Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this consideration in detail debate on the Finance and Deregulation portfolio, and I welcome the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, who has just arrived in the last minute, to this debate. I point out that we have heard a lot in the four weeks or so since the budget about the government’s plans to bring the budget back to balance after what they say will be a temporary period of about six years. We have heard much from the Treasurer and also from the Minister for Finance and Deregulation about the assumptions under which debt will be run up, will peak and then will be run down over time.

What I would like to do in this consideration in detail debate is pose a number of questions to the minister for finance. The first question relates to his statement, a couple of months ago now, after he addressed the National Press Club, when he appeared on The 7.30 Report and stated in that interview:

… there is a limit to any organisation, even the Federal Government with a very strong balance sheet as to how far it can go into debt and that’s something I’m very conscious of … We’re well aware of that …

I ask the minister, given his statement that there is a limit—which, of course, there is—to nominate what he as finance minister considers that limit to be. I also ask the minister: has he received any alternative, different or supplementary advice about debt projections and future deficits under different budget assumptions in the period prior to the budget or in the period immediately after the budget, over the last four weeks?

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

I will take the second part of the question first. I do not speculate on what advice I may have received from my department, but I would point out that the kind of advice the member is referring to would be advice that would actually go to the Treasurer, more so than to me, in any event.

On the first question, the government have not set a specific limit nor indeed sought to calculate a specific limit. The only observation I make is that, given that the projected debt levels will still have Australia at a level of government debt that is way below virtually all comparable countries, it is very clear that the projected level of debt is a very long way below where any ultimate limit might be. The point of the observation I made on that television show was to indicate that the government are very conscious of the fact that we have to have a strategy to minimise the accumulation of debt over a period of time and also a strategy to return the budget to surplus in order that the process of paying down that debt can commence as soon as possible.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To follow up I ask the minister this: given that he said there is a limit, what does he believe that limit is for the Australian economy and for the budget?

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

I can only repeat the previous answer.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the Minister for Finance and Deregulation whether he could detail, given this is a consideration in detail, the cumulative interest costs on the government’s total debt over the forward years? What does he think the total of those interest costs will be on the government’s projections?

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Before the division in the House I asked the minister in this consideration in detail stage whether he could outline in detail the cumulative interest costs on the government’s debt in all of the forward years until it is finally paid off. Could he outline that year by year, preferably; but to start with could he give us a cumulative interest cost?

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

The only answer I can give to the member’s question is that there are estimates published in the budget papers, in the forward estimates, on the interest costs. I refer the member to those. Beyond the forward estimates period I cannot provide him with further assistance. I refer him to the details published in the budget papers.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the Treasurer could not mention the budget deficit figure in his speech and given the Prime Minister could not bring himself for nearly a week to mention the $300 billion of debt, could the Minister for Finance and Deregulation state here in this consideration in detail what the cumulative interest costs on the debt will be, from his own budget papers?

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

I am afraid I have not memorised the addition of the sums in the forward estimates. It does peak at approximately $7.5 billion in the final year. All I can do is again refer the member to the budget papers.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. In follow-up I ask the minister: given that interest rates around the world are rising and projected to rise, does that alter any of the projections the minister or the Treasury have made with respect to those interest costs over the forward years?

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

This is really a question the member would need to direct to the Treasurer. Those estimates are undertaken by Treasury. I am not aware of the detailed methodology that is used by the Treasury to perform those calculations, so I suggest that the member direct that question to the Treasurer.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister this: when was he informed that Budget Paper No. 1 needed to be pulped on the Monday prior to the budget?

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

I was informed at some point during that day; I am afraid I cannot be more specific because, as the member would know, there were a few specific errors in the budget paper, some of which were dealt with by corrigendum because they were relatively inconsequential in the sense that they were easily corrected. At some point during that day I was informed of the need for pulping by my chief of staff. I cannot be any more specific as to the time because, as you can imagine, it was a reasonably frantic day, as a day or two before the budget invariably is. The best I can indicate is probably during the afternoon but possibly lunchtime or early to mid afternoon. That is the best of my recollection.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his recollections, as best as they can be.

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

Excuse me—I am sorry; let me clarify that. It is probably actually closer to later afternoon, now that I think of it. My memory is very hazy. My best recollection is that it was probably in the latter part of the afternoon.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his recollection. I ask whether he can confirm that the whole thing needed to occur because errors were made due to changed or late decisions with respect to Budget Paper No. 1; specifically decisions within the finance portfolio?

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

I can confirm for the member that that is not the case. The pulping was simply due to genuine errors; it certainly was not due to any kind of last-minute decision or changed decision.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the minister has now confirmed that there were no last-minute decisions or changes, can the minister confirm that the errors were the result of a failure to pick up these mistakes in the two weeks leading up to the printing of budget paper No. 1?

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

I am not in a position to comment on the detail of what occurred, because the process of producing the budget papers is ultimately Treasury’s responsibility. Finance does have very substantial input into that process, but the fine detail of what goes on in that process is a question more for the Treasurer than for the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. As to the specific sequence and timing of errors being picked up, I am not in a position to provide details of that.

I would like to make an important contextual observation. The budget process was under unusual pressure in this instance. That was for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there was the sheer weight of the number of decisions in part as a result of the response to the global financial crisis and global recession. So there was a degree of additional pressure that would not normally be there from that. In particular, that tended to build in an element of delay in the decision-making process that perhaps would not have otherwise been there. So that added some pressure to the process of the production of budget papers. Secondly, there was the implementation of the Operation Sunlight reforms. That meant that, for the first time for some years, departments were asked to provide detailed estimates on a program basis, which is of course a very substantial and messy task. That added to an existing set of systems, which was quite a difficult challenge not just for my department but for individual line departments as well. That added somewhat to the total task. So I think that context is important to bear in mind. One of the reasons why we finished the process with several errors that had to be corrected was that the innate task was of a higher scale and pressure than perhaps it would normally be.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. In the brief time left, I would like the minister to refer to the decision within the budget to reduce the LPG tank installation rebate for existing cars. Can the minister confirm that, last year, he and the expenditure review committee had taken a decision to abolish the rebate but decided against that in the weeks leading up to the budget?

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

I am not going to comment on deliberations leading up to either last year’s budget or this year’s budget. The decision that has been taken is a matter of public record and the government stands by that decision. Prior to last year’s budget there was a degree of speculation in the media about this issue along with a pretty wide variety of other issues. Sometimes the speculation can be less than well informed. The government’s position is of course that we stand by the reforms that have been put in place. I cannot comment further on what goes on within cabinet processes and deliberations other than the public decision.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that, as a result of the decision, jobs will be lost in the LPG tank installation industry, an industry which has grown substantially in the last few years as a result of the introduction of that rebate?

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

No, I cannot confirm that. I would suggest that the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research would be better positioned to answer that question given that the program referred to is within his portfolio.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister in his capacity as Minister for Finance and Deregulation whether he would expect a behavioural effect within the industry as a result of an increase in the cost of purchasing the product.

