Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the chamber on the 2017-18 budget appropriation bills, particularly those in the Finance portfolio. The main purpose of the 2017-18 budget appropriation bills is to make appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of specified amounts for expenditure by various government bodies. The total appropriation being sought by the bills is just under $105 billion. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) provides for the ordinary annual services of the government, and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) provides for matters other than ordinary annual services of government such as capital works and services and payment to or for the states, territories and local government authorities.

These appropriation bills reflect some of the government's key expenditure priorities which are not funded on a standing basis by special appropriations. The appropriation bills reflect some of the government's key expenditure priorities in addition to that. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) also provides for the services of the parliamentary departments. The government has committed to fund significant items, including $9 billion to the Department of Communications and the Arts to provide NBN Co. with a government loan—on commercial terms, it is important to note; $2 billion to the Department of Defence for the purchase of military equipment and the construction of support facilities; $162 million to the Department of Human Services, including an additional $24 million for capital investments in information and communications technology to support the Veteran Centric Reform measure; and $124 million to the Department of Parliamentary Services to maintain the integrity and amenity of this Parliament House.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) also provides debit limits under the Nation-building Funds Act for the Education Investment Fund, as well as general purpose financial assistance and national partnership payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. The Department of Defence will receive just over $32 billion from Appropriation Bill (No. 2) to keep our nation safe and pursue our national interests. This includes over $900 million for major defence operations, including a number of significant overseas operations. In the same bill, the Health portfolio will receive just over $11 billion, which includes around $3 billion for the Home Support and Care Program to provide support for older people to remain living at home and connected to their communities for longer; about $1 billion to ensure Australia has the workforce necessary to meet the needs of a sustainable health system under the health workforce program; and just under $1 billion to continue the delivery of health services under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health program, including the Indigenous Australians' Health Program.

The Department of Social Services will separately receive over $5 billion. This includes approximately $840 million for the provision of demand-driven disability employment services, about $225 million for other disability and carer services, and around $51 million for community organisations to develop and maintain a cohesive Australian community with improved independence and self-sufficiency. The Department of Human Services will receive just under $5 billion, as noted, which includes a specific amount of around $68 million to continue income management in all current locations.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018 also provides debit limits under the Nation-building Funds Act 2008 for the Education Investment Fund, as well as general-purpose financial assistance and national partnership payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 outlines expenditure in the Finance portfolio worth just over $720 million in departmental and other administered funding, and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) outlines appropriations of just over $575 million for the Finance portfolio. This amount reflects equity injections and net administered assets and liabilities. Therefore, I welcome questions from honourable members in the chamber.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions to the government about naval shipbuilding in my home state and, in particular, the breaking up of ASC into three companies, one being for submarine sustainment, one being for the end of the air warfare destroyer contract and the last one being for naval infrastructure at Osborne. In particular, the creation of Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd, which I think is a government corporation, was announced yesterday by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence Industry. My question to the government would be: are they considering privatising any one of those companies or any part thereof? What is their long-term intention regarding the ownership of ASC?

I would also be very interested to hear the minister's views on not necessarily the liabilities to the Commonwealth but the risk to the Commonwealth from the creation of a naval shipbuilding workforce in South Australia. I note from the government's own Naval Shipbuilding Plan—in particular chapter 4 of that plan—that they identify workforce development as potentially a very large driver in cost and lost productivity if it is not done properly. I point the minister to paragraph 4.4 of that plan:

Leaving workforce development solely to industry could result in multiple different approaches to workforce skilling with little or no coordination at the national level, and little consideration to meeting the skilled workforce needs of the broader naval shipbuilding enterprise …

Paragraph 4.9 also outlines the potential cost, which would be to the Commonwealth at the end of the day, of failure to produce that workforce. That plan outlines further on, in paragraphs 4.16, 4.17 and 4.18, that in 2021 we will have to increase the naval shipbuilding staff to 3,600, with a strong concentration on skilled trades, particularly fabricators and welders but also electricians, carpenters and pipe welders. Further on, it talks about the workforce in construction for future frigates reaching a peak of 5,200 in 2026. It talks about the types of skills that are needed: general management and technical skills—again, structural steelworkers, shipwrights, outfitting, electricians, joiners, pipe welders, crane operators, stores, quality assurance and the like.

