Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to continue my remarks on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and the related bills. As I finished last night, I was reflecting on the fact that the Forde electorate remains one of the fastest-growing regions in South-East Queensland but has often been overlooked for infrastructure. There continues to be a huge potential for small business to thrive, not only in Beenleigh and its surrounds but throughout the electorate and the entire country, thanks to the coalition's positive plans for the future.

I recently spent some time doorknocking in the Upper Coomera area of the electorate. It is always wonderful to get out into our communities and have a listen to what they have to say, unfiltered by the daily glare of the media. In Upper Coomera the No. 1 issue is infrastructure related. Exit 54 on Days Road is notorious for its lengthy delays and congestion during peak hour and at school drop-off and pick-up times. One of the residents who takes her children to school just outside the electorate at Helensvale said that her return journey would normally take 10 to 15 minutes, but during peak hours when she is taking her children to school it can take up to an hour to complete.

Last year we put together a petition for the local residents to sign, to voice their concern over the issue, and that petition remains open and has already received more than 1,000 signatures. Along with my colleague Stuart Robert, I have recently raised this issue with the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and we will continue to pursue the upgrade of this area until this issue is resolved. This issue is important because, in the surrounding area, there are nearly $1 billion worth of planned developments over the next five to 10 years, and it is critical that we get this infrastructure in place to facilitate those developments.

Other issues raised by local residents include cost-of-living pressures, particularly with the cost of electricity, and the need for more local jobs. I have just touched on the $1 billion worth of planned developments, and, with that, local job opportunities will be created. I spoke to a construction worker who said he had to travel three hours a day to get to a job site because of the lack of local jobs. However, he was confident and positive that things were picking up in the building industry and he hoped to be working closer to home in the not-too-distant future.

Most of the residents I have spoken to feel confident about the direction and actions the government is taking. It is great to get a positive response to the work we have been doing since being elected. But we still have a lot to do. The Rudd-Gillard government's six years of chaos, waste and mismanagement delivered higher taxes, record boat arrivals, and debt and deficit as far as the eye can see. It would have been nice to inherit a $20 billion surplus. We would have been able to do so much more for our communities. Not only did Labor inherit a $20 billion surplus; they left behind a $30 billion deficit and turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into projected net debt of well over $200 billion—the fastest deterioration in debt, in dollar terms and as a share of GDP, in modern Australian history. They left us with over $10 billion a year in net interest payments and they left us with a jobless queue almost 200,000 people longer than when they started. More than 50,000 illegal boat people arrived on Labor's watch, creating an $11.6 billion blow-out in border protection costs. I could go on. Suffice to say, the purpose of these bills, along with the other actions we are taking as a government, is to end the waste and bring the budget and the financial situation of this country back to order so that we can fulfil our promises and leave a positive inheritance for future generations to come.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and the cognate bills. I notice this debate is one of three items listed for today. One of the other items is the address-in-reply. Normally these debates would be taking place in the Federation Chamber but, because this is a government that essentially has not got any legislation before the House, the debate is taking place in this chamber. The positive element of that, Madam Speaker, is your presence in the chamber here this morning. Therefore I am very pleased to make a contribution about the appropriations bills on the floor of the main House of Representatives chamber.

Governments need money so they can maintain the business of government while also funding the implementation of their legislative programs. But when we consider appropriations, it is reasonable that we also ask ourselves how the government has been performing. The amendment before the House goes to that, and that is what I would like to make a contribution about today.

Members, of course, would remember that during the last term I frequently accused the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, of being addicted to negativity. I argued that the then opposition leader did little more than recite three-word slogans about how Labor was bad and the coalition was good. It was a bit like the farm animals in the famous George Orwell book Animal Farm bleating their slogan, 'Four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad.' But instead it was, 'The coalition good, Labor bad,' whatever the issue.

We have seen that played out in the parliament today and in recent days over the issue of Qantas, where the coalition have purported to argue that it is the pricing of carbon that has made a difference to Qantas, whereas the facts, of course, are that Qantas and Virgin both asked and lobbied to be included in the scheme, and that was one of the changes that were made. They lobbied me as the transport minister, they lobbied then Minister Combet and they lobbied all of the government ministers about being included in the scheme. That is not surprising, because aviation is a global industry in which the pollution caused, including carbon pollution, is an externality that has a price to it. If you remove the pricing of an externality in the production process, what you are doing is deferring payment onto someone else. That is the way that it works. But still the coalition, addicted to the old slogans of opposition, are continuing to put them forward.

It is a problem, because a coalition that spent all of its time being negative clearly just did not do the hard yards on what it supported. It did not develop new policy. Its only policy is to undo Labor reforms, and that comes through in the comments with regard to the government's now preferred option of removing any foreign ownership restrictions from Qantas. Back in December 2009, the government of the day produced the first ever aviation white paper, a program to take aviation forward for decades and not just for a year or a political term. It recommended the removal of the 35 and 25 per cent restrictions on Qantas. It was a minor change compared with the government's rhetoric of today, but it was rejected by Joe Hockey, who was then the shadow Treasurer, and by Warren Truss, who was then the shadow transport minister and, of course, had been the transport minister at the end of the period of the Howard government. They rejected it because they said that any weakening of any of the foreign ownership restrictions in the Qantas Sale Act would lead to a loss of the national interest. Warren Truss, as the shadow transport minister, stated very clearly that it was particularly against the interests of regional communities that there be any weakening of those restrictions. So, together with the Greens political party, the coalition blocked a suggestion of a minor change to the Qantas Sale Act, yet it says today that it wants to throw out the whole of the section that makes Qantas an Australian airline.

They did not do the hard yards in opposition; they just said no to everything. We have seen very clearly over recent months confirmation of the fact that the coalition had a plan to get into government but they did not have a plan to govern. Today they are still acting like an opposition. Mr Truss, as the now transport minister, said very clearly in December that it would be a waste of political energy to attempt to get rid of the Australian ownership provisions in the Qantas Sale Act. He said that because it was a fact in terms of the composition and stated position of the current make-up of the Senate as well as the future make-up of the Senate after July, but he also, very interestingly, said that a majority of the Australian people had that view as well. Today that does not seem to matter to those opposite.

Today we are in a position whereby we are debating these bills and the address-in-reply. The address-in-reply could keep going till 2016 the way this mob are going. They have no legislation before the House—no plan. They spent three years saying no to everything and coming up with three-word slogans, and now they are finding out you cannot put three-word slogans into legislation. That is why today we are having these propositions.

In my area of infrastructure, transport and tourism the government has done nothing but talk big about how investment in infrastructure can drive economic growth, but at the same time it is planning a budget in which it will cut billions of dollars out of infrastructure funding. They are saying they will remove the $3 billion that has been allocated for the Melbourne metro project. They are saying they will remove the $715 million for the Cross River Rail project. They will remove the $500 million that has been allocated for public transport in Perth.

What they are doing, of course, is going around the country and reannouncing projects that have already been funded and that are near completion. These are projects like the upgrade of the Brisbane Gateway Motorway north, which is nearing completion of one section; Brisbane's Legacy Way project; and the Midland Highway project in Tasmania. They are reannouncing funding of $210 million for Cape York. The have announced the package to upgrade Western Australia's Great Northern Highway and North West Coastal Highway and are pretending that these are new announcements.

It was a rather amusing political shambles by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, who went down to Tasmania and announced funding for Huon salmon which had already been announced by Minister King of the federal Labor government last year. It was rejected then by those opposite but announced on the same day that the government's media spin was that they do not fund any projects in regional communities. This was an extraordinary proposition. You have minister after minister running around the country, embracing any announceable even if the 'noalition', as I described them so accurately in the past, opposed it when it was first delivered by Labor.

Then there is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Bob Baldwin, who apparently—it is not quite clear—might have some responsibilities for tourism. The parliamentary secretary announced on 29 October last year that the incoming government would scrap Labor's TQUAL grants scheme to encourage tourism operators to invest in lifting the quality of their products, but only a month later Mr Baldwin visited a New South Wales koala sanctuary, where he purported to announce a TQUAL grant worth $110,000. Mr Baldwin tweeted a very cute photo of himself with a koala. It is unclear which one the koala is—I notice those opposite trying to discern a distinction. Mr Baldwin made an announcement of a project which, a month earlier, they had said they were scrapping. What is more, a Senate estimates committee hearing on 21 November heard evidence that Mr Baldwin had a very limited role in tourism despite his enthusiasm to associate himself with the industry. The general manager of Tourism Australia, Deborah Lewis, told the appropriate Senate committee:

The role for Parliamentary Secretary Baldwin is to wind up the current discretionary grants program and then his role will cease in tourism.

