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

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) to the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 on sheet QV418 moved by Senator Sherry be agreed to.

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

I was just concluding my remarks. Senator Abetz had raised a concern about the statement in the context of the committee amendment that Senator Bob Brown made and I was pointing out that my considered view was that the statement of Senator Brown in the context of the amendment we are considering was totally appropriate. From the government’s point of view, I do not think we are far away from wishing to proceed to a vote, subject to others who wish to express their view. I am not sure whether you are at that point yet, Senator Brown. You earlier indicated that you wanted some more time before we proceeded to vote on these amendments. Obviously other senators may wish to make a contribution, but it would be useful if you would indicate your wishes to the chamber.

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

I am ready to have the matter taken to a vote, but before I do that I would like to reveal some further details about the arrangement that has led to an agreement between the government and the Australian Greens. I might say at the outset, without repeating earlier remarks, that this was not an easy process for the Greens. We have had considerable feedback from the community, particularly about the tax bonus component of this package, which is many billions of dollars. A very wide range of people who would receive $950—or, under the new proposal, $850—would prefer that money went to infrastructure, to nation building, to education, to hospitals and, indeed, to bushfire remediation, amongst a range of other projects. I want to thank everybody in the community because we have had some very wise feedback, the sort of feedback that normally would have gone to Senate committees had the inquiry gone a little longer. You can be sure we will be taking the suggestions and feeding them into the budget process, which will be soon upon us in this place.

The amendments the chamber has been dealing with would raise an extra $435 million by reducing all tax payments by $50 to $900 and by reducing the additional bonus to single income families to $900 as well. It simply means that the packages would go from $950 to $900 and that money, the $435 million, would indeed go, as I believe the community wants it to, into job creation and nation-building infrastructure. The stimulus package commitments—and I have a letter from the Treasurer which I will make public—include the financial assistance scheme. These are one-off grants to church, charitable, community and other organisations for no-interest loans for low-income earners and unemployed people and for the employment of financial counsellors for people who are in difficulties, as well as for a range of other helpful measures. This component is an extra $50 million on top of the government’s $80 million proposal, which itself is a doubling of the spending flagged before the stimulus package. Our estimate is that it will create directly another 200 jobs. A bigger item is $200 million for a community fund. The proposal here is for local jobs. This has one-off grants to church, charitable and community organisations and local councils for pilot projects to generate local employment opportunities. As I say, it is $200 million and we estimate—and I underline this is an estimate—that this will create an extra 6,000 to 7,000 jobs across Australia.

We have been able to convince the government of the merits of an extra $60 million going to heritage projects across Australia. This has been an area of quite extraordinary neglect. The current financial year funding in this area is as low as $200,000. According to heritage experts, we have been plunged into a crisis as far as the maintenance and upkeep of our heritage stock in Australia is concerned. I am talking here about nationally listed heritage buildings, our history and important buildings for local communities and about the natural heritage, including our parks and our natural amenities in cities and towns across this country. So this is a major item in terms of spending on Australia’s magnificent historic, cultural and natural heritage. It will mean that many projects which are shovel ready will now get the funding they deserve. We estimate this will create 1,100 jobs. It will involve skilling members of that workforce so that they will be able to continue with this very worthwhile work for a better community outcome.

We have also been able to reach agreement with the government about what I think is the beginning of a major new investment in public transport, in particular in private transport which crosses into the public domain—that is, bicycle ways. Millions of Australians are buying new bicycles each year. Without government direction, there has been a massive change in mood in the Australian community, as there has been worldwide. Bikeways are now at a premium. Bicycles are becoming a matter of new attention for people who used to ride. They can now and they are taking it up again. It has a social dividend, a health dividend, a lifestyle dividend and an environmental dividend where this money will be spent. We have been able to reach agreement on a $40 million fund for bikeways across Australia. I might add that this is predicated on a much bigger allocation for bikeways under Infrastructure Australia. Government will be taking seriously such projects, with some of them worth tens of millions of dollars. I know that one in Sydney is worth some hundreds of millions of dollars. These will bring bikeways in Australia to the same level of serious government attention that we have seen in similar countries overseas. It is estimated that 500 to 700 jobs will be created in this allocation. These are green local jobs. The spin-off to local business is obvious. The spin-off as to the improved and enhanced lifestyles of towns and cities in Australia is going to be quite enormous, I predict, in the years to come. I want to thank my colleague Senator Milne and indeed all my Greens colleagues for coming forward with suggestions from the community which have led to this outcome.

We have also got agreement for access to the local government infrastructure fund to be reopened so that local councils can apply. There was a cut-off date of 23 December on the original fund. Some small councils across the country did not get an application in. Under the provisos in this package, this expenditure of half a billion dollars would not have been available to them. That was patently unfair. There will now be a window of opportunity for smaller councils to also be able to apply in order to create local jobs and infrastructure in regional as well as urban Australia.

We have got agreement on a new concept for federal government, which is to look at energy efficiency in infrastructure when it comes to housing and schools. A massive component of the infrastructure in this package goes to building new schools and new housing—some 20,000 new houses are proposed, although an unknown component of that will be current housing or houses already underway. There will be new houses built. For the first time, the federal government has agreed to build energy efficiency ratings into future housing. We have a five-star rating. We are now going in the direction of getting a six-star rating. The government’s intention—and this goes through the COAG process—is for this rating to apply from May next year. While we certainly did not get agreement on this, the Greens are aiming to have Australia go to a seven-star rating, which involves some few thousand dollars per house for a great improvement in living standards and comfort of lifestyle and for a falling power bill. Very often, low-income earners will take up the housing that is being funded here. It is very important to recognise that not only the environment but also, through reduced power bills, the pockets of those people inhabiting the houses will win out as a result of energy efficiency.

Senator Hanson-Young has been very keen to ensure that there was a component for the Lower Murray, as was Senator Siewert. This proved to be very difficult, and there is, to say the least, resistance in government to bringing forward expenditure for the crisis faced by the Lower Murray, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and by the people in that region. We want to see expenditure brought forward. We also—and this went to the wire—wanted to see water moved down the river to give the Lower Lakes a drink, because they are dying. However, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, was not accommodating and resisted this right down the line. It is my understanding that as little as $9 million would provide 30 gigalitres to the lower river. However, that was not to be; it should be, and it is something we do not agree with the government on. In fact, we wanted to see a much bigger commitment than that. However, $10 million has been provided for bioremediation. This is to fix up the appalling state of the environment in the Lower Lakes region. From February to December this year, immediate funding for community driven bioremediation will tackle acid sulphate soil hot spots, effectively dealing with the acidification of already exposed soils. This bioremediation needs to be carried out immediately, and local people in the area who have lost their jobs because of the drought and low level of the lakes could be employed—and will be employed, as far as we are concerned—as new jobs are created to undertake this project.

