Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it the case, Treasurer, that over the last 11 years government investment in education has fallen from two per cent of GDP in 1995-96 to 1.6 per cent of GDP, even after the measures announced in last night’s budget?

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it turns out, that is not the case. I must say there are traps for young players.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, there are traps for middle-aged players. I have heard this being recounted on radio over and over again. Let me put the facts on the table. Australian government expenditure on education has increased by 38 per cent in real terms from 1996 to 2007. What the honourable member for Lilley has been unable to fathom, and the Prime Minister explained it to him in the answer to the last question on this, is that Austudy was absorbed into Youth Allowance in the 1998-99 budget and thereafter Austudy—which was about $1.5 billion and had previously been classified as an education outlay—was classified as family and community services outlay. If you add in that $1.4 billion that moved classifications then in fact you do not get that decline at all. A modicum of research would have actually disclosed this to the opposition. But the opposition is not worried about research; the opposition is more worried about tomorrow’s headline.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tanner interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Melbourne.

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The claims made against the budget have gotten more and more shrill as the last 24 hours have proceeded. First of all we were warned that we should not cut taxes; and now these are tax cuts that were required for working people. We were warned that we had to invest in education; and then when we invest in the biggest build-up of education ever it is not in the right areas. We were warned that we had to have investment in road and rail; and when we have investment in road and rail it is in the wrong areas. If you want to run a $1 trillion economy, you have to get up early and you have to do some work—and that is what the member for Lilley cannot do.

Mark Baker (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the benefits to Australian taxpayers announced in the budget last night that derive from 11 years of careful economic management?

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. Last night I announced cuts to income tax for all Australians—for all Australians that pay income tax. We will do that in two stages. In the first stage, we will lift the threshold for paying 30c in the dollar from $25,000 to $30,000, and in the second stage we will lift the threshold for the 40c rate from $75,000 to $80,000 and the threshold for the 45c rate from $150,000 to $180,000. All Australians get an income tax cut as a consequence of that. For those that are on average wages—between $40,000 and $50,000—this will be a tax cut of $16 a week. That will be helpful for families, it will improve work incentives and it is consistent with our policy.

The shell press release that the Labor Party delivered to all its candidates has been sent to me, and I will table it in a moment. I am pleased to see that it starts off as follows:

Federal Labor Candidate for <Insert Electorate> Mr/Mrs <Insert Candidate Name> tonight welcomed tax cuts for working families and carers ...

That is good. That is in the shell press release that the Labor Party has put out. It continues:

“Make no mistake, all <Insert Electorate> families deserve to share in the profits from the mining boom—a boom ...

This reads like a text from the Leader of the Opposition on radio this morning—he probably was reading this out. What is the name of his electorate? Insert name here—K. Rudd, electorate Griffith. It continues:

“Their inclusion in tonight’s budget is welcome”, <Insert Candidate Name> said.

Mr/Mrs <Insert Candidate Name> said the 2007 Federal Budget was a cynical, pre-election budget.

How do you like that? You have got a cynical shell press release which accuses the government of cynicism. You have got to say it has chutzpah. As George Burns famously said, ‘Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.’ Cynicism is everything, and, if you can cynically accuse someone of cynicism, you have got it made. There is the shell press release. That is about all the work that the Labor Party did on the federal budget. I table it and will take further questions from that shell press release.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question again is to the Prime Minister. It refers to my earlier question where I asked the Prime Minister to confirm whether Budget Paper No. 1 disclosed that education spending as a proportion of total government expenditure will fall from 7.7 per cent in 2005-06 to 7.4 per cent in 2010-11. Prime Minister, I refer to your answer to my question where you said that it was based on the wrong premise because it failed to take into account the different treatment of Austudy back in the late nineties—which had nothing to do with my question at all. Prime Minister, will you in fact answer the question I asked you, which is a future comparison about your government’s commitment to education outlays, not the answer that you gave me before which is about the past.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By reminding the Leader of the Opposition of what I said in answer to his first question—it has been validated and supported by what the Treasurer has said—the truth is that the provision made for education in this year’s budget represents a historic turning point in supporting all levels of education.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the budget will deliver the infrastructure that Australia needs into the 21st century? How does this compare with previous funding?

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. As he has been for some considerable time the chair of the House of Representatives transport committee, I know that he takes a great deal of interest in investment in transport infrastructure in Australia for today and into the future.

