Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the government's $2 billion cut to family benefits, including for those earning as little as $45,000 a year, while its spending on the boat people crisis has blown out by $1.75 billion. Why is the government tougher on families than it is on border protection?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me explain to the Leader of the Opposition the fundamentals of this budget. This budget is bringing the budget back into surplus in 2012-13, as promised. That has meant that we have needed to take a series of tough decisions. We did not want to see in this budget the profligacy of the Howard years during mining boom mark 1. Consequently, when you look at this budget, you see an average increase in expenditure of one per cent, compared with an average increase in expenditure of 3.6 per cent under the Howard government. We are being so rigorous on bringing the budget back to surplus in 2012-13, exactly as promised, because we are determined to continue to deliver to the Australian people a strong economy which gives them the benefit of jobs—750,000 created already, with another half a million to be created in the years to come. So, yes, there have been some tough decisions taken in this budget in relation to savings.

On the family payments question that the Leader of the Opposition raised, let me say what the actual information is.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the government's spending blow-out on border protection versus its cut for family benefits. She was not asked to give an adjournment speech about the budget in general. She should go back to that point.

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

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was talking about that aspect of the question as the Manager of Opposition Business rose. I am not sure whether some comments are sotto voce just for discussion amongst people, but it might help if people did not speak while I was speaking and then I would not misinterpret it as reflections upon the chair.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition asked me about family payments. For the clarification of the House and for the Leader of the Opposition so that he has the accurate information—and I believe that he is under an obligation to make sure that what he says to the Australian people is accurate—family payments will still increase under this budget. All fortnightly rates will still increase for family tax benefits A and B. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition does not want the facts but these are the facts. For example, on 1 July the maximum rate will increase by $113 per annum for a child between the ages of zero and 12 and by $146 per annum for a child between the ages of 13 and 15. In relation to family tax benefit B, for the youngest child under five years of age, per family there is a $95 increase annually; for kids aged between five and 18 years, $66 annually.

This budget honours our commitment to increase payments for the parents of teenagers, as we said we would during the election campaign. So parents of teenagers on the maximum rate can look forward to an increase of $4,208 in their family payments if they have a child of 16 to 17 years and $3,741 if they have a child of 18 to 19 years. They are important figures about family payments in this budget and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to accurately talk about this budget, he should be referring to those figures.

The Leader of the Opposition also raised with me the cost of mandatory detention and continuing to process asylum seekers. I support mandatory detention. I believe it is an appropriate policy to check people who come to this country unauthorised—to check their health, to check their security status and to process their claims. So we will continue to fund mandatory detention because it is the right thing to do. We will continue with the Malaysia agreement which has been the subject of discussion in this House this week and which was announced by me and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on Saturday. It is a big blow for people-smugglers and aimed at breaking the people-smugglers' business model. It is the right thing to do. It is better than a three-word slogan.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House what last night's budget says about Australia's economic performance and prospects?

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

I thank the member for Dobell for that question. The budget I handed down last night reaffirms Australia's record as one of the best performing developed economies in the global economy. We have strong growth prospects, we have strong job creation and we are getting the budget back in the black in record time.

We have avoided in this country the very high rates of unemployment that have occurred in other advanced economies and we have avoided the crippling levels of debt that we have seen in other advanced economies. We have a budget bottom line which is indeed the envy of the developed world and levels of deficit and debt which are the envy of the developed world but, despite this strength, we know there has been short-term softness. We know that parts of our country have been badly affected by natural disasters, and we know that many parts of the economy still feel the overhang of the global financial crisis and the global recession, which is also weighing very heavily on government revenues. And of course there are many businesses out there that are certainly struggling under the weight of the high dollar.

But against all of this we know that we have a very big investment pipeline in Australia. We are going to go through an investment boom, with business investment set to reach 50-year highs in the years ahead. That is why we are forecasting growth of four per cent in 2011-12 and 3¾ per cent in 2012-13. And that is why we are forecasting unemployment to come down to 4.5 per cent, because at the core of this budget is our commitment to jobs, jobs and more jobs. That is our commitment. It is not a commitment that was shared by those opposite during the global financial crisis and the global recession. If they had had their way, unemployment in this country would be far higher and deficits and debt would be far higher.

So we are very optimistic about the future of our economy, because we can now build on the strength of our economy as we come through the global recession. That is why the budget gets us back in the black, gets more Australians into better jobs, gives more help to families and, particularly—something we are all proud of on this side of the House—invests in mental health. So the budget is about laying down an economic blueprint for the future so we can succeed in the Asian century and maximise the opportunities for our children and our grandchildren.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the budget allocates $13.7 million for a carbon tax advertising campaign? How can the budget include propaganda for a carbon tax but not the carbon tax itself?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the Leader of the Opposition I say: how quickly they forget. Many may think I am referring to the Work Choices advertising campaign, an obscenity overseen by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, but actually I am referring to last year's budget papers, because the climate change line item he is referring to appeared in last year's budget papers and has been brought forward into this year's budget papers. So can I say to the Leader of the Opposition, before he starts making inflammatory claims about where line items in the budget have come from, that he should perhaps do some budget study. That allocation for the climate change fund was standing in the last budget.

