Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to concerns reported today that the budget's assumptions about the value of the dollar and commodity prices might be overly optimistic and, if so, could lead to reduced revenue collections to the tune of $90 billion. Given the heroic assumptions in the budget about the terms of trade and the highly optimistic estimates about the revenue to be collected via the carbon price and the mining tax, will the minister, as one of the people most responsible for preparing the budget, accept a personal responsibility for any deterioration in revenue collections and any consequent impact on the deficit?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would make a few points in response to Senator Joyce on this. The first is: notwithstanding the attempt by the coalition to distract attention by attacking the Treasury or attacking forecasts, I would remind the coalition that the very professional officers of the Treasury and the very professional officers of Finance are the same institutions—and, often, in many locations, the same individuals—who served Mr Costello and produced the forecasts for Mr Costello. But what the coalition would have you believe is that, magically, suddenly, the Treasury has become some hotbed of a Labor Party faction. Well, we on this side actually have some regard for the professionalism of the institution and think it is very unfair and inappropriate for the coalition to continue to attack the Treasury in the way that it is.

I think there were two questions. The first might have been in relation to nominal GDP, and I would make the point that the forecasts for nominal GDP are in fact: nominal GDP growth below trend and well below the 20-year average, and in fact the nominal GDP forecast has been reduced since the midyear review. In terms of the terms of trade, the forecasts in the budget are broadly in line with those of many major forecasters and show a decline over the forecast period, and of course there is an assumption about decline over the projection period.

I would refer the senator—or perhaps I can, in the supplementary—to a number of comments by market economists about the government forecasts. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why should the Australian people have any faith in the forecasts and assumptions that the minister and the Treasurer have adopted in this election year budget when so many of the estimates, forecasts and assumptions in last year's budget were wrong, including the assumption that only 450 asylum seekers would arrive per month when, in fact, the actual number was around 2,000 people per month?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a reprise from Senator Joyce of Senator Abetz's attempt yesterday to make sure that they do not actually talk about the economy, they do not actually talk about disability care, they do not actually talk about jobs, and they do not actually talk about how they grow the economy or employment, or what their plans for Australian schools are; all they want to do is talk about boats. But we know that that is the approach that the coalition take. I again remind the Senator that, in terms of the forecasters, the Treasury also forecast for Mr Costello and he is now attacking the same institution that served very well under both governments. I would remind him also of some comments by market economists: according to Citi, the economic forecasts look achievable and are similar to the RBA's, and our forecasts, according to UBS— (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that, in the minister's time as finance minister, we have seen the cumulative total of deficits run up to over $40 billion—more than you and the Treasurer estimated at budget time; $40 billion over what they told us it was going to be—why should Australians have any confidence in your estimates? Why should we have any confidence in the next budget nightmare, the NBN? Is it the fact that Mr Swan just cannot help himself, grossly overestimating your ability to keep the nation's finances under proper control? (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was talking about UBS, given I was asked about forecasts. According to UBS, the budget contains more:

… conservative and credible revenue forecasts—without unduly leaning on the economy’s near-term vulnerable economic recovery.

So the reality is: the market does not agree with what Senator Joyce is putting. Nor, I am reminded, does former Prime Minister John Howard—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did John Howard say?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He basically said the economy was in good shape, which of course puts him completely at odds with that master of negativity, the Leader of the Opposition.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'When the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others tell you that the Australian economy is doing better than most—they are right.' That is what he said.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, Senator Wong is to answer the question.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I cannot hear Senator Wong's response over Senator Conroy's interjections.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am drawing the attention of Senator Conroy to the disruption as being disorderly. Senator Wong, continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the senator of Mr Howard's comments: 'When the current Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others tell you that the Australian economy is doing better than most—they are right.' So perhaps Senator Joyce could have a chat to Mr Howard. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Science and Research, Senator Farrell.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on down, Don!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very honoured to ask the first question of Minister Farrell.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When there is silence, I will ask—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Everyone is happy? All right, Senator Brown.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Gillard government's investment in science and research in the 2013-14 budget is supporting the Australian economy?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Brown for her question.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the first answer have to be heard in silence?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just had it asked of me: does the first answer have to be heard in silence? For the sake of the chamber: every answer has to be heard in silence! Thank you for that prompting, Senator—that was a very good prompt indeed. The senator is entitled to be heard in silence.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, for that protection. I would like to thank Senator Brown for her question and note the senator's ongoing interest in the science and research sector. The Gillard government remains committed to supporting a stronger, smarter and fairer nation. Building this sector is at the heart of our commitment. Supporting science and research fuels jobs and growth, increases productivity and supports Australian businesses to compete in the global economy.

For example, we have invested $185 million over two years in the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. This will support Australian researchers and research facilities to drive innovation and support high-quality jobs growth. NCRIS, as it is known, funds projects that support important research work that will benefit future generations. These projects include work on fabrication infrastructure to support advances in materials design, and earth imaging and geospatial systems of direct benefit to the mining industry.