There are some anomalies and inequities in the package which we wanted to—and, with the government, have been able to—address. The first is that there will be an extension of the training and learning bonus of $900 to students who enrol before 31 March and to postgraduate students. The government intended this to be so, and we are reassuring students who enrol after 3 February, the date in the package, that they are not going to miss out. We have gained reassurance for postgrad students that they also will be able to access that package.

As I said earlier, we have got agreement—and this is, let me say, Labor policy as well as Greens policy—to double the threshold of the liquid assets test waiting period for unemployed people from $2,500 to $5,000 for singles with no dependants and from $5,000 to $10,000 for others. That will cost some $20 million to $30 million, but it quite clearly (Extension of time granted) is a socially just measure. There will be $900 special payments—

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

Sorry, Senator Brown; could I interrupt? What was the 20 to 30 again?

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

It was the cost of increasing the liquid assets test from $2,500 to $5,000. The $900 special payments will—and this has been quite a difficult item to delineate—go to all genuine low-income earners who would have missed out under the proposed arrangements. There are people on low incomes who have not put in tax returns but who are genuinely poor and who would have been missed under the conditions laid out in the package. We want to see that those people who are right at the bottom, living in poverty, and who, through anomalous circumstances, would have missed out on this package get the payment the same as their fellow citizens.

I mentioned earlier the commitment to the age pension in the forthcoming budget. That is a very important commitment, and I am very glad that the government has continued that commitment for pensioners. We have been assured that there will be additional funding for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the forthcoming budget. It is incredibly important for the delivery of social services in this country, as well as for a whole range of measures, not least as we move into a period of economic squeeze. I mentioned the new triennium funding for the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre in Melbourne.

I finish by thanking my colleagues. We have worked very hard over the last week to come up with these amendments. I thank the community for being so generous and for so rapidly feeding in information which has enabled this improved outcome. I thank the government. I met the Prime Minister without commitment very briefly at the outset to discuss the importance of this matter. On several occasions I have met the Treasurer, with colleagues. The Treasurer’s department, prime ministerial officials and other departments and ministers involved have been able to work constructively with us. There are always tensions that arise in these matters, but we never gave up on the idea that we had here a high responsibility to the people of Australia. We had difficulty with the so-called cash handouts. You will see that that has at least been pared back. The paring back has enabled some very constructive job creation—somewhere in the order of at least 10,000 new jobs to come out of this package—and I think the spin-off will be much greater than that.

We are moving towards being a wiser, greener, more socially just country because of these amendments. We have concentrated on the creation of local jobs, green jobs, community oriented jobs, assuring people that they not only will get work in their regions through this stimulus package but also may well be skilled for a new career in an age which has different demands on the economy and where tackling climate change overarches everything. Climate change will be a king hit on our economy in the years ahead, and it is going to get worse if we do not tackle it now. That is another matter coming up in June this year, one on which the Greens may not so easily—if I can say this was easy—come to agreement with the government. We will be constructive there as we are being constructive now. We came into this constructively minded. We wanted to improve this package. We have improved this package. We now support this package. We hope that it brings the benefits intended by government and the Greens to the Australian community.

Finally, it does not mean that the package is one we would have devised or that we cannot criticise or that we will not be hard on the government to get further outcomes—of course we will—but we have been able to make it better.

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

On a lighter point, I declare a potential interest in one of the cycle tracks. If there is to be a cycle track, I invite those designing it to consider Channel Highway, Kingston, because it will make my ride to the office somewhat easier.

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

I’ll let you know where to send the application!

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

Thank you. Because I do not want to delay the Senate too long and I have a few questions for the minister at the end of it, I briefly indicate that I think the arguments have now been well rehearsed. Senator Brown is, as is the wont of the Greens, willing to talk about the expenditure, but there was no mention of the debt and how that is going to be serviced. From the coalition point of view, it has been the debt component and the size of the debt component that has been concerning. Senator Brown used the term ‘socially just’. How is it socially just for us to maintain our lifestyle today at the expense of tomorrow’s generations, who will be required to pay back this debt at $9,500 per man, woman and child—plus interest? That has been our point throughout this debate; I will not canvass it any further, other than to say that that has been our concern. In relation to all these projects, I understand—and also got the indication from Senator Brown—that there will not be any amendments to this package of legislation as a result of those measures that Senator Brown has read out. Is that correct? The minister is nodding his head.

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

I understand that that is the intention of the government as far as today is concerned. We cannot give a guarantee that this will not entail an amendment of some sort or other legislation to come before the Senate at some future time.

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

I thank Senator Brown for that clarification. That begs the question of whether or not these moneys, roughly adding up to $500 million, are appropriated in this package of legislation. I do not think they are. When, therefore, will the appropriations for these various measures be made? Are we to anticipate that in the budget? Will we be requiring specific legislation in relation to all those aspects of the package? When is it intended that those commitments to Senator Brown be honoured?

We have been told we are going to have the letter from Treasurer Swan tabled. I welcome that. But I was wondering whether timelines et cetera are in that letter. I would anticipate not. I would have thought that the Senate should be entitled to know some of the detail, because otherwise we are in fact being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I think we need to have full disclosure and, to continue the analogy—but I do not mean it in a derogatory way—we ought be able to inspect the pig thoroughly and see what we are getting in relation to this—

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

Modified package.

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

Yes, this modified package. So I will ask the minister to respond.

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

If I may, it has just been pointed out to me that the extended Training and Learning Bonus and the special payments to all genuine low-income earners will be $950, not $900 as I said earlier.

And may I just say on the deficit matter that that does concern me too. The deficit has concerned us greatly. That is why, while this package is enormous, and we were not going to block it, we have been able to make these amendments without a dollar extra in potential deficit for the country. That is a good outcome as far as we are concerned.

