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

I was wondering whether the government could give us an update on when we might actually see some amendments in printed form. I understand there is one circulated by Senator Xenophon. We are ready to deal with that, but I was wondering whether we could be given an indication as to when and if any other amendments are likely to materialise. What does the minister believe is a reasonable period of time for opposition and other senators to consider those amendments?

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

I am aware of the motion circulated by Senator Xenophon. Beyond that I cannot provide any information or details on any government amendments. I would point out that it is not unusual for amendments to be circulated during the course of debate. It is common practice under this government, and it was common practice under the former government; it is not an unusual practice.

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

Can I just say that, at this very late stage of the proceedings, the government is still unable to tell us whether they are going to be moving any amendments to their own package of bills.

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

Senator Abetz’s description is ‘this very late stage’. It is just after 10 in the morning. The committee stage could go through till midnight tonight, Senator Abetz, so I would suggest your terminology of ‘this very late stage’ is not appropriate, given the past practice which I have just referred to. It is the beginning of the day. Settle in for a long day and night. We are expecting to go to midnight. If you do not want to work that late, well, that is up to you. I am settling in and preparing for 14 hours ahead.

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

Can I just remind the minister that my terminology of ‘this late stage’ is based, of course, on the fact that your leader in this place said to the Australian people and the Senate that this package had to be passed by last Friday and every single day’s delay would be of great consequence. Here we were yesterday saying, ‘Let’s put it to the vote,’ and the Labor Party itself voted against putting it to a vote. Now, having been clothed with this legislation and all the information around it for some time, the government itself—and this is the important thing—does not even know whether it needs or wants to move amendments to its own legislation. Whether the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding might want to move amendments I can understand might be out of the control of the government, but whether the government itself wants to move amendments must surely be within the mind of the government at this late stage of the proceedings, this legislation having been before this chamber now for a good week.

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

I concur with Senator Abetz at least on one issue, and that is that every day is of consequence. Without going through the very important reasons why this package is so critical for the economic future of Australia and for supporting jobs, given the financial and economic crisis that has been spreading so rapidly around the world and has been enveloping all comparable economies and now China, I would point out, as I read into the Hansard yesterday, that a number of countries—indeed, many countries; I did not go to all those on the list—have recognised the critical nature and importance of a package such as we are considering here. It is very important that the package is passed. A time line has been set for tonight and, as I say again, it is not unusual in any piece of legislation to have amendments circulated during the course of the day. If that is to occur from the government, there are some 14 hours to go, as I say, and that is not an unusual circumstance.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the chamber’s consideration of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009. Like all Australians, my thoughts are with the people of Victoria and the communities who have been so cruelly ravaged by the uncontrollable bushfires. My condolences and sympathies are with everyone affected by the disaster. I would also like to place on record my appreciation for the efforts of the courageous volunteers who risked their lives and their safety to help others. I also want to thank the state and federal public servants who are working tirelessly to assist those affected by this disaster.

While the Victorian disaster is an immediate priority, we must continue to deal with the unprecedented global financial crisis facing Australia. I was fortunate to participate in the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration inquiry into the provisions of the nation building and jobs package. Before I go to the issues arising from the inquiry and the specifics of the conclusions, it is appropriate to make a few general comments on the bill. This nation is facing a historic and unparalleled challenge as a result of the global economic crisis. The government has risen to the challenge in an economically responsible and decisive manner. Our task is to do whatever we can to shield the Australian economy and the Australian public from the emerging global recession. Our nation building and jobs package is about sustaining and supporting up to 90,000 jobs over the next two years. Our plan is about providing support for working Australians and their communities. Our plan is about supporting the nation in the face of huge international pressures that have seen banks collapse, lending dry up and business activity stall. This is resulting in massive increases in unemployment and social dislocation around the world.

There has been much said about the government’s package from those opposite. I note in the minority report that coalition senators claimed they have reached the conclusion that the package does not conform with what they refer to as ‘best economic theory’. This goes to the heart of the opposition’s inability to accept and understand that there must now be a strong role for government to assist the nation to withstand the worst effects of the global recession. Workers around the world and around our nation face the loss of their jobs, the loss of their homes, the loss of their dignity. The Australian public is not interested in the coalition’s view of what is best economic theory. The coalition’s best economic theory helped deliver this economic disaster and their best economic theory failed to identify the impending global recession. Stop lecturing us about best economic theory. The Australian public wants a government that is decisive, economically competent, caring and compassionate. This is not a time for theorising; it is a time for decisive action. The nation building and jobs package meets this test.

The opposition, on the basis of their ideological embrace of neoliberal economic theory—the theory they claim they are all so proud to espouse—want a minimal role for government in the operation of the market and society. Years of corporate greed and years of small government have left our nation ill-equipped to deal with this huge market failure that has unprecedented global consequences.

I am a strong supporter of having a proper balance between allowing the markets to work and ensuring a strategic role for government when markets do not work. The Labor government have ensured that we do not make the mistake of acting too late in the face of the international global financial meltdown. The package has been developed with a clear understanding of the need to act to stimulate the domestic economy and play our part in freeing up financial and market activity around the world. We have a role in the global economy, not just the national economy, to make sure that we deal effectively with this great crisis of financial instability around the world. On that basis, we have developed a responsible package that has received widespread support from state governments of all political persuasions—even the Western Australian government—from business, from unions and from community groups.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, formerly thought to be central to the coalition’s political base, says this of the package:

We thought the stimulus package should be in the order of over 2% of GDP and that’s in fact what’s delivered, and we believe that’s absolutely essential.

All of the arguments from the other side, all of the scare tactics about government debt, are blown away by the ACCI. The ACCI, who have been close to the Liberal Party over many years, have indicated clearly their unequivocal support for the government’s package. And why are they supporting the government’s package? They are supporting the government’s package because it is economically responsible. It is a package that meets the requirements of the grave challenges facing the working families of this nation, the challenges facing the businesses of this nation. It is economically responsible, decisive and goes to the issues that are important to make sure that we sustain our economic activity in the face of an economic meltdown of business activity around the world.

It is not just the ACCI who recognise the economic responsibility and decisiveness of the Labor government. The Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Katie Lahey, told the Sydney Morning Herald last week:

The government’s responsible approach to keeping stimulus measures timely, well targeted at those who’ll spend it, and temporary, will ensure the spending will not be a dead weight on our ability to achieve future growth and surpluses.

Again, the Business Council of Australia have destroyed the fear tactics and the arguments that are coming from the other side. They recognise that responsible economic management from the government is the best way forward and that the package will support jobs, will support economic recovery and will ensure that we have targeted the levers that are required to be pulled by government to sustain the economy over this period of time. The Business Council of Australia are not decrying the surplus. The Business Council of Australia are not decrying government intervention.

The problem from the other side is that they are so deeply engaged in economic theory, in economic nonsense, that the world is abandoning them. They are so steeped in this economic theory that they cannot act in the national interest. They just cannot bring themselves to reject the theory and deal with the practice of preventing this nation from falling into a deep recession. They are doing this by lies, they are doing this by misinformation and they are doing it on the basis of a theory that is discredited all around the world. Do not just take it from me; again, look to business. What does Heather Ridout, the Chief Executive of the Ai Group say in terms of what is required? She says:

The nation building and jobs plan announced by the Federal Government today is simple and substantial, and will provide a big stimulus to help keep the economy moving. Together with the interest rate cut, it has been a big day for monetary and fiscal policy—it’s a case of ‘all hands on deck’.

The package targets consumer spending, which is absolutely critical to our near-term economic prospects, and boosts capital expenditure—looming as one of the real casualties of the downturn.

Heather Ridout is right in most of what she says, but she is not right that all hands are on deck, because the Liberal-National Party coalition have abandoned the ship. They have abandoned the ship at a time when all hands should be on deck. The AiG are correct: there should be all hands on deck in this parliament to make sure that this nation does not slide into recession. But when the business community are calling for all hands on deck the coalition have deserted the ship and they have deserted their obligation to act economically responsibly in the interests of the nation. That is what we are faced with on the other side of this chamber.

It is clear that the business community support this package. They support the decisive and responsible action that has been taken by the government. There have been no histrionics, no petty politics and no fear campaigns from the business sector. They know that what the Labor Party is doing is right for this economy and right for the nation. All the histrionics and all the fear campaigns are coming from the coalition. I think this nation deserves better in these very bad times that we are facing.

Unlike the shadow Treasurer, the Australian public do not want us to gaze at our navels, sitting and waiting to see what happens. How ridiculous is it that we have a coalition who claim false economic credibility? This is being pulled apart in their nonsense approach to this package. They want us to sit and wait and see what happens. Well, we are not prepared to sit and wait and see workers’ jobs destroyed, communities pulled apart and more social dislocation because of an economic theory from the other side. This is no economic theoretical debate; this is a debate about ensuring that governments act decisively and act in the national interest. The public do not want an arcane debate about economic theories and they have demonstrated that they have had enough of the scare tactics of the opposition.

Scare tactics, misinformation and political point-scoring: that is what underpins the opposition’s short-term political opportunism. The opposition would have us believe that this package represents an overreaction to the crisis. Not one businessperson of substance believes that to be the situation. We want you to get back on deck. We want you to be with us saving this nation from an unnecessary recession. Do not abandon the ship. (Time expired)

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

That was a very effective contribution. I think Senator Cameron outlined very succinctly the issues facing this chamber and the country. Senator Ludlam is here. I have, as I have indicated, been responding to questions in this committee stage. I want to outline to him a response to an issue that he raised yesterday. I think this is now the only question that we have not responded to and I want to take this opportunity in the early stage of the committee debate today to respond.

Senator Ludlam asked for information about the degree to which the government is considering resilient housing measures and adaptability to these sorts of events and what kinds of benchmarks we would be setting for the developers and builders. Bearing in mind that the package has not been passed yet and obviously there are some discussions going on with the states and territories—hopefully, the package will be passed and those discussions have got down to the detail but there is no conclusion yet—the government will be encouraging social housing projects that incorporate innovative ideas in both the design and construction elements. This will include construction techniques and use of materials that will make housing more resilient over time.

The government, as I have indicated, is and will be working with the states and territories on establishing a competitive selection process to seek proposals for the majority of funding available through the Social Housing Initiative. This will include the establishment of key criteria against which these proposals will be assessed. The government will be engaging expert advice from the building sector to establish the key criteria, and consideration will be given to how these criteria can be developed to promote resilient housing without significantly impacting on building costs.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for those answers. The other questions I put last night went to the reporting obligations, as you are benchmarking against the various criteria you are setting in the different areas. I was interested to know to what degree the parliament and, therefore, the public would be informed as to whether the housing is meeting Commonwealth expectations.

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

I am seeking advice from an adviser on that matter. He is just coming into the chamber, Senator Ludlam. While we are waiting I want to highlight in a general sense this issue of housing which we are debating, which is obviously a key component of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I think it is important to highlight that it is proposed that some $6.6 billion be spent on some 20,000 social and Defence homes. This is an important element of this package. The moneys are predominantly to be spent in 2009-10—some $4.3 billion—and then in 2010-11 there will be $1.794 billion spent.

Of course we know that, when an economy weakens, the housing and construction sector is one of those sectors that declines most rapidly. Around the world we have seen what has been known as a housing bubble, in countries such as the US and the UK, and the collapse of that housing bubble. We have not seen decline in commercial property values to that extent in Australia, but there has been a plateauing of values and a decline in some areas—it does vary from area to area. So it is very important to ensure in this stimulus package that we are able to assist the construction and housing sector when this period of weakening starts to accelerate. That is a very important part of the package. It is only one element of the package, but it is a very important part.

On the issue which Senator Ludlam has raised and which we were discussing yesterday, there is a coordinator-general. We outlined and discussed the structure for compliance—I think that would be the best way of describing it—and the reporting requirements to COAG, which is obviously the Commonwealth and all of the states and territories. I can indicate that I would expect that COAG would make publicly available the material on the reporting. We would expect them to make that public. I cannot pre-empt the decision of COAG, but we would expect that that would be made public. Obviously I cannot pre-empt the decision of COAG because COAG is yet to meet and receive its report on this aspect of the stimulus package.

There are two other areas of scrutiny. It will be scrutinised through the Senate estimates process and, because it obviously involves Commonwealth expenditure, at some point in time I am sure the Auditor-General will be carrying out work in this area. Again, it is obviously too early and I am not aware of any commitment by the Auditor-General to date, but, given the size, the extent and the newness of the program, and the oversight, I would certainly anticipate that the Auditor-General will examine this once the first reports are available. So that is the process that I anticipate would be provided to oversight what is occurring in this area.

