Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the absence of my good friend and colleague the indefatigable member for Dunkley, the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, it is left to me to tell the chamber and the Australian people why this budget was a winner for them. This budget delivered on the government's promise to pay back Labor's debt and to lay the framework and the foundation for further growth and job creation in the Australian economy. It essentially had three key themes.

The first theme was to support small business and jobs. The fact that we were able to deliver a tax cut for 96 per cent of all businesses in Australia—some two million businesses—was the reason this budget was so well received. If you were an incorporated business, you got a 1.5 per cent tax cut. If you were an unincorporated business, you got a discount of up to five per cent up to $1,000. This was a great boost to the small businesses of Australia. You got accelerated depreciation of $20,000. We saw businesses in Australia like car yards, cafes, restaurants, small businesses like pubs and clubs, and financial planners, who are sitting in this room, benefit from the fact that we supported small business. And we cut red tape as well, which is also extremely significant. A lot of it was due to the great work of my colleague who has now entered this place, the member for Dunkley.

The other key element of the small business and jobs package in this budget was the fact that we partnered with groups like the Brotherhood of St Lawrence in a $200 million plus program to help get people, particularly young people who were neither in work nor in education, an opportunity to get the skills to get in front of an employer. We had a work experience program, where a person could work for up to 25 hours a week for four weeks and the employer would get supported. We had a program called Restart, where we have now accelerated the payment to the employer, who can get up to $10,000 to take on someone over the age of 50 who is on income support. That is because we recognise, particularly with an ageing population, how important it is to keep people in work and to get people in work. So that was the first theme.

The second theme was about families and particularly child care, with a $3.5 billion package, on top of the $5.5 billion for jobs and small business, which is based on the work of the Productivity Commission, which is all designed to get more people into the workforce, particularly women. If we can get an increase in the number of women in our workforce to where Canada is—let's say an extra six points—that is worth $25 billion to our economy.

The third key theme was about the integrity of our tax system, and particularly going after those multinationals who may be engaged in transfer pricing and profit shifting. We have not only extended the GST to the importation of intangibles, like Netflix, but we have also strengthened part IVA of the anti-avoidance provision of the tax act. I think that is an important legacy.

We have also found money to go into national security. We have our people overseas fighting to support freedom and security around the world, as well as back here at home; we have found an extra $1.2 billion. We have found more than an extra $1 billion for the PBS. It will go on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for important anti-cancer drugs and the like. And we have done all of this while paying back Labor's debt. We inherited a budget deficit of $48 billion. We have got it down to $35 billion next year. In three years time it will be $7 billion and then we will eventually get into surplus. The message is: our debt will be $110 billion lower over the next decade than it would otherwise be under the Labor Party. This was a great budget, and the fact that small business has received such a big support, the fact that consumer confidence and business confidence is up is due to the hard work of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Small Business and the entire backbench and frontbench of the coalition.

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

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I ask the Assistant Treasurer: what commitment did the Prime Minister give, or the Assistant Treasurer, give to the Greens party to secure their support for changes to the pension? I also ask: did this commitment by the government include a comprehensive review that considers all of the components of the retirement income system, including tax and superannuation? Further to that: the coalition has cut the pension by $2.4 billion, which will see single pensioners lose more than $8,000 a year and will see 325,000 retirees lose some or all of their pension in 2017, and yet the Prime Minister has said, as recently as yesterday, that the coalition has no plans, not now or ever, to make any changes to superannuation. Why is it that this government is quite happy to take money from pensioners who have planned carefully for their retirement while making no changes for wealthy Australians with significant accumulated superannuation savings?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a hide the member for Oxley has asking that question! He has led with his chin. The Labor Party has become irrelevant in the negotiations to save the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars. We have reached an agreement with the Greens because the Labor Party refused to come to the table to negotiate an important reform to ensure the sustainability of the pension. The fact is, all of those questions you have asked are there for people to plainly see in the press releases, which make it very clear that we have reached an agreement that will ensure a saving to the taxpayer of $2.4 billion over the forward estimates. Some 170,000 people on the pension, including, I am sure, some in the great electorates of those on this side of the House, will get, on average, an extra $30 a fortnight. I would like to know this: would the member for Chifley, would the member for Fraser, would the member for Oxley and would the member for Hotham like to go to the members of their electorates who are on the pension and say to them, 'I didn't even participate in a negotiation that would have led to an increase of $30 a fortnight in the pension'? Just so you understand: 170,000 pensioners will now get, on average, an extra $30 a fortnight; some 50,000 pensioners who are on the part-pension will now get onto the full pension; and the Australian taxpayer will save $2.4 billion over the forward estimates.

The member for Cook, the Minister for Social Services, deserves a lot of credit for the way he has gone about negotiating this very practical and successful agreement with the Greens, because the Labor party has decided to be a party of objection, a party of no ideas and a party that has failed to come up with any of its own savings.

The key question that the member for Oxley raises is: what have we decided to do about superannuation? The key answer to that is that we have said we have no plans to change the taxation concessions on superannuation because we took to the Australian people at the last election a commitment to make no adverse or unexpected changes to super.

Mr Van Manen interjecting—

I am asked here by my good friend the member for Forde, the Beattie killer: what was our commitment? I said no adverse or unexpected changes to super. What was the Labor Party's commitment? On the eve of the 2007 election, one Kevin Rudd stood up and told the Australian people that he would not change superannuation one jot or one tittle. And what happened? The member for Forde knows all too well. What happened there was that the Labor Party introduced 12 adverse changes and it produced some $9 billion of additional taxes. Then the Labor Party was so ashamed of its position on super that the member for McMahon, as the Treasurer of Australia, rushed out a press release in 2013 and said to the people of Canning, the people of Forde, the people of Dunkley, the people of Reid—and I have just met with the people of Reid and I wish all of them well—and the people of Lyons and the people for Eden-Monaro: 'We will not make any changes to super for five years.' That lasted all of 48 hours!

Now we have the member for Fraser, who once called for the abolition of negative gearing, the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer in this country, and the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, all saying they support two additional taxes on super, both on the contributions and on the earnings phase. This will hit at least 425,000 Australians—that is from the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is more than two times the estimate of the number of people affected given by the Labor Party. The Labor Party have a budget black hole approaching $60 billion, with savings measures of ours they do not support in the Senate and additional spending measures of theirs. What have they decided to do? They have decided to raid the hard-earned savings of ordinary Australians in superannuation. Shame on the Labor Party!

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The strange thing, as a marginal federal member of this place, is that you come to this place and you consider the macro-economic picture, but when you go back to your electorate you very much consider the micro-economic picture. It really is an unusual dichotomy, especially when you come not from a political background but from a micro-economic family business background. The exciting part is that, on behalf of the people of Reid, I can pass on an unashamed message that they send: 'Thank you. Thank you for the budget and the measures in it with relevance to small business.'

In that vein, I want to pass on a particular story. There is a club at Drummoyne rowers. When I was growing up it had magnificent dollar drinks on Sunday afternoons and you could not move in the place. The club went broke some 15 or 20 years ago. It has been empty ever since and there is a perennial sign on Henley Marine Drive: 'for lease.' I was driving by there about three weeks ago, and you just assume that is going to still say 'for lease' but they have put a sticker on saying 'leased', after years and years. I could not help myself—I looked up the agent's number, rang the agent, introduced myself and said, 'Would you know who has leased that place? I do not expect you to pass on their details to me, but would you please pass my details on to that person?'

Within about 10 minutes, I get a phone call from a Mr Pino Salerno. Pino, as it turns out, runs restaurants in other parts of Sydney and he has leased that building. He had leased it just prior to the budget with a strategic plan to open it over the next two to three years in a staged way and he ultimately hoped to employ around 30 local people.

He then rang me back—I had made a friend, obviously, in Pino—after the budget. He said to me, 'Craig, I want to thank you. Would you please pass on my thanks to the minister, because I'll tell you what I'm going to do. With the changes you have made in the budget, instead of doing this in a staged way that will take three years, my partners and I have decided to accelerate the procedure and to bring it to a level where we will employ 30 local young people—predominantly through hospitality, which is my background—who are either studying for a degree or looking for start in the industry.' Every bit of equipment that he had planned out over the next three years to purchase in a measured fashion has been brought forward.

That is the real difference. That is at the coalface—the microeconomic impact of your measures, Minister, and our government's measures in this federal budget—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tax reform is on the agenda.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

funny: and the Assistant Treasurer's measures. You probably would not be surprised to know that he was actually a big fan of the tax cut as well—it was remiss of me not to say that. I could reel off example after example. In the last five or six weeks, the feedback in the electorate of Reid—and my colleagues tell me the same anecdotes in Forde, Eden-Monaro and Lyons. I am sure the Assistant Treasurer has had his door beaten down, and all for good reasons.

The feedback has been so overwhelmingly positive, and I know the minister has been everywhere—all around the country—with media commitments. His profile has risen through the roof. I know he has answered this question. I fear that I may be indeed risking asking him to do something today that he will do another nine or 10 times but that does not matter, because I want to hear it. My question is simple, Minister: would you tell the people of Reid how the package that we have in this budget for small business will improve the national economy and why the government's budget is so responsible?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a great example of what we are trying to achieve through this budget. We are about energising enterprise—that is what we are about. We know that personal endeavour and private enterprise paved the way for this country's greatness. It created living standards that are the envy of the world, and that is what we need to re-engage with and provide the right entrepreneurial ecosystem. So a big shout out to Pino Salerno on Henley Marine Drive. What a great story: there was an economic asset sitting floundering in the electorate of Reid and, with the energy and the perspicacity of the local member, he knew what was needed to turn that capacity into real action.

Mr Ripoll interjecting—

It is the story of what the government is trying to achieve—yes, it is a world of delicious opportunities; I thank the member for Oxley for the goodwill and the fact that he is getting on the energise enterprise Kool-Aid. It is fantastic to see you embracing the positivity that percolates through this side of the parliament. For the government and the coalition members not only does positivity and optimism percolate through us, look at this team: a veritable boy band of private enterprise and entrepreneurship where private endeavour, small business and family enterprise runs through their veins. How could we not appreciate and embrace this story that is so much a part of so many of the Liberal and National party members?