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

I have one quick last question to ask—which I did forget; I do not want to delay—so the minister can deal with all questions in the one go. In relation to the community fund, it was suggested that that $200 million might create 6,000 to 7,000 jobs. I was wondering whether that is a figure with which the government agrees and whether Treasury have provided advice that their modelling or their analysis would indicate that that would be the rate of job delivery. If it were, can I say that the price per job with the community package—or the ‘community fund’, I think Senator Brown called it—would deliver jobs at about half the cost of the $42 billion package, and as a result it might be worth while to go back to the drawing board and see if we can deliver the 90,000 jobs being supported with a measure that would only require half the amount of expenditure.

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

I know you are going to wind up this debate, but I want to get this in there before you do. I have just been looking at the financial costings of this package, where you have said that the financial impact of this amendment will be $370 million in 2008-09 and $65 million in 2009-10. This is how you are calculating your overall savings. In your first general outline of financial impact you talked about an all-up cost in 2008-09 of $8,150 million but your total cost in 2009-10 was $1 million. So how could we have a saving of $65 million when your initial costing was only $1 million?

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

I am not sure I followed all of that, to be perfectly frank, but I will get some further advice from the officials. I will respond to the other issues that Senator Abetz raised in the meantime. In terms of the commitment and the letter, I understand that Senator Brown indicated he was tabling the letter. I do not have a copy of the letter—

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

We haven’t seen it; that’s all.

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

Yes, I know you haven’t. I do not have a copy of it here to table. But I think Senator Brown has indicated he is going to table the letter from the Treasurer, Mr Swan. I just want to clarify that, because I think he said that.

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

I would be happy to.

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

Could I briefly intervene and invite Senator Brown to do that as expeditiously as possible.

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

Okay, so that is the issue of the letter.

In terms of the issues that Senator Brown went through, which are contained in the letter, and whether there is authorisation for expenditures in the legislation we are considering—no, there is not. There would be future legislation with respect to the matters he has outlined. For that reason there are preliminary costings being done, but I cannot give a detailed costing because that will be developed with the legislation, where legislation is required. And I am informed that, at this stage, with those preliminary costings, it is approximately revenue neutral. It is not intended by the amendments—if the second amendment is approved by the Senate—to save money; it is approximately neutral. That is the approach that has been taken. I have already indicated the need for fiscal rectitude.

Senator Abetz has made a point about the opposition’s focus on debt levels. I have made a number of points during this committee stage debate. I certainly do not intend at this point in time to repeat parts of that debate. I hope that we will move to a vote on the amendments before the chair.

I understand Senator Xenophon is to move his amendment. I do intend to make some remarks on behalf of the government with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin. I can indicate on behalf of the government that we are narrowing down our contributions.

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

I will give more information so you can follow this through. In your initial explanatory memorandum that you delivered on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 you stated—this is probably a good explanation—on page 3 under ‘Financial impact’ that the cost in 2008-09 was $8,150 million or $8.1 billion, and the cost in 2009-10 would be $1 million. In the explanatory memorandum of the amendment that is now before the chamber you talk about a saving by reason of this amendment of $370 million—I imagine that is $370 million off the $8.1 billion, which I will take as making sense—but then you talk about a saving of $65 million off what you have already told us would be a cost of only $1 million.

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

I can now provide an explanation. The description of the measure on page 71 of the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook: February 2009, relating to the Australian Tax Office, showing figures of $8,150 million for 2008-09 and $1 million in 2009-10, is reported on an accruals basis—that is, the impact on the fiscal balance. The memo is stated to be in underlying cash terms, so there is a difference.

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

The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet QV418, moved by Senator Sherry, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

In respect of the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, I move:

(1)    Page 12 (after line 12), after Part 4, insert:

Part 5—Murray-Darling Basin stimulus measures

18 Establishment of Murray-Darling Basin Stimulus Fund

Establishment of the Fund

        (1)    The Murray-Darling Basin Stimulus Fund is established by this section.

        (2)    The purpose of the Fund is to provide targeted assistance measures to improve the economic and environmental viability of the Murray-Darling Basin, including by:

             (a)    bringing forward $3.1 billion in funding allocated to buy back water entitlements and accelerate implementation of the Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin program; and

             (b)    bringing forward $2 billion of the $5.8 billion allocated to water infrastructure programs in the Murray-Darling Basin under the Commonwealth’s Water Plan; and

             (c)    bringing forward $250 million in funding for pilot stormwater harvesting projects through the National Water Security Plan for Towns and Cities; and

             (d)    providing for the payment of grants of up to a total of $2 billion under the structural adjustment scheme required to be determined under section 19.

        (3)    Payments from the Fund are to be met from funds appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this section.

Payments out of the Fund

        (4)    Payments out of the Fund must be applied to the purposes of the programs specified in subsection (2).

Administration of the Fund

        (5)    The Fund is to be administered by the Minister.

        (6)    The administration of the Fund may include use of a reverse tender or similar initiative designed to quickly discover the price at which water users are willing to voluntarily sell water entitlements to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.

        (7)    The Minister may establish and fund appropriate administrative and advisory bodies to help manage the Fund.

19 Structural adjustment package

        (1)    The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a scheme in the nature of a structural adjustment package to allocate transitional funding to water users, water suppliers and rural communities in the Basin affected by the purchase by the Commonwealth of any water entitlements.

        (2)    A scheme determined under subsection (1) must provide for structural adjustment assistance to be allocated to communities, business and individuals to assist them to adjust to:

             (a)    reduced water availability; and

             (b)    reduced economic activity associated with the restructuring of irrigated agriculture or other enterprises; and

             (c)    changes in land use; and

             (d)    changes in the configuration of water supply and distribution systems.

        (3)    In determining the amount of funding to be allocated to any community under the scheme, regard must be had to the following factors:

             (a)    the minimum scale of economic activity required to enable the economic and social viability of communities; and

             (b)    the efficiency of the remaining water usage and distribution; and

             (c)    the ability of the remaining farming activities to adjust to climate change.

20 Interpretation

        (1)    In this Part, unless any contrary intention appears:

Minister means the Minister administering the Water Act 2007.

National Water Security Plan for Towns and Cities means the program within the Government’s Water for the Future plan that upgrades older pipes and water systems, installs new infrastructure and provides for practical projects to save water and reduce water losses plan.

Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin program means the program within the Government’s Water for the Future plan that establishes the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, develops a Basin Plan and purchases water to restore ecological systems in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Water for the Future is the strategy to secure the long term water supply of all Australians announced by the Minister for Water and Climate Change on 29 April 2008.

Water Plan means the Commonwealth Plan for the Murray-Darling Basin which comprises the amendments to the Water Act 2007 that gave effect to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform signed at the 3 July 2008 Council of Australian Governments meeting.

