Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s remarks on radio 2GB today:

The surplus in this budget is not dependent upon the resource super profits tax.

Of the $12 billion of mining tax revenue the Treasurer claims to collect in the budget forward estimates, only $9.8 billion is allocated for specific spending. Isn’t it the case that the Treasurer’s supposed surpluses do rely on at least $3.2 billion of unallocated mining tax revenue? If not, where is the money going?

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

Very sloppy again, Joe.

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

The Treasurer will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.

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

In fact, all of the initiatives we have announced that are dependent on that do add up to the revenue over the forward estimates, so I do not know what figures you are reading. But one thing I do know is that we are not doing in this budget what those opposite always did in election year budgets. I have done a bit of research about spending and what has happened in previous budgets. Between the Liberal Party’s 2006 budget and their 2007 election year budget, they committed almost $90 billion in new policy. Think about that: $90 billion between their 2006 budget and their 2007 election year budget.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer in the opening remarks to his answer admitted that he did not know the answer to the question, so therefore how could he possibly be relevant to the question he has been asked? He is blathering on trying to fill in—

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

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question. The Treasurer knows of his responsibility to relate his material to the question.

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

I certainly am. It was a question about spending. Between the Liberal Party’s 2006 budget and their 2007 election year budget they committed an extra $90 billion. What have we done between the last budget and this one in terms of extra spending? We have offset the lot—game, set and match.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. Will the minister inform the House about the benefits of the resource superprofits tax for the resources sector and the Australian economy?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Isaacs for his question. On behalf of the Australian community last year I had the privilege of being one of the signatories witnessing the biggest ever investment in Australia’s history in a single project, the Gorgon LNG project, which is now bringing benefits to many businesses in Australia and opportunities for employment and training to thousands of Australians. That investment decision proved that taking on a fight 25 years ago, in terms of putting in place a tax regime for the petroleum industry, meant that we actually got the balance right. It is in that context I can say that no-one can deny that the resources sector is a key part of Australia’s future. The current debate is about getting the balance right. The difference between the government and the opposition is that we actually believe the Australian community at the moment is not getting a fair share with respect to its return on the development of its national resources from a non-renewable sector point of view. I simply say that the government is absolutely committed to ongoing engagement for the resources sector for the purposes of getting the balance which not only means we continue to attract investment but also guarantees that the Australian community gets a fair return for the development of its resources that can also be used to invest in our future, invest in company tax cuts, invest in infrastructure and invest in skills, to name a few opportunities.

Let us go to some of the scare campaigns at the moment with respect to the supposed impact on the Australian economy of what the government has announced to date. I start by going to the Treasury’s independent modelling by KPMG Econtech—I might say, the preferred economic modeller of the previous government. Let us deal with a few facts with respect to their modelling. I go to that modelling which says that cutting the company tax rate to 28 per cent and introducing the resources superprofits tax, combined with the removal of the impact of royalties, would actually expand mining output by 6.6 per cent in the long run. It also goes on to say:

All other industries are expected to expand by 0.3 per cent in the long run.

The report further says that the combined effect of introducing the resources superprofits tax and cutting the company tax rate by 2 percentage points will add 0.7 per cent to Australia’s GDP over the next five to 10 years. That independent modelling clearly indicates that this reform will strengthen the Australian economy as a whole.

That is no different, I might say, to the history of the petroleum resource rent tax, which tells the same story: the industry has flourished as a result of the tough tax debate we took on 25 years ago. I appreciate that, from the government’s point of view, this is going to be a long, tough tax debate. That is because our government is absolutely committed to getting the balance right—not only ensuring appropriate investment for Australia that creates jobs and prosperity but also correctly ensuring, unlike the opposition leader, who finds economics boring, and actually guaranteeing the Australian community a fair return for the development of its resources.

