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

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the comments from the New South Wales Treasurer, Michael Costa, that the states would demand compensation for the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue if the Prime Minister removes the GST on the excise component in the price of fuel. Is Mr Costa right or wrong? Would the states be compensated? Whatever happened to the Prime Minister’s grandiose claim that he would fix our federation and end the blame game?

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

I welcome the question from the member for Wentworth because it goes to: how do we make the federation work? How do we make the federation work in those areas which mean something to working Australians and working families right across our nation? What it goes to is what sort of education system we are going to have—one where we simply buck-pass one to the other? It has gone on for too long. What sort of health system are we going to have—one where we just buck-pass to one another? What sort of climate change arrangements are we going to have? We have conflicting state and federal emissions trading regimes or renewable energy schemes. We say that what we want to have is a regime in which we have a cooperative federal arrangement with the states which has one objective: delivering a decent outcome for people who consume government services.

I think those opposite have not quite caught up with the 21st century. People are sick and tired and have had a gutful of politicians pointing the finger at each other between federal, state and local governments saying, ‘not my responsibility’, ‘not my responsibility’, ‘not my responsibility’. That is why we have said through COAG that we intend over the course of 2008 to have a work program which deals with education, which deals with health, which deals with climate change and each one of these matters.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about comments by the Treasurer in New South Wales about hundreds of millions of dollars and the GST on petrol. It had nothing to do with education, health and everything else.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you don’t know how to write a question, it’s not our fault, Joe.

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

The parliamentary secretary is not being entirely helpful. The member for North Sydney might read Practice. The question may not have been as specific as he thinks, and even if it was specific it does not dictate the way in which it is responded to.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Those up the back who have had experience in answering questions and who think they can always interject when the Speaker is making a comment would also be well suited to read Practice this late in their careers. The question went on, after perhaps being specific, to talking about fixing the federal system and stopping the blame game. Prime Minister.

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

When it comes to the business community the clear-cut cry of business across this nation is, ‘Let’s move to a point where we have a genuinely seamless national economy.’ Let’s move to a point where our businesses are not confronted with one set of state regulations after another which conflict right down the scale to the smallest things and up to the largest things, making it very difficult and very costly for a small to medium sized business that wants to operate across state boundaries. That is why, again through COAG, in the spirit of cooperative federalism, what we are trying to do is to bring about a practical program, through the minister for small business and his state counterparts, on how you make it better for business nationwide.

Right now we have 27 items of legislation before us which have conflicting state and federal arrangements which we are working our way through methodically. So, whether it is those consuming TAFE services, those consuming early childhood services, those consuming health and hospital services, the business community having to deal with their regulatory environment or those who are trying to deal with these conflicting state arrangements on emissions trading and renewable energy, it is time to fix the federation.

I would appeal to the constructive spirit of those opposite to say: what is a positive way forward to deal with these things? I remind them again that they had 12 long years in office to act in these areas. Instead, they did not prefer to come up with practical, positive solutions. Their approach was this: the best thing to do is simply blame the states because it makes for a good political outcome.

On the question of tax, the Henry commission of inquiry quite legitimately examines the entire raft of taxation, and that was contained and made explicit in the Treasurer’s statement on budget day itself. Of course, the taxation arrangements as they impact on the states will be considered in that context as well. You can do this on a comprehensive, long-term basis. And remember the call of business? They have not had a decent, all-round review of the tax system for a quarter of a century. You were in office for 12 years. What we now have is a proposal to do precisely that. Six months into our government we have a program of action on this. For 12 years those opposite sat there, dithered, did nothing—including the smiling member for Higgins, who cannot make up his mind whether he wants to be here or here or elsewhere. They had 12 years to fix these matters, even to put their shoulder to the wheel. They neglected to do so because instead they saw the politics of the blame game as better suiting their political project. We have a different approach.