Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Brandis, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister explain to Australians earning as little as $21,655 why they are facing a tax hike, while the government can still find a spare $50 billion for big business and give millionaires a tax cut of $16,000 a year?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Gallagher, for giving me the opportunity to speak about a budget of which this government is extremely proud—a budget which is based on the principle of fairness, based on the principle of opportunity and based on the principle of ensuring that Australians have the security that they deserve.

Before speaking about the budget in more detail, let me correct some of the false premises in Senator Gallagher's question. You speak of a tax hike, Senator. I assume that is an intended reference to the increase by half a per cent in two years time of the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS, a program that you left entirely unfunded. All the rhetoric in the world, Senator Gallagher, will not excuse you from the reality that you devised a system—a system, by the way, which the present government supported—but you made no provision to fund it. As is so often the case in Australian politics, it is the Labor Party that has got a monopoly on the rhetoric, but it is the coalition that actually has to find the money to fund the program.

So what we have done is announce in the budget last night that in two years time we will ask Australians to pay an extra half a per cent on the Medicare levy in order that the NDIS may be funded. That is one of the aspects of the budget, Senator Gallagher, that we regard as a fairness measure. And, if you support the NDIS, as you claim to do, what is your problem with saying that the money should be found and put in a locked box to make sure it is properly funded? (Time expired)

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

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister explain to Australian parents why it is fair that schools will receive $22 billion less, while the government can still find a spare $50 billion for big business?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another false premise. In fact, there is no such cut as you suggest, Senator Gallagher. There is, in fact, had you been listening to Senator Birmingham in question time yesterday, an increase in school funding over the next 10 years by $18.6 billion. But this is Labor Party economics. Senator Gallagher dreams up a pie-in-the-sky number for which there is no funding available, compares it to the government's number—an increase of $18.6 billion—for which there is funding, subtracts one from the other and says, 'That's a cut!' No, Senator Gallagher, it is an $18.6 billion increase in school funding—an increase, by the way, based on a methodology that puts fairness and needs-based funding at the centre of the system. That is an $18.6 billion increase (Time expired)

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

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister explain to Australian university students why it is fair that they will pay thousands of dollars more per year and be saddled with HECS repayments sooner, while at the same time the government can still find a spare $50 billion for big business?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, I am so pleased you keep asking me these questions about fairness, because I think most Australians would understand that it is fair that university students should not have to contribute even half of the cost of their degrees, and that there be a system—instituted, by the way, by a former Labor government, the Hawke Labor government—the HECS, whereby they get the most preferential low interest that they will ever see in their lives, with no obligation whatsoever to begin paying back that debt until they can afford to do so. As a result of the education they receive through that system, they will have a higher income and better life chances than all of the other taxpayers who are paying the majority of the cost of their education. (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's plan for the economy and jobs?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bushby for that question. The budget delivered by the Treasurer last night is our next instalment of our plan for stronger growth to deliver more and better-paid jobs. We are doing this by enshrining our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan right at the heart of the budget, delivering a more competitive business tax rate for all businesses across Australia. We are doing it through record investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure—well over $70 billion worth of infrastructure investment, driving stronger growth and delivering more and better-paid jobs. Of course we are doing it by focusing on more export trade deals and by focusing on energy security, delivering affordable and reliable energy to businesses across Australia.

The budget the Treasurer delivered last night continues to chart a responsible course to a balanced budget within four years. Our budget surplus projected for 2021, consistent with the timetable we set out in our half-yearly budget update in 2015-16, just before Christmas in 2015, is a return to surplus in 2020-21 and now at $7.4 billion. Our responsible fiscal management and our responsible economic management have meant that we are in a position to protect Australia's AAA credit rating, with Moody's already coming out confirming that the policy settings of this government in our budget are consistent with those of a AAA rated economy.

This budget provides incentives for businesses across Australia to employ more Australians. We had a previous question sneering at our business tax cuts and sneering at the additional investment that we want to attract into the Australian economy so that businesses across Australia can have the opportunity to be more successful and more profitable so that they can hire more Australians and pay better wages. (Time expired)

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

Senator Bushby, a supplementary question?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How will this budget support the creation of more jobs and stronger economic growth?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bushby for that question. As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, the government are investing well over $70 billion in productivity-enhancing infrastructure in this budget, creating tens of thousands of new jobs during construction on productive projects across the country. This includes the Inland Rail project from Melbourne to Brisbane. It includes the building of the Western Sydney airport, with an equity injection of $5.3 billion. It includes a $2.3 billion infrastructure package in Western Australia. It includes a very generous infrastructure package for South Australia, and I know that Senator Xenophon is going to be interested in having a conversation in relation to that. It includes a $10 billion national rail program—new money which state governments across Australia who want to participate with the federal government can actually invest— (Time expired)

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

Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How is this budget guaranteeing essential services for all Australians?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As well as delivering our plan for stronger growth and more jobs, this government are guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on in health, education, disability support and national security. Of course, one of the challenges that we faced on coming to government was the fact that the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, was not fully funded. We were facing a $56 billion funding gap over the next decade—a $56 billion funding gap. Of course, those opposite appear to be in the know in relation to this.