What sort of government gives someone a job to cut things and wind things up, and then that is it, with no future vision, no role going forward? We should not have been surprised by that because when the Prime Minister announced his first cabinet after taking office, he forgot to announce who had responsibility for tourism. It is one of the nation's biggest industries, employing more than half a million people, yet there is no minister for tourism among those opposite. They also do not have a minister for science. They just forgot who was responsible at the time. They could not even determine which department tourism is allocated to—an extraordinary proposition and a huge embarrassment for those opposite.

Most governments come to office chock full of ideas—but not this one. They are a group of people ready to say no, no, no, as they did when they were the opposition—no ideas, no plan and no vision. That is what happens when people are addicted to negativity. When it comes to policy development, they want to turn Infrastructure Australia from an independent adviser into a politicised lap-dog. They want to remove the ability of Infrastructure Australia to publish its findings. They want to ensure that there is no independent ability to look at projects. Indeed, they want to remove the ability to look at whole classes of infrastructure. What might that be aimed at? That is aimed at not looking at public transport. They do not have vision and every single day that is reinforced. You cannot run a government with three-word slogans, and the mob opposite are proof of that.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. These bills seek appropriation authority from the parliament for the measures announced since the 2013-14 budget. The most significant items for appropriation are just over $8.8 billion to the Department of the Treasury for a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank to meet its request to strengthen its financial position; and just over $2.5 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade re-appropriating amounts previously provided to the former agency AusAID which are required this financial year for expenditure by DFAT.

This debate is an important chance to discuss how our government is working hard to build a strong and prosperous economy, to get Australia back on track, to tackle the $123 billion of accumulated deficits that we face in the forward estimates the $667 billion of debt that is crippling our nation unless we take the appropriate action in the next few years.

I noted with some bemusement the member for Grayndler's discussion about negativity that we have just heard in this chamber. It is remarkable that the Labor Party spent most of its six years in government condemning its prime ministers—first Prime Minister Rudd and then Prime Minster Gillard—in what was the most destructive campaign, the most negative campaign that we have probably ever seen in this parliament, tearing down not just one prime minister but two prime ministers. The Labor Party was ripping itself apart. I have to say I find these quaint comments about negativity fairly amusing. Look at what happened in my electorate as a result of the former member, Darren Cheeseman, coming out and condemning Prime Minister Gillard's leadership. I know the member for Ballarat was fairly upset about that. By doing that he ensured that the rollout of the NBN in Corangamite was basically left off the list. The people of Corangamite were punished because of what the former member did. He also placed in jeopardy a whole range of other projects because of his conduct in ripping down a prime minister. As I say, when we look at negativity the Labor Party knows no bounds.

In contributing to this debate I reflect on my own electorate of Corangamite and the damage that Labor has caused over the past six years. Look at the carbon tax. Again I find it amusing that the member for Grayndler is holding up the carbon tax as a great achievement for the airline industry. The fact of the matter is that the carbon tax is costing Qantas $106 million and Virgin $27 million in one year alone. Let me quote Mr Borghetti, the CEO of Virgin:

The best assistance the Government and the Opposition can provide is the removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars and to that end may I say we applaud the Government's position on this.

What we are trying to do is unshackle the airline industry, put Qantas on a level playing field and get rid of a tax which is causing a hit to manufacturing of $1.1 billion a year. The carbon tax in my electorate is a tax on manufacturing. It is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on the people of Geelong.

When I hear about the infrastructure achievements of the previous government, I reflect on the so-called support that Labor provided for one of our most iconic tourism roads, the Great Ocean Road. We were very proud of our $50 million commitment, combined with the state, for the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road—one of the great tourism icons of our nation. What did Labor do? Labor campaigned against it in a very destructive and negative way. Our minister for tourism is in the chamber, and I can say that we are incredibly proud of our commitment to tourism. We know how important tourism is to our economy. We have shown that in our actions and we are delivering on the commitment that we have made in my electorate to the Great Ocean Road.

Another great infrastructure project we are investing in is the duplication of the Princes Highway—$257.5 million for the duplication of the stretch of road between Winchelsea and Colac. On 26 May 2010 the member for Grayndler claimed, obviously quite incorrectly:

The Federal Opposition has abandoned its promise to duplicate the Princes Highway between Winchelsea and Colac, exposing the spin and dishonesty of Phoney Tony’s candidate for Corangamite Sarah Henderson.

Clearly, the member for Grayndler was not cognisant of the facts. He was not cognisant of what we were planning to do, and within a month, unlike Labor, we proudly announced our commitment, and Labor was left kicking and screaming just a couple of days before that election in matching our commitment. Here already we have seen a couple of examples on those very big infrastructure projects where the member for Grayndler has let Australians down and has also misled the people of my electorate.

We are very proud of the work that we are doing in my electorate to create jobs. I would like to draw your attention to this morning's Geelong Advertiser:

Job scheme starts rolling: hundreds of positions likely as government, car industry help fund factory.

This is an example of the work we are doing to create new jobs, to bring new opportunities to our region and to look at the new industries that we need to invest in.

Yes, we have had some tough times but let us not forget that we have seen thousands of jobs lost under Labor in my electorate: 510 job losses just at Ford alone, and there were Qantas, Target, Fonterra and Boral. It has been a very sorry couple of years because of Labor's policies and what they have done. The Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, which is a combined fund from the federal and state governments and also Ford—and we do thank Ford for its contribution of $5 million to this fund—is getting on with the business of investing in new industries and new opportunities.

Yesterday, it was with great pride that we announced $5 million to Carbon Revolution to invest in a $23 million project which will take Carbon Revolutions manufacture of carbon fibre wheels from around 4,000 a year to 50,000. This is going to help make Carbon Revolution a tier 1 auto component manufacturer, selling their product to the world. This is a great story; carbon fibre is a great story for our region. This is an example of the sort of work that we are doing in advance manufacturing.

I also want to note on that point that round 2 of the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund is now open. It opened yesterday and it is open until 29 May. This provides businesses in my region, in my electorate, with a great opportunity to look at how we can work with industry to grow new opportunities and to deliver more jobs to our region. I do want to make the point that despite the name of the fund, this fund also extends to the Colac Otway Shire. So this is a great opportunity for the communities in the western part of my electorate to have a look at how we can support industry and work closely with industry to create jobs and to drive innovation in our region.

We are also working very hard as a region to bring an incredibly important project to Geelong. This is the LAND 400 Defence project, one of the biggest army projects of this generation. I have to commend my community in Geelong, led by the City of Greater Geelong mayor, Councillor Darryn Lyons, for being so proactive in championing our city and in telling the nation of our capacity, skills and potential to be the home of a LAND 400 project.

On Friday, the Assistant Minister for Defence, the Hon. Stuart Robert, will be visiting Geelong and providing a briefing to industry and community leaders. I am very excited about the prospects of us putting our best foot forward to become the home of LAND 400.

We are very proud of the election commitments that we have made in Corangamite, and it is a good opportunity today as part of this debate to remind the nation and to remind the people of my electorate about what we are doing. We have heard, of course, about our commitment to the duplication of the Princes Highway, which is so important in so far as bringing new industries, new opportunities and new investment to our region. Of course at the moment there is the $171-million duplication works underway on the stretch between Waurn Ponds and Winchelsea. It is terrific to see that work underway and we are hoping that we will be able to unveil that road by the end of this year.

We have made some really important local community infrastructure commitments: $3.5 million to build a new sports pavilion at Shell Road Reserve in Ocean Grove. It is great news. That application has gone into the City of Greater Geelong and has been returned. So we are moving very quickly to deliver that funding, because for the people of Ocean Grove not having a proper sports pavilion has been an open wound in their community for some 20 years.

We are doing the same in Colac at Colac Central Reserve—$2.5 million towards the upgrade of a new pavilion there. We have committed $300,000 to the Surf Coast Solar Towns Project. That is a wonderful opportunity and it shows our commitment to renewable energy. We will be making an amount of $300,000 available so that local community groups—the surf clubs, the senior citizens clubs—can apply for some funding support to put solar panels on their community buildings. I am a great believer in the strength of solar. I think every house has the potential to power its own future with the use of solar. This shows a great commitment to the environment and to renewable energy.

We are also investing $200,000 for new lights in the Burdoo Reserve in Grovedale. These commitments are very important because they go to our commitment to local communities. For the people of Grovedale I know how much this is going to mean for the young teams in football and in netball for the adjoining Grovedale College. Again, another example of our investment in local communities.

We have our Green Army projects being rolled out. In my electorate there are four Green Army projects. This is a great commitment not just to the environment but also to engaging and employing young men and women to give them the opportunity to work on a project, to build pride, to build skills and to give them opportunities for the future.

