Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Bass for putting this important motion before the parliament. Like the member for Bass, I too have mixed feelings about this motion, because, as I reflected in my maiden speech just one week ago, we are a state of makers. We are producers and we do it well: cheese, wine, machinery, vegetables and beef—on these fronts we are second to none. Yet, despite our reputation for excellence and innovation, Tasmania is found wanting on just about every significant economic and social indicator available. As this motion notes, Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita of any state—approximately 20 per cent lower than the national average. We have the highest unemployment rate at well over eight per cent, the lowest year 11 and 12 school completion rates, with less than 50 per cent of students in my electorate of Braddon completing school, and the highest number of people who will enter their retirement with little or no money in the bank to help them live out their lives in relative comfort.

The dire economic situation in which Tasmania finds itself is not an aberration of accepted economic theory—it is not the doing of the Tasmanian people themselves, nor is it the result of some unfortunate natural disaster. No, the reality is that Tasmania is languishing at the bottom of the economic and social ladder of this country as a direct result of a disastrous era of Green politics, intervention politics and, in the last four years, a coalition of Labor and the Greens, with two Greens in the cabinet. This has had dire consequences for the confidence afforded to the Tasmanian economy.

It is no coincidence that when Labor linked arms with the Greens on the Treasury benches of both parliaments, the relatively strong economic position of the state began to falter and over the last four years 10,000 people have lost their full-time jobs in Tasmania. Tasmania has the highest unemployment rate of any state, which is somewhat hidden by the ever-growing number of fly-in fly-out workers. I meet more than enough of them on aeroplanes each time I board. There is also a hidden problem of the high underemployment rate, where approximately 14 per cent of participating women and 18 per cent of men struggle to get the number of hours of work in a week to balance the family budget. Where they may have had 26, 28 or 30 hours a week, they are now getting 16, 18 or maybe 20. That is a huge impost on our families. Sadly, we have the relocation of whole families to the mainland in search of employment—and you cannot question their motives.

We have the lowest proportion of private sector employment compared to public sector employment—and that is a real concern of mine. We have the highest dependency ratio percentage of any state or territory. We have the lowest gross state product per capita, 20 per cent below the national average. Private business investment is only 1.3 per cent of Australia's total and well below the national average over the last decade. We have the lowest proportion of adults in Australia who have attained a year 12 qualification and the lowest retention rates to year 12.

We have the highest proportion of population with a low-income card, those receiving an age pension, a disability support pension, Newstart allowance, single-parenting payment, parenting payment partnered or youth allowance. Sadly, we have the highest standardised death rate due to suicide of any state, which breaks my heart. We have the highest proportion of dwellings provided for housing owned by either state or federal governments. We have the second longest—although I think it may now be the longest—elective surgery waiting list in the country and the highest proportion of people without superannuation coverage.

Where does that take us? I recall in the lead-up to the federal election that I and my colleagues with me in the chamber, the member for the Lyons, Mr Hutchinson, and the member for Bass, Mr Nikolic, had several momentous discussions with the alternative Prime Minister. Whilst it would have been easy for us to say, 'Mr Prime Minister, all we need are mountains of cash to hand out in our electorates to win our seats,' that was far from our minds. We have all been around long enough to understand that has been done to death and, despite record levels of funding, educational and health outcomes are still the worst in the nation. This goes to show that it is not always about money, but it is about better policy.

These discussions led us and our Senate colleagues to discuss the need for an economic growth plan for Tasmania. This plan would undertake to highlight some structural deficiencies in the Tasmanian economy. We also highlighted the need for infrastructure. I believe through that process we have ended up with a document which, whilst some may not see it as exciting as a $25 million cheque coming their way, if the Tasmanian people can grasp the reality of the needs confronting us and can be patient enough to see the structural change, we will see a definite improvement.

The Institute of Public Affairs only a year or so ago calculated the proportion of Green bureaucrats employed by state governments across the country. It was very interesting and I will cut to the chase: in Victoria one Green bureaucrat is employed for every 1,746 residents. Have a guess at how many in Tasmania? It is one for every 387 residents. I am sure Mr Wilkie, the Independent member for Denison, will be just as interested in that, given his media alert this morning, which I thank him for, highlighting this debate—and I might take up one issue in that alert. But I am sure even Mr Wilkie would understand that that is an unacceptable situation in a population of 500,000 people. It is noted that we have doubled the number of green bureaucrats since 2007.