On the question of memory: the Leader of the Opposition of course was a very senior minister in the Howard government and he may recall the goods and services tax. He may also recall that the then Prime Minister, John Howard, announced that a full two years before he accounted for it in the budget papers. One can only assume from the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition that each and every day of those two years he was running around to the Prime Minister's office saying to John Howard, 'I just can't bear it; I can't continue to serve as a minister while this isn't accounted for in the budget.' Does anybody really think that is what happened? Well, no, that is not what happened, because of course the Leader of the Opposition is always keen to apply a standard to others that he does not apply to himself.

Let us get to the basis of this question. It is because the Leader of the Opposition would prefer to come into this parliament and continue his climate change fear campaign than deal with the matters in the budget. He does not care about a strong economy; he has got no policies or plans for one. He does not care about bringing the budget back to surplus; he has got an $11 billion black hole on his side of the ledger. He does not care about the creation of employment in our nation; he has got no policies or plans that relate to creating employment. He does not care about the future of our healthcare system; when he had the opportunity, he ripped $1 billion out of public hospitals. He does not care about the future of our schools, because he went to the last election promising to rip the best part of $3 billion out of Australian schools. He does not care about Australian apprenticeships, because he went to the last election promising a $2 billion cut to apprentices.

So there is no mystery that the Leader of the Opposition does not come into this place to debate the budget. He cannot and he will not, because he is a big risk to the budget and the nation's economic future—a risky approach taken every day. Every big call required of a leader in this nation he has got wrong, most particularly the calls necessary for the global financial crisis and keeping people in work. We will continue to get the big calls right, we will continue to manage the budget and get it back into surplus and we will continue to prioritise the jobs of Australians, because this budget is centrally about jobs and opportunity for Australians right around the nation—and the Leader of the Opposition has just turned his back on that.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the budget deliver on the government's commitment to return to surplus and help families with the cost of living?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. On delivering our fiscal prudence in this budget, the statistics are there for all to see. As promised, we will return the budget to surplus in 2012-13—back in the black, just as we promised the Australian people. We will do that because the important thing to assist Australians as our economy moves towards full capacity is to make sure that the government is not adding to inflationary pressures. That is why we are determined to run such a tight spending policy. That is why across the forward estimates you are seeing growth in spending on average at one per cent. The last time that occurred in Australia was in 1988 e have delivered a year with a negative in front of increasing growth—that is, spending will go backwards. The Howard government never delivered a year of spending reduction. Rather, they delivered spending growth in excess of three per cent on average even at the top of resources boom mark I. The best thing we can do to assist families with cost-of-living pressures is to keep our economy strong and to bring the budget to surplus so as to not add to inflationary pressures which would then feed into the cost of living for working families.

But we can do some things as well to directly assist working families, to assist families under cost of living pressure, and in this budget we have. We are assisting families with teenagers. Our family payment system has made the old-fashioned assumption that somehow kids leave school when they are very young. We are in a modern economy—we need them to stay in school. So families with teenagers will get special new benefits.

For some of our lower income working Australians, we have pulled forward the low-income tax offset so they can benefit week by week from the money from that low income tax offset to take a little bit of pressure off and to more clearly demonstrate to people the rewards of work. We have in this budget honoured our commitment to include school uniforms in the education tax refund because we want to assist families with the costs of getting kids to school. We have in this budget honoured our commitment to enable families to get their childcare payments fortnightly, because we understand that that too will provide a bit of cost of living relief.

We understand that right around the nation there are families battling cost-of-living pressures. As a government we will be working with them, doing what we need to do to keep our economy strong, to keep people in jobs and employment, to make sure they have decent working conditions when they are there—which is why we got rid of Work Choices—and to provide targeted relief in a budget that will get us back into black exactly as promised.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his own budget papers which state that a drop of just four per cent in Australia's terms of trade would wipe out the government's projected surplus in two years time. Treasurer, if Labor ever delivers its first surplus in 21 years, will it not be a surplus made in China and not made in Australia?

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

The shadow Treasurer is proof that hot air is not an economic policy. The fact is that we are bringing this budget back into the black, we are doing it by making savings, we are doing it in 2012-13 and we are doing it despite the opposition's fiscal vandalism and their refusal to support responsible savings. Fair dinkum! The shadow Treasurer was on television last night. He said on the one hand that it was too tough and on the other hand that we are not spending enough. This shadow Treasurer walks both sides of the street all the time. The fact is that we will come back to surplus because this government has done the hard yards. We have put in place the spending restraints that those opposite were not capable of exercising during their 12 years in government. We have average spending each year over the budget estimates increasing by just one per cent. When they were in power, it was increasing by 3.7 per cent. They went on a spending spree at the height of mining boom Mark I. We are doing the hard yards of bringing the budget back to surplus in 2012-13 by making $22 billion worth of savings and putting in place one of the biggest fiscal consolidations or returns to surplus that we have seen in this country.

The shadow Treasurer quotes some sensitivity analysis from the budget papers. That is not the central forecast in the budget papers and he seeks to misrepresent it. He seeks to misrepresent it for political purposes. We will come back to surplus in 2012-13, because that is the central forecast that we have from the advisers who work both with them as forecasters and with us as forecasters. We are doing it despite the fact that there have been substantial revenue write-downs. We are doing it because we have shown the strict fiscal discipline to bring our budget back to surplus, a discipline that those on that side of the House simply do not understand.

We are coming back to surplus and we are doing it in a responsible way with a very strict fiscal policy and we will do it in 2012-13. We will build surpluses after that and we will continue to apply our two per cent cap. There is a stark difference between the approach of us on this side of the House and the approach of those opposite. What they want to do in reality is to wreck the surplus. If they succeeded in wrecking the surplus, they would put price pressures into the Australian economy and all Australians would be the victims of that.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the Treasurer's statement that the coalition was reckless with its spending during its term of government. Treasurer, will you confirm that at no stage over the next four years will this government get spending as low as it was in the last year of the coalition, at 22.9 per cent of GDP?

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

You have to give him points for trying. Our forecasts in this budget show the fastest fiscal consolidation in history and $22 billion worth of savings. The reason we are in a position to come back to surplus in 2012-13 is that we moved to support our economy during the global financial crisis and the global recession. If they had been in charge during that period, deficits would be far higher and debt would be far higher right now. Our deficits and debt are lower than one-tenth of the levels elsewhere in the advanced world because of the courageous decisions we on this side of the House took to support our economy. The consequence of that is that there is low unemployment in Australia at 4.9 per cent, going down to 4.5 per cent. If they had been in charge, the starting point of the budget would have been higher deficits and higher debt. What we are doing now is bringing our spending down through a very strict cap.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was very specific. Will the Treasurer indicate where in the budget papers—anywhere—does this government get spending down to that in the last year of the Howard government?

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

The Treasurer will directly relate his response to the question.

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

We are controlling spending in a way which the Howard government was completely and utterly incapable of doing. The spending increases over their period, during the boom and over a five-year period, were 3.7. For us it is one per cent. That is all the evidence you need.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Our minerals belong to all Australians, yet much of the profit disappears overseas and the mining boom places burdens on the rest of the economy, where most people live and work. My own state of Victoria must compete with the miners for labour and capital, pushing up costs and restraining infrastructure investment. Despite this, the mining sector gets a big leg up in your budget on top of their free kick on the mining tax. Where is the plan for those sectors of the economy that are doing it tough at the moment because of the mining boom? Where is the plan for a sovereign wealth fund that can secure our economy after the boom is over? And, why are the priorities of the new economy, like building a smart electricity grid for clean energy, being slashed while the mining giants get a corporate tax cut and more taxpayer funded support?

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

I thank the member for Melbourne for his question because at the very core of the budget delivered last night is a plan to spread the opportunities of the mining boom to every corner of our country and to every postcode in our country. We are responding to the challenges posed by the mining boom which mean that some parts of the economy are stronger than others. And they mean that there will be a patchwork economy out there. Many small businesses and many towns which are not in the fast lane coming from the mining boom will face challenges because of this very strong investment phase into which we are entering. That lies at the very core of all the propositions put forward in the budget last night and goes to the very core of why the government put in place the mining resource rent tax, which will provide a stream of revenue to enable us to spread the opportunities of the boom to every corner of our country and to every postcode. That revenue—opposed by those opposite who have the ridiculous proposition that that somehow the mining companies are paying too much tax—will, first of all, mean that Australians get fair value for the minerals they own 100 per cent and, secondly, to give a helping hand and a lift up to those sectors of the patchwork economy that are not in the fast lane. So the revenue we are using from the mineral resource rent tax goes to invest in infrastructure, particularly in mining regions. That is very important economically. Also, we are going to assist those on low incomes with additional superannuation for all workers whose income is under something like $37,000. The member asked: what do we think about a sovereign wealth fund? With our superannuation accounts we have eight million of them in this country—a creation of far-sighted Labor governments which understood that we need, as a country, to save more. We want to boost in the superannuation savings of low-income workers in our community. And remarkably that is opposed by those opposite.

The other thing we want to do—and this is really important—is give some tax breaks to small business. With the revenue from the minerals resource rent tax we want to give a tax cut to small business, spreading it right around the country. It is very important to give that $5,000 instant asset write-off to small business because that really assists small business with their cash flow. In the budget last night we announced an addition when we said we would allow businesses to write-off the first $5,000 in the purchase of a vehicle like a ute. That will help a lot of contractors out there who are not in the fast lane and a whole lot of those tradies. We have a comprehensive plan to deal with the patchwork economy, to deal with the challenges that come from mining boom mark II, to spread the opportunities of it right around the country, not just with the opportunities coming from the resource rent tax but also in the skilling of our workforce because we need people in every corner and every postcode of this country to be the beneficiaries and the participants in the mining boom. All of the initiatives in the budget are aimed at that.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of delivering a fiscally responsible budget and how Australia compares internationally? How is this approach being received and what is the government's response?

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

I thank the member for Cunningham for her question because we are seeing the quickest return to surplus on record and that is occurring well ahead of comparable countries. Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada will not even have halved their deficits of a share of GDP by 2013. In 2013, the major advanced economies will still be in collective deficit of around five per cent of GDP and of course Australia will be back in the black. As I was saying before, we are doing that because we have put in place the essential savings—$22 billion worth of savings, two-thirds of those spending cuts. We are seeing the fastest fiscal consolidation on record.

I have seen some of the statements from those opposite but there has also been a number of statements from the market economists and the rating agencies. This is what the credit rating agency Standard & Poors said:

The deficits and additional borrowings do not alter the sound profile of Australia's public finances which remain among the strongest of its peer group.

Mr Blythe from the Commonwealth Bank said:

The Budget meets all the requirements of the government’s medium-term fiscal strategy … Our judgement is that this Budget largely delivers what is required from a short-term cyclical perspective. And it represents a step forward in setting up the economy for the longer haul.

That is the correct analysis of what we have done. We have the right fiscal settings for the future: bringing the budget back to surplus in 2012-13 and making sure we do not compound the inflationary pressures that will come from the mining boom.

Of course, the shadow Treasurer has promised to bring the budget back into surplus next year. So everybody in this House is waiting with bated breath to see the Leader of the Opposition come into this House tomorrow night and indicate how he is going to bring the budget back to surplus next year. I would not be too optimistic about his chances of that because, as we all know, following the last election the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation had a look at their savings and found there was an $11 billion hole in their savings. We look forward to seeing how they are going to bring forward the savings to bring this budget back to surplus. I think they have already said in the media in the last couple of days that they are opposing something like $3 billion worth of savings. So they are going to start a long way behind. We are all waiting with bated breath to see how the Leader of the Opposition is going to bring the budget back to surplus in the next year. Failure to do so will prove that all they are full of is hot air.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I am about to turn 21. No Labor government in this place has ever delivered a budget surplus in my lifetime. Why should anyone believe you now?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The House will come to order!

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

I thank the member for Longman for that question because under our youth allowance changes he would have to keep studying and not go on the dole. This is because we have a fundamental commitment to learn or earn as part of the participation initiatives we have put in place in this budget. So we have a fundamental commitment to a range of initiatives in participation and skills. We have a fundamental participation agenda which makes sure that people have the opportunity to participate in the workforce and make a significant contribution to our country.

It is a very serious question. We will come back to surplus in 2012-13 because we have put in place very strict fiscal discipline—the fastest fiscal consolidation that we have seen on record. We have put forward $22 billion worth of savings and our record stands in stark contrast to those opposite.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the budget help keep our economy strong and deliver more jobs for Australia?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McEwen for his question.

An opposition member: It is a hard one.

I do thank the member for McEwen for his question because I know, unlike those interjecting, that he is deeply concerned about Australians having the benefits and dignity of work. The story of this budget is a story of getting the budget back into surplus, as our economy requires as it moves towards full capacity. We will get the budget back into surplus in 2012-13, exactly as promised. It is the right thing to do by the economy and it is the right thing to do by families facing cost of living pressures.

But the story of this budget is also a story of jobs and opportunity. We believe in the benefits and dignity of work. We believe for Australians that a life of opportunity starts by having access to a job, and then by having access to skills and training and the means and wherewithal to get a better job—to get the next job and to keep progressing across their working lives. That is why when you look at the measures we have focused on in this budget, in circumstances where we have kept growth in spending so low, we have had to make tough choices but we have deliberately prioritised those things that go to give Australians a life of opportunity.

With the resources boom coming into full swing, and with unemployment moving down to 4.5 per cent, we have a historic opportunity to make a difference in long-term disadvantage in this country and to reach out to those Australians who are on the margins of Australia's life, who are on welfare and who do not have the benefits and dignity of work in their lives. That is, of course, about a pay packet and the choices that a pay packet gives you in your life, but it is also about the sense of self-worth and self-dignity—the personal connections and self-esteem that comes from having a job. We believe in the benefits and dignity of work. That is why we are so proud of having created 750,000 jobs and why we are proud that another half a million jobs will be created in the next two years. It is why we are so proud in this budget of the $3 billion skills package to give people new opportunities to get the skills they need to get their first job, to train again and to get a better job. Of course, the skills package comes with a profound reform agenda so that our training system can meet the needs of a modern economy, meet the needs of modern learners and meet the needs of our industries and businesses that most need access to skills during this phase of our economic growth.