This government knows our future prosperity relies on Australians having the skills and innovation needed to compete against the world's brightest. That is why the Gillard government has also announced $135 million over five years to extend the Future Fellowships scheme. This new funding will provide 150 more fellowships and builds on the government's original $844 million investment.

Importantly, the Gillard government has also committed $25 million over five years for Hobart's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. Our commitment to both research and an ongoing presence in the Antarctic means jobs for Tasmanians and investments in the Australian and Tasmanian economies. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Can the minister further inform the Senate why it is important to invest in programs like Future Fellowships and the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I once again thank the senator for her question. The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy supports major research infrastructure to encourage collaboration between the research sector, industry and the Australian government to conduct world-class research. The Gillard government's investment of $185 million in this budget will ensure that Australian research continues to be competitive and ranked highly on the international scale.

I recently visited a new research facility for advanced microscopy technologies at the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide. Researchers at the Waite campus are tackling the global challenges of food security and sustainable food production as part of the Australian Microscopy and Microanalysis Research Facility. This important national project has benefited from $21 million in funding under NCRIS. The Future Fellowship scheme was announced in 2008 by the Labor government— (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. How does the investment in Hobart's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre support research and the local economy?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Brown, once again, for her question. As part of the 2013-14 budget the Gillard government has committed $25 million over five years for Hobart's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. This announcement will help the CRC continue its world-leading research into Antarctic climate science and the uncertainties that currently limit the global response to climate change.

The funding will be provided from 1 July 2014 over a five-year period. The CRC is looking at the effects of acidity in the Southern Ocean and the impact of these changes to the Southern Ocean and Antarctic ecosystems and fisheries. This announcement reflects the government's support for the ongoing research capabilities and for the Tasmanian economy. There is a range of small businesses that support our work across a range of industries, and these include engineering, electronics and welding. Our commitment to both research and ongoing— (Time expired)

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Science and Research and the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, Senator Farrell. Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister when she said in February 2010:

If we are serious about the future, if we are serious about modernising the Australian economy, strengthening Australian communities and improving the lives of Australian families then we have to be serious about lifting the capacity and the performance of Australia's universities.

If so, why has the government decided to rip $2.3 billion out of the higher education budget?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On my right! The time for debating the issue is after question time. The Minister for Science and Research and the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research has the call.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. The short answer is: yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister, because that is in fact what we are doing. This government is committed to a strong university system and to ensuring that no Australian student is left behind. It is true that the government has announced a two per cent efficiency dividend in the year 2014 and a 1.5 per cent efficiency dividend in the year 2015 on university funding. This efficiency dividend will help fund A National Plan for School Improvement, which is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to properly resource Australian classrooms, teachers and schoolchildren. Despite the efficiency dividend, real funding—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen to this—despite the efficiency dividend, real funding per student is still projected to increase to over $18,100 in 2017. Under Labor, funding for students to go to university has increased by 75 per cent—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not per student, Don.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not per student. It has increased from $3.5 billion when you left government to $6.1 billion in this year. As a result of the record funding, 190,000 more students are now going to university compared to when you were in government. That is about the number of people in the town of Townsville. (Time expired)

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am waiting to give Senator Mason the call. He is entitled to be heard in silence.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Senator Bernardi, I am waiting to call your colleague, who is sitting directly in front of you. Senator Mason deserves to be heard in silence.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the Prime Minister's views on education stated in her 30 January 2013 National Press Club address, where the Prime Minister said:

I believe in this as a moral cause—a crusade—but I also believe that our future prosperity is inextricably linked to us winning the education race.

I will fight to get this done.

Having slashed higher ed by $3.3 billion, or five per cent, over six months, how could the Prime Minister possibly claim this?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question. The fact of the matter is that real funding per student has increased under the Labor government and will continue to increase after the efficiency dividend has been taken into account. In 2007, real funding per student was $16,147. In 2012, it was $17,659. With the efficiency dividend taken into account, real funding—this is after you have taken out inflation—per student is projected to exceed $18,000 in 2017. This will be a real funding increase in excess of 10 per cent. The suggestion that you should only look at one funding source is fanciful and is out of touch with reality. (Time expired)

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Only two months ago the then Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, Mr Bowen, said that 'universities are entitled to assume they will be at grave risk under a Liberal government' and that 'the sector is entitled to conclude that university funding will be a prime target' for the coalition. Will the minister now apologise to Australian universities for running a cynical scare campaign in preparation for its own recent $2.3 billion cuts?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When there is silence on both sides we will proceed.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Mason. No, I will not apologise, because we have nothing to apologise for. Let me go through those figures again. Perhaps you did not understand what I said when I answered your last question.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not right.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you come up with your own figures, then, Senator Mason. These are the accurate, correct figures. In 2007, when you left government, per student, funding was $16,147. In 2012 it was $17,659. And, by 2017, the projected figure is $18,100. We are delivering.

Senator Mason interjecting—

But, Senator Mason, if you do not like—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, you should address your comments to the chair and not across the chamber to Senator Mason.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I shall do so. Let's hear what you are going to do to higher education, Senator Mason. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every senator is entitled to be heard in silence.