        (2)    A word or expression used in this Part that is also used in the Water Act 2007 has the same meaning as it has in that Act.

This amendment is largely self-explanatory. It is to establish a Murray-Darling Basin stimulus fund to ensure that there is a bringing forward of $3.1 billion in funding allocated to buy back water entitlements. Currently there is a real concern that those entitlements are not being brought forward sufficiently to make a very real, appreciable difference to the river system. It also provides for the bringing forward of $2 billion of the $5.8 billion allocated to water infrastructure. I note that the modernising industry package in essence provides for about $1.5 billion to be spent until 2010-11, and there is a real concern amongst those communities that those funds are simply not sufficient.

The amendment also allows a bringing forward of funding in relation to the pilot stormwater harvesting projects, as part of the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns, and provides for the payment of grants up to a total of $2 billion for structural adjustment. That, it is acknowledged, is new money, although it should also be taken into account that moneys that have been set aside for exit packages which have not been used to any significant degree could be allocated for this. I understand the government’s position and I think I have a pretty good idea of what the opposition’s position is in relation to this.

I have previously spoken in this place about the turmoil facing the global economy and the terrible negative impact that this is having on our national economy. I have sat through the inquiries looking into the government’s proposed stimulus package and I have spent the better part of a week expressing my concerns to the government about this package. The Senate is a place where bills are meant to be scrutinised and, if need be, improved. There is not a monopoly on good ideas here—nor is there a monopoly of good ideas in the government or the opposition.

Ultimately, this is my concern about the government’s package: no credible economic stimulus package can ignore the crisis facing the Murray-Darling economy. 1.9 million people live in the Murray-Darling Basin. It provides over half of the food that our nation consumes and almost 100,000 direct farming and irrigation jobs. These jobs are under real threat. If these jobs go, the nation loses its food bowl and those 100,000 farmers, irrigators and workers will not be able to feed their families—nor will the hundreds of thousands of additional people whose jobs rely on the farmers, like the grain sellers, mechanics and local shopkeepers.

This government seems to think that the economy is something that only happens on the eastern seaboard, and that is wrong. The government wants to pretend my stance is parochial and all about my home state, and that is wrong too. I remind the government that the Murray-Darling River system flows through Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia and that the economies of every one of those states rely on the economy of the Murray-Darling Basin.

This is truly a national crisis. It seems that because it is happening in rural Australia it is not being given the priority it deserves. The government have basically told the Senate that when it comes to the economic stimulus package it is their way or the highway. And now the government seem to want to go out and argue that a bunch of rogue senators are standing in the way of this package. Let me be clear about this: it is not just the odd senator or two who has great concerns about this package; it is me and more than half the Senate. If the government cannot convince more than half the Senate that their plan is a good plan then perhaps we need a better plan.

Professor Quentin Grafton from the Crawford School of Economics of the Australian National University is well known as an agricultural economist who has given advice to governments and bureaucracies over the years. He is well regarded. His advice could not be clearer. He compares the crisis facing the Murray-Darling Basin’s economy with the US Dust Bowl crisis in the 1930s in terms of the socioeconomic and environmental impact. Government action eventually turned that crisis around, and government action is needed to turn this crisis around. Professor Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, has expressed his concern that there are many jobs at stake, many communities at stake, along the whole basin if buybacks are not brought forward immediately, unless there is that structural adjustment to the system.

Whether that happens or not, our basin economy is going to hurt. We cannot stop the pain but we certainly can minimise it. I have asked the government to bring forward these allocated funds, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of stormwater harvesting, and to provide the structural adjustment that is so desperately needed. From Charleville in the north to the Coorong in the south, from Broken Hill in the west to Bathurst in the east, and the hundreds of communities in between this plan will help them all. This plan will deliver extraordinary stimulation to the Murray-Darling economy and its environment. But the government have said no, so I must say no to their stimulus plan.

I made it clear in my first speech to the Senate and I want to make it clear again: I did not come to Canberra to make friends; I came here to make a difference. I urge all senators to support this amendment. If, for whatever reason, they cannot, my position is unchanged, but I indicate that I am prepared at all times to talk, to negotiate in good faith and with goodwill, with the government because I believe that this stimulus plan cannot have credibility in the absence of bringing forward expenditure that has already been allocated for the Murray-Darling Basin. I will not walk away from the people of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is important that we get this stimulus package right. That is my position, and it is a position I will not resile from.

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

If I may briefly on behalf of the opposition indicate to the Senate that my South Australian colleagues—my leader, Senator Minchin; you, Mr Chairman; and Senators Bernardi, Fisher and Birmingham—want to be associated with those comments. They fully agree with Senator Xenophon on the critical importance of the Murray-Darling Basin. They are also frustrated at the inaction in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, noting that there was a $10 billion funding plan that has still not been properly activated. However, it is the coalition’s view that this package, in total, is fatally flawed. Tacking something good onto it does not overcome the fatal flaws of the package, and as a result we would be minded not to support it, albeit that we would not pursue a division on it of necessity.

My South Australian colleagues share the compelling concerns of all South Australians about the needs of the river, the Lower Lakes and especially those irrigation communities in the Riverland and elsewhere, who feel the brunt of the economic and human pain caused by the crisis in the river. With that I indicate a complete agreement with and acknowledgement of Senator Xenophon in his views about the urgency and importance of the Murray-Darling being attended to. I think some of the suggestions he has made are worthy of consideration but at the end of the day we are still opposed to the totality of the figure of this package because of the huge debt burden that will be placed on future Australians. However, we will be very supportive of sensible and considered action in relation to the Murray-Darling in the future, and I can ensure senators and the South Australian community that my South Australian senate colleagues will make especially sure of that.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to express the Greens’ support for Senator Xenophon’s amendment and express our complete disappointment that the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, has rejected outright the purchase of fresh water that is so desperately needed for the Lower Lakes and the river. Years and years of mismanagement and overallocation have left the communities who rely on the Murray-Darling Basin, from the top right down to the south at the Coorong, struggling every day. That is because of mistakes that were made by previous governments, time and time again. And there is a lack of courage and a lack of will to tackle those issues head-on now.

I support Senator Xenophon’s call for fast-tracking money into restructuring and the purchasing of water allocations throughout the basin. I am disappointed that Senator Wong has not had the courage or the will to access the water that is available on the market, to give back to the river what it desperately deserves and needs. Senator Xenophon and all other South Australian senators in this chamber would be very disappointed to see no action in the next 12 months to secure fresh water for the river and the lakes. I am positive that we will not finish this debate on securing water that is desperately needed, whether this stimulus package is passed or not.