We as a government stand in support of the Australian community’s right for a fair return for the development of their resources. The opposition, unlike the Western Australian Premier, currently believes that the resources sector should not pay higher tax for the opportunity to develop our resources. I am pleased to say this government stands in support of the Australian community in ensuring they get a fair return for the development of their resources. The opposition leader should hang his head in shame. He is more concerned about corporate donations than the proper return on the development of Australia’s resources.

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

The member for North Sydney?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, in reference to an earlier question I should have said $8.8—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The House will come to order! The member for North Sydney has the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table the last page of the response to Henry, which identifies that the government will have over $3.2 billion of unallocated money.

Leave not granted.

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

The member for Menzies?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to table the modelling that he was quoting from in his answer.

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

Was the minister quoting from a document?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker.

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

Is the document a public document?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a public document entitled TAX POLICY STATEMENT: STRONGER.FAIRER.SIMPLER A tax plan for the future. I urge the member for Menzies to read this document. He might actually learn something about the—

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

Order! The member will resume his seat. The member for Menzies?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A good try by the minister, but he was quoting from the modelling. He should at least table the modelling.

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

Order! The minister has indicated what he was quoting from.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, following last night’s budget, following the COAG agreement with the states, and following your visits to hospitals—including being the first Prime Minister ever inside a Lyne electorate hospital—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, credit where it’s due! Prime Minister, will you now commit to three critical steps for the growth regions of Australia, including: (1) local input into decisions being made now around boundaries for local hospital networks; (2) a long overdue commitment to full, 100 per cent equity of funding for growth regions; and (3) an immediate injection of capital for bed shortages in growth regions?

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

I thank the member for Lyne for his question. He is right that I had the opportunity to visit the Port Macquarie Base Hospital, in his electorate, on two occasions—first to speak with his local health experts on the needs of their particular hospital. It is a growth region; there are a huge number of people moving there. But it was one of those things that have been left behind in longterm planning. That is not the particular fault of one side of politics or the other in the New South Wales government, but it frankly has not kept pace with the longterm needs of that growth region.

One of the things I was also able to do when I visited the honourable member’s electorate was to announce an allocation of $5 million or thereabouts for, I think, a second linear accelerator, in the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. This doubles the cancer treatment services available to his constituents, given what is currently there. Of course, there is more to be done. That is part and parcel of a much wider program of regional integrated cancer care centres, announced by the Minister for Health and Ageing a month or so ago, which went to some 22 different locations across the country. In fact, Bunbury, in Western Australia, was one of the recipients; Tamworth, I seem to recall, was another recipient; along with other areas right across the country, to improve cancer services in regional areas.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

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

I note the interjection from the Leader of the National Party that it did not go to his electorate. This is a $560 million investment which went nationwide, to seats where this government has no representatives and is unlikely to obtain representatives in the future. It was based on a needs analysis in the health department. If you look at places like Bunbury, if you look at places like Tamworth, if you look at places we have located these regional cancer care centres, you see that these are important centres for the Australian population—and the one core value at work is that people in non-metro Australia should have access to decent cancer care. The overwhelming feedback from them is: why should we have to travel to our capital cities when we get diagnosed with one form of cancer or another? It is bad enough getting a cancer diagnosis. Having to rip up your family, go to the capital city for weeks, sometimes months, on end, to get even basic diagnostics or cancer treatment, is one of the reasons many people do not bother. Do you know what the terrible statistic is? And I say this to the Leader of the National Party: if you live in non-metro Australia, in regional and remote Australia, you are three times more likely to die within the first five years of your diagnosis of cancer than if you live in one of our capital cities. That is unjust. It is wrong. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing announced a $560 million investment right across the country.

The first of the three points contained in the honourable member’s question went to the input into the definition of local hospital authority boundaries. That is an important matter when it comes to the proper allocation of resources to, for example, the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I have been on the record already as saying that the area in which this hospital is currently located is too big. In our discussions with the New South Wales government they have concurred that these current areas are far too large to be sensitive to local health needs. That is why a fundamental reform will occur. When it comes to Port Macquarie Base Hospital, therefore, it is critical that the needs of that region become central to the local health authority which is constructed in that area. We will be reflecting that view to our friends in the New South Wales government when those delineation questions occur.