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

Any change in arrangements of this kind may lead to behavioural effects, but it may also lead to, rather than a reduction in take-up or a reduction in employment in the industry that is involved in the process, a moderation of what otherwise would have been a continuing increase in take-up and the involvement of a proportion of resources in the economy in conducting that activity. So I would not speculate on what the impact of the changes to this arrangement may be. I would point out that a very substantial subsidy is still going to be in place for the installation of LPG systems in existing vehicles, and the government believes that that will continue to be a very significant incentive for people to make the changeover. The other factor that makes it very difficult to project into the future on those things is, of course, the relative prices of different fuels, which means that over time there are other factors in play, not just the subsidy, which will influence the pattern of changeover—and, indeed, the wider state of the economy, of course, has an influence that will impact on these things.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer and for answering, to the best of his ability within the constraints, the questions I have put. With respect to certain issues I have raised where there has been a crossover between Finance and Treasury, the minister has rightly pointed out that some of those issues are better directed to the Treasury portfolio, and I agree with him on that. Given that our timetable is to be considering that now, on a point of order I ask whether there has been a change to the schedule that is here before us, which calls for Minister Bowen to appear at 10.30.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not in the hands of the chair. It is not something that I can advise on. Given that the division happened, I was letting you go for another five minutes to make up for it. If the member for Shortland, as the whip, can advise on where the Treasury spokesperson is, that would be very helpful.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. To clarify the matter, initially we thought the adjustment was made for this to go 10 minutes longer and to shorten the adjournment debate. When it became apparent that you were going to finish at 10.30, I sent a message to the minister, and the minister will be here very soon. He was going to come 10 minutes later to allow for the 10 minutes that was taken up with the division, and we were going to compensate.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the member for Shortland. I am happy to keep asking a number of questions of the minister.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can actually close this off and we can continue with you putting questions on the record without the minister being here. This is not question time. It is not actually within the standing orders that the minister has to answer. So if you have things you want to put on the record, you have that opportunity now—or I can continue with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for another five minutes.

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

I can hold the fort.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madame Deputy Speaker, I thought we had had a very productive half an hour.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had, and I was trying to be as helpful as possible. But the standing orders actually give us fairly limited scope in this matter.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It might come as a shock to learn that the minister and I have policy differences and differences in our choice of football team, but we tend to conduct ourselves appropriately on very detailed policy matters. As Minister Bowen, the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, has appeared, I will just finish with one final question, which is a particularly relevant question given that the minister has appeared. My final question to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is whether he has altered his view with respect to employee share ownership schemes—a view he expressed on the Sunday following the budget; a view to the effect that all employee share ownership schemes were tax rorts.

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

I do not believe that that is an accurate representation of my comments with respect to employee share ownership schemes. I think if the member re-examines the transcript then he will see that my reference does indicate that there has been a significant problem in this area with respect to tax avoidance but I do not think it is fair to say that my comments could be characterised as meaning that all employee share ownership schemes have been the subject of tax avoidance problems.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $4,096,666,000

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister representing the Treasurer for appearing here today. I have some questions that relate to his previous decisions as Assistant Treasurer—decisions for which he is responsible here today representing the Treasurer. I refer to the bungled, chaotic budget decision on employee share ownership schemes. This is something that has received a considerable amount of attention from budget night. The effect of this budget decision has been to snap-freeze employee share ownership schemes right across Australia. At first the government sought to ignore the problem. They then sought to deny the problem. They then sought to deflect the problem. Finally, after more than a week of outcry from the business community, the then Assistant Treasurer, now the minister representing the Treasurer here today, decided to undergo some further consultations.

I would like to ask the minister a number of questions with respect to this. Firstly, I ask whether the minister anticipated that the budget decision would have the effect it had and, secondly, I ask whether the decision was the decision of the minister himself as the then Assistant Treasurer.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, could I say that I do not accept the premise of the honourable member’s question that the government ignored, deflected and denied—quite the contrary. The government have acted very swiftly to deal with any issues that have arisen as unintended consequences out of this measure and have indicated that we would recalibrate the measure to meet the policy objectives set out on budget night, which are to ensure the integrity of the tax system and also to ensure a positive return to revenue.

I would contrast this today, as I have contrasted this previously, to a similar matter under the previous government, where the previous government and Assistant Treasurer Dutton made a decision to deal with tax evasion in relation to script-for-script takeovers. That measure had the outcome of completely closing takeovers in this nation. My predecessor absolutely refused to acknowledge that there was an issue. He completely refused to acknowledge that mistakes had been made and left it for the incoming Rudd government to fix, and we fixed it. Full marks to the previous Assistant Treasurer: he was doing the right thing in tackling tax evasion. My criticism of him is that he did not recognise that the issue had unintended consequences.

Coming to the honourable member’s question about whether it was my decision, I would simply say, as I heard the finance minister say just a little while ago, that of course ministers do not comment on internal budgetary processes. This was a decision of the government, which I support.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, with respect to the budget decision which had as revenue implications the government gaining at that point $200 million over four years, can the minister can confirm, on the government’s changes to date, the alteration in that revenue. I think his public figure on the change at first was a reduction of $50 million over those forward years; is that still his projection? Secondly, could the minister explain the revenue profile over the forward years and why the profile is as it is? What calculation had the tax office or Treasury or both done in terms of that revenue estimate over the forward years with respect to the number of employees who would not be participating in employee share ownership schemes?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would refer the honourable member to page 13 of the Reform of the taxation of employee share schemes consultation paper that I released prior to the reshuffle. Page 13 has a table in relation to the revenue estimates. It indicates that the total revenue from the measure over the forward estimates would be $145 million. The honourable member is correct to say the revenue from the original measure was $200 million. This table shows a reduction in revenue in 2009-10 of $10 million, in 2010-11 of $50 million, in 2011-12 of $10 million, and in 2012-13 of $15 million, with a total of $55 million over the forward estimates. Importantly, I would draw the honourable member’s attention to paragraph 44 on the same page, which states:

Whilst the modifications produce a smaller revenue savings over the forward estimates, the Government expects the modifications to result in additional revenue over a longer time horizon.

The situation, as the honourable member would know, is that these estimates are conducted by the Treasury, not by the tax office. However, the tax office provides raw data for the Treasury then to estimate. The revenue estimates are done independently by the Treasury, with no interference by me or my office. In relation to the assumptions, that is a matter for the Treasury. As is the practice under the previous government and this government, we do not release the assumptions underlying modelling which is conducted by the Treasury.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer and for referring to the paper which he released I think on his final day as Assistant Treasurer—late on a Friday before his appointment to higher duties.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fortuitously!

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fortuitously—he is right. What I would like to do is take him back to the decision on budget night. I accept the minister’s valid point that the costings are done by Treasury, sometimes with tax office advice. I would like to ask the minister whether the Treasury or the tax office in fact considered in their calculations how many employees would withdraw from employee share ownership plans, whether they gave the minister any of that advice or whether they simply did not consider that there would be any behavioural effect with respect to the budget decision.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer my honourable friend to my previous answer, which is that the estimates are conducted by the Treasury. Those Treasury estimates and revenue estimates are on the public record. The basis underpinning them is a matter for the Treasury. Any advice given to the government would of course be cabinet-in-confidence, which I will not publicly comment on. The government stands by the Treasury estimates, both those on budget night and the revised estimates of the revised measure.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I understand he is saying that decisions are taken in confidence. That is not my question. My question is whether the minister, in agreeing to the budget decision, had any advice or had any view about the number of employees that would withdraw from share ownership plans. Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, having been a member of this House longer than me or the minister, you know that budget decisions, sometimes even budget speeches—although budget speeches these days fail to mention the bottom line—do talk about the behavioural effect. I could take the time of the Main Committee to list a number of budget decisions where the government proudly, from their point of view, says, ‘This is what the impact will be.’ I am asking the minister not to hide behind that shield of confidentiality and to tell the House in this consideration in detail stage what behavioural effect he and the government thought there would be with respect to this measure, with respect to employee share ownership schemes and the number of employees or the proportion of employees. What did he think the behavioural effect would be? Just as in other areas of the budget, where the minister himself and the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk about what the behavioural effect will be, I am asking him to do the same here now in this consideration in detail stage and not hide behind the veil of confidentiality.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would again refer the honourable member to my previous answer but say this in addition. I would refer the honourable member to the advice of Treasury officials to Senate estimates. That advice was focused around the issue of tax evasion and the integrity of the tax system. It is fair to say that the driving force behind this budget measure was the concern, brought to the government’s attention by the Treasury and the tax office, of serious tax evasion and that the underlying principle of the costing of the budget measure was that tax evasion would be reduced if not eliminated with the extra integrity provisions put new place.