I am also very proud of some significant commitments that we have made since the election. We have committed $3 million to the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases. This was also a commitment of the previous government. But, unfortunately, like so many commitments that we saw, they never got around to signing the contract. As we know, without a contract, it is very hard to deliver the project. One of the things that I have said to every group who has been successful in achieving some funding through us is: 'If there are any pick-ups, if there are any problems, come to us straight away. We will cut through the red tape, we will cut through the bureaucracy, to make sure that we deliver these projects quickly and efficiently, unlike what happened under Labor.'

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to talk today about the budget hysteria that has been provoked by the government and to talk a little bit about what the reality is. I want to set out some of the facts. According to the Treasurer and according to so many people from the government side who have spoken on the appropriations bill we have a debt crisis in Australia. The first thing to note is that in November 2011 the Labor government achieved something that the Howard government had not been able to achieve during its entire 11 years of tenure, and that is three AAA credit ratings—AAA credit ratings from Moody's, S&P and Fitch. So let us get this very clear: when we look at those bodies that have been established to make an assessment—an objective, non-political assessment—of the financial standing of a government, it was only the Labor government that was able to achieve a AAA credit rating. I repeat that: during Mr Howard's entire reign, not once did they have a AAA credit rating during the entire 11 years. I think that is fact No. 1 that we really need to get very clear.

And then we talk about the debt. We tend to talk about the debt with reference just to the absolute numbers. It is like saying that a debt owned by Andrew Forrest is the same as a debt owned by Ivy the pensioner from down the road. Clearly the issues that surround debt are relative, and of course we have, in the analysis of government, a way of assessing the size of that debt in terms of its relationship to the GDP to give us an appropriate scale. Because if you are dealing in debts, then debts of billions of dollars have less significance than if you are someone who has only got an asset base that can be marked in millions. So when we go and have a look at the net debt to revenue ratios, we find in Australia that our net debt to revenue ratio, again as assessed by the IMF, is around 11.9 per cent. We are right down there at the bottom of the world's advanced economies. The United States has a debt to revenue of 84 per cent; France, 84; Belgium, 82; United Kingdom, 81; Germany, a very solid economy, 57; Netherlands, 32; Korea, 33; and I think, from recollection, Singapore is right up there around that level. So when we look at the large world economies, their net debts to GDP are vastly smaller than ours. All of this pontificating about the absolute figures is just completely amateurish. We must always consider our debt position in relation to our GDP.

There was an interesting contribution by the member for Reid the other day in this debate. He was saying he had found some very disturbing figures, because he did not like the ones that the opposition had been putting forward that had been decided by the objective bodies of the IMF and the world's three government sovereign credit rating agencies. He did not like those, so he thought he would come across an analysis. It was very interesting. He did a comparison of Australia's performance with that of the EU, and he said, 'In Australia, over the last six years, we've had a GDP growth of 16.7 per cent compared to the GDP growth in the EU of 1.4 per cent.' So 16.7 to 1.4—I think that sounds pretty good for Australia. He then looked at our terms of trade growth. Our terms of trade growth over that time was 18 per cent. And he looked down and he says, 'In the EU, their terms of trade growth was -1.9.' Around those two very clear parameters, Australia clearly is doing so much better than the other advanced economies of the world. But then he finds that because the debt deterioration position is around the same—the GDP 20 per cent and in Australia 22 per cent—then that is proof we have got it all wrong.

I would say it is proof of the absolute opposite. We all went through a global financial crisis, this was a crisis that affected the world, and economics around the world had to engage in various processes of fiscal stimulus. What these figures show is that Australia—while engaging in, you might say, a quantum of fiscal stimulus that was equal to around that which was used within the EU—has been able to produce extraordinary results. So, far from this demonstrating some deficit in the performance of the Labor government, it just shows how carefully targeted our plan was. Of course, with any massive rollout of a fiscal stimulus we can point to a school hall here or a pink batt there that was less than optimum in its delivery—there is absolutely no doubt about that. We are not saying that you could ever claim that when you are rolling out a multibillion dollar fiscal stimulus and attempting to get it underway in a very short space of time in order to stop the economy going into the sorts of spirals we have seen elsewhere around the world.

I know every side always wants to develop and protect its legacy and every other side wants to pull that down. But we go back to the objective analysis and the fact that, notwithstanding this global financial crisis, it was under a Labor government that we achieved something that the Howard government was never able to achieve, and that is three AAA credit ratings. And we have a very, very low level of debt. Of course we recognise that before the GFC the debt levels relative to GDP were indeed lower—we absolutely acknowledge that. But you must also acknowledge that the extraordinary circumstances that confronted us during the GFC needed to be responded to. I believe a very clear demonstration of that is that we have been able to see the growth levels that the member for Reid was talking about the other night. I am glad he pulled those figures out because they are important, and it is good to see the government members acknowledging that we had GDP growth of 16.7 per cent compared to the EU's GDP growth of 1.4 per cent and that our terms of trade improved 18 per cent.

But there is a very clear agenda here, as well as the cost-cutting that is going on. We are seeing a deterioration in employment levels. We are losing many jobs. The government are presenting a very clear picture—almost clear: the exception is Cadbury's—of not being prepared to step in and protect Australian jobs and provide assistance to industry, so we are seeing the employment position worsening. There are a number of things we have to be careful of. One of them—and there are many commentators who are now saying this—is that, at a time when the economy appears to be contracting and there are an increasing number of job losses, it is very dangerous to be cutting public sector expenditure to the extent that is being proposed. This is particularly the case when the government have confected—to borrow the most favoured word of the government of today—a budget crisis. It is dangerous, in sexing up this confected budget crisis, if they are going to engage in a process of cost-cutting that has the risk of undermining what was a pretty solid financial performance over the six years of the Labor government. Many commentators have said this, including Moody's senior sovereign ratings analyst Steven Hess, who said there may indeed be 'economic consequences'—of a negative type—if spending cuts sapped demand. I think there has to be a great deal of caution.

We understand that the Treasurer is confecting a crisis, squirrelling away money, taking money out of the budget to put in the Reserve Bank well in excess of anything that could be reasonably required, and cutting and cutting in order to create a circumstance in two or three years time when he can say, 'We've got everything sorted, everything has been turned around and all of this crisis in our economy has been dealt with.' I put to you that there is no debt crisis. We have got three AAA credit ratings. We have got a very good performance.

Look at our big companies. If the carbon tax and the mining tax had truly been significant constraints on business you would not have seen the sorts of results we are seeing. The CommSec analysis the other day showed 93 per cent of the 138 companies reporting half-year results were in the black and two-thirds had grown their profits—and these are performances that occurred under Labor's watch. It showed 69 per cent of the companies lifted their dividends and it said:

The profit-reporting season has been outstanding and clearly the earnings results stand in marked contrast to the doom and gloom portrayed about the economy portrayed in the media … corporate Australia is in strong shape…

We have had the Treasurer and his band of merry men who have been talking on this appropriations legislation talking down the Australian economy, but Rio Tinto had a profit of $3.7 billion; BHP, a profit of $7.8 billion; FMG, a profit of $1.7 billion. These are record half-yearly profits for all those companies. And these are the companies that are paying the mining tax, so you have to ask yourself where is the evidence that the mining tax is driving down the performance of the mining sector.

There is a great need for us to ensure that we have proper investment in Western Australia and in Queensland, that we ensure that those mining states that are bringing home the bacon are given sufficient funds to deal with the very rapid growth that has been generated by these industries. But let us get the diagnosis right. We have got these mantras time after time which on any balanced representations of the facts just do not reflect the state of our economy, do not reflect the soundness of the management that Labor undertook over the last six years. We certainly were not perfect but we made the right and difficult calls during the GFC, and as a result we are so much better placed than the other advanced economies in the world.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to take the opportunity in this debate to speak about what I believe is a very positive, cost-effective and productive part of the Abbott government's education policy. At the outset I have to say that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government's record on education is perhaps one of its worst legacies. Yes, Labor managed to rack up record debt and cripple the economy, but it was in the area of education that they starkly displayed the most shocking record of waste, ineffectiveness and empty rhetoric.

It would take more time than I have today to detail the litany of failures. The school hall rip-offs resulted in between $6 billion and $8 billion being utterly wasted. Just stop to think about that amount of money. How much could have been achieved to actually boost teacher training and increase school standards? Then there was the failed laptops promise which resulted in another budget blow-out of some $1.4 billion. There was the promise of $10,000 to promote excellence in teaching and reward those teachers who were doing exceptional work. Not a cent was delivered to teachers and that policy was dropped. There was the Gonski plan, which generated an incredible amount of discussion, which promised so very much but which Labor ultimately reduced to a battle about funding models. Once again it was a lot of rhetoric and no real substance. We actually saw falling standards in literacy and numeracy under Labor's watch despite billions of dollars being spent. A report released last year by the Programme for International Student Assessment found that Australia has slipped from 13th place to 17th in maths skills, a significant drop.