As the Treasurer has indicated, the budget is about locking in future prosperity in the Australian economy and capitalising on the work that has been done in this country over the last 11 years. There is no aspect of the budget that is more important than the investment in future transport infrastructure in Australia, particularly in our roads and rail networks. Giving certainty in all the areas that we participate in funding and giving certainty to funding partners, both at state and local government level, is well into the future. Last night’s announcement in the budget by the Treasurer that we would be committing $22.3 billion to the second stage of AusLink funding for road and rail infrastructure in Australia is a historic increase and a historic commitment to that infrastructure investment in Australia.

We have invested $15.8 billion in AusLink 1 and $22.3 billion in AusLink 2, if you want to call it that. A 41 per cent increase in AusLink 2 will take the total 10-year investment of this government in land transport infrastructure to $38 billion—$38 billion over a 10-year period. Part of the budget announcement includes $15.8 billion on the national roads network—significant funding to start planning and detail work on rail infrastructure in Australia. We are already investing and we need to continue to invest. We need to continue the economic growth that is delivering the prosperity that we have in this country and we need to lock that in into the future.

Put very simply, the programs that are contained within AusLink build better highways, safer highways and more efficient highways across the nation. They improve local roads, so mums and dads taking their kids to school are much safer. They build safer roads in local communities. They build road and rail systems that will be more efficient in getting our exports to marketplaces across the world. These are serious investments that secure the future prosperity of the Australian economy. As I indicated, we have funding partners in this. We have arrangements with the states and with local government. We expect those arrangements to share the costs and the risks. Commonwealth taxpayers are not going to carry the burden of all the risks. We need to engage with the states. We need to have a serious discussion with them about how this $22 billion will be delivered in the future.

There have been some very interesting comments on last night’s budget from some interested observers—and from some who have not always been supporters of this government, I might add. The first quote is from a press release from the NRMA in New South Wales. The president of the NRMA, Mr Alan Evans, said:

This strong investment in Australia’s road network is key to sustaining a growing economy.

He went on to say:

Tonight’s budget is great news for motorists, businesses and industry.

The Australian Trucking Association—obviously an organisation that is very interested in the infrastructure investments of the future in Australia—said:

We applaud the Australian government on its commitment to land transport.

It went on to say:

This is a clear sign the Australian government is listening.

That is absolutely right. We are working with industry; we are consulting industry. We are also working with communities to address their infrastructure needs in their local areas. I say again: this investment in infrastructure, in the future of Australia, is all about locking in the future growth and the future prosperity that we expect to see in the Australian economy.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In calling the Leader of the Opposition, I remind him that he should not use the pronouns ‘you’ or ‘your’ in his questions.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister. It refers to my two previous questions of the Prime Minister. It relates to the government’s outlays on education as a proportion of total government outlays, and it compares government outlays in 2005-06 against those in the government’s own budget papers for 2010. Again I ask the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister make reference to his own Budget Paper No. 1 and, to table 3 in statement 6 of the budget papers, and confirm to the parliament whether or not outlays on education as a proportion of total outlays go down over that period?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always analyse what the Leader of the Opposition puts to me, but nothing can gainsay the fact that this education announcement made by the government has been applauded across all sectors of education. Some of the vice-chancellors have said that it is far ahead of anything they ever dreamt of receiving. The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition, who has talked long and hard about an education revolution, now finds himself in the embarrassing position that this government has done far more for education than he has ever promised to do. That is the dilemma of the Leader of the Opposition.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of what the government is doing to ensure universities become truly world class? Will Charles Darwin University, the university in my local area, benefit from these initiatives?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Solomon for his question. I can confirm that, last night, the Treasurer announced an unprecedented investment in our universities—a $1.7 billion package of funds for our universities, plus a $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund. The income from this fund, which we estimate to be about $300 million a year, will be distributed to universities. They will be able to use this fund to invest in capital works and research facilities. We believe that over time all universities in Australia will be able to build world-class facilities so that our students will have the opportunity to study in world-class institutions.

Our universities will be able build state-of-the-art facilities, science blocks, computer laboratories, libraries and lecture theatres. This will apply to universities across the country, including universities in the member for Solomon’s electorate, particularly Charles Darwin University. Charles Darwin will also be eligible for a range of other initiatives contained in this higher education package. The raft of reforms will give our universities the freedom, the flexibility and the funding to manage student demand and to offer courses that students want to study.