I do think it is important, and I think you are right to highlight it, Senator Ludlam, because, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we want this money spent effectively and in accordance with the criteria. We do not want the money being used to replace the existing commitments of the states going forward. The Prime Minister has made it very clear publicly that this oversight will be rigorous and it will occur for both Labor and Liberal state and territory governments. I certainly have no doubt that the premiers and territory leaders understand that. It was spelt out very clearly to them at the meeting the Prime Minister held last week, where he went through the stimulus package with them. They have accepted that that is their responsibility—not just in this area but in all areas of the package. These are additional moneys over and above existing state commitments and we do not want to see substitution—that would be inappropriate and undermine the very extensive, if it were to occur, impact of this stimulus package. So, Senator Ludlam, I do not think you should be in any doubt about the Prime Minister’s determination on this matter, regardless of the political colour of the state or territory government.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for seeking some additional information there for us. The government should be under no illusion. We have spoken in the chamber on a number of occasions. We are entirely supportive of the large-scale spend on public housing. This is an area that has been very much neglected over the last 10 or 15 years or so. It provides a short-term stimulus to the construction sector, which is lagging in Australia since the market began to soften. It also addresses the very important issue of housing availability and housing affordability. So we certainly have no argument with it. As to the scale of the spending, it has fallen short of what the sector has been asking for but it will certainly make very important inroads into affordable housing. The reason I have been fairly persistent on the issue of reporting obligations and how much of this information will be made public is that public housing historically has had a pretty bad name. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity here to create affordable housing for people on low incomes that is not ghettoised and that does not warehouse people in office blocks or cheap and nasty heat traps on the edge of town a long way from services and public transport.

We have an opportunity to get this right and to incorporate the housing that we are building for people on low incomes who are just looking for a decent start into genuinely sustainable communities. We have an opportunity to build energy and water efficient housing that will provide very low-cost accommodation over the long term, close to services, jobs and public transport. That is really what we are looking for. We will not know whether that is happening if, six months down the track, we hear from COAG that they do not intend to report on how we are tracking along on those matters back to the government. I take on board your acknowledgement that that is up to COAG to decide, but we need a degree more comfort from you, Minister, that in fact the Commonwealth will be demanding that the states and territories report back on exactly how well we are doing with the money we are spending.

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

Firstly, I do not in any way in my responses call into question your support for the expenditure, and I do not question the scrutiny which you are attaching to the discussion at this committee stage. In fact, I welcome it. I think it is important to deal with the social aspects. There is obviously an economic issue, but the social aspects in this area are important. I accept that, depending on the state or territory, there is a pretty mixed record. To varying degrees the priority and focus in this area has not been able to keep up with the demand for social housing around Australia.

I do not know whether you were here yesterday, Senator Ludlam, when I indicated that my wife works in the Tasmanian housing area on the north-west coast of Tasmania. It is not a conflict of interest but I am kept pretty well apprised of the range of difficulties in this area because it is a matter of discussion in our household on very frequent occasions—waiting lists, disability, the size of homes and all measure of social issues. I am personally pretty well apprised of the difficulties.

The other point to make is that, obviously, social housing is delivered by the states. It is not unusual, certainly in Tasmania, for federal members of parliament from the House of Representatives and the Senate to be approached with representations in this area. I am not familiar with whether this occurs in other states, but certainly in Tasmania politicians at a federal level, despite state responsibilities, receive constant representations from individuals on—

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

That we do.

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

Yes. Senator Abetz is from Tasmania. It has been a constant issue for as long as I have been in politics, which is just over 18 years. From a federal point of view, whilst we do not have direct responsibility, we do have some appreciation of the size of the issues.

Beyond the COAG process that I have outlined, as I have indicated, I would expect that COAG would release the documents on the analysis, overview and oversight. The Commonwealth will be asking for that, but I cannot give an indication today of whether COAG will agree to it. The Commonwealth certainly believes that that should occur. I think it would be very unreasonable for states and territories to refuse. As the Prime Minister has indicated, if there is any backsliding in this area, any failure to meet with standards, moneys will be reallocated to other states and territories. That is a pretty effective penalty for failing to meet standards. That would have to be publicly justified, obviously. If a particular state or territory had its moneys or part of its moneys reallocated, that would certainly have to be justified. As I say, the difficulty for me here is in not being able to pre-empt the formal meeting of COAG, but I do accept your interest, Senator Ludlam, and determination to ensure we have full, rigorous and public oversight of outcomes in respect of all of the detail we have been discussing.

Putting aside the macro and economic stimulus issues, the social housing matters that we have touched on are very important. The Prime Minister himself has a very strong focus on homelessness, for example. That, again, is part of the social issues with respect to social housing. I have indicated the figures for 2009-10 and 2010-11—some 20,000 social and Defence homes. That is 20,000 homes that would not otherwise have been constructed by the states. That is an important economic stimulus but also a very important social issue to consider and to put a much greater effort into. All the components in this package are important, but I think, from a social equity point of view, it is critical that greater focus and more resources be given to this area, and this is an appropriate time to do so. That is what is being delivered through this package. That is one reason why this package should receive the support of the Senate.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my last comment. I want to confirm something in terms of the punitive measures the Prime Minister has commented on. I will take the example of energy efficiency star ratings for new housing developments. If one of the states and territories is not in compliance and the housing that has been proposed for Commonwealth funding is substandard, has the Prime Minister reserved the right to steer the funds elsewhere? I want confirmation that you are saying the Prime Minister has reserved the right to steer the funding towards states and territories that are putting forward compliant housing.

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

Yes, I can confirm that. It has been made very clear that the states and territories that do not meet the provisions will not receive funding and it will be reallocated to those that do. I think that is a pretty powerful penalty mechanism. One of the officials has advised me that, to the extent that the national partnership on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan contributes to national agreements of COAG—and, in particular, the issue we have been discussing, the National Housing Affordability Agreement, is important in this context—the state performance against the objective in these agreements will be assessed by what is known as the COAG Reform Council, and the COAG Reform Council makes these reports public. That has already been agreed to. So that is another level of oversight, if you like, that has been drawn to my attention by the officials.

The COAG Reform Council is independent. It is an authority established by COAG itself, which has been given a new role to monitor and publicly report on the progress of all governments against mutually agreed objectives that are set by COAG and set out in the new federal financial framework. The COAG Reform Council will report every 12 months in respect of the performance on health care, housing, schools and vocational education, disability services and Indigenous reform. So that is another mechanism for publication of assessment and another area of scrutiny of this very important aspect of the package under consideration.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start talking about the committee issues, I would like to pass my condolences to the people of Victoria who have suffered through the horrific bushfires over the past few days. I am old enough to remember the terrible bushfires of 7 February 1967 in Hobart. In fact, members of my family lost everything in that fire. So my heartfelt sympathies go out to everybody involved and my sincere thanks go to those emergency services personnel and volunteers who have been working amazingly hard for the last week or so.

It is with pleasure that I rise to make my contribution to the committee debate today. Listening to the debate yesterday I was amazed that, even though Senator Abetz had suggested the debate, opposition senators contended that we on this side are filibustering. Prior to the Senate inquiries, many opposition members voiced outright opposition to the stimulus package, and now they want to imply that we are treating this issue with less than the seriousness it deserves. All this, and they have nothing productive to offer, as far as I can see. This is a very important debate. Some of the world’s largest economies—the United States, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom—are in recession. China’s growth has halved. Although Australia is better placed than most countries, the opposition’s ad hoc comments—such as ‘Let’s wait and see,’ or ‘It’ll be right, mate’—clearly show they do not have a plan or a better option. We live in a time of global economic uncertainty the likes of which has not been seen since the end of World War II and the postwar internationalisation of industrialised economies in subsequent decades.

The raft of legislation we are considering provides the basis for the implementation of the economic stimulus package announced by the Rudd government on 3 February 2009. While we live in a global economy and share in the many economic benefits that this brings to our country through exports and foreign investment, we must be alert to the impact of a downturn in global economic conditions beyond our geographical borders. Considering that many of the major economies, including the United States, Germany and Japan, are now in recession it is little wonder that the International Monetary Fund has seen fit to mark down its forecast for global economic growth some three times in the past four months. Let me emphasise once again that we are in the midst of a global economic crisis.

Mr Turnbull and his colleagues know there is a need for the stimulus package. His crocodile tears about ‘mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren’ is a ploy to tug at the heart strings of ordinary, hardworking Australians. Once again he is taking the divisive line. He is not prepared to work with us but wants to argue for the sake of it. Faced with an economic crisis, governments may choose to take decisive action to hopefully alleviate the worst impact of the global downturn, or take a reactive stance and allow the free market to allocate resources. The Rudd Labor government has decided to take decisive action, and it is imperative that we act in a timely manner. The Rudd Labor government makes no apology for choosing the path of decisive action. This approach commenced last December with the rollout of the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy, a package which the opposition says has failed to have any impact on the domestic economy.

We now have evidence, in the form of the latest retail trade figures, that disproves the coalition’s stance. In releasing the figure of 3.8 per cent for December 2008, the Australian Bureau of Statistics commented that ‘the package implemented in December 2008 has impacted on Australia’s retail turnover’. Unfortunately, despite the success of this measure, global economic conditions have continued to worsen and further decisive action is now required. The Rudd Labor government is prepared to meet this challenge.

The stimulus package provides for a $42 billion injection into the domestic economy, with the bulk of the spending in the areas of infrastructure and education—two most important areas. Both of these policy areas are viewed as priorities because they each will provide a long-term return on investment, in the form of an increase in productive capacity, in addition to a short-term stimulatory impact on the economy. It is also notable that both of these areas were neglected by the previous Howard government in favour of short-term policy commitments dictated to a large degree by the electoral cycle. Once again the folly of this approach is highlighted, and it is a Labor government that must govern in a time of crisis.

Public investment in infrastructure was largely ignored by the previous government, which took the view that the market will provide a public good in the absence of any incentives. As a result, vital infrastructure such as roads, electricity grids, ports and railways—indeed, the very arteries of our economy—were ignored and fell into a state of disrepair. Let us get to the heart of this matter: not only did the previous government not have a heart, but they ignored the wellbeing of the arteries of Australia as well. This package will provide around $30 billion for infrastructure such as housing, schools and roads over the next three financial years. A large portion of this expenditure will take place in the first year, consistent with the goal of providing a boost to the economy through the provision of jobs and a healthy level of domestic demand. I have heard members of the opposition say that they do not think many jobs will be created as a result of the package, and they are trying to get numbers qualified. I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which met last week to discuss the housing section of this package. I would like to quote from evidence given to the committee by Mr Bill Harnisch, the Chief Executive Officer of Master Builders Australia. He said:

… as part of the economic stimulus package, this will very much generate economic activity, particularly through the multiplier effects, through manufacturing, obviously through the construction phase and then through the retail phase. All this will provide much-needed jobs in this industry. We agree with the HIA that the housing sector is very sluggish at the moment, so this stimulus package will certainly be a welcome boost—not only, obviously, to the social housing sector but, more importantly, to the economy and therefore to jobs, which is very important in the current economic climate.

So the housing sector part of this package is a win-win situation because, yes, there is a demand for more social housing. I have listened very carefully to the debate and to the questions put by Senator Ludlam. We will create jobs and employment by building varying forms of housing. To me that is a win-win situation, and why anyone would want to hold that up and play politics over it is beyond belief.

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

Not the way you’re doing with your filibuster!

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not filibustering. I mentioned before that we are entitled to have a debate. Would you rather that we did not debate? We have the right to put our points and to debate. As I said, this package will provide around $30 billion for infrastructure such as housing, schools and roads over the next three financial years. A large portion of this expenditure will take place in the first year, consistent with the goal of providing a boost to the economy through the provision of jobs and healthy levels of domestic demand. The leader of the opposition claims that it is unreasonable to expect future generations to pay for this expenditure, yet it is a fact that public infrastructure built today will provide ongoing community benefit available to future generations. Over the term of the preceding government, I constantly thought that this was an area in which they were not taking enough interest or action. They may have had a surplus to hand over, but at what expense?

Investment in the area of education could be considered the highest form of investment in future generations. Human capital lies at the heart of a nation’s productive capacity. The ability to work smarter and to foster innovation in all its facets is critical to ongoing success in the global economy. Investing in schools is the most important infrastructure investment that a government can make. It will provide the opportunity for our schools to engage in urgent upgrades and to develop learning environments that are modern and will improve education outcomes for our students—a point that is clearly not important to Mr Turnbull and the members of the opposition. I wonder which schools Mr Turnbull would have miss out under his inadequate response to the government’s stimulus package. His plan is for an 80 per cent reduction in education funding. His suggestion that $3 billion over three years would be adequate is surely, at best, a joke and, at worst, an insult.

So the Rudd Labor government will deliver a $14.7 billion boost to the education revolution over the next three financial years. Building the Education Revolution will commence in 2008-09 and will provide new facilities and refurbishments in schools to meet the needs of today’s students and teachers. Each of Australia’s 9,540 schools will benefit from immediate funding for major and minor infrastructure projects. The program is built on the Rudd government’s commitment to all Australian schools by targeting primary and secondary school infrastructure requirements in both the government and the non-government sectors.

The three key elements of Building the Education Revolution are Primary Schools for the 21st Century, Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools and Renewing Australia’s Schools. Under Primary Schools for the 21st Century there is $12.4 billion to build or refurbish large-scale infrastructure in primary schools, kindergarten to year 12s and special schools, including libraries and multipurpose halls. Under Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools there is $1 billion to build up to 500 science laboratories or language learning centres in our secondary schools, based on assessed need. There will be a competitive process for proposals, and funding will be allocated to schools that demonstrate need, readiness and capacity to complete construction by 30 June 2010. Under Renewing Australia’s Schools there is $1.3 billion to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and to build minor infrastructure in all schools.