These are our stories. They are stories of Pino and others like Pino who just want the opportunity to seize economic potential and turn it into investment—into jobs. That is the story of how you grow economies. It is also the story of why small business policy is now at the heart of the Treasury portfolio. There was some conversation earlier about government's role. The introduction of the member of Reid shows his great insight. It is not enough just to sit back and look at the macro numbers. You need to dig a bit deeper. What is it that takes a person with a sparkle in their eye, fire in their belly and an idea that they think might create economic opportunities for themselves and others to go and follow through? That is what we need to do: get those conditions right. I commend the work of Treasury and its officials, who have really stepped up to involve themselves in that real-life decision-making process. What does it take for a person to go and mortgage their house to have a go to create a business, to grow a business, to provide for a livelihood for themselves and others? That is what we need to understand. That is what good policy is all about. That is why this budget package has so hit the right spot—because we have done the work, engaging with small business men and women and with family and farming enterprises for years.

There is not a revolving door of spokespeople as we saw under Labor, when we saw six ministers in six years—five in 15 months. You could not even pick who it was. I will not embarrass the Labor minister at the time but I was having a conversation with one of them and they could not even remember who their minister was. I said, 'Just wait for a little while and everyone'll get a chance.' Everyone was going to get a chance.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is it now?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure who it is. Hang on—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A dollar for anyone who knows who it is now.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer is not helping.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have done is one of the excellent pieces of communication and information that supported this budget. The document we have put out not only recognises that 96 per cent of all businesses in Australia are small businesses supported by our package, recognises and pays respect to the 4½ million livelihood opportunities that small businesses make possible in this economy and pays tribute to the $330 billion of economic activity but also says, 'What else can we do to take those ideas and turn them into economic action?'. What is in this package? In Pino's case, he has identified a couple of opportunities. We need to restore reward and incentive. That is why the tax cuts for small business are so important.

A government member interjecting—

It could be. Tax cuts are coming. Jobs growth is happening. The economic conditions are improving. But we have more work to do. In this package members will see that tax cut. I would love to talk more about the specifics. It is a cut to the tax paid on small business incomes—not just incorporated small businesses, which seem to be the fixation of Labor, ignoring the two-thirds that are not incorporated. There is instant asset write-off, encouragement for business formation and transformation in structures where that is necessary, and accelerated depreciation for our primary industries. There is so much in this package to talk about. Having set the scene, I look forward to explaining it more and getting some questions from those opposite.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope it will be possible to move this consideration in detail away from argument and towards accountability; away from preaching and towards parliamentary responsiveness. My questions are to the Assistant Treasurer and focus on some issues relating to the goods and services tax. On Boxing Day last year, Australians awoke to find the Assistant Treasurer splashed over the media, talking about his big plans to extend the GST to services like Netflix and to get rid of the low-value threshold exemption for overseas goods. As with many things the member for Kooyong does, it generated a little more heat than light—for example, the centrepiece of the member for Kooyong's first red-tape repeal day was to include scrapping the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, thankfully still up and running; and getting rid of the Future of Financial Advice reforms, thankfully blocked by the Senate.

Question (1): does the member for Kooyong still believe, as he wrote in TheAustralian:

It is not fair to taxpayers, or to retailers or their many employees, to exempt overseas online retailers from the GST, even if some consumers are enjoying the ride.

Question (2): is he still of the view that local Australian retailers are operating 'with one hand tied behind their backs' because of the exemption for goods worth under $1,000? Question (3): if it is the case that the Assistant Treasurer still stands by these comments, why has he made no move to do something about the low-value threshold in this year's budget?

Turning to the budget measure and applying the GST to digital products and services, the exposure draft of the amending legislation does not give cause for concern. Question (4): can the government explain why I can purchase a DVD box set of M*A*S*H through Amazon that would be exempt from the GST under the low value threshold, but if I purchase those same 240 glorious M*A*S*H episodes on a digital format through Netflix, I will, under the government's proposal, pay GST on those? The government says it is for lower, fairer, simpler taxes, but how does creating two kinds of tax treatment for essentially the same product meet that criteria? I turn now to the question of what imported services may look like. Question (5): will companies like Uber, Airbnb and Spinlister be covered by this measure?

Turning to the particular costings—unlike the government's multinational tax package, there are actual revenue estimates for this one—question (6): what assumptions were plugged into that costing to arrive at a revenue figure of $350 million over four years and what data or modelling is this based on about the volume of goods and services currently being imported GST-free? Question (7): how many companies providing digital products and services are estimated to become GST liable as a result of this change? Question (8): did Treasury or the government consult with significant international providers of digital products and services for introducing this measure, and, if so, which ones? Question (9): is the revenue estimate provided in the budget papers the same as the revenue estimate in the costings prepared by Treasury? Question (10): how will the government collect GST from the offshore companies that are captured by this measure? Question (11): what enforcement mechanisms will exist for offshore companies that fail to meet their GST obligations under the new measure? Question (12): what is the estimated GST compliance cost for the ATO in enforcing this measure? Question (13): why was 1 July 2017 chosen as the start date? And question (14): Minister, when will you finally see sense and back Labor's multinational tax package to properly crack down on multinational profit shifting, a package that would raise 60 times more revenue than the one you announced in the budget?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I came here expecting a boxing match, a 'thrilla in Manila' here in the Federation Chamber, but what have I been hit with? A very wet sponge.

Mr Billson interjecting—

I need the turn of phrase of the member for Dunkley, because this is a lettuce I would like to buy many times over. I am so pleased that the member for Fraser has been reading my op eds, because I have been reading his, and I just want to share with you a couple of them.

Mr Billson interjecting—

I want to read you one from The Australian on 27 January this year. It was titled 'In defence of the carbon and mining taxes'. It stated that with these two taxes:

… the budget would be comfortably back in surplus in 2017-18.

I am pleased that the member for Fraser read my article about the GST, which I will talk about in one sec, but I have read his articles and he thinks that the carbon and mining taxes would bring the budget back into surplus. That was nearly as good as Chris Bowen's speech on ABC's Radio National when he said:

… Government has returned the Budget to surplus three years ahead of schedule and ahead of any other major advanced economy …

On the issue of the online threshold for the GST, as I wrote in my article in The Australian and as I said numerous times on radio, Australia is out of sync with the rest of the world as to where our threshold is. The fact that we have a $1,000 threshold compared to the United Kingdom, which has a 15 pound threshold, Canada, which has a Can$20 threshold and the United States, which applies a GST or the VAT equivalent to all online purchases from overseas, means that I do believe that there is a need for reform in this area. As the member for Fraser knows, both the Treasurer and the member for Dunkley—the Minister for Small Business—have also made similar comments.

But with the GST the money is going to the states and all the states have to agree. Premiers like Mike Baird have called very openly and publicly for a reduction in the threshold. Labor's own Treasurer in South Australia has called openly for a reduction in the threshold. Lara Giddings, the former Labor Tasmanian Premier, has called openly for a reduction in the threshold and now we see the Labor government in Victoria being much more open to the idea. One of the governments that have been holding back is the Liberal government in Western Australia under Colin Barnett, because they rightly feel that the 30c in the GST dollar that they get is very much below what they deserve. But we are hopeful that the states can come to an agreement and that that would be supported by the Labor opposition.

As you know, none of that money would go to the federal government. All that money would go to the state governments. I think it would be good for jobs. I think it would be good for jobs in the retail sector because if you buy something here on High Street for under $1,000 there is a GST but if you buy it from overseas, and it is under $1,000, there is not. So I am hopeful there will be reform.

I am asked by the member for Fraser about multinational tax. He should be ashamed of his own policy because both the BCA and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have come out and slammed it and said it will cost jobs in Australia. As you know, we have lifted the resourcing of the international division of the ATO to higher than it ever was under the Labor Party to deal with this issue. We have changed the thin capitalisation rules, which are very strong, and the ATO commissioner, Chris Jordan, is leading international efforts.

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

My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I think it is very enlightening that those opposite, who have this professed love of small business, are yet to ask the minister a question. Before I get to the question, I might make some observations and comments about how well this small business package has been received in the electorate of Forde.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

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

I would ask the member to desist from interrupting the member asking the question.

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

I am pleased to say that this small business package has been extraordinarily well received. When we have a look at the components in this small business package—such as the instant asset write-off, the tax reduction for corporate small businesses and the tax rebate for those unincorporated entities—as usual the coalition policy covers the gamut of small business, whereas in the Leader of the Opposition's budget-in-reply speech he forgot about two-thirds of small business. He only touched on the one-third that are incorporated.

When we look at small business in this country, 96 per cent of businesses in this country employ 43 to 45 per cent of our workforce. They are the ones that take the risk every single day to open their doors. They mortgage their houses and they put their entire livelihoods on the line every single day. We should be very proud of the fact that this government has taken the opportunity and has the vision and the foresight to step out onto their playing field and to support them in what they do, because they are the ones that have the capacity to grow and develop our economy for the future. The innovators and the entrepreneurs reside in that small business sector. They start off with one or two people in partnership, or maybe a single person, with an idea. Over time, from a home based business, they grow from that home office to a small office to a larger office and they grow bigger and bigger.

They are the people we should be looking to encourage and support. It is not only this small business package that is in the budget, but also our employee share ownership measures to encourage those businesses as they grow to bring people into the business and, if they do not have the capacity to pay them significant wages, they can give them an ownership share in the business so they have a genuine economic interest in the business in which they are working. Again, that builds the national wealth of this country. It is not just through the accumulating of super, which is an extraordinarily important part of our national savings plan—and, again, this government has been very positive in that regard—but, more importantly, we look to other avenues of creating wealth through small business growth and employee share ownership. Equally, I think it is important that this budget package not only look after small business in the urban part of Australia but also look after and recognise small business more generally in the rural sector of our economy, because they also employ people in those rural communities and they produce tremendous wealth for this country that sometimes gets forgotten. I think it is incredibly important that we focus on helping them as well, which we have done through this budget.

What we see with this budget is a comprehensive plan for business across a broad spectrum in Australia. Frequently when we talk about small business we think about the local bakery or cafe, but equally we have the rural supply shop out in our country towns and the small licensed post office or the small diesel fitter or mechanic out in those country areas as well. I am proud to say the budget has been very well received in the electorate of Forde. As we look forward to the introduction of these measures, can I ask the minister to please outline how the measures designed and articulated in the budget will help business in Forde and around the country.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Forde on so many levels. He chairs the coalition backbench policy committee for small business, he has lived the life of small business, he has been an adviser and an advocate for small business all of his professional career. Guess what, he is still doing that in an exemplary way here in the nation's parliament. I sincerely want to thank you but also put on the record that we are not twins—there has been some suggestion of confusion there. Member for Forde, thank you.