Last night the Treasurer announced that almost $560 million in additional funds will be available for universities to deliver high-quality courses in areas of national need—in science, maths, engineering, allied health, medicine, dentistry, nursing and teaching. I want to point out that our universities will receive more funding for our teaching courses and more funding to improve the practical experience of student teachers so that our universities will be able to produce high-quality teaching graduates for our schools.

We are also going on to support teachers in schools. Teachers will be eligible to apply for Australian government summer schools, where they can upskill their qualifications and abilities in areas and receive a $5,000 bonus on completion. We will also reward schools that make a significant improvement in the literacy and numeracy standards of their students. These schools will be eligible for rewards of up to $50,000.

With a total package of $3.5 billion for schools and universities, plus the $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, we have put our schools and universities in a strong position. This was possible only because of the strong economic management of the Howard-Costello government; it was possible only because we had budget surpluses. The Labor Party can only dream of coming up with initiatives that put our universities on a sustainable, long-term footing. This is unprecedented.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that productivity growth when the coalition took office in 1996 was 3.2 per cent per annum, at the turn of the decade it was 2.2 per cent per annum, in the Intergenerational report it will be just 1.5 per cent this decade and in the budget papers last night it is zero for 2006-07? Doesn’t the Treasurer agree that these figures show that the productivity performance of his government is one of abject failure?

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the record speaks for itself: continuous economic growth of 3½ per cent per annum, inflation averaged at 2½ per cent per annum, two million additional jobs, unemployment falling from 8½ per cent to 4½ per cent, interest rates falling from 10½ per cent to eight per cent, a budget deficit of $10 billion turning into a budget surplus of $10 billion, $96 billion worth of debt paid off, $100 billion of superannuation liabilities now provisioned with $50 billion of the Future Fund and an endowment fund that will rebuild Australia’s educational capacity forever. I think that, if Australians look at the record of this government and compare it with the record of the predecessor government of the Labor Party, they will draw their own conclusions.

Having said that, let me make a couple of points in relation to productivity. The first point is that productivity will be enhanced in the Australian economy by a better industrial relations system. There would be nobody in Australia who would believe that by going back to collective bargaining and getting rid of AWAs you would do anything other than detract from productivity. The people who think that include Sir Rod Eddington, the Labor Party adviser in relation to industrial relations, the person the Deputy Leader of the Opposition dismissively refers to as ‘another voice’—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not true!

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not true? Not true, she says—she says didn’t refer to him as ‘another voice’. You didn’t call him ‘another voice’? We’ve got that on the record—apparently she did not call him ‘another voice’.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get the transcript.

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you call him—not a voice at all? All right, we will get the transcript. But there is no need to be embarrassed about it, because this was the first policy that was released by the Rudd opposition. It was something that you were proud of not so long ago. Maybe some realism is beginning to intervene. I will say, if Labor is embarrassed about its IR policy, that it is a step out of the Stone Age. Let us hope that embarrassment leads to realisation, that realisation leads to change and that change leads to the embracing of AWAs and an industrial relations system that will generate future income for Australia.

One of the reasons that productivity in the mining industry at the moment looks as though it has actually turned down is that the mining industry is going through a huge investment phase. If you go through a huge investment phase, if you are in a phase where large investment of capital is going out before you get volume, it shows as productivity declining. Does that mean that the mining industry has suddenly become unproductive? No, it means it is going through a huge investment cycle which, when it leads to more volumes, will actually dramatically increase productivity.

One of the other reasons you find that at times of full employment you get temporary downturns in productivity is that you begin to bring back into the workforce people who were previously marginalised—people who have been locked out, people whose skills are not great. But, as you bring them into the workforce, as they learn those skills over a period of time, their productivity matches that of other employees. So you always find that at a time in the cycle when you have near to full employment.

With good industrial relations, with good investment, as we make sure that we increase the capacity of the Australian economy, I believe that we have more productivity to unleash in this economy. But I tell you this: we will only unleash productivity in this economy if we are flexible and forward looking. If we go back to centralised industrial relations, if we go back to the old conflict between labour and capital that the ACTU and all of their minions in this parliament believe in, that will be going back to the 20th century, the 19th century or worse. We are about the 21st century, about flexibility. We are the coalition: we build for the future!

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, how will chronically ill patients in my electorate benefit from last night’s budget initiatives?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. The 2007-08 budget was certainly another very good budget for health. It will be very good for the people of Australia. It will be very good for the people of Macquarie, thanks in part to the new dental school that will be established at Charles Sturt University—which I believe is already being called, in some local circles, the Kerry Bartlett dental school. It is a well-deserved title!