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

As I indicated earlier, the government is not going to support the amendment of Senator Xenophon. I think the critique of Senator Wong—particularly the comment about her lacking the courage or the will—is wrong, and I am sure that when I outline this senators will come to the same conclusion. I indicate that there were discussions, as Senator Xenophon has indicated, between him and the government. The principal issue was one of practicality. Just because you say you want to spend a billion or two tomorrow does not mean you can actually do it tomorrow.

The principal issue was one of practicality. The summary—it is only a summary—of the expenditures that I am going through, and the program, indicate this government’s commitment to a range of initiatives in respect of the Murray-Darling. There were extensive discussions between Senator Xenophon and the government but unfortunately they have not proven successful.

I will just make this other point, which came up earlier. This very, very important fiscal package cannot deal with every issue in the one package. We had a discussion earlier about infrastructure. There is a crying need for infrastructure expenditure in Australia, and we have outlined a process, through Infrastructure Australia for dealing with that. That set of legitimate concerns is being dealt with, as legitimate concerns about the Murray-Darling that Senator Xenophon has—I think all senators share them, not just those in South Australia—are being dealt with in other programs and in other ways. We cannot resolve every issue facing Australia—particularly long-term investment issues which require the expenditure of sums of money and require proper planning and delivery—by including them all in this package.

The government has made good progress in securing Australia’s long-term water supplies. We have worked to improve the health of our rivers and secure the future of our irrigation communities. There is some $3.1 billion to be invested in purchasing water entitlements and $5.8 billion in modernising irrigation infrastructure. We have also put in place landmark new laws to enable a new independent authority to implement the first ever basin-wide plan, which will end over 100 years of mismanagement.

We also understand that climate change means that we need to diversify our water supplies so that we reduce our reliance on rainfall. The government has purchased water for rivers and wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin for the first time ever. We have already secured 23 billion litres of water entitlement through our first tender. Our action to help New South Wales purchase Toorale Station—forgive my pronunciation—will return an average of some 20 billion litres to the Darling River system.

The government has secured a historic referral of powers from states and passed legislation to deliver the first ever basin-wide plan in 2011. The government has committed projects worth $3.7 billion across the Murray-Darling Basin to improve water efficiency in irrigation, including some $320 million for the Lower Lakes. The government has delivered the $250 million national rainwater and greywater initiative, which helps households save.

Senator Xenophon wants the government to dramatically compress the Murray-Darling Basin Water Purchase Program by bringing forward $3.1 billion. In requesting this he knows, I believe, that the government has made significant progress and broken new ground in delivering much-needed reforms and in making the investments that for so long have been neglected. Let me explain that the Rudd government—

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr Chair. The minister is talking about a state of knowledge of mine of which he has no knowledge. I do not think that it is appropriate that the minister says that I know something that he cannot comment on, unless you think it is more appropriate that I raise it in the context of a response. I am in your hands.

The Temporary Chairman:

I think that Senator Sherry is using it as a debating point and if you choose to respond then I think you can, but the minister is certainly not out of order in debating along those lines.

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

Thank you, Chair. I think that it is important to get on the record, in view of the amendment and because the government is not supporting it, why we are not supporting the amendment. Also there were some unfounded remarks made about my colleague Senator Wong. To date the government’s water purchase tenders have proved to be very successful. As a result of water purchase tenders conducted from February to May 2008, the Commonwealth has so far settled purchases for more than 23 billion litres of entitlements, worth $32.9 million. Completion of a further $4.5 million of purchases from this first tender round has been deferred until the issues preventing the approval and settlement of these trades can be overcome. In terms of the current southern basin tender and the recently concluded first northern basin tender, the department has received a large number of new offers to sell water from across the Murray-Darling Basin. In conducting these tenders the department directs prospective sellers to publicly available sources of market information. Sell offers are assessed against prevailing market prices so that the impact of the water market is minimised.

Entitlements are purchased that have the ability to provide water in a catchment when scientific evidence indicates that water needs to be recovered. The department also continues to liaise with groups of irrigators who are considering selling their water entitlements. Irrigator-led group proposals will be assessed by the department for value for money once a formal proposal supported by both the irrigators and their irrigation water provider is received.

As for water infrastructure—and I am summarising this for the Senate; I want it understood that I am not going to go through all the work that Minister Wong and this government are doing—Senator Xenophon wants the government to bring forward $2 billion for water infrastructure projects under the government’s $5.8 billion Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. Up to $3.7 billion in funding for Murray-Darling Basin state priority projects and private irrigation projects was agreed in principle in July 2008. For the most part, this funding will roll out once due diligence assessments on the specific projects are complete. Consultations with basin states on the special detail of the priority projects are now well underway. The basin states are at various stages of scoping the detail of the projects. It is expected that both off-farm and on-farm opportunities to improve water management and efficiency will be included in many of these priority projects. Two projects are already underway—the pipelines urgently required to supply irrigation and potable water to communities in the Lower Lakes region of South Australia.

I could go on to the Senate about what is happening in this area but suffice to say that the government’s contention is that if you agreed to bring all the money forward to tomorrow it is not practical to spend it in this way. There is an enormous amount of work being done and, in the context of my ministerial colleague Senator Wong, I believe that she has worked very thoroughly and effectively to deal with these issues. But they cannot be solved in one year; it does take a number of years. There is a practical element in bringing forward the expenditure. Everything that can practically be done to address these issues is being done and Senator Wong, as I say, is focused on these particular issues.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Senator Xenophon has indicated, should this amendment not be passed—and I think it is a reasonable conclusion that this amendment will not be passed because the government is not supporting it and the opposition have indicated they are not supporting it—that he will therefore be voting against the third reading of the bill. The vote will then probably be tied—and I do not want to pre-empt the outcome. If that is the case, this $42 billion stimulus package will be defeated. I have made the point on a couple of occasions already that this would be, I think, the first country in the world, where stimulus packages are being considered by their parliaments, that a stimulus package has been defeated. From that, obviously, would flow a range of consequences, not least considerable uncertainty. I would make one last appeal to Senator Xenophon—and I have not had an indication from Senator Fielding of his position.