In this budget we have made decisions to guarantee funding for the NDIS. In this budget we have made decisions to guarantee increased funding for schools across Australia—$18.6 billion in additional funding. Of course, in this budget we will be able to deliver by 2021 the target for Defence funding of two per cent of the share of GDP—the promise from three years ago in the lead-up to the 2013 election. (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. In February this year, when asked when he could rule out a tax increase in the budget, Prime Minister Turnbull said:

We have no plans to increase tax—indeed, all of our plans for tax were set out in the budget last year …

Given that Mr Turnbull has now raised an additional $14 billion in new taxes, when he made his statement, was Prime Minister Turnbull simply not telling the truth?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are tax measures in the budget. I wonder which of those tax measures you are going to oppose in this chamber. Are you, for example, going to oppose the measure to impose a levy on banks? Are you going to oppose that measure or are you going to support it through the chamber? Are you going to support the government's proposal in two years time—

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

Pause the clock. Point of order, Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order goes to relevance. I did not ask about the opposition's position; I asked whether the Prime Minister had lied when he said he was not going to increase taxes. Was Mr Turnbull simply not telling the truth when he made this statement?

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

I will remind the Attorney-General of the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry: I thought it was pretty clear from what I was saying that I was disputing what Senator Wong had put to me. If it is not perfectly clear to you, Senator Wong, there is nothing that the Prime Minister has said in the past that is at variance from the announcements that were made last night. If I may turn to some of those measures—as I was saying, are you going to be opposing in this chamber a measure that supports and funds the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which in two years time will involve a half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy, or will you support it in this chamber? Because the ball is now in your court.

The ball is now in the court of Mr Shorten to decide whether or not he will support these measures, or whether he will support the government's initiative to bring the budget back into surplus sooner to fund programs like the NDIS on a secure basis or to expect banks, for instance, to pay a fairer contribution to the revenue through the levy we announced last night, and all the other fairness measures that we announced in this budget. As I said in answer to your colleague Senator Gallagher, the underlying theme of this budget is fairness. Are you on the side of fairness or are you not? (Time expired)

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

Senator Wong, a supplementary question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just two days before the 2016 election, Prime Minister Turnbull said:

Our commitment is to lower taxes.

Given, under Mr Turnbull, the coalition government is now the highest taxing government in a decade, isn't it clear Australians simply cannot rely on his commitments?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to listen to the answer?

Senator Back interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

On my right and my left, order! Senator Back and Senator Wong—if you want to have a conversation, leave the chamber to have the conversation.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, the question for you and for the Labor Party is: are you going to support the fairness measures in this budget?

Are you going to—among other things—support the fairness measures for school funding; whereby the vision of David Gonski—which you embraced in 2011 and then abandoned when it came to the implementation phase—has been revived by this government so that all schools will be funded on a needs basis in a nationally consistent, completely transparent funding model—are you going to support those measures, Senator Wong? Are you going to support all of the other fairness measures in this budget or are you going to block them? (Time expired)

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

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the Prime Minister's commitments to lower taxes are demonstrably worthless, and that this morning he admitted the government thought the abandoned zombie measures 'had merit', why should Australians trust his assertions that these apparently meritorious measures will not simply return?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Wong, but we saw your leader, Mr Shorten, on the TV, last night and this morning, looking like the deer that had been caught in the headlights. The fact is that the measures that were announced by my friend the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, last night are the kind of fairness measures that you in government were never able to deliver. You were prepared to announce an NDIS, but you were never able to fund it.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Pause the clock. Order on my left! Senator Wong, a point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On direct relevance: I asked about the zombie measures. He is not talking about the zombie measures. There is absolutely no relevance—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

I will take the interjection from the Minister for Finance.

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

No. You are not taking an interjection on a point of order, Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Government in the Senate should be able to answer a question.

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

I will rule on the point of order. Attorney-General, I will remind you of the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. For the so-called zombie measures, we have capitulated to the political reality that there are no circumstances in which the opposition and the Greens were going to allow them through the Senate, so they are no longer on the books. But interestingly, the zombie measures are counted in your costings, Senator Wong. So that is another question that Mr Shorten has to answer tomorrow night—where he is going to find the extra money for the black hole that now appears in the Labor Party's costings? (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ryan, the Special Minister of State representing the Minister for Social Services. Many people were shocked to see that the government's so-called welfare reform included drug testing income-support recipients. Many think the government has, in fact, reached a new low. The government and the Treasurer committed through the budget to fairness, opportunity and security. How is this measure not a gross violation of people's civil liberties? And how is it fair?

