Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:45): Because Senator Van is new here I will forgive him for not knowing the details of the government's infrastructure spending. He said that the government has delivered $100 billion—$10 billion per annum. We've gone through painstaking questioning at estimates to determine whether that includes defence spending and infrastructure spending, and it actually does include defence spending. If you strip out defence spending, the government's infrastructure spending is actually declining in real terms. I chaired a very long and in-depth Senate select committee into infrastructure spending and financing in this country, and let me tell you we need more than $10 billion a year anyway. We need a significant boost to fiscal policy in this country. The Greens went to the 2016 and 2018 elections with a policy to spend $100 billion. We also suggested a way that that could be properly financed and independently assessed. Indeed, on the infrastructure gap in this country the feedback we got from stakeholders, mostly business stakeholders, was that over $1 trillion right around this nation is needed. That is very similar to the evidence we heard in the regional capitals inquiry, which the Greens initiated also. The context of this debate, without any exaggeration, is that today's economic conditions are unheralded within the life of the Federation. Inflation is at the lowest rate it has been under the current measure, wages growth is very close to if not at the lowest level since World War II, economic growth and productivity growth are likewise languishing and, most tellingly, interest rates are at record lows. The RBA has cut the cash rate to one per cent and has raised the prospect of funny money, which is the nickname for quantitative easing. That is now being talked about seriously in both academic and government circles. We've seen negative interest rates in countries of Europe. The yield on long-term bonds is hovering around the same rate. What is this government's response to this most exceptional of circumstances? Besides tax cuts targeted at high-income earners and corporations—who, the evidence tells us, will end up just buying back shares and paying their CEOs higher bonuses—it would seem to be not much. What is its response to the lowest interest rates on record? It has rejected any increase in infrastructure spending. In fact, according to the latest budget, the government is 'strengthening its focus on paying down debt'. I'm not letting the opposition off the hook. Although it put up this MPI, Labor, too, went to the last election promising to pay down government debt as a priority. While the MPI is welcome, I'm not aware of the Labor Party having officially disowned this most neoliberal of policies. So I say to the government and to Labor: are there really no public infrastructure projects that couldn't deliver a return to the economy of greater than one per cent by whatever measurement you want to make? Is there really nothing the government can do with the cheapest money in history to boost productivity and wages? RBA Governor Philip Lowe recently was very clear on this. He said: If the government can build productive capacity by borrowing at low interest rates, it seems like that is a good thing to do. That, by the way, echoes very similar sentiments we're hearing from the head of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and a number of other commentators. Let's be clear for the benefit of the government and the Labor senators here today: the RBA is asking the government to borrow more money to build infrastructure, not to pay down debt. Yet, despite this, the government sticks to its ideology and is setting this country on what I consider to be a dangerous path by refusing to heed the advice of our central bankers. But it is not just about infrastructure; this is also about the role of government. In the absence of government action, record low interest rates will likely flow through to more of the same speculative investment that we have seen in housing and shares that boxed the RBA into a corner in the first place. Philip Lowe said at Jackson Hole: … relying on monetary policy risks further increases in asset prices in a slowing economy, which is an uncomfortable combination. We also know that in potentially deflationary cycles using monetary policy is like pushing a piece of string—it is very difficult to get policy outcomes. The bipartisan approach of the last 30 years has been to talk about paying down government borrowing. But the government vacating the debt market has contributed to ballooning levels of household debt and to Australia's world-leading, over-priced housing market. A study released just last week has suggested that class be defined in this country based by property ownership—and by class, I mean class. Neoliberalism is being replaced by neofeudalism in Australia. Scott Morrison had a moment of clarity in his early days as Treasurer when he talked about the difference between good debt and bad debt. What he was saying was that government borrowing to fund productive infrastructure is not something to get upset about. It was as true then as it is now, and Mr Morrison in his new role should listen to his own advice. In my last minutes, I want to make it clear: the Greens have been talking about the importance of ramping up fiscal policy officially now for five years. We have been talking about government spending not just on long-term government infrastructure projects but, importantly, on short-term projects such as environmental remediation. We have been talking about government spending on services and investment in the Australian people through education and through better healthcare services. We have been talking about infrastructure spending on renewable energy, driving the transition to clean energy, reducing emissions and tackling what is arguably the greatest crisis of our time—fighting climate change and an extinction crisis. All these things can be done at the same time. We can get an outcome for the environment, we can get on outcome for communities and we can get an outcome for the economy, but that takes bipartisan—or should I say tripartisan—political support. It takes all of us to come together and look at the unprecedented times that we currently live in. Let's make brave political decisions in this place, not just in the interests of our political ideology because we think it will win us some marginal seats when One Nation are taking votes off us in Queensland or northern New South Wales. It means taking long-term decisions, showing leadership on the issues that the Australian people expected when they elected us to this place. I heard Senator Van's contribution about instant asset write-offs for the small business portfolio. The Greens were the first people, in 2013, to talk about tax cuts for small business and to have an instant asset write-off. I was very proud to come in here and vote for that when it happened. But we did oppose tax cuts for big business. We strenuously opposed tax cuts for big business because we saw the data about what was happening in the US—a total flop. And, of course, we were the only ones in this place who voted against tax cuts for high-income earners in Australia. We have advocated for over a decade to raise Newstart for Australia's most vulnerable. I'm an economist and I know there are other economists in this place. We know low-income people have a higher marginal propensity to consume. They spend their money because they don't have much of it. It is really important to them. But we also know high-income earners tend to save that money. What have we seen from the tax cuts so far? I'm going to wait and see what the data says, but my guess it is going to go straight to paying off mortgages. That is not stimulating the economy. It is the time in history for fiscal policy.