My point to the minister is that all of those occupations require significant training—four-year apprenticeships plus one year in advanced skills to be able to work in naval shipbuilding. The plan goes on to talk about rehiring naval shipbuilding workers. I know one electrician who has left the shipyards—he has been made redundant. He has had two jobs since that time, both of them fairly intermittent. His skills are declining. There is obviously a problem there. If people leave the shipyards, they are obviously going to need some further training when they go back. There is some intimation that we might be able to source a workforce from the mining, oil and gas production industries.

Finally, on the automotive manufacturing industry, most of the people exiting the automotive industry from Holden might be very skilled individuals, but not many of them are skilled tradespeople. They are production line workers. Potentially they could be retrained, but it would take a four-year apprenticeship. It would seem to me that there are significant risks to the Commonwealth in a failure to have an available workforce from 2021. I am wondering what the government is doing about the creation of that workforce. Interestingly, I note that the government has undertaken to meet with the ACTU. I would be interested to know if that has been done—with all of the relevant unions—to help create a naval shipbuilding workforce. Can the minister enlighten the House as to what is happening in terms of privatisation and what is happening in terms of the workforce? My great fear is that we will turn up in 2021 and this workforce will not have materialised out of thin air, and the government will be scratching its head as to how to drive productivity and limit risk in the shipyards. (Time expired)

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get to my question for the minister, I would like to talk about how very important our investment in shipbuilding and defence is not just for our nation but also particularly for my home state of South Australia. I am very proud of our record and announcements on this issue. Our investment will not just create thousands of jobs for Australians and South Australians and increase our ability to defend our nation but correct six long years of Labor mismanagement and neglect. We are spending $195 billion on defence procurement over the next decade. This will help keep Australians safe and help keep the wonderful people of our Defence forces as safe as they can be when they put their lives on the line to defend our nation. Our defence investment will also secure our economic future, because defence industries involve the very best of science, technology and manufacturing. My home state of South Australia will particularly benefit from our Defence shipbuilding project and I know the minister will elaborate upon this further in answer to my question.

Our government has commissioned 54 vessels to be built for the Navy over the next several decades. We are doing the sustainment and maintenance of these vessels here. We have opened the Centre for Defence Industry Capability and we have launched the Defence Innovation Hub. We have launched the Naval Shipbuilding College because we have to provide 5,000 workers by the mid-2020s for naval shipbuilding because we need to fill all of the work that will be created in naval shipbuilding in South Australia and around Australia. We need to find those skilled people apprenticeships in welding, fitting and turning because we are building the defence industry in this country like it has never been built before. We are upgrading infrastructure to allow these builds, including the 12 submarines. We are beginning our shipbuilding program with the offshore patrol vessels in 2018. These are the real results a Liberal coalition government delivers for Australia, and for South Australia in particular. We are delivering jobs, we are delivering training, we are building our technical expertise and we are enhancing our national security and that of our Defence forces. This stands in stark contrast to the Labor Party's actions, or inaction, when in government. Those opposite failed to commission a single naval vessel from an Australian shipyard during their entire time in office. This led to the downturn in our shipbuilding industry. It saw the industry lose not only hundreds of jobs but also skills and experience.

During their time in government, Labor cut $18.8 billion from the defence budget. Those opposite delayed 119 Defence capability projects. They reduced 43 projects in scope and they outright cancelled another eight, risking critical security and creating capability gaps. Spending on defence fell to 1.56 per cent of GDP under Labor, the lowest level since 1938. This is not a record of which they should or can be proud. This led to the downturn in our shipbuilding industry—the so-called valley of death, which we have obviously felt significantly in South Australia—and it saw the industry lose hundreds of jobs and the loss of skills and experience, particularly in my home state.

What I am particularly excited about is not just the jobs that will flow from the actual Defence work but the flow-on effect and benefits that private companies gain from doing this sort of work for Defence. There are so many examples of companies in South Australia that do the Defence work but then use the skills that they and their workforce gain from that work to apply to other private sector investments and new industries, new technologies and new products. It is not just the Defence build that is really important to my home state; it is the flow-on effects—the new products and the new skills that those companies gain from this work that they then apply to other economic activity.

