Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer a few moments ago in which he criticised NATSEM modelling showing Australian families losing $6,000 because it does not include second-round behavioural impacts. Prime Minister, is there any modelling in the government's own budget which includes such second-round behavioural impacts?

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

As a rule, second round impacts are not taken into account. But there are few exceptions, and one of the exceptions was when Labor modelled the carbon tax. Remember that? The carbon tax? Or is that just out of the mind? It is still on the policy platform! We remember it. The Australian people remember it. And, do you know what? We worked out through the second round a fix—a $550 saving for every household!

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. I know the Treasurer does not want to own the budget but the question was about his own—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I would remind the member for McMahon and other members that simply repeating the question is not a proper point of order. Has the Treasurer completed his answer? I call the honourable member for Fairfax.

Clive Palmer (Fairfax, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. If companies are not making a profit, how is the economy stimulated by tax cuts for small business? If a business dies and does not have the capital, how can it benefit from a tax write-off? Should we not be stimulating demand by increasing the money supply and by reorganising government, to boost demand so that business can achieve a profit and a confident Australia?

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

I would say to the honourable member: in general, good businesses do well and bad businesses do tend to fail. The only thing that can make a big difference is if an economy is weak and it causes good businesses to fail. What we want is for the economy to strengthen.

We want to lift the tide so that all boats rise. Most importantly, we want to strengthen the Australian economy to facilitate the innovation that is going to help to drive job creation because, ultimately, jobs do not come from governments; they come from the enterprise of businesses and individuals. Our view is that whatever we can do to help the Australian economy to strengthen we should do.

Now, we are going to do it within the envelope that we were provided with. When we came to government we inherited a budget that was haemorrhaging $133 million every day. The budget was haemorrhaging $133 million every day because Labor adopted the attitude that it is okay to spend more than you collect every day. So, every day the Australian government had to borrow $133 million just to pay its bills.

We have reduced that to $96 million a day now, but it is still not good enough and we readily accept that. So somehow we have to reduce our own borrowings and reduce our own spending, and at the same time lift the rest of the Australian economy. We are doing that through a number of initiatives. It is all part of our broader economic plan.

We are building new trade agreements with China, with Korea and with Japan. They have been huge initiatives that are opening up the market for those vast number of Australian businesses in the services industry. And why do I point that out? Well, the honourable member understands the resources industry well. Mining and resources are hugely important for Australia but are just nine per cent of our economy, exporting 55 per cent of its share. So it is a fantastic exporter from nine per cent of the economy.

The big area of opportunity is the 70 per cent of the Australian economy that is services—health services, education services, tourism services, financial services, accounting services and property services. They are 70 per cent of the Australian economy, but only 17 per cent of our exports. And so by investing in small business we are investing in the innovators and the job creators of the future. And we are opening the doors to new markets for those businesses, because the jobs that are going to be there for our children and our grandchildren almost certainly have not been thought of today. Therefore the more we can put into innovation, the more we can put into reward for effort and the more we can put into small business, the more prosperity Australia is going to have.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on measures such as accelerated depreciation for water infrastructure, fodder storage and fencing, and how they will help Australian farmers plan for the future?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mallee for his question. The member for Mallee, more than most, would understand the importance of agriculture, coming from a seat with dairy, beef cattle, meatworks, flour mills, citrus, stone fruits, cereals and wool sheep—he has the whole gamut in the seat of Mallee.

It is extremely important that the Australian people understand what this government has done in bringing forward the 100 per cent write-off for water reticulation deductions so that we can create a more secure farming future by allowing people to plan for droughts by delivering more land over to the greater security of irrigated agriculture. This is a major investment, and we have known that this investment has worked in the past—it has worked in the past with the section 75B deductions, which were instrumental in creating investment in places such as St George and the irrigated agriculture that is there.

It underpins other things that are happening right now, such as the record prices in cattle; the record prices that we are getting in meat sheep and mutton; the strong prices in cotton; and the strong prices in cereal grains. But it is not just there. We also started, as of budget night, the 100 per cent write-off for fencing. Now I acknowledge, as an accountant, that it is very rare to see a farmer who actually builds a new fence. They all seem to be repairs and maintenance! But now we have a case where we can make sure that all the fencing is a 100 per cent write-off straightaway.