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr President, this measure is a trial, firstly. This measure is a trial for 5,000 new applicants to the jobseeker payment. But it is also actually aimed at supporting those people. It is aimed at ensuring that people do not fall into habitual drug use which can profoundly damage their health and future employment prospects. I am of the view, and the government is of the view, that this particular measure is very fair. It is going to ensure that we can direct people to services that they need. The critics of this have fallen into the trap of assigning or impugning a motive to those proposing it. The government has made clear, the minister has made clear—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

I cannot quite hear you, Senator Pratt. The government has made clear and the minister has made clear that this is a policy that is being directed to support those applicants and to prevent people from falling into habits that can damage themselves, their families and their economic welfare over the longer term. So I think it is quite fair. It is actually about supporting participation.

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

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice the minister had another half a minute left and he did not address my issue around civil liberties. The media briefing sheet outlines that the government is going to be profiling people in order to select people. They say they are going to randomly select people using data profiling to select participants. What criteria are they going to be using for selecting these people? (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject the impugned motive around the term 'profiling'. My brief does not include—

Senator Siewert interjecting—

I said 'the impugned motive', Senator Siewert, and I think the tone of your question indicates that. My brief does not include those criteria. I will come back to the chamber when I am provided with that. The brief I have does not include those criteria.

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

Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that this drug-testing trial has the potential to identify and punish people who have used a drug that has had no impact on their ability to search for or take on a job, does the government really think that drug use is the main problem with the high rate of unemployment in this country?

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Purchasing, possessing and taking these products is against the law. So let's start with that. If you want to talk about civil liberties, Senator Siewert, it is against the law. But we know the Greens do not care about breaking laws that you think should be broken, whether it is protesting and trashing equipment—

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

A point of order, Senator Siewert?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bring the minister's attention to the question that I asked—about unemployment.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order, on both sides! Thank you, Senator Siewert. I think the minister was addressing the question. And, Minister, could I advise you also to address your remarks to me and not directly across the chamber.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr President. Senator Siewert, in some cases, habitual drug use of illicit substances is indeed a barrier to employment. And, quite frankly, preventing people from falling into a habit of long-term habitual drug use and providing them with the services requires detection. It actually does mean that some people will, hopefully, avoid that habit and will have a better chance of employment.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to my WA colleague the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister please outline to the Senate how the budget strengthens Australia's welfare compliance system, how it provides greater support to the most vulnerable jobseekers, while also ensuring that those who can work do work?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. On this side of the chamber we are very proud to say that one of our fundamental beliefs is that the best form of welfare is a job. That is why, yet again, in the budget that was delivered last night we are putting in place extensive measures to assist Australians who are currently on welfare move from that position into work.

In terms of the programs that we are investing in, we are extending the successful ParentsNext program. This is all about helping parents of young children move back into the workforce when their youngest child goes to school. Our new PaTH program is getting our youth who are staring down the barrel of long-term unemployment off welfare and giving them the chance to get a job. And, of course, more and more older Australians will be looking for work. We will be supporting them with our new career-transition training.

It is a fact that the majority of jobseekers do the right thing. However, there are a minority of welfare recipients who are capable of working but, unfortunately, they deliberately shirk their mutual obligations. What we will put in place is a new targeted compliance framework to address this deliberate shirking of obligations. Under the government's changes, jobseekers who repeatedly fail to comply with their agreed job plan with no reasonable excuse will now face effective penalties. Our welfare system is there to provide a strong safety net for those who need it, but it should also be one that encourages and motivates those who can find work to find work. It should not be abused by those who deliberately do not want to comply with their obligations.

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

Senator Reynolds, is there a supplementary question?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister also explain to the Senate why it is important that community expectations are upheld when it comes to the delivery of Australia's strong safety net system for recipients?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians expect that their taxes should be spent fairly and that the system they pay for does help get people off welfare and into work. That is why the Turnbull government is tackling the link between drug use and long-term unemployment. As has already been articulated, from 1 January 2018, 5,000 new recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three trial sites will be required to undertake random drug tests. This is a two-year trial of random drug testing and it will be a condition of receiving a welfare payment. For those who test positive, we will provide them with the assistance they need, and they will be placed on welfare quarantining for two years. What this is deliberately designed to address is to curb the devastating effects of drug addiction and ensure that people with abuse problems are getting the help they need.

