Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer where he said that the additional tax on alcopops will reduce their consumption. Could the Prime Minister explain, then, why page 22 of Budget Paper No. 2 shows that the new tax will raise $640 million in the first year—next year—and $892 million in 2011-12? Surely the Prime Minister must concede that these revenue estimates assume an increase in consumption.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to acting on alcopops, we have taken the appropriate advice, and the appropriate advice proceeds first and foremost from concerned mums and dads in the community, people who work in accident and emergency and people who are in the field and on the front line of policing—people trying to deal with this challenge as it presents itself to them.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This was a very specific question about his own budget papers and why the revenue is increasing.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question might be framed in a way that the member for North Sydney believes is requiring of a direct answer, but in the past the tradition has been that as long as the answer is relevant it can be answered in the way that the executive choose to respond.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of alcopops, we have acted because this is a public health concern. We have also acted because those who preceded us in government left this extended tax loophole. On the question of the budget projections, it is very simple: if you increase the cost of alcopops over time, it is going to reduce the growth in the consumption of alcopops. But the unit price will increase, consumption will continue and, as a consequence overall, you will see in the budget papers the revenue consequences which flow. It is very clear, and I am surprised those opposite have not been able to reach that conclusion.

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline for the House the evidence supporting the closure of the tax loophole on alcopops?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. It seems to me that there is one thing that those opposite haven’t adjusted to in being in opposition—that is, they have not yet discovered the existence of the Parliamentary Library. I might like to point out to them where the Parliamentary Library is, but in case they are having difficulty finding where the Parliamentary Library is, I have asked the member for Perth—given there is so much evidence upon which we based these measures—to provide for me and to take members opposite through the numerous public reports filed in the library and accessible to every member of this House.

I can take members through this long list of reports if we want to, and if members opposite really request it of me I will read through each of those. It might be more convenient for the House—and I am sure for Hansard—if I table the list of references and encourage those opposite to use the Parliamentary Library to go and access these materials. What they will find—if they take the time to read through these reports—is the number of quotes that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I have taken people through time and time again.

What I will also table for the benefit of those opposite is the Treasury modelling that makes quite clear the basis upon which we have taken this measure.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the anticipation is killing the shadow minister. I think I am entitled to speak on this question before I table it. I have flagged to you that I am going to table it, so settle down and let’s actually take ourselves through this.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will ignore the interjectors, and the interjectors will stop interjecting!

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury modelling makes clear the impact of this measure. What we need to talk about and concentrate on when we look at the change in consumption is what consumption would be if we did not take this step, and what consumption would be if we do take this step. The Treasury modelling shows us that this excise change will reduce consumption in 2008-09 by 43 million bottles in one year. Forty-three million bottles is obviously not regarded by those opposite as a large amount. It may be that they have more experience in the amount that can be consumed, but to me that seems like a lot of alcohol.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moncreiff is warned!

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This figure rises to 55 million bottles per year by the time we get to 2011-12. This is equivalent to one million litres of alcohol per year. It is interesting to me that the Leader of the Opposition persists with his enthusiastic opposition to such a sensible measure. This measure is equalising tax treatment for spirit products. The members opposite do not understand that if you drink 30 millilitres of bourbon straight or you drink 30 millilitres of bourbon that is mixed with Coke in a can, you will pay the same amount of excise, courtesy of our decision—not yours.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I warn the member for Sturt!

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not making it cheaper, as the previous government did, for these sweet products to be available and cheap for young people who get hooked on alcohol. The Leader of the Opposition has been calling for this modelling. We are tabling this modelling, and when the Leader of the Opposition actually sees this modelling—when he sees that this will reduce consumption next year by 43 million bottles and by the end of the forward estimates by 55 million bottles—will the Leader of the Opposition still say that he is not going to support this measure? Which side of the debate is he going to end up on? He has been flip-flopping in all sorts of different directions. Once he has seen this evidence, we want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition has got the guts to support our measure. I table the report.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I also ask the health minister to table the National Drug Strategy Household Survey and Australian secondary students’ use of alcohol?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will resume his seat. Unless they were quoted by the minister, there is no opportunity provided in the standing orders to ask for them to be tabled.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt should be very careful. The Leader of the National Party does not have the call because he was denied by the member for Sturt, who, I remind, is on thin ice at the moment.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the disallowance last night of the government’s bid to increase by 1.4c a litre the diesel fuel excise on Australia’s trucking industry. Will the government now abandon this new tax increase, which would push up the price of food and groceries for all Australians?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This measure was the subject of extensive deliberation between the state and territory transport ministers. We regard it as a responsible course of action. We believe it is the right measure, and it has been supported by responsible elements of the nation’s trucking industry. We support the measure; and those opposite, if they were being responsible, would do the same.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on changes to the baby bonus, which benefits working families, and on how this policy has been received?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Franklin for her question. The government certainly do support the baby bonus, and as part of the budget we have introduced a number of measures to better target and improve the delivery of the baby bonus. From 1 January next year, a family income test of $150,000 a year will apply to the baby bonus. We consider that this level of family income, $150,000, to be a reasonable point at which to introduce an income test for the baby bonus. The vast majority of families will still continue to receive the baby bonus. Around 280,000 families will be eligible to receive the baby bonus in 2008-09. From our point of view, targeting these measures is economically responsible as well as fair. This government has had to make sure to introduce measures like this to rein in the profligate spending that took place under the previous government which has of course driven up inflation. We have also decided to pay the baby bonus in 13 fortnightly instalments to make sure that parents get the cash they need as their bills come in.