The coalition government, thankfully, is taking a vastly different approach to Labor. Our approach is to unashamedly put students first. We want students to achieve their best possible outcomes and we will ensure we have the best quality teachers, the most relevant and practical curriculum and a culture of excellence in our schools.

I wanted to specifically talk today about the government's independent public schools program. One of the saddest aspects of the Gonski debate was the demonising of independent schools, a variation of Labor's old class warfare politics. The fact that we have a thriving independent sector means that we can afford to spend more on public education. State and federal governments would have to spend an extra $8.3 billion annually on education if we did not have an independent school sector. Much of the growth in the independent sector has been in low-fee schools, and part of the reason that parents choose to set aside that extra money to send their children to an independent school is so that they can have greater say and choice. That is precisely why the independent public schools initiative has been so warmly received. Both internationally and in Australia, evidence shows the advantages of school autonomy as part of a comprehensive strategy for school improvement. It is about making our public schools better and helping ensure that public school students are not comparatively disadvantaged. Let me be clear: independent public schools do not charge school fees. They remain part of the public education system. However, our policy allows these schools to enjoy many of the benefits of the autonomy and flexibility of an independent school.

I would also like to acknowledge that the Queensland LNP government is committed to helping schools transition to being independent. They began their program of transition in 2013, and I am delighted that our policy can further assist Queensland schools in this regard. In my electorate of McPherson we already have several public schools which have taken up the option of becoming independent public schools. One shining example is Varsity College, a P-12 public school with over 3,000 students. The school is both huge and hugely successful. Varsity College is the only P-12 school in Australia to have the distinction of being a 'Microsoft World Tour School' and is one of just over 30 in the world with this award for demonstrating innovation in education. Microsoft acknowledged Varsity College as a global leader for its ICT platform and has joined the school as one of its exclusive partners in learning. The school also has the only Chinese language immersion program in Queensland. The college clearly already had a culture of innovation and excellence and this is set to grow and expand even further with the autonomy it now enjoys since becoming an independent public school earlier this year.

Varsity College already has a strong maths and science program. As someone with an engineering degree who is passionate about encouraging more students to study maths and science, it is truly awesome to see such a program being run at one of my local schools. This special program will encourage and support those students with an interest in excelling in maths and science. Parents have absolutely supported this concept, with more than 400 attending a public meeting back in October. It is this sort of parent, community, business and school partnership that the independent public school model supports and encourages. Other schools in my electorate, including Palm Beach-Currumbin State High School and Tallebudgera State School, have also become independent. I congratulate the principals, teachers and other staff, and parents of these schools on being pioneers and striving to improve their schools.

There is no doubt that, with proper support, there are many benefits for schools that choose the independent model. I commend the government on this initiative, as I said at the outset. This is a very practical and cost-effective way we can help schools achieve better results. The $70 million we are investing in the Independent Public Schools Initiative is no doubt money very well spent. It is a fraction of the billions Labor wasted on school halls, but the big difference is that it is actually proven to get results, and that is where Labor got it so wrong on its education policy. It is not about how much money you throw at the sector; it is about what actually improves standards.

On that note, I would like to also say that I am delighted that we have appointed practical and pragmatic academics in Professor Kenneth Wiltshire and Dr Kevin Donnelly to head the review of the national curriculum. Once again, our national curriculum needs to be focused on student outcomes, not on ideology. It needs to ensure that students are equipped with the basic skills they will need, rather than concepts that are the fashions of the day. My hope is that a more balanced curriculum will put the focus back on subjects like mathematics and science. It is a great concern that we have seen a decline in the number of students and teachers in these disciplines. The Director of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, Geoff Prince, has outlined the extent of the problem. In an interview late last year he said:

Australian graduation rates in the mathematical sciences run at only half the OECD average for men and one-third for women.

…   …   …

More than 30 per cent of secondary maths classes are taught by staff not trained as maths teachers.

The fact is that since 1995 there has been a 30 per cent drop in students enrolling in intermediate and advanced maths, which has a flow-through effect on the supply of graduates, teachers and mathematically literate Australians in industry. This is causing a devastating ripple effect throughout higher education, research and industry. Sadly, we have seen this coming for some time. In 2010 a Group of Eight review carried out by the nation's leading universities into education in mathematics, data science and quantitative disciplines showed:

Professor Peter Dowd, from the University of Adelaide's Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, warned at the time that South Australia would not be able to produce 'even half' the engineers needed to keep up with major defence and mining projects in that state. The time is clearly well overdue to address this shortage.

I note that the New South Wales government, according to reports last month, is considering making the study of maths compulsory following an inquiry into the state's skill shortages. The Chair of Applied Mathematics at the University of Sydney, in arguing the case for further maths study, outlined examples where basic maths has been lost to the workforce. She said:

"In centuries past we still had brick layers who could count three by four metres—nowadays we don't anymore.

"A lot of people, for example those who want to go into nursing, don't think they need maths, but when they come to university they get a shock when they find out they need to know statistics, be able to deliver drugs in proportion to weight and take into account risk factors."

Yet the problem is that senior students are being encouraged to do other subjects that present as 'easier' as a way to boost tertiary entrance scores. It is clear that the primacy of maths and science in the curriculum needs to be recognised and promoted if our nation is to address the skills shortages we currently face. I am personally working with the university I graduated from, the Queensland University of Technology, to help encourage more girls to study engineering. I encourage all members of this place, whenever they visit a local school, to discuss what steps are being taken to encourage the study of maths and science.

Finally, in the time that I have left in this debate, I want to implore members opposite to right another great wrong of their time in office and support our legislation to repeal the carbon tax. A great deal has been revealed about the devastating effect this pointless tax has had on the economy since we first debated the repeal legislation last year. It really beggars belief that Labor continues to arrogantly ignore the fact that the Australian public voted to get rid of the carbon tax at the election last September. It was the coalition's central policy platform, promise No. 1, yet Labor are taking a 'we know better than you' approach on this issue and thumbing their nose at the Australian people. What is worse is that they have the hide to stand up in this place and cry crocodile tears because businesses are being forced to close under the weight of the economic mess they left behind, including the burden of the carbon tax. Labor told us that the carbon tax would only hit the 'worst 500 polluters', when in fact it has been revealed by the report of the Clean Energy Regulator that the carbon tax has actually directly hit some 75,000 businesses—not 500 but 75,000. Alcoa, which recently announced the closure of its Point Henry smelter, was slugged with a carbon tax bill of some $127 million last year.

And to what end? Those opposite will constantly declare it is all about 'saving the planet'. They prefer to characterise the carbon tax as being about the environment. It should be perfectly clear that the carbon tax has never been about the environment. The carbon tax does not reduce emissions. The previous government's own modelling, which it submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, shows that our domestic emissions increase under the carbon tax from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. Australia's emissions were 557 million tonnes in the year to March 2013, the first period under the carbon tax—the same level as the previous year, according to the latest emissions data. The carbon tax was never about genuinely reducing Australia's carbon emissions; it was environmental symbolism and wealth redistribution. It was, as the Prime Minister has described it, 'socialism masquerading as environmentalism'. The Productivity Commission report in May 2011 stated:

… no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.

As more countries around the world reject the notion of a carbon tax as a means of improving environmental outcomes, it becomes more and more obvious that the carbon tax was just another ill-conceived Labor policy among so many.

If truth be told, the carbon tax was about keeping Labor in power. It was about appeasing the Greens in order to hold on to office. To the Leader of the Opposition I ask this simple question: if you want to make a break with the Labor mess of the past, why would you cling to legislation that represents Labor's ultimate betrayal? Why would you support legislation that adds to the power bills of families, pensioners and small businesses?

Once again, the Clean Energy Regulator found that the sector hardest hit by the carbon tax was the energy sector, paying $4.1 billion extra a year. Power companies have had to add that cost to every single electricity and gas bill. It is putting pressure on already stretched family budgets, and it is putting further strain on businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector. The first quarterly CPI figures released after the introduction of the carbon tax recorded a 15.3 per cent rise in electricity, with household gas rising by 14.2 per cent. This was the largest quarterly increase ever, two-thirds of which, on average, came from the carbon tax.