Can the minister update members on the significant investments being made in shipbuilding infrastructure that will support the government's naval shipbuilding plan and secure thousands of jobs in my home state of South Australia that are so desperately needed, mainly because of the terrible mismanagement by the state Labor government? I am just so grateful that we are in government federally so we can do what we can to help my home state and my electors and my constituents in my seat of Boothby.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a big day tomorrow; it is not a good day but it is a big day. Tomorrow, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, Australia will rack up more than half a trillion dollars in gross debt, which is a damning indictment of those opposite not just of their fiscal failures but also of their failure to meet the standards that they set for themselves, the test that they set for themselves. They told us that their reason for being was that they will pay down debt. Instead, we have skyrocketing debt not just gross debt but net debt, and we have deficits bigger than when they came to office—all of these sorts of things wrapped in together which give you a factual sense from the budget papers that we are discussing today of the depths of their incompetence and their mismanagement.

On that half a trillion dollars of debt tomorrow: we have $499.3 billion today and I am told there is an $800 million issuance tomorrow. So we will push through that $500 billion figure. It is worth remembering when you think about that $500 billion figure is that back when the member for Wentworth was the temporary leader of the Liberal Party he described projected gross debt of $300 billion—and let me get this right—as 'frightening', he described it as 'gigantic', he described it as 'an almost inconceivable level of debt'. Now we have a much, much bigger level of debt that we will reach tomorrow. The bad news for the Australian people is not just the interest payments that they have to pay on this debt but also the fact that half a trillion tomorrow is really just the beginning under those opposite. It will hit $606 billion by the end of the forwards. It will hit $725 billion at the end of 10 years. There is not even a peak in these budget papers over the 10-year horizon. It hits 725 and it keeps on rising. You hear those opposite bang-on all the time about debt and deficit disasters and all that sort of stuff. But they have been a bit quiet this week when it comes to debt because they own this problem that we have tomorrow.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are laughing at it.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are having a chuckle about it, and nothing makes them chuckle more than lying to the Australian people about the culprits. Whether it is the gross debt number that I have been mentioning or net debt, which is at record levels for another three years, whether it is the fact that under the current Treasurer's budget the deficit for the coming year is more than 10 times bigger than it was projected under Joe Hockey's budget, the former Treasurer, in 2014, all of these numbers paint a really damning picture of the failures of those opposite. They start chuckling and shuffling through their notes—which have probably been ably prepared by their colleagues behind them—but what they will not mention, what they will not acknowledge, is that debt under this government, whether it is net debt or gross debt, is accumulating at a faster pace per month under this government than it did under the former government, which is especially revealing when you consider that the former government had a global financial crisis to deal with. Those opposite have pretty good global conditions to deal with and still they are racking up net debt and gross debt faster than the former Labor government.

Government members interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will have an opportunity to respond. I cannot hear the honourable member for Rankin.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to feel sorry for that member opposite—he has never been described as the brains behind anything. You can understand why he is getting a bit chippy over there. Gross debt is being accumulated $1.65 billion a month faster in the Abbott-Turnbull period than it was in the Rudd-Gillard period, so before they start pointing the finger and pretending it is somebody else's fault they should at least acknowledge that.

In addition to the very good questions that the member for Wakefield asked about the ASC workforce, in particular, which we are very keen to get some answers to, I have some additional questions for the assistant minister. If projected debt at $300 billion was frightening and gigantic and almost inconceivable, what words would he use to describe half a trillion dollars of debt? How much interest will the Australian people be paying on this skyrocketing level of debt? How does he explain the fact that debt is accumulating much faster under them, without a global financial crisis, than it did under us? Will he acknowledge that, when it comes to gross debt, there is not even a peak insight in these budget papers that we are discussing?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make some remarks on the important issue in my electorate of housing affordability. I do want to address some questions to the minister in a moment, but first I would like to make some observations. In my electorate the median house price appears to be in the range of about $1.15 million. That is a very substantial amount. The Sydney property market has obviously increased significantly in recent years, and people do want government to take sensible measures on the issue of housing affordability. Very importantly, people in my electorate want government to take sensible, carefully calibrated measures that assist first home buyers but also do not undermine the stability of the housing market—because, after all, the housing market represents the majority of the wealth of the average Australian household and it is incumbent upon governments to be very thoughtful and cautious when making changes to any policy in this area.