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

Senator Reynolds, is there a final supplementary question?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to welfare compliance?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that, given the comments that have been made in the chamber this afternoon, it would appear that those on the other side, the Australian Greens and those in the Australian Labor Party, are quite happy to have an obligation-free welfare system where taxpayer funds are able to be expended on purchasing drugs. You just have to look at the comments made by Senator Di Natale last night, when he basically said that it was a massive violation of the rights of jobseekers receiving welfare to be drug tested. No-one has a right to take drugs. As Senator Ryan has already articulated, it is illegal. This demonstrates just how out of touch those on the opposite side of the chamber are. Well, this government will do everything that it can to ensure that those who are taking drugs are given the help that they need if they are in receipt of taxpayer funds. I would ask all senators to back this program. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer. Last night's budget announced $70 billion of infrastructure commitments, but no new commitments for new projects in South Australia. Only $3.1 billion of the $70 billion is for South Australia. That is only 4.5 per cent, well under South Australia's population figure of 7.1 per cent.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop laughing, it is not funny. When we have 12 per cent of the nation's road network, for instance, why is South Australia receiving so much less for infrastructure projects, being short-changed by some $2 billion—

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

Senator Ludlam, is there a point of order?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am sitting adjacent to Senator Xenophon and I cannot hear him over the chaos that is happening on this side of the chamber. Can you call them to order?

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

I remind all senators, particularly those on my right in this instance, that I need to hear the question as well as the minister.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is: why is South Australia receiving so much less for infrastructure projects, being short-changed by at least $2 billion, particularly when South Australia's unemployment rate is the highest in the nation?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for that question. The first point I would make is that the honourable senator should not believe every bit of partisan propaganda coming from the South Australian Labor state government. The South Australian Labor state government in Adelaide takes a very partisan and destructive approach, while other governments, like the Labor government in Western Australia, have chosen to work with the government.

The second point I would make—and I think the enthusiastic noise from this side of the chamber was a reflection of this—is that the Turnbull government is the best friend South Australia has ever had. We are making record investments into South Australia, not the least of which is to support a $90 billion naval shipbuilding program, predominantly centred around Adelaide in South Australia, which includes a very significant infrastructure investment into upgrading the Osborne shipyard facilities which will start from 1 July 2017. Our commitment also includes about $1.6 billion towards upgrading the North-South Corridor, a key freight and passenger route through Adelaide, $835 million of which will be invested in the '17-18 financial year. There are a whole range of other commitments. There is a long list that I can assist Senator Xenophon with.

I will mention just a few more. There is $40 million towards South Australian local roads, and Senator Xenophon would be very aware of this because, as well as having received representations from South Australian Liberal members and senators, we of course have had representations from you and your team in relation to this particular topic.

We are investing $68 million into the proton beam facility in South Australia, which you would also be very well aware of. And there is a $10 billion national rail program which South Australia can apply for, to support the AdeLINK project. But we have not received a submission yet—we have not received a proposal from the South Australian government. (Time expired)

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

Senator Xenophon, a supplementary question.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the issue of rail, will the government guarantee that the steel to be used in the $70 billion of taxpayer-funded work will be Australian steel? In particular, will the minister guarantee that the rail steel required for the $10 billion national rail program be sourced from Arrium in Whyalla?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point I would make is: look at our track record. Unlike the former Labor government, which did not commit to a single ship on their watch, we committed to a record naval shipbuilding program, and Australian naval ships of course will be built using Australian steel. We have also committed to building the Adelaide to Tarcoola rail upgrade using Australian steel. You would also be aware of the very exciting announcement by Adani that Adani proposes to use Australian steel.

In relation to the specific question that Senator Xenophon has asked me: obviously, the first step is that we have got to receive proposals. When these proposals are received, relevant judgements are made.

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

Order! A point of order, Senator Xenophon?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a direct question asked: will Australian steel be used in these taxpayer-funded projects?

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

And I think you asked the minister to guarantee whether that would be used, and the minister indicated by a case example where Australian steel is being used, and I think the minister was just actually getting directly to your point when you raised the point of order. Minister.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. The specific answer is: obviously, these judgements are made when proposals are received but, if you look at our track record, we have got a very good track record, unlike those opposite.

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

Senator Xenophon, a final supplementary question.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is $319 million allocated in the budget for the Future Submarine project for 2017-18, but it is earmarked predominantly for the establishment of a resident project team in France, submarine design work to be undertaken by DCNS in France, and combat system design work to be undertaken in the United States, with some infrastructure funding for Adelaide. Can the minister advise: of that $319 million, how much has been allocated for Adelaide?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can advise is that significantly more has been committed to Adelaide. But, as you would appreciate, there are some commercial sensitivities involved here, and we are not going to go into the precise detail of how much we are going to invest in every aspect of relevant infrastructure. But let me just tell you that, in relation to the Osborne park facility in particular—and this is a matter of public record—we will be investing over $500 million into upgrading the infrastructure at the Osborne shipyards, and that of course will set South Australia up to take advantage of all of the opportunities that come with a $90 billion naval shipbuilding program.