Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that small capital mining companies are considered to be one of the riskiest investments. Treasurer, how much has the government allocated in the budget for expected mining losses associated with its great big new mining tax? Are the losses capped or will Australian taxpayers be liable for whatever losses are incurred?

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

I thank the member for her question. She asked me a question about the proposed design of the Resource Super Profits Tax and the funding thereof. We have had a series of questions about this from the shadow Treasurer, and I have said that we have put the net revenue figures in the budget. What was taken into account in those net revenue figures is the proposed design that has been put forward by the Treasury. They have done all the work on that.

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

Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the member for McPherson asked a very specific question. If the Treasurer does not know the answer he should just sit down.

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

Again, the member for Sturt approached with a point of order and then had an addendum. I will ignore the addendum, but again I warn him about using the opportunity to come to the dispatch box to enter into debate. On his point of order, the Treasurer is responding to the question.

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

This is a resource rent tax and it has two features which are not understood by those opposite, so I will just go through them. They are different from the PRRT. Those two features are transferability and refundability. The member has asked me a question about the modelling of the revenue that the Treasury has done and how much of that may take into account the tax credits that are given to companies for their investments. She has asked me about that and she knows very well that there is no way anybody could give an answer to that question—nobody could.

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

My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Status of Women. How does the budget help to boost the lifelong economic security of Australian women?

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

I thank the member for Hasluck. She has a very good history of standing up for the men and women in her electorate and also a very good history of standing up in this parliament for important issues like pay equity, so it is very appropriate that she should ask this question. The Rudd government has committed to practical action to improve equality between men and women. One ongoing issue is the inequality in earnings between men and women and the lifelong effect that has, as women are less able to save for their retirement than men. Women’s work patterns differ from men’s in most cases, especially for the 80 per cent of Australian women who have kids. We know that it is usually mothers who have broken working patterns while caring for children and often other relatives as well. Australian men are in paid work for an average of 39 years, while women generally average 20 years in the paid workforce.

New initiatives in the budget are part of our ongoing efforts to improve economic security across the lives of Australian women. The government’s superannuation reforms in Stronger, Fairer, Simpler: a tax plan for our future will deliver substantial improvements in women’s superannuation retirement savings. Increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent by 2020 is a big win for Australian women. It will mean more superannuation savings for women and will boost their lifelong economic security.

We are also improving equity for low-income earners by in effect refunding contributions for those on marginal tax rates of 15 per cent or below. In 2012-13, around 2.1 million women will be eligible for the up to $500 low-income earner superannuation rebate. That is 60 per cent of all the recipients of the rebate. We are also helping over-50s top up their super. We know that a lot of women have that broken working pattern but that when their kids are older they are able to return to the workforce, are able to concentrate on paying off family debts and are able to focus on putting extra money into their super. We have allowed over-50s to top up their super balances when they are most able to do so by keeping their $50,000 concessional contributions tax.

Because of these reforms, a woman who is now aged 30, who is likely to have two kids and maybe some part-time work with some time out of the workforce—a pretty typical pattern for many Australian women—will be $78,000 better off on retirement. That is a very significant boost, and it comes on top of last year’s budget commitment to paid parental leave—a fully costed, fully funded scheme, not a $3 billion a year new tax on business despite a promise to not introduce new taxes on business. It comes on top of the IR changes that protect the most vulnerable workers, many of whom are women, and it comes on top of the pension reforms from last year. We know that the majority of single pensioners are women—72 per cent of single pensioners. Because of Labor’s changes, those people are $100 a fortnight better off. This is an ongoing program of building better economic security for Australian women across their lives—their working lives and their retirement. These super changes in particular will be super for those women.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House how much the price of fertiliser will increase as a result of his great big new tax on the mining of phosphate? It is not a laughing matter either.

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

This is the fear campaign in full swing. We have seen it on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, we have seen it on industrial relations and now we are seeing it on a tax which has been designed in consultation with industry. We have not seen the final output of all of that. We have put forward a framework for a 40 per cent resource rent tax—and what are they doing? They are running a fear campaign.

What we are doing is the responsible thing. We are sitting down and having a discussion with the mining industry. We have done modelling. The independent modelling has been published. The growth figures for that have been published. Yet somehow this man here expects that he can be credible by asking in here what the impact will be in two years time on fertiliser. I will be happy to answer all those questions when we have been through our consultation process, when we have finalised all of the detail with industry.

We are happy to debate this tax. I will tell you why: because everybody over there is happy to see the Australian people not get the full value for their mining resources. As the Prime Minister was saying before, at the beginning of this decade there was $1 in royalties for every $3 of mining profits. Now it is one in seven. That is an enormous loss to the Australian people. We are sitting down in good faith, putting forward a responsible proposal that will give the Australian people fair value that we can invest in superannuation, that we can use to cut the company tax.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

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

The Treasurer will resume his seat.

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

But what we are getting here is yet—

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

The Treasurer will resume his seat! Has the Treasurer concluded?

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

Yes.

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

I’d have a glass of water if I were you.

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

The member for Sturt will be able to have a cup of tea if he continues.

Honourable Member:

Honourable member interjecting—

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

If that is the case, he should be very careful.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. What steps is the government taking as part of the budget to improve access to justice in the community?

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for her question and acknowledge her vigorous advocacy in this area. I am pleased to advise the House that the government will invest an additional $154 million over four years in legal assistance programs to improve access to justice. This is the largest and most significant injection of new funds into the legal assistance sector for well over a decade. The investment will play a key role in ensuring disadvantaged Australians have the means to resolve their disputes early, before they escalate and before they become entrenched.

The additional funding will be provided from 1 July this year and it will include an additional $92.3 million over four years for legal aid, $34.9 million for Indigenous legal services and $26.8 million for community legal services programs. That is additional funding. It builds on the additional one-off funding totalling $70 million that has been provided to the sector over the past three years. It takes the Commonwealth’s total funding for legal assistance services to over $1.2 billion and will give the sector greater certainty for their own planning over the next four years.

The package will make a real difference. It will support legal aid commissions in their vital work of providing legal and mediation services for disadvantaged Australians. The new funding will also underpin the national partnership agreement that is currently being negotiated with the states and territories for the ongoing legal aid arrangements. It is anticipated that the new arrangements will include a number of innovations, including focusing on early intervention and education and providing for greater flexibility, including using Commonwealth funds for state related family violence and child protection related matters.

The investment in legal aid will also increase the availability of assistance in a number of important areas, including in respect of veterans’ entitlements, consumer credit and debt, and certain civil law matters. Importantly, additional resources will also be available for outreach work to rural and regional Australia, including the rapidly growing regions of Australia.

The program will also include an investment of $34.9 million in Indigenous legal services. That will also make a real practical difference, through enhanced legal advice, duty lawyer programs and casework services in the civil, criminal and family law areas. Importantly, Indigenous women and children who are victims of domestic violence will also have greater access to assistance through the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services program. The investment is entirely consistent with the government’s policy to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.

Finally, the government’s additional $26 million investment in community legal centres will focus on supporting those experiencing family violence and homelessness. Communities in rural, regional and remote areas will benefit significantly from the package. Those members who are lucky enough to have a community legal service in their electorate will know the tremendous job they do and the value-add that they contribute with the volunteers that they enlist to assist those who are disadvantaged. These resources will provide a tremendous and well-deserved boost to their resources, I am sure all members will agree.

In conclusion, all the evidence indicates that education and assistance provided early in someone’s confronting the legal system avoids problems and additional expenses downstream. The $154 million investment, along with the $70 million the government has already injected into the sector over the last three years, demonstrates the government’s real commitment to achieving an accessible justice system, which is necessary to underpin a fair and inclusive society.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s comments reported today that his new tax on LPG had already been incorporated in the forward estimates. Can the Treasurer advise the House where in the forward estimates in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 budget papers this new tax appears?

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

I welcome this question. I had a question yesterday from the shadow minister and Leader of the National Party about this. These were measures that were originally announced in the 2003 budget. They were announced by those opposite when the member over there was a minister in the Howard government. They were supposed to commence on 1 July 2008. This was an initiative of the coalition government.

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. You have often admonished the opposition for not asking specific enough questions. This question could not have been more specific. It actually asked where in the budget papers these forecasts can be found. Given his statement today—

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

The member for Sturt has made his point his point of order. He will resume his seat. I am listening carefully to the Treasurer. The Treasurer is responding to the question. I invite members to listen to the Treasurer’s response.

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

They were originally supposed to apply from 1 July 2008. They were announced in the coalition budget of 2003. That is the first thing that happened—and it happened when the member opposite was a minister in that government. And he had the hide to get up and ask a question yesterday as if this was an initiative that had been put forward by this Labor government. It was not. The former Howard government subsequently deferred this until 1 July 2011 in the 2004 budget. Those changes have been an ongoing feature of government budget estimates ever since that time. I cannot believe that we are getting this question today from that frontbencher over there after the bungle yesterday.

The industry has been aware of all of this since that time. This was an initiative that was agreed with industry at that time. The agreement was that the taxation arrangements would be gradually phased in over four years—a feature of budgets since the time that they were in government. And they have the hide to come in here and claim that somehow it is a government initiative. This has been a feature of budgets and has been incorporated in estimates since that time. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Defence Personnel. How is the government supporting veterans through the budget?

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dobell for his question. This budget builds on the record of the Rudd Labor government in providing assistance to veterans and the ex-service community in the areas in which they really need them. In total terms, we are talking about a record budget on this occasion of some $12.1 billion. Let us not forgot that this is in a situation where, as many of our World War II veterans enter their twilight years, the overall size of our veteran community is shrinking.

There is some $246 million plus in new initiatives. I would like to particularly address three of them today. Firstly, there is $152.7 million over four years to expand community based health services aimed at Australian veterans and war widows with chronic conditions, our frailest veterans and war widows. This is designed to keep them out of hospital and in their own homes in the environment where they are most comfortable for a longer period. This is a very positive step forward and builds on the record of improved services across this area in recent years.

There are also two other particular initiatives that I would like to go to which address longstanding concerns and build on commitments made when in opposition and now in a government that we are proud to be part of. Members would know of the question around the issue of F111 deseal/reseal maintenance workers and the concerns that have been raised over a number of years with respect to them.

There was a scheme under the previous government which dealt with the concerns of those who were seen to be formally part of the maintenance area. However, there have been a range of concerns raised about the fact that many workers who had an involvement in the area were denied access to that scheme. There were ex gratia payments available on an arbitrary basis to people according to the number of days that it was identified that they had spent in the tanks. But frankly there was not a proper recognition of the circumstances that these people faced with respect to the health conditions that they had subsequently developed.

The government has fulfilled our commitment made in opposition—which, I remind people, was to have a parliamentary inquiry into that scheme. I would like to particularly note the chair of that committee, the member for Brisbane, and congratulate him on the work that he and others have done with respect to that process. I might also add that in the circumstances it should not be forgotten that when we made that commitment the opportunity was there for the opposition, then in government, to match that commitment. No commitment was made.

The fact is, that inquiry identified a number of concerns. Those concerns were dealt with fairly and justly through the recommendations of that committee. Although we have not accepted all of the recommendations, we have accepted the key points from that inquiry. One of the key points is that some 2,400 workers were denied access to the scheme as a result of the way it had been designed. What is also clear is that a number of those people have developed conditions which have been identified through the SHOAMP health scheme as quite possibly—and almost certainly in many cases—related to their exposure to chemicals in these circumstances. By giving them access under the SRCA legislation and section 7.2, which identifies conditions recognised as being part of what could develop as a result of these exposures, the government estimates that some $55 million in additional compensation and healthcare support, including counselling for families, will be provided.

This is an area that has caused enormous problems to the families involved and to the workers involved. And it is certainly true that some people feel there are concerns that certain circumstances have not been addressed. However, there is absolutely no doubt that this will mean that many workers who are dealing with the aftermath of their exposures will now be provided with real support.

The second matter I would like to raise is the question of the government’s response to the Clarke review recommendations which were not implemented by the previous government. Members would remember that in the early part of this century the previous government instigated a review under Justice Clarke around a broad-ranging set of recommendations which went to a whole range of issues within the ex-service community. A number of those were addressed. A number were not. The review that has come down has addressed several of those recommendations that are substantive, several more that, it is fair to say, are minor, and others that are still under consideration.

The key point I go to here is the issue around participants in British nuclear tests. I want to make it very clear here that the government was asked, when in opposition, to accept that recommendation. The commitment that was made was that we would review the Clarke report with specific reference to that. The result of that consideration—I am very pleased to be able to say this, today—is that what we were asked to do by the nuclear veteran representatives, the government has now done. Again, other matters remain open for consideration, and there is no doubt that some nuclear test representatives have said that they intend to pursue other matters in other forums. That is their right.

I am proud that this government took the step that the previous government would not take, and has recognised that it was identified though that independent inquiry that this was an issue that ought to be addressed, and has given these people the benefit of the doubt. We estimate, again, that somewhere in the region of in excess of $24 million in compensation and support will be provided by giving these people access to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act under the headline of non-warlike hazardous service. I think it is a positive step forward. It will allow those who have developed conditions which can be related to their service to receive compensation, and I think that is something that is long overdue.

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.