This is a stimulus not just to people on the land but also to the rural merchandisers—the rural merchandisers that sell the steel posts, that sell the wire and that sell all the implementation. This is a deduction not just for the farms that are turning over less than $2 million but for all farms.

It is also a great pleasure to be able to announce—and this is all part of the white paper process—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You and other speakers have previously ruled that question time cannot be used to announce policy, which the minister just said he is now doing. He just said, 'I can also announce.' That makes it an announcement.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, under the same standing order. Can I ask you to seek clarification from the minister as to whether the first part of his answer was also an announcement of new policy, which seems to—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you may not. Resume your seat. I call the honourable Minister for Agriculture to continue answering the question, which I hope he is doing and not announcing new policy.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Small Business announced this during his Press Club speech today, just prior to question time.

It is also very important that we understand the work we are doing in silos, hay sheds and grain storage. Grain storage is vitally important for the marketing of grain and also for preparations for drought. This is also incredibly important for the manufacturing industry in Australia. Nelson Silos in Rochester, Victoria; Ahrens' silo in Kingsford, South Australia; HE Silos at Gunnedah; and Kotzur Silos at Walla Walla—these are all Australian manufacturing businesses which also get an immense benefit from the stimulus that this government is putting into the agricultural sector.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister just confirmed, NATSEM is Australia's most reputable and authoritative modelling organisation. NATSEM's independent modelling shows that a single-income family on $65,000 a year, such as that of a nurse, will be around $6,000 a year worse off as a result of this year's budget. How can the Prime Minister possibly claim that his budget is good for families?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Modelling is only as good as the brief which is given. NATSEM is a reputable organisation, but I cannot say the same for the Leader of the Opposition's office, which provided the brief for this modelling. When the gentleman who was responsible for the modelling was being interviewed by David Speers yesterday, he referred to the cameos which the member has just referred to. He made it very clear that there were some things missing in those cameos. One of those was that the impact of the carbon tax being abolished was not taken into account in the cameos themselves.

In the same interview, the gentleman responsible, Mr Phillips, made it very clear that it was those opposite who selected the cameos that were published, not the modellers themselves. Six out of those seven cameos did not have a child under five and were not using child care. The Leader of the Opposition's conception of a family is the Benjamin Button model: when someone is born, they go straight from the delivery room to primary school or high school! When you have push briefing, all you can expect is push modelling.

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

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister advise the House how the budget supports the typical Australian family by reforming child care and increasing the opportunities for families to move from welfare to work?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Forde for his question. The member for Forde knows all about typical Australian families. He represents many of them in his own electorate. It may come as a surprise to those opposite, who have made a lot of references to 'typical Australian families' in this place over the last couple of days, that the typical Australian family is one that earns just over $100,000 as a family. Both parents are working, too. They have two children. It may, again, come as a great surprise to those opposite that about 30 per cent of them have children under the age of five. That is the typical Australian family.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga will desist.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The typical Australian family earns more in wages and pays more in tax than it receives in benefits. This side of the House want to see more families in that situation. We want to see more families earning more by working more. We want to see more families that are paying more in tax than they are receiving in benefits.

That is what our jobs and families package does. That is exactly what it does, as does the excellent small business package, which will see more and more Australians working in small business, which is the engine room of growth. Why is that the case? It is because we found that around 50 per cent of families who wanted to work more could not because of lack of access to affordable child care. They wanted to choose to work more, and that choice was being denied by lack of access to affordable child care. The jobs and families package is all about giving those families who want to work and not be on welfare more opportunity to work. In addition, 24 per cent of those families said that, as a result of the jobs for families package, they would work more. We want to see families in work, not in welfare.

The vision of those opposite in relation to families—the Benjamin Button vision or whatever vision it is that the Leader of the Opposition has—is that a typical family is a family on welfare. We do not want to see families on welfare. We want to see families exiting the trap of welfare and entering the opportunity of work that is being denied as a result of lack of access to affordable child care.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga is warned!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian families are getting support through not only these measures but a range of measures which, interestingly, were not included in the push modelling brief of those opposite. We did not see the $262 million which is going to change the arrangements for youth allowance and which is going to help rural families having children. That was not included. Also not included was the funding for universal access to preschool education or the $847 million for the childcare safety net. If you give a push brief, you will get push modelling.