Recognising the negative impact that the slowdown in economic growth has had on lower and middle-income earners, the Rudd Labor government is providing as part of this package $12.7 billion in financial assistance to working Australians. Household financial assistance is being provided through immediate tax relief and transfer payments to ensure timely assistance to households to stimulate consumption and support private demand. It is necessary to provide households immediate assistance to kick-start stimulatory activity until direct government investment measures take effect. The package is a significant economic measure to deal with extraordinary times and is in addition to the Economic Security Strategy delivered in December 2008 to support as many households as possible.

The package of measures includes a tax bonus for working Australians of up to $950 for eligible taxpayers, depending on income thresholds, and a single-income family bonus of $950 to provide additional assistance for families that have one main income earner and may otherwise receive less assistance from the package than dual-income families with similar household income. I have had numerous calls and people actually coming into my electorate office asking: ‘When will this money begin? When will I be able to access this money? How do I access it?’ For members of the opposition to claim that people don’t want it suggests they may well be talking to the wrong people. I have not had to go and ask people; they have come to me. There is a farmers hardship bonus, of course, of $950, which will be paid to farmers and others receiving exceptional circumstances related income support; a training and learning bonus of $950 to assist students, those returning to study or training, and some income support recipients; and there is a back-to-school bonus of $950 per child to assist low- and middle-income families eligible for family tax benefit A with school-age children.

These payments will be especially welcomed by members of the Tasmanian community, which has a larger proportion of citizens earning less than $100,000 per annum than other states. So I am quite surprised that Tasmanian opposition senators feel that they cannot support the Rudd Labor government’s initiative.

The Energy Efficient Homes program is a key component of this stimulus package. It represents an investment of $3.9 billion as a response to the joint threats of worldwide recession and climate change. This innovative policy response delivers on the government’s household energy efficiency commitments contained in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme white paper. The government’s new investments in energy efficiency will modernise Australia’s existing housing stock, thus creating jobs, while contributing to a potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 49.4 million tonnes by 2020. This time-limited program of initiatives will have three key components. First, eligible Australian owner-occupiers will be able to access free installation and supply of ceiling insulation up to $1,600 through this program, saving a possible $200 per year on their energy bills. Second, there will be support for tenants in rental accommodation, with landlords able to access an increased rebate of up to $1,000 to install insulation in their rental properties. Let us not forget that a number of rental properties— (Time expired)

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

What a great value-add to the debate that was—not! I am sure that Senator Furner is ready to go with his filibuster. This is bringing the Senate and its operation into disrepute.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren’t listening to me. Are you the only who is allowed to speak in here?

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

—I am actually going to ask a question of the minister, unlike Senator Bilyk, who simply slavishly read a speech—prepared by the minister’s office, no doubt.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not!

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

Senator Bilyk, if I were you, I would not lay claim to that speech.

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

Senator Abetz, if you have a question, I suggest that you ask it.

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

I will. I was wondering whether the minister can give us an update as to whether the government has decided as yet whether it is going to move any amendments to its own legislation? We have now been waiting a full week since it was introduced, and time is ticking by today. We know filibusters are going on. I think the Senate is entitled to know.

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

I can say quite categorically that my office had absolutely no hand in—

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

No, not your’s—Mr Swan’s office.

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

You said mine. I can also say that on behalf of the Treasurer.

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

It would have been better if you had written it.

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

I think Senator Bilyk’s was a very good contribution to the committee discussion. Senator Bilyk is perfectly capable—as a Tasmanian senator, I know this well—of preparing her own speeches. I congratulate her for her contribution in the committee stage.

I do reject the claim that there has been a filibuster taking place over the course of the last day and a half. I do reject that claim. I will have to total up the number of questions and answers that I have provided, but there have certainly been at least 30 or 40 questions posed over the course of the last day and a half. I have provided, I think, answers to almost every question that has been posed—not just from the crossbenches. I would also remind Senator Abetz that there were a number of questions posed not just by him but by Senator Macdonald, for example. I did provide a response to his requests.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While discussion is happening in the chamber, I would like to take an opportunity also to make a small contribution to this debate and perhaps ask the minister to turn his mind to how the package would affect the constituency I represent in South Australia. Certainly this second economic stimulus package we are considering today builds on the $10.4 billion package that the government implemented in October last year. It is a very welcome economic stimulus package. It has certainly stimulated a lot of debate in the chamber—and I think a lot of very useful debate.

While the opposition senators have been very dismissive of this committee stage of the debate about this package of bills, I think yesterday’s debate was particularly useful as we heard suggestions from senators about other things that could be done to stimulate the economy in Australia. As the minister has pointed out numerous times, while a lot of senators in this place have spent a lot of time considering ways to stimulate the economy, unfortunately we are unable to take up all of those suggestions. But it was telling that the crossbenches in particular came up with some useful contributions in that regard, whereas the coalition senators have made no suggestions at all and have only managed to ask ridiculous questions, as Senator Abetz has just done.

The Nation Building and Jobs Plan has come about because Australia is facing the worst economic situation that it has confronted since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is worth reiterating the core components of the package of bills that is before us today. There are many wonderful initiatives that are going to underpin the Australian economy when we do come out of this economic strife, which we know will not continue forever. This package is designed to ensure that, when we do come out of the economic downturn, we have the infrastructure in place, the skills in place, the training in place—all of the mechanics in place—for us to move forward as the great nation that we are.

The core components of this package that we are considering in the Senate at the moment include free ceiling insulation for over 2.7 million Australian homes. I mentioned South Australia before. South Australians have just survived one of the worst heatwaves that we have ever had. Unfortunately, many elderly South Australians died during that heatwave. I think the numbers were something around the 80 mark. Many of those elderly people died in their homes because they were unable to escape from the heat. While the coalition senators have mocked the installation of ceiling insulation in homes, I wonder what they would say to the elderly people who struggled through that heatwave. I wonder what they would say to them when those elderly people need ceiling insulation to try to protect themselves from the sometimes lethal heat that we have in South Australia. I am particularly supportive of that part of the package, and I know it is going to be a very welcome initiative, especially for lower income South Australians who need to do something to insulate their houses against the terrible heat that we sometimes have there.

Also in this package is a great initiative to assist the 9,450 schools in Australia to upgrade their buildings. Another initiative that has also generated considerable debate is the construction of 20,000 new social and Defence houses. Senator Sherry mentioned earlier that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has a particular interest in the fate of homeless people in South Australia. In fact, I remember that, when the Labor Party took government after the 2007 federal election, one of the first things the Prime Minister asked of all his senators and members was that we should get out of our electorate offices, go out into the community and engage with advocacy groups and organisations that work with homeless people. I know many of us went out and did that. We not only met with the organisations and advocacy groups that support homeless people but also met with many homeless people themselves. There is no doubt that one of the things that are absolutely essential for those Australians who are in the unfortunate situation of being homeless but who want to get themselves out of that dreadful situation is to have a base from which to re-establish their lives that is secure, comfortable and affordable.

Of course, being homeless undoubtedly brings with it the situation that you are unemployed as well. Another factor of this package before us is to shore up jobs in Australia. Nobody is hiding from the fact that the economic downturn is going to increase unemployment in Australia. The core of this package of bills that we are considering today is to protect Australia as much as possible from a downturn in employment. In fact, this package is intended to support 90,000 jobs over two years. It does it in a number of ways. One of the ways it does it is in construction of housing and construction and support for infrastructure in schools. It will also do it via an immediate cash injection of $950 that will go to eligible families, single workers, students and, importantly, drought affected farmers. That payment will go to 8.7 million Australians if the senators opposite support this package. If those senators opposite and on the crossbenches do not support this package, then that immediate boost to families who need that money will not happen. I think the people of Australia need to know what the position is of the various senators and parties represented in this chamber. I am proud to say that of course the Australian Labor Party support that cash injection because we know it will give a stimulus to the economy and that, in turn, will protect and support jobs.

Other aspects of the package of bills before us include a temporary business investment tax break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets, and a significant increase for funding local community, infrastructure and road projects—another very welcome initiative. That will boost the number of jobs in the construction industry. Last night we heard on the news some predictions for a downturn in jobs, particularly in that sector of the economy. How quickly things turn, because not 12 months ago we were desperate to find workers in that sector of the economy, which was booming. But now, unfortunately, because of circumstances that Australia did not contribute to, there will be a downturn in the construction industry that this government is desperately trying to address and will address through this economic stimulus package—as long as we can get it through the Senate chamber.

Yesterday, I listened with much interest to the minister talking about the Great Depression of the 1930s and discussions he had with his father about the situation for him during that period. My father, too, suffered through the Great Depression. I often talk to him in the context of the current economic situation about what it was like. His experience was the classic one where his father was either unemployed or underemployed. His father was a carpenter with a large family. That meant that often the family went hungry. The kids would share the shoes to wear to school because there were not enough pairs of shoes to go around and various of his siblings were farmed out to relatives who might have been a little better off to be brought up by them. They were difficult circumstances. One of the things my father and the other elderly people he lives with at his aged-care facility say to me when I visit them is: ‘Don’t let that happen again. Don’t let the young people of Australia have to go through what we went through during the Great Depression.’

I am particularly interested in the elements of this package which support our young people. Clearly in the future we will need them with the skills and the jobs to carry us forward and, indeed, to support the elderly people like my father who are in aged-care facilities. I have been very interested in the reaction of young people to the idea of an economic stimulus package. I noted in the Sunday Mail, the excellent Sunday newspaper from South Australia, which we all read with much interest—

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

You’ve got to be joking!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see Senator Ferguson nodding enthusiastically over there. There is a young correspondent who writes regularly in the Sunday Mail called Ann-Maree Andritsakis, a very young student and part-time worker. I would like to share with the Senate some of her thoughts about the package which is being considered today. Interestingly, underneath her article is another regular correspondent to the paper, the member for Sturt, Mr Pyne, who has a completely different view from Ms Andritsakis.  In her column, Ms Andritsakis says:

The idea of stimulus packages is to spend, to inject money into the economy, and that is exactly what I plan to do, but first, a bit of sensible spending is in order, specifically the textbooks for uni that I always seem to forget to save for. Then the leftover amount will gladly be poured into the retail sector. As I see it, the retail industry, along with hospitality, is filled with young people desperate to earn a buck or two. There is no doubt life has for many become a little bit harder—for some a lot harder in one way or another over recent months. All of a sudden there is the uncertainty that I will walk into my part-time job one day and my boss will tell me he has no more hours to give me. There is also the uncertainty that I will graduate at the end of the year and there will be no jobs for me.

Those are the words of a young university student and a part-time worker, outlining the consideration that we should give to our young people. It is devastating indeed for people to graduate from university and then not be able to find a job. If this package of bills before us today, this $42 billion stimulus package, can in any way contribute to the economic welfare and employment security of our young people like Ms Andritsakis, we all should be supporting it. I urge all senators to support it.

There are, of course, other elements of the package of bills before us today which are directly relevant to our young people. I mention in particular the funds dedicated in the package to building the education revolution. I have asked the South Australian government to provide me with their response to that package and have been advised that right now over 520 government and 170 non-government schools in South Australia fall into the categories of primary school, special school or K to 12 school, meaning that all of them would be eligible to apply for funding to build or upgrade large-scale infrastructure—for example, libraries and multipurpose halls. There are over 690 schools in my state alone. I am sure that the minister will confirm that they will be able to build or upgrade vital infrastructure with this funding. Approximately 260 South Australian schools—

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

Why did you get rid of Investing in Our Schools?

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson, I thought you might be interested to know what the implementation of this package will mean for schools in your state of South Australia. At the moment, you are sitting there—

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

Order! Senator McEwen, resume your seat. I would have thought Senator McEwen should be able to deliver her speech with due regard from other senators. I ask her to resume her speech without undue interjection.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for your intervention, Madam Chair. I appreciate that because I am trying to put this on the record to get the minister’s response to the importance of enabling 260 eligible South Australian schools to attract funding of up to $850,000, with another 170 eligible schools to attract funding of up to $2 million. Those capital upgrades will benefit not just the lives of students but the entire communities in which the schools are placed. The government’s package requires that the community surrounding those schools be able to use the government funded capital upgrades for community purposes. I think that is a brilliant idea, particularly in our rural and regional communities, where some of the schools are going to improve their facilities enormously. Then the community will have an up-to-the-minute, state-of-the-art facility to utilise. That innovation has been welcomed by the South Australian government, as they told me yesterday when I spoke to them. Indeed, the word from the South Australian government— (Time expired)

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

If Senator McEwen felt so passionately about investing in our schools, I am sure she would have opposed the Labor Party’s abolition of our program Investing in Our Schools, but of course at that stage the mantra was ‘reckless spending’, which I don’t think we hear from those opposite anymore. I have a number of questions to the minister. At 11 am I asked the minister whether there were any government amendments. He gave us a long talk about all sorts of things but did not answer the question. A few minutes later, we have before us government amendments.

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

Are you in the loop, Nick?