The honourable member’s colleagues have had the chance at Senate estimates to ask Treasury officials further details about the costings, and whether that was asked or not is a matter for the honourable gentleman opposite. Whatever answers were given by the Treasury are on the public record already.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I perhaps try and get to the obvious point in a different way. Can the minister confirm that, firstly, with respect to budget decisions, the government talks about what a behavioural effect will be? Can he acknowledge that that is the case? Secondly, can he tell the House, as the then responsible minister and now as the Minister representing the Treasurer, whether when he agreed to the decision he anticipated any share schemes being suspended on budget night?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to pay due respect to my honourable friend opposite and say that he knows the budget process very well. He has actually been involved in more budgets than I have at a senior level, both as an adviser to government and as a member of parliament. He knows full well the issues that are taken into account by treasurers, assistant treasurers, expenditure review committees and cabinets in relation to budget measures. To pay him his due deference, he is a man of great experience and has been involved in these decisions for longer than I have. He knows full well the matters taken into account by government.

In relation to the honourable member’s question about what was considered by the government in the decision, I refer to my previous answer that the government does not comment on cabinet processes, Expenditure Review Committee processes or the matters that are considered by the Expenditure Review Committee or the cabinet, as they are cabinet-in-confidence.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the minister was not about cabinet discussions or confidentiality. My question to the minister was about whether he believed any employee share schemes would be suspended. Let me try and put it another way for the minister. I am asking whether, when that decision was taken, he thought employee share schemes would not be suspended as a result of the measure or whether he thought they would.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is now becoming like a court in the US. Luckily there is no fifth amendment. When the Treasurer said on the AM program the Monday after the budget that mistakes had been made—after six front pages in the Financial Review and after the minister here today had announced the previous day that there would be some new consultations—what mistakes was he referring to? That was on the AM program. The Treasurer openly said it on the airwaves of the ABC. I ask the minister: what mistakes was the Treasurer referring to?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable gentleman, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, has just highlighted the inconsistency of his own argument. His opening question to me stated that the government had ignored, deflected and denied. That is somewhat contradictory to the member for Casey pointing out that the Treasurer had indicated that mistakes had been made and that I had indicated also that the government was moving to recalibrate the measure to meet the government’s fundamental policy objectives, so as not to involve the unintended consequences, and to address the concerns of industry. That was the sensible, decent and, I would have thought, pretty obvious thing to do. I would have thought so because I am a member of this government. I would not expect the member for Casey to think that, because he was a member of the previous government, which did not have that approach and which ignored these problems. The Treasurer was indicating that the measure could have been better calibrated. That was an indication of the government’s position, because we have recalibrated the measure. My successor as Assistant Treasurer is further considering the matters in the discussion paper and taking into account industry feedback, as we should.

I make this point to the shadow Assistant Treasurer: this budget contained 654 separate measures. Budgets that he was involved in would have contained a similar number of measures. It is not unusual, from time to time, for budget measures to be further developed and for finetuning to occur as the legislation is drafted. The budget involves an announcement of a measure which is sometimes three or four lines in the budget papers. Then it is normally the role of the Assistant Treasurer to go away and work those up into much more detailed proposals. Should the honourable gentleman ever have the chance to serve as Assistant Treasurer, he will, I am sure, do the same—that is, work up budget measures into detailed proposals. As those budget measures are worked up, there is consultation and there is sometimes finetuning.

On this measure, because of the concern from the business community about uncertainty, we took the decision to significantly fast-track that process—that is, the discussion paper and the development of the draft legislation. That is not something that we would have done normally, but it supports the comments of the Treasurer that mistakes had perhaps been made, that we could have better calibrated the measure and that if that was to be done it was best done quickly. So we moved very quickly to fast-track the process—that would have occurred in the normal course of events—of drafting legislation and having discussions about impacts and whether any finetuning was necessary.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. Does the minister concede, given his last answer, that when the Treasurer said that mistakes had been made they had been made by him as minister?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the comments of the Treasurer.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a couple more questions on this issue for the minister and then I wish to move onto some other issues with respect to his portfolio responsibilities representing the Treasurer. I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of any companies, of the many companies who suspended their share ownership plans from budget night, that have unfrozen their schemes as a result of the consultations and as a result of the changes the minister has made to date?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How companies deal with their schemes is a matter for them. The very strong feedback received by me and by the government was that it would be very helpful for companies with their schemes, which often are most active at the end of the financial year, if these changes were delayed until 1 July. We took on board that concern and we delayed these changes until 1 July. So any schemes or any shares that were issued today would apply under the pre-budget measure—with the exception, of course, that the tax office would be seeking greater disclosure, which every firm has indicated they have absolutely no problem with. The situation today is exactly the same as the situation pre-budget in terms of tax treatment of shares issued between now and 1 July. The government has indicated this legislation will be effective from 1 July this year.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his information but I ask him, again, whether he has been advised of a single company in Australia that has reinstated their employee share plan as a result of the changes he so proudly talks about here in the consideration in detail debate.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, how firms respond is a matter for them. Some have indicated that they will not be making the change. What firms are doing is a matter for the public record. It is no longer my portfolio responsibility and I have not been—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In deference I will let the minister continue but I was taken by his statement that it is no longer his portfolio responsibility. That is true, and as much as the Assistant Treasurer, I think, was glad to be promoted—and we congratulate him on his promotion—and as much as he was glad to relinquish portfolio responsibility for his—

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member have a point of order?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, the point of order is that he is responsible for it until 11.30 because he is representing the Treasurer.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, with due deference to my honourable colleague I do not think he could in all seriousness suggest that I have not been willing to deal with this issue for the last half hour by answering his questions. I was simply making the point that, as of last week, it is no longer my portfolio responsibility, and I am unaware of the situation in relation to every single company in Australia as to how they are dealing with this matter. Until the reshuffle, I was in very constant consultation with industry about this matter and a number of companies and peak groups came to see me to talk through those issues. Those consultations are now through the existing Assistant Treasurer, and I am being honest by saying that I am not aware of the details of feedback the government has had in relation to the discussion paper. That is something being handled by the new Assistant Treasurer. How these companies respond is a matter for them. I have been absolutely delighted to take the honourable gentleman’s questions for the last 20 minutes and answer them as fully as I can.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister doing that. As members of this House would have heard, the minister said—and although I have a pretty good memory I am paraphrasing the minister here—that he is not aware of what every single company is doing with respect to employee share ownership plans. Of course he is not; I would not expect him to be aware of what every single company is doing. My question was whether any company had reinstated their share plan. I ask him again, not whether he is aware of the activities of every single company but whether he is aware of a single company in Australia that has reinstated their share plan, even in the period between his first set of changes and his more detailed set of changes on the day prior to him being promoted to his new portfolio.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To reiterate, industry asked for this measure to be delayed until 1 July. I closely considered that and on balance decided that that was appropriate. The discussion paper reflects the fact that the measure does not apply until 1 July. This means that any shares issued between budget night and 1 July will be dealt with under the old regime. I have read the feedback of industry, some of which says that these measures deal with the vast majority of their concerns. Others say that there is still some way to go. They are all on the public record—that great journal of record, the Financial Review, primarily. I know that the shadow Assistant Treasurer and I read it probably at the same early time every morning. We go through what is in there, and it is all a matter for the public record.

