Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, Senator Sherry. Can the minister update the Senate on the community’s response to key aspects—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators on my right that one of your colleagues is trying to ask a question. Senator Conroy, there is no need to interject across the chamber when Senator Hurley is trying to ask a question. Senator Hurley, would you start again, please.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. My question is to the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, Senator Sherry. Can the minister update the Senate on the community’s response to key aspects of this week’s federal budget?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Tuesday night the Rudd Labor government delivered its first budget. It is a budget this government is very, very proud of. In the lead-up to the budget we promised—and the Prime Minister personally committed to it—that we would govern as fiscal conservatives, unlike the previous Liberal government. We made that commitment to the Australian people at the election and we have delivered in this budget. We promised to rein in out-of-control government expenditure as represented by the previous Liberal government. We promised to rein in irresponsible government spending and particularly to continue the war on inflation. It is particularly important to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. At the same time, we have delivered a $55 billion Working Families Support Package, including $47 billion in tax cuts for low- and middle-income working families.

We have delivered a budget that meets our commitment to Australia and has also begun to invest in Australia’s long-term future through the infrastructure, health and education funds that are being established. On top of all that, we have delivered a budget surplus in 2008-09 of $21.7 billion. In the lead-up to the budget the Treasurer and the Prime Minister gave the commitment that they would increase the surplus to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product. We have done far better than that and delivered 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product. It is a surplus built on substantial savings—over $7 billion in the next financial year and total savings of $33 billion over the next four years. All we have heard from those opposite is potential ways to wreck some of those savings. That has been one of the focuses of their budget response. The important thing about these savings is that they more than offset all of the government’s new spending priorities.

So what has been the reaction in the business and financial community to the Rudd government’s first budget? Well, we have had a range of commentators endorse and support the approach that has been outlined in this particular budget. The first person I want to refer to—and these are not well-known supporters of the Labor Party, I have to say—is Heather Ridout, head of the Australian Industry Group.

Opposition Senators:

Heather Ridout!

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Senate will come to order!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your tongue’s going to do serious damage to your cheek!

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, I am waiting for order!

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Heather Ridout, head of the Australian Industry Group, has been very clear. She said to the Australian Financial Review:

It is an on-task budget that is disciplined and ambitious … The government has taken a pretty hard-nosed approach to spending to address inflation …

The next one may not make the Liberal opposition quite so happy and jovial. It is from Saul Eslake. Senator Abetz and I know Saul Eslake very well because we were at university together—and Saul Eslake was in the Liberal Party. Let us hear what this well-known economist—who was in the Liberal Party and, I understand, is a supporter of the Liberal Party—has to say:

… unlike the last few budgets of the Howard government, it doesn’t put significant upward pressure on inflation …

That is what former member of the Liberal Party Mr Eslake, from ANZ, had to say. Mr Eslake, as Senator Abetz well knows—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sherry.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Eslake, as Senator—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry, your time has expired. I would remind ministers that when their time has expired they should complete their answers at that point.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the minister to the comments of plasterer David McKinlay, from Brisbane—on page 1 of the Australian today—who said that the tax on ready-to-drink alcohol such as cans of Bundy and Coke is ‘unfair’. Does the minister agree that the government’s new tax is unfair? Can the minister tell the Senate what has changed since July 2004, when the present Rudd minister Mr Martin Ferguson said that ‘taxing RTDs at a higher rate would be unfair’?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Joyce for his question. On 1 July 2000 the former government introduced a new category of excisable alcohol that had the effect of reducing the effective rate of excise on spirit based ready-to-drink beverages by 40 per cent. The Rudd government have reversed this decision so that all spirits are taxed at the same rate, no matter how they are consumed. What has changed in recent times is the growing epidemic of binge drinking, something of which those opposite appear to be oblivious. While those opposite may be oblivious, the Rudd government are not blind to this. We intend to engage in a comprehensive package, of which this is part. The spirits industry has published figures showing that consumption of alcohol—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Is it possible to upgrade the Senate’s internet-filtering software so that Senator Conroy cannot read his answers? This is outrageous. He is just not doing anything.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the interjection rather than the point of order. Perhaps those Victorian members who are having their computers investigated at the moment might have engaged in some filtering in the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. Maybe, Senator Ronaldson and Senator Kemp, you might have filtered out those comments about Senator Troeth. Perhaps some filtering in your own offices may be of actual assistance.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I have asked a question about the tax on cans of Bundy and Coke and ready-to-drink alcohol and all of a sudden now we are talking about filtering.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who raised it? Who raised filtering?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! We will not continue until the Senate comes to order on both sides of the chamber. Senator Joyce, I cannot direct the minister how to answer the question, as you are well aware. However, I will remind the minister of the question. Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, the spirits industry has published figures showing that consumption of alcohol in RTDs has increased over 250 per cent since the former government put the lower rate in place in 2000.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the interjections from those opposite. The opposition media release released yesterday conveniently only used part of my response on the effect that the excise measure would have on the consumption of alcopops. It is typical of those opposite. They would rather take quotes out of context to get a cheap headline than deal with the facts at hand. In my response yesterday, I made the point that consumption of alcopops will decrease relative to what it would be if not for this measure. This will mean a reduction of 42 million 375-millilitre bottles in 2008-09. That is what I said yesterday. Let me repeat this important point: the price rise of RTDs is expected to reduce growth in RTD sales to around half of what they otherwise would have been. I will repeat that again, just in case you are struggling to hear: the price rise of RTDs is expected to reduce growth in RTD sales to around half of what they otherwise would have been. This is an overall figure for all RTD consumption. Given their generally lower incomes, it would be expected that young people would reduce their consumption relatively more. Treasury estimates that the excise on RTDs will reduce consumption by 42 million bottles in the coming year. Unlike those opposite, we take the problem of binge drinking among young Australians seriously. This is an epidemic and we are acting to help reduce it. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator, I hear what you say about reductions of 42 million bottles and the decrease in consumption. Are you also going to assure the Senate now that no jobs will be lost in the Bundaberg Rum and other Australian distilleries as a result of this unfair tax on working Australian families?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We think that a reduction in consumption of 42 million bottles is a positive step.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you not? I have already said it three times but, just for those opposite, I will say it a fourth time: this is a reduction in growth. The evidence tells us that this measure will help. This is an epidemic of young people, young women in particular, engaged in binge drinking. Do those opposite have a policy on this whatsoever? They did, actually—initially they supported us. Dr Nelson supported us. Let’s be clear: Dr Nelson said they would be supporting this. And what happens afterwards, and you admitted it yesterday in your interjections— (Time expired)