Investment in much-needed infrastructure has been forgone in my state in favour of public sector growth with no multiplier or wealth-generating benefits. If you want to see benefits, you give confidence to those who can invest their own money. You get behind them and you put in the structural changes that are required. You put in the policy agendas that are required. You do not just go and increase bureaucratic numbers.

In the face of the ever-increasing Tasmanian bureaucracy, the coalition has not initiated in its growth plan a one-stop shop for environmental approvals—I might have a little bit more to say in the debate on the environmental amendment this afternoon in the chamber. But that has been widely welcomed by businesses.

Small businesses are the real job creators and often are more resilient to economic downturns and have a stronger commitment to maintaining their employment base during difficult times. However, small businesses, to get started and to prosper, need to be released from their tax burdens such as the carbon tax, the provision of modest company tax relief and the cutting of red and green tape.

It does bring me to the media alert of the Independent member for Denison which I said I welcomed. His concluding statement was: 'There must be a fairer deal for Tasmania's 32,000 small businesses, many of which are being crushed by high power and sewerage bills,'—granted, and I agree—'excessive rates, payroll and land taxes and the predatory behaviour of Woolworths and Coles'. I would humbly ask that the member acknowledge that we went to the election to get rid of a massive tax that the Productivity Commission has just proven has cost the economy $6 billion and basically made no difference to carbon emission reductions. So I was a little bewildered that there was no sign in the concluding comments of Mr Wilkie of his support for the repeal of the carbon tax, which I think would be welcome given that we have won a mandate for that—certainly in Tasmania—and it is certainly contributing to the high energy costs of Tasmania, and contributing to the ongoing costs to small business. So I would welcome his support on that.

There are a number of other issues, which time will not allow me to speak about: obviously freight, as I mentioned in my maiden speech, continues to be a recurring theme in any discussion about our future. I know that the member for Lyons, the member for Bass and I are absolutely committed to getting the best outcome on that. We believe that there are solutions to the vagaries of that system. We are also suffering from the loss of a solid international shipping container operator. I welcome the initiative of the state Liberals in the lead-up to the state campaign to put $11 million a year on the table to try and entice a private investor into that market.

As I said last week, we have such great potential but we are being held back, and it is our commitment to ensure we get the structural change that we need.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good morning to my parliamentary colleagues from Tasmania. I will address just one point very briefly before I turn my focus to the motion that we are discussing today: the issue of a price on carbon. I would ask the government to be mindful that the repeal of a price on carbon will mean that we will lose the $70 million windfall that Hydro Tasmania will enjoy this financial year and in successive years. So I do not want to get into a slanging match or argy-bargy about the price of carbon. What I would ask the government, though, is to be mindful of the cost to Tasmania of overturning the price on carbon. I think it would be an entirely appropriate in the circumstances if the government would consider somehow compensating Tasmania for the loss of that $70 million benefit that is being enjoyed by Hydro in this financial year.

Tasmania is obviously a place of enormous unrealised potential. It is a wonderful place. I chose to move there in fairly recent years, and I am very pleased with that decision. It is the jewel in this nation's crown in so many ways. But Tasmania will not release its potential until at least three things are done. First, there needs to be a collegiate, multilateral political approach to remedying the problems and the challenges that Tasmania has. I am pleased that the debate today has started in a very gentlemanly and collegiate way, and I would hope that that continues. When this debate started last week, I was disappointed to see that there was too much mud-slinging and political pointscoring. I think that is one of the reasons we in Tasmania find ourselves in the circumstances that we do. I am certainly more than prepared to work in a collegiate manner, in a non-partisan way, with the members of all of the political parties to try and find consensus, and to try and find ways to move the state forward. The future of my home state of Tasmania should be above party politics and political self-interest. We have a state election coming up in a few months' time, and there are political reasons for trying to score points at this point in time. But I would ask that we put them aside in the interests of the state.

Second, Tasmania will not achieve its potential until governments, both state and federal, put in place the enablers of economic development. It is no good—and politicians are guilty of this all the time—jumping to stage 2 of the plan; for example, that we will be a food bowl, or that we will increase the size of the university, or that we will increase niche manufacturing, like high-technology catamarans at Incat—but that is actually the second stage of a plan. The first stage is to put in place the enablers of economic development. There are a couple that come straight to my mind. For a start, we need a better quality of governance in Tasmania—

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the member for Bass, who has just walked in, would probably agree with me that we need a better quality of governance. That is not me trying to score points, or trying to attack any particular party or any particular government. But it has been the case in Tasmania that we have had a sub-standard level of governance, quite a lot, in recent decades. So I will look with great interest at the state election, and I hope we will see all of the political parties put up better-quality candidates. It is not true that we get the politicians we vote for; we actually get the politicians that political parties let us vote for. I will be looking with a keen eye, and I will be passing compliments when they are due and criticism when it is due—that is, according to whether the political parties put up good candidates or poor candidates. We need strong political leadership.

