Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. I refer to the minister's statement that:

To protect small businesses we need stronger competition laws like an effects test …

Is the introduction of an effects test in the interests of small businesses in Northern Australia, and is this government policy?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I am sure the senator is aware, the government has conducted a widespread root-and-branch review of competition policy. I think it is the first root-and-branch review of competition policy in more than 20 years. Absolutely, the government does believe that strong competition laws are extremely important to our protect small businesses.

That competition policy review, known as the Harper review, has made recommendations to protect small businesses. It has made recommendations on a number of levels, including, as the senator has referred to, in section 46, the misuse of market power provision.

The government has considered the recommendations of that report. It has released a discussion paper and a further paper on the options for that reform, including the original Harper review but other elements as well. And I think it is very important to recognise here that there is not necessarily only one option to fix this issue. The Harper review identified issues with that particular section, but there are many different ways of fixing that.

One thing that I think is very important to point out here is that while the coalition is going through an open and transparent process to deal with this issue to help small businesses, medium-sized businesses and productivity throughout our economy, the Labor Party have no suggestions on the table. They have no options on the table to fix this issue. They are completely marching to the drumbeat of big business in this country, because they do not care to protect small businesses. They have no solutions on the table to help fix an issue that has been exposed, and the government is now considering how we might deal with that issue.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the minister's submission to the discussion paper on tax reform in which he supports income splitting between partners to produce a tax benefit of up to $2,000 a year. Minister, is the introduction of income splitting in the interests of families in northern Australia, and is this government policy?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to have an opportunity to talk about how important stay-at-home parents are and how importantly the coalition views stay-at-home parents. I can see Senator Bullock over there also indicating how grateful he is for me to have this opportunity. What is government policy is our commitment to boost payments to stay-at-home parents with a child below the age of one who receive family tax benefit A. That is a policy that the Labor Party—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order, and it is on direct relevance to the question. Senator McLucas asked particularly about the introduction of income splitting in the interests of families in northern Australia and whether that is government policy. I am not sure whether we got any answer at all on that issue.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Moore. I remind the minister of the question and indicate that he has 27 seconds in which to answer.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The submission that Senator McLucas referred to was a submission to our tax reform process, and the government is still considering its response to that. I hope it does—and I am sure it does—consider my suggestions on that matter. But I am confident that the only side of politics in this chamber that has the interests of stay-at-home parents at heart is this side. That side are completely ignoring them.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to the minister's statement that the Renewable Energy Target gets 'less bang for more buck' and is 'one big punt'. Minister, is abolishing the RET in the interests of renewable energy producers in northern Australia, and is that government policy?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas, I will not be verballed here through those quotes. I will not be verballed. Absolutely we had concerns about the Renewable Energy Target as a government, and we made changes to the Renewable Energy Target last year. But I have never suggested that the Renewable Energy Target should be scrapped, as you suggest in that question. That is completely incorrect, and that is not how you should have presented that question here. Yes, the government recognised that there were issues with the Renewable Energy Target, and, yes, we made changes to that particular target, because we were never going to get to the ridiculous target put in place by the other side that they had no options for getting towards—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On my left.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have made that target 33,000 gigawatt hours. It is a much more realistic target. Renewable energy, like any new investment, is risky. It is a big step change for our country, but we should make sure we put realistic targets in place that we can actually achieve, not pipe dreams that are never going to be achievable.