This Labor budget comes with particular care and concern for those Australians who have been outside the mainstream of economic life: the very long-term unemployed, people with disability who can and want to work, single mums with teenage kids who need to get back into the workforce—a lifetime with a pay packet in front of them. These are Australians for whom we have shown care and concern. Yes, we have asked people to step up to new responsibilities and we have met that step-up with new opportunities to get people into work so that they can have a life and a life chance. This is a Labor budget through and through—delivered in the economic circumstances that the nation needs now and delivered by me as Prime Minister with Treasurer Wayne Swan and our economic team informed by Labor values which centre on giving people the simple opportunity of a job.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that next year's budget deficit will blow out $10 billion despite a fall in unemployment and stronger economic growth. I also refer the Treasurer to the fact that next year the government is spending $2.2 billion more than it is saving which will make the deficit bigger not smaller. Why is the government making it more likely that the Reserve Bank will raise interest rates in the next 12 months by its own actions of running a bigger deficit and bigger spending in an economy that is growing faster?

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

I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. The fact is that over the forward estimates we are saving $5 billion more than we will spend and, as I was indicating before, we will put in place the biggest fiscal consolidation—that is, return to surplus—we have seen since there have been records. We are applying a very strict fiscal discipline and not only will we do it across the forward estimates but we have indicated we will continue to do it until surpluses get back to one per cent of GDP.

The member for North Sydney goes on about the deficit this year and the deficit next year. It is very clear from all of the budget papers that we have had very substantial revenue write-downs, $16 billion worth of revenue write-downs over both of those years. That is what has contributed to the increased deficits in those years. Of course, the cause has been the global financial crisis and the global recession, and the other cause has been the natural disasters in Queensland, which have had a dramatic impact on growth, particularly this year. But the opposition, as usual, must have slept through the global financial crisis, the global recession and the natural disasters in Queensland, because they will never acknowledge the impact of those events on our budget line. They never want to acknowledge that impact because they know that, had they been in power during that period, they would not have moved to do what we did. Deficits and debt would be far higher right now and unemployment would be far higher now had they had been in charge of our economy during that period.

The member for North Sydney asked me about interest rates. I refer him to the statement on monetary policy issued by the Reserve Bank last Friday, which points out that the government is running a tight fiscal policy. It pointed that out and everyone can see it in the budget papers. If you go to the analysts, the market economists and all the rating agencies, they have all commented on the fact that the government are implementing its medium-term fiscal strategy on time. We are doing it and we are doing it successfully, and we are doing it because we have applied ourselves to a very strict fiscal discipline—not a fiscal discipline that those opposite applied when they were in government. I was asked a question about spending. Our spending will get down to 23.5 per cent of GDP, and that is lower than the average when those opposite were in government, bar for one year.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. How is the government delivering on its commitment to make mental health a priority in this term of government?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass for his question. For months now Australians have been saying that they want their nation to do better in mental health. The Prime Minister has said, 'For the nation to do better, we need to do more as a national government.' This budget delivers on the Prime Minister's commitment to make mental health reform a priority for this term of government. The budget delivers the largest ever mental health reform package with over $2.2 billion in new measures, including more than $1.5 million announced last night and more than $600 million announced over the course of the last 12 months. Combined with our additional investments in mental health subacute beds through the Health and Hospitals Fund and in the psychiatric workforce, the total commitment by the Gillard government in mental health tops $2.5 billion over five years.

We have listened closely to the voices of millions of Australians who live with mental illness and their families, their carers and, of course, the experts. This package takes action on their advice and I am glad to report it has been warmly welcomed across the sector and across the broader community. The package recognises the diverse impact of mental illness across a lifetime. It will build resilient kids. It will support teenagers dealing with the challenge of emerging mental illness. It will improve access to basic primary-care services for hard to reach groups across Australia and it will target—

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

The Minister will resume his seat. The member for Dickson—

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask a proper question.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Dickson on a point of order.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my point of order is on relevance. I do not know how the minister can be relevant when he is talking about the $580 million they have ripped out of health.

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

Order! The member for Dickson will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 94(a).

The member for Dickson then left the chamber.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is apparent that the member for Dickson could not get a question up in tactics today so he had to try a point of order.

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

The minister will go to the question.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This package recognises the diverse impact of mental illness across a person's lifetime. It will build resilient kids. It will support teenagers dealing with the emergence of mental illness. It will deliver more targeted primary-care services across the community and it will deliver targeted, intensive and integrated supports for adults dealing with severe and chronic mental illness. We take the COAG process very seriously, which is why we will be taking more than $200 million to the table later this year to help drive improvements in emergency departments and in supportive accommodation, as well as continuing our plans for a long-term reform roadmap over the coming decade. We will establish the first ever national mental health commission reporting not to any particular department but to the Prime Minister and to this parliament.

Unlike the opposition's policies, these measures are properly costed and they are fully funded. They keep in place the broader health reform measures that the opposition would have trashed, like the e-health record, by better targeted primary-care infrastructure for local communities, like more targeted hospital funding instead of continuing to send the states a blank cheque and, of course, like the GP after-hours hotline. This reform package is comprehensive, it is balanced, it is targeted across the lifespan and it will make a real difference to millions and millions of Australians living with mental illness and their families.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to Mr Ross Greenwood's advice to hundreds of thousands of Australians last night about the budget when he said: 'This does not take pressure off interest rates and interest rates are forecast to rise, and that is where the government had it within its own control.' Will the Treasurer advise Australians what the average mortgage holder will pay extra in mortgage repayments because of an anticipated one per cent increase in mortgage interest rates?