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

Senator Ferguson has beaten me to the punch. Is he actually in the loop? I would have thought the decent thing to say to the Senate was, ‘Yes, they are with the printer as we speak and they will be circulated in the chamber very soon.’ But we know how this government treats the Senate.

In relation to the amendments that have now been circulated, some substantial savings will be made. Is it anticipated that those savings will be spent in another area and, if so, in what area? Or are they simply to reduce the overall package by $2 billion, which is where I think it might be nearly up to. I think one lot of amendments will reduce it by $435 million and the other lot by $1.34 billion. Those are rough terms. Are those amounts going to be savings or transferred to another area?

My final question in relation to this legislation is this. We were told that the stimulus package, especially this immediate spend of $950 and $650 and the various variations, was needed immediately to support up to 90,000 jobs. Clearly, with less money being spent on this allegedly vital immediate stimulus, the number of jobs to be supported must now be revised downward, and considerably so. I would be interested to hear, therefore, the minister’s answer on the number of jobs that will now be supported by this package and whether the savings that we have been provided with in the amendments thus far are, in fact, going to be spent somewhere else. If the money is going to be spent somewhere else, is the minister going to share the secret with the Senate as to where that money is going to be spent?

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

As has been indicated by Senator Abetz, the government circulated two amendments during the previous contribution on this discussion in the committee stage. I thought it important that Senator Abetz and the opposition be shown the courtesy of being able to see those amendments for a period of time. He has obviously had the opportunity to read them, given the context of his question.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and seek leave to move the amendments circulated to the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet QC294:

(1)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 24), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(2)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 26), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(3)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 32), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(4)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 2), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(5)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 9), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(6)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 18), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

I wish to make some comments to the amendments to the Household Stimulus Package Bill. In response to the spreading and serious crisis in the world financial and economic system, as has been reflected by the increasing number of economies around the world that are moving into recession—and ever deepening recession—the Rudd government has made it very clear that it is committed to delivering a significant fiscal package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, of some $42 billion. This plan is absolutely necessary if we are to support the economy, jobs and growth during this period of deepening global economic recession—the deepest global economic recession that we have seen since World War II.

So 2009 is going to be a tough year, but the Rudd Labor government does not want to make it a tougher year. That is the essential reason for presenting this $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It provides immediate support for jobs, and it invests in the long-term economic growth of this country. Yet we have a position from those opposite, the Liberal-National Party, of trying at every turn to prevent the passage of this stimulus package. This package is an essential stimulus to protect the Australian economy, to which the Liberal-National Party’s response is: ‘No. Do nothing’—and in that classic description from the shadow Treasurer, Ms Bishop—‘Let’s just wait and see.’ The Rudd Labor government is not going to wait and see how serious the economic downturn will become. We are not going to wait and see. We are acting decisively.

The Liberal-National Party have decided the challenge ahead should just wait. They have no response. They have decided to continue their legacy—a pattern of underinvestment in our nation’s infrastructure. The Rudd government is not prepared to play politics with Australian jobs or the Australian economy, and this has meant securing the support of the minor parties and the Independents. The Rudd government has made some additions to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to ensure the passage of this important plan. They include making some changes to the size of some of the targeted payments to ensure that the package remains fiscally responsible.

The amendments to the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 that I am speaking to will reduce the amount of the single-income family bonus by $50. This means that single-income families who receive family tax benefit part B will receive a $900 bonus to complement the tax bonus for working Australians, which will also be reduced by $50. That is the next amendment we will consider.

The single-income family bonus is a payment complementary to the tax bonus to assist families who have only one income earner. Families with two income earners will receive two payments of the tax bonus. The adjustment balances the requirement for fiscal responsibility with the need to deliver fiscal stimulus now. I point out that most other comparable countries are delivering substantial fiscal packages.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’ve all got tax cuts too.

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

Some of those fiscal packages in other countries include tax cuts; some do not. I went through that in exhaustive detail yesterday. We have tax cuts factored into the forward estimates. We do not reduce these payments lightly, because we know they are essential to support growth and jobs in the near term. But we have decided on this small reduction which maintains the overall effectiveness of the government’s plan to support jobs and growth while taking into account the views of others. The government is acting responsibly to protect jobs and businesses by ensuring these bills are passed. We hope others will see the need to act responsibly and in the interests of Australia at this difficult time.

The government has entered into discussions with all relevant parties on the stimulus package in good faith. As I mentioned, we could have no discussions with the Liberal-National Party; their solution at this time of global fiscal and economic crisis is to do nothing, to wait and see. They have made their position clear. I can say that there have been constructive discussions with the parties and the Independent senator on the crossbenches. The government has had constructive discussions with Senator Brown over the past week. Senator Brown has proposed a number of sensible and pragmatic options, all designed to stimulate the economy and support jobs. The government will be working with Senator Brown to see a number of these proposals realised. Senator Fielding has made a good proposal on a community based jobs plan. The proposal has merit, and we have indicated that we wish to work with Senator Fielding to move the proposal forward. It will require some more work, but we are confident that we can move on it. He feels strongly about the issue; he expressed that yesterday. We share his concern, passion, commitment and focus.

Senator Xenophon has proposed to us over the past week a number of bring-forwards to Murray-Darling programs. That is reflected in the amendments that have been circulated in the Senate this morning. We have indicated to the senator our willingness to bring forward very significant funding. Senator Xenophon this morning has circulated an amendment which deals with the Murray-Darling. The government will not be supporting that amendment. This amendment was not provided nor mentioned to the government before it was circulated. Fiscal responsibility is very important to the government. In order to fund the additional spending that I have already mentioned, the government will move amendments. I am moving one now.

This is the point of decision for the Senate. As I have indicated, we have a deep and rapidly spreading disaster in the world financial system and economy. It was unknown that these effects would occur a year to 18 months ago, and it is spreading very rapidly. No-one would have believed the extent, the size and the depth of the collapse of the world’s fiscal system. This did not happen in Australia and they are events beyond our control, but they do impact on Australia as the economic recession spreads through a number of countries. China has significantly revised down its growth. That in turn affects Australia and its economy, Australia’s demand for minerals, and Australian jobs. This Labor government is not going to stand by and not do everything in its power to underpin and strengthen the Australian economy and jobs going forward during this very difficult time, certainly the most serious economic period since World War II. It is a consequence of what has become known as the US subprime crisis. I have talked on many occasions about the detailed aspects of that.

This package that the government has presented contains a number of very important elements. Many of them have been considered in this Senate. This package has not been rushed. We have until midnight to vote on it. There has been extensive analysis of this package in Senate committees, and that is a good thing. There has been significant debate and discussion yesterday and today on this package. I want to point out, in summary, the important aspects of this package, which is critical in underpinning the economy and jobs over the next couple of financial years. There is the tax bonus for working Australians, the single-income family bonus and the farmers hardship bonus. The National Party is not going to support the farmers hardship bonus. There is the back-to-school bonus and the training and learning bonus. In this financial year, 2008-09, it comes to a total of approximately $12.77 billion, adjusted by the amendments that I have outlined. For 2009-10 and 2010-11, the primary focus is on a number of programs: Building the Education Revolution, giving assistance to every school in Australia, building 20,000 social and defence homes and building energy-efficient homes. There is another issue that I frankly found surprising. We had no comment during the committee stage from the Liberal-National Party on the small business and general tax break totalling some $2.7 billion. They are the so-called champions of small business in this country. The components of the package total $2.7 billion and include a small business and general tax break, which the Liberal-National Party are saying no to.

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

You voted against it in committee.

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

Oh, you have reversed your position. You are now going to support part of the package? The final elements of the package include funding for black spots, boom gates and community infrastructure. These are very important aspects of this nation building and jobs package.

Most comparable countries have adopted the approach of stimulus packages, and I note that yesterday the stimulus package was passed in the United States. Most comparable economies and governments have recognised the seriousness of the emerging fiscal and economic crisis. It is appropriate for the Labor government to provide decisive leadership to underpin and strengthen the Australian economy and underpin and strengthen jobs in this country. It is essential. It is only the Liberal-National Party that says, ‘Do nothing, wait and see.’ What an approach to an emerging economic crisis! It is not a responsible option to adopt that approach. It is certainly not the approach of this Labor government, which from day one, as the financial crisis started emerging, has acted decisively to minimise the impact. And thank goodness, because the impact in Australia has so far not been, and we expect it will not be, as significant. I mean, 600,000 jobs have been lost in one month in the United States. We know fiscal stimulus packages do work. We do not want to see the do-nothing approach that occurred when the Great Depression started in the late 1920s. We do not want to see a do-nothing approach; we have to be proactive to underpin our economy and do everything possible.

Unfortunately, the Liberal-National Party cannot see the positives of this approach. As I say, ‘do nothing, wait and see’ is their solution. But history tells us that to wait and see and do nothing will mean circumstances will be far worse. So I say to the crossbenches, to the minor parties and the Independents: this is decision time. Are we to be the only country in the world that has been debating a fiscal stimulus package and then rejects that package? Are we to be the only country to date that has been debating these issues and the importance of a fiscal stimulus package and rejects a critical stimulus package which is necessary to underpin our economy and jobs during this emerging world economic crisis? So there is a heavy responsibility on the crossbench parties and the Independents to support this package, and I would appeal to them. This is the hour. This is the decision making. Australia needs this stimulus package and I urge the Senate to support it. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Wrong.

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

If that number is wrong, can you tell us, then, the right number of jobs that are now going to be supported by this package? We were told this package—as is, that could not be changed or amended—would support up to 90,000 jobs.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Support, not create. Support.

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

That is right. Senator Cash, you are dead right. The first package of $10 billion—which we supported because it was being paid for out of the surplus—we were told would create about 75,000 jobs. When we asked at the committee, ‘Show us one job that was created,’ nobody could. Out comes another package, four times as big. I have got the old calculator out. Four times 75—gee, that must be a pretty big figure of new jobs to be created. Look through the documentation—no. It says ‘support’—not create—up to 90,000 jobs. When we asked, ‘Does that include the figure 1?’ we were told, ‘Yes, it does.’ So we might be spending all this to support one job. Quite frankly, I do not think so, but a more realistic figure, rather than the very highest figure, should have been provided to us and it was not. This is so much about spin rather than substance. If you are now going to hoover out so much money from the immediate stimulus that was so vital, we on this side suspect you will no longer be supporting up to 90,000 jobs. That figure needs to be revised and this place needs to be told what the revised figure is.

Also, we in the Senate are entitled to know whether these amendments are going to delay the payments. If they do not delay the payments, as I suspect they will not, then Senator Sherry and, above all, Senator Evans, have to explain why they told the Senate that any delay or any amendments would delay the payments and that they would not be able to be made on 11 March. To coin a phrase: some of those comments made by the leader do not have the ring of truth about them in relation to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

When we are dealing with a stimulus package which is so important, we are entitled to have the government level with us, not provide us with the sort of spin that we have just heard. In relation to the spin, let me remind Senator Sherry and each one of the Labor senators opposite that you should not come out with the nonsense that you had no idea what was heading our way economically. During the last election campaign the then Treasurer, Mr Costello, warned the Australian people that an ‘economic tsunami’ was on its way. Mr Costello was pilloried by Mr Rudd and, might I say with great respect, many of our friends in the media. The allegation was made that we were trying to scare people into voting Liberal again.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had form on that count! He had plenty of form.

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

Senator Marshall acknowledges that that is what Labor did. Indeed, what was our policy at the last election? It was: go for growth. What did we hear in response? The thundering of Mr Rudd: ‘This reckless spending must stop.’ He said that the reckless spending of the surplus—which was in fact the people’s money in any event—had to stop. He said that it was that bad that the economy was overheating—overheating to the extent that in the May budget Labor hoovered out of the economy $20 billion by increased taxation. That was to slow the economy down, to dampen it down. We of course said that that was the wrong action. Having had an economy that was overheating in May, and with those allegations still being made as late as July, there we were three months later with a stimulus package to try to pick the economy up again.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lurching along.

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

Senator Coonan, you are dead right: knee-jerk reactions, lurching along, with no idea about the economic management of this country, spinning whatever line suits them on the day. There we were, my friends, accused of reckless spending by spending the surplus, and Labor are now seeking to pass through this place a debt burden on this country of $200 billion. Make no mistake, $200 billion in this legislative package will be a burden of $9,500 per man, woman and child. Those people who thought that they were going to get $950 we now hear are only going to get $900. You know what? You are getting less, but I bet you that the debt will be the same because they have done another side deal.

As I said the other day, imagine going to a pawnbroker with your watch and saying, ‘How much will you give me for it?’ The pawnbroker says, ‘$950.’ You then ask, ‘How much will it cost to redeem it?’ And you are told $9,500 plus interest. You know what? You would walk out of the place because it is not a good deal. So for those people who think that in the short term they might get a cash injection—yes, they will. It will be nice while it lasts. But then think of the decades that it will take to repay that debt. It will take decades. Let us not forget that during a mining boom we paid off $96 billion worth of Labor debt. Hawke and Keating, with all their economic mismanagement, took 13 years to rack up $96 billion. But, with the economic wizardry of Mr Rudd, it only takes him 13 months to budget for a $200 billion debt for this nation.