We also need to get the cost of moving freight across Bass Strait down. It is an absolute absurdity that three-quarters of the cost of getting a 20-foot container from Hobart to North America is getting it from Hobart to the Port of Melbourne, and that only one-quarter of the cost is getting it from Melbourne to North America. It is an absurdity that, to get a container of raw material inputs for our business in Tasmania, one-quarter of the cost of moving that container is getting that material from China to Melbourne, and three-quarters of the cost is getting it from Melbourne to Hobart or somewhere else in the state. I was very disappointed to see the Tasmanian state government not challenge the Victorian government on the $75 million annual port licence fee that it requires the Port of Melbourne authority to pay the Victorian government every year. I am advised that that port licence fee imposed by the Victorian government—which effectively applies to everything coming in and out of Tasmania, because it all goes through Victoria—is effectively unconstitutional. It is a tax on interstate trade. The Victorian government is acting quite improperly—and I think the Tasmanian government knows that, but it does not have the strength to take on the Victorian government in the courts. If we could get rid of the $75 million port licence fee imposed on the Port of Melbourne, that would bring down, or help to bring down, the cost of freight in and out of Tasmania.

There are then any number of specific policy reforms that could be implemented—and implemented quickly—to help Tasmania. I ask the two members of the government who are sitting in the Federation Chamber today: please go back to the government and ask the government to reconsider the decision to axe 56 federal public service IT jobs in Tasmania and send them to the mainland. I ask the government, in a collegiate way, to reconsider that. Fifty-six IT jobs in a workforce as small as Tasmania—that is a lot of jobs. That decision would seem to be entirely at odds with this government's stated intention to help Tasmania out. To strip out 56 federal public service jobs from the state—mostly out of Hobart, I suspect—is at odds with that stated policy position of the government. It could be reversed today. Today the minister could stand up and say she has directed the parliament not to go ahead with axing those positions.

Another thing the government could do today—we do not need an inquiry but could do this today—is say something about what has happened to Qantas. What is the relevance of Qantas to Tasmania? Among other things, there is a call centre in Glenorchy city employing more than 200 of my constituents. They are nervous; I have had a lot of correspondence from the workforce in Glenorchy saying they are worried about the future of Qantas and their jobs. If the federal government wants to do something today, the Prime Minister or Treasurer could put our minds at ease about the future of Qantas. I would favour the federal government taking a financial stake in the airline and giving Qantas the financial muscle to compete with its competitors, all of which enjoy largesse from their own governments, whether the Singapore or New Zealand government.

Finally, we need to do something about small business in Tasmania. We do not have a big mining industry or a big manufacturing industry, but we do have a big, vibrant and important small business sector. There are something like 32,000 small businesses in the state. On Saturday night I had a cup of tea with members of the Syrian community—there are about 300 Syrians in my electorate. Everyone there is a small-business operator; many have corner stores, takeaways and so on. They said they are being crushed by the cost of doing business in Tasmania. For example, a corner store doing groceries and some takeaway food pays up to $40,000 for electricity in a year. That is unaffordable. One businessman told me he pays $600 a year for someone to inspect his grease trap. They pay excessive rates, but do not get basic services such as garbage removal. They pay excessive payroll and land tax. There is also the predatory behaviour of Woolies and Coles. The federal government could do something about this predatory behaviour, but in the 43rd Parliament, when the member for Kennedy and I asked for that, we could not get any support. These corner stores are being driven out of business. When Woolies and Coles charge $1 for a litre of milk or a loaf of bread, the corner stores cannot compete.

There is so much we could do for Tasmania at the state and federal government levels. We need to work collegiately and do what we can—and we need to do it really quickly.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge some of the comments of the member for Denison, particularly in relation to the carbon tax. Whilst Tasmania has advantages in its large generation of hydroelectricity, the cost of electricity has still been going up in recent times. The cost of the carbon tax on the broader economy, particularly small businesses with refrigeration costs, is substantial. I believe that the government's Direct Action policy will be a great opportunity for Tasmania. We have opportunities with our forests to put in place abatement to the advantage of Tasmania in the longer term.