The second point he raised was about growth funding. It is a growth region. The reason we have introduced activity based funding is to make sure that the money flows to those hospitals which are actually delivering the services. When I spoke to his local health professionals up there they welcomed activity based funding because, rather than just being given an administrative grant once a year—they are out there working hard delivering a large number of elective surgery procedures and treating a whole lot of patients—the money will flow after the number of services they deliver. Therefore, the overall allocation of resources to that hospital would go up. Therefore, introducing activity based funding for the first time in New South Wales—and for the first time in every state except Victoria—will assist hospitals such as his at Port Macquarie get a proper investment of funds consistent with the delivery of services in those hospitals.

The third point is about immediate investment. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the $7.2 billion additional investment outlined in the Treasurer’s statement last night. This is investment in more hospital beds, more doctors and more nurses and the enhancement of elective surgery procedures and accident and emergency. In his particular hospital, noting the shortage of beds which exists, I am very mindful of the fact that New South Wales would have received an allocation of approximately, I think, one third of the 1,300 sub-acute beds which are fully funded in the budget. I would therefore strongly suggest to the honourable member that he make his representations very clearly known about the need for additional beds in his area, because I have spoken to his local health professionals and they know that their hospital—Port Macquarie Base Hospital—is at its limit.

The last thing I would say in response to the honourable member’s question is to do with a point referred to before by the Minister for Health and Ageing. It goes to the other arm of healthcare reform—that is, the reform of primary care. The health minister last night, to the derision of those opposite, announced details for the large-scale expansion of not just investments in GP superclinics but further investments in GP practices. Also, if you look carefully at the statement which has been put out on nurses you will see that we provide further investments into GPs and their local clinics to make it more financially possible for them to engage practice nurses in those clinics.

These are really important reforms for delivering GP related services on the ground. Again, the honourable member, I am sure, in consultation with his local GPs, will make a submission to the government—the health department—to make sure that proper funding flows on the basis of needs analysis across the country for the enhancement of GPs and GP related services, and we welcome his expression of interest in it. In fact, I would say to all members opposite: if you are facing problems and challenges in your electorates when it comes to GP services, you should take seriously what the Minister for Health and Ageing has put forward and get your submissions in from your local GPs so that we can enhance and roll out a much more flexible delivery of health care services for the entire Australian community.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the government’s $1 billion investment in rail freight in the budget help get trucks off the roads, improve national productivity and create jobs for regional Australia?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his ongoing interest in these issues. Indeed, last night’s budget delivered another $1 billion injection into the Australian Rail Track Corporation. That lifts our contribution to some $3.4 billion over six years—twice as much funding as was given for the national rail freight system by the previous government in half the time. Twice the funding in half the time! This will support some 1,500 jobs in regional Australia. We are fixing the rail lines between Maitland and the Queensland border—some 58 separate projects towards the border; in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales; between Whyalla and Broken Hill and between Broken Hill and Parks; between Albury, down through Melbourne to Geelong; and between Gheringhap and Maroona and between Koolyanobbing and Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. We are straightening the rail lines, we are building new passing loops and we are ripping out the old wooden sleepers—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of your backbench colleagues!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and replacing them with new concrete sleepers. Stick to trying to add up, Joe.

We are doing all of this in order to raise productivity, support jobs and ensure a national return. This is an investment. This will lead to higher productivity and a higher return to the Australian Rail Track Corporation over a period of time. It is good for jobs and good for the economy, particularly in regional Australia. This brings our nation-building investment in rail, roads and ports to some $37 billion. We have now more than quadrupled the investment in rail and more than doubled the investment in roads over a similar period of time. And we have done all this within the budget and fiscal framework of ensuring that we return to surplus in just three years.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given that the government had a $1 billion blow-out in the computers in schools program, a $1 billion fix-it job in the home insulation program and a $1 billion blow-out in the border protection measures, why should anyone believe that in three years time there will not be a single new policy announcement that costs $1 billion or a budget blow-out that wipes out the $1 billion surplus?