Are we passionate about this? Of course we are because we are not looking at the short-term next election; we are looking at the future for our children and our grandchildren, who will be saddled with this debt that will take more than a generation to pay off. We are concerned about our future. We want to ensure that our children do not have an economic millstone around their necks.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Act in the national interest then.

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

Senator Cameron, with his record as a union leader, should never suggest that he has any expertise on the national interest. Sectional narrow interests have always been his focus, and that of course is why he is in this chamber today.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I stood up for the workers of this country against Work Choices. I stood up for the workers of this country; not like you lot.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wortley interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators about shouting across the chamber.

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

I simply say that it is false and wrong for the minister to suggest that we on this side do not have a plan, that we do not have a package. Indeed, Mr Turnbull has already outlined the parameters. We believe something more modest would be appropriate. To assert that our policies do nothing is simply false. The classic example of that is the policy we actually had for investing in our schools. The Labor Party axed that program on coming to government because it was ‘reckless spending’. What are they now doing? Reintroducing it under another name and spending even more. If our policies were adopted, the economy in Australia would have been hit, but we were seeking to take preventive measures, which for short-term political reasons the Labor Party deliberately opposed. They talked down the economy and made ludicrous allegations about the economy overheating and are now struggling to pick it up again.

Minister, can you tell us where the savings in these measures will be spent? Why don’t we need the immediate economic stimulus that we allegedly needed just a few days ago? Will this delay the implementation of the package?

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

I am more than happy to go through the issues that Senator Abetz has raised, because on one point in particular he is just plain wrong. He has given an incorrect figure because of incorrect analysis of the explanatory memorandum. It is important to correct the claim. I think it is an honest mistake. He has misunderstood the supplementary explanatory memorandum for the household stimulus bill. The change to the single-income family bonus will save approximately $75 million, Senator Abetz, in 2008-09. That is the reduction from $950 to $900. It will save approximately $75 million. The financial impact statement in the supplementary explanatory memorandum states the revised financial impact—that is, the net figure.

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

That’s a fair point. Now that I have had an opportunity to read it, I accept that.

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

I gave you the courtesy of 10 or 15 minutes to read it. Thank you for acknowledging that what I am outlining is correct. The original figure was $1.42 billion and the revised figure is $1.345 billion, and that is what is in the explanatory memorandum, so the change is $75 million on the amendments we are currently debating for the changes to the single-income bonus paid to recipients of family tax benefit part B. That is my response to that issue and question that Senator Abetz raised.

Let me go to another issue he raised—the timing of the payment. We have moved amendments and he has questioned the timing of the delivery given the change to the figures. This was considered at the Senate committee hearings, Senator Abetz. I do not know whether you were there or not, but it was reported to the Senate committee—and this was discussed at the committee hearing—and the government has been advised by Centrelink and the ATO that changes to payment amounts will not affect the timing of the payment. And that is what these amendments go to—payment amounts, not the parameters of the payments. So, yes, the government has been advised that the timing of the delivery of the package can still be met.

Senator Abetz also went to the issue of the impact on jobs. Having accepted now that the figure is $75 million in this financial year, the number of jobs is based on the highest point of spending—that is, in 2009-10—and the payment changes are in 2008-09. As to the overall savings, the savings that result from these amendments and the amendments I am yet to move will be redeployed into further stimulus areas. I have reported to this chamber the very productive and positive approach taken by the minor parties and Independents to these negotiations. The savings I have outlined will be redeployed to other fiscal stimulus as is appropriate.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I express my deepest sympathy for the atrocities we have seen of late in Victoria, with the overwhelming loss of property and human life. It has certainly touched me deeply to be in this chamber and be aware of that news. Equally, I express my concerns and sympathy for people in my own state of Queensland over the pain and hardship they are going through with the floods in North Queensland. Turning to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, I think at this time more than ever—

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

I do apologise to Senator Furner for interrupting him but I was just wondering if he would be so kind as to indicate whether he is going to be giving us the benefit of a 15-minute speech. If he is, that would assist me in my own time management.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not usual for senators to tell how much time their speech will take.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At a time when we are facing a global economic crisis, here we are in this chamber debating a $42 billion package that we need to put through urgently. This has been supported on many occasions by business leaders, economists, banks and those working in social welfare circles. This comes at a time when they are aware of the urgency of making sure this package is supported in this chamber. There has been an overwhelming case put for the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. There is a global recession. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out what is happening around our world. But those on the other side of the chamber seem oblivious to this. At a time when we need to support jobs and the economy of Australia they are opposing this bill. We are better placed than other countries to implement this proposal. We are fortunate to be aware of what we need to do in these circumstances—and that comes from the values of our party, the Labor Party—and what we need most. Those on the opposition side do not seem to have any understanding of what is best for jobs and working families in our nation.

The issue of the deficit has been raised. There is no doubt this is a global recession. It has wiped $115 billion off the government’s revenue, which has imposed this deficit. This is why we are implementing the proposal that we have put forward: to stimulate the economy, to stimulate growth, and to support and encourage jobs and growth in the market. I am aware that amendments have been put before the chamber for consideration, and no doubt the amendments will be dealt with in due course. Once again, at a time when we need to look at the worst global recession that we have faced since the Great Depression, we make no apology for choosing to support Australian jobs.

I was fortunate enough just recently, Madam Temporary Chairman Moore, as you would be aware, to be a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which heard evidence on this package from various people who I would refer to as expert witnesses. In particular they gave evidence on what the effect of the package would be in regard to stimulating the economy and growth where we need it most—that is, in the housing industry. I will draw to the attention of the chamber some direct quotes from the committee Hansard. Frank Quinlan, the Executive Director of Catholic Social Services Australia, said this when talking about the housing initiatives in this bill in particular:

I would begin by saying that, when we sought feedback from our very broad membership over the last few days, the feedback was that this package is unequivocally good and unequivocally welcomed. It is well overdue.

What sort of message does that send? Once again it is sending the message that we need to stimulate the market by encouraging growth and supporting the housing sector and making sure that that flows on to support jobs for the people who construct those dwellings. He went on to say:

But the clear message from our broad membership was that the projects that were anticipated by this package are ready to go. There is enormous pent-up demand in the community and social housing area.

That evidence the committee received flies in the face of the sceptics, who ask, ‘When is this package going to kick off?’ or who say, ‘Houses aren’t ready to be built.’ Houses are ready. There are projects ready to jump-start and prepared to go the moment this package is implemented. Mr Quinlan went on to say:

… from our perspective, there are some basic community needs that the government ought to meet—the need for appropriate housing is one of them and the need for appropriate income support is another one.

He went on to say:

There has been an enormous push for a number of years to improve the level of housing stock, so the plans that people have are ready to go. I think ‘shovel ready’ is the jargon of the day …

He makes no apology for his support. He had spoken to his directors, who in that instance had already acquired blocks of land. So it is not the case that people are not searching around for blocks to put these dwellings on. There are blocks of land ready and all we need is to have the package implemented and the approvals go through. Then we can start building these houses to supply dwellings for people who are homeless and people who are in need of housing in our country. So it is all about supplying that capital to make sure that these dwellings and services are provided.

At that same inquiry the committee heard from a Ms Helyar. She said:

In terms of employment, I think what is valuable in this package is that there is an opportunity particularly in the areas that have faced chronic and multiple disadvantage and high levels of unemployment. They are the very areas that need infrastructure built. So there is an opportunity there to combine providing training and support and employment services for people in those regions with the need for a workforce to deliver on the infrastructure. If we can capitalise on those opportunities, I think that will be a fantastic outcome from this measure.

Mr Quinlan went on to talk about where the people for these jobs would be coming from. He said it is not a case of needing to look at bringing in employees from overseas. He went on to indicate that these jobs would be filled by local residents, local people who are available and ready to be involved in the construction of these dwellings. He said:

One of the appeals that we see in the measures here in relation to housing and the measures in relation to schools is that the construction will be undertaken as part of the infrastructure measures at a much more local scale. So local people will have an opportunity to be engaged in those projects without some of the impacts that we have seen in other major infrastructure projects on rental costs and housing costs and we will see lasting assets for communities built.

So it is about supporting our local communities, local workers and working families that need support in these tough times. We cannot afford to go on delaying much longer this process of ensuring that we support these people.

At the same inquiry we heard from Professor Disney. He said:

From a housing perspective, I think this is really an enormously important and very badly needed package. I have spoken to your committee before about the gravity of need, and I think it is widely accepted that it is huge. Even before the crisis, there were at least half a million households in unaffordable rental, and the number might well be twice as high as that now. So there is undoubtedly a major problem that has to be addressed.

Along with the construction of these houses in areas of need, there are further proposals in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to have a balance between the economy and the environment. That is why there has been a proposal put forward in the bill to look at supplying insulation for ceilings and elsewhere in the construction of these homes and also for existing dwellings. It is to make sure people have the opportunity to be supplied with insulation and to generate jobs in this area as well, because we know there are approximately 32 businesses out there in the insulation business and the package, including a rebate of up to $1,600 for the supply of insulation, would certainly generate jobs. From memory, in the same inquiry we heard evidence from the HIA. Their evidence was positive about the possibility for 85,000 jobs to be created in this area.

We hear the sceptics say, ‘There is not going to be growth in housing, there is not going to be growth in the economy and there is not going to be growth in jobs.’ But we have heard expert evidence at committee hearings that that is not the case. There is a case to be prosecuted here that this package will stimulate growth and employment, particularly in areas where it is needed. It amazes me that, while the opposition opposes the package, business leaders like the AiG, the ACCI and the Master Builders Association—and the list goes on and on—have given it the stamp of approval. They have indicated that they are on board. They have indicated that they want to see this package through. Yet those on the other side oppose it. It is about time they got on board and made sure that this is implemented.

The other day, during a break, I had the opportunity to talk to a young lady who works in the retail area. In fact, it was my daughter Sally. After the Christmas break there was an influx of sales in the boutique dress shop she works in. She is a manager at that dress shop. Certainly after the last stimulus package there were people coming in over the Christmas break to purchase clothing and so on, but when I rang my daughter yesterday she said things are starting to quieten down. It is clear that we need this stimulus package now. We cannot afford to wait much longer. I do not know what the opposition’s children do for jobs, but my children are in jobs in areas where stimulus is needed. I do not want to see my children or the children of working Australians on the unemployment list. It is about time we got on board and implemented this stimulus package.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has circulated amendments which indicate to the Senate that some adjustment to the package is imminent. Let me say here that I am not predicating my brief remarks at this stage on what might be happening in negotiations the government might be having with any other members of the Senate. However, I can tell the Senate that the Australian Greens have made substantial progress in negotiations with the government on this package. We are very close to a final agreement and, if and when that agreement is made, I commit to the Senate that I will come in here directly and without delay to give the Senate the detail of that agreement, because that is proper parliamentary process.

That said, I can indicate that the amendment that has been circulated is to divert some $400 million to funding some of the amendments to the package that may occur in consultation with the crossbench. The Greens have been negotiating in good faith with the government, recognising that this package is important to the nation at a time of global financial stricture. We see the potential for increased unemployment and hardship in the country and recognise that a stimulus to the economy is required. As I have said from the outset, we are not going to take a sledgehammer to the government’s package, but we do want real benefits from modest amendments. In particular, we have been aiming at green and local job creation. We have, as I said, made some progress with the government on this. We have not yet finalised the agreement, but it is down to crossing the t’s, dotting the i’s and making last-minute word changes. I can say that amongst the proposals that the Senate might anticipate is a relaxation of the liquid assets waiting period for unemployed Australians—a mechanism to ensure that all unemployed persons and students have access to the bonus payment.

There is reiteration of the government’s commitment to increase the age pension in the May budget. We have been able to reach agreement with the government on reassuring funding for the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre in Melbourne, which will do vital work in research on bushfires over the coming triennium. The prospect of upgrading that centre to a global wildfire research centre will be looked at in the future. We have also been seeking an increase in funding for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, simply because that is an important entity for assessing the delivery of government services and moneys. We have of course concentrated on energy efficiency measures. That is one area in which we are finalising commitments. We are also, as you will know because we have been talking about this publicly, concerned to see that no local government is left out of the opportunity to seek funding under the local government fund.

I sense the frustration of the Senate. However, I am just flagging that we are very close to agreement with the government. I would expect to come in here within the next hour or two and make a more complete statement. Then of course the Senate will be able to debate the measures in the proposed amendments. Finally, I want to say this: the Greens remain committed to the scheduling that this matter be voted up or voted down and that it be put to a vote by the Senate by no later than midnight tonight. We agree that the Senate needs to be able to debate amendments, and we will do all we can to facilitate all senators from our corner of the Senate being informed and being able to go through the amendments and come to the best conclusion possible. We remember this: this is a big stimulus package; it has generally been welcomed by the Australian people; and it is our belief that it should, if at all possible, be passed so that it can do the work of stimulating the economy without any unnecessary delay.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

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

If I could just indicate, because I anticipate you will be leaving the chamber fairly shortly to go to some discussions, Senator Xenophon, that some of the matters you have raised have been responded to but I am going to double-check now. I know some have not and I will ensure there is a response to your questions on notice, and I would anticipate by the time you are back in the chamber we will have answers to those unanswered questions.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

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

The question now is that government amendments (1) to (6) be agreed to.