The $5.5 billion Jobs and Small Business package has a number of elements to it. We have spoken briefly about the small business company tax cut. That tax cut will see incorporated small businesses attracting the lowest company tax rate in almost 50 years—1967 was the last time the small business company tax rate was lower than what we are doing now, and that was when Sadie (The cleaning lady) was the number one hit. So there have been a couple of generations since we have had that kind of incentive but it is back. We also know that two-thirds of small businesses are not structured as companies. Unlike Labor, we have not forgotten about those enterprising men and women. There is a five per cent discount on their tax liability for turnovers under $2 million up to $1,000 worth of benefit. In proportionate terms, that is commensurate with the small business company tax cut, but what is significant is that it captures the two-thirds of small businesses that are not incorporated. They are your tradies, your self-employed, your sole traders, those operating through partnerships—and it is for each partner that is actively contributing in the business, so that is $1,000 for those active contributors—and also those operating through trusts. That is a great measure, a really terrific measure.

That is not all that is there. There is the asset write-off provision—that is, for a business-related asset purchase that would otherwise have to be depreciated through asset pooling arrangements and the like. Previously that was $1,000; that has been raised to $20,000. That was the message we were hearing: 'Put it at a level where there could be an investment in new productive capacity within these businesses.' It has been great for a number of electorates, and great for me to accompany great colleagues like the member for Eden-Monaro to hear firsthand how businesses are taking advantage of that. I remember Scott at the metal fabrication business talking about a new piece of metal fabrication equipment he will be buying that will boost his efficiency and help his business delight more customers in the greater Canberra and Eden-Monaro region. There are some of the examples.

The member for Forde moved into the primary industry sector. If small business is the engine room of our economy—and it is—it is fair to say, though, that farmers are the heart of our identity. We have not forgotten about the great contribution they make or the challenges that they face. One hundred and fifteen thousand businesses report agriculture as their main business activity. There are a further 13,900 that report agriculture as a secondary activity of their enterprises. We have recognised and celebrated that in the budget. Not only are they entitled to access the broader small business and jobs package benefits but there are particular measures for primary producers. We have said since budget night that capital expenditures on water facilities and fencing will be expensable in the year in which they were incurred. That includes this financial year because that measure takes effect from budget night.

The area of food and fodder storage assets is very important as rural producers and their businesses contend with drought and variety in the climate. Having water storage infrastructure and investment is important to the sustainability of their business, as is the area of fodder storage and food for livestock. That is ordinarily depreciable over about 30 years. That will be accelerated so it is a three-year depreciation. They are key parts of the package.

Beyond that, we have also recognised that, just as the population is ageing, the ownership profile of small business is also changing. I celebrate that more women than blokes are starting small businesses right now. I am thrilled about that. It shows the entrepreneurship of women and their preparedness to take their ideas and insights and turn them into economic opportunities for home based and microbusinesses, in some cases juggling those dual priorities in their lives of family and economic security. Being self-employed and an entrepreneur is a great step forward.

Using new technology is another part of it. But it is also about looking at ageing and succession planning. In here we are ensuring that, when a business does not change ownership but has to change its structure to better respond to its future ambitions and needs, that does not trigger a capital gains tax event. That is very important in our primary industries as we look to the future and want to support that next generation of primary producers.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions are to the Assistant Treasurer. They relate primarily to the Assistant Treasurer, but I always take the opportunity to talk with and ask questions of the Minister for Small Business. At this point I would not mind pursuing the matter that the Assistant Treasurer knows I have an interest in which relates to the transferral of functions from the Private Health Insurance Administration Council to APRA. APRA's job, as people are well aware, is fairly significant, covering the banking and financial system through to superannuation and general insurance. It will be tasked from 1 July with the responsibility of being responsible for taking over PHIAC's core responsibilities.

At the moment, PHIAC is basically oversighting the jobs of 34 different private health insurers providing over 40,000 products and 6.4 million policies covering 13 million Australians. On top of APRA's fairly significant workload, it will now be required to give effect to the oversight of private health insurance regulation in this country. It is a fairly big task. APRA already has a big amount of work on its plate, having to be cognisant of what is being proposed in the Murray inquiry, what is coming from overseas, financial regulation and the impact on the banks here, particularly through potentially increased capital requirements.

APRA is also potentially responsible through the Council of Financial Regulators for introducing a variety of macroprudential tools within the lending market, particularly for housing—both owner occupied and investor lending. Given that is of deep interest to me in Sydney and given the pace of growth in that market, the way in which APRA manages that is of deep concern.

Having a set of functions responsible for the health insurance of 13 million people is something that is pretty serious. What I am interested in finding out from the Assistant Treasurer is how many people in PHIAC are currently responsible, or being brought on within that regulator, to manage these functions? How many will be expected to be responsible in this space, post the merger? How many people within APRA will be dedicated to this process of regulation—in this new process for APRA—and what amount of money has been set aside for it?

I understand industry consultation has been undertaken to help in the transition. Can the Assistant Treasurer detail how many meetings have been held and where in the country they have occurred, or have they just been concentrated in two capital cities? What concerns have been raised by industry and have these been addressed?

APRA says it has met with various participants and I would be interested to know who those participants were—other than the actual companies themselves? There has also been an indication that formal meetings have been held with boards. Have all boards been met with—and if not, why not? Is the Assistant Treasurer confident that APRA will be able to provide robust, regulatory oversight into the future, or is this simply a cover for a funding cut that will weaken the quality of oversight? And can he also explain the regulatory arrangements?

I have had fruitful discussions with the Minister for Small Business in relation to the potential introduction of a framework for equity crowdfunding in this country. We are—as the minister knows—very keen to see this framework brought in as quickly as possible. I know he has a very similar degree of interest in seeing the framework introduced to support innovation in this country. From memory, I note that $7.8 million has been dedicated to the development of a disclosure template that would be provided to ASIC. To the Minister for Small Business: I am interested in the development of that framework and when it will commence, given the draft legislation is not in place. I do not necessarily see that one has to follow the other, but it would be interesting to know where the process is up to. Have consultations begun between ASIC and stakeholders? Which stakeholders have been targeted? Is a formal consultation process being observed, and how is that being implemented?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley asked an important question and I know he has asked similar questions in the House.

As you know, we had a commission of audit which was led by Tony Shepherd, with a distinguished group of former public servants and a former minister, Amanda Vanstone. It recommended a series of measures to consolidate the functions of government in order to derive important efficiencies and, ultimately, better consumer outcomes. As a result, this government has undertaken a number of reforms to reduce substantially the number of statutory bodies, agencies and committees. Where we have been able to consolidate the back-office functions of various agencies, we have done that. Where we have been able to integrate various functions within existing departments, we have done that. This has led to hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer.

One of the sensible reforms in this vein that we have continued with is moving PHIAC into APRA. It just makes sense, because PHIAC is responsible for—as the member for Chifley said—health insurance regulation and APRA is responsible for life insurance and general insurance regulation. Therefore, there are a lot of similarities that can be derived by bringing those two bodies together. We have engaged in extensive consultation—not just with the stakeholders but also more broadly—and as a result we have an important set of reforms which could lead over time to lower costs to the industry which, hopefully, will be passed on in the form of lower premiums.

I was asked about the number of people within APRA who do this function, and we are very satisfied that APRA does have the right number of people. As I have been advised, up to 80 per cent of the people working in PHIAC will be moving across to APRA in the first instance, and this will ensure a level of continuity. The member for Chifley can be reassured that the Minister for Health still retains the ultimate responsibility when it comes to the premium accountability, but the regulatory functions and prudential functions can be very effectively carried out by APRA in this case.

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

My question is to the Minister for Small Business, and I thank him for the opportunity today. Particularly, I would like him to explore the savings that this government has made around red tape reduction. I stand on the education and employment committee. We are holding an inquiry at the moment, and we had a presentation the other day from the peak body representing new migrants to Australia. I was reflecting after the committee hearing about the wonderful story that is migrants who came to this country after the Second World War, the businesses they started and the opportunities they had. I think particularly of a takeaway shop in Brighton in my own electorate. There is a Greek lady there. With respect to her, I struggle to understand her, but I am damn sure she still has the first dollar she ever made. She has employed people over the journey. But I wonder whether or not as a country we have strangled ourselves to death with red tape and whether those new Australians that come here and are looking to make lives for themselves are impeded by the red tape that we put on there and the impediments that we have to starting small businesses.

The other question I have relates to agriculture. While I know it is not the minister's primary responsibility, many of the businesses in my electorate are small businesses that are farming businesses as well. I thank him for the visit many years ago to the Mitre 10 True Value Hardware store, a rural suppliers business in Westbury, which trades as Westbury Rural Services. It is a member of the Australian Independent Rural Retailers association and a family owned business. I ask the minister about his recollection of that visit there and any reflections about the opportunities for farmers and businesses such as that, particularly around irrigation infrastructure, within this year's budget.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Lyon too. It has been great to visit the member for Lyon on a number of occasions, both prior to his election and subsequently, and to see how engaged he is with his local community. I vividly remember the visit to Westbury. In fact, some could say I remember it better than some others. It was great to be with the member for Lyon hearing about what the Meander Dam was doing for that region and its opportunity to provide a sustainable water system to support agriculture and export opportunities.

It was great to see the Westbury Mitre 10 True Value Hardware and farming supply business. The kit that was available in there was spectacular, and I remember I had to drag the member for Lyon away from some of the all-terrain vehicles that had him—

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

Lyons.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lyons—look, it has even multiplied! Isn't it great? There is so much going on in his part of the world. It was an interesting conversation. I remembered saying at that point that Tasmania is heralded for the magnificence of its ecosystem in a natural systems sense, an environmental sense, but that we need to make sure that its entrepreneurial ecosystem is nurtured and cared for with the same kind of vigour. We saw a connection between those things, because the export opportunities, particularly into North Asia with those spectacular free trade agreements that Andrew Robb and the team have delivered—and I am sad that the member for Oxley is not here—open up that delicious world of opportunities. The cherry production in Tasmania that is now enchanting those North Asian markets is an extraordinary opportunity, along with other clean, green premium produce, all the way down to some of the abalone—50 per cent of the world's export abalone comes out of Australia, the vast bulk of it out of Tasmania.