Government Member:

Not the Tony Abbott dental school?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not the Tony Abbott dental school; not even the Peter Costello dental school—the Kerry Bartlett dental school! I have to say that the new measures in last night’s budget are possible only because of the great economic management that has been delivered to this country by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. New measures in last night’s budget will add $4.6 billion to federal government health spending. They will take total health expenditure to $52 billion next year, and they will take health spending as a percentage of total federal government spending to 22 per cent. That is up from just 14 per cent back in 1996. But we are not just spending more money; we are getting better results. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, since 1996 there has been a three-year increase in the life expectancy of average Australian males and a two-year increase in the life expectancy of females. That is because of the sensible investment of this government in better health services.

It was a particularly good budget for people with chronic disease. In addition to care plans from their GPs, people with multiple conditions will soon benefit from longer consultations with specialist physicians, and that measure is estimated to cost some $291 million. But even more importantly, for people with chronic conditions whose poor oral health is impacting on their general health, there is now greatly expanded access to Medicare funded dentistry. Instead of just three consultations a year, under Medicare those patients will be eligible for an initial consultation and up to $2,000 worth of subsequent treatment a year.

We are not relieving the states of their responsibility for public dentistry but we will not leave people in health crisis. Many of the 650,000 people on those public dental waiting lists will be eligible for a team care plan. My message to them is this: the Howard government will not let you down. It is a tribute to the way the Treasurer has managed health that it was only after question time began that we finally heard from the member for Gellibrand who, after two o’clock, finally surfaced with a press release that said: ‘Dental program lacks bite.’ Well, I tell you what: Medicare has a lot more bite than ever before; it has a lot more bite than it ever had when Labor was in charge. The Howard government is proving by its actions, not just by its words, that it is the best friend—the very best friend—that Medicare has ever had.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister claim that this is an education budget when it has no plans to underpin education through the rollout of a high speed broadband network? Does the Prime Minister believe that it is acceptable for children in countries like Singapore, Japan and Korea to have access to high-speed broadband infrastructure for their education, when Australian children do not?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that high-speed broadband is important to the education future of this country. I just do not believe that the Australian taxpayer should pay for something through raiding the Future Fund and plundering $2 billion from the budget which is available for enhancement of communications services in the Australian bush. I do not believe that that $4.7 billion should be taken—$2.7 billion from the Future Fund and $2 billion from rural people—to subsidise commercial operations which ought, as an operation of market forces, provide the broadband that the Australian community needs. This is the Australian Labor Party equivalent of the great debates the British Labour Party used to have about clause 4 of the Constitution and whether you would renationalise a whole lot of industries.

While I am on my feet, can I say that the member for Lilley asked me to validate the argument I made that this was an education budget. His leader had asked me some questions and invited me, and I have now had an opportunity to look at the paper from which he quoted. It is a very revealing examination. Let me read from under the title ‘Education’, 6.10 of Budget Paper No. 1. Bear in mind that the Leader of the Opposition asked me two questions that were calculated to demonstrate that expenditure on education, so far from rising, had actually fallen.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see. To start with it was 7.5 and 7.4, but that 7.5 and 7.4 was not a percentage of GDP. It was not an attempt to compare education spending from one year to the next; rather, they were percentages of aggregate government spending and made no allowance for the fact that expenditure in other areas may have increased at an even faster rate than education—such as expenditure on defence and expenditure on family benefits.

I would like the member for Lilley to leave question time with a feeling of tranquillity and peace about the subject of education. I will quote from Budget Paper No. 1. It reads as follows, and I invite the member for Lilley and the member for Griffith to listen to this:

Total expenses under the education function are estimated to increase by 9.0 per cent in real terms from 2007-08 to 2010-11, or 3.4 per cent annually on average. The major drivers of this growth are the significant new measures for schools and universities announced in the 2007-08 Budget ...

This is specifically on the point that I know worries the member for Lilley; I know he worries about this. It goes on to say:

Higher education funding is estimated to rise by about 9.7 per cent in real terms from 2007-08 to 2010-11 or 3.7 per cent annually on average.