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

During the division, one of my colleagues asked me whether Senator Sherry’s assertion that I had not discussed my amendments with the government was true. I want to put that into some context. With respect to Senator Sherry, I think his advice may be wrong. The amendments that have been circulated, which I am not seeking to move at this stage, were foreshadowed in my second reading debate speech. The substance and the elements of these amendments have been discussed with the government. I just want to put that in perspective. I am not criticising Senator Sherry as such. There may be a misunderstanding such that, technically, the amendments themselves were not shown to the government before they were circulated, but the government is well aware of the substance of the amendments. Any suggestion that the government is surprised at the direction I am going in or the intent and substance of these amendments is erroneous.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to contribute to the discussion in this chamber on the appropriation bills before us. In doing so, I acknowledge that we have a number of amendments before us that will be dealt with later today. Those in this chamber have already heard, both during the second reading debate and now in the committee stage, that these bills are part of a suite of legislation that is crucial and urgent in the face of the financial crisis gripping the globe and its impact on Australia. The passage of these bills through the parliament would be an investment in our nation’s future. They represent an investment in our nation’s families, in the homes they live in, in the environment, in our roads and their safety, in our community infrastructure, in our schools and the education and training they provide, and in the jobs of our workforce and their ongoing viability.

The bills introduced as part of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan are the framework for shoring up our own house as we stare down a worsening worldwide situation. They are the foundation on which we will build a position of strength. While the scope of the measures sponsored by this legislation is broad, there are two points in particular that I would like to pick up on in relation to the contributions made in this chamber yesterday by two opposition senators, Senator Boyce on education and Senator Joyce on energy efficiency delivery. Through the funding allotted by this much-needed and urgent economic stimulus package, the government will build the education revolution. This pillar of the package is a $14.7 billion long-term investment to boost the quality of Australian school facilities such as multipurpose halls, libraries, gymnasiums and science laboratories.

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

Madam Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The senator undoubtedly has a prepared speech, and that is fine, but the question before the chair is on the government amendments. It is not on insulation, education or other matters but on the reduction in the payments to be made. We as an opposition moved that the question be put so that these general type contributions could continue. But the Labor Party voted against it; they are now hoist by their own petard. I would invite you remind the senator and any future speakers as to the question before the chair.

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

That is true and I would ask Senator Wortley to make sure that her remarks are tied to the government amendments in front of us, which deal with the reduction in the single-income family bonus. If you would be mindful of that, Senator Wortley, that would be good.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have already acknowledged that we do have the amendments before us and that they will be dealt with. In relation specifically to those amendments, I will make further comments. At this stage I am interested also in commenting on the contributions by those opposite. Building the Education Revolution will start this financial year.

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

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. What the honourable senator is trying to do is re-enter a debate which is not before the chair. Once amendments are passed or carried, we will revert, I would assume, to general discussion and that might be the appropriate time. But given what you have just ruled—if I might say, Madam Chair, quite appropriately—it would be interesting to hear Senator Wortley on why the reduction in payments is such a good thing for all those people that were promised these payments.

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

On the point of order, I think it is far too early for Senator Abetz to intervene. After your ruling, Madam Chair, Senator Wortley had, I think, been speaking only for about five to seven seconds. I am sure that, given your ruling, the comments that she had only just commenced would refer to the context of single income families and the issues that they face. So I think it is just far too early yet to determine whether her contribution is relevant or not.

The Temporary Chairman:

Nevertheless, Minister, Senator Wortley did return immediately to the subject on which the point of order was taken. I would again remind her that she needs to keep her remarks relevant to the amendments that are in front of the chamber.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 is important. It is a significant part of this package, and we do have a number of amendments before us relating specifically to that. In addition to that, we have the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009. These are things that the Australian people are obviously very keen to hear about. As for the amendments themselves, as the minister has already said, their details will be discussed further in this chamber today. The issues that are before us, though, relate not only to the tax bonus for working Australians and the amendments that we see before us. The impact of the entire package is significant as well. So, in relation to that, I would like to continue with some of the comments that I was making—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. So obviously the tax bonus for working Australians is a significant part of the package—

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

Which has been reduced.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and we have some amendments before us in relation to that. We have the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 as well. We have, as part of the stimulus package, Building the Education Revolution and the key programs within that as well. Also we have the $15 billion injection into Primary Schools for the 21st Century, Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools and Renewing Australia’s Schools. As part of the entire package, the first program that I would like to refer to—

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

We are back onto schools.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, they do. That is correct, Senator Marshall, and Senator Abetz is concerned that we are back onto schools.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Wortley, I would advise you to keep your remarks to the subject which you are discussing and which I am monitoring.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chamber has had before it a number of questions asked by the opposition side. They have been playing nothing more than political games, and now they have put a motion and want us to discuss the issue of some amendments that are before the chamber and that the minister has already said would be discussed later today. It is timely that this is put before us given that we have before us an entire package; that is, the economic stimulus package.

The government, we know, is of course providing additional financial assistance to families who rely on one main income earner. We know that the amendments before us today will address those issues. I am sure that, when the minister addresses the chamber later today, it will be a significant contribution and I am sure too that the Australian families out there, who will welcome this package, will be listening and looking forward to seeing what the entire content is. This will include sole parent families and two-parent families where one parent chooses to stay at home or to balance unpaid work with their caring for children. The bonus will be a one-off payment, if the particular amendment goes through, of $900 per family to every family entitled to family tax benefit part B. The one-off payment will be made in the fortnight. This has already been mentioned. It has been part of the package; it was announced then. That is why we said it was important to get this bill up before the Senate. It was widely said that it was important that there was the opportunity for the Senate to pass this bill in this sitting, because that is required for it to commence in March.

It is expected that, as a result of these amendments and the stimulus package, around 1½ million families entitled to the family tax benefit part B on 3 February 2009 will benefit from the single-income family bonus. The payment is for each eligible family, and it will not be taxed or included for social security income-testing purposes. The bonus is intended to be paid by Centrelink in March to families who receive their family assistance as fortnightly instalments or as soon as practicable thereafter. For families who receive their payments as a lump sum at the end of the financial year, the one-off payment will be made with the rest of their family tax benefit part B payment. The timing of these payments will depend on when families claim.

Family tax benefit is paid to the parent who is the primary carer of a child. I understand that there are some amendments that will address these issues and I assume that the minister will speak to them later today—possibly this afternoon or this evening. The normal rules that apply to the sharing of family tax benefit will apply to this payment—that is, where there is at least 35 per cent shared care, the payment will be shared according to the percentage of care. As I was saying earlier, Senator Abetz, sitting there on that side—

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

Senator Wortley, I would be obliged if you would address your remarks through the chair.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Madam Temporary Chair: it is interesting that we sit on this side today and that you have moved on a number of occasions that the question be put. You are now sitting on that side trying to rush this through rather than sitting and listening to the contributions that are being made, knowing that there are discussions being had. Instead, you want to stand up and grandstand. There are some on this side, Senator Abetz—through you, Madam Chair—who would think that, with some of the performances he has put on throughout this discussion, the senator is really vying for an equity card from Actors Equity. But back to the issue of the household stimulus package and, further, to the issue of the tax bonus for working Australians: working Australians will benefit through the tax bonus; there is no doubt about that.

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

Madam Temporary Chair, I rise on a point of order. I have given the honourable senator a lot of latitude and tried to listen in, but the only amendments before us at the moment that have been formally moved by the minister are amendments to the Household Stimulus Package Bill. He has, as I understand it, as yet not moved the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 amendment.

The Temporary Chairman:

That is true, Senator Abetz.

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

Madam Chair, I would acknowledge that Senator Abetz may have had a point earlier, but the senator has been referring in quite great detail to the single-income family bonus. She is entitled to cross-reference other issues on occasion. She has centred her contributions—certainly in the last five to seven minutes—based on your earlier ruling. It is perfectly reasonable to refer to other measures in that context, and that is what she is doing.

The Temporary Chairman:

Because the Senate agreed earlier to take these bills as a whole, it is true that the senator is allowed to range reasonably far and wide across the extent of those. But again, as I said before, I will be monitoring that quite severely.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just commenting in relation to the bills before us. Yes, there are a number of significant issues raised in those bills that affect households in Australia. The Household Stimulus Package Bill is one of them, but the entire stimulus package affects households—whether it is in relation to education, tax bonuses or the payments to be made—in one way or another. It affects Australians and Australian households. The senator on the other side is obviously aware of this. They just want to continue to play the games they are playing.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In referring to this household stimulus package, I want to follow up with the government about questions I put yesterday. I understand that the amendment is in relation to how we are going to raise money to pay for some of these measures. In that context, I want to make sure that the measures are most effective. Yesterday I put to the minister the issue of the percentage of new housing—as opposed to pre-existing housing—that may be purchased under the infrastructure program, recognising that this is a stimulus package for builders, builders labourers, the trades and associated businesses. If you purchase pre-existing housing, you do not have stimulus. You are, in fact, bailing out quite a few developers and banks along the way; it becomes a bailout package as opposed to a stimulus package. I understand that my colleague Senator Siewert pursued some of this yesterday after I had done so. My understanding, through you, Madam Temporary Chair, is that the government has said that some of the money from the $6.6 billion housing package will go to pre-existing housing, but the government has made it clear that its focus is on new housing in order to stimulate the economy. I also understand that there may be some homes where building has commenced but not finished that might be included in the package.

The government also talked about regulations that might be developed pertaining to how this money for stimulating the building industry might be allocated. I would like greater clarification from the minister about whether they have designated a percentage of the money to be used for pre-existing, already built, completed houses that are sitting there. They could well be spec houses that are sitting there. What percentage of the money will be allocated for housing for which construction may have begun but not finished? What percentage of that $6.6 billion housing infrastructure package are they assuming will be for construction of new housing? I would really like to know that. I would also like to nail down the issue of the regulations. Through you, Madam Temporary Chair, when do the government expect the regulations to be written and completed? Will these issues that I am referring to be made very specific regarding how the states can allocate the money? I would really appreciate the government being more specific. If we are raising all of this money, we want to make sure that we get the maximum stimulus into the building sector that we possibly can.

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

Madam Temporary Chair, I rise on a point of order that relates to the previous points of order that I have raised. I think Senator Milne’s questions are perfectly reasonable and should be answered during the general stage, but at the moment the question before the Senate is whether or not the Household Stimulus Package Bill should reduce various payments from $950 to $900. That is the specific question before the chamber, and that is why, given that everybody was seeking to traverse beyond that question, some of us thought it might be a good idea to get rid of that question so we could move back to the general debate. Honourable senators voted another way—I accept that—but as a result they are now hoist by their own decision, which is that we have to concentrate on the specific amendment that is before us.

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

Madam Chair, Senator Abetz is right to the extent that we are dealing with a specific amendment relating to the single-income family bonus, but I contend that it is relevant to look at the various circumstances of people who will receive a single-income family bonus and its level. In looking at the circumstances of individuals who would receive a single-income family bonus, it is very obvious to me that there would be many people in the context of their housing—

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

Please, Nick!

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

Senator Abetz, it is not jocular. Housing is an important element that individuals need to take into account for single-income families; therefore, I contend that the issues that Senator Milne is raising are relevant to the single family bonus and that the matter of housing is vital to them and relevant to the amendment before the chair.

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

I am advised that the Senate is considering the bills in their entirety and that, therefore, it is quite allowable for Senator Milne to be asking the questions that she does.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is inconsistent with Senator Wortley’s speech.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question before the chair is that the bills before the chair stand as printed, and within that context we are considering the question of the amendments of the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009. The Senate by leave agreed earlier to take these bills as a whole and, although in my earlier ruling I considered that Senator Wortley did focus too heavily on the question of education, the point is that the bills are being considered in their entirety and, therefore, Senator Milne’s questions are allowable.

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

Thank you for that.

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

Senator Sherry can’t believe it either!

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

No, I have indicated the chair is being very fair in her guidance in presiding over this committee debate. Thank you for your question, Senator Milne. I acknowledge that you raised these issues yesterday and that there was some response from me. I have been discussing a working example to illustrate what may occur in the context of the housing purchases. Firstly, regarding your question relating to the percentage set for existing or partly completed stock: there is no percentage set. Overwhelmingly, I am advised, it will be new houses, new blocks of land and houses to be built, but the government envisages circumstances that I will illustrate by this example. You could have a developer or builder who is developing a 10- or 20-block estate. They may have completed a house. They may have partly completed another one or two houses. It may be that they are unable to proceed further with the completion of the development. In the current context of the financial crisis and its impact, it is harder for moneys to be raised and investment made into the housing sector. We know that is an impact.

There will undoubtedly be developers and builders who find it more difficult to raise finance, and there will undoubtedly be—and we have regrettably seen many examples of this over the last year—property investment trusts that also find it difficult. I think it is well known now that property investment trusts have had a significant degree of difficulty in attracting any new funding. They have also had situations where they have obtained funding and have needed to roll that over to secure new funding. That has impacted on the commercial and residential property sector. There is no doubt that that impact will continue. We can envisage in that context—but as I stress, the overwhelming focus of the program is new, start-up, block houses et cetera—that it would be appropriate for the state governments to take on partially completed developments. That will not be the focus of the package, but it seems reasonable that, in the example I have given of a 10- or 20-block development that is partly completed, where the builder or developer says, ‘I cannot obtain finance at all through the mechanisms established through the state housing authorities,’ they may well say, ‘Finance can be provided for you to complete this particular development.’ That seems to me to be reasonable.

As I say, we do not believe the number of such instances would be significant, but it may occur. And it would be common sense because, if you have got partway through the development of 10 or 20 blocks, to some degree I think it would be very reasonable, given, for example, that you would have existing approvals for that development to be completed and you would have a workforce continuing to move through that development, to ensure that in some of these cases—you certainly could not do it in all cases—those developments underway should be brought to completion. But I am assured by the official that, were this to occur, it would be a very small part of the 20,000 figure.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister, through you, Madam Chair, for that response. I did ask about the guidelines, which the minister mentioned yesterday, and the likely time frame in which those guidelines will be developed. I am very conscious of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that he will ‘knock heads together’ in relation to the states, that he has appointed a Commonwealth coordinator and that the states are expected to appoint a state coordinator, to make sure that this infrastructure rollout is as timely as possible. I am assuming that the regulations will need to be developed to govern that in as timely a manner as possible. I just want to ensure that, since the Commonwealth, in the case that Senator Sherry outlined, would be providing finance to assist someone to complete a development, then the Commonwealth could of course apply their own regulations to the partly completed development—such that, whatever was underway would be underway but, if a development was to be completed, getting Commonwealth money to go into it could be conditional on the regulations and the regulations could cover the standards to which those properties would be built. So I would like to have a bit of an understanding of the regulations and when we will get a clearer idea of the breakdown of how the money might be spent for new, partially built or already completed developments, depending on what the category is.

I also make the point that the Greens have consistently argued in this place that, when you build social housing, it is absolutely critical that the social housing has access to public transport. We know that the poorest people tend to live furthest from the centre of the city. We know a lot of these new houses are going to be constructed on greenfield sites, which are likely to be at the edges of the city. Unless they are built to the highest standards of energy efficiency, and unless they are built with access to public transport, you are condemning the people living in them to a greater level of energy poverty—because, as I have mentioned time and time again, I believe we have reached peak oil. I believe that the price of oil at the moment is artificially low because of significantly reduced demand and that ultimately the oil price will go back to $150 or $200 a barrel. While it is a tremendous thing that we are finally getting affordable housing—I want to be absolutely on the record saying that this has been an area of neglect and I am really pleased we are getting this housing—if the Commonwealth is going to make this money available, it provides an opportunity for the Commonwealth to use its influence to make sure that the states come to the party and that there is some arrangement for discussions with the state authorities in relation to access to public transport.

I am fully aware, for example, that people living in Western Sydney are essentially trapped in Western Sydney without access to public transport. When the oil price went up a lot of those people lost their jobs—they could not afford to take their cars to work anymore because they lived on one side of the city and had to drive to the other, without access to public transport and so on. I cannot make this point more strongly. If the Commonwealth is putting all this money in, there must be some mechanism to get a quid pro quo from the states in terms of upgrading access to public transport to these areas and building developments to the highest standards of energy efficiency so that, when we get a carbon price—which is coming—and the oil price starts going up again, people will be able to achieve permanent savings by reducing their energy bills and not having to rely on private transport.

But, anyway, since the minister now seems to have accessed some information on the regulations, I would be keen to hear about that—and also about the capacity for the Commonwealth to range across the public transport area in discussion with the states.

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

Perhaps I can start on the second issue first. I will outline the process. The Commonwealth issues the guidelines in terms of social housing. I ran through the range of parameters yesterday, and one of them includes access to public transport. What will occur is that the states and territories, to varying degrees, as I understand it, are currently gathering together proposed developments for social housing and those are to be forwarded to the Commonwealth. Their proposals will then be checked through when they are received, and I would be very surprised if there were not a lot more than 20,000. The Commonwealth will then go through all of their proposals in detail and match them against the criteria. That is going to be the process. That is certainly much more rigorous than we ever had in the past under, say, the state housing agreement when the Commonwealth provided moneys. So it is a much more rigorous process, and that is how it will occur.

On the issue of public transport, Senator Milne has raised, rightly, that there is a practical issue of difficulty outside the major urban centres. She would be very familiar with the sorts of public transport issues faced on, for example, the north-west coast of Tasmania. Proposals for Hobart in Tasmania would obviously be easier to consider than proposals for some areas of the north-west coast, where there is a devolved series of towns and cities. As Senator Milne would know, there is public transport in Burnie and now in Devonport but there is no public transport in the towns in between and there is no interlinking public transport. That is an issue, and Senator Milne is right to raise it, that would need to be taken into consideration if there were to be X number of houses built on the north-west coast of Tasmania in Penguin, Smithton or anywhere else that did not have public transport. The obvious point needs to be made that we would not want to then say, ‘Look, matched against the guidelines there can be no social housing there.’ That is not intended. So we are practical and we have the public transport infrastructure.

But Senator Milne raises a legitimate issue of concern. To give the example with which I am obviously most familiar, in Smithton you could conceivably walk to most facilities, although people with disabilities and the elderly, depending on their physical condition, could find it a struggle in some respects. But there is also the issue of cross-connection to towns like Burnie and Devonport. People do need to go to those city centres and there is no public transport connection from the outer towns. Where I live in Forth there is no public transport to Devonport, which is only seven kays away, and that is a community of some 2,000 people. So it is a valid consideration.

There is only so much we can do in this package of $42 billion, but there are the practical issues of public transport infrastructure in the context of social housing. I suspect the circumstances you are thinking about, Senator Milne, are very similar right around Australia outside the major cities and urban areas. So, yes, public transport will be taken into account. Whatever proportion of the 20,000 houses are in the major urban centres, I would be very surprised if the criteria could not be met there. But there is going to be that practical issue in smaller towns and communities where there is no effective public transport.

What will happen is as follows. The states will gather together the proposals. As I have said, we do not have them yet; they are being gathered as we speak and provided to the Commonwealth. It would be very surprising if they were not more than 20,000. They will be rigorously examined by the Commonwealth, not just in terms of the details we have been discussing with you, Senator Milne, and other senators but as to the nature of the individual dwellings that are to be built and the various energy, health, safety and access issues. That examination will obviously be matched against what the states had planned to do over, say, the next two or three years in the absence of this package because, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the purpose of the 20,000 social and defence homes is not to replace the current state effort planned in other housing areas. There will be no replacement; this will be an extra effort, and we do not want shifting. So there will be the microanalysis, if I can describe it as such, of the buildings that are proposed—and we have had discussion about that—and the criteria for where they will be constructed, of which public transport is obviously one. There will also be the macroanalysis, if you like, ensuring that these 20,000 homes being constructed and paid for through the various state and territory housing are extra effort.

I am advised, Senator Milne, that when the process is concluded the Commonwealth will make publicly available the agreed projects for the entire country—the whole 20,000. Once the analysis has been completed, the go-ahead will be given to the states and territories, and the 20,000 dwellings right around the country to be funded by this program will be made public. I would be very surprised if you and others did not, rightly, have a look at these approvals. Obviously you will then make a judgment about the criteria and the way it has been applied. I think it is important this is made public because we want rigorous application of the guidelines, micro and macro; we want rigorous application. Again, I think it would be reasonably well known in the local community what was new and what was not, so there is really no sense in not making publicly available a long list of the 20,000 houses and where they are going to be built around the country.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response. I acknowledge that the minister has said you cannot do everything in one package, but it is the position of the Greens that one of the areas of desperate need in infrastructure is the upgrade of public transport from one end of the country to the other. The collapse of the public transport system in Victoria, particularly in Melbourne, in January was a classic case of desperate need. It is the same in Sydney. We need to spend billions in Australia in upgrading public transport. But I also acknowledge that the issue in many rural and regional areas of Australia is that there is no public transport at all.

The north-west coast of Tasmania is, as the minister has said, an area of chronic need. No doubt this government will consider future infrastructure spends, separate from this package, as we go down the line but I hope that public transport comes to the fore as something that is a very high priority. I am fully aware of the Infrastructure Australia process that is going on at the moment and I know that bids have gone into Infrastructure Australia. I am not privy, obviously, to what is being considered by Infrastructure Australia but I know that there is huge support in the community for a big spend on public transport infrastructure as soon as it is feasible or possible for the government to move on this. Again, this is in the context of peak oil.

The other issue for rural and regional areas of the north-west coast of Tasmania, as I have argued to successive governments, is the need for a light rail system to connect Latrobe with Smithton. It would make a huge difference to north-west Tasmania to link all those towns, and it would lead, hopefully, to an end to the duplication that goes on there. You have there a situation where an elderly person living in Devonport cannot visit a friend who happens to be in hospital in Burnie unless they drive, which is not feasible particularly for some of the frail aged—and we have a substantial ageing population in north-west Tasmania, as we do everywhere else. And there is the issue of students being able to travel from TAFE in Burnie to their homes in Devonport or vice versa. There are also people wanting to visit or patients wanting to access doctors or various services.

We could have a much better range of services and much less duplication on the north-west coast if we had all of the north-west coast linked with a public transport system. I have had this conversation with the Cradle Coast Authority—I have had it in Tasmania for years. I have a view about light rail. Others have a view that it should be a public bus service that goes along the coast. But either way, a commitment to a public transport network linking the coastal towns from Smithton to Latrobe is something that I would like to see in a future infrastructure package.

As the minister has said in relation to infrastructure, whilst we can see roads and rail and so on are important, one of the essential parts of infrastructure in the country, which I hope the government might consider in a future package, is the electricity grid around the country, which needs to be upgraded to an intelligent grid. It would have been an ideal opportunity in this package to link the government’s mandatory renewable energy target with the Greens feed-in tariff legislation and invest in the infrastructure of the grid to turn it into an intelligent grid. If you had all those three things you would have a massive stimulus to jobs and investment in the renewable energy sector because you would get people going out and buying solar panels and putting in wind systems—through from small- to large-scale infrastructure. Because they would have a set period of time for the payback they would be able to invest in that. You would get long-term investment horizons, massive investment, rollout of jobs in those technologies and so on.

So I am rather concerned, with this package, that the government has not seen the opportunity, under the whole carbon pollution reduction agenda, to link the mandatory renewable energy target with an investment in an intelligent grid around the country. As it stands, if we got a massive rollout of renewable energy we would not have a grid capable of bringing on some of those energy sources. If you had a large solar thermal station in outback New South Wales somewhere, or you had a large solar array, wind farm or whatever, the grid would not be capable of bringing on that source at the time it was needed, or be capable of linking energy efficiency measures with new systems coming on and so on.

So I think one of the major infrastructure needs in Australia, apart from the skeleton of public transport network around the country, is the desperate need for an upgrade of the electricity grid to an intelligent grid so that we can bring on the renewable energy revolution that most people see as a massive jobs creator, a rebuilder of the manufacturing sector and a great opportunity for Australia.

While we are on the subject of infrastructure, I totally support the spend on schools in Australia. It has long been needed, and it will be a delight to me to see new infrastructure in schools across the country because it has been neglected for years. The fact that we can make them more energy efficient is welcome because it will be more comfortable for the students and it will be cheaper for the schools to run. It also stimulates all the businesses associated with efficiency. (Time expired)

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

I think the development of infrastructure is important, and that clearly includes public infrastructure in this country. We have established Infrastructure Australia, which is going through the process of assessing projects, including public transport. I agree that, in the context of the social housing elements of the package we are considering, public transport is important. There is no difficulty, Senator Milne, in Infrastructure Australia completing their job. They have to be rigorous because these are very substantial spends involving large sums of money. There is, in a sense, a parallel process. We cannot put everything into the $42 billion package and link everything together, but I have no doubt that in the context of social housing in the stimulus package where there is a public transport development identified through Infrastructure Australia they will be able to cross-connect the issues. I accept that that is relevant to the package.

The other point I would make is that the package has been developed as a matter of urgency, as we know, because we have discussed the rapidly developing and worsening world financial and economic outlook. It has been developed quickly because it has to be. Given the nature of the stimulus that is being provided, we have had to do it decisively and quickly. So not everything that we have been discussing can be included in the package. I know that any number of people would like to have seen other elements added to the package but I think that the situation should be understood.

Senator Brown has raised the issue of the age pension, for example. We actually have another process dealing with the age pension, the Henry tax review. We have Infrastructure Australia dealing with infrastructure, including public transport issues. So we have got development underway of other areas of policy in parallel with this stimulus package. But the stimulus package is not the budget and it is not everything that this government intends to do over the next year. There are clearly other programs, other processes and, in the case of the Henry tax review, there will be some announcement on pensions, and I understand that there will be some discussions with Senator Brown about any clarification that is required. So there are other processes where necessary and in parallel going on at the same time. So I think that answers your question and concern as best I can.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did acknowledge in my remarks that I recognise that not everything can be done with $42 billion but that there are a number of processes. I accept what he is saying about the Infrastructure Australia process, but my concern that I am now articulating about the electricity grid around Australia, which I would like the minister to take on board, is something that I really want to put on the Commonwealth agenda as it considers the national priorities into the future.