In that vein, I was particularly pleased to see in the budget, in the housing affordability package, two particular policies. Firstly, there is the First Home Super Saver Scheme. This has been very well received in my electorate. It is a very sensible policy that allows individuals to save up to $30,000 towards the value of a home deposit through their superannuation scheme. Before people say that super is sacrosanct and you can't touch super, it is important to understand that this does not allow people to touch their super—it is only able to be accessed above and beyond the superannuation guarantee requirement. It gives people an opportunity to make use of a tax incentive to save for a first home. It is extraordinary that those opposite oppose this, because basically what they are saying is that government should not provide any tax incentive to first home buyers who are doing the hard yards, working the long hours, striving to save for that deposit—which of course is the most critical thing in getting into your first home. So the government has said, 'Let's provide a tax incentive to those hardworking families' but those opposite say it is a bad idea and cannot be done. That is a very foolish approach by those opposite.

The other policy I want to highlight which I think is particularly notable from the housing package is the policy in relation to reducing barriers to downsizing. For a lot of older people in my electorate, and there are literally thousands of older people in my electorate who are sitting on housing assets of very substantial value, they are often reluctant to sell those assets because of tax and other consequences. The government is saying that from 1 July next year people over 65 will be able to take $300,000 of proceeds from the sale of a home and make a non-concessional contribution to super. That is going to encourage people to be more relaxed about selling those homes that are perhaps too big for them. And that is a good thing because it brings more supply onto the market and, in a sensible, calibrated way, assists first home buyers who are looking for opportunities to enter. So these are very thoughtful and sensible policies.

Those opposite have some particularly bad policies in this area. They want to abolish negative gearing, which has been around for 100 years, and they also want to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent on everything. As part of their so-called housing affordability policy, they say: 'Let's increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent on everything.' And that includes farms, factories, commercial properties, cafes—so, under the guise of a housing affordability policy, they say: 'Increase the investment tax by 50 per cent on everything and everyone.' And do you know why they are doing that, Acting Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou? Because it involves additional tax revenue. That is what it is about. It is about a tax increase, as opposed to housing affordability—a very poorly thought-through policy. Minister, my question is: could you please update the chamber on the government's progress in surplus property divestment? Can you please advise if there has been any improvement in public availability of data on Commonwealth leases? And could you also please touch on the government's approach to property divestment and the relationship to housing affordability? What else is the government doing to assist young Australians looking to buy their first homes?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will resist the urge to point out that there are $21 billion of new taxes in the budget that we talking about today. I want to go to the macro-economic forecasts in the budget, and to ask some questions about the nature of those forecasts. As context, I point out that right now in this country we have wages growth at record lows; we have underemployment at record highs; work has never been less secure—or has never been more precarious; we have the wages share of GDP at the lowest level in history, if you read the report put out by the Australia Institute earlier in the week—all of these things paint a very clear picture about people who have precarious workplaces. Those opposite love the idea of lower wages—that is why they are having a chuckle, Acting Deputy Speaker. But we have profits going through the roof, and we have wages at historic lows. And that is because work is so precarious; it is because people cannot get the hours that they want work.

In that context, it is very intriguing to see in the budget these extraordinary forecasts for wages growth. Wages growth is 1.9 per cent, inflation is 2.1 per cent—so real wages in this country are actually going backwards. But despite that, and despite them being around 1.9 for some time, we have these forecasts in the budget that are: 2.1, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 3.75 per cent wages growth. That is a pretty extraordinary thing, when you consider what is actually happening to wages—for the government to assume that—despite the fact that they are supporting cuts to penalty rates—all of a sudden, miraculously, we are going to have this wages growth. A lot of the macro figures are relevant to that wages number; I will get back to that in a minute and ask some questions.