All I can conclude is that the Leader of the Opposition is being trickier than usual with his figures. The truth is that we have had an education revolution. The truth is that on the centrepiece—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, this question was about broadband. We know that the Prime Minister knows nothing about it and its relation to education—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He will recall that the question started off referring to education and then went to broadband. The Prime Minister is in order.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am broadbanding my answer. I will repeat it because I think the member for Grayndler may have missed it. This really is the thing that I know bugs the opposition. They have been talking about education for the last four or five months. Everywhere they go: ‘Education revolution!’ Everywhere they go: ‘The way forward is education.’ That is absolutely right, and the way you go forward in education is in part to spend more money on it, which we are doing. It is also to raise standards, which we are doing. It is also to acknowledge the professionalism of teachers in Australia, which we do. It is also to recognise the passion of parents to make certain that our schools actually teach children how to read and write and add up. That is what the Australian public wants and that is what this education revolution will deliver.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline to the House the impact of the budget on defence capability and the recruitment and retention of defence personnel?

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lindsay for her service to our country in the Royal Australian Air Force and for now doing a magnificent job looking after the mainstream Australians in Western Sydney, in the electorate of Lindsay. The Treasurer last night, in ‘Locking in the gains, investing in Australia’s future’, announced the largest increase in defence investment over the past 30 years for a single budget. Last night it was announced by the Treasurer that defence expenditure will increase by 10.6 per cent over the next year, which will take it to $22 billion. Over the last 11 years, since this government came to office, defence expenditure has increased in real terms by 47 per cent. In fact, when this government came to office in 1996, the deficit inherited from the Labor Party was almost as large as the defence budget in that year alone.

Last night an additional $14 billion was committed by this government to defence over the next 10 years, investing not only in equipment but also in people, who are indeed our most important asset. The $2 billion announced for recruiting and retention includes, for example, a significant increase to the home loan subsidy for Defence personnel, both regulars and reservists. Whereas the home loan subsidy was $136 a month for eligible diggers, it is now going to as much as $470 a month tax free. In addition to that, 18,000 nonofficers, the lower ranks in our military, will receive pay increases of up to some $5,000.

We are also announcing that we will be going into partnership with schools and the private sector to drive apprenticeships and training in the Australian Defence Force. There will also be a significant increase in advertising to make sure that we not only focus on having a very visible presence for our three service uniforms in the Australian community but also get back to promoting service in the Australian Defence Force on the basis of the values represented by the three uniforms. There is also an additional $100 million for cadets, and I encourage all parents—and my own son was in the Army Cadets—to do what they can where possible to get their kids into cadets. Another 1,000 cadets will join as a consequence of this budget.

In addition to that, the Treasurer announced $6 billion over the next 10 years for the acquisition of 24 FA18F Super Hornets, which will enable us to retire the F111 and safely transition to the Joint Strike Fighter in the next decade, and another $4 billion for spares and repairs—logistics so important to ensure that we do not get back to Labor’s defence force, where we ended up having to cannibalise FA18s on the ground to keep ones in the air flying. It is very important to this government that we never return to the days of the Australian Labor Party. It is very important that Australia has a cutting-edge high-end warfare fighting capability, whether it is antisurface ship or air combat, at the same time as preparing the Defence Force for the next decade in security stabilisation, maritime border protection, counterterrorism and security, and humanitarian relief in our region. This budget delivers on the economic dividend of the last 11 years and makes Australia, its interests, its people and its values more secure on our borders, in our region and throughout the world.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now confirm, firstly, that in 2005-06 education outlays as a percentage of total government outlays stand at 7.7 per cent of budget, according to the government’s own papers; secondly, that in 2010-11 education outlays as a percentage of total government outlays in fact stand at 7.4 per cent of budget according to the government’s own papers; and, finally, that 7.4 per cent is less than 7.7 per cent? Prime Minister, haven’t you simply got your answer to this question fundamentally and totally wrong?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, because the answer to that question is that I confirm all of the figures in the budget paper, and those figures reveal that expenditure on education is going to increase in real terms very significantly over the next three or four years as a result of the measures announced last night.