The member for Franklin asked me about other views. There have been some interesting views put forward about this. The ANZ Bank’s federal budget report interestingly said:

The decisions to means-test the ‘baby bonus’ and Family Tax Benefit Part B ... are especially praiseworthy as an attempt to improve the targeting of such measures.

But I have to say that my favourite quote is from an article in none other than the Manly Daily under the title ‘Budget’s warm reception’. The member for Warringah, I am pleased to note, is now paying attention. The Manly Daily, for the member for Warringah’s benefit, said:

The Federal Labor Party’s first budget in more than a decade has received strong support from families on the northern beaches.

It went on to say:

Means testing the baby bonus, which will be raised to $5000 as of July, was also supported.

It is unfortunate that members opposite do not spend more time listening to the constituents of the member for Warringah, because, if they did, they would not be in the pickle they seem to be in today.

We have had so many different points of view from those opposite; they just seem to be in a horrible mess. We have had the member for Warringah, the member Canning, the member for Pearce and the member for Indi all divided. Some support it and some do not support it. Then of course we come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Government Member:

What’s his position?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just do not know. Two weeks ago he was campaigning against any changes to the baby bonus. Yesterday he repeatedly refused to answer whether or not he supported the baby bonus changes. This morning, he called a doorstop and said, ‘We don’t support means testing as a policy but we are not going to block the budget. We do not support means testing of these things.’ That is what he said this morning, so I thought I would go back and have a look at previous comments about means testing by the current Leader of the Opposition. In the North Shore Times on 30 May 2001—I know you will be surprised!—he said the exact opposite. What he said back then was:

Surely it is time now to think more of others and less of ourselves. In this lies the best interests of our nation.

If only he remembered writing this.

Whether that means supporting targeted funding in a federal budget, or supporting a charitable youth program in our own area, it is time to stand up and be counted.

Well, it certainly is time to stand up and be counted, and this Leader of the Opposition has a little bit more time to stand up and be counted. How on earth could he say that we should stand up and be counted when he takes so many different points of view that an Olympic gymnast would be proud? This is yet another about-face from this Leader of the Opposition, who has no idea at all what he stands for.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood you to have already given direction to the opposition about the use of props. I do not understand their continued use of props. Surely this is in defiance of your ruling.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney has the call. I did not actually realise he had a prop in his hand, but I will listen carefully to the relevance of the prop to the question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer him to the Treasury advice—

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

Mr Tanner interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I simply say to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation that the general understanding about props is that, whilst they are tolerated, they are not encouraged. To that extent, there are relevant props—and pops! Can the member for North Sydney please continue without interruption.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, my question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer you to the Treasury advice just tabled by the Minister for Health and Ageing. The assumptions in the Treasury advice include a fifty-fifty chance of a redirection of alcohol consumption to other products as a result of the change in price of RTDs. Given that this product in my hand is not an RTD or alcopop yet has twice the alcohol content at half the tax, can you now come clean and explain to the Australian people why you are not doing anything really about binge drinking?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are concerned about is the prevalence of data concerning the increased use of RTDs by younger males and, in particular, younger females. Those who occupied the treasury bench when the member for Higgins was the Treasurer decided in 2000, at the time of the introduction of the GST, to provide a special measure in terms of the taxation treatment of this category of drinks, RTDs, and the data since then has shown that the proportion of girls reporting the consumption of RTDs on their last drinking occasion has increased from 14 per cent to 62 per cent. I regard that as a definition of a public health problem. We have acted responsibly in response to the taxation loophole the previous government left deliberately in this category of drinks. We have acted on it accordingly and we have acted on it according to the advice that we have received.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Will the minister outline the commitments made in the budget to improve housing affordability for working families? How will these measures redress current problems in the housing system, and are there alternative views?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Parramatta. The Prime Minister made it clear before the election that new policies and new initiatives that would improve housing affordability would be a central plank of a new Rudd Labor government’s agenda, and Tuesday night’s budget delivers on those commitments. It delivers $2.2 billion worth of new investment in affordable housing for working families and individuals. It is the first budget in 12 years to respond to community concerns about failing housing affordability.