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

I am more than happy to answer the same question that was asked before, again. The fact is this: the government has in place the fastest fiscal consolidation on record, which is 3.8 per cent of GDP over two years. We have put in place very substantial savings. I have also referred to the fact that, last Friday, the Reserve Bank in its statement of monetary policy pointed to just how tight fiscal policy in Australia is. So any suggestion that, somehow, our fiscal policy—

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

Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, the Treasurer was asked how much the average mortgage will rise in terms of interest repayments. He was asked how much extra they would rise because of a one per cent increase in interest rates. He said he was asked the same question as before. He wasn't; it was a different question and I ask you to draw him back to it.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call and will respond to the question.

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

Mr Speaker, I was making the point that fiscal policy is tight and fiscal policy is getting tighter. That is the point that I was making. Of course it has been the point that has been made today and last night by any number of market economists. I will quote Tim Toohey, Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs: 'It proposes a budget that represents the biggest fiscal contraction since 1970, when comparable data commenced. The budget makes a genuine attempt to keep its commitment to return the budget to surplus.'

The opposition are out there quoting all sorts of people. Moody's said: 'Australian government debt remains the lowest of all AAA rated governments in the world.' The fact is we do have a fiscal position which is the envy of the world. We have low net debt compared to any of our peers and we have the strictest fiscal policy in place as we go forward, not just over the forward estimates but in the years ahead.

What this government will not do is what the coalition government did when, at the height of a mining boom, they went on a spending spree. They neglected to invest in infrastructure and skills and they had 10 interest rate rises in a row. I am sure everybody in Australia understands that. We understand how important it is that government actions do not compound price pressures which flow from the investment pipeline that we are seeing. That is why we have in place a fast fiscal consolidation. The only threat to those fiscal settings are those opposite, and if they want to vandalise the surplus, they will live with the consequences.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government supporting Australian families through the budget and are there any threats to this support?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Parramatta for her question because she knows that last night's budget delivers for Australian families. We are delivering extra financial assistance for low- and middle-income families, especially those families with teenagers. Of course, it is this government that is also delivering for those families who need intensive support alongside tougher obligations for those families who are living in areas of entrenched disadvantage. We want to make sure that they get the extra help they need to make sure that they can get the skills to make them ready for work so they, too, can share in the benefits of our economic opportunities.

The highlight for families in last night's budget is the increase in family tax benefit part A for those families who have teenagers aged between 16 and 19. This is an increase in the amount of money that families with teenagers will receive and it will be a cost to the budget of around $770 million. That is $770 million to boost support for families. Of course, if you are a family on the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A, that will mean that you will get an increase of up to $4,200 if you have a child aged between 16 and 19 and that child is still attending secondary school. What this will, in fact, do is increase support for 650,000 families over the next five years.

The government is introducing this change because, currently, assistance drops by $150 a fortnight when your child turns 15. Whose policy would that have been? Of course, it was the Liberal Party's policy that they had for 12 years that saw family tax benefit part A drop when your child turned 15. Our reforms, which we introduced in last night's budget, will fix exactly that. The vast majority of Australians who have heard about this reform support it. I do say 'the vast majority,' and you would be surprised to wonder that there are some—not many, but some—who do not. They seem to me to be so out of touch with the needs of families that they are not supporting this idea. You might wonder who I am referring to. It is none other than the member for Sydney.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney—sorry, Tanya! The member for Sydney is a big supporter. The member for North Sydney, when asked on ABC TV's Insiders if he would support the government's extra assistance for families with teenagers, said:

… I'm curious as to why the government is proceeding with this …

That is what the member for North Sydney said on Sunday: 'curious'. The opposition is curious as to why you would want to give extra support to families with teenagers. This shadow Treasurer is out there with Alice in Wonderland. I will tell you why we want to give extra support to families with teenagers: it is because they cost more as they get older. We want to keep them in school and it is only the Liberal Party that opposes it. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the Australian people of the dollar figure in his budget for net government debt in 2011-12, as well as the total dollar amount for interest payments needed to service that debt?

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

There is no secret about net debt. Net interest payments are $5.5 billion in 2011-12. There is no secret about that at all. And net debt is 7.2 per cent—that is, $106 billion.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order!

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

It is truly amazing that those opposite would carry on like this when we have a net debt level which is the envy of the developed world. The reason we have that net debt level is that we moved to support our economy during the global recession, which saved the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians and kept open the doors of tens of thousands of small businesses. This was a very important support—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. In the new period of the new paradigm answers, when he must be directly relevant—in addition to the requirement within the Practice that question time be a time for eliciting information—would the Treasurer please answer the question as it was asked.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I think we are now in the older period of the new paradigm. I think that if people were quiet and listened they might get information that they are actually seeking, but they do not hear it because they are not listening. The Treasurer has the call; he will respond to the question.

