Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills before the chamber. Although the main purpose of the bills before the House is to propose appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to do with the 2009-10 budget, I believe the titles of the bills and explanatory memorandums do not do justice to what the 2009-10 budget delivered by the Treasurer will actually achieve for this country.

With the unemployment rate forecast to reach a peak of 8½ per cent during 2010-11, with a write-down of $210 billion from the government revenue, the only thing that a responsible government could do is bring down a budget to deal with major investments in jobs now and infrastructure in the long term. Of course, the initiatives outlined in the 2009-10 budget built on the Rudd Labor government’s stimulus package, which was announced late last year, that saw payments going to many people in need in the community. It delivered stimulus payments before the Christmas period, at a time when countries were under real pressures as a result of the global economic crisis—not the worst of it then but certainly a significant decline had occurred by then.

This federal government took very early action in pre-empting the decline in private investment. It saw the need for expenditure to be occurring in the community to support business. That stimulus package back in December 2008 provided stimulus for a very large sector in the electorate of Petrie—that is, the retail sector. We have seen figures in recent times that show that what we have experienced in Australia is extraordinary compared to what many of the developed countries around the world have seen in retail. This country is experiencing growth where other countries are experiencing significant decline. No-one on any side of this House can deny that growth in the retail sector supports jobs. You cannot support jobs if you have rapidly declining growth in the retail sector.

In addition, this government announced the nation-building package back in February of this year. That built on the stimulus package and started putting initiatives in place, investment in infrastructure in the short term, that saw jobs being supported locally. In my electorate of Petrie, 34 schools have already been successful in rounds 1 and 2 for Pride funding. They are doing work such as painting of classrooms, carpeting, buying new furniture, putting in electronic whiteboards, building covered walkways and building shade areas over playgrounds. This is no doubt going to stimulate local jobs. It is going to support manufacturing. It is going to support businesses who provide the materials, who provide the furniture and who provide the whiteboards in my local area. Those businesses consequently will be able to retain people in employment.

But also, in talking about all these initiatives, we should not lose sight of the long-term benefits for schools in all this. I know some may hold the view that building halls and libraries, repainting classrooms, putting new carpet on floors and getting new furniture does not necessarily support furthering a child’s education. I say to all of those people: go into those schools and talk to the principals, the teachers and, more importantly, the parents and the students who are benefiting from those changes in their schools. It changes the attitude of children when they go into a new classroom that is a fresh and vibrant place. It helps children learn.

No-one can tell me that sitting in a hall to have assemblies, concerts or graduation ceremonies does not put pride in a school and in its students compared to sitting on asphalt in the middle of winter or summer under a small covered area next to toilet blocks, which is what some of the schools in my electorate experience. I know one particular school that has to cancel the school parade every three or four weeks simply due to rain because the children are exposed to all of the elements by the current structure of the school. This school is very excited at the thought of having a school hall, which is something that they thought was never going to happen. That school is also getting an extension to the library and, with their Pride funding, doing many important refurbishments. Other schools are talking to me about how many electronic whiteboards they will have and that they will have enough to go around all of their classrooms because of previous investments that the schools have made in that technology. These are some of the initiatives that this budget builds on.

In my electorate we also have new social housing units going in. We have many social housing homes and units that are being repaired so that they can become available for people in the area of Petrie. I think one of the most important things that has come out of the 2009-10 budget by the Rudd Labor government has to be the investment in major infrastructure in this country. We have seen as a consequence of the two previous initiatives, the stimulus package and nation building, and importantly as a result of this budget the most significant investment in infrastructure that this country has seen in decades.

Without the government’s action the level of GDP would have been 2¾ per cent lower in 2009-10 and 1½ per cent lower in 2010-11. We cannot ignore these figures. Government action is expected to support up to 210,000 jobs and without action the forecast for the unemployment rate would reach 10 per cent. These may just sound like figures but in my electorate, my areas, my suburbs, that figure is certainly significant. With areas of my electorate already experiencing high youth unemployment before the global economic crisis we have to do everything possible to ensure that we support jobs and that is what this budget clearly does.

