Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Well, my daughter is named Adelaide, actually, so it has a very special place in my heart. But South Australia is a great state. In particular, when I was the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, I was doing everything I could to try to put South Australia on the global tourism map because I think its product is in many ways second to none in other parts of Australia. Having said that, we will work closely with the South Australian government should they put up proposals.

I want to thank every member who has contributed to this debate. It is certainly a significant moment. It is a significant moment because this is a significant structural reform that will deliver $23 billion to the budget over the next 10 years. I know it is hard for many people to see petrol prices increase with inflation and, in this case, the excise increasing with inflation, but we need to pay for new roads. We need to invest in the infrastructure that is going to make us a stronger and more prosperous economy. If we can have better roads that reduce the congestion and that help to improve our productivity, that is good for Australia. Every single dollar of excise that comes from this bill, associated with the inflationary impact on excise—every single dollar—will go towards road funding. That is hugely important.

In addition to the proposal put forward by the Labor Party to increase the Roads to Recovery program—and, as I said in my second reading speech, the base funding for Roads to Recovery has been $350 million a year—we had increased it next year, in 2015-16, to $700 million at any rate. So, when the shadow Treasurer contacted us and endeavoured to negotiate an agreement, we were prepared to appropriately consider the offset of an extra $1.15 billion over two years, which is the increase in the excise equivalent over the next two years, and put it into the Roads to Recovery program.

I want to emphasise that I did not want to be in a position where we were putting an extraordinary amount into 2015-16, so we are putting an extra $300 million into 2015-16 and around $850 million on top of the $350 million in 2016-17, so we have a reasonably flat line, albeit an increase. And then bear in mind that it drops down to $350 million after that, which was the base funding.

Why do we do so? It is because this is timely from an economic perspective. It is timely from an economic perspective to get out there and build the roads as we go through the transition from mining construction to mining production. There are large number of potential workers who have been involved in the mining industry who are coming back to other parts of the country. This is an opportunity for them to get work in road building and potentially even bridge building—because I am advised that they do qualify under the Roads to Recovery program, which is very important in country areas.

But I might say that it is timely from an economic perspective. It is advantageous because it is deliverable from an economic perspective. Importantly, local government is a well-respected deliverer of these sorts of programs, so it is not as if you are trying to build an entirely new industry to roll out the roads. There is a proven track record in relation to the delivery of the money in this area and the delivery of outcomes in this area. It is outcome oriented, which is hugely important. Finally, as the member for Makin mentioned and I am sure many others have mentioned, it does cover every part of Australia, and I think that is hugely important. No part of Australia is left out of this program. It is not specific. There is a formula that is laid down by the Local Government Grants Commission and their formula will apply to this extra funding.

Improving and repairing the budget should not be this hard, but it is. Despite quite a journey from the opposition, we welcome their support. I am not going to labour on the politics of the decision, nor am I going to labour on the politics of the debate. I am focused on outcomes. I have always, always been focused on outcomes. This is the right outcome for the people of Australia and it is the right outcome for the budget. Why? Because, if we have a stronger budget, we have done everything we can to prepare for the challenges of the future—and we are absolutely determined to repair the budget.

This was announced in the 2014 budget. It was subject to considerable criticism, but it is the right thing to do. Like a number of other initiatives in that budget it is hugely important for Australia that, at the appropriate time, in the view of the parliament, and it is absolutely right that we pass more and more measures from that budget. That is the only way we are going to be able to properly prepare Australia for the future. In the last two weeks, we have seen a number of measures pass through the parliament that help to strengthen the Australian economy and strengthen the Commonwealth budget, and they were decisions that were made in the 2014 budget.

I commend this bill to the House. I thank everyone that has contributed to this debate. In good faith, I thank the opposition for being prepared to be reasonable about this. I do not gloat about this. What I do care about is that we strengthen the budget and strengthen the Australian economy so that we leave a better Australia for our children, and that is exactly what this does. This legislation is hugely structural. It is very significant. As I said in my second reading speech, I was there when indexation was taken away. There were many factors at play at that time. The lost revenue for Australia since that time has been extraordinary. And, rather than introducing a whole raft of new taxes, it is far better to make the existing taxes work and work to the benefit of the Australian people. In this case, because every dollar of excise increase is going into roads, there is a real benefit to the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context