I was in China talking to the seven-star restaurant owners in the seven-star hotels, where they want the absolute premium. Guess where they were sourcing that from? Tasmania. People think Tasmania has an abundance of water. It may have a hearty amount of rainfall, but because of that the water storage infrastructure in Tasmania is perhaps not as deep and well developed as it is in other parts of our economy. That is why the asset write-off measure around water investment in the budget is so important. But go a bit further. I think the CSIRO have developed is some technology to remotely diagnose the moisture content in the soils in Tasmania. I am trying to remember the—

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

Sense-T

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sense-T. The member for Lyons is on fire! Sense-T is another example. There is the capacity to remotely diagnose, through telemetry, the soil conditions, to make sure just the right amount of moisture is there. If you were running one of those farm businesses and irrigation related businesses in Tasmania and you provided your staff with one of these pieces of technology, one is FBT-free. But, if someone went along and provided a tablet to be able to monitor those soil conditions, you risk an FBT event. The Jobs and Small Business package says that we need to be technologically engaged. Say you provide your staff with any number of these devices—perhaps mounted in an all-terrain vehicle—that you purchase from Westbury Mitre 10, taking advantage of the asset write-off, and you have got a tablet fitted into the kit. Or you happen to be out near Meander Dam looking at the flows, and you are using this to do your remote telemetry. Why should that trigger an FBT event, when it is such a tool of doing business? We are opening the door for opportunities for irrigation related produce in Tasmania, and we are providing the platform for what Tasmania does as well as anyone in the world—that is, premium, clean, green, food secure, spectacularly enchanting and delightful food, produce and beverages. We have talked about the whisky that is coming out of the area in the electorate of the member for Lyons. We have talked about the cottage beers and the cheese. This is a great opportunity, and the budget is all about supporting those things.

Another measure that is of great interest is that relating to the encouragement to recruit. I know in some areas of Tasmania there is a need for incentives to bring people back into the workforce and to give them that chance. The budget also provides for that. There are so many great things going on in the budget to support the member for Lyons, to make the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Tasmania as delightful as the environmental ecosystem. To build from that base, to have a government that is interested in creating jobs and getting behind private endeavour—what a great story. Member for Lyons, thank you for bringing your contribution to that, to make sure our measures were responding to the needs of your community and energising enterprise in the southern island. I am pumped about that, and I know you are too, Sir.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Small Business earlier heard a series of questions asked in relation to equity crowdfunding. I was wondering if he would take the opportunity and the time remaining to possibly answer those.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Chifley; we have had a good, constructive, collaborative engagement on getting something done that we need done for our economy—that is, getting in place a crowd-sourced equity funding framework. Why are we doing that? Because that is part of getting the conditions right to drive economic growth. It is also about supporting innovation and the challenge that many small and growth businesses face in getting funding to support their growth.

Debt finance might be attractive, but you have got to pay it back. At a time when you are putting your resources into the growth and development of your business, that is not always the best formula. Equity can be that answer. You might find a venture partner; you might find an angel investor. But that might not be for you. You might want to go out to the masses and say, 'Here is an idea; you might want to get behind it'—a few thousand dollars crowd-funded, using the technology platforms of today, pitching that business idea, right-sizing the regulatory environment, but also letting investors know that here is a chance to be a part of either a start-up or a growth phase of that business.

We made the commitment in our Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda to get this framework in place. In the budget, as the member for Chifley rightly identifies, there is $7.8 million to support ASIC's work in that regard.

What does that work look like?

These platforms require an intermediary, and that intermediary or the host of the technology platform—for example, in the equity dating service matching the proponents and those that may invest—needs to license and make sure they are fit for purpose. There is also a need to make sure that we understand what sort of disclosure is reasonable for investors, who might not be experienced investors or wholesale investors. This might be their first investment because they have been taken by the idea of a new online publication called 'The New Parliamentarian'. They are really interested in that and they want to put some money into it because they love public policy and public life. It is their first time and we need to make sure they get the right information. So what we have done is put out a discussion paper, which has been well responded to. That was released in December, if my memory serves me correctly. We then had a number of roundtables with industry stakeholders in Melbourne and Sydney.

We have heard about the experience in New Zealand—its benefits and its shortcomings. One shortcoming I would mention is there is no relief for public companies in terms of their reporting and governance arrangements, and that is thought to be a barrier. Also, the New Zealand model does not reach into closely held proprietary limited companies, yet from our consultations we have heard we have to make sure it has that utility. So that work continues.

I respect and value the insights and the shared commitment I have with the member for Chifley and I look forward to working with him to get this done and open this option for fundraising and access to finance for the start-up community and those in a growth phase. We are aiming to get legislation in during the spring session. I will be honest with you: that is going to require a lot of work, particularly on the closely held proprietary companies because that is not where others have gone, yet the feedback says we need to turn our minds to that as well.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,529,107,000

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Henderson, as you know, our infrastructure program is benefiting constituencies right across Australia. Even the member for Bendigo, who is here, would be one of the first to endorse the Stronger Regions program because she benefited so much from it in the first round, with $5 million for the Bendigo airport. As I have made very clear to her, the $5 million that she got for the Bendigo airport will do a lot for Bendigo and its region, particularly around Kyneton and Malmsbury, which is so close to my heart.

But there have been some disappointments and you know about them more than most. The Victorian government's decision not to proceed with the East West Link will damage Geelong and damage Corangamite, in that they will not get the economic benefit they would have received had the East West Link gone ahead. That is why the Abbott government will always have $3 billion locked away, ready for a government to build the East West Link, to ensure Melbourne can achieve what we want it to in the future.

It is very much related to what we see from the Infrastructure Australia audit as a major challenge for our country, which is congestion. Congestion has got worse over the last few years with a lack of coordinated action by governments, particularly in cities, in metropolitan areas. There has been a lot of talk about infrastructure but not a lot of action. What we are seeing from this government is actual delivery.

I can report that since the last time we had this debate 12 months ago some 85 projects have begun construction, with another 98 projects in preconstruction. That is, 85 projects are under construction, with another 98 projects in preconstruction. These are projects that the Abbott government is driving. The Abbott government is announcing, doing the work and delivering upon these projects. I can name a few the Abbott government is delivering for people across Australia.

We have the WestConnex stage 2, which would not be happening as quickly as it is if it were not for the Abbott government's $2 billion concessional loan—the first concessional loan ever used by a federal government for a road project. It is about to get underway. The King Georges Road interchange is a massive bottleneck in Sydney and work is about to get underway.

The issue here, of course, is not just that we have a federal government committed to infrastructure in New South Wales but also that we have Australia's most popular man, the Premier of New South Wales, delivering on what he promised. The most popular man in infrastructure—

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

No more popular than—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the member for Grayndler wants to think that he himself is the most popular man in infrastructure. He is the most popular man in the Labor Party, we know that! But the most popular man in Australia is delivering on infrastructure, with WestConnex stage 1, WestConnex stage 2 and the Western Sydney plan, which is underway of course. We have road projects actually happening on the ground in Western Sydney like the Bringelly Road upgrade. The member for Grayndler welcomed this commitment the other day in his speech on the Western Sydney Airport legislation and we welcome that.

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

I did, I am a fair man!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is occasionally a fair man, there is no doubt about that! But across the country we have the Perth freight link. Just 15 minutes ago there was another attack on the Perth freight link by the member for Perth, who has the longest title of anyone in the history of opposition. The actual title of her portfolio responsibilities is longer than one page; she needs at least two pages for each media release because of that.

We have the North-South Corridor in my home town of Adelaide in my home state of South Australia. We have two projects actually happening on the North-South Corridor, which would not have happened under the previous government. There will be more to say about this in the coming weeks. We have the Toowoomba bypass, Madam Deputy Speaker Landry, in your home state of Queensland, which would not have happened but for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Science and their dogged pursuit of the importance of this project with the Queensland government.

Of course, we have so much more to do. We are very proudly part of the Sydney Metro project. The biggest contribution that a federal government has ever made to public transport was by the Abbott government. There will be more money spent on public transport than by any previous federal government because of the Abbott government and the Asset Recycling Initiative. This is a government that does not talk about infrastructure. It does not put infrastructure money into pink batts or overpriced school roads, but it puts it into roads, into rail and into building a stronger Australia. That is why we will get a stronger economy.

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

The problem for this government is that it is all talk and rhetoric and no build when it comes to infrastructure, and this budget has just shown that. The background, of course, to the budget has been a 17.3 per cent fall in public infrastructure investment if you compare the December quarter 2014 with just 12 months earlier—an 11.2 per cent fall in the infrastructure and regional development portfolio spending over the budget. That is the media release from the Infrastructure Partnerships Australia organisation. That is what the sector is saying about this government's approach.

There has been over $2 billion has been cut out of federal infrastructure funding to the states and territories over this year and the next financial year compared with the government's own budget papers in 2014. There was $802 million less spent this year than was promised in the 2014 budget, and $1,199 million less next year than was promised in the 2014 budget. If anyone doubts it, they just need to refer to table 2.9 in Budget Paper No. 3 of the 2014 budget at page 60 and compare with the same table on page 51 of the 2015 budget. That includes $613 million cut from Queensland, including $93 million cut next year from the Bruce Highway: $812 million cut from Victoria; $318 million cut from South Australia; and $31 million cut from Tasmania. Victoria has received just eight per cent of infrastructure spending, despite having 25 per cent of the population.

Then you go to specific programs: the business renewal program was promised $60 million this year and now zero dollars will be spent on what is, I acknowledge, a coalition program, and no extra money for next year.

The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program has a cut of $28 million over two years. Even the government's so-called new investments program has been cut by over $300 million for this year and next. Of course, there has been the absurd, stupid and dangerous $1 million cut to the regional bus seatbelts program. What sort of government does something like that? What sort of government does that? Infrastructure Australia funding is cut from $15 million this year to $8 million in future years. Transport security spending falls from $79 million next year to $74 million over the forward estimates.

This is a budget that, for the first time, has no major new projects in it. Every year on budget night you produce a glossy booklet. The problem, of course, for the government last year was that they did produce a booklet, and it was pretty easy to compare it with the previous year's booklet because a lot of it was just a cut-and-paste job on projects, such as projects on the Pacific Highway and projects on the Bruce Highway. They were just re-announcing projects. I must say that on their magical infrastructure re-announcement tour they are creative from time to time. The member for Bradfield thinks that NorthConnex is a different road from the F3 to the M2, which was funded by the former government, because it has a new name. A new name does not make it a new project. It was an agreement done between the Commonwealth and the state.

Of course, we have the failure to produce the 2014 State of Australian Cities report. It has been printed, it is there, but they will not distribute it. The 200 copies have been printed and are sitting, gathering dust, as the secretary of the department said.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

It is precisely what he said at Senate estimates.

Government members interjecting—

Yes, that is precisely the term that he used at Senate estimates. Not once, but you will find that he said it twice at Senate estimates just to make it clear, because the minister will not allow it to be released. How embarrassing is it that we have a government that does not believe there is any Commonwealth role in our cities?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say that, as infrastructure minister, I am proud to be a part of government that are delivering the biggest infrastructure program in our nation's history. We have provided $50 billion for infrastructure projects across the country. Frankly, I have been staggered by statements by the shadow minister that, somehow or other, this $50 billion is less than the expenditure in previous years. Never forget that Labor's expenditure on road and rail infrastructure in its last year in office was less than what the Howard government spent in its last year. So Labor's own record is not particularly good, and then to make claims that, somehow, that there are cuts in the budget is an absolute nonsense.

If you go to budget paper No. 1 and table 15 it is absolutely clear that expenditure is increasing. The budget papers show that expenditure on road will go from $4.214 billion to $8.401 billion over the next three budgets. That is doubling, essentially, over a period of around four years. If you look at rail, the story is the same. It increases from $740 million in 2014-15 up to $1.3 billion in 2016-17. To talk about cuts is absolute nonsense. We hear these statements that somehow there are no new projects in this budget. The reality is that in the last budget we announced a five-year program that included many new projects. So, we are honouring and delivering the second stage of the last budget with the projects that were announced. That includes exciting things like the Toowoomba Range development that Labor has opposed, both at state and federal level, over the years, but now it is actually going to happen. All the money that is required to complete the Pacific Highway four-laning is in this year's budget. That would never have happened under the other side's policy. It would be a decade away.

I have also listened with amazement to the claim that somehow or other only eight per cent of the funding will be going to Victoria. The reality is that the budget forecasts 19 per cent of the funding going to Victoria, not eight per cent. The figure will fall because of the Victorian government's decision not to build the East West Link. That means it falls to about 12 per cent of the total. But that is a self-inflicted pain for Victoria. That is what Labor did to the program. Labor took away the biggest project in Victoria and there is nothing in the short-term to replace it. We will negotiate with Victoria—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not ready. It will not be ready for three years. So why would you be putting money in this year's budget for a project that cannot be built for three years? We are looking around for other projects in cooperation with the Victorian government so that there can be some construction activity in that state. We want there to be jobs created in Victoria. Even though they walked away from the best project, we will look at other work that can be done, particularly shovel-ready projects so that there can be jobs and expenditure in Victoria.

Any fall in the reduction of expenditure in Victoria is not the fault of the federal government; it is the fault of the state government which chose not to build the project that had been agreed by its predecessors and which are part of the agreed five-year program. Labor walked away from it and so Labor has got to take full responsibility for any reductions in funding in that particular area.

Let me go to another issue raised by the honourable member opposite—that is, the school bus seatbelts program. The reality is that it is now in all of the mainland states compulsory to fit seatbelts to school buses. Labor itself had not provided any money beyond that year for the school bus seatbelts program. There was no money in Labor's forward estimates for the program. They had decided to terminate it. Incidentally, it was introduced by the Howard government. I have heard Labor trying to claim it was their program but it was put in place by the Howard government and it has served its purpose.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Eden-Monaro.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Landry, I rise on a point of order. The member for Franklin was on her feet. In terms of the process of order, I refer you to House of Representatives Practice page 503, which says:

Although the allocation of the call is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, it is usual, as a principle, to call Members from each side of the House, government and non-government, alternately.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, I call the member for Franklin.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Landry. It is good to get an opportunity to speak on the consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, the infrastructure and regional development budget. We heard from the previous speaker on this side about the cuts to infrastructure in the budget. We have also not seen in this budget the restoration of the indexation of the Financial Assistance Grant program that is hurting local government, particularly in rural and regional Australia. The cut to the Financial Assistance Grant program is almost a billion dollars over the budget. Local governments are now starting to grapple with what they are going to do in the face of the Financial Assistance Grant program cut that they got in last year's budget that continues in this budget and they were given no notice.

It was interesting when we finally got a response to one of the questions on notice in relation to the number of councils that have written to the minister in relation to the Financial Assistance Grant program. More than 100 councils around Australia that have been upset enough about the Financial Assistance Grant program cut to actually write to the minister and put the minister on notice that they are unhappy about these cuts because of the way that they are actually affecting councils, particularly in rural and regional Australia. The Financial Assistance Grant program cuts that were in last year's budget continue in this year's budget.

In this budget we have got some new money. We have got the Building Stronger Communities Fund, which is about $150,000 an electorate, I understand, for two years. We have heard from the government that it is going to work along the lines of the Anzac grants. But, given that the money is for this year and next year, I am wondering whether one of the ministers can let us know the process and guidelines for local members for the Stronger Communities fund, confirm that senators will not have a role in this, and explain a bit about what the role might be for local members as to how this money will be allocated and—given that we are already about to embark on the next financial year—when local members can expect to be in a position to talk to their communities about this fund.

I am also interested in the Community Development Grants Fund. This is the money—uncontracted RDAF 3, 4 and 5, that was pulled together by the government and allocated. Members might recall that a large majority of it went to coalition-held seats. Indeed, most of the election commitments from the then opposition, now government, were funded through this program. Around 80 per cent of the money went to coalition-held seats. That program had about $7 million left in it. In this budget, I notice, they have allocated another $50 million to the program. In estimates the department said that this is essentially funding government commitments and there is not a competitive assessment process. Given that there is now $57 million sitting in this grants program, that there does not appear to be a way to apply for it and that the government has actually already allocated a grant to it, I think the minister should come clean with the parliament about how this program is going to work and how other members—for instance, members from this side of the House—can access this grants program. It appears to be a bucket of money that the government can just decide to give to any program. I understand that there is some assessment by the department but I would like to know what criteria the department is assessing it against. What are the criteria for the Community Development Grants Fund, which now has $57 million in it, no way for people to apply to it and absolutely no competitive process? It does seem absurd that you would have a bucket of money sitting there called the Community Development Grants Fund and no way to apply. It just seems extraordinary that we can have a situation where this is occurring.

Another thing I would like to address is the cuts to infrastructure in my home state of Tasmania. Minister Briggs came down to Tasmania and talked about the Midlands Highway and the $400 million. Unfortunately for Minister Briggs, we had $500 million for the Midlands Highway, so it has been cut by $100 million.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

We will get to the irrigation in a moment, Mr Briggs.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

No, we are not. The issue is that $100 million has been cut from the Midlands Highway and half of the money that was there for freight rail has been cut. We understand from the department that it has been cut and put into the irrigation schemes. So the irrigation money is not new money and in fact has been cut from freight rail in Tasmania. We have had $100 million cut from the Midlands Highway and we have had $60 million cut from freight rail and put into irrigation instead. Tasmania has had cuts from this federal government when it comes to infrastructure. They should be delivering for Tasmanians. They are not.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I address my comments to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Over recent weeks I have been conducting a lot of listening posts. They have been in towns like Bega, Cooma, Jindabyne, Thredbo, Bredbo, Jerangle, Tathra, Narooma, Moruya, Pambula, Gundillion and Frogs Hollow. Across those areas, in the discussions that have ensued, road funding and infrastructure funding in respect of either NBN rollout or other matters like ports or airports have been top of mind. They are the issues that have been raised. I was very pleased to be able to respond to my constituents by noting that this government has a $50 billion infrastructure rollout plan, the biggest in Australia's history. I was able to tell them, for example, that in our electorate of Eden-Monaro we are rolling out a $10 million plan for the upgrade of the port of Eden.

With regard to roads, we have had a magnificent promise to roll out $25 million to match that of the New South Wales government for the Queanbeyan bypass. With Roads to Recovery moneys and Black Spot Program moneys we have been able to allocate money for the upgrade of Princes Highway and also the Kings Highway, which is very important to my constituents in Eden-Monaro. In the upgrade of bridges policy, we have been able to promise money for upgrades of a bridge in Broulee and a bridge in Bombala—all very important.

On behalf of my constituents, I am also pushing for other infrastructure spending. For example, the Merimbula airport and the Moruya airport: these things are not quite there yet in relation to government promises, but on behalf of my constituents I am pushing for additional money to upgrade these important pieces of economic infrastructure in my electorate. Why that then comes to you, Assistant Minister, is because you, along with the cabinet minister, are responsible for the National Stronger Regions Fund. There was recently an announcement, on budget day, of a whole range of projects. I know there is a second round coming up, and so my question to you, Assistant Minister, is: could you explain to the House the arrangements for this second round of the National Stronger Regions Fund policy, how it will proceed and what prospects there are not only for people in my electorate but also for people across the whole of Australia to get more of that really needed infrastructure.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of points that I want to pick up on and ask questions about of both the ministers that we have present. Before I get to the Stronger Regions Fund or follow up on other comments that have been made, I want to seek some clarification about the allocated funding for Ravenswood Interchange as an infrastructure project. It first appeared in the MYEFO budget with $45 million allocated to the Ravenswood upgrade. A commitment was made by both sides of politics during the election campaign to fund this particular project on the Calder Highway in my electorate. However, while it was first allocated in the 2013-14 MYEFO, what we have seen since is Senator Bridget McKenzie, whose office in my electorate, continually reannouncing this project. As recently as 12 May, she said she was 'wrapped to announce new funding, more funding for Ravenswood'. I am seeking a point of clarification via a question to the minister: is this in fact new money coming to Ravenswood or is it just the same money reannounced? Is the government just reannouncing funding for Ravenswood? This is just another example demonstrating how this government continues to reannounce projects that are already committed to. What is it, Minister: is it new money that the senator has promised Bendigo, or is it the money that was allocated in MYEFO back in 2013-14?

Ravenswood is not the only project that the area is seeking help for in terms of infrastructure upgrades. I would also like to know if the minister is considering further rail projects in my state of Victoria. It was great to see you there at the ribbon-cutting for the Regional Rail Link—a vital infrastructure project that will help people from the regions and in the west get into Melbourne on time. The uncoupling of the metropolitan rail and the Regional Rail Link, making sure we get an extra 54,000 people into Melbourne on time—is there going to be a consideration by this government to put the funding back into Melbourne Metro? As we have heard, this was prioritised by Infrastructure Australia; it is a priority of the current state Labor government. It was also a priority of the former state government and the former federal Labor government.

My next question I have addresses the area of the Stronger Regions Fund. While $5 million—not $10 million, but $5 million—was allocated to the Bendigo Airport project, which was something the area welcomed, there were a number of other projects that did miss out on funding. They are seeking information about how they can reach the guidelines. When is the minister going to release that extra information on those projects? There were something like an extra nine projects in the feedback they are seeking—nine projects in the Bendigo electorate that applied for funding and were not successful. When will they receive the feedback? They are looking to resubmit the projects as we speak.

Linked to that, of course, are a number of local governments in my area that have written to you personally, Minister, upset about the freezing of the financial assistance grants. They are the City of Greater Bendigo, Mount Alexander Shire and the Macedon Ranges Shire. All are asking this government to reverse its decision around the indexation of financial assistance grants. These are the same councils that have already been hit by changes from the ARTF program to Stronger Regions. They had a number of projects that were committed to funding in round 5A that they did the work of under ARTF. Not these projects. These were local government projects under 5A—vital small infrastructure projects that they put forward that were approved and they had started the planning on. These are local government areas that have been hit several times by this government. They want to know if the government is going to listen to their calls. They are three of the many councils that have written to this government, saying those financial assistance grants are vital to ensuring our regional communities continue to build the infrastructure that they need. If we are serious about having stronger regions then we need to support our local government in building these projects.

My final question is to back up what the member for Franklin has said, and that is getting information about how the stronger communities fund will actually work and how the government sees that rolling out. I already have lots of community groups and local governments saying: 'Who will have access to this funding? How will we actually do it?' The government has suggested that this could help upgrades of pools and so on and so forth.

Mr Truss interjecting—

To be fair, Deputy Prime Minister, it is unlikely that this funding of $150,000 can go anywhere near helping local communities upgrade their pools. It is just not possible.

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

It is always a pleasure to stand in this place and speak about infrastructure, because infrastructure provides the lifeblood to our economy for it to operate and grow. My question will be to the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would like to make a few comments before I get to that.

It is pleasing to see in this budget a record spend on infrastructure for this nation—some $50 billion. Equally, to bring this more locally to my electorate of Forde, I am pleased to see that there is some $13 million of Roads to Recovery funding between the Logan and Gold Coast city councils. I represent an area that covers parts of both of those councils, which are growing rapidly with satellite cities and infill development, and it is critically important that these councils are provided that funding so that they can continue to upgrade the local road networks for the businesspeople of our community, whom we touched on in an earlier session. As we fund and grow the ability of small business to grow and develop, we see—we are already seeing anecdotally—increases in purchases of new utes and all sorts of other equipment as a result of the instant asset write-off provisions that we introduced in the budget on budget night. All of those tradespeople and businesspeople who are buying the equipment can as a result of our budget changes in the small business sector. They need the roads and infrastructure to be able to productively grow their business. The last thing they need is to be sitting in traffic at six o'clock in the morning or even during the day, trying to get from one job to another.

Certainly in my electorate there is a high number of self-employed small business people who are tradespeople, electricians, plumbers and carpenters. They are frequently travelling the roads of our great cities, and these infrastructure investments will be greatly appreciated—none more so than exit 54 at Upper Coomera. In thanking the Deputy Prime Minister, I would also like to thank the assistant minister for visiting the electorate 12 months or so ago and hosting a meeting with interested stakeholders. Interestingly, it was the first time all the stakeholders had been in the one room at the one time to discuss this vital project for Upper Coomera.

I would like to thank the assistant minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for being able to work with them to secure $10 million of funding for the upgrade of this vital interchange at Upper Coomera. It will lead to an increase in jobs as a result of the capacity of Westfield and QIC to build the Coomera Town Centre, which will be a tremendous boon to the local economy in creating jobs and building activity. We have a small industrial area in Upper Coomera which houses a lot of small to medium businesses. One of the things they have spoken frequently to me about is the amount of time they have to sit at roundabouts to get from one side of the highway to the other. They are no longer coping with the traffic volumes as a result of the development in Upper Coomera.

Not only will that initiative lead to new jobs and new development, but it will also increase productivity and more profitable businesses as they service other areas of the greater Gold Coast or areas where they do business. I am very proud of the fact that we as a government recognise the importance of infrastructure and creating the opportunities for our business sector to grow. Parents who have to get kids to and from school in that local area—we have five schools very close together—frequently get frustrated at the amount of time they have to spend sitting in traffic jams.

My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: could he please outline how continuing to build infrastructure in Australia is going to benefit, not only the broader national economy, but also our local economies in and around electorates such as Forde?

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

I do have some questions I would actually like the minister to answer as I am intrigued. As you know, the largest project that you are funding in Western Australia is the Perth Freight Link. First of all, I would like you to describe to me what your view is about building such a large project into a port that is going to have to be moved in the next 10 years? That is the first part of my question. Probably the bigger question is seeking to understand why it is that we have been, in the past year, unable to access any documents in relation to this project. We have sought through freedom of information applications. We have sought documents from your office. Your office tells us it has only got two emails: one from main roads saying 'what on earth is going on here' and your office responding that you want to do an event. That is the only documentation, apparently in your office, about a $1.6 billion project.

We have gone to the department to seek information. They have demanded $2,500 to access any documentation. They have finally provided us with a list of documents, and each of those documents that are not already in the public domain are listed as being exempt. The justification given for the exemption of the vast majority of these documents, including traffic counts, traffic projections—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

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

I know the annoying assistant minister is feeling aggrieved because I am not directing my comments to him; I am going to the organ-grinder, not the monkey. Minister, I seek some clarification as to why it—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister will allow the member for Perth to continue.

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

He is such an annoying prat. It is unbelievable. I am trying to direct some questions—

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a second, member for Perth. Could you please withdraw that. Making that sort of comment really does not help your position.

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

I withdraw the comment. I am seriously asking the minister the question: why would revealing documents in relation to traffic projections, traffic count, cost estimates damage state-federal relations? That is what I am seeking to understand—why it is that all of the documentation is deemed to be of such a sensitive nature that it cannot be released for fear it is going to damage relationships between the federal and the state government. I am really seeking an explanation of this. What it looks like is that you are very reluctant to have the spotlight of public scrutiny placed on this project. You say you are proud of this project. Tell us why it is, then, that you are not prepared to allow any of the documentation to be released.

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a real privilege to be here today with the two visionary and innovative ministers for infrastructure that represent the Abbott federal government. Western Sydney is under an incredible revolution—an innovation revolution. The University of Western Sydney has done phenomenal work in relation to the innovation corridor, starting with the integrated health hub down in the Campbelltown-Macarthur region, going up to the Sydney University campus in Camden. Oran Park Town has been accredited as the fastest growing town in Australia, and there is the south-west growth corridor, where 300,000 people will be moving over the next 10 years. In my electorate of Lindsay, there is the Sydney Science Park—a 280 hectare facility that will be home to 12,200 jobs in science and biotech—smart jobs; jobs for the future.

Of course there is the Western Sydney science centre and the Sydney IQ business park which will see 6,000 jobs also in innovation and science. Going out to the north-west growth sector, the north-west growth sector is home to the Sydney Business Park. The Sydney Business Park is going to be the biggest business park in the southern hemisphere. These are some phenomenal achievements and wonderful things. We are seeing an innovation revolution come right across to the people of Western Sydney. My question is going to be very much about how we can support this innovation, how we can support this growth, how we can support jobs of the future. It is great that we have inspirational leaders and business communities that are coming in and investing. The Sydney Science Park alone through the Baiada group is $2.5 billion of private investment over and above the value of the real estate. This will be in Luddenham, which is on the corner of The Northern Road and Elizabeth Drive, which I am sure both ministers are very aware of because it does form part of a $3.6 billion package which will make Western Sydney move.

Greater Western Sydney is home to one in 11 Australians. In fact, greater Western Sydney is the third largest economy in Australia. Greater Western Sydney has 240,000 local businesses. The business incubator, which is part of the Sydney IQ business park and the Werrington Park Corporate Centre, is a partnership with the UWS—federal government investment was in there as well—and now people like Google are coming in to work out how we can create the Googles of tomorrow.

But you cannot just have this wonderful ideas unless we have infrastructure that that links it altogether. But Sydney has been stymied. We had a former Premier in Bob Carr, and I believe he was in another chamber in this place, who is famous for saying 'Sydney is full—there is no more infrastructure, Sydney is full.' But do you know what we have seen? We have seen a gridlock, also known as Parramatta Road. Two-thirds of the people of Western Sydney have to commute every single day, one-third all the way into the city and one-third into Greater Western Sydney. No longer is this good enough. We need jobs in our areas. Previous planning has designed things like dormitory suburbs in outer Western Sydney. We want jobs for our children. We want jobs for the future. By 2020 less than five per cent of manufacturing will exist in my part of Western Sydney. The dream of parents in my community is to see their kids be successful and have a better life than themselves, which is a noble aspiration of every generation, and that is why we need to build infrastructure for the 21st century.

But it is not just about infrastructure, it is also about the jobs of the 21st century and working on these things together. My questions to the ministers are all about this. How can we continue to get New South Wales moving? How can we allow for jobs in Western Sydney to grow and prosper, and get Western Sydney to really lead our country? How can our infrastructure also allow for people in Western Sydney to be able to commute much more efficiently into the city, because right now Parramatta Road is not acceptable. If you live in my part of Western Sydney, trying to get out through Pennant Hills Road for your Christmas holidays is absolutely diabolical. What if you want to get to the airport? If you are doing it in peak-hour traffic, then try to do it under two hours; in a non-peak hour period it might take you 50 minutes. These things are destroying our country's efficiency, our productivity and our ability to compete. That is why we need the infrastructure of the 21st century and we need ministers with vision to step up and fight for our infrastructure so that the people of Western Sydney can get the jobs they deserve.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions in relation to a few projects in my home state of Tasmania that I want to talk about. The government ministers would be aware that the government has announced changes to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. There are going to be two rates for things going across the strait: one for international shipping and one for domestic shipping. I am interested in how the differential between the two pricing structures will work for producers in the state who are trying to get produce out. People are concerned about red tape and about having to apply to the two different programs.

It has also been raised with me that the government has said there will be a six-month limit on applications for TFES under the new program. I understand that the government is going round and doing some consultations in Tasmania about how the program will work. Given it is supposed to start next year, I am keen to understand when the government intends to have a decision on how this will work. I am also keen to know whether or not it is true that the government is considering limiting applications to be made within six months, because I am told that a lot of the smaller exporters are very concerned that they might not be able to get their claims through within the six months. They are saying that at the moment it does sometimes take a bit longer for them because of the paperwork and they are concerned that if there is going to be two lots of paper work, then the red tape will mean it will take longer and they are not going to be able to meet the time frame. I am interested to see whether the government is actually going in imposing tighter time frames on applications as well as where the government is going in terms of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme changes. I am also keen to understand where the government got the differential figure from for the different containers. I understand that it is about $850 per domestic container but they are talking about $700 for international, so I am interested to know why there is that differential and how that came about.

I am also wondering if the ministers can answer some questions about the Cadbury money, or if they could get an answer from department officials. People will remember the $16 million for the Cadbury proposal in Tasmania. We were initially told it was in the employment department, then we were told it was in regional development and then we were told it had ended up in tourism area of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has been recorded as a saving under the tourism budget this year, and we are told that it still exists somewhere in somebody's budget in the government. So my question to the ministers is: do you have the $16 million? I have asked this a few times—I have asked several departments if they have the $16 million—and at this stage I am beginning to think that it does not exist. We have asked several departments if they have the $16 million, and which projects the $16 million, which we have been guaranteed will remain in Tasmania, is going to fund and which department or agency it might be in. It would be very useful to know because Tasmanians are very anxious about this money. People will be aware that unemployment in my home state is still very high; it has a seven in front of it. We have now had three months of unemployment figures going up and so Tasmanians are concerned about this money. We have heard Cadbury announce it will be sacking workers in Tasmania, so there is a great need for that money to remain in the state.

I also have some questions around Hobart Airport. Ministers will be aware that Hobart Airport sought some funding for a runway extension—$38 million from the federal government and $2 million from the airport owners. They have recently announced a terminal upgrade of around another $30 million, and I understand the government has only provided about $3 million to date for the planning to get the business case ready. I would appreciate hearing from the government how much in each year of funding there is for the Hobart Airport runway extension. I want to make to make sure that the money is in the budget going forward, because this project has been supported by everybody in the state, and we want to make sure that this extension occurs.

I also want to raise an issue that has been raised with me by the two councils in Tasmania that have airports in them, and that is about rates-equivalent payments from airports to local government. I understand they are not the only local governments in the country that have raised this issue with the minister, and I understand some of them have actually tried to seek a meeting with the minister and have met with the minister's staff or department officials but have not been able to see the minister about it. My question is: has that occurred yet? What, if anything, can the government do in terms of trying to assist councils with their negotiations with the airports to try and recover some of this funding? For some of the councils, I understand, it is quite substantial. I genuinely ask these things about my home state, in the interests of Tasmania, and I hope that I do get an answer.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Franklin. There are a lot of very good questions relating to Tasmania. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Capricornia.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The future development of northern Australia, from the Tropic of Capricorn upwards, is important to our nation's agriculture and resource future. For the past 18 months I have been fighting hard to ensure that Capricornia and Central Queensland feature on the northern Australian scene. At one point I even declared war on far northern regions like Townsville, Darwin and Cairns, because I believe that, early on, politicians and business leaders in those regions were hijacking the decision-making process.

Today, the federal government released its long-awaited white paper on northern Australia. I was buoyed by comments from the Prime Minister today that he agrees with me that the city of Rockhampton and its surrounding areas need some attention and that he would like to see Rockhampton get some of that attention, particularly around the Tropic of Capricorn. Today's northern Australia white paper release follows the recent announcement in the federal budget that our government is providing a new $5 billion northern Australia infrastructure facility, which is the first major step in developing our North.

During this white paper process, I fought hard for Capricornia to get Central Queensland a recognised representative on the Prime Minister's Northern Australia Taskforce. The representative is CQ University Vice-Chancellor, Scott Bowman. When it comes to northern Australia, in my role representing Capricornia, I will continue to push water infrastructure projects like the Fitzroy agricultural corridor, Urannah Dam and the Connors River Dam. It is my desire that some of these projects will feature in the white paper on dams that is currently in the pipeline.

Capricornia and the city of Rockhampton, Australia's beef capital, are the gateway of northern Australia. Capricornia is a huge chunk of Central Queensland—in fact, if Central Queensland were its own state, it would be one of the richest states in the nation. Central Queensland produces $40 billion of wealth for Australia every year from a population base of just over 400,000—that is an income per person of more than $100,000, which is double that of Tasmania. Minister, considering the budget announcements and the importance of Capricornia and Central Queensland, can you highlight the federal government's plans for northern Australia, especially with regard to road infrastructure, water and dam infrastructure, and the benefits to Capricornia? Also, how will the government's northern Australia plan unlock jobs and opportunities in Capricornia?

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to ask the ministers here present a few questions in relation to the safe rates and the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I understand that it fits under the portfolio of Minister Abetz, but I do know that Minister Truss is consulted about the proposal around the government's plan to scrap the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. We on this side believe that it is vital to keep the safe rates tribunal going, because it is about ensuring safety and safe rates on our roads. It is about ensuring that our drivers, as well as road users, continue to have safe roads.

We already know that 300 people involved in accidents on our major highways lose their lives each year, particularly in the regions where they are involved in accidents with trucks. Within my own electorate, we have already had a few fatalities this year on the Calder and alternate Calder. Tragically, we have already lost a few lives of individuals involved in accidents. We have also heard from truck drivers in the region about the pressures that they are under to get product to port quicker.

Given that this government is claiming to be the government for infrastructure, that they want to invest in our roads and build our roads, is the minister aware whether the government have committed to scrap their plan for the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which is about ensuring that our roads, which are a workplace, are safe and that our drivers are not put under pressure to get product to port. Can the government today rule out scrapping the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal? Can the minister commit his support to the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which will ensure that our roads continue to be safe, and will become safe workplaces, for the many people involved in the trucking industry?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ministers, I have a question in relation to infrastructure spending on the Pacific Highway. Ministers, you are probably both aware that, for the dual duplication to be completed, it is a program of over $7 billion. I am aware too that in the vicinity of my electorate, between Ballina in the north and Woolgoolga in the South, it is about a $4½ billion program. As I understood it, at the last federal election there was a big distinction between the two major parties, now the coalition government and the opposition. One was that the then Labor government were to take going back to a 50-50 split to complete the dual duplication to the federal election. They then put $3½ billion on the table to complete the dual duplication. We then, as the coalition opposition, put on $5.5 billion—$2 billion more—to complete the dual duplication of the highway. I would like an update on how that is going. I am aware that recently, with the Deputy Prime Minister, we announced the winning tenderer, Pacific Complete. I would like some information on that process and how they will being doing it a bit differently to how we used to do those tenders. They won the $4.3 billion—around that amount—to complete the section between Ballina and Woolgoolga, so could you give us an update on that?

I am very conscious, and would like to reiterate, that there are a number of reasons why we do this. Dual duplications have been proven and the primary reason for this is to reduce fatalities. The fatalities on the Pacific Highway are falling every year, which is the most important thing. Obviously, the construction of this process will bring jobs and increased economic activity will reside once the dual duplication is completed. Easier transport, et cetera, are just some of the benefits of that as well.

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

I would like the minister to address the issue of the government's policy of not supporting urban rail projects. I am particularly asking it in the context of Perth. Minister, you would have seen the Infrastructure Australia audit which showed that, by 2030, seven out of the 10 most congested corridors in Australia will be occurring in Perth, so Perth is on track to become the congestion capital of Australia. Over the next 10 years we are going to see congestion rising in Perth to a really quite alarming extent.

Another fact revealed in that audit is that in Perth only five per cent of trips are taken on public transport. This compares with Sydney which I think is 12 per cent and Melbourne which is 15 per cent. Quite clearly in Western Australia, particularly in recent years, there has not been any investment into the upgrade of their public transport network. We have seen as a direct result of your policies that the Barnett government has abandoned various rail projects that it committed to in the 2013 election. It committed to, for example, the MAX light rail project, from the northern suburbs to the western and eastern suburbs south of the river—a very strong project committed to and described as fully funded and fully costed. This was a project that was eligible for the $500 million that federal Labor had placed in the budget. But the minister chose to take that out of the budget and instead replace it with the Perth Freight Link.

Minister, do you accept that Western Australia is a clear example of where your policy of refusing to fund urban rail is changing the behaviour of state governments, seeing them disinvesting in rail projects? We see this so clearly in Western Australia. The government was going to be proceeding with two rail projects. Once you took the money out of the budget and redirected it and demanded that it could only be spent on road, that reoriented states towards road projects, further contributing to that congestion problem. You are quite clearly never going to be able to reduce the levels of congestion without proper investment in public transport. Your policy does not, as you claim it does, free up state governments to spend more money on rail. Rather, it gets the state governments to take their limited infrastructure funds and move them from rail projects onto road projects, as they chase Commonwealth dollars. All of the projections are that Perth is on target to be the congestion capital of Australia because we have stopped investing in public transport. In the last six years there has been a virtual cessation of investment in the expansion of the public transport network. So, Minister, I want you to clarify for us what your policy is about rail and do you accept that it has this consequence of changing the behaviour of state governments, that it entices them to pull their money out of rail projects and put it into road projects so they can get matching Commonwealth dollars?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise here today in this estimates consideration in detail and to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has on a number of occasions visited my electorate on key infrastructure projects and has taken a very keen interest in making sure that we are able to address some of the deficits in road funding that have occurred under many years of Labor administration in Queensland, and of course during that six-year period when the Labor Party here in Canberra had very little interest in regional and rural Australia. Deputy Prime Minister, I know this coalition government has got a commitment to regional and rural Australia. Are you able to please describe some of the government's infrastructure investment plans for my electorate? I am particularly interested in the Warrego Highway, with the announcement this morning of the Northern Australia white paper. The Warrego Highway is a vital link that runs from Brisbane right through to the west, past the Landsborough Highway, linking with the north-west of Queensland and then the Northern Territory. It is a vital part of the link between the capital cities. I am particularly interested in the section between Chinchilla and Dalby. It is an area that has received a lot of heavy traffic—as well as the rest of the road for that matter—with the development of the coal seam gas industry. There is a section between Chinchilla and Dalby that has had very little attention. Whilst most of it has been reconstructed, there is a section there that has not.

I am also interested—bearing in mind that it is the Queensland Labor government that now has responsibility for the administration of the main roads expenditure in Queensland—in whether there are any plans in the forward estimates for further passing lanes on the Warrego Highway east of Dalby, particularly Dalby to Toowoomba. There have been a number of road accidents with actual fatalities in that part of the electorate along the Warrego Highway.

The other road that I am interested in, Deputy Prime Minister, is the Eight Mile intersection on the New England Highway just north of Warwick. I know that you have visited that site with us—with me, the mayor and the local state member. It is a notorious intersection, and we have seen a number of deaths at that site. Prior to the last federal election, we said that we would have it as a priority black spot but I would be interested to know whether the new government in Queensland—the Labor government—has shown any interest in taking forward that Eight Mile as a priority area for funding between Commonwealth and state. It is an issue that we do need to address, and I would be particularly interested in what plans we may have or, more particularly, whether the new Labor government in Queensland has listed it as a priority road for funding and attention at a Commonwealth and state level. Thank you, and I look forward to your answers, Deputy Prime Minister.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those members who have asked questions. I will try to deal with as many of them as I can, as quickly as I can. I do not know whether the Tasmanian member is coming back to hear the answer to her questions, but I do have answers. I might leave those till last then, in the hope that she might come back but if she does not I will still proceed with it.

The member for Bendigo raised a number of issues about, particularly, the Calder Highway-Ravenswood interchange. The total cost of that project is estimated at $86 million, of which the Commonwealth's contribution is $45 million, and $7 million of that has been allocated in the 2015-16 budget. In other words, there is money there ready for the project to proceed. While I know there has been a change of government in Victoria, I am optimistic that the state government will honour its commitment to its share of the project so it will be able to proceed. Now this is, of course, a bonus for the people in this region, because while Labor may have talked about it they actually did not include any funding for this project prior to the election. It was not in their list of projects to be funded. So the people in the electorate of Bendigo can be grateful that there is a coalition government that was elected and therefore is delivering on that particular project.

A number of the other road projects have been mentioned. While I have it in my mind, the member for Maranoa asked about the Warrego Highway. Yes, we have a major commitment to the Warrego Highway—not just the Toowoomba range project, which is probably the biggest project there has been in regional Australia on the roads, but also the Warrego Highway out to Miles. Something like $600 million is being committed there with the Commonwealth meeting 80 per cent of the cost.

You specifically asked about the Chinchilla to Toowoomba section—

Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—

Chinchilla to Dalby. Yesterday I was pleased to sign off on the project to upgrade Jingi Jingi Creek. Hopefully, the member will have a nice announcement to make about that in the next few days, but there is also work proposed around Brigalow-Chinchilla, the Dalby western access, the Dalby eastern access and, of course, more passing lanes—particularly between Oakey and Dalby—as well as an upgrade of the Acland intersection and the Toowoomba duplication. We have already started work on another 5.6 kilometres of duplication between Toowoomba and Oakey. This is a major work site, and I recognise the heavy volumes of traffic—there are black soil plains and some very difficult areas to build roads—but this should make a real difference in that particular area.

The member also asked about the Eight Mile intersection, and $550,000 has been provided by the Queensland government to develop a business case for that proposal. We expect that we will receive that sometime next year, and then there will be an opportunity for discussions to occur about what timeframe there might be for construction of that project.

The honourable member for Page spoke about the Pacific Highway, and obviously we have made major investments in the Pacific Highway. Our $5.6 billion is completely delivered in this year's budget and it will mean the project can be completed this decade, as we have promised. Because we are committed to an 80-20 funding mix, the project will proceed. Labor was demanding a 50-50 funding mix and, as a result, it would have been at least another decade before the project was completed. So the Pacific Highway is happening because there is a government that is determined to fund it. As the honourable member mentioned, the major final contract, the broad overview contract, was let and announced in his electorate just a few weeks ago.

I will go to the Western Australian issues. Yes, the government is committed to the Perth Freight Link. It is, I think, an important project. I do not think the Fremantle port is likely to close any time soon. In fact, it is going to be a vital piece of Perth infrastructure for a very, very long time. (Extension of time granted)

The reality is that the freedom of information rules are not ours. In fact, the legislation was introduced by the previous government. So the criteria for the release of information and the fee scale were absolutely the responsibility of the previous government.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

The other point I would make in response to the minister is that I do not make the decision. Under the law, each department is required to have a decision maker appointed and they make their decisions. I just get a brief from the officer telling me what he has done. The reality is, therefore, that they make the decisions on the basis of judgement. They certainly talk to the states on an issue like this one, because some of the documents involved are in relation to negotiations and discussions with the state. So those kinds of sensitivities are inevitable. Also, a project of this magnitude is going to have commercial issues which should not be in the public domain. So the reality is we are simply administering the laws as they were. I had no personal involvement in the decision. I did not seek to amend it in any way. The information conveyed to the honourable member about the fee scale and about the process is exactly as it was put in place by the previous government.

Her comments in relation to urban rail are simply nonsense. I know that the shadow minister has been saying this sort of thing—that we will not spend money on urban rail. That is complete rubbish. If you look at the projects that have been announced under the asset recycling program, most of them are urban rail, including a project right here in Canberra and some major projects in Sydney. Western Australia has not joined that program yet, but they are of a mind to do so. If they want to put up an urban rail project, I am sure it will be carefully considered by the Treasurer and, on its merits, would be funded.

In addition to that, we are talking to Melbourne, Victoria about their decision to axe the most important project in Melbourne, about where the money might be spent. They are in fact privatising and selling the Port of Melbourne and will certainly be eligible for the asset recycling program if they want to.

In Queensland we had indicated to the previous Newman government that we were happy to support the BaT tunnel in Brisbane. The new government is walking away from that because it does not want to engage in the asset recycling program. But there is no evidence to support a claim that we are not backing urban rail; we are. We are spending significant amounts of money on urban rail and we expect to do that in the future.

Our primary responsibility is obviously to the interstate freight link, and that is where we will be investing significant funds—in things like the Melbourne to Brisbane railway line—but we are spending money on rail systems that will make a difference to urban public transport. I add that a very important part of urban public transport is buses, and buses drive on roads. So we have been building those roads, which otherwise would never have happened. I am more than happy to stand on our record in relation to these issues.

Moving on to the Tasmanian issues—and someone might like to convey this information to the honourable member for Franklin—yes, we have proposed a new, more generous subsidy to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. It will provide funding for exports. It is a flat amount because, when you are sending something on an export ship from Tasmania, clearly, it is a less complex arrangement, and so the fees are different.

Currently, people have two years to make a claim under this scheme. Frankly, we think six months is reasonable. Surely, you can get around to making your claim in six months. When people are so far behind in lodging accounts, the ability to trace and effectively document the trail is all the more difficult. However, we are having consultations about the proposed guidelines at present. If this is an issue for people in Tasmania, I would encourage them to make their views known. Submissions close on 24 June. If it is a major issue, we are certainly prepared to have a look at how best it can be addressed. I will only be another few seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have asked your questions.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am dealing now with the Tasmanian issues. The member for Franklin also asked about the funding profile for the Hobart airport. There is a bit over $3 million in 2014-15, $28½ million in 2015-16 and $6½ million in 2016-17. Those numbers are in the budget documents. I can confirm for her that our funding of $38 million is for the runway extension, not for the terminal buildings or other matters that were announced just recently. Those are issues for the airport and for the private sector.

The member for Franklin also raised the question of rates, or the ex-gratia payments in lieu of rates, and that has been an issue in Launceston. Yes, it is true; my department has been talking with them in seeking to find a resolution to the issues. Currently, this matter is in the courts and, as a result, we will have to allow the court processes to run their course. Hopefully, some of the decisions that are made in that court case will provide guidance to the major airport owners right across the nation so that this question of ex-gratia payments is clear and understood by all.

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

And the road safety tribunal?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I do not know where the story came from that we were proposing to get rid of it. It is true that it is in the hands of the Minister for Employment, not in mine. It would be well known that, when we were on the other side of the parliament, we were not enthusiastic about its introduction; we thought it was another piece of bureaucracy. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that it has made any difference, positive or negative, in relation to the road toll. However, I am concerned about the very long periods of time that it is taking the organisation to deal with issues, and that is certainly a matter that has been raised with me by employers—that things are held up for a very long time, way beyond the time limits that are set for the resolution of matters, and I think that is something it ought to look at. We do not have any plans to get rid of it. Even if we did, we would not get it through the parliament. So, the reality is that the organisation will continue to do its job.

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

Thank you. That is good news.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask a question to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development about the budget funding for the North-South Corridor in Adelaide. In particular, I would like to ask him about the latest plans for the Darlington section of that and what this will mean for commuters using both the Southern Expressway and Main South Road. I would also like to ask the minister for an update on the time frames for preliminary works on Darlington and also when work will actually commence on the Darlington section. Thank you.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might firstly address the Perth Freight Link additionally as the member for Perth, who is obviously not that interested in the questions she asked, leaves. It is a vital project that fixes the mistakes that were made by the former Western Australian government who tried to build over the corridor that was actually protected to build this project in the future as the Deputy Speaker well knows.

The minister who of course approved and did that was in fact the member for Perth, so Perth has got some of the biggest congestion issues across the country, because that person was the planning minister in that state for some eight years. That is exactly why Perth is now dealing with this disastrous situation. The Perth Freight Link is frankly not only just overdue; it is years overdue. It is a disgrace that that member who is now in the federal parliament—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—The audacity!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The audacity is the exactly the word—tyring to bring the disaster that she brought to Perth on a national scale. So we will be building the Perth Freight Link absolutely.

There have been some specific questions. I might firstly address the member for Boothby's question about the Darlington project and the North-South Corridor. Of course it is the Abbott government that is funding nearly a billion dollars worth of works on the North-South Corridor—projects that would not have been built under the former Labor government, particularly in Darlington.

The Darlington project in the member for Boothby's electorate would not have been built by the former government and the former minister, who did not like the project—often promised. However, he did at one point: he wanted to build the project back in 2008. The member for Boothby is very familiar with this torrid tale. It took the Abbott government to break through the mess of this on the North-South Corridor to build not only the Torrens to Torrens project—which wasn't a priority of the Labor government until the Darlington project became a priority of the Abbott opposition and then it became a priority of the former government. That is how they did infrastructure in those days.

We do not do it like that anymore; we do it on the basis of good economic information, and the Darlington project is one of those projects that had to go ahead. The whole corridor will be done. The whole corridor, thanks to the infrastructure Prime Minister, will be done in a decade. That is why we paid for the plan which has now been released, albeit not in the organised fashion we had hoped. Now that it has been released, we will be delivering the North-South Corridor and we will shortly have more to say about how we are going to do that. As far as the Darlington project is concerned, there will be work underway this year as promised, committed and delivered under the Abbott government. So the member for Boothby can reassure his constituents that this project will be delivered.

There were also questions in relation to the new Stronger Communities program that was announced in the budget. I can inform the member for Franklin and other members in this House that there will be more detail about this project released in the very, very near future. We will work through the ways to deliver this project in an efficient manner and it looks like we are off to a division.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:23 to 13:13

Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:13