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

I would like to quote the credit rating agency Moody's. Moody's said about debt:

Moody's notes that Australian government debt remains among the lowest of all AAA-rated governments.

Of course that is the case. We have one of the best positions in the advanced world, and one of the reasons it is that low is that we moved to support our economy at a time of threat. Those opposite want to continue to pretend that the global financial crisis did not happen, that a global recession did not happen and that it did not wash through or touch our economy. It did, and it had a dramatic impact on revenues and it would have had a dramatic impact on employment if they had had their way. We moved to support our economy. We took on a modest level of debt to keep Australians in work and to keep the doors of business open, and Australia is all the better for it. We will come back to surplus in 2012-13. We will build surpluses, we will pay down debt and we will do that with a really healthy, strongly growing economy, which would not be the case if those vandals over there had been in charge.

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

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the government's investment improving and reforming health services and how has this investment been received?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I know that when I visited his electorate with the member for Corio the local community received—in some cases with tears in their eyes, as was the case with the nurses at Geelong Hospital—the news that the cancer centre that had for so long been their dream in Geelong was coming to reality. That is because in this year's budget we have allocated $1.8 billion—$1.3 billion of that being spent on 63 projects across the country in regional Australia. This has been received so well in the community that I have to report to the House that something incredibly strange happened. That incredibly strange thing was that the member for Indi actually said thank you. The member for Indi said thank you to the government for the $65 million being invested in the Albury regional cancer centre, which forms part of 24 cancer centres across the country. This has been made possible because this is the government's fourth health reform budget in a row. It is a health reform budget that proves that we did not have to choose between regional Australia and mental health. We did not have to choose between health reform and mental health. We have been able to fund all of those priorities because of the good work done by this government, by the Treasurer and by others and because of the priority that we give to investing in important health services that are needed across the country. Unlike those opposite, we have been able to fund each and every one of those commitments.

I know in communities such as Wagga, Palmerston, Hervey Bay and Bega—all across the country—people are very grateful that these investments have been made. Of course, my friends, who are sitting together—the member for Lyne, the member for Denison, the member for O'Connor and the member for New England—have also had their communities very enthusiastically receive news of our investment in hospitals not only in their electorates but in many other electorates as well. We are not just investing in infrastructure. The sorts of initiatives that the minister for mental health has already taken the House through show that we are serious and show the community that we will listen to their concerns. I want to take this opportunity to thank not just the minister for mental health but all of the advocates that he worked very closely with to make sure that this package was truly going to meet the needs of the community. It would truly meet the needs of those young people who needed support, it would not neglect the needs of children, it would look at the needs of adults with severe and persistent mental health problems and it would put pressure on our state colleagues to work with us to invest more to make sure that our hospital services whether they are in the acute system, the hospital services, or whether they are in the community, working with GPs and psychologists and others, provide better services for those who have been falling through the gaps for far too long.

But the real question now for the Leader of the Opposition, having seen the fourth health reform budget in a row, is for him to be able to articulate on Thursday what, as a former health minister, he would prefer to do in these areas and to tell us for once how he would actually fund those initiatives. We know last time when he tried to fund some of these packages that he wanted to stop funding e-health, even though as health minister he promised to. He wanted to close super clinics. He has never once said whether he supports these regional hospital projects across the country, and it is about time he told us if he did.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why is the government cutting the budget of ASIO, Customs and deferring or cancelling $2.4 billion worth of defence projects when it cannot protect and secure our borders?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. What I can say to the member is that if he studies the details of the budget papers and particularly the announcement made by the Minister for Defence last week, he will find that there has been some movement of capital for issues associated with the procurement of that capital and then of course there have been arrangements made on the civilian side, the public service side, of Defence for new efficiencies, which will occasion a reduction in jobs—that is true—but they are on the public service side. So the member asking the question should not be seeking to mislead Australians and to pretend that the positions that the Minister for Defence has been referring to are positions that are in some way associated with patrolling our borders. The truth is and the truth remains that this government has more assets patrolling our borders than ever before. The member who asked the question has some expertise in relation to judging these issues, and he should use that expertise—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Sturt is warned!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member who asked the question has some familiarity too with the complexity of dealing with asylum seeker questions. What the member, I think, should recognise on a fair reckoning is that the statement put out by me and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, a joint statement, is an innovative approach under a regional framework to a truly regional problem. When you are dealing with this problem, if you are not working regionally then anything you seek to do will ultimately come to nought. So we will continue to pursue our work as announced by the minister for immigration and me on Saturday, and I would counsel the member and the Leader of the Opposition that, amongst all the distortions they are currently engaged in with the Australian community, they do not add misrepresenting the defence position of this nation to the list.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, how will the budget help drive reform and investment in the area of transport infrastructure and particularly for the Pacific Highway?

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

I thank the member for Page for her question and her ongoing commitment to infrastructure on the Pacific Highway. Like the member for Richmond and the member for Lyne, she has campaigned long and hard to make sure that we deal with this most vital of roads that has been identified by Infrastructure Australia as an absolute priority.

