Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with respect—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Warringah does not have the call. The member for Warringah.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, an aspersion has been cast on members of this House. With respect to you, Mr Speaker, the only people who have been encouraging the gallery are ministers who have responded to interjections.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Warringah will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s the point of order?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. There were a number of people on—

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Jensen interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney will leave the chamber.

The member for Tangney then left the chamber.

I am pleased that the member for Warringah, with eyes in the back of his head, can see all around the chamber! In fairness, I was making a general point. I accept the specific point of the member for Groom, but there were a number of members. I am sorry that that then casts aspersions on the majority of the members of the House, but there were members all around the chamber. It just does not assist the proceedings of the chamber.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the member for Tangney was asked to leave the chamber but there was no reference to which standing order and for how long.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney was asked to leave the chamber under standing order 94(a) for one hour, as the member for Hume well knows. The member for Leichhardt, now having our attention—

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government is using COAG to build a seamless national economy?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the fact that the Council of Australian Governments invokes such mirth on the part of those opposite, but it actually is the best vehicle available to the national government to prosecute real, lasting, microeconomic reform. This government is committed to a program of economic reform. Those opposite shake their heads because they do not believe that economic reform is important. This government is committed to building a stronger, fairer Australia capable of dealing with the challenges of the 21st century. When it comes to the economic challenge it is this: first, a policy of responsible economic management, and that is why we are committed to a $22 billion surplus as opposed to a $22 billion raid on the surplus by those opposite, because we know what happens then—it puts upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, upward pressure which working families and businesses across the country, including in the farm sector, cannot cope with. That is responsible economic management. The second principle is a program of economic reform. Economic reform died under the previous government. Economic reform was not prosecuted through the councils of the Federation. When it comes to economic reform, ensuring that we are creating the platform for long-term productivity growth is one of the hallmark considerations of what any national government of Australia should be about. We know that productivity growth has been in some strife in recent years, and as a consequence it is important for us to look at the long-term platforms for rebuilding long-term productivity growth.

How do we go about doing that? Firstly, we invest in an education revolution: we invest in education, skills and training to make sure that the next generation of Australians and this generation of Australians have the skills necessary to globally compete and to ensure that our firms remain at the cutting edge of the global economy. Beyond the education revolution, we also need in this country a radical new national investment in infrastructure. That is why this government has established not only the Education Investment Fund of $11 billion for the future but also, for the first time in the nation’s history, an infrastructure fund of $20 billion—the Building Australia Fund—because we believe in ensuring that this country’s long-term infrastructure has the national government investing in it as well. We are not playing a blame game as those opposite, including the member for Paterson, simply choose to do—blame the states and territories while nothing happened. That is the second element of an economic reform program.

The third element is how we deal with a complex set of regulations which currently stands in the way of businesses across this nation in the challenge of building their businesses from small businesses to medium businesses and to large businesses operating across the nation. That comes to the whole challenge of how we build a seamless national economy. How do we create a seamless national market? For 12 years in office those opposite sat back and could not reflect on the enormous cost impost on business of having this plethora of regulations affecting businesses, and it leaves those of us on the side of the House speechless. Calls by the Business Council of Australia and by the peak industry bodies over such a long period of time to act in this regard were clarion clear. Those opposite did nothing about it. This government, through the Council of Australian Governments, has embarked on a program of regulatory reform through the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, which is chaired by the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Currently we have on the agenda 27 areas of regulatory reform—27 areas of reform which should have been done and dusted by those opposite at least in the first five years that they were in office. Certainly in their 12 years of office, you would have thought that some progress would have been made.

On the question of what reforms are being demanded by business across the country, occupational health and safety laws, business name registration and trades licensing are all important to reduce the inconsistencies which are unnecessary between state and territory jurisdictions and to make it easier for the free movement of capital and the free movement of labour across this national economy. The Productivity Commission has already calculated what a great yield to overall gross domestic product and economic growth would come about as a consequence of this. That is why this government recognises that the Council of Australian Governments is the vehicle for handling these challenges for the future. It was ignored by our predecessors and is embraced by us because we want to see reform of specific purpose payments. We also want to see a reform of the way in which the Commonwealth makes payments to the states more generally. We want to see reform which encourages the states to embrace fully the national reform projects which we have allocated for them, including in the critical area of regulatory reform, to boost long-term productivity growth and produce long-term economic growth.

Opposition Member:

Opposition member interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone derisively says, ‘What about the summit?’ The call for a 2020 seamless national economy was the clarion clear call by business across the summit. Why is it that after 12 years those opposite made no progress in this space? We convened a group of Australia’s business leaders from right across the nation. Their demand of us was to work on tax and on the question of a seamless national economy. They want that established as a clear-cut national objective for us all. That is why this government has decided to act on this. The big challenges are getting the tax system right in the long term—fundamental tax reform not even broached by those opposite; getting the microeconomic reform agenda right, including through COAG, including through what we do in the overall regulatory reform space; and, thirdly, how we embrace the overarching reform which is necessary in emissions trading to deal with climate change, the great economic challenge of our generation as well as the great environmental challenge of our generation. That is where this government’s energies are concentrated—getting these things right for the future: big challenges like tax, big challenges like economic reform, big challenges like using COAG to reduce the regulatory burden on business and big challenges like developing an emissions trading scheme. This government has embarked upon this course of action because Australia needs long-term planning. COAG, a forum which brings together every government in the country—six states, two territories and the Commonwealth—is the vehicle for advancing so much of this economic reform agenda. We are putting our shoulder to the wheel; those opposite for 12 years were asleep at the wheel. I would encourage those opposite to get behind the COAG reform process necessary for the economy, necessary for business and necessary for national labour market mobility.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.