normal procedure.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I can only proceed with order in the chamber.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Conroy. Can the minister confirm that the cumulative budget deficit will be $118 billion over the next four years?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Troeth for that question. The government is working responsibly on the budget deficit. Let me be clear. When it comes to this issue, there are a number of private sector endorsements of the budget and the budget stimulus package—which goes to the heart of the question of what the appropriate size of the deficit is. Dr David de Garis, the senior economist at nabCapital, stated that it is ‘a sizeable fiscal stimulus and, I think, appropriate in the circumstances both in terms of the size of the stimulus and also its construction’. ANZ Economics said, ‘The moves have been decisive and pre-emptive, thus giving policy the best chance of minimising the damage to employment.’ Let us be clear about this. There is endorsement across the country of this package. The deficit for 2008-09 will be $22.5 billion—that is, 1.9 per cent of GDP. The government’s fiscal strategy aims to ensure fiscal sustainability. When you look at what is happening around the world, most major industrial countries will have deficits in 2009.

Those opposite, who are seeking to pin their hopes on avoiding a deficit or reducing a deficit, should understand exactly the state of the world economy. The US deficit will surge to 9.5 per cent of GDP in 2009. That is a $1.2 trillion deficit, and that is inclusive of President Obama’s fiscal stimulus. The European Commission projects the UK’s deficit will rise four percentage points, to 8.8 per cent of GDP. In Japan the deficit is forecast— (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you did not answer the question, so I will ask you: is it the case that the budget would in fact have remained in surplus at least for this financial year but for the government’s reckless cash splash?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the one you voted for?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you mean the one you voted for?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do recollect, as I think some of my colleagues are interjecting, that those opposite actually voted for it. But let us be clear about this. Let us be absolutely clear. As was revealed on Monday, the size of the collapse in revenue has driven us into deficit. On top of that, we have now put in place a stimulus package. What you have to decide is whether or not you are actually going to stand behind your leader or be like all of those, like Mr Costello, who went out last night and tried to pre-empt him on it and force him into this position. You have to get right behind Mr Turnbull on this—you have to stick by him on this—because this is going to cost Australians jobs. Let us be clear. Australians will lose their jobs because of what you are planning to do. (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. To make my point further, I refer to the Prime Minister’s press conference of 2 February, where he claimed in relation to the $115 billion fall in tax receipts:

That means an impact directly on our budget, that means, therefore, of course, a temporary budget deficit.

Why did the Prime Minister mislead the Australian people at least in relation to this financial year about the reasons for the deficit, when the deficit is actually a result of the cash splash?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a question based on a false premise. It is entirely incorrect in the assumptions that underpin it. Let me be very clear. We are being driven into the budget deficit position that Senator Troeth asked about—of minus $22 billion, minus $35 billion, minus $35 billion and minus $25 billion—by international circumstances, and we have responded in both the economic security package before Christmas and the new stimulus package announced in the last few days. Let us be clear. You have a very simple choice: are you going to stick with Mr Turnbull and his position and cost jobs and put Australian families on the unemployment queue? That is what you are faced with. You are going to have a very long weekend to think about this. Australians will lose their jobs because of the irresponsible, short-term politicking that those opposite are engaged in. (Time expired)