Last night's budget provided additional funding of $1.02 billion for the Pacific Highway, bringing the federal government contribution to $4.1 billion over seven years. That compares with our predecessors who contributed $1.3 billion over 12 years of neglect. Indeed, if the former government had contributed at the same rate as this Labor government, the Pacific Highway would now be fully duplicated, finished, done and dusted. You would expect, as the member for Lyne and the member for Richmond and the member for Page and others have welcomed this announcement, that across the board this would get support. But, of course, we have an opposition that cannot read the budget papers and simply does not understand infrastructure. The member for Cowper has actually been out there saying that this is just a reallocation of funds, that there is nothing new there. The budget papers make it clear that of the $1.02 billion $270 million is a reallocation agreed between the government and the O'Farrell government and $750 million of that is absolutely new money. It is adding up to an additional 1.02 billion, and the clown over there, the shadow minister, just says, 'Oh, it's not. Forget about what the budget papers say.'

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

Order! The minister will withdraw.

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

I withdraw. It is now since 2009 that I had a question on infrastructure from the shadow minister opposite. So you have the local member for Cowper and when he goes and has a look at the work taking place—today more than a thousand workers are in place working on the Pacific Highway—and what is happening on the Kempsey bypass, well, maybe it's a mirage! Well, I tell you what: the incoming New South Wales government have built a viewing platform at the Kempsey bypass so they can look at our dollars at work, so they can look at our jobs taking place. The shadow Treasurer has gone further. The shadow Treasurer has said that this is just for planning and he cannot understand why it is just for planning. It is not. What it will do is enable construction to be brought forward including on the Frederickton to Eungai section, which is where the Clybucca bus crash happened all those decades ago. Two decades ago it happened, but it has taken this government to provide the funds. We provided $58 million for planning in 2009. Now we have provided an extra billion dollars to make sure that construction can be brought forward. This is a government that believes in nation building. This is a government that is delivering.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer to the requirement to repair and rebuild the Villawood and Christmas Island detention facilities following their incineration and destruction during the recent riots at those centres. What will be the cost to taxpayers of this rebuild and can the minister refer the House to the page in the budget papers where that figure is stated?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I cannot refer him to the page in the budget papers because it is not in the budget because it is covered by insurance policies.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was: what was the cost?

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

Order! The member will resume his place.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the budget help regional communities embrace the challenges of an economy in transition?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Bendigo for his question, because he has been a passionate advocate for his region, his patch of the great Australian economy that is in the Bendigo region. The budget rightly identifies Australia as an economy in transition, and of course if we are to meet the challenge of what that economy in transition means it does require us to look at the initiatives and the funding proposals that help us diversify the economic base. Also it is not just a question of getting the programs in place; it is essential that we get the delivery mode right. And the truth is that the budget also recognises that delivery must recognise the patchwork nature of the economy because it is giving greater emphasis to delivery through the lens of localism through the regions.

As for the programs that are important, in addressing one of the key ingredients as to how we transition an economy, how we drive the economic diversity, it is skills development, because without the skills, without building the skills base, we run into a self-imposed constraint. Accordingly, the budget makes significant commitments to targeted incentives to develop the skills. It does it through the National Workforce Development Fund and it is complemented by significant initiatives that improve participation. It also identifies 16,000 places under the Regional Skilled Migration scheme. But if they are to work properly for the various patches, so if we are to get the patches working properly, we have to have the input at the local level that identifies what their needs are, where they identify what their skill shortages are and what their training needs are. They access these programs by a matching of skills required with skills supplied.

That is why another pleasing dimension of this budget is the extension of the opportunity to local employment coordinators, in conjunction with the regional development network that we have established, to undertake skills audits so that regions themselves can best identify and match. The last time that this was effectively done it was done by a Labor government. It was done by a Labor government with me as the minister for education. That was when we introduced the area consultative committees whose task was to match supply with demand. This was a terribly effective program. When the others inherited office they kept the area consultative committees in name but never utilised them to their full capacity. They sent them off on a regional rorts program. The member for Indi would well remember one of those regional rorts because it was the cheese factory in her electorate that was on the nose, went bust—wasted money. But the truth is that we are going to go back to this successful model. This budget lays the foundation for it. We did it then and we will do it again. It will only happen under the stewardship of a Labor government.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, 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.

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

Mr Speaker, the agreement that we reached with the government and the crossbenchers at the end of last year, on 6 September 2010, said at paragraphs 4.3 that question time will conclude no later than 3:30 pm—it is quarter past three—enabling 20 questions each day in the normal course of events. The point is that there have only been 19 questions today. It is not yet 3.30 and therefore the opposition has the next turn for questions, and 20 questions would then allow us, because question time has not finished at 3.30, to ask our next question.

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

Order! The House will settle down. There is no point of order. Proceedings have occurred as is allowed by the standing orders. The member for Menzies has been very well behaved. As a reward for his good behaviour, I wish to inform the House that it is the 20th anniversary of his election at a by-election on 11 May 1991 and I think that individual members' significant anniversaries of that nature should be acknowledged in the House, and I do so sincerely.