Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. It becomes very difficult sometimes, as you are probably aware. I thank the member for Lyne for this matter of public importance. I pick up on a theme that has been reflected through the two speakers, particularly in relation to decentralisation. I listened with interest to the minister’s comments. I have been in public life since 1991, with a period of time in the state parliament until 2001 and here, obviously, since then. There have been a lot of words in terms of decentralisation over those years and not a lot of action. In fact, one of the reasons for standing for the federal arena was the concerns I had directly in relation to competition policy and the way in which it impacted on smaller communities and smaller businesses. Two people on both sides of the political fence have stood out in a sense. The minister for small business mentioned one of them, the member for Hotham. I can remember in the early nineties that the member for Hotham—and I believed this at the time—was a real champion in terms of regional development processes and decentralisation. The other, who some members in this chamber may not know, was the Leader of the Liberal Party at one stage in New South Wales, Peter Collins. He had not dissimilar ideas about how you could actually drive the processes of decentralisation and the policy initiatives you could put in place to encourage people to go to the country and set up businesses.

Two very distinct things are happening at the moment and they are both quite current within this parliament. One is the population debate, which is locked in with some of the climate change issues and water issues, and where people will live. The other is the broader debate about the national broadband rollout. Those two things combined, in my view, really need to be explored under the one policy umbrella. If we are serious about encouraging decentralisation, encouraging small business to develop in country areas and growing our population in country areas, in areas where water and other issues are not a problem, we have to get serious about rolling out the National Broadband Network at a level where it is equitable to all people across the nation. It is the one thing, if it is done correctly, that negates distance as a disadvantage by being a country resident. It changes the playing field. Competition policy and other things have centralised the playing field. Decentralisation rolls off the tongue, as the minister said, but the policy mix that we have been focusing on for the last two decades has been a centralist policy mix, where you develop—and some people have heard me say this before—a feedlot mentality, where the cheapest way to provide the highest number of services to the greatest number of people at the lowest possible cost is to put them in a feedlot.

The National Broadband Network—and this is why I have been very supportive of what Senator Conroy is attempting to do—can break that nexus. When I say ‘can’, that does not mean it will—it can. If we can get the system right so that people who live in the country—or irrespective of where they live—share a common denominator in terms of the rollout of broadband services. Particularly given the population debate that is happening at the moment, we have to start to put some of those things into a policy mix rather than all the different silos we have, where it is a good idea to have this and a good idea to have that and where there is no real focus on what that means in terms of population growth, urban development, country towns, water supply and a whole range of related issues—but they are unrelated issues because of the way they are dealt with by the political process.

There are a few things that I would like to mention. I suggest to the minister for small business: other than the bankers, the people who really know what is going on in the country are the accountants. I would encourage you to talk to the Institute of Chartered Accountants and others, who really know the bottom line in terms of numbers, to find out the sorts of things that need to be encouraged to make sure that decentralisation does occur on some issues. I agree with the member for Lyne when he talked about local government and some of the local government drivers that are out there that are encouraging growth in some of those areas.

I also support the member for Lyne’s call for an extension to the investment allowance. I was in farming—and I still do a bit of farming—when Malcolm Fraser brought out the investment allowance. In hindsight, I do not think that was a good thing to have done because it drove up the price of machinery. We were buying equipment at different times, replacing harvesters and things, and a lot of people were doing the same, which was good for small business, but it drove up the price of the item that we were purchasing. Deputy Speaker Scott, you may remember that particular time. I think this is a different circumstance. Normally I would argue against the investment allowance, as it stood at that particular time, but this is a different circumstance in the economics of the nation. I think it is working. There are a lot of people who are taking advantage of it. We have heard suggestions that you have to be paying tax to take advantage of it, and obviously that is the case, but it flows through the community. If someone buys a tractor, the person who sells the tractor gets the benefit, as does the person who repairs the tractor. A whole chain of events occurs. In terms of stimulating small business and business activity, in this case the investment allowance has been a quite successful venture. I encourage the government to look closely at furthering it.

An unrelated matter, but something that I would say to the two gentlemen at that table, is that, whilst we are reviewing taxation and incentives, can someone do something about the baby bonus? Surely we can spend that money in a better way than the unfettered way it has been spent, in terms of the encouragement of various activities that the man who has now left the building, Peter Costello, set up to encourage. Surely there has to be a better way of helping families and children than to perpetuate the ridiculous arrangement of paying young people and others $5,000 to have more babies.

In conclusion, I reiterate: talk to the Institute of Chartered Accountants; talk to people who actually understand the mathematics of what is going on in regional and country areas of Australia; make sure that the broadband rollout occurs in a way in which it will actually deliver equity of services. The minister spoke about tradies, et cetera. Minister, you should look very closely at what is happening to TAFE. TAFE is in all our towns. It provides the skills in a lot of our communities. Look closely at what is happening—and this is a continuation of the previous government—and at modelling in terms of competition for certain aspects of the training. In theory that is a good thing. In practice, what it could mean is that a lot of the capacity to train young people in a lot of country towns where TAFE has existed in the past may well be negated by the cherry picking that occurs from time to time with the private sector. I am not saying do not have both, but be careful that we do not, over time, wipe out a service delivery and then have nothing to replace it because it has moved on to other taller cherry trees to pick.

In conclusion, I urge the minister and the government to revisit the theme that occurs from time to time of zonal taxation, and the minister himself would be aware of that. There are drivers of tax policy—the Henry review is coming up—and there are a number of initiatives that that review should look at if we are serious about driving some of the changes needed in country policy. (Time expired)

See this speech in context