The government is dealing with other issues, such as water and infrastructure, in other ways. This is a $42 billion package to stimulate and underpin the economy in the context of the financial and economic crisis that is rapidly emerging. Not every solution to every issue in Australia can be dealt with in the context of this package. But the government is taking every step it can to address these challenges, and that is the reason for delivering the Nation Building and Jobs Plan.

We are facing a global recession. There is a global recession and we cannot afford to wait and wait and wait. It has been suggested by the Liberal-National parties that we just ‘wait and see’. How long do we wait and see before things get successively worse? And there is no doubt that the state of the world economy will get worse. You have only got to see the number of jobs being lost in other countries; every month it is increasing across a whole range of countries.

We have had lengthy debates, there have been Senate committee inquiries and there have been lots of discussions, but the time has come to support this package of legislation and support the passage of the bills. We have had the support of a range of organisations. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund, has stated the reason we need stimulus packages:

Above all, adopt clear policies and act decisively … Delays in financial packages have cost a lot already. Further rounds of debate will stoke uncertainty and make things worse.

I think Senator Xenophon should think about this. Further uncertainty, further delays—things will get worse. I would certainly urge the Liberal-National parties to have some regard for this. Things will get worse. That is the view of the International Monetary Fund. But, unfortunately, the Liberal-National coalition has continued to ignore a whole range of credible evidence from the International Monetary Fund, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Western Australian Liberal Premier—and, I notice, Rupert Murdoch recently indicated the need for a stimulus package.

Should this package fail to be supported, we will be the first country in the world to end up with a zero fiscal stimulus package, it having been rejected by our parliament. We would be the first country in the world. Given the rapidly changing and deteriorating world financial and economic situation, that would be irresponsible. There needs to be greater certainty. Times demand this from elected governments.

The package includes a $28.8 billion investment in our schools, roads and homes. It is time to support a $12.7 billion boost to consumption so we can support jobs now. The government is determined to take this action, as other governments around the world have been determined to take action and pass their particular packages. It is time to support this Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It is a targeted stimulus package, with more than two-thirds of it invested in building things that will make Australia a better place. It invests $14.7 billion in our children and their schools. It invests $6 billion in the construction of approximately 20,000 new public and community homes. And there are a range of other initiatives.

The world is facing the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It will bring declining economic growth and it will bring job losses, and we cannot afford to wait around, debating ad infinitum the particular add-ons, when these issues are being addressed in other ways—in other pieces of legislation. This package is critical. The Senate should pass it now. We should not be engaged in political games. The national interest and the economy should come first.

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

I stand to speak basically because I see Senator Xenophon as a very decent person and I think it is absolutely essential now that this situation be seen as nothing to do with Senator Xenophon; it is to do with the arrogance and complete lack of consultation on the part of the Labor Party. That is the reason we are here. To compare this package to fiscal packages in countries such as the United States, where there was extensive consultation between the Senate and the President as they progressed that package, is a complete insult.

Quite obviously, this package will now fail. The sooner we get started on one where there is proper and open consultation between all parties to come up with something constructive that we can deliver back to our nation, the better. You dare to come in here and start pointing the finger at Senator Xenophon or Senator Fielding, or anybody else for that matter, when it is something that you have brought down on yourself because of the pathetic and ridiculous way that you have presented this package—the complete lack of detail, the gun-to-our-heads process and duress that you have placed on this chamber. You are now reaping what you sowed in how you went about trying to deliver government. This was a complete fiasco, but the fiasco rests on your heads and your heads alone—nobody else’s.

What is happening today is the only reasonable outcome for something that has been cobbled together in an eclectic group of nefarious clauses in some divine hope that without proper analysis it can deliver Australia into anything but a debt position that is quickly becoming unfathomable. What is happening today is the only outcome that can be expected from such a ridiculous and insulting process as the one the Labor Party have delivered during the whole debate on this so-called fiscal stimulus package.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever the merits of the Murray-Darling Basin issues, the simple fact is that these measures do not belong as part of an economic stimulus package and I implore all senators to recognise this. The fact is that many Australians are fearful for their jobs if this package fails to pass. They are fearful that the Australian Senate will fail to pass this package and they have more economic sense than the opposition. Australians, along with economic analysts, have welcomed this package as a key tool to help us stimulate the economy but it must be structured properly and, unfortunately, an amendment like this does not fit within that.

I express my support for the measures that are in this package. Some people, such as Senator Xenophon, have argued that this package should be targeted for specific needs, to pressing regional projects or the most disadvantaged individuals in our community. I have spoken about these issues with many of my constituents and I am very happy to have that discussion with them and here in this place. I have been talking to them about the fact that one of the most important economic principles of this package is that it has been designed to have an impact around the nation and throughout the economy. Unfortunately, this particular amendment does not meet that test.

Unlike the opposition, Australians can recognise the importance of a package like this and, indeed, the way it is structured. They can comprehend and readily recognise that this package has been specifically designed so that its stimulatory effect is broad and general and that it spreads right throughout Australia, through many far-flung communities and throughout diverse sectors of the economy. It is about reaching out to retail, construction, manufacturing and other industries throughout the nation.

This package is about maintaining timely momentum in the economy, the whole economy, to counteract the far-reaching and widespread forces pushing down on our economy. The thing is, biasing too much of this package to specific regional projects, however meritorious, however worthwhile they are, undermines this primary objective of delivering a broad stimulus package to the whole economy. Naturally, we understand that there should be no compromises in the money extended to Victoria while we deal with the tragedy that is taking place there. However, what will compromise our capacity to support worthwhile projects like those in the Murray-Darling Basin and indeed the recovery from the Victorian bushfires is if our economy runs out of steam and becomes an economy where people lose their jobs in retail, construction, mining, manufacturing and around the nation, where housing prices collapse, where people go into a state of negative equity with their properties, where, as a result of the collapse in housing prices, construction drops off and more and more people lose their jobs. The problem is if our economy contracts too much then that spells trouble for our capacity to meet the challenges of rebuilding after the Victorian bushfires and, indeed, saving the Murray-Darling Basin.

This package of measures, including cash payments and the support for construction and manufacturing projects that can be brought online quickly, is well targeted and is the primary objective of the bills before us. It is designed to mitigate against exactly the kind of downward economic spiral I have described. The measures that we have before us are well designed and well targeted, well directed to stimulate the economy while also delivering a benefit to people, schools and communities.