I commend this government for their $8½ billion investment in our roads, rail and ports. I know I have spoken in this House previously about my commitment to support initiatives such as a Redcliffe rail line—something that has been rallied for for many years in my electorate. The elected representatives in the area—state, council and federal—all support the need for a rail line. Although we will continue to have that fight, it is important that I recognise and put on the record my support that this budget is committed to improving the metro rail network in Brisbane. Irrespective of a Redcliffe rail line, if we do not improve the rail network in our CBD area we will struggle to cope with the demand for the public system. It would be extremely difficult for the state government to put on any additional trains or services until such time as major investment is done in the CBD area. I see investing in our CBD area as a step forward for the proposal to eventually get a Redcliffe rail line. Improving the central public rail network consequently sets a framework to expand the rail networks out in the metropolitan areas.

In relation to the commitment on clean energy, with Moreton Bay as the backyard to my electorate, it is true to say that many of my constituents understand the importance of addressing climate change. They were extremely pleased when this government signed the Kyoto protocol. We are doing what we can to pursue the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and, at the same time, investing in clean energy. Importantly, in this budget, this government has invested $4½ billion in the Clean Energy Initiative, not only to assist Australia’s transition to a low-pollution economy but also, equally, to help build the jobs for the future by investing $2 billion over the next nine years to carbon capture and storage demonstration projects; $1½ billion over the next six years for up to four large-scale solar electricity generation projects; and $465 million to establish Renewables Australia—an independent body to support leading-edge renewable technology research and development.

This is of course on top of the commitment to the National Broadband Network, which is certainly welcomed in my electorate. I have many black spots. Despite being just outer metropolitan Brisbane, it is amazing how many broadband black spots there are in my electorate. I know that my local community have been eager to see the federal government commit to such an initiative and are pleased that we have done so in this budget.

I think it is very important to acknowledge the commitment in this budget to what is, I believe, a 25 per cent increase in research and development for business. When I was campaigning as a candidate, I lost count of how many times people said to me, ‘Why don’t we have a government that supports ideas and sees those ideas turn into businesses in Australia as opposed to watching these great ideas go overseas and grow from there?’ I certainly welcomed the initiative to invest more in R&D in our businesses and to turn those ideas into commercial reality.

Another initiative I would like to address in relation to this budget is the important commitment to hospitals. The $3.2 billion for the Health and Hospitals Fund will see much needed investment in the health sector. I am certainly pleased that we have one of the first GP superclinics announced in Queensland being built at Redcliffe, with a fantastic consortium—the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation and the University of Queensland. This clinic not only will provide care in relation to chronic disease and acute illnesses but also, importantly, will be concentrating on research and education—training up GPs, registrars, nurses and allied health professionals. We look forward to the day that that facility opens.

Lastly, I mention the commitment by this government to provide improvements to the payments to pensioners. I have 21,257 pensioner recipients who will benefit from this budget and this initiative. It is a welcome commitment by this government to increase the base rate of the pension payment. I know it will provide relief to many, many people in my electorate. It was an announcement that was certainly welcomed by many of the pensioners in my electorate. For all these reasons and many, many more that I will not have the time to outline, I commend these appropriation bills to the chamber.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to talk about trade and the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010. We know that trade has been hit hard by global recession. In fact, we know that the World Trade Organisation is predicting global exports will drop by nine per cent this year and that Australia forecasts that global trade flows could shrink by as much as 11 per cent this year. If realised, this would be the sharpest fall in world trade in the postwar period.

For export-reliant economies in the Asia-Pacific this downturn is being felt very hard. Jobs have been lost and incomes have fallen. In this region, both workers and decision makers understand that trade is integral to continued national prosperity. Under these tough circumstances many APEC economies have felt the pressure of calls for protectionism. It has been hard to contain these protectionist measures and pressures. The Australian government remains confident that we have the structure to deal with the worst of the protectionist tendencies—that structure is called the World Trade Organisation—and that there are effective disciplines within that system that guard against protectionism.