I turn now to the motion moved by my colleague the member for Bass last week and I note the economic growth plan for Tasmania. How has it come to pass that Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita in Australia, the nation's highest unemployment rate, the lowest proportion of adults in the nation who have attained a year 12 qualification and one of the nation's lowest retention rates to year 12? It has the lowest population growth and the highest proportion of Australians without superannuation coverage. There is also a growing sovereign risk to investment opportunities in Tasmania. Unfortunately, under state and federal Labor-Green governments it has become too hard to risk capital in Tasmania. This must change.

There is no better example of the state's dire social and economic circumstances than in my own electorate of Lyons, which is the biggest Tasmanian electorate, covering more than 50 per cent of the state. The majority of the electorate is rural and focused on agriculture; the state's once mighty forestry industry; and, to a certain extent, mining. Towns such as New Norfolk and Deloraine, but also very small communities like Triabunna on the east coast and Meander, have relied for generations on the wealth of the surrounding rural industries to maintain their economic viability. Tasmania does indeed have the highest unemployment rate in the country—now well over 8½ per cent in trend terms, compared to the latest national average of just over 5.6 per cent. In Lyons, the average unemployment rate has for several years been even higher than the state average. In 2013, Lyons had 3,652 of Tasmania's 17,600 unemployed people.

Building approvals in September 2013 were 5.7 per cent lower than the previous September, according to a Australian Bureau of Statistics survey released last month. It is an indictment on the lack of confidence in the Tasmanian economy as it stands. The spin-off effects of the deconstruction of the state's forestry industry, along with other challenges such as rising energy costs and the high value of the Australian dollar, have hit all businesses, including the big four employers—Norske Skog in my electorate, Nyrstar in Denison, Bell Bay Aluminium in Bass and Grange Resources.

The latest ABS Labour Force survey, released at the end of October, revealed that the number of unemployed men grew from 4,600 five years ago to 12,400 in 2013. The number of unemployed women grew from 5,900 to 8,900 in the same period. Unemployed people who work in mining, construction, accommodation and food service experienced the largest percentage growth over that period. It is nothing we should be proud of. We hear much about forestry jobs lost in recent times, and it is important to remember that when we describe the forestry industry it is never about those people felling trees in the forest or even driving cartage equipment; it is rather about the takeaway shop at the little town of Cressy in my electorate; the tyre business that supported the infrastructure around the industry; and the engineering shop that employed 10 or 15 people in a community like Launceston. The flow-on benefits of the forestry sector were enormous, and Tasmania is hurting as a result of its deconstruction by Labor and the Greens.

Despite the hard times that challenge Tasmania, there are those who are striving to be part of the state's inevitable economic recovery. In agriculture, we are seeing both local and foreign investment in the dairy sector. In fact, we have excess capacity on the north-west coast of nearly 75 per cent at the moment. The Big Picture project, which was launched recently, is another excellent example. Nyrstar, Grange Resources, Bell Bay Aluminium and Norske Skog already contribute over $1.5 billion to the state's economy every year. The Big Picture project aims to make Tasmanians aware of the enormous contribution that these companies make and of how they want to grow their investment. These major employers pay more than $300 million in salaries annually. The mining and manufacturing industries in Tasmania are worth $3.5 billion, and they are $1 billion ahead of the next largest industry. In the example of Bell Bay Aluminium, $200 million is spent with local suppliers every year.

Tourism is also a vitally important part of industry within the state of Tasmania, in particular, on the Tasman Peninsula. Recently, I welcomed some funding, under the government's T-QUAL program, for Matt Dunbabin, who has a business near the fire-ravaged town of Dunalley, which suffered so badly in the January bushfires. Those sorts of investments in regional tourism will encourage more visitor stays and more opportunities for those people who seek to visit the state's premier tourist attraction, Port Arthur, to spend an extra day on the Tasman Peninsula.

Last week, at the Australian Export Awards, Prime Minister Tony Abbott paid tribute to Australia's Regional Exporter of the Year, a small business located at Cressy in my electorate. It is a privately owned business, but it has tripled its employees in the past three years by expanding exports to the Middle East and Asia—a great example of the innovative, committed and hardworking people that epitomise the character of Tasmanians.