As businesses close and energy costs rise, and as the world turns away from the concept of a carbon tax as a practical way to address environmental issues, it is simply foolhardy in the extreme for Labor to stand in the way of repealing the carbon tax. I urge those members opposite to do the right thing, put pressure on the opposition leader to change Labor's position and prove that they respect the democratic process of the last election. The Australian people voted to get rid of the carbon tax, and they want it gone.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014. In doing so, I note that one of the main items that the government is seeking to achieve through these appropriations bills includes the funding of an $8.8 billion injection into the Reserve Bank. This government has said on many occasions—at least while it was in opposition and in the run-up to the last election—that, if debt is the problem, more debt is certainly not the answer. I am wondering: how do you justify an $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank from the Commonwealth from a government that finds itself in a $17.7 billion deficit and a $54.6 billion deficit in the government's forward estimates?

I know we went through the charade a little earlier this year about doubling the capping on the government's debt. As you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, the government brought a proposition to this House that it wanted an unlimited debt ceiling. It was not until it did a deal with the Greens that a debt ceiling of $500 billion was implemented. Before an election, the rhetoric about debt is wonderful. When you put it in terms of what this government is doing now, it is hypocritical in the extreme.

This grant under the appropriations bill is to ensure that the Reserve Bank is adequately resourced to conduct its operations. I would not normally be troubled by that if the bill did not also seek to cut millions of dollars out of the Health and Education portfolios. These cuts clearly demonstrate where the priorities of this government lie. Ensuring that our children have the best start in life, the best opportunity to secure their future, and improving the health system are clearly not the priorities of this government. The cuts that are being made clearly indicate that the government is backflipping on a number of key electoral promises that were made. That can be no clearer than in what it is putting forward now in cuts to health and education.

I will just concentrate a little on education. We heard before the election campaign, with a lot of hype, about the issue of education. Certainly the opposition, as they then were, were reeling not only from Labor's education revolution but from its plan to improve school funding. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they used the words: 'When it comes to education, we are on a unity ticket.' They tried to indicate that there was not a hair's breadth between what the then Labor government were doing in respect of the school-funding initiative, the education revolution, and what they purported to do if they were given the opportunity to form government.

But I ask you to reflect upon what has occurred. If they truly had been on a unity ticket with Labor, they certainly would not have abandoned the school improvement initiative. This is scrapping a historic funding agreement with the states. This was the first time where the federal government not only increased exponentially the investment in education but also sought to achieve co-funding agreements with the states and ensure that they would also maintain their levels of funding as required under the agreement.

What has occurred now is that the states have been formally released from their co-funding responsibilities, so they are now free to go out and, if they so choose, cut their funding to schools. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, by announcing recently that the growth in education spending is unsustainable, the Abbott government has now signalled that there will be further cuts to school funding. And, by the way, what that is going to achieve is not so much the bottom line of budget here; it is going to compromise the prospects for the future of our young people.

Local families have already been disadvantaged because of the decision to cut the schoolkids bonus, to cut the payment of $410 for primary school students and $820 per year for high school students. It certainly has directly impacted on some of the most vulnerable families in our community. It certainly impacts on their ability to provide for their kids at least the basic necessities for a successful education. The provision of stationery, books and other essentials which are so important at the beginning of a school term was taken away. This is very much directed to the most vulnerable families in our community.

As you are aware, my electorate—which I am particularly proud to say is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia—is, regrettably, the second most disadvantaged electorate on socioeconomic rankings. That means that it is an area of disadvantage, and I know full well that almost 14,000 families were directly affected by this one change. These are families who are in great need and who require assistance, and it is their children who are being punished through this measure.

One of the other significant things about my electorate is that it has a disproportionately high number of people who live with various disabilities. Within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD are 52 per cent of all the families in New South Wales who live with autism. Obviously, what comes with disability is financial disadvantage. This is another thing that has heavily impacted upon my community. The state government have been allowed to withdraw funding. We have seen this played out in a very practical way in New South Wales at the moment when it comes to kids with disabilities. The New South Wales Liberal government have now slashed $1.7 billion from education funding. They have been allowed to make these changes to the funding agreement and that has impacted across the board. It not only impacts government, private, Catholic and independent schools; it impacts the kids with disabilities. It is the ones who have special needs who have been impacted the most.

Some of these kids have been forced from special needs classes into mainstream education. I know it is always the ambition for any parent to ensure that their child will be in mainstream education, but it is not always in the best interests of the child. Because of these cuts, we are seeing those special classes abandoned. We are seeing young people, many on the autism spectrum with special needs and requiring special attention, now being forced into mainstream classes. It is not the system that is suffering; it is the kids who are now suffering. I know from my own experience within the electorate that there are many families this year alone who have withdrawn their kids from school. They are now opting for home education because of the difficult position that the families now find themselves in, principally because the kids are struggling in mainstream education.

In this bill, $4.8 million is to be cut from education programs. I suppose this adds to the $1.5 billion overall cuts to education and there are cuts to health of $13.2 million. What also affects my area is the $11.5 million cut to the Building Multicultural Communities Program. I said earlier that I have the honour of representing the most multicultural electorate in the country. As such, I am very disappointed with the Abbott government's decision to withdraw funding under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. In my electorate, 11 organisations were successful in going through the very detailed, exacting and competitive application process for a grant. After receiving formal advice from the Commonwealth that their projects were approved and grants would be provided at the specific funding level, there was certainly much excitement in the community. People had put in a lot of hard work to help get these projects up and on their way. Consequently, plans were established, architects engaged and engineers drew up detailed work plans for these projects.

When the new Liberal government decided to withdraw funding it was like Armageddon for a lot of these organisations. They were deeply disappointed that the Commonwealth had reneged on what had been approved. Also, they were financially engaged, in many cases, in arrangements for the commencement of these projects. The government's attempt to cover this up is just a breach of faith. The Building Multicultural Communities Program was never an election promise. However, these grants were fully funded and included in the previous budget.

There are many organisations around my electorate that provide much-needed assistance to people settling in Australia and contribute to maintaining harmony and social inclusion. These grants would have helped them very much in the work that they undertake. What they do is good for our whole community. One such organisation whose funding was withdrawn is the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society, which is in Bonnyrigg. It was originally awarded $150,000 to go part way to the construction of the new community hall. James Chan is the chairman of the organisation. He recently wrote an impassioned letter to the department expressing his grave disappointment and also that of the community. This organisation has been providing a great service to our community for the last 32 years. After being initially advised of the approval of the grant, it was greatly encouraged that it was being supported by the Commonwealth and was confident that it was conducting its responsibilities appropriately on behalf of a very significant multicultural community.

I was honoured to announce the grant on behalf of the government at the 32nd anniversary celebrations of the society. There were over 1,000 people present, including various local dignitaries, departmental officers and the leaders of the Chinese community. After the widely publicised and celebrated announcement that the grant would go ahead, regrettably, the organisation was kept in the dark for many months as to the future funding. This was despite their attempts to try to see when the cheques would be issued. But they were assured, not so much that the cheque was in the mail but that the approvals had been given and they felt suitably encouraged to engage architects and engineers to commence the planning work for the project. Part of the condition of the grant was that work must be completed by 30 June 2014. It was another imperative why they could not delay in ensuring that the planning process was properly entered into and that the DA process through council had been achieved. As I said, these projects are not only community projects but ones that engage a whole series of organisations helping to support them, as well as the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society. Indeed, the local council ensured that every step was taken to assist in terms of the approvals of these projects as well.

This again goes to a government that was prepared to say one thing in the lead-up to the election and then do something entirely different after the election. This is not the government that people thought they were electing.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. I think that it is important that in this debate we focus in the lead-up to the budget on some of the myths that have been perpetuated not only in this chamber but also outside this chamber as to our current fiscal position and what it is that we need to be able to do in order to meet the challenges of the future. So I want to take the opportunity here today to raise some of the questions about what really 'saved us' from the global financial crisis. I would like to start by exploring this concept in the first instance.

It is true that there was great global economic uncertainty in 2008 and it is equally true that the Labor Party was in power at the time. However, this is where the heroics start and end. First, let me deal with the concept that there was a 'global recession'. By using the term 'global' it is intended to create the impression that every country was equally affected by the economic downturn. This is simply not true. Take Australia's largest two-way trading partner, China. In 2008 China's GDP growth 'slowed' to 9.6 per cent from 14.2 per cent the year before. This is still considered rapid by any standard measure. Significantly, APEC countries, our largest trading association, also continued to grow including: Indonesia 6.0 per cent, Russia 5.0 per cent, Malaysia 4.8 per cent, the Philippines 4.2 per cent, and Thailand 2.5 per cent. Other major economies such as Brazil 5.2 per cent and India at 3.9 per cent, and even Australia's at 3.8 per cent, prove that the financial crisis was not so global but rather isolated to Northern America, Europe and individual countries on other continents. If those opposite do not wish to believe me, then maybe they should take it up with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, who said in the 2010 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics hearing:

It was really only a global crisis for six or eight weeks, I think. The rest of it is mainly a North Atlantic story.