The states are recalcitrant and I just had to reinforce to the government that if you are waiting for a state like Tasmania, or any other for that matter, to get its head around the fact that it needs to upgrade its electricity grid and to start thinking about making it an intelligent grid in order to bring on renewables, you will be waiting a long time. My concern is that the Infrastructure Australia process really is one where the states bring forward overwhelmingly the major infrastructure proposals that then get considered by Infrastructure Australia. So what is the nation to do if these states do not start thinking about upgrading their energy grids or, indeed, where there are big gaps—and one state does and other states do not. It is like the railway gauge issue at the beginning of our history, if you like. This is where the Commonwealth needs to take some oversight concerning what the national grid should look like into the future. I want to put on the government’s agenda—and I recognise that it is beyond the scope of this package but it is not to the extent that we are looking at infrastructure—that if the states do not come up with it there has to be some mechanism for the Commonwealth, even if it has to get a consultancy to put something like this to Infrastructure Australia, to consider some national planning about upgrading the national grid to an intelligent grid.

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

I understand your concern, but as you would appreciate and you have acknowledged, we are moving into areas of more detail with respect to Infrastructure Australia and I just do not have the advisers here. I take your point. I am perhaps not quite as pessimistic as you are about Tasmania but I do understand your perspective. Nevertheless, I agree that it is an important issue for debate and you have given us fair notice. There will be other opportunities beyond this package—which hopefully will pass—to discuss those matters.

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

The question is that government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet QC294 to the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 be agreed to.

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

As I indicated earlier, we have circulated a second amendment to the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009. I intend to make some comments on this, so those who are anticipating a vote in the next five minutes might be being a little optimistic. But my comments will be short. They are made in the context of some issues that I outlined earlier in respect of the amendment that has just been passed, but there is some specific detail.

Before I do that, I thought I had formally tabled the explanatory memorandum; apparently that has not happened, so I table the replacement supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber today. I present the explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet QV418 to the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Clause 6, page 4 (line 16), omit “$950”, substitute “$900”.

(2)    Clause 6, page 4 (line 18), omit “$650”, substitute “$600”.

(3)    Clause 6, page 4 (line 20), omit “$300”, substitute “$250”.

The purpose of the amendments to the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 is to reduce the amount received by eligible taxpayers by $50. This means that eligible taxpayers will receive $900 where taxable income is up to $80,000; $600 where taxable income exceeds $80,000 but does not exceed $90,000; and $250 where taxable income exceeds $90,000 but does not exceed $100,000.

The adjustment balances the requirement for fiscal responsibility with the need to deliver the fiscal stimulus now. We did not reduce these payments slightly—sorry, lightly—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did reduce them slightly.

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

Slightly is a matter for evaluation and observation by looking at the figures. We did not reduce these payments lightly, because we know they are essential to support growth and jobs in the near term. We have decided on this small reduction while maintaining the overall effectiveness of the government’s plan, which is supporting jobs and growth, while taking into account the views of others. I did outline earlier in more detail how we have been taking into account the views of others. I do not intend to repeat that outline to the Senate. The government is acting responsibly to protect our economy, jobs and businesses by ensuring these bills are passed, and we are commending these amendments to the Senate.

I would certainly, as I argued in more fulsome lengths in my earlier comments when I moved the amendments that just passed, call on the Senate to act responsibly to support this $42 billion fiscal stimulus. It is critical that this package pass the Senate. As I made the point earlier, if this package fails to pass, we would be the only country in the world where such a fiscal stimulus has been proposed by a parliament to reject it. My colleagues and I have canvassed the arguments extensively about why we need a fiscal stimulus. I do not intend to go over those now, but we are at this point because of an irresponsible opposition whose catchcry is: ‘Let’s wait and see—do nothing!’

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

You know that is wrong.

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

‘Let’s wait and see’—these were the words. I watched the shadow Treasurer, Ms Bishop, deliver those and, frankly, I could not believe it when she said it. ‘Wait and see’—they were the words. Go back and look at what she said and the other comments she made. This is a time to act decisively. It is a time to support our economy and employment as almost every other comparable country has done to date by passing significant fiscal stimulus packages.

As I said, we would be the only country in the world whose parliament has been debating this approach to reject such an approach. I would say to the Liberal-National Party opposition: is that the role of a responsible opposition? Worldwide, in all parliaments and political systems where fiscal stimulus packages have been debated, they have been passed. Is Australia to be the first country where it will not pass? I would argue that that will lead to further levels of uncertainty, uncertainty that we do not need in the current climate. So I would appeal to the Senate to support these amendments and then, when we move to the third reading on the package of bills, to support the package. Again, I would appeal to the crossbench parties and to the Independent to support the amendments and ultimately support the package.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question negatived.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite extraordinary that the opposition would want to gag this debate for the third or fourth time today. I have never seen that happen in the Senate before, and it says something about the opposition’s position in wanting to obstruct this stimulus package to assist the Australian economy.

No wonder the opposition wants to get out of here, because their position is clearly untenable. We Greens have, over quite a long period of time, been quite erroneously vilified over our economic nous and wherewithal, but we now have the new radical economic obstructionists on the opposition bench in the form of the opposition of Mr Turnbull. That is for the opposition to determine. The fact is that we are dealing with important amendments here. It is a lot of money. It is, with the last amendments, in the order of $400 million that, while it is not being newly raised, is being made available through adjustment in the package that the government has put forward to fund some very important amendments for creating local jobs and for getting a better social outcome, a better outcome for Australian regional and rural areas and a better environmental outcome. I expect to be able to give the Senate, within half an hour or so, the detail of where the expenditure might go as far as the Greens are concerned.

I just want to put on record at this stage the recognition of the fact that the government has been diverted by the bushfire tragedy this week, from the Prime Minister down. These have been very difficult circumstances for the government. It has delayed the process inevitably—and so it should, because the priority has been right there. But here we are, as far as we Greens are concerned, effectively able to come to an agreement with the government and to get some gains, which are modest if you compare them with the package as a whole but which are quite extraordinarily large if you look at them for their own sake.

As I have said, the amendments are aimed at creating jobs, helping people who are unemployed—and the reality we are facing is hundreds of thousands of Australians being in that position in the next year or two if the predictions are anywhere near right—helping people who are struggling to make ends meet and getting a better environmental outcome in areas such as housing. There is a commitment to schools infrastructure, a modest commitment as far as transport is concerned, and other measures are in the package that is now nearing finalisation. I want to draw attention to one matter: the commitment in the future to the Australian Bushfire CRC. Its mission is:

… to enhance the management of the bushfire risk to the community in an economically and ecologically sustainable manner.

It was set up under the Howard government. It is a world-leading research centre in Melbourne and its objectives are as follows:

• To develop an internationally renowned centre of excellence to lead bushfire research in Australia
• To provide a research framework that will improve the effectiveness of bushfire management agencies
• To increase the self-sufficiency of communities in managing the risks from bushfires.

The government has agreed to assure the next triennium of funding—that is, about $5 million—in the forthcoming budget. That was not assured before these negotiations took place.

The Senate yesterday, without demur as far as I am aware, passed a motion to see the bushfire research centre upgraded to a global wildfire research centre. It coordinates information about bushfires around the planet. It is in close communication with the best researchers in the world, and indeed I understand it has sought to have some of those researchers come to Australia at the moment. In an age when we are going to see more disastrous bushfires on a more populated planet at a time of changing climate, it would indeed be a great gain for Australia to have a research centre that is similar to, for example, the research centre in Atlanta, Georgia, for communicable diseases or the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s headquarters in Rome which cover, for global gain, research and management ideas and worthwhile and constructive innovation for people in the areas involved. This is a matter that the Greens and I have been pursuing for some time, so we are glad about that commitment. It is a minor part of the package but an important one at this stage.

The other point I would like to make is that we have had a further commitment from the government to ensure that pensions will be increased in the coming budget. That is a fairly big commitment because of the financial times we are in, but it has been reiterated and will give assurance to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people around Australia on their future prospects of being able to make ends meet in our community.

I will leave it at that. The Senate has had an extremely important role. Last week we agreed to allow a week to look at this package. It is minimal time. It is not even a minibudget; it is a quite substantial extra budgetary measure in quite extraordinary times. I do not know why the opposition has changed its mind on that and now, at the crucial moment, wants to end the debate. Maybe it is because it has brought forward no substantial ideas in the last week. However, it is to the Australian community’s gain that we took this week. Whatever the outcome today—whether the package goes down or whether it is passed by the Senate—it will be a more job-rich, a more environmentally sustaining and a more community oriented package as a result of the time we have taken.

I want to pay some tribute to the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, their staff and various ministers for engaging in this process while quite clearly and responsibly distracted by one of the greatest tragedies that has ever overtaken the Australian community. I do not know what the outcome will be here this afternoon. I can only speak for the Greens. I said at the outset that we would treat this matter responsibly; I said we would not take a sledgehammer to this package. We have carried out those commitments, but effectively we feel that the gains that were achieved have made the effort that we and the government have put into it over the last week very worth while indeed.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask a question: why is the financial impact so vastly different in the 2008-09 year than in the 2009-10 year, with the impact going from $370 million to $65 million? I have tried to find it in the material you have provided, but I do not seem to be able to discern what that effect is. I genuinely get the feeling that this is now turning into something with more episodes than Blue Hills and it is basically becoming farcical. What on earth is $900 going to do that $950 did not do? Perhaps it is some form of tokenistic pitch at the eleventh hour to no consequence other than to put a moustache on what was a very poor performance of a Mona Lisa. But to the technical question: I want to know why the financial impact of this is so vastly different. And what can you refer the Senate to to better ascertain where those figures came from?

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

In response to the question: both the adjusted, obviously downward, new revenue figures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. The reason the figure is significant in 2008-09 is that, if you look at page 17 of the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook, you will find that for this particular measure and the other measures figures under the subheading ‘Supporting jobs’ now deliver the overwhelming majority of the payments for this financial year, whereas the other category of expenditure, Building prosperity for the future, delivers most if not the overwhelming majority in 2009-10 and 2010-11. That is the reason the impact is more significant this financial year. I think I indicated earlier the change in terms of reduction as a total is approximately $435 million in this category of payment.

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

I just thought I should contradict the assertions made by Senator Brown. The simple fact is the Dynamic Red indicates to anybody that is interested and is following this debate that the actual question before the chair is the amendments in relation to reducing the tax bonus for working Australians from $950 to $900, $650 to $600 and $300 to $250. That is the question that is currently before the Senate.

As I understand it, and from my reading of what other senators are thinking, these amendments will go through the Senate. I have not, in fact, heard anybody during the committee stage on this actually attack this proposal and say that it is a bad proposal. As a result it made sense for that to be dealt with so we could then move back into a proper, structured, general debate which would assist Senator Pratt when she gives her 15-minute speech and Senator Milne, who had relevant questions, to get back to the general discussion.

We as an opposition have never sought to gag this debate. We believe that there should be an orderly debate, but what is now occurring is, in fact, high farce. Everybody, I think, knows that the government, the Greens and others need to buy time to get their amendments together. Why they do not just acknowledge that and move on to some other business so that when the amendments are ready they can bring back this legislation rather than go through this farce of 15-minute speeches I do not know. The minister is deliberately talking about the long-term version of UEFO and all sorts of other things to try and filibuster as much as possible. I think it brings the Senate into disrepute and that is why, when the discussion on a particular matter had finished, I thought it appropriate that that specific question be put.

The fact that senators want to continue that discussion was accepted, but then, with great respect to Senator Brown’s contribution, not a single word of what he said related to the amendment that is before the chair other than, of course, that he was going to spend this money in another area. But that is really a topic for when the Greens amendments or government amendments—whoever’s amendments they might be—come before us. I just wanted to clarify that we were the ones that wanted a committee and we were the ones that asserted that the legislation should not be passed by last Friday, and to try to suggest that we were gagging debate is, on the face of it, clearly unsustainable.

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

I just want to give a quick response to that. Firstly, I can inform Senator Abetz that there are no more government amendments to come, and I am not aware that there will be any Greens amendments. Senator Brown can clarify that, but I am not aware there will be any. I am just trying to give you some indication of the issues we are dealing with here. We have Senator Xenophon’s amendments to come in due course, obviously.

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

Will there be other amendments?

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

My understanding, Senator Abetz, is that the amendments we will be dealing with are those that we have had circulated.

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

Thank you.

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

If Senator Fielding came in and moved an amendment, that would be his prerogative. My understanding at this point is that what we have is what we will have. In the context of relevance—you have raised the issue and I would contend that Senator Brown’s statement was relevant—there is a change to the tax bonus figure, the amendment we are discussing, but I did say earlier that we have agreed to make a small adjustment to the tax bonus and to the single income family bonus, which was in the amendment already passed. It is in that context, clearly, that there would be a small saving to government, and we have discussed and outlined that. I did want to make it clear that, in making these changes and the small saving to government—we have updated the Senate on that level of saving—there are other—

Progress reported.