I refer back to the motion and the key points with regard to the economic growth plan that was launched during the election campaign. The coalition believes that the economic course of Tasmania can be reset to one of growth, jobs and rising living standards for all Tasmanians. And we will deliver.

Under the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments there were no new, additional jobs created in Tasmania. In fact, during that period almost one in 10 full-time jobs were lost. There is no avoiding the fact that Tasmania needs to be more competitive. It must have much greater incentives for the private sector to invest again, innovate and create jobs growth in Tasmania. Tasmania can be competitive, particularly in the resources, forestry, fisheries, tourism and agricultural sectors within the state. We have so many natural and competitive advantages that can provide greater, long-term benefits for Tasmania, including renewable energy.

Amongst the announcements that we made and that we are committed to delivering during the term of this government is a major projects approval agency, a one-stop shop for major projects. This will reduce some of the sovereign risk issues associated with investing in Tasmania. The sum of $3,250 will be provided to businesses which are willing to take on and keep on, in addition to existing assistance, unemployed people for an additional six months.

Most importantly, the Joint Commonwealth and Tasmanian Economic Council, including representation from the Prime Minister and Treasurer, will put Tasmania's economic issues at the forefront of the Commonwealth government policy agenda. We announced: $38 million for the upgrade of the Hobart International Airport; $400 million for the Midland Highway; $100 million for mobile phone black spots, which will be very welcome within the vast electorate of Lyons; $24 million for Antarctic research and to establish an Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research Centre in Hobart; $13 million for the Sense-T project; and also a vegetable industry task force in Tasmania. I commend the federal coalition's economic growth plan for Tasmania, which will provide the architecture to help turn around the state's economy.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the good state of Tasmania and about the good things that are happening there. As we know, there are some difficult circumstances and difficult times facing Tasmania which have been long running. There have been situations and matters at hand that are not as a result of this current economic period but of many decades.

What is confusing, though, is that members from Tasmania come into this House and talk down their own state. I find that quite confusing. This motion is more about all the things that are wrong with Tasmania than the things that are right with Tasmania or the work that can be done to improve the lot of the great state of Tasmania. I look through this motion, moved by the member for Bass, at the bits referring to some negative things and also where Tasmania does not quite lift to the standard that we might all expect and then see that it quickly shifts to just looking for someone to blame, or quickly shifts to just saying, 'It's just somebody's fault.' I think it is actually a little bit more involved and a little bit more complex than that.

Reading this motion highlighted to me that this is the state of a confused government—a government that is still confused about its role in what it might be able to do for the state of Tasmania and in fact for this country; about whether it is still in opposition or whether it is in control of the reins and levers of the economy; and about what it should do. Instead of talking down an economy, it should be talking up an economy. Instead of highlighting the problems, which anybody can do—it is very easy to do; anybody can highlight problems—it should provide concrete solutions. Plans are many. When you have only been in government for five minutes, you have all the plans in the world. Let us just see how those plans work out. I wish them well on this, because I think the good people of Tasmania deserve to do well and to do better.

We heard other members talk in here about some of the long-run issues that have not been resolved. They were not resolved in the Howard government years and they were not necessarily resolved under us either. But I will say this: we stood up for the Tasmanian economy and the Tasmanian state, and we will continue to do that. The confused circumstances that the government find themselves in are reminiscent of the confused circumstances they found themselves in with what they said before an election and where they are after an election, particularly in our relationship with Indonesia. They are not sure which they are anymore, but there is always a price to be paid for the things that are said and done before an election and the things that must be done after an election.

So it is very easy for government members to come in here and write these long private members' business motions talking about how bad things are in Tasmania, but they take no responsibility. They will not take any responsibility if things do not necessarily improve all that much, and they talk about the jobs that have been lost in the past. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that things might have been worse if it were not for some of the good things that the Labor federal government did while it was in government.

I can tell you this: if you come into this place on a promise of building a million jobs, you have to start somewhere, and you do not start by sacking people, such as people directly in the IT sector down in Tasmania. You do not create jobs in Tasmania by sacking people in an industry where there is a potential for growth, you do not shift public servants from Tasmania back to the mainland if you want to create something positive for the Tasmanian economy, and you certainly do not walk away from the workers of Holden in South Australia if you are serious about building a million jobs. I recall something really specific that the opposition used to say to me all the time when we were in government.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, talking about Holden in South Australia is not relevant to the topic under consideration.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are right: there is no point of order. Perhaps when the member has a bit more experience in this place he will understand that. But the reality is that, just as the government walked away from workers in South Australia, you are doing the same thing in Tasmania. You have walked away from public servants and you are shifting them from Tasmania straight back across to the mainland. That will not help in Tasmania. You are a government of three years, so start acting like a government. Start laying out the proper plans. Instead of saying you have the lowest qualifications and the lowest of this and the lowest of that, come in here and talk about the positive plans, because I do not see too many positive plans contained in this.