What I think the Leader of the Opposition is getting at is the proposition that, although there has been an increase in expenditure on education, in other areas of government expenditure there may have been an even bigger increase than has occurred in the area of education and, therefore, the percentages of total expenditure from one year might be lower than in a later year, or the other way around. That does not prove, as the Leader of the Opposition is trying to allege, that we have cut government spending. The whole point of this tawdry exercise—and it is a tawdry exercise—by the Leader of the Opposition is to try to establish that we have  reduced spending on education. We have in fact done the complete reverse, and education spending is going to rise over the next four years by more than 3.5 per cent a year in real terms as a result of the measures announced by the Treasurer last night.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: yes, I confirm these figures; yes, I confirm that from one year to the next, because there will be differential rates of increase in expenditure, there may be a situation where a given area as a percentage of total outlays will fall from one year to the next without the real level of that expenditure falling at all. There is nothing remarkable about that, and the Leader of the Opposition is just trying to be too clever by half.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House how last night’s budget will impact on Australian families, from Calamvale to Chelmer and in Annerley, Moorooka, Salisbury, Sunnybank and other places like those, around Australia? What has been the response to these announcements?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton for his question. This budget unashamedly puts families at the centre of the priorities of the Howard government. This is an additional $4.5 billion commitment to Australian families over the next five years. Of course, there are tax cuts for all Australians who are in the workforce. Those who are retired are getting their superannuation tax free but high-income, self-funded retirees will get a tax cut. Beyond that, we have taken into account childcare costs, and we have dramatically reduced that burden on Australian families.

For the member for Moreton, about 6,600 families in the Moreton electorate will benefit. For an average family on a low income with one child in care, that means about $20.50 less in the cost of child care as a result of the increase of 13 per cent in childcare benefit. The member for Moreton, along with all other honourable members, might like to tell families that are in child care that this year they will be able to claim two lots of childcare tax rebate. That means they will be able to claim up to $4,000 of their out-of-pocket expenses between now and the end of the year. That is as a result of the Howard government listening to families who said they really appreciated childcare tax rebate, but they would like it to be a bit more timely—and the Howard government has delivered.

We have not forgotten those families who have disabled children. We have increased our spending by an additional $62 million to assist some 3,000 families to have their disabled children, those kids with slightly higher needs, supported in child care. I think that is a really important measure.

For those in the bush, sometimes child care becomes quite marginal as far as viability is concerned. Regional and rural members on both sides of this House can go back and say that the Howard government is committing an additional $43 million for those families so they can access a quality childcare place.

We do not always get positive comments from ACOSS, but on this particular occasion Lin Hatfield Dodds said she welcomes the government’s initiatives on child care and education—the minister for education will be happy to hear that—which are targeted at low-income Australians; not those ‘Mr Rudd battlers’ on one-quarter of a million dollars but the real battlers. ACOSS said that, rather than cutting taxes, they were looking for the government to invest in these sorts of things—and that is why Lin Hatfield Dodds is right; we have actually cut taxes for those people and we have improved their access to child care.

There are other important families that the Howard government has paid attention to: for example, older families. In the electorate of Moreton, some 11½ thousand older families will receive the one-off $500 bonus before 30 June this year to help them with their out-of-pocket expenses.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Nelson interjecting

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Real money, as the Minister for Defence said.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does it exist?

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It exists. I know the member for Lilley thought that the family tax supplement was not real. I can tell him that that was real. This is real. It will be appreciated by those families out there, who say that the Howard government is listening and helping them share in the wealth of this nation that they contributed to. In the past, the Howard government has given larger families—those who have been blessed with triplets or quadruplets—a bonus, whereby they got $3,000 for a family with triplets and just over $4,000 for a family with quadruplets. That used to cut out at when the children were six years of age but now it will go right through to 16 years of age or when the children turn 18, in their last year of education.

It does not matter how old you are, it does not matter how many children you have, and it does not matter if you are struggling with the complexities of being a carer, the Howard government has listened to Australian families. We have shared the prosperity of this nation, and we have allowed everyone to benefit from the strength of the Australian economy.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Isn’t it the case that last night’s budget increased the student HECS contribution, effective from January 2008, by more than $1,200 per year for new students studying accounting, economics or commerce? Doesn’t this increase the student HECS contribution by nearly $200 million over the life of a three-year degree?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that under a Howard government no accounting student will be paying $200 million for an accounting degree!

Government Members:

Ha, ha!

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my right! Order!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night in the budget the Treasurer announced in the $1.7 billion higher education package that some $560 million in extra funding would be delivered to universities for courses such as science and maths and engineering and allied health and medicine and dentistry. In maths and science there will be an increase of some $2,729 per place; in allied health, some $1,889; and in engineering, science and surveying and clinical psychology, $2,729. So all told, that is $560 million in increased funding for specific courses that are part of our national priorities. In the case of accounting and commerce, we have put that into the same category as law because that reflects the cost of delivery of that course, it reflects the demand and it reflects the gross lifetime earnings of accounting graduates. Universities can decide for themselves whether or not there should be any change to the HECS.