Let me repeat: it is fundamentally important that the effect of this package is spread right round the economy, to all our nation’s capital cities, to all our rural and regional communities; from Gosford to Dubbo, from Coffs Harbour to Bega, from Geelong to Warnambool, from Mildura to Phillip Island, from Launceston to Devonport, from Port Augusta to Gawler, from Albany to Broome, from Merredin to Bunbury, from Darwin to the Alice. It is a package that must be felt around the nation and it must be spread around the economy—in local shopping centres, in tourist towns, on construction sites, in farming communities and in the nation’s factories.

What is most important here is that we have a package where the whole economy is able to maintain its momentum. It needs to be maintained. Unless the stimulus is spread around, you will not get the economic effect to keep the economy as a whole on the setting that we require, on a growth setting. So we have sound economic reasons for having structured the package as we have. I have to say, the opposition is placing the economy at grave risk. You are out of step with large sections of the business community and you are out of step with our colleagues—parliamentarians around the world—who are debating these very same issues and facing similar, although often greater, economic challenges in other developed nations. Your position is out of step with most economists, including the most conservative economists. Indeed, it is even out of step with the IMF. My colleague David Feeney quoted Olivier Blanchard, a senior IMF economist, yesterday and I think his statement is worth repeating in this place at this time. He says:

… act decisively. Do too much rather than too little. Delays … have cost a lot already.

Australian electors know that this package is important. What the opposition should be most afraid of is its success in endeavouring to block this package. I have no doubt, no doubt at all, that you will be punished by Australian voters. The opposition is saying that the package is too big. It is not too big. Cash payments will come online quickly and they are needed now—yet another reason why the broad stimulatory impact of this package is important. It is about the timeliness of the projects that we have before us.

There are plans in place for the Murray-Darling Basin and they take time. What we are about is injecting something into the economy now. Even small-scale construction projects in schools are going to take some time to come into line and offer that stimulatory effect to our economy. The opposition leader, I note, has already conceded that a smaller package that he has called for would at some point possibly need to be increased. The opposition’s approach would deliver too little, too late. It is not going to deliver enough to keep our economy going to give us the opportunity to solve issues like the Murray-Darling Basin and rebuild after the Victorian bushfires. We know our economy is already being hit hard. It is being hit very hard in my own state of Western Australia. Things there have changed since last year. In WA last year we were still hopeful that the Chinese economy would help us maintain momentum. However, this year it is already clear that demand from China and India for Western Australian resources is dropping off. On that basis it is little wonder that the Liberal Treasurer in WA, Troy Buswell, has said that the federal government’s economic stimulus package is providing good news for the state of Western Australia. He says:

I have to say that at first glance, there is a lot of good news in there for Western Australia in terms of the infrastructure projects that that will support …

Infrastructure projects in schools, in roads and importantly in social housing, so we need to work through the detail.

Our response to the federal package is that from an infrastructure point of view we think the targeting is about right and the amounts are most welcome.

So the opposition is out of line with Liberal leaders around this country. What a pity Troy Buswell’s colleagues in this chamber, and their friends, are not so enlightened. Unfortunately, we are now very, very well aware that we face the prospect of the deepest recession since World War I. The commodity boom, which has provided significant growth, is over. The time to act decisively is now.

We all know that Australia is not alone in facing this crisis. No country will escape the impacts of this global recession, which is causing falling growth, job losses and indeed budget deficits right around the globe. Economic growth is slowing and employment is weakening, but this package will do much to mitigate these effects. The amount of $42 billion in our Nation Building and Jobs Plan is indeed designed to provide for immediate support and jobs growth. That is the plan’s primary objective. As meritorious as the Murray-Darling Basin is, that is not the objective of this plan. It is a very, very worthwhile project that we need to be supporting as a nation. But this $42 billion is about the timeliness of when the money can be delivered and it is about giving the economy a kick in the right places at the right time. There is no getting around that.

This plan is specifically designed to deliver around half of one per cent to GDP growth in 2008-09, about one-quarter to one per cent in GDP growth in 2009-10, and to support 90,000 jobs over the next two years. In the midst of this global recession it would be irresponsible not to act swiftly and decisively to support jobs and invest in nation-building. I am pleased that the crossbenches, unlike the opposition, appreciate the importance of this stimulus plan, but I implore you to appreciate the importance of making sure it is structured correctly. I am pleased that people are working through the measures in this package with the government, but I implore you: work hard to get it passed. But it has got to be the right package, not structurally biased; it is about that broad stimulus to the whole economy. In the face of these very extraordinary global conditions, the immediate, overriding priority for fiscal policy must be to support jobs—jobs that support households, jobs that are providing government revenue for all those national, humanitarian and environmental projects that so many of us hold so dear. We cannot stand by and let the economy and livelihoods of Australians collapse around us. There is no quick fix to this global recession. Many of its effects are still to come, but I am very pleased that the Rudd government has seen fit to take necessary steps—the responsible action to help Australia through this global crisis. I implore senators in this place to see this package passed.

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

I thank Senator Pratt for that contribution. I would like to bring the chamber’s attention to some of the matters Senator Brown mentioned before in terms of the additional funding that has been negotiated by the Greens to preserve Australia’s national heritage properties. We are aware that heritage funding has been falling in Australia for 10 or 15 years. In fact, it is potentially a welcome turnabout that we may be able to pass in the next few hours in this place $50 million in additional funding for the protection of Australia’s most precious national heritage places. They are places that are essentially falling into disrepair. They are places that were passed on to us by our parents and grandparents—by our ancestors, indeed. It is an extremely welcome measure that the government has agreed that perhaps not all of the economic stimulus funding would need to be in areas we might more traditionally associate with the construction industry. In fact, there is an entire area of the economy that would be stimulated by looking after these heritage places that have been protected and left to us by our parents and our grandparents and which we are passing on to our children and grandchildren.

What we are looking at doing here is funding the urgent maintenance and conservation of up to 250 properties held by the National Trust and other properties that could be put forward by other organisations or groups, and creating green jobs, largely in rural areas, where many of these properties are allocated. This not only boosts the economy and boosts spending but also provides a lasting benefit. This is not something that will be over and done with and forgotten about in the next week; this is something that we are passing on to the generations that come after us.

There are many properties that the National Trust has on its endangered list, as well as properties it has on its books in general, that require and would greatly benefit from the sort of funding that we are looking at providing here. There are jobs in the construction industry, obviously, but we would also be looking at electricians, plumbers and specialist conservators. There is not a great deal of work around for some of the people—carpenters and so on—who would be engaged in protecting and restoring some of these places.