In fact, the former government cared so little about the housing needs of Australians that they did not even have a housing minister. I am very pleased that they now have a shadow housing minister and I was looking forward to reading her press release yesterday. I have enjoyed her previous press releases very much. I was wondering about the tack that she might take. I was wondering whether she would try and attack us on not doing enough for first home buyers. Well, no. It would be very difficult to do that because our $1.2 billion first home saver accounts would make that a difficult line to run. Our first home saver accounts help young Australians save a bigger deposit for their first home by making a government contribution of 17 per cent for the first $5,000 that young Australians put into these accounts each year, taxing them at a special low 15 per cent tax rate and making withdrawals tax free when they are taken out to build or buy a first home. It would be pretty difficult to criticise the greatest revolution in savings culture in Australia since compulsory superannuation reform. This is a reform that will see $6½ billion saved in its first four years of operation, a reform that will see average income earners putting aside 10 per cent of their incomes able to save around $88,000 in five years towards a deposit for their first home.

So she is not able to criticise our efforts for first home buyers. I was wondering whether she would have a go at us about rental properties or affordable homes to buy. That would also be very difficult, because we have our National Rental Affordability Scheme to build 50,000 new affordable rental properties and, if they are needed, another 50,000 affordable rental properties that will be rented out at 80 per cent of market values for low- and moderate-income earners, providing a source of growth funding for community housing, delivering lower rents for the people who need them most and, for the first time in Australia, making investment at the more affordable end of the rental market attractive to institutional investors.

What about homeownership? We have a $512 million fund—half a billion dollars—to bring down the cost of new homes to buy, particularly at the entry level of the market. So the shadow minister is not able to criticise us on first home buyers, on affordable rental market or on houses to buy. The shadow minister took an even more courageous path. The press release was entitled ‘Labor budget disregards public housing’. That is very, very brave from the former government that cut $3.1 billion out of public housing, that cut housing in real terms by 30 per cent and that presided over a public housing system that had 20,000 fewer homes in it when they left office compared to when they went into office—very brave indeed.

The shadow minister went on to say that it was a critical component of the overall housing supply chain. I think that every person on this side would agree with that—but then we are not the ones that cut $3.1 billion out of public housing. She called it ‘the part of the system under most stress’. Well, it is no wonder it was under most stress, having had $3.1 billion cut from it.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not going to split hairs, but the minister repeatedly refers to the member for Farrer as ‘she’. Under standing order 64(c), she should refer to her division—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister should refer to her division, and that is why I took this point of order.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! People on both sides are denying the minister the call. I thank the member for Sturt for illustrating a very important principle: that members should be referred to by their titles.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I will take that correction in the spirit in which it was intended, because I think that the member for Farrer is a really lovely person. I like her very, very much. I want to put that on the record. When I meet housing developers, builders and people in the social housing area and when I meet people struggling to pay their mortgages and struggling to pay the rent and they ask me, ‘Is there a shadow minister? What is her name?’ I say: ‘There is—it’s the member for Farrer. She’s a great human being,’ and they look forward to meeting her eventually too.

This budget delivers on housing affordability for Australians. It makes a down payment on our efforts to tackle homelessness. It doubles financial counselling; it helps with environmental measures for people’s own homes and for rental properties. The government has begun talks with the states, the private sector, people in community and public housing areas and mums and dads. I believe that—despite the fact that we cannot fix 12 years of Liberal Party neglect overnight and there is no silver bullet to housing affordability—this $2.2 billion of new measures will begin to turn around problems of housing affordability in Australia.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his new tax on canteen meal cards. Is the Treasurer aware that the Chop Chop sandwich shop in Sydney, for example, estimates that it will lose $200 a day in sales as a result of this new tax? Treasurer, how many other small businesses will be injured by this new tax? When the Treasurer boasts, ‘This is a budget for working families,’ does the Treasurer exclude family businesses and their employees?

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

This is not a new tax. This is the closing of a loophole which has given some people a very considerable advantage over others. When an ordinary punter wants to go out from work and buy a coffee, they pay for it in after-tax income, but through this loophole, which has been exploited, through salary sacrifice some people have been getting their lunch tax free. That is what they have been doing. It has been a loophole that has been exploited for a long time and we are not ashamed to close it.