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

As I have outlined to the House earlier today, we have put in place a very strict fiscal discipline. And we are adhering to the strict fiscal discipline. We have made cuts—some of them have been painful—and we have restrained spending right across the forward estimates. Not only that, but, as the finance minister was saying before, we intend to do that and extend that out until the budget comes back to one percentage point of GDP.

We are doing something that those opposite were utterly incapable of doing, particularly at the height of a boom. We have a strict fiscal discipline in place, which has brought this budget back to surplus in three years—and three years early. And we have halved debt. We have put forward a credible plan. It is so ironic for those opposite to ask a question like that. When are they going to bring the budget back to surplus? Can they answer that question? We look forward to Thursday night for a few answers from those opposite.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the initiatives for small business which are part of the government’s new tax plan and how these initiatives have been received?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Braddon for his question and for his continued commitment to small business, the backbone of northern Tasmania. The Rudd government supported small business through the global recession, the deepest global recession in 75 years. We did that through the economic stimulus package, including the small business tax break. Now we want to support small business through the recovery phase and that is what we are determined to do. From 1 July 2012 every small business in this country would get the ability to write-off the value of any asset up to $5,000 instantly—not spread over time, but instantly, in the year in which they buy it. That is a very good initiative for every small business in this country.

I refer to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition when he announced that they would oppose these small business tax breaks by denying the funding that would be used to fund those small business tax breaks. The opposition leader said that only incorporated small businesses, only companies, would benefit from the tax initiatives that have been announced. That is completely untrue. Sole traders, partnerships and companies all would benefit from the ability to write-off assets to the value of $5,000 each. In addition to that, the government would provide a head-start reduction in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent for all incorporated small businesses—that is, 720,000 incorporated small businesses. So 2.4 million out of 2.4 million would get the instant write-off; 720,000 would get this small business tax reduction head start.

I was asked about reaction to it. Reaction, I am pleased to report, has been very favourable indeed. The Council of Small Business of Australia said:

The new tax measures are set to help improve small business cash flow, support increases in production and productivity and promote innovation and entrepreneurial activity.

That is good. That is terrific. Even just yesterday, the Australian Newsagents Federation issued a warning that said:

The Australian Newsagents’ Federation (ANF) is concerned that small businesses may lose the urgently needed tax relief that has been recently announced by the Federal Government.

How would they lose that initiative, that tax relief? They would lose it at the hands of the opposition leader. The opposition leader has said that he will try to use the coalition’s numbers in the Senate to block the passage of the Resource Super Profits Tax, which is financing these small business tax breaks. What has the opposition leader got against small business? He does not care about small business because it is the revenue source. Let us find a little bit more about reactions to this tax initiative and the stance of the opposition leader on it. When he made his headland speech very recently on 30 March he said this:

The economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.

He is saying that economic stimulus was not necessary. We know their position on the economic stimulus that supported small business. They are opposed to it. They voted against it and they remain opposed to economic stimulus. He said that if you look across the Tasman New Zealand has done just as well as Australia. New Zealand had five quarters of negative growth. New Zealand went into recession. The opposition leader says, ‘If it is good for New Zealand it is good for Australia.’ This is a man who has cultivated this ironman image. He has an iron fist in the face of small business. He has an iron fist in the face of working Australians and says: ‘Here’s a bit of discipline for you, pal. Here’s one up the bracket. We’ll show you a little bit of discipline. We’ll make you hurt. We’ll make you work harder.’ That is the attitude of the opposition leader, because he is extreme, he is erratic, he is risky and he is dangerous. He is an extreme, erratic, risky, dangerous opposition leader and he would be an extreme, erratic, risky and dangerous Prime Minister. He betrayed small businesses and the Australian people during the global economic recession and he wants to betray small business and the Australian people during the recovery. The Rudd government is the best friend that small business has ever had.

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

Order! I am not sure a standing order covers copyright on sloganeering, but anyway.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer and I refer to page 6-32 of Budget Paper No. 1, which says:

Cleaner fuels scheme expenses are expected to increase from 1 July 2011, due to the commencement of payments in relation to gaseous fuels, particularly LPG, made as part of the phase-in of effective fuel taxation.

Will the Treasurer inform the House what the new excise tax rate to be applied to LPG used in motor vehicles will be, particularly the family car?

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

I have been informed that the changes that are contained in that commentary in the budget are a result of the decision of the former government. I am happy to get back to the honourable member with the details he has asked for.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s your budget! He doesn’t know what’s in his budget!

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

Order! The member for North Sydney will contain himself if he wants to participate in his matter of public importance, coming on shortly.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. How will the budget help encourage personal and national savings, and what stands in the way of Australians receiving the benefits of these important reforms?

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

I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. The government does believe it is important to provide assistance and support to Australians who are saving for the future. As the Treasurer announced last night, the government is improving the taxation treatment of savings by Australians by cutting the tax rate on their savings by 50 per cent for the first $1,000 of savings. Almost 5.7 million Australian taxpayers will benefit from this measure, and around one-third of the beneficiaries will have incomes below $37,000. Importantly, about 3.3 million Australians will have all of their interest income below the $1,000 cap, therefore receiving the full discount.

For too long interest on deposits and other mechanisms has been unfavourably treated compared to capital gains, which are already concessionally taxed. Those capital gains are often out of reach of low- and middle-income earners. This is a very important measure in improving the equity of our tax system. For a taxpayer with a taxable income of around $50,000, the measure will reduce their annual tax liability by up to $177.50. If they reinvest this benefit into their savings account, after five years they will have almost an extra $1,000 in savings.

This measure, announced last night, is a very important complement to the superannuation measures announced by the government on 2 May and also contained in last night’s budget. These measures boost superannuation not only by increasing the superannuation guarantee but also by giving the contributions tax back to low-income earners and allowing people who are over 50 with low balances in their superannuation accounts to top them up at a concessional tax rate. These are all measures funded by the resource rent superprofits tax, as is the tax concession on savings more generally. They are all measures that the Liberal Party would deny Australians; all measures that the Liberal Party would try and stop Australians having the benefit of. We know that the Leader of the Opposition does not support Australians saving for the future. We know he does not support the increase in the superannuation guarantee, and we also know he does not support tax concessions for superannuation. This is what he had to say in his book, Battlelines:

At some point, saving money by keeping people off the pension while forgoing revenue to encourage them to make alternative provision becomes counter-productive.

He says:

It could be simpler and fairer for the revenue provided in superannuation concessions to be paid as a pension instead.

So the Leader of the Opposition would wipe out the tax concessions on the savings of millions of Australians. He would wipe out the tax concessions of people nearing retirement so he could fund the abolition of the age pension means test. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer, in what we have seen today, have engaged in what has to go down as the weakest response to a federal budget in living memory; the weakest and most pathetic response we have seen in this House on the day after a budget for a long, long time. What we see from the Leader of the Opposition is a plan to cut a swathe through the retirement incomes of Australians, and oppose this government’s measures to improve incentives for Australians to save. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning on AM:

Everyone will know where we stand. They’ll also know what we’re against …

Well, they are against Australians saving more. We know that. We know they are against superannuation. We know they are against somebody who is aged 30 now on average weekly earnings having $108,000 more in their retirement income. We know this risky and erratic man wants to cut a swathe through the retirement incomes of Australians and oppose incentives for hardworking Australians to look after themselves and save more.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.