And what potentially would be on the list? I am sure that we all have places in our home states and territories that would be very deserving and worthy of this injection of funding over the next couple of years. There are buildings and properties listed on the natural heritage list, but there are also community heritage projects around the country that are not necessarily coming through the National Trust—these could be put up by any community group with an interest in protecting or preserving one of their special places—as well as natural heritage projects, including walking trails and upgrades of public spaces. It has been estimated, and I think one of the other senators has pointed this out, that somewhere in the range of 800 new jobs will be created at a substantial discount on the raw numbers that were provided by the government as to how much benefit you get for the money that we are spending. This is extremely good value and we know this should be seen as nothing more than a down payment on the protection of Australia’s heritage; in fact, this is really just the beginning.

I certainly welcome the passage of the bills. We have spoken at quite some length on the housing and schools side of the construction package, but certainly getting some genuine protection for Australia’s precious heritage places is something that people around the country will really welcome. It is an area that we have substantially neglected over a very long period of time and it is about time that that was addressed.

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

I rise to oppose the amendment, and I do so on the basis of the clear need for the government’s package to be passed by this chamber. As I indicated earlier today, we are facing one of the greatest global crises, brought about by the collapse of the financial system around the world. And yet here we are, being asked to take our eye off the ball in relation to the broad macroeconomic issues that need to be dealt with in one area only—need in this community. No-one is arguing the need to deal with the issues in the Murray-Darling Basin. No-one is arguing the importance of the environmental issues associated with the Murray-Darling. But we have had 11½ years of the opposition, when in government, doing nothing in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have had 11½ years of neglect in the Murray-Darling Basin. And it is absolutely unacceptable and absolutely wrong to try to force us as a government to deal with that issue on its own, in isolation from the broader national good. We have a national approach with a package to save jobs and to stop the recession in Australia, and on that basis I oppose this amendment.

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

I wish to respond to some of the speakers, and I will be brief. I note the minister has indicated that there are programs in place to ensure water buybacks, but it really is a trickle rather than the flow that we need. Experts like the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and others—such as Professor Grafton, who was on the stakeholder group that looked at the whole issue of water buyback—are saying that you can accelerate the buyback significantly, and that unless you have this buyback accelerated significantly, unless you provide the funds for that, there simply will not be hope for the river system. There needs to be adequate restructuring. Exit packages need to be structured in a way that is accessible in a reasonable way to farmers and irrigators throughout the basin. This is a slice of Australia—1.9 million people who really are on the edge. We have a dying river system; urgent action is required. Unless we act now, unless there is an acceleration of expenditure that has already been allocated for years to come, unless we bring that forward, there will be no turning back. We will reach a tipping point for the river system that will be catastrophic.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I would share my thoughts generally but also on this water amendment that Senator Xenophon has put forward. That way people could be a bit more clear with their vote. I may talk generally as well as specifically, if the chamber would allow me to do so.

This has been one of the most difficult and challenging weeks I have had in the Senate. The government’s $42 billion stimulus package is flawed. The Senate inquiry confirmed that. Knowing that it was flawed, the government should have agreed to crack open this package and act decisively on those flaws. It has not. Let us be clear: the $42 billion package may indeed save up to 90,000 jobs or create 90,000 jobs, but the $42 billion plan massively fails the 300,000 forgotten Australians who have been left behind by this package. Even after spending $42 billion, the government knows there will be 300,000 Australians added to the queue of unemployed. In good faith, we approached the government with a plan to give hope to those 300,000 forgotten Australians—a community based, grassroots employment plan called Get Communities Working. The government sees merit in such a program and does not deny that there will be 300,000 Australians added to the unemployment queue, but the government has stubbornly refused to make any substantial changes to its package.

In its desire to push this package through swiftly, the government basically has held a gun to the heads of the crossbenchers. We were damned if we voted for it; we were damned if we voted against it. Last night, around midnight, I walked around the streets of Canberra for an hour or so. It had been a difficult and frustrating few days of talks and negotiations with the government. I have said all along, as have other crossbenchers, that Family First wanted to support a stimulus package. I recognise that Australia does need a stimulus package, but I have reservations about this package. As I said yesterday, I found myself between two hard places and a rock. One of the hard places was the government; the other hard place was the opposition. So what is the rock? The rock is the Australian people who are hanging on in these desperate times.

Family First’s objective from day one throughout the negotiations was to give help to the 300,000 Australians who have been forgotten in this package. After spending $42 billion, there will still be 300,000 Australians added to the unemployed. So that was our objective: to give help and hope to one-third of a million Australians. That is why we proposed diverting $4 billion of the $42 billion stimulus package into a program called Get Communities Working. I was hoping the government would move on this.

Let us also be clear: an agreement on diverting $4 billion of the package to the Get Communities Working fund would have secured Family First’s vote, but, as the days of negotiation unfolded, it became more and more clear that the government was prepared to walk away from the 300,000 Australians and not try to give them some hope and help. My dilemma is that I am genuinely troubled and sickened by the thought of 300,000 fellow Australians being unemployed.

So what now? My vote has had to be based on substance and not swayed by smaller packages that may be all well and good in themselves but still offer little hope to the 300,000 Australians who will be added to the queue of the unemployed, with little hope of finding a job. Many may become sick of me saying this, but I want it to sink in: 300,000 Australians will be added to the unemployment queue. Yes, the government has agreed to establish a pilot of the Get Communities Working fund by allocating $200 million to a community fund, but this offer has in no way swayed my vote. How could it? How can I sell out 300,000 people and say, ‘I’ve won a $200 million package’? The two are not reconcilable.

My vote was not for sale for just a number of small packages. My vote is and has been based on 300,000 Australians who are the innocent victims of this war on the recession. My vote is based on two simple propositions: vote for the government’s package and save or create up to 90,000 jobs, or vote for the coalition’s plan. What is their plan? So you have two options: two hard places and a rock in the middle. Vote for a plan that denies 300,000 Australians any real hope or help, or vote for nothing. That is the dilemma. Our vote is not swayed by some smaller packages. We are thankful that the government may be giving some little hope, but that does not sway Family First. From day one I said we wanted to give hope to those 300,000 Australians.

I end with this thought. If you are on a ship going down and you are offered the chance to save some lives, you would save some even if you could not save them all. In other words, I may not have succeeded in saving 300,000 Australian jobs but I have certainly saved as many as I can.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Xenophon’s) be agreed to.