In April, G20 leaders also renewed their commitment to concluding the WTO’s Doha Development Round, the successful conclusion to which would help underpin the global economic recovery. We have seen continued progress at the recent Cairns Group meeting in Bali, hosted by the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean. On 24 and 25 June, trade ministers will attend the OECD meetings in Paris, fittingly on the theme ‘The crisis and beyond: building a stronger, cleaner and fairer world economy’. This provides another opportunity for discussions aimed at concluding the round at the political level ahead of the G8 summit in Italy in July. The G20 grouping has provided great leadership also, reaffirming the commitment of that grouping to avoid the past protectionist mistakes.

Protection and protectionism shackle growth in Australian employment, growth in Australian exports and growth in Australian prosperity. Protectionism leads to artificial barriers being created against higher quality, more competitive production and improvements in the volume of our exports. It actually borrows Peter—and not Peter Costello—to pay Paul. Protectionism unites disparate political traditions—the collective wisdom is clearly on the side of free trade. In fact, somewhat incongruously, I quote former US President Ronald Reagan in his weekly radio address to the nation on 5 December 1988. He prefaced his remarks on trade by observing that the United States declared its independence for a variety of reasons, one of which was the restriction of trade with other European powers. He made the following observations regarding the policies exemplified by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act:

America’s most recent experiment with protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country-the same line we hear today—

over and over again. He went on:

The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I—

that is, Ronald Reagan—

cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.

Ever since that time, the American people have stayed true to our heritage by rejecting the siren song of protectionism. In recent years, the trade deficit—

and this is more recently—

led some misguided politicians to call for protectionism, warning that otherwise we would lose jobs. But they were wrong again. In fact, the United States not only didn’t lose jobs, we created more jobs than all the countries of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan combined. The record is clear that when America’s total trade has increased, American jobs have also increased. And when our total trade has declined, so have the number of jobs.

Part of the difficulty in accepting the good news about trade is in our words. We too often talk about trade while using the vocabulary of war. In war, for one side to win, the other must lose. But commerce is not warfare. Trade is an economic alliance that benefits both countries; there are no losers, only winners. And trade helps strengthen the free world.

In fact, I will refer to another United States President on this very same issue. Upon signing the landmark Trade Expansion Act on 11 October 1962, Mr Kennedy said:

This act recognizes, fully and completely, that we cannot protect our economy by stagnating behind tariff walls, but that the best protection possible is a mutual lowering of tariff barriers among friendly nations so that all may benefit from a free flow of goods. Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers … Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.

That was in 1962, involving the same issues. Recently, following the G20 meeting in April, US President Barack Obama observed:

… we have rejected the protectionism that could deepen this crisis. History tells us that turning inward can help turn a downturn into a Depression. This cooperation between the world’s leading economies signals our support for open markets, as does our multilateral commitment to trade finance that will grow our exports and create new jobs.

That is all on the growth front.

As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a common theme emerging here historically. In his tribute to the late John Button in the Australian last year, former Prime Minister Paul Keating recounted a phone call to John Button—then the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce—on a Saturday morning in 1991 and urging him to commit to a reduction to five per cent in the general manufacturing tariff by 2000. Paul Keating said, ‘In for a penny, in for a quid,’ and Button agreed. Keating described Button as someone who recognised that the historic economic defence of the Australian model was outmoded and as someone who saw his constituency interests in the longer term perspective. He was right.

The current account deficit for the March quarter 2009 fell 27 per cent to $4.6 billion—the lowest quarterly deficit since the September quarter 2001. The March quarter trade surplus of $5.1 billion was the largest recorded by the ABS since it began recording these figures in the September quarter of 1959. These positive figures exist because of a generalisation of sustained trade liberalisation and because we have rejected the insular and the protectionist impulse.

On 1 June this year, the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, launched The benefits of trade and trade liberalisation, a report by the Centre for International Economics which demonstrated that trade liberalisation—the rejection of the protectionist approach—benefits Australian families to the tune of $3,900 per year, with higher skilled and higher-paying jobs. This is the perfect example of how trade is not to blame for the worldwide recession but can be part of the solution. Evidence shows that an increase of just one percentage point in the ratio of trade to gross domestic product can raise income per person by up to two per cent. On the upside, when economies do recover, there is every chance that trade can rebound just as fast as it fell.

The Australian government is doing its part to bolster the international community’s effort to support recovery. We are implementing a nation-building and jobs plan, injecting fiscal stimulus into our economy in line with the efforts of the G20 and APEC countries. At the G20 summit, we joined with other countries in efforts to reform the international financial architecture. This is all consistent with solid and improving macroeconomic conditions in China that would suggest that recovery may not be too far away. Protectionism in this country would only stifle this recovery and lead into a downward spiral of retaliatory measures. As an example, China has been a major driver of export growth for Australia in the past decade and continues to be a major partner and a major destination for our exports. In this context, reported moves by the NSW government to ban exports from China and elsewhere—if this report is true—are entirely self-defeating.

The premise of this protectionist move is that it will protect jobs in New South Wales and Australia, reportedly, through an inbuilt discount of 20 per cent on Australian products when compared to products sourced overseas. This ‘protection’ is a misnomer. Protectionism reduces competitiveness. It does not promote growth. It leads to the closing of overseas markets for other producers. It protects nothing. I will tell you one thing: it will hurt Australian exporters if this example is followed. This is no doubt a well-intentioned approach to dealing with the global financial crisis but it will undermine the good work that this government is doing to open up new markets for Australian exports, protecting and creating jobs not just in New South Wales but throughout Australia through both more trade and trade that is free.

What would be the effect, for example, if this measure was followed federally? If you add North, South and South-East Asia, these regions together now account for about 68 per cent of our total merchandise exports. The contribution of this trade to Australia’s prosperity is enormous. In 2008, Australia’s merchandise exports to Asia as a whole were worth more than $150 billion. We have gained and continue to gain real economic benefits from Asia’s growth, and trade has been the instrument that has tapped Australia into Asia’s growth. If we fell for what President Reagan termed the ‘siren call of protectionism’, New South Wales and every other state would soon find doors closed on these opportunities in Asia, resulting in this country having lower prosperity and lower employment.

On 3 June, I had the great pleasure of attending the 2009 Australian Export Hero Awards presentation dinner. This dinner recognises, as the name suggests, export heroes, with an export hero being an individual who has demonstrated outstanding vision and made a significant and unique impact whilst achieving success for their organisation and Australia in the international marketplace. The Australian Export Heroes program recognises contributions made by Australians in building our modern export enterprises and helping to further develop a uniquely Australian export culture. This program is an initiative of the Australian Institute of Export and its partners and highlights outstanding careers, dedication and commitment to building Australia’s export and international interest. It recognises the champions of Australia’s export community. These export heroes are role models for future generations of Australian exporters. The Australian Export Heroes Awards recognise extraordinary contributions made by individual Australians in building our modern export enterprises and helping to further develop a uniquely Australian export culture. These are precisely the sort of people we need to be encouraging, again, by removing protectionist barriers rather than erecting them.

Pursuing further great trade integration with Asia remains vital to our national interest just as it is important for Asia’s own economic development. It is clear that trade is a driver of economic recovery. For example, according to the IMF, evidence from past recessions in Asia shows that exports have been the main engine rooms of recovery. To be more precise, six of the 10 recoveries in Asia have been led by exports and, during the recovery phase, export growth has tended to rebound strongly. Asia’s recovery can be export led as can ours in concert with a targeted, timely stimulus package. Trade reform is vital to helping our economy recover quickly and robustly. All the evidence shows that export-led recovery in Asia has also been accompanied by growth in developed markets, which is why—as G20 leaders have called for—a combined approach on the parts of governments injecting fiscal stimulus into their economies and committing themselves to reject trade protectionism is of the utmost importance. We in this country and the federal government are of course pushing hard against protectionism. For example, we have registered our strong opposition against the United States government’s plans to introduce dairy export subsidies following on from the recent introduction of the European Union’s dairy export subsidies. On a wider point about protectionism, it is a development we must resist if we are to see true economic growth return.

The IMF’s latest outlook forecasts several Asian economies to continue to grow this year and the next. Looking ahead at 2010, Australia forecasts key Asian economies to be amongst those showing positive signs of growth. This is the area that we are most integrated into in trade at the present time. China is growing at eight per cent; Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore are growing at 2¾ per cent; Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are growing at 2½ per cent; and India is growing at 4¾ per cent.

With our bilateral trade agenda, Australia is negotiating free trade agreements with China, Japan, Malaysia and the Gulf Cooperation Council. We held the first round of the free trade agreement negotiations with South Korea several weeks ago. Australia will also be joining negotiations towards a trans-Pacific partnership agreement, with other parties likely to be New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, the US and Vietnam. And, of course, there is the recently signed ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA, which I will speak about briefly in a moment. If you are wondering why Australia is so vigorous in pursuit of these bilateral and regional trade agreements, it is because we strongly believe that they are the building blocks for multilateral trade liberalisation and regional economic integration. FTAs can make a positive contribution to the global trading system. Why and how? Because they are comprehensive and truly trade-liberalising across all sectors.

There is no better example of our benchmark for success than the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA, or AANZFTA, as it is known. Let me briefly outline why. This is the first FTA Australia has signed since the onset of the global financial crisis. In the face of rising pressures to put up trade barriers, there is no better demonstration of a resolve, putting our money on the table, to fight protectionism than settling a comprehensive regional free trade agreement. The AANZFTA has put our region at the front of the global efforts to fight protectionism. For Australia, it is the largest FTA we have ever negotiated. In 2008, our two-way trade in merchandise with ASEAN and New Zealand alone was worth $88 billion, or 20 per cent of Australia’s total merchandise trade. For ASEAN, AANZFTA is the most comprehensive trade agreement it has ever concluded. It covers goods, services, investment, intellectual property, intellectual commerce, temporary movement of businesspeople and economic cooperation. It provides for substantial commitments on tariff elimination and what is known as WTO-plus commitments in other areas. For example, it binds current low tariffs and eliminates tariffs over time from the more developed ASEAN member countries and Vietnam on between 90 per cent and 100 per cent of national tariff lines. These tariff cuts cover 96 per cent of our current exports to the region. Perhaps not surprisingly, few countries find it easy to cut trade barriers at the stroke of a pen. Opening up trade involves painstaking technical work and engagement at the political level. But the successful conclusion of the free trade agreement with ASEAN and New Zealand shows it can be done.

Today the US charge d’affaires, Dan Clune, rejected the assertion in the Australian that the US Department of State assistant secretary-designate, Kurt Campbell, is opposed to the Prime Minister’s plan for an Asia-Pacific community. In distancing Secretary-Designate Campbell from this perspective, Clune quoted Campbell, who said:

I think the fact that there is a greater interest in finding appropriate forums, not just in Australia, but in China, Japan, the United States, is a healthy thing—

appropriate forums being avenues for tackling the common problems we face, most obviously the global financial crisis, from all concerned nations, providing the framework for a sustained recovery and a return to economic growth. Through strengthening regional architecture, as Clune has observed, we are better able to pursue these collaborative opportunities. That is precisely what our government intends to do.

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

I am pleased to bring the second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills to a close. The global recession has resulted in a rapid deterioration in Australia’s economic outlook since the 2008-09 budget. The changed economic circumstances have adversely impacted on government revenues and led to successive downward revisions to estimated tax receipts since the 2008-09 budget, amounting to about $210 billion over the forward estimates to 2012-13. As a result of the global recession and the associated drop in government revenue, the underlying cash deficit is expected to be $57.6 billion, or 4.9 per cent of GDP in 2009-10. This compares strongly with other advanced economies.

In response to the global economic crisis the government considers that the only responsible course is to support the economy and jobs now. This means we will allow temporary deficits to unfold and cover those deficits with temporary borrowings. The government’s budget has been crafted to protect and promote the interests of all Australians now and into the future. To support the economy through the global recession the government’s fiscal stimulus program started with supporting household consumption and then moved to small-scale investments that could be implemented within a relatively short time frame. This budget marks the start of the next phase—a move into larger and longer term nation-building infrastructure projects. I will have more to say about this shortly.

The government’s fiscal stimulus packages have helped to cushion the economy from the worst impacts of the global recession. This action is expected to support up to 210,000 jobs. Supporting jobs is a priority for the government. We understand the dignity that work provides and value the contribution that these 210,000 Australians can make to our country. The government is providing $1.5 billion over five years through its Jobs and Training Compact. This program is aimed at providing relief and assistance to those directly affected by the economic downturn. It will also better position Australia in global growth returns by increasing the skills of our workforce.

This budget contains a significant infrastructure package. The government will invest $22 billion over six years to improve the quality, adequacy and efficiency of transport, communications, energy, education and health infrastructure across Australia. The National Broadband Network, which is supported by an initial investment of $4.7 billion, $1 billion of which will be spent in 2009-10, is the biggest single nation-building infrastructure project in Australia’s history. The government’s investment coupled with changes to the existing telecommunications regulatory regime will fundamentally transform the competitive dynamics of the telecommunications sector for the benefit of all Australians.

The government is providing $1.1 billion in this budget to invest in critical road, rail and port infrastructure to encourage more sustainable urban development and renewal and to lower transportation costs to ensure Australian businesses continue to be globally competitive. To complement investment in infrastructure and improve long-term productive capacity the government is supporting world-class higher education and hospital systems and investing in innovation. The government will invest $1.39 billion in this budget from the Education Investment Fund for priority research and higher education infrastructure projects. In addition, the government will provide $36.4 million in 2009-10 and $491 million over four years to uncap the number of public university places from 2012, allowing an extra 50,000 students to commence studies over the next four years. The government will also provide $29.4 million in 2009-10 and $436.9 million over four years to universities to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity of a university education.

In this budget the government is providing funding of $465.7 million from the Health and Hospital Fund to support the development of health infrastructure projects of national significance. The government will invest an additional $3.5 billion over nine years including $400 million in 2009-10 for the establishment of the Clean Energy Initiative. The initiative will encourage further innovation in and large-scale commercialisation of clean energy generation and low-emissions technologies which will contribute to Australia’s transition to a low-carbon economy. The new measures will focus on carbon capture and storage and solar and non-solar renewable technologies.

In the 2008-09 budget the government committed to reform the pension system. Since that time the scale of the global recession has highlighted the importance of the pension as a safety net for those most vulnerable in our society. The government has found room under difficult circumstances to deliver on its commitment with increases in pension payments, reform of the payment structure for pensioners and more assistance for carers at a cost of $16 billion over five years. As a result of some tough decisions and despite the ageing of the population, our secure and sustainable pension reform will be fully offset by 2020-21. To boost workforce participation in the long term and as part of its rebalancing of the family payment system, the government is spending $731 million over five years to deliver a paid parental leave scheme. The scheme is due to commence operation from 1 January 2011.

Finally, it is necessary to inject some balance and perspective into the debate concerning the government’s budget position. Australia’s balance sheet is strong and will continue to be one of the strongest in the world. After peaking at 13.8 per cent of GDP in 2013-14, net debt is expected to fall to 3.7 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. In comparison, average net debt in advanced economies will continue to rise to a substantial 80.6 per cent of GDP in 2014.

The government’s firm commitment to return the budget to surplus will ensure that fiscal sustainability is maintained. Meeting this commitment will involve further tough choices, but it is important because fiscal sustainability remains one of the key ingredients for sustainable economic growth. The government’s approach seeks to support the economy and to protect jobs. It does so in large part by making substantial investments in worthwhile infrastructure that will yield benefits for the future. It is a budget, therefore, for all Australians and for future generations of Australians. I commend the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and the cognate bills to the House.