I suppose, as they say in the classics—and I think that Karl Rove has oft been quoted in this regard—never let a crisis go to waste, and certainly the Labor Party in government did not do that. The first time they had the opportunity to go back on their promise that they would be economic conservatives, they took it. They increased spending dramatically, so much so that they increased spending by more than $100 billion over and above that which was spent by the previous coalition government. And it was not just a one-off thing. They continued that spending program throughout their time in government.

During the height of the North Atlantic financial crisis, Australia experienced its greatest terms of trade in our history. In fact, Australia's terms of trade were 15 per cent higher during the previous government than at any time under the Howard Government. So it is pretty surprising then to hear the Labor myths that the situation was very dire and difficult for them in order to raise revenue when terms of trade were so high.

One of the reasons we were shielded from the impact of the financial crisis in the global economy was in fact not because we went on a massive spending program, as postulated by those opposite, but because in fact we came in with an incredibly strong position thanks to the Howard-Costello government. Unlike Labor, we on this side actually like to leave money in the bank for an incoming government. We like to do this as we understand that it is not our money, but rather the money of the people of Australia. We all know that in 2007 Labor inherited about $70 billion of assets and around $20 billion in a surplus. There was no other country in the world that had a similar fiscal position going into the crisis. This is a point that is conveniently ignored by those opposite.

There is another reason why we were buffered from the impacts that did flow, and that is monetary policy. The RBA prudently and responsibly managed interest rates, allowing for businesses and individuals to continue to invest during the period. This view is supported by Selwyn Cornish, a leading economist from the Australian National University, who said:

As it turns out, there was too much fiscal stimulus—there's even too much fiscal stimulus now. I think (the RBA) did what it had to do extremely well and the problem at the present time is not with monetary policy, it's with fiscal policy.

What also helped shield us from the impact was a regulated banking sector. We must give credit where credit is due, the banking sector was initially deregulated by Hawke and Keating. When we look back to that time we see two Labor leaders who understood that in order to unleash Australia's productivity and innovative potential, we had to unshackle the burdensome chains of regulation and take away the heavy hand of government, insofar as we could. But this sentiment, this principle and this view is sadly lacking in the members who currently sit opposite in this chamber.

We can also thank former Treasurer Peter Costello and former Prime Minister John Howard for their stance in making the Reserve Bank of Australia independent and for undergoing serious microeconomic reform and the corporate law economic reform programs, CLERP 1 through to CLERP 9, that ensured that we had an appropriately regulated banking sector that was principles based, unlike the approach taken in the US which was Sarbanes-Oxley, which was all about ticking the box. This approach did not allow them to endure the crisis particularly well. We were able to avoid the worst aspects of the subprime market, because we were appropriately regulated and our banks had the right regulations in place and the flexibility to respond.

Let me recap the key points as to why Australia avoided serious damage during this crisis. Firstly, it was isolated mostly to the Northern Hemisphere. Secondly, Australia's trade continued at record levels. Thirdly, Australia had money in the bank going into the crisis. Fourthly, we had responsible monetary policy. Finally, we had a well regulated banking sector, not a heavily regulated banking sector. These were some of the key reasons, but of course it is not an exhaustive list.

Why is it important that we understand the impacts of the now famous GFC? It is important because it provides the context in which to measure the response of the previous government. The previous Labor government would like you to believe that the coalition opposed the entire stimulus package that they put together. Certainly, we did oppose the second tranche, but we did agree with them that it was important to have a very small, well targeted and well defined amount of stimulus in the very beginning. But when Labor got into the habit of spending other people's money, they simply could not stop.

Under Labor, real government spending grew at around 3.5 per cent over the five years from 2007-08 to 2012-13. This explosion in spending led to record deficits and debt. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. The net debt figure for the financial year 2013-14 is due to be $192 billion, rising to $280 billion in 2016-17. The accounts Labor left us mean gross debt will continue rise to two-thirds of a trillion dollars within a decade if no corrective action is taken.

Along with the pink batts, the BER that was not appropriately targeted nor appropriately regulated, set-top boxes and over $11 billion in blow-outs in border protection, amongst other things, there was also the $900 cheques that were sent out to people for no reason other than the government wanted to spend money. This final point is a very good example of the fiscal incompetence of the previous government. Let me make a couple of points on that. In the financial year 2012-13, 15,000 cheques were issued, totalling around $13 million of borrowed money, five years after the financial crisis. Since its introduction, more than 16,000 stimulus payments, totalling around $14 million, have been sent directly to taxpayers living overseas. More than 21,000 payments have been made to deceased taxpayers, totalling more than $18 million. This includes the payment of 40 stimulus cheques to deceased individuals so far this financial year. To date, $7.7 billion worth of stimulus cheques have been handed out. When you put that in context, it is enough to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme for an entire year.

We know that the previous government was fiscally incompetent. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from their six years in government. We know that we face some big challenges ahead. We do not want to leave our children a debt legacy. We do not want to be irresponsible in the way that the previous Labor government was. We know that at this time in our history we face particular challenges that we need to be conscious of, challenges outlined in the previous Intergenerational report that say even if we just go on along the current path we are going to need to triple health-care funding, quadruple aged-care funding and double individual welfare payments—and that is before you take into account the importance of bringing in such schemes as the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

What we need to do in the upcoming budget is to make sure that we reduce the size of government and that we live within our means. We need to give business the confidence to invest, to grow and to employ because when they employ that leads directly to jobs. Business grow jobs, not government. How are we going to do that? We will reduce the red tape and regulations that are currently strangling business and not allowing it to invest, grow and employ. There is some regulation that is good but there is a lot that leads to very bad outcomes, and it is that regulation that we will be abolishing in this place. In the budget, we are going to see measures that support the Prime Minister's claim that he will be an infrastructure Prime Minister, where there will be investments in productivity enhancing infrastructure that will again help us to grow our economy. We are going to put an end to all of the waste and quango schemes—the never-ending schemes—that the previous government came up with in order to spend taxpayers' money because we want taxpayers to keep as much of their own money in their own pocket.

This brings me to the final point I make which is that we want to lower the tax burden on taxpayers because we appreciate how hard it is to earn that dollar and how awful it is to see when that dollar is squandered. We know that individual taxpayers know best how to spend their own money. These are going to be some of the things that we are focused on in shaping the budget and getting our economy to grow in Australia. We know that Australia has a bright future ahead of it, but we have to get the framework right. That is going to mean that we will need to make some difficult decisions, some challenging decisions, in this place. I implore the Labor Party and the opposition to support us in making the changes that need to be made to make sure that Australia will be great again and that our future is bright.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. May I start with commending the member for Higgins for that fine contribution, in particular for pointing out some of the myths in relation to Labor's claims that it saved the world through its stimulus package in 2008-09. It was Prime Minister Paul Keating who said, 'When you change the government, you change the country.' It was an apt comment. I believe it is true because when you reflect on 1996, with the Howard government coming into being, it did change the nation. It brought a period of prosperity, fantastic relationships with our neighbours and allies, and incredible wealth creation for families across the country. Similarly, in 2007, when the Labor government was elected, the nation changed. I would argue that the changes were not always for the better when the Labor governments came. Indeed, they re-regulated the economy and we saw waste and debt like we have never seen before in the history of this country.

We are now almost six months into the Abbott government. As with the election of other governments in 1996, in 2007 and prior to that, the nation is changing and will change with this government. I would like to use this appropriations debate to outline how the nation is changing for the better already and to specifically report back to my electorate, through this parliament, on the progress against the key commitments that we made before the last election to improve this nation. Of course, our starting point has been to fix Labor messes because, unlike the incoming Labor government in 2007, we did not inherit a strong economy and a $20 billion budget surplus. Rather, we inherited what can only be described as a mess.

The clearest example of this was in border protection, where, over the period of the Labor government, over 55,000 people arrived by boat, at least 1,200 people died at sea, and people waiting in refugee camps were denied places in Australia. As former Prime Minister John Howard has noted, it was probably Labor's greatest failure because they alone were the author of the crisis through their deliberate dismantling of the system which was painstakingly put in place under the Howard government. That system ensured that almost no boats were arriving, that there were no children in detention and that in fact there were only four adults in detention in 2007. It also ensured that our entire refugee intake, which is about 13,500 people per annum, was taken from the United Nations refugee camps, which, I believe, is the right process for this country. Having created the crisis, Labor then used every justification imaginable as to why they could not fix the crisis, but the simple reason they could not fix it is that they lacked resolve. We have no such lacking of resolve in addressing this crisis.