When you look more broadly at the jobs elements of this budget, I think one of the most damning figures—beyond those that I have just mentioned—is that this budget actually forecasts 95,000 fewer jobs in the economy than the previous budget. At the same time as the Treasurer is patting himself on the back for jobs, his own budget from one year to the next forecasts 95,000 fewer jobs. That is a pretty extraordinary statistic, on top of the other statistics that I have talked about. In addition to those others that I have mentioned, the number of hours worked per week at 34.5 is the lowest on record, and there are issues around business investment as well.

When you consider how far the government has fallen in the people of Australia's estimation since the election, I think it really comes to the fact that they do not understand that people are doing it tough. They are working hard but not getting ahead and, at the same time as penalty rates are cut, they are told that people who earn over $180,000 get a tax cut in this budget and big business in this country gets $65 billion handout, of which $10 billion of that goes to the four big banks. You can see why people are unhappy about that, particularly in that first weekend in July where on the Saturday someone earning a million dollars gets a $16,000 tax cut, and on the Sunday up to 700,000 Australians lose $77 a week when they have their penalty rates cut. You can see why people are pretty filthy about the economic performance of those opposite. Right through the budget papers you can see evidence for why that unhappiness in the community is warranted, and no wonder people are unhappy with the government.

The question I really wanted to ask the assistant minister, in addition to the ones that he so far has failed to answer from the member for Wakefield and my earlier questions around record levels of debt and half a trillion dollars of gross debt tomorrow—a new record—and the interest paid on that debt, on what basis, or on what planet, he thinks in the budget that wages will reach 3.75 per cent growth by the end of the forward estimates when the wages performance has been so poor in the last couple of years? Can he explain those forecasts, and what is the basis of that optimism at the same time as penalty rates are being cut? More fundamentally, I would also like him to explain to the chamber on what basis, and again on what planet, does he think the economy can grow when ordinary working people are not earning, when their wages are going backwards in relation to inflation—when their real wages are going backwards? And why don't we ever hear about those record low wages and that record high underemployment, and the implications they have for the budget?

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I would like to ask the minister about efficiency dividend policy, and as I do so I recognise how the coalition's responsible approach to the budget this year focuses on savings and efficiencies as a priority. As the Treasurer said, this is a sustainable budget that meets the service needs of Australians and focuses on government debt so as to lessen the burden on future generations, all while ensuring the government itself lives within its means.

As I move by way of background to address how this approach plays out in my electorate of Groom, it is important to note that the budget is projected to return to balance in 2021, the growth in payments has been restricted to less than two per cent per year and, that since coming to government, we have arrested growth in our debt by more than two-thirds. Again, as the Treasurer said, to respect future taxpayers every day spending should be funded from the first dollar we receive in taxes, not funded by debt and, accordingly, the government will no longer be borrowing to pay for our everyday expenses from 2018-19—that is just one year away.

As the second largest inland city in Australia behind Canberra, Toowoomba is the key regional centre for southern inland Queensland and northern inland New South Wales for health and education services. It is the leading agribusiness capital of Australia and a significant centre for mining and construction services. Given all of this, and our burgeoning population, we are also a significant service centre for the broader region, including federal government services. Medicare, Centrelink, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Rail Track Corporation and CSIRO's Agricultural Production System Resources Unit, amongst many others, all maintain a very significant presence in our city, each with a focus on technology and management initiatives so as to improve efficiency and certainly service delivery.

I am particularly pleased about the government's focus on decentralisation. We have in our presence in our region now, as a result of that, the Grains Research and Development Corporation—very important in our part of the world, particularly in irrigated and dryland farming systems—and, of course, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority also now has a presence in Toowoomba. Again, this is very significant given that we, on the Condamine system in our part of Queensland, are at the headwaters of the whole Murray-Darling Basin system. The location of those two offices and other government services in our regional area is something that is typical of an issue that I very much look forward to concentrating on as a member of the new Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation. I look forward to working with colleagues across the parliament in efforts to look at best practice for regional development and decentralisation of not only government services and offices but those of the corporate world as well.

So I would like to ask the minister about the efficiencies achieved in this budget through the government's efficiency dividend policy—specