Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Johnston. Will the minister please advise the Senate of the government’s commitment to improving Australia’s infrastructure, particularly in light of last night’s budget announcements?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the learned and honourable senator for his question and pause to acknowledge his longstanding interest in and, indeed, very outstanding contribution to regional matters, particularly regional infrastructure. The Australian government is demonstrating its commitment to the future by investing $22.3 billion in its AusLink 2 program. This is building on the highly successful AusLink program which has already committed to investing $15.8 billion in the nation’s road and railway infrastructure from 2004 until June 2009. AusLink 2, the second stage of the government’s national land transport plan, is the biggest investment in the nation’s road and railway infrastructure that has ever been made by an Australian government. It is 41 per cent larger than the current AusLink program that is investing $15.8 million from 2004 until June 2009. AusLink 2 will continue the government’s massive investment in roads and railways. It will help build the strategic road links we need to create new industries and jobs in regional Australia.

As a result of AusLink 2, a significant benefit to Australian exporters will be enhanced through better infrastructure with improved and innovative technologies, better traffic management systems and better rail signal upgrades. This will allow exporters to move their goods to ports more effectively and more efficiently. As a result of this massive expenditure on the nation’s infrastructure, interstate transport will be both quicker and, just as importantly, more reliable. In short, Australia’s regions will be better connected to their markets and services. Specifically, the $22.3 billion AusLink 2 program will deliver, from 2009-10, $16.8 billion for rail and road projects on the AusLink national network. The government will announce the details of the project in due course. The project will reflect the result of the 24 AusLink corridor studies that we are currently conducting with state and territory governments. These studies will set out the strategic priorities for making our major transport links work more efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, AusLink 2 will have to bear the cost of substantial carryovers and blowouts occurring because of the delays in state and territory governments implementing AusLink 1 programs.

I am only too familiar with such blowouts. In Western Australia, the Perth to Bunbury highway, incorporating the Mandurah bypass, was stalled by the Western Australian government. And I believe it is currently stalled, although it had to start in December of last year to get the funding. I remember the Premier turning a sod, and nothing has happened since. AusLink 2 will include new rules to stop the costs of projects running out of control due to poor planning and management. Unfortunately, that is what the states all too often bring to the party. We will step in and resolve that. We will require all state and territory governments to contribute to the cost of all new projects under AusLink 2. I could go on, but this is the greatest investment in Australian road and rail infrastructure ever made by an Australian government. I am very proud of last night’s budget.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Minchin in his capacity representing the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Is the minister aware that, in his speech last night, the Treasurer stated in relation to climate change that the government’s $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund is already driving the development of solar and clean coal technologies? Isn’t it a fact that, despite the Treasurer’s rhetoric, not one dollar of the $500 million LETDF has been spent? Wasn’t this fund announced by the Prime Minister in June 2004 just before the last election? Doesn’t this again demonstrate that the government only talks about climate change before an election but reverts afterwards to doing nothing practical to address the enormous challenge of climate change? Why hasn’t any effort been put into spending that money and developing those technologies?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, I am advised that the first-round call for applications closed on 31 March 2006, with 30 applicants submitting proposals for a diverse range of low-emission technology projects worth more than $10 billion. That very good response demonstrates that industry is actively investigating low-emission technologies for the future. Eligible applications were considered by an expert panel, and six grants have been announced so far: $50 million to International Power for its ‘Hazelwood 2030 A Clean Coal Future’ project; up to $75 million to Solar Systems Australia for its ‘Large Scale Solar Concentrator’ project; $75 million to Fairview Power for its ‘Zero Carbon from Coal Seams’ project; $50 million to CS Energy for its ‘Callide A Oxy-fuel Demonstration Project’; $60 million to Chevron for its Gorgon CO Injection Project’; and $100 million to HRL for its ‘Integrated Drying and Gasification Combined Cycle’ project.

Combined, these projects provide for a very strong low-emissions technology portfolio; brown coal, black coal, natural gas and renewable energy are all represented in the grants announced so far. Five of the projects demonstrate pathways to carbon dioxide capture and storage, which positions Australian R&D at the forefront of international efforts to advance what is a very promising abatement activity.

The Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund is on track to deliver very significant low-emissions technologies for Australia. But there is a big difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. We actually take great care with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. All this money comes from Australian taxpayers. We are not just going to splash it around like the Labor Party would; we want to make sure that all these projects stack up. We want to assess properly every one of these projects to make sure that they warrant the investment of taxpayers’ money. The Labor Party and the Greens just think money grows on trees; we know that. We know this is taxpayers’ money. We are going to make sure all of these projects are properly assessed, that they stack up, that they are fair dinkum and that they have some prospect of success before we advance the money.

The grants have been announced and applied and we look forward to these projects proceeding. That is against the backdrop of some $2 billion of investment of taxpayers’ money in greenhouse gas emission abatement programs over our 10 years. We take the issue of climate change seriously, but we do so against the backdrop of this country being responsible for something less than 1½ per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. We are not so stupid to think that we can just act unilaterally and suddenly change the climate of the globe, which seems to be the basis and the premise on which the Labor Party and the Greens operate. They think we can just unilaterally announce we are going to cut our emissions by 60 per cent in this case, bidded up to 80 per cent by the clowns in the corner, and that will save the global climate. What absolute nonsense. They have no idea how they are going to achieve such cuts, they have no idea of the impact on the Australian economy and they have no idea of what the impact would be on global emissions. We are approaching this issue with due responsibility, as custodians of taxpayers’ money, to invest it wisely in projects that we believe will realise low emissions.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for confirming that not one cent of the $500 million fund announced in 2004 has been spent and that no contribution has been made through this fund to tackling climate change. Maybe it is because the minister himself is a climate change denier. Not one cent has been spent. It is still in the budget papers; the money has not been spent. Isn’t it a fact that the budget papers also reveal that the Solar Cities program, also announced way back in June 2004, is also significantly underspent—that you have failed to spend the money allocated for that project as well? Aren’t Australians justified in concluding—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has now been speaking for 45 seconds on an address to the Senate and has not asked a question. This is question time.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans: a supplementary question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. Aren’t Australians justified in concluding that the government is more interested in short-term politics than tackling the serious challenge that climate change represents?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A couple of things: I reiterate that we have already committed about $2 billion on greenhouse gas emission abatement, but what really worries me and should worry the Australian people is the tenor and the implication of the opposition leader’s question. It suggests that a Labor government would simply rush the money out the door, regardless of the quality of the proposals put before it. That is not the way to responsibly manage taxpayers’ money, but it shows you that is how Labor operated in government and they have learnt nothing. They will just rush the money out the door regardless of the quality of the proposals. We do take care. We regard ourselves as custodians of taxpayers’ money, which is to be spent wisely on quality projects. We have no shame about that.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. The Treasurer handed down his 12th budget last night with the usual fanfare, but I ask: when is the rest of the budget going to be delivered? What happens to the $10.6 billion left over this financial year and the surplus that remains unspent the next year and the one after that? When will the Treasurer deign to let us know where the rest of the money will be going? Can we expect Mr Costello to emerge from a cake spruiking even bigger promises and bigger handouts around election time?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The spectre of the Treasurer emerging from a cake is a rather extraordinary one to present, and I do not expect him to be doing that. I think the question was about budget surpluses, and I think it reveals—with great respect to Senator Allison—that she actually has no idea about government finances. Money that is not spent is a surplus. If it is spent, it is not a surplus. She seems to think that the $10 billion is there to be spent. No, it is not; that is the difference between the revenue and the expenditures. We spend some $235 billion; we have revenues of some $245 billion. The different is $10 billion; that is the surplus.

Under the Labor Party, what used to happen to those surpluses was they would all go off to the banks to pay for the borrowings. That is what used to happen with the Labor Party with any surplus, although they did not generate surpluses. But what we have had to do for the last eight years or so is devote those surpluses—that is, the difference between our revenues and our expenditures—to pay off Labor’s debt. Every single dollar of those surpluses went to reducing those debts, on which interest was payable. Now we are in the very fortunate and almost unique position in the Western world of having no debt to pay off—through you, Mr President, to Senator Allison. That means that the surpluses are there for investment in the future. That is why, once we had eliminated net debt, we were able, historically and uniquely, to establish the Future Fund into which surpluses could be deposited in order to meet the federal government’s one remaining liability, and that is the unfunded super liability which no previous federal government in the history of this country has ever funded.

The states, to their credit, now all do fund their superannuation liabilities, and I note, for the benefit of the opposition, that they quite strictly prevent any government putting their hands into the cookie jar to get hold of that superannuation money—unlike this opposition, which is going to raid the Future Fund. We are depositing surpluses into that Future Fund. We also announced that, because of the strength of the economy and the strength of the surpluses going forward, we will be able to establish, alongside the Future Fund, a Higher Education Endowment Fund into which we can deposit $5 billion to be preserved and protected from the ravages of those opposite, to be there in perpetuity, and the earnings of which will be available for universities into the future. That is what we will do with surpluses.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister is failing to answer the question. The question was, in summary: what money is left for election announcements? If the minister is suggesting there is no money left for election announcements, he should tell us. If he is suggesting that there is money left for election announcements, we want to know when those will be made and how much they will be.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has almost a minute to complete his answer, and I remind him of the question.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I gather Senator Murray was helping Senator Allison ask her question because he thinks I did not understand Senator Allison’s question—the question about cakes and treasurers and surpluses. If the question is: ‘What will the government do at the next election with respect to its commitments to the Australian people in the next term of government?’ well, I am sure the Prime Minister will make any such commitments he desires to make at the relevant time. What we are presenting here is the government’s budget for the financial year coming and the forward estimates for the next four years. This is our plan to manage the Australian economy and Australian government finances for the next financial year, and the forward estimates for the three financial years after that.

We have extraordinarily transparent financial accounts in this country—you can see exactly where the money comes from, where it is going and what is left over by way of surpluses. We are a government that runs surpluses, unlike those opposite or those in the states that run deficits and have to borrow money in order to fund their expenditures. We live within our means; the others do not. (Time expired)

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister’s lesson in what is a surplus but I did already know this, sadly. Unfortunately, the minister did not use his time effectively in answering the actual question, which is: what is he going to do with the surplus? Minister, isn’t it the case that this budget fails because it is long on one-off cash handouts and short on solving the big problems that Australia faces? Will your election budget later this year be about climate change and nation building or will it be even bigger election bribes than we have seen in this budget?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect to Senator Allison, I thought I did spend much of my answer describing to Senator Allison what we do do with surpluses, which we do not have to spend on paying off debt anymore. We are investing it for the future. We are ensuring that generations to come will not have to find out of the recurrent budget the billions of dollars required to meet the federal government’s superannuation liabilities because they will be available out of the Future Fund. We are ensuring that future generations will have available to them an investment fund to invest in our universities to ensure we have a world-class education system. When it comes to the election and what we as the coalition might put forward as our plans for the future, well, you will see them when we get to the election.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister confirm that on page 24 of the glossy budget overview document, it says:

... the government will provide a range of measures costing $741 million over five years—

to tackle climate change and its effects. Isn’t it the case that the budget papers reveal that actual additional spending on climate change will be less than $100 million each year over the next five years, or less than 5/10,000ths of one per cent of annual government expenditure? Hasn’t the government inflated the figure in its glossy overview document with money that was already in the forward estimates or will be redirected from other climate change programs? Did the minister, an acknowledged climate change sceptic, finally have a win in cabinet in blocking any real attempt to address the problem?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My job as finance minister is to make sure that every dollar of taxpayers’ money that the federal government spends is spent wisely and is not trashed, like you lot did for 13 years and wiped it down the drain. It is my job to make sure that federal government spending is wisely spent. I am happy to report that in this budget we are putting on the table a range of new policy measures at a cost to the Australian taxpayers of some $741 million over five years with respect to climate change. That includes allowing tax deductions for the costs of establishing carbon sink forests, $197 million to help protect the world’s forests, and the extension and expansion of the Photovoltaic Rebate Program. We are spending $126 million establishing the Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation. The CSIRO, which is a great institution in this country and a worthy recipient, will receive $103 million for a new national research flagship on climate adaptation. On top of all that, we are spending $10 billion over the next 10 years on the most important environmental problem facing this country, the risk to the Murray-Darling. These are things of which we should all be very proud. We are pleased with the prudent expenditures that we are making in ensuring that Australia plays its part in the job of ensuring that we contain our greenhouse gas emissions to the extent that Australia is contributing, through those greenhouse gas emissions, to global warming. But we will ensure that that expenditure is done wisely and prudently and in accord with the responsibility we have as the custodian of taxpayers’ money. The one thing we will not do is bankrupt the Australian economy by your ludicrous proposal to unilaterally cut emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Regarding the 5/10,000ths of one per cent of expenditure going on the restoration of the rebate for photovoltaic panels to where it was two years ago, can the minister confirm that of the claimed $150 million cost of that measure only $39 million in additional funds are shown in the budget papers? Isn’t it a fact that the remaining $111 million was already in the forward estimates? Isn’t the government guilty of dodgy accounting in its attempt to hide its failure to deal seriously with the threat of climate change, not water?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget papers make very clear what moneys are in the forward estimates and what moneys are new moneys, and we are quite openly saying that we will extend and expand the Photovoltaic Rebate Program. The opposition has warmly welcomed that program. If you believe we are not putting enough into climate change, then it is up to you to say where you are going to find extra money to put into what programs. You have accepted all our programs and all our spending. You have said the surplus should be maintained at one per cent of GDP, so you answer the question. What extra money are you going to put into this? Where are you going to find it? How can the Australian taxpayers be sure you are going to spend it responsibly? And they will get zero answer. Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.