Operation Sovereign Borders commenced 11 days after the election. While it is too easy to say that the boats have stopped, they are certainly stopping because over the last three months we have seen not a single boat arrive; whereas, in the same three months in the previous year we saw hundreds of boats arrive. The measures we have put in place and which Scott Morrison continues to put in place for the government in this area are not easy measures. Tough decisions had to be made in order to put those measures in place. But I strongly believe that our policy is fair towards genuine refugees and is saving hundreds who might otherwise be lost at sea. Importantly, when borders are secure, there is stronger confidence from the public in our overall immigration program. That overall immigration program has underpinned the progress of our great multicultural cities like Melbourne, where I live.

Repairing the economy has been the next great task of this government. Having inherited a $20 billion surplus, Labor then recorded the four biggest budget deficits in the history of this country. We have made this point before, but it is worth stopping to reflect on that. The four biggest budget deficits in the history of this country were recorded under the Labor government, despite inheriting a $20 billion surplus in 2007. If settings do not change, there will be another $123 billion worth of deficit over the next four years and our gross debt will go up to $667 billion. They are extraordinary numbers. But this is Labor's legacy that they have left the nation and that they have left this government, the Abbott government, to deal with. They borrowed from the future to pay for things like pink batts—as the member for Higgins pointed out—for overpriced school halls, for set-top boxes, for $900-cheques to dead people and for other things which can only be described as wasteful spending. We should never forget that wasteful spending and never forget who undertook it or why it was undertaken. No government should repeat such wasteful spending again and certainly this government will not do so.

As well as the budgetary situation, the macroeconomy was seriously weakened over the last six years. For the first time, the government reregulated the Australian economy in industrial relations, in environmental regulations and with other red tape. Twenty thousand new regulations were put in place. Taxes, including of course the job-destroying carbon tax and the mining tax, were put in place, and investment decisions by companies were postponed or rejected. Multifactor productivity declined by four per cent per annum since 2007 with only the record high terms of trade causing us not to have a weakening of living standards.

Our approach to these very difficult financial and economic challenges is based on some fundamental principles. The Prime Minister very neatly summarised some of these principles at the World Economic Forum in Davos just recently. He had four pithy principles: first, you cannot spend what you have not got; second, no country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity; third, you do not address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit; and fourth, profit is not a dirty word, because success in business is something to be proud of.

These principles are very different principles than those which operated under the Labor government, and we are putting these principles into action, into practical steps. I will provide some examples to the House here. Perhaps one of the most substantial examples of that is the $400-billion worth of projects that were in Labor's too-hard basket but which have now been approved by environment minister Greg Hunt. Think about what employment $400-billion worth of projects creates, what wealth that creates, what money into the country that brings. I commend the environment minister for making those decisions, a man who is not only passionate about the environment but who also knows we must have a strong economy in order to sustain job creation and wealth creation.

The trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb, has already concluded a free trade agreement with Korea. That is worth $5 billion to the economy. Likewise, he is working on free trade agreements with Japan and China. All three of those free trade agreements were stagnant, they were stalled, they were on hold over the last six years. They did not go anywhere. But already under the principles which the Prime Minister has articulated, under the open-for-business principle, a $5-billion free trade agreement has been signed with Korea. We are hoping we will have free trade agreements with Japan and China signed very soon. When that occurs, it will mean that we have free trade agreements with our four largest trading partners. What that means is golden opportunities to our exporters. It also means cheaper imports as well. There will be billions of dollars worth of wealth creation from those trade agreement. Again I commend the trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb, for leading those free trade agreements.

On the tax front, we have scrapped dozens of Labor's announced and budgeted but not enacted tax changes. Of course this included the $1.8-billion hit on the novated car lease industry. The carbon tax and the mining tax repeal legislation, as everybody knows, has been introduced into this House and has passed this House but is now stuck in the Senate. If Labor stops blocking those pieces of repeal legislation then families will be on average $550 per annum better off. But Labor right now is in the Senate, blocking those pieces of legislation which would see the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax. When we abolish those, that will also lift the burden on businesses as well.

We will cut the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent. We will remove over $1 billion of red and green tape so that our businesses can focus on improving their performance and not on form filling. To repair the budget we are putting through this parliament already $20-billion worth of savings. And we have a full Commission of Audit which is identifying waste, inefficiency and duplication between layers of government. We have got the East-West Link project about to begin construction and we have other major infrastructure projects in every state across the country that will soon begin. All of these measures are designed to build business confidence, to encourage investment, to allow businesses to be more profitable, which ultimately allows jobs growth and salary growth.

There are many businesses which are struggling, including in my electorate. When those businesses struggle, jobs are lost. It is ultimately only profitable businesses that create wealth for this nation. When we have profitable businesses, we have job creation and that is our overall objective. We want to support these businesses and the best way to do that is to make the business environment as attractive as possible. So our measures are designed to lower taxes, to have less regulation, to have better infrastructure, to have lower energy prices, to have a more flexible industrial relations system and to have consistency of decision making. We are seeing this approach already translating. We see business confidence is higher. We see in the papers today that both private sector housing and non-residential building approvals have risen by more than 20 per cent, surpassing levels from before the GFC for the first time. We still have record shipments of coal and iron ore, returning the trade account to a surplus. I regularly hear from companies that investments that were put on hold pre-election are now being made; the decisions are being made. All of those are terrific signs. So there is great room for optimism despite the difficulties that some of the older industrial companies are having.

Stopping the boats, ending the waste, getting the budget under control, growing the economy more strongly again and reducing the cost of living were the core commitments we made during the election, and we are delivering upon them. We are strongly moving forward on our social policy agenda as well, including giving unprecedented attention to our nation's greatest social policy challenge, the plight of many Indigenous Australians. There will be other opportunities for me to outline in greater detail the progress on this front.

There are so many challenges and so much to do as a nation. As a government, we cannot fix Labor's messes overnight. We cannot turn the economy around on a dime. But we are off to a good start, and the pieces are being put in place. In time, the government's finances will be restored. The economy will grow strongly again, and there will be more opportunities for all Australians and greater wealth creation.

Paul Keating may not like it, but the nation is changing, and it is changing for the better. We ask the Labor government to support this program—

A government member: Get on board.

Get on board so that wealth creation, job creation and business investment can occur.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up I will deal with the amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, moved by the member for Fraser, and some of the issues raised in the quite extensive debate on these three bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions, including pre-election commitments and decisions made in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

I have found it quite remarkable to listen to some of the contributions made by those opposite. Instead of even some token acknowledgement from Labor about the mess it left behind, we were subjected to a steady dose of deception, denial and hypocrisy from members opposite. Labor's budget strategy, it seems, is to simply hoodwink the Australian people and pretend that the past six years never happened, to pretend that 7 September, election day, never happened. But it is worth reminding the House what actually happened over those long and terrible years. Labor has tried hard but, no matter what it says, it cannot rewrite history. Let's look at the facts—the facts that those opposite seem so determined to airbrush from history.

In 2007, when we left office, we left a $20 billion surplus. In 2013, we inherited a $30 billion deficit. Labor would have us believe that it did not rack up record debt and record deficits; not a single surplus, not one in its six budgets. Instead, what we have been saddled with are huge deficits, or 'temporary' deficits, as only the masters of spin-offs could say with a straight face. In fact, Labor has not delivered a budget surplus since 1989, long before the member for Bowman was even born.

But how could anybody forget Labor's solemn promise in 2010 to deliver a budget surplus in 2012-13—a surplus that they promised to deliver on more than 650 occasions? The member for Lilley said it would be delivered 'come hell or high water'. The then minister for finance, Senator Penny Wong, said that a surplus was 'non-negotiable'. Have you ever? When asked what would happen if her government was not able to deliver on that promise, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said: 'Failure is not an option'.

As the boy who cried wolf discovered: if you consistently make the wrong call, people will eventually stop listening—they stopped listening on 7 September—and call for change. But Labor will not let us get on with our mandate. Labor will not listen to the people's will. The Australian people did stop listening to Labor's pie-in-the-sky plans and instead turned to a coalition that they know they can trust—they always have been able to in the past and they will now—to get the finances of the nation back on track.

In an attempt to distract everyone from Labor's record, those opposite had the audacity to accuse us of—would you believe?—cooking the books. If you listened to Labor, you would think that the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook was just a piece of creative accounting. According to Labor, we have painted everything a darker shade of grey in a piece of fiscal window dressing. The reality is that MYEFO adopts more realistic assumptions, and assumptions which better reflect subdued global economic conditions and the transition that the economy is going through, as the terms of trade ease off, and what this might mean for investment and employment. Recognising that forecasting key economic variables is a challenging task, MYEFO included information illustrating measures of uncertainty around the key forecasts included in MYEFO. That is all perfectly reasonable, all perfectly defensible and all very transparently set out by the government in the MYEFO document.

