|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [4.00 p.m.]: Not surprisingly, I oppose this motion on behalf of the Coalition. There is much to talk about in relation to the motion. If ever there were a Charles Dickens novel, this is it: A tale of two governments. Those who sit on the government side are economically ignorant. Kevin Rudd proposed a $42 billion stimulus package. When Malcolm Turnbull approached this issue he did not pursue a position that would mortgage every single Australian to the tune of close to $10,000; he put forward a proposal for the good governance and good economic management of this country. He said there was no evidence whatsoever that the $10 billion stimulus package put forward last year created any of the jobs Kevin Rudd spoke about. The best one could say was there was a small blip. So, for him to come back a few months later and have the hide to say to the Australian people, "Here is $42 billion"—how he came to that figure no-one knows—is reckless. It is a debt binge and it will have a negative impact on every family in this country.
Malcolm Turnbull said we need a stimulus. We on this side of the House have been very clear: There needs to be a stimulus, and every level of government has a role to play. Every member on this side of the House is committed to Malcolm Turnbull and his decision to stand up for the interests of Australian families, to stand up against a debt splurge that is going to mortgage future generations to the tune of at least $10,000 each. Let us not forget 1996 when we were left with a legacy from Mr Keating and his cohorts of $96 billion debt. That took more than a decade to get rid of. It is very proper to challenge and ask questions about how one has come to an amount of $42 billion. Malcolm Turnbull said it should be in the range of about $15 billion to $20 billion.
When Kevin Rudd was asked whether this package would be effective his words were simple. He said there could be no guarantee. He is not sure; no-one is sure. So why would we not question why we did not wait and hold something back? Every economist, every commentator, says there is more to come; yet we have gone all in. Kevin Rudd has taken every family's chips and put them on the table and said we will try to stop it with everything we have. The right approach, I believe, is to put some in now and then to measure what was effective and then go again if required. Economists say it will get worse. If you can leave something in the bank, down the track you can attack far more strategically or effectively. It is a simple proposition.
The second paragraph of the motion gives an insight into this Government. It talks about the Government's commitment to work in partnership with the Commonwealth to deliver the package. Parts of this point are amazing. Ultimately, Kevin Rudd and his team said, "Nathan, you are not going to be able to deliver what we need, so we need a coordinator general and we want you to be ready to go." That means that the Government's planning system, and capital and infrastructure lead times—which cover everything—across all departments, are not going to work so they need to be fast-tracked. Nathan executes the orders from General Kevin Rudd. In doing so, the Government has sidetracked local communities and at the same time has admitted its system—this Labor Government system that has been in for up to 14 years—is not working. What is the Government's response to get it working again, to turn around the economy in this State? Absolutely nothing. It has executed Kevin's plan and done nothing else.
We say to the Premier and everyone on the government side, "Start to implement what the Opposition has spoken about." In February the Premier said, "If we had known then what we know now, we would have done things differently back in the mini-budget." It is interesting that members on the Government side do not talk about the mini-budget. It is the forgotten war. They do not talk about it because it was exactly the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
Mr Allan Shearan: It retained our triple-A rating.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: The triple-A remains on watch. After the performance we saw today we are not sure where that is going. The Premier does not understand basic economics, and to this day he still has not produced a plan to attack the global financial crisis. He dismisses the payroll tax measure. Obviously he has not worked in a small business or had any association with a small business—businesses that today are struggling. Small business revenues are falling by 30 per cent to 40 per cent. To counter that, businesses have to cut costs and obviously the Premier thinks the Government has nothing to do with that. He needs to adopt our payroll tax measures and change the culture of government. It is no good just implementing Kevin's plan. He needs to take responsibility across the whole of government to get the State working again.
How does one do that? The lead time for every single piece of infrastructure, every capital works project, has to be halved. There is a culture of inertia in this State and that is why we saw the statistics that came out today. They showed that over the past 12 months growth in this State was the lowest of any State in the country. That means we are in the worst possible position to prepare for this crisis that is upon us, and it is no-one's fault but members on the government side.
|