In regard to detailed feedback from industry as to whether they would be lifting their moratorium on share issues, I am unaware. That information may be available to the current Assistant Treasurer but I am saying as honestly and frankly as I can to the House that I am unaware of that detail.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that answer, but I must persist and ask the minister whether he—during the period when he was, in his words, ‘the minister responsible’—was advised by a single company that they would reinstate their share plan or had reinstated their share plan as a result of the consultations he entered into following the Treasurer admitting there were mistakes. I am asking whether he was advised of just one company. I think I am getting very close to the answer, because if there were just one he would remember it. Although I say many things of the minister, I think he has a good memory. I state again that I am asking whether he has been advised of just one—is it one, or two or three or is it, in the Prime Minister’s language, zip or zero?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fair shake of the sauce bottle! The shadow Assistant Treasurer has now asked this question four times and I am going to answer it the same way. Can I say to the shadow Assistant Treasurer that while I am loath to point out the internal inconsistencies in his argument he leaves me with no choice. He pointed out five or six minutes ago that this discussion paper was issued on the last working day that I was the Assistant Treasurer. That is what he said, and I think he may be right but I am not 100 per cent sure—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You remember that!

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was either the last working day or the second last working day, but his point is correct. I think he is probably right in saying that it was the last working day—the Friday; a lot was happening on that Friday. So he pointed out that this discussion paper was released on the last working day on which I was the Assistant Treasurer. And now he asks whether there was any feedback to me in the time that I was Assistant Treasurer on the impact that this discussion paper—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No that was exactly the question the honourable member asked: was there any feedback to me, in the time that I was the Assistant Treasurer, that this discussion paper had resulted in firms lifting their moratorium. The problem with the honourable member’s equation is that, as he has pointed out, this discussion paper was issued on the last day that I was Assistant Treasurer. So, therefore, no, no feedback was received by me in the time that I was Assistant Treasurer, because the discussion paper was issued on a working day about three or four hours before I ceased to be the Assistant Treasurer of Australia.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A nice flourish, but I think the Hansard record will show that I referred to the period from—let me put it another way—the commencement of his first U-turn after the Treasurer said on the AM program that mistakes had been made, presumably referring to either himself or the minister. In that period had he been advised by any company whether they planned to reinstate their share scheme or whether they had in fact decided to reinstate their share scheme?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member is being quite disingenuous, because he is asking whether, on the basis of a policy announcement by the government that we would consult, that announcement had led to any firms changing their decision. The obvious answer to that is no, because there was nothing on the public record. We had simply announced that we would consult with industry, take on board their concerns and then announce, as quickly as was humanly possible, our policy response, which is exactly what we did. That policy response is encapsulated in this discussion paper, which was issued on the date the honourable member has referred to—on the Friday.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Issued and handballed.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, issued to the public for comment. That comment has taken place and the government is considering that comment. The shadow Assistant Treasurer is asking me: ‘On the basis of the government’s announcement that you would sit down with industry and work through the issues, was that enough for companies to lift their moratorium?’ Of course it wasn’t. Nobody could suggest that it would be. They wanted to see where the government would end up, and I imagine a number of them are still waiting to see where the government ends up and where the government finally lands on the detail encapsulated in the paper. That is singularly unsurprising. So my friend the shadow Assistant Treasurer is being quite disingenuous. Good luck to him; that is his job, but I am not going to engage in his efforts to try and get me to say that business responded to the government’s announcements that we would consult further as being enough to change their view on the efficacy of their employee share schemes under the new arrangements. Of course it would not be, because not until this was issued was it clear to industry that the measures would not apply till 1 July. That was when the government made that announcement.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answers. I appreciate, without wishing to verbal the minister, that he does not want to simply say that every employee share scheme that has been frozen is still frozen. I appreciate he does not want those words to leave his lips. I have asked the question a number of times and I think the issue speaks for itself.

I would like to ask the minister about another decision in the budget, and that is the taxation of foreign employment income. I ask the minister why the government did not implement in that decision any sort of grandfathering or transitional measures for people already on work contracts working overseas?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seriously, is that all you have on employee share schemes? I thought you would go a bit longer.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is only an hour left. If you’re happy to stay until question time—

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister has the call.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will stay for as long as the standing orders provide.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, that is a kind offer, and I wonder whether—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey has not yet got the call. Does the member for Casey have another question?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order. Sorry, it was my eagerness and surprise at the minister’s offer to stay here longer. I am just wondering whether it is within the standing orders for him to stay beyond 11.30.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be here for as long as has been agreed between the whips and as the standing orders provide for this session. I am more than happy and I have been more than willing, as the honourable member will know, to take all his questions. I have not arranged for government questions, because I believe in open, accountable and transparent government.

In relation to the honourable member’s question on foreign workers, this is clearly a vexed issue in that the government did consider closely the impact of this measure, particularly on workers involved in aid projects and projects related to defence, policing and national security. Accordingly, those workers were excised from the government’s measure. By way of background, the exemption is one that has been in place for some time and largely predates tax agreements and the abolition of double taxation through tax agreements et cetera. The government took the view that this was an appropriate decision, given those developments in the tax law.

In relation to the honourable member’s question—and I do not wish to misrepresent him; if I have, it is inadvertent and he will correct the record—I think his question was going to what the government considered in terms of cabinet considerations, the Expenditure Review Committee and Strategic Policy and Budget Committee considerations, and that we considered various alternatives. I would refer the honourable member to my previous answer that I do not—and no government minister will—discuss what options were considered by the cabinet and various subcommittees of the cabinet.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the minister, I ask another question. With respect—and I do not criticise him for this, because he must have misheard or misinterpreted my question—I was not asking what was considered; I was asking why the decision does not include any transitional arrangements or grandfathering. What was the government’s justification for not having any transitional arrangements or grandfathering for those currently in a work situation where they have signed contracts and made decisions based on what the law was?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept the honourable member’s characterisation of what he is trying to find out. I would say this: the measure applies prospectively, not retrospectively. There is no grandfathering rule to preclude application to employment contracts concluded before budget night. The advice to government is that grandfathering could create avoidance opportunities and potential for further inequity, and parties to long-term employment contracts could benefit significantly as opposed to those in short-term employment contracts. That is something perhaps fairly obvious to the House—that employment contracts can go over a very long period of time and a short period of time. Somebody who had, say, a very long period of contract would then have a substantial advantage over somebody who may have been on a short-term contract but with the option to roll over or the potential that the work continue. Therefore, as a matter of equity, the measure was designed as it has been designed. The honourable member will be perfectly entitled, through the procedures of the House, to make whatever suggestions or amendments that he sees fit, but that is the government’s position.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his confirmation in that regard. What I would like to ask him is: how many people he thinks will be affected by the changes.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the estimate is 15,000 to 20,000 individuals.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. Does the minister have a breakdown by industry or sector on where he thinks those workers will be affected and, if possible, by state? I would happily take that on notice—I would not expect the minister to have that with him.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member is a clairvoyant! I will take that on notice.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister concede that, for someone on a work contract now who will be affected by the changes, this will mean that either the firm will have a significant cost or the workers will have a significant cost that was unforeseen?