As I said, this is a government that is wracked by confusion. Government members will come in here with their confected anger and they will carry on about a range of things, but let me tell you something else that we did in government: we looked after low-paid workers, particularly women. There are two million women in Australia who are paid less than $37,000 a year, and they got a very important bonus through their superannuation, called the low-income superannuation contribution. Many of those are in Tasmania, and that is what is most upsetting about this: when you rip that away from these people, you rip it away from the Tasmanian economy. You rip it away from the people who need it the most.

When it comes to private sector jobs, let me tell you about a lot of the things that Labor did in government, particularly for small business. We injected more than $5 billion worth of direct assistance. I went and visited Tasmania and held some small business forums around some of these issues, and there were a lot of complaints and a lot of different issues, but I tell you what: we were there with money on the table, $5 billion worth of direct assistance, from which Tasmania benefited directly. But when the coalition comes to power what does it do? It rips that away. I want to see someone explain to me how $5 billion less in the small business world can directly help. There was the uncapped, unlimited $6,500 in direct assistance with the instant asset write-off.

I would like to see how that is explained to Tasmanian businesses when they go to write a cheque and are about to buy a piece of equipment and they realise that that piece of equipment is no longer covered and they will not get that direct assistance. Tasmanian small businesses will be directly worse off to the tune of real dollars, and they will make an economic decision. They will say, 'Well, we might just hang off on buying that piece of equipment or employing that extra person.'

But the Tasmanian state government, on the other hand, has actually taken direct action, unlike the direct action that has been taken by the coalition government now, which is to rip money out, rip out superannuation, rip a whole heap of things out of that economy, rip out the Public Service jobs, rip out public sector jobs—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order?

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 66A, would the member tell us how many jobs were created under the former government's plan in Tasmania?

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Perhaps with experience the member across the chamber will learn that those things are—

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was an intervention. It was your opportunity to tell us how many jobs you created.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we did was to specifically focus on all the things that are good in the things that you can focus on. Tasmania has lots of great opportunity, including a state government that has directly stumped up to create jobs. Let me talk about job creation, because this is how you create jobs. Right now, there are 2,250 small businesses that will benefit directly from changes to the payroll tax exemption threshold announced in the Tasmanian state budget. From 1 July this year, the threshold at which the payroll tax kicks in will be raised from $1 million to $1.25 million. This will directly support 2,250 businesses. It is estimated that this will add an additional 1,400 jobs. That is how you create jobs. You reduce the payroll tax. You do positive things.

An honourable member interjecting—

Unless, of course, the LNP, the coalition government, are opposed to job creation and opposed to payroll tax reduction? This mob are—and this is where I started—confused. They are just confused. They do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha, whether they are coming or going. They are confused as to whether they are now actually the government or still in opposition, just tearing things down.

You criticise everything. You make the world sound a lot worse than it is. And it worked very well. I will give you credit. You are the masters of doing a great job of throwing rocks, tearing down, blowing the place up. You did a really good job of it. I commend you for tearing down the economy, because no-one did it better than the opposition, now the government! The Liberal and National parties were absolute experts.

But now you have a new job. The government's job now is to support the economy, support the states, support job creation. Get on with the job of being in government. Get on with supporting all the great things about Tasmania. Support the state government in Tasmania, which has done some very good things in job creation and in bringing down average unemployment rates through these changes to payroll tax.

There is one thing I know from small business: no matter where I go, in whichever state, Tasmania included, if I am talking to them, they say, 'One of the biggest things you could do is reduce payroll tax.' And that is what a Labor government has done. That is what we have done. And then I heard before that one of the government members wanted to talk about renewable energy. Well, hello, which century were you born in? Renewable energy is something that the Labor Party supports, helps create and fund—actually do something—because we understand that the future of this country is actually in renewables, clean energy. That is why I said—

Honourable members interjecting—

I will finish, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through all the cacophony on the other side, I will finish on a positive note. I love the state of Tasmania, and I will not be talking it down; I will be talking it up.

Debate adjourned.