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. Now that the government has revealed details of its spending on the National Broadband Network totalling $18.2 billion over the forward estimates, including $4.4 billion in 2012-13, will the Treasurer confirm that, if this government spending were added to the budget bottom line, the budget would be in deficit rather than surplus up until at least 2014-15?

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

Mr Speaker, that question just demonstrated why they refused last year to adhere to the Charter of Budget Honesty. Of course, last year we found, when all of their commitments were finally examined by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, that there was an $11 billion hole in their savings. What they demonstrated there was gross incompetence, yet again.

The member knows full well that this is an investment with a return and therefore we are perfectly entitled to account for this the way we have—and, indeed, we have accounted for it in full in the budget. It is all there for everybody to see—the nature of this investment and the size of this investment—and we do not apologise for it for one moment, because this is a critical piece of nation-building investment which will lift the productivity of our economy. It will be of particular benefit to those in regional areas. It will lower the cost of doing business. It will connect regional Australia—places like Mackay, Townsville and Gladstone—not just to the national economy but to the international economy, so there is a very strong case in economic terms for the investment that we are making.

We should never forget that our investment in NBN is a very substantial microeconomic reform, a microeconomic reform that those opposite were not capable of implementing during their 12 long years of being in government and ignoring the problems. We had the guts to face up to structural separation, to make these decisions in the interests of the Australian people and to make the investments for the long term. I am not surprised you do not get it on the NBN, just like you did not get it in the middle of the global recession.

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

Order! The Treasurer will refer his remarks through the chair.

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

You would have let small business swing. You would have seen Australian workers out of work. You simply do not get it when it comes to just about any area of national economic policy.

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. You have already asked the Treasurer to refer to people by their correct titles. We know that he is having a very bad day, but he should not be defying your ruling and he should return to acting as a responsible Treasurer with a steady hand, unlike so far today.

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

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer of course knows the requirement to refer to people by their parliamentary titles, and I remind him to refer his remarks through the chair.

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

We have accounted for the NBN in our budget papers and in our forecasts and in our projections in the same way the previous government would have accounted for it had it been in power right now. We are using the same rules. We are using the same officials. The same people are doing the forecasting. The same people who enforced the rules on the previous government are enforcing the rules on us. For the opposition to come into this House and try and discredit those approaches, which were ones that they used in government, just shows how reckless and how irresponsible they have become. They are just demonstrating yet again that they are not capable of managing a modern economy, which requires judgment and discipline. What we are getting is a reckless rant from those opposite, having a tantrum because they are in opposition.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. How has the government's record investment in mental health been received? How have key stakeholders been involved in the development of this package?

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

I thank my good friend the member for Banks for his question. This week's budget delivered the largest mental health package in our history. It is a balanced and a comprehensive package targeted across the life span. It is important to acknowledge that this was the result of the work of an expert group appointed by the Prime Minister to work intensively over the course of summer to develop the best directed, best targeted package possible. This group included well-known figures like Pat McGorry, Ian Hickie, Monsignor Cappo and Christine Bennett; consumer and carer representatives; and paediatric, GP and psychological experts, as well as Mission Australia and Employment Services Australia.

It is perhaps not surprising, given that stakeholders largely designed this package, that they have warmly and overwhelmingly welcomed it. Frank Quinlan, the new head of the Mental Health Council of Australia, said:

Today is a very good day for the mental health sector—increased investment, reform and better governance and accountability in mental health …

I could read many other endorsements, but I will resist labouring the point.

There have only really been two opponents to our package—the opposition and the AMA. The opposition has been out there suggesting, among other things, that this $2.2 billion is back ended. It is natural, of course, that transformative reform will involve an element of scaling up, but the parliament should be very clear that the two biggest injections of new money in this package are in year 1 and year 2, and the new money in year 5, out of the $2.2 billion, is just $50 million, about two per cent of the total package.

The other voice of protest is the AMA. The recent evaluation of the Better Access program clearly showed that GPs have been getting paid over the odds under that scheme. For a referral consultation under Better Access, which data shows us takes on average 28 minutes, they have been getting $163. For a standard consultation under Medicare that lasts more than 40 minutes, a GP will get $99. That is two-thirds more money under Better Access for one-third less time. This budget brings the Better Access rebate back into line with a standard-time consultation under Medicare, but it still gives GPs a 27 per cent premium on top of that if they have done six hours of mental health skills training.

In anyone else's book—maybe not the opposition's and maybe not the AMA's—that is a good deal. That is a fair deal for general practitioners. That is why this redirection has been supported by, among others, the Consumers Health Forum, the Australian General Practice Network, Professor Patrick McGorry and Professor Ian Hickie. This package will make a real difference, and perhaps it is time that the opposition came in from the cold and got behind it.

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 outline in simple dollar terms the budget bottom line or estimated budget bottom line, as the case may be, for each of the last four budgets he has delivered?

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

They are all published in the budget papers and I am not going through a pop quiz in this parliament.