In asking that question I go to the minister’s earlier answer from his perspective about the difficulties of grandfathering, because work contracts may last a very long period of time. To take one example from the mining industry in Western Australia, I ask whether he acknowledges that that worker is going to be disadvantaged unless the company picks up this significant cost.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important to note that there will be no double taxation as a result of this measure, and in fairness I do not think the honourable member is intending to imply that, but people listening to this or reading this may take the implication that somebody may be paying tax in another jurisdiction and tax in Australia and therefore be disadvantaged by the lack of grandfathering in this measure. I need to be crystal clear that that is not the case. This measure is very clear that there will be credit in the Australian taxation system for any tax paid in a foreign jurisdiction.

The situation until this measure has been that these affected workers do not pay tax in Australia and therefore they would pay only the applicable marginal tax rate in the country in which they were working. In some cases that would be a tax rate broadly in line with the tax they would have paid in Australia. In other cases, in very low-tax jurisdictions—some jurisdictions in the Middle East spring to mind—they pay very little, if any, tax and therefore, if they now pay tax in Australia, of course they are going to be paying more tax in total as opposed to what they would have paid in the past. But, as for disadvantage, they will not be paying any more tax than they would have been paying under the Australian tax system. It is very clear in the measure that double taxation will be taken into account and there will be a credit for tax paid overseas, so in that respect the disadvantage that the honourable member mentioned refers to people paying the marginal rate of tax that they would be paying in the Australian system.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. In the final minutes we have left I would like to move to another couple of areas with the minister. He referred a bit earlier to a busy time in his portfolio on the final day when he was Assistant Treasurer. I know he has many busy days, but I would like to take him back to another very busy day and that was the day prior to the handing down of the budget—Monday, 11 May. I ask the minister the same question I asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation: what time of the day did he discover that Budget Paper No. 1 had to be pulped?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the honourable member is asking about the pulping of the budget papers, that is an issue I would take on notice. If he is asking about my personal knowledge, I was not aware of that issue on that day.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not expect the minister to have been watching the half-hour of proceedings prior to his appearance here today, but the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, as the Hansard record will show, gave his best recollection, which was that he found out on the Monday afternoon. The minister has now said he did not find out on that day. In follow-up I asked him when he did discover Budget Paper No. 1 had been pulped.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As best as I can recall, it was after the budget was delivered.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I would now like to move to a broader issue of tax reform. The minister, in his time as Assistant Treasurer, in introducing tax law amendment bills often talked about the integrity of the tax system and he had the support of the opposition on the vast majority of the measures within those bills.

I would like to take the minister to an important anniversary some 12 days from now—that is, 30 June—which is the 10th anniversary of the GST legislation. I ask the minister to reflect on that, given that he has been an Assistant Treasurer responsible for GST administration. I ask him whether he has any plans at all with respect to that 10th anniversary. It is not only the 10th anniversary of the GST going through the parliament but also the 10th anniversary of ‘fundamental injustice day’—that is, the day the now Prime Minister declared the passing of the GST to be ‘fundamental injustice day’ in Australia, a day that generations would look back on. I ask the minister whether he still regards the passing of the GST to be a fundamental injustice and whether there is anything planned for that anniversary.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Without referring to my diary I think I am right in saying that I do have plans for 1 July. That is a day I am greatly looking forward to. It will be my first community cabinet meeting in Beenleigh.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the minister knows where his community cabinet meetings are. Does the minister agree that the introduction of the goods and services tax in 1999, and the beginning of its operation in 2000, was a very good reform for Australia? If he does not think so, why has the government no plans for ‘fundamental injustice day’?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have five minutes to go, and the honourable member is getting cheeky—but good luck to him! I have been in a very generous mood this week. I have said nice things about the honourable member’s former boss, the member for Higgins. I have given what I think is fair account of his record—I do not expect the honourable member to agree—which is that there are some things that he does deserve recognition for. Those things include the engagement and development of the G20, particularly the engagement during the Asian financial crisis with Indonesia and other Asian nations which were buffeted by that crisis, and the support given by Australia. I think that is worthy of recognition.

The development of APRA and ASIC is something which obviously happened on the Treasurer’s watch, although it took a couple of goes after HIH. Australia’s prudential regulation system has stood Australia in good stead. The former Treasurer’s reform record, given the commodity boom which he presided over and the great times for Australia which arose out of that commodity boom, means that he is not able to be regarded as one of Australia’s great reforming Treasurers, because the reform that he could have engaged in during that period was not undertaken. I have said that he was perhaps the luckiest Treasurer in Australian history, because he presided over the period of the commodity boom and a period of the greatest increase in Australia’s national income since the Korean War as a result of international movements—most particularly the development of China. I do not think even the honourable member for Casey would claim that the honourable member for Higgins engineered the development of China—perhaps he will have a go at claiming that, but perhaps he will not!

The reform program by the member for Higgins was a bit light on, but I acknowledge his role in developing the GST. I have read the honourable member for Higgins’ book. It is a good book. The member for Casey gets a guernsey with some favourable mentions, and so he should. The member for Higgins makes the point that in developing the GST he needed to be across the detail of the GST and that it was a hard reform, all things that I accept, having been involved in this government’s reform program; these measures are never easy. The honourable member for Higgins carried out the reform program competently.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again ask the minister whether, as the former Assistant Treasurer and as the minister here today representing the Treasurer, he thinks the goods and services tax was a good reform and is a good tax for Australia. I remind the minister that with respect to the Henry review deliberations that are occurring—the minister will correct me if I am wrong—everything is being examined except the rate or base of the GST. I commend the Treasurer on that point. The point I make to the minister is that the Treasurer has singled that out as something to be preserved. I ask whether the minister thinks that it was a good reform and is a good tax for Australia.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I come to the honourable member’s question, I will correct an answer I gave earlier. I have been advised by my office that I have gravely misled the House. The community cabinet will be on 30 June, not 1 July. On 1 July I will be returning from the community cabinet in Beenleigh and will be addressing a gathering of public school principals in Sydney. That is in my diary for 1 July, and no doubt there are a range of other meetings for 1 July as well.

The shadow Assistant Treasurer has hit upon the great revelation that the government has no plans to change the GST. I can confirm that for him.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his correction. It leaves open the possibility, of course, that the 10th anniversary of ‘Fundamental Injustice Day’ occurring on a community cabinet day might well mean that the Prime Minister again will again address his views on the goods and services tax, for which he is now ultimately responsible. It might well be that the Prime Minister will explain how he has changed his view, but it is likely, of course, that the Prime Minister will say nothing at all.

I would just ask the minister, finally, whether he personally believes the goods and services tax is a good tax for Australia. He has admitted in his second answer, after a long survey of his economic views in the previous answer—he has been as concise in his second answer as he was longwinded in his first answer—that the government has no plans to change the goods and services tax. That is, as he said, not a revelation; I put it to him in the question. What I am asking is whether he thinks it was a good reform and is a good tax for Australia.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am tempted—I will not, but I am tempted—to take a point of order and point out that these are appropriations of the 2009-10 budget, not the 1999-2000 budget. The shadow Assistant Treasurer has the opportunity to ask any questions he likes about the 2009-10 budget, but I am not at liberty to answer questions about the budget that he was involved in, which was the 1999-2000 budget—which I think was the budget that introduced the GST; I think I would be correct in saying that. I am happy to confirm for the honourable member that I think that taxation of consumption is an appropriate policy setting.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the minister’s point about this year’s budget, and I would ask him to confirm that this year’s budget has detail on GST collections.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that to the House.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister whether he thinks that tax is a good tax and whether he supports that tax and thinks it was a good reform that is now delivering revenue into this year’s budget.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of my favourite subjects at university was economic history—I loved it—and I am more than happy to engage in this tutorial with the honourable member. I did Australian, Japanese and German economic history. It was a great subject which I can recommend to anybody who is thinking of studies in economics. I refer the honourable member to my previous answer, which was that I do think that taxation of consumption is an appropriate policy setting in the Australian system. I can confirm, in response to the honourable member’s allegation, that we have no changes to make to the GST.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to keep asking the minister questions, but we have had a very detailed and—I think the minister would agree—convivial discussion for the last hour. He set aside all of that time and, it being 11.30, I could continue but, in fairness, we can move on to Prime Minister and Cabinet, which is now scheduled, if that is the wish of the Main Committee.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $739,563,000

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

I want to give a quick overview of the appropriation we are considering in some form of detail today. The 2009-10 budget has been framed against the worst recession since the Great Depression. The world economy is expected to contract by 1.5 per cent in 2009 and global economic growth is expected to remain below average until the end of 2011. Real gross domestic product in Australia is expected to contract by about 0.5 per cent in 2009-10, recovering in 2010-11. As a result of the global financial crisis, estimated taxation receipts have been revised down since the 2008-09 budget by about $210 billion over the period 2008-09 to 2012-13.

In the face of the global recession, with virtually every advanced economy expected to be in recession in 2009, the Australian government has allowed the budget to fall into temporary deficit and engaged in temporary additional borrowing to cushion the impact on jobs and preserve government spending in vital areas such as health and education. An underlying cash deficit of $57.6 billion, or 4.9 per cent of GDP, is expected in the financial year 2009-10. This is less than half that of comparable advanced economies, at 10.4 per cent.

I will now turn to the key elements of the budget. This budget, as has been stated in the other place, supports jobs now. It invests in the future to ensure the economy is well placed to make the most of the global recovery. Measures in the 2009-10 budget raise the level of GDP by three-quarters of a per cent in 2009-10 and half a per cent in 2010-11, when the economy is expected to be hit hardest by the global recession.

The centrepiece of the 2009-10 budget, the $22 billion Nation Building for the Future package, comprises $3.4 billion for roads, $4.6 billion for rail and $389 million for ports and freight infrastructure. There is $4.5 billion for the Clean Energy Initiative, which includes $1 billion of existing funding. There is $2.6 billion for universities and research in the Education Investment Fund and $3.2 billion for hospitals and health infrastructure in the Health and Hospitals Fund, and we are partnering with the private sector to build the $43 billion National Broadband Network.

This Nation Building for the Future package builds on earlier stimulus measures taken by the government to support activities and jobs, such as the Economic Security Strategy, COAG decisions, nation-building infrastructure of $4.7 billion and the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This early and decisive stimulus has helped cushion the economy from the worst impacts of global recession. These stimulus packages are expected to raise the level of GDP by 2¾ per cent 2009-10 and 1.5 per cent in 2010-11, supporting a total of up to 210,000 jobs. The government’s $1.5 billion Jobs and Training Compact will also provide support to those affected by the downturn, including $299 million for retrenched workers and $155 million in support of apprentices and their employers.

The government’s two-stage fiscal strategy is expected to return the budget to surplus in 2015-16. The first stage comprises government support for the economy by allowing variations in revenue and expenditure to drive a temporary underlying cash budget deficit and using additional spending to deliver a timely, targeted and temporary stimulus with reprioritising of existing expenditure to meet budget priorities and new policy proposals. The second stage comprises sticking to a deficit exit strategy, with the government allowing the level of tax receipts to recover naturally, as the economy improves, and holding real growth in spending to two per cent a year until the budget returns to surplus. I am running very short of time here already.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has 11 new measures announced in the 2009-10 budget, with a total fiscal impact of $50.3 million over four years, including $3.6 million in capital. The additional funding delivers on the government’s key reform initiatives. The government will provide $20.6 million over four years to establish the statutory Office of the Information Commissioner, which is a key component of the government’s FOI and information reform agenda. An additional $10.2 million over four years has been provided for the COAG Reform Council to undertake an expanded role in monitoring, assessing and reporting under the new performance reporting framework. The COAG Reform Council is jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states and territories. I have run out of time, and I am sure the opposition have got some questions.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the convenience of the Main Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I am happy for the parliamentary secretary to conclude his remarks, and then I will jump in.

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

I appreciate the member for Casey’s forbearance with this. An additional $2.8 million over two years will be provided to the management of border security and maritime people-smuggling, including the provision of support to the newly created Border Protection Committee of Cabinet. This measure forms part of the Australian government’s layered response in combating people-smuggling.

An additional $1.4 million over four years has been provided to establish the National Security Legislation Monitor—and I think you are going to find this is a very significant reform—in the department, to review the operation of counterterrorism and national security legislation. I am sure the member for Isaacs, seated on my left, who is a member of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, will welcome that particular measure. This measure was fully offset by the savings in the Attorney-General’s Department. Additional funding of $0.7 million over four years will be provided to the National Security Adviser for his role in the implementation of enhanced crisis coordination facilities, an initiative that supports the 2008 homeland and border security review.

An additional $4.2 million over four years will be provided to enhance the Community Cabinet program and further direct engagement with the general community. An additional $7.2 million will be provided to sustain the department’s role as a central policy agency and support the government’s program delivery. An additional $3.7 million will be provided over four years to continue funding the National Australia Day Council for Australia Day activities, including the Australian of the Year awards announcement and the Australia Day live concert. Funding of $0.5 million has been provided to the department in 2009-10 to implement the Nation Building and Jobs Plan.

Additional funding of $17.9 million over five years was included in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook under the item ‘Decisions taken but not yet announced’. This funding was provided to establish the National Security Adviser Group within the department. To facilitate transparency and accountability, the measure has been included in the 2009-10 portfolio budget statements, with the full measure description appearing in Budget Paper No. 2. Like other government agencies, PM&C has also delivered savings measures as part of this budget. Savings totalling $1 million over four years have been provided. I thank the member for Casey for his forbearance in this particular matter.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. In this broad consideration in detail debate on the appropriation bills, given the member for Holt’s broad policy oversight as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I would like to ask him—and he is a Melbourne member, and I note that the member for Calwell and the member for Isaacs are here—to update the Main Committee on the terrible situation with respect to the suffering of the Karen people of Burma on the Thai-Burma border: if there are any developments that have occurred, what humanitarian efforts Australia is making and what the latest information is on that terrible tragedy that has been occurring for many years. I know the parliamentary secretary is very aware of this issue, and I suspect other members here are too, because there are many Karen people who have come to Australia and are living in Melbourne. They have close friends and relatives still over there in that terrible situation.