These bills are important because they are part of this government's clear commitment to deliver on the plans and the promises we took to the Australian people. Unlike Labor, we deliver on our promises. Importantly, we have made the necessary provision in this bill to enable the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to stop the boats. To that end, we have committed almost $750 million for offshore processing and to disrupt people-smuggling activities. With the passage of these bills, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will be properly funded to deliver a credible offshore processing regime. And it is working. It is more than 75 days now since we have had a boat arrive on our shores illegally. We will address the funding shortfall of around $1.2 billion—that we inherited from the previous government—over the forward estimates.

This government is fulfilling this promise to the letter, and I commend Minister Morrison for his work. It is 75 long days since we have had a successful illegal maritime arrival. We are stopping the people-smuggling model. It has been more than two months since a boat has arrived. That is not to detract from the seriousness of the situation that emerged on Manus Island; in respect of that matter, we have established a fully independent investigation that will find out who was responsible, at the end of the day, for these matters.

In the area of Defence, we have included more than $660 million to further enhance Australia's military capabilities in order to promote stability and security in the region. Under Labor, Defence spending fell to 1.49 per cent of gross domestic product, the lowest level since 1938—and we all know what happened the year after that. The coalition remains fully committed to restoring Defence to two per cent of GDP. I can tell you, as someone from a home town of tri-city service obligations—with the Army, Air Force and Navy all in Wagga Wagga—that what Labor did to Defence was an absolute disgrace.

The largest item that these bills make provision for is $8.8 billion to enable the Treasury to make a one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. This grant will bring the balance of the RBA's main capital reserve—the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund—to 15 per cent of its assets at risk. At the point we came to government the fund had been depleted, partly because of losses associated with the sustained appreciation of the Australian dollar but also because of dividends taken out by the previous government, from a level of $6.2 billion in 2006-07—11 per cent of assets at risk. By 2012-13 the fund's balance had deteriorated to $2.5 billion, which is 3.8 per cent of assets at risk. This is a prudent step which will ensure that the RBA is properly resourced to meet the challenges of a volatile international economy. It puts beyond doubt that the RBA can and will be able to perform its core monetary policy and the foreign exchange functions in the face of financial market volatility.

The opposition makes out that this is all a huge surprise, when in fact the Treasurer flagged as early as February 2013 that this is something that we would discuss with the RBA on coming to government as a matter of urgency. Labor argues that it is too much, that we should have to tender a request slip from the RBA governor and, worse, Labor accuses us of doing this just to manufacture a larger deficit in 2013-14. What hypocrisy! What nonsense! It goes to show that the opposition just does not get it. According to Labor, you should only intervene at five minutes to midnight when you think politics demands it. But we understand that, in a volatile international environment, the best thing we can do is to instil confidence in the Australian financial system—and that is to ensure the RBA is primed and ready to respond.

We saw Labor's piecemeal approach on show when we brought before the parliament legislation to increase the debt limit to $500 million, which was what we understood was needed plus a prudent buffer. But all we got from Labor was again a game of political brinkmanship—an attempt to hold the country and its people, Australians, to ransom. What a shameless thing it was to watch those opposite rack up future debt when they were in government and to actually build it into the forward estimates but then not allow us to fund some of the programs we inherited. Then they had the hide to criticise us for negotiating with the Greens to not only allow us to fund some of Labor's very own programs but also improve transparency in the process. I appreciate that negotiation is a foreign concept to those opposite—those whose modus operandi in government was just to give in to whatever the Greens wanted.

Confected outrage about so-called broken promises, grants to the RBA and the abolition of the debt limit is one thing, but fearmongering about changes to social payments and Medicare is quite another. In all of Labor's hysteria about broken promises, they can still not list a single promise that we made prior to the election that we have walked away from—none. It just goes to show how reckless and irresponsible those opposite are. They will say anything to distract from the mess they left behind. It is further proof that Labor accept no responsibility for the dreadful fiscal mess they created.

Let us be clear: the Abbott-Truss government is committed to a strong and sustainable safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves. We have no plans to cut the Disability Support pension; in fact, we are actually increasing the DSP on 20 March. Scaremongering by Labor about a cut to the DSP is causing unnecessary angst amongst DSP recipients and shows how low Labor will go. While we have no plans to increase the age for the age pension, we need to have a conversation about what we can afford in the next 20 to 30 years about the taxpayers' outlay. That needs to be combined with a robust discussion around the tax and regulatory settings which influence how and when people save for their retirement. That is so important.

The coalition recognise the importance of primary health. That is why we are doubling the incentive for GP training to help build a health workforce that can support people in identifying health risks early and taking preventative action. But our healthcare system has to be sustainable.

We saw a lot of hand-wringing about jobs from those opposite while they were refusing to abolish the carbon tax. I might just quote from a speech given by the Australian Forest Products Association Chairman, Greg McCormack. Last night at the annual dinner, he said that the most difficult times he has seen in business have been in the past five years. He talked of green and red tape and said to the large audience:

Imposing a carbon tax which Australian producers had to bear when imports didn't has further made exports and locally produced products less competitive.

Domestic processors have carbon tax costs embedded in their cost of production through higher electricity prices, transport costs etc, imports do not have these cost imposts.

Similarly in export markets Australian producers not only have to cope with a high exchange rate, but have carbon tax costs embedded in their production costs that other competing countries do not have in their costs.

He had this message:

Prime Minister we urge you to remove the carbon tax as soon as possible.

I know what a valuable role the forestry industry plays in Australia. Indeed, it underpins the economies of the Tumbarumba and Tumut shires in my Riverina electorate. Australia has 80,000 direct forest and forest product employees and perhaps 200,000 indirect jobs. We need to follow exactly what the AFPA chairman has said and remove the carbon tax. Labor should get on board with us there.

In relation to both Holden and Toyota, let us be very clear that by those companies' own admissions there is nothing the government could have done to keep their factories open beyond 2017. It is worth remembering also that workers at these factories have several years to plan. They know what is coming; it is unfortunate that it is coming but it has been on the cards for some time and at least they have some time to do something about it. No-one is pretending that it will be easy for them or that it will not be stressful for the workers involved. We know it will be. We are putting the economic factors in place to grow the economy and to grow Australian jobs. As my parliamentary secretary colleague beside me, the member for Aston, said, we do have the infrastructure Prime Minister. We are going to create the economic conditions to grow our nation.

It is typical of Labor that its answer to every problem is more government, more regulation, more intervention. As the Australian Forestry Products chairman said, remove the carbon tax, get on board and let's get on with cutting red and green tape. I would go so far as to say that under Labor there is no problem so big that they do not maintain that regulation will fix it. But we are getting on with the job of removing regulation. Ironically, Labor wants the government to do the impossible to save industries which cannot be saved while refusing to do the one thing that would be good for all businesses operating in Australia and that is: repeal the carbon tax. That would have been of so much benefit to the automotive industry. Repealing the carbon tax would be good for manufacturers such as SPC Ardmona, it would be good for Qantas, good for Virgin Australia, good for Rex and good for small business. In short, it would be good for anyone trying to run a business and trying to run a family budget. If the Leader of the Opposition were fair dinkum about jobs, fair dinkum about helping out businesses operating in Australia and fair dinkum about families, he would get on board with us and tell his senators to get rid of the carbon tax.

Those opposite will not get behind our efforts to free Qantas from the regulatory shackles of the Qantas Sale Act—a piece of legislation that applies to Qantas and not its competitors. Instead, we hear the member for Grayndler fearmongering about regional services, when they are not even mentioned in the Qantas Sale Act.

With the greatest respect to the member for Fraser, his amendment is nothing short of a grand piece of showboating. While putting sentiment into law might seem like a worthy pastime to those opposite, there is no place in the statute books for grandstanding and hyperbole. It was just a try-on from the member for Fraser, and we have seen it before. This is the very same member who trivialised the $250,000 in savings achieved through the passage of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill. According to the member for Fraser, this amount is too small—too modest to even consider worth saving. But $250,000 in the scheme of things is $250,000—and it is $250,000 worth of taxpayers' money. This type of attitude just sums up the modern Labor Party so well. Labor today have no respect for taxpayers' money and no credibility when it comes to managing our budget.

In closing I would say to the Australian people that this government is absolutely committed to implementing the plan which we took to the election. We were up front with the people. We said that we would remove the carbon tax. We said that we would remove the mining tax. We are trying to get on with the job of doing just that—of stabilising the economy and getting things back on track. We are getting no help from the party of negativity opposite, but we will get there.

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

Absolutely. Thank you for agreeing with me, Member for Adelaide. The plan is to get Australia back on track, to rein in wasteful spending, to restore the economic fundamentals, to build prosperity and to create new jobs. This bill delivers on all those commitments.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.