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

I thank the member for Casey for raising this particular issue. This is an important issue in my electorate, the electorate of the member for Isaacs and in your electorate—and I also know that you are a very strong and enthusiastic advocate for this particular group of people. Just to provide you with some supplementary information on Australian government assistance with respect to that area, in early June alleged Burmese army and State Peace and Development Council sponsored attacks by the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army on the Karen National Union resulted in large movements of Karen people across the Thai-Burmese border. Current estimates by the Royal Thai Army and NGOs place the number of arrivals in Thailand, mostly women and children, at between 3,000 and 6,500 people, with more expected.

We strongly urge the Burmese regime to resolve these enduring ethnic conflicts peacefully as a crucial aspect of national reconciliation. The Australian government is providing assistance through both humanitarian aid and resettlement places. I will just touch on the humanitarian aid component of that. Australia will continue and increase its longstanding humanitarian assistance to refugees on the Thai-Burmese border. On 16 June Minister Smith announced that Australia will provide $1 million to improve conditions for refugees living in the camps on the Thai-Burmese border. Australian assistance will be provided through the Thai Burma Border Consortium, which provides food and shelter to displaced people living in the camps, which includes a large number of the Karen people. The $1 million is an increase from the $700,000 provided in 2007-08. These camps represent one of the world’s longest-running humanitarian crises. There are currently 140,000 people in the camps, many of whom have been there for more than two decades—and that is an absolute disgrace. They are unlikely to be able to return across the border to Burma in the near future. This is a human catastrophe; make no mistake about that.

Australia has provided over $6 million to the consortium since 2003—and that includes under the previous Howard government, and I acknowledge that—through Act for Peace, the international aid agency of the National Council of Churches in Australia. This assistance to the consortium is in addition to the support Australia has provided this year to improve the living conditions of the Rohingya people living in Burma and in the camps on the Burmese-Bangladeshi border. The Thai Burma Border Consortium is a consortium of 11 non-government organisations from nine countries and is registered as a charitable company in the UK. The TBBC has been working in Thailand to provide food, shelter, non-food items and capacity-building support to refugees from Burma since 1984. Members include Caritas Switzerland, Christian Aid, Church World Service, Diakonia, DanChurchAid, ICCO Netherlands, International Rescue Committee, the National Council of Churches in Australia, Norwegian Church Aid and the ZOA Refugee Care Netherlands. The TBBC has a head office in Bangkok and four field officers on the Thai-Burma border.

The TBBC provides food and shelter for about 140,000 refugees from Burma in nine camps along the western Thai border, under agreement with the Thai ministry of the interior. The TBBC had a budget of approximately $35 million for 2008 and receives funding from 14 governments, plus the EC. Australia’s assistance to the consortium is in addition to the $8 million Australia has already provided this year to improve the living conditions of the Rohingya people living in Burma and in the camps on the Burma-Bangladesh border. This support is aimed at improving living conditions and economic opportunities; focusing on the provision of food assistance, basic livelihoods and health care; and providing access to credit, saving and income generation schemes. It will be delivered by the World Food Program, $1 million; Care Australia, $1 million; the United Nations Development Program, $1.2 million; and the UNHCR, $2.5 million. A further $2.4 million was provided by DIAC for the support of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh and South-East Asia.

It is important to note that currently Australian sanctions against Burma include travel restrictions on senior figures and associates of the Burmese regime, restrictions on arms sales and targeted financial sanctions against members of the Burmese regime and their associates and supporters.

The second channel through which the Australian government is able to provide assistance to people such as the Karen people is through humanitarian resettlement places. The 2009-10 budget confirmed the size of the Humanitarian Program in response to the global need for resettlement places. Australia will welcome 30,750 people under its Humanitarian Program in 2009-10, an increase of 250 places on the 2008-09 planning levels. There will be an increase of 750 places in the Special Humanitarian Program to 775 places and the refugee component will be set at 6,000.

With the challenges of displacement increasing worldwide, it is more important than ever that Australia steps up to the mark in sharing international responsibility for refugee protection. Burma, and, more broadly, Asia, continues to be one of the main areas of resettlement focus for the Australian refugees program. The treatment of these people by the Burmese government is reprehensible. I would certainly like to thank the member for Casey for raising this very important issue. As I said, he has a large constituency, which he represents very well. I congratulate him, on behalf of those constituents, for bringing to the attention of this place the continuing human rights abuses that occur in Burma. I hope that I have given a full answer to the questions you raised.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for that very detailed answer, that update, and for that strong statement with respect to the Burmese regime. I know that his words will be very well received by the Karen people and all of those working so hard on this issue. I thank him for providing that information today.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister a question about community cabinets. There was a community cabinet held in July last year in my electorate of Kingston. Over 800 people from around the southern suburbs of Adelaide and even further afield came to the Hallett Cove School R-12 to meet with the whole cabinet and the Prime Minister. This was an incredibly successful event. I got incredibly good feedback after the process. I think people were particularly pleased that they got to ask the Prime Minister direct questions. The Prime Minister was asked a number of direct questions, and I thought I would mention some of the concerns in my local area that were raised at the community cabinet. They included questions on water and pensions and a whole range of other issues, including congratulating the Prime Minister and acknowledging the fact that he said sorry to the Indigenous people of this country.

People particularly enjoyed having individual meetings with their local cabinet ministers. This was very important because it allowed people to have that one-on-one connection with the different cabinet ministers on a range of different issues. Certainly the members of the Hallett Cove Residents Association were very pleased to have a one-on-one meeting with the Prime Minister, during which they were able to discuss the issue of broadband in the area—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Mayo interjecting. In fact, there were a lot of constituents from his electorate who came down to talk directly with the Prime Minister and they were very pleased to have that opportunity as well. In addition, a number of local people were pleased to meet with Minister Macklin. They were able to talk to her directly about the pension and the pension increase—an increase that I know they have welcomed in this budget. Some veterans in my area were very pleased to have the opportunity to meet directly with the defence minister to talk about their experience in World War II.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the ministers for attending and the Hallett Cove R-12 School, who did an enormous job making sure that the location was available, that it was well suited and that everyone was very comfortable on this very cold night. I know that seeing so many people attend was a buzz within their school community. I certainly think that this type of event was an incredible success and will continue to be so as the Prime Minister and cabinet continue to move around the country.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is: how have the community cabinets and this program been received in other areas of the country?

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

I thank the member for Kingston for her question. With respect to the member for Mayo, I would invite him in this forum if he wishes to have a community cabinet in his electorate to write to me and I would be more than happy to pass it on to the Community Cabinet Secretariat if that is his wish. I am sure that, at some stage, given the appropriate programming—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

But we have a number of your colleagues that are seeking that. I am extending an invitation in a bipartisan way, because we have been to a number of electorates that are not Labor-held electorates, such as La Trobe, Macarthur and others I will talk about in a second. If you wish us to actually come down to your electorate, we would be more than happy to accept your letter. You can take that proposition in good faith or you can turn it into a political thing. In one of the meetings, held in the federal electorate of Macarthur—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

Well, you should talk to the people who attend the community cabinets. We had some of your constituents at the one the member for Kingston referred to, and I think they enjoyed the opportunity to actually meet with senior cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister. Coming back to the formalities of this, I thank the member for Kingston in recognising the importance of this community cabinet initiative, which began under this government in January last year. Close 7,500 members of the public have attended these forums. They reflect the government’s commitment to providing opportunities for members of the public to raise issues of concern directly with the senior members of the government, as well as ensuring the government remains in touch with community expectations—expectations that members of the community will have an opportunity to voice directly to the ministers and, I think, expectations that the public feel that have not been met in the past.

This commitment is further embodied by the geographical spread of the locations where the community cabinet meetings have been held. These include at Canning Vale in south Perth in January 2008; Narangba in north Brisbane in March 2008; Penrith in Sydney’s west in April 2008; Mackay in Northern Queensland in June 2008; Yirrkala in Arnhem Land in July 2008; a very successful gathering at Hallett Cove in southern Adelaide in August 2008, the community cabinet to which the member for Kingston has just referred; Newcastle in September 2008; Launceston in November 2008; and Corio and Geelong in December 2008. A community cabinet meeting was also held Campbelltown in Sydney’s south-west in February. The member for Macarthur was, in fact, there, believe it or not; he was invited and he turned up. There was another held at Ballajura in northern Perth in April, and I think another member of the opposition turned up to that. Most recently, there was a community cabinet meeting at Emerald Secondary College in Melbourne’s Dandenong Ranges, where I understand the member for La Trobe was invited by letter to participate but chose not to turn up.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the great work that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s community cabinet secretariat have done in coordinating these events. The feedback that I have received from members of the public and others who have attended these events has been unanimously positive and I think is a great credit to the secretariat within the department.

In coming back to the community cabinet at Hallett Cove in the electorate of Kingston, there were a wide variety of issues of concern raised and discussed. These included—and I know the member for Mayo will be very interested in this—the COAG Murray-Darling Basin intergovernmental agreement and the Waterproofing the South project, which the Commonwealth provided $34.5 million for. This project aims to provide recycled water and stormwater for urban reuse and viticulture for residents and businesses in the city of Onkaparinga around Noarlunga. Funding of up to $3.5 million was also approved for the McLaren Vale water plan, which also aims to substitute the use of mains water with recycled water. In this instance it is aimed at eligible irrigators in the southern portion of the Kingston electorate. The Wellington Weir and the Coorong wetlands are also of concern to the residents of Kingston. The weir will help secure drinking water for Adelaide residents though will permanently change the nature of the Coorong wetlands.

Other issues discussed include the proposed desalination plant at Port Stanvac, the closure of the Mitsubishi Motors plant at Tonsley Park and the assistance and retraining opportunities provided for by the Commonwealth. Over $50 million has been allocated to support affected workers in the region. I know that the Noarlunga rail line is an issue of significant interest to the honourable member for Kingston’s constituents and they will correspond with her daily on this particular issue. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of issues I want to pursue with the parliamentary secretary. The first one is just to follow up something he has said from his notes. He said that the development of the Wellington Weir was a major concern to constituents in the Kingston electorate. It is a bigger concern to the constituents of the electorates of Mayo and Barker, let me tell you, yet I accept it is an issue for the member for Kingston as well. There is no decision that has been publicly announced about the Wellington Weir. Has the parliamentary secretary, in saying that it will help secure South Australia’s water supplies, just announced that the federal government has given approval for the Wellington Weir to go ahead? I just seek that clarification and I seek it very seriously.

The second issue I want to raise is in relation to the community cabinets. Can the parliamentary secretary break down how much each one costs? I understand there is a figure in the budget for the overall cost. Is he able to break down how much each community cabinet costs?

The third issue is slightly different. It is in relation to his responsibility in answering questions in relation to the Australian National Audit Office budget. I am a member of the JCPPA and we were very pleased with, and I congratulate the government on, the additional money that was given to the Audit Office to conduct more performance audits this year. However, there is one area they did not get additional funding for, which they did bid for, which was the change in standards going forward for auditors that is going to have quite significant resource implications. I ask: is the government giving serious consideration to this? The Auditor-General in our budget briefing was extraordinarily concerned about this as it will have significant implications for his resourcing. I ask the parliamentary secretary: is the government considering those issues?

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

If I can clarify a point for the member for Mayo: that was a proposition without an actual announcement, so I apologise for confusing you. That is a misreading of the document that I have before me and I do not wish to mislead you. Could you just remind me what the second question was that you asked?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cost of each community cabinet.

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

I will take that question on notice. I will give you the full costings and I give you an undertaking to get that to you within 28 to 30 days, I think it is, of your asking that question, as we have done in the past.

The third thing in terms of the National Audit Office is that it normally comes under the remit of the Cabinet Secretary. To assist you I will, if I may, take those questions on notice on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary and I will get back to you. If you have any further questions I am very happy to take them up on your behalf.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to firstly add my words of endorsement and support for the community cabinet process, which we have discussed here today. Having had one in my electorate it was a great benefit to the local community. I certainly hope that these are initiatives that will continue to be rolled out. The question I wish to ask of the parliamentary secretary relates to the government’s response to the global recession, and in particular in relation to the various stimulus measures that the government has put in place and is now actively rolling out right across the country. I preface my comments and my question by making the point that in my local community in Western Sydney, an area where many of the effects of the global recession are beginning to be felt, we are seeing some impact from the early stages of the rollout of the three-pronged approach of the government’s stimulus measures. These are very positive developments. I know that they have been welcomed very much by my local community.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is in relation to various stimulus measures and their rollout across the country. Can the parliamentary secretary report on the extent of feedback that has been received in relation to the rollout of these proposals? If the indications that I am receiving from my community are anything to go by then I think that that bodes well for the future.

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

I am very mindful of the fact that we are programmed here to conclude our proceedings at 12 pm. I am also particularly mindful that some senior staff who are here for that purpose will have to leave us shortly. I thank the member for Lindsay for his question. He is obviously a very enthusiastic advocate for his constituents. That is certainly the feedback that we received at the community cabinet in Penrith and subsequently.

Because we do not have much time I unfortunately cannot go into the details, but, in terms of the Australian government creating jobs around Australia under the economic stimulus plans so far, there are already 270 social housing units under construction, and 347 defence houses are under construction. The Prime Minister handed over the keys for the first completed house last Friday in Brisbane—I read that on his Twitter site. Also, 285 primary school constructions are underway, repairs and maintenance has been done in thousands of primary schools, 9,000 existing social housing units have had repairs and upgrades and over 30,000 homes have had insulation installed since February and have claimed the $1,600 rebate. Road safety projects and new rail level-crossings are being built. Twenty-eight new rail level-crossings will be completed by the end of the month, and this is just the start of the construction projects; we are talking about 35 construction projects. It is a monumental project, a gargantuan project. It is a reflection of the difficulties in the global financial crisis and the strong, positive and decisive action that this government, led by Kevin Rudd, is taking.

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am mindful of the time and of the fact that we are due to conclude, I would like to—and this will sound very bizarre at the end of a discussion about appropriations—pay tribute to the retiring member for Higgins, Peter Costello. Regardless of where we stand on each side of the political divide, both of us know, and as the member for Mayo will know as time goes on, this is a very difficult life. It is a life that separates you from your family and puts you under enormous constraints. All of us here are in here for the right reasons: to advance the cause of the national interest. We do it in different ways. The member for Mayo will have a different way in which he sees that he can take our nation forward and I have a different way.

But the great part about this chamber is that we can have a robust exchange of ideas without being at gunpoint as in other places around the world. It is one of the great benefits of our democracy. I would like to acknowledge the substantial contribution that the member for Higgins has made, particularly in his role as Treasurer. I am not quite sure of the reasons why he made the decision, but can I say to you that in my private conversations with him I have found him to be a very decent fellow and a very family oriented individual. I, and on behalf of this chamber, wish him well for his future. I look forward to hearing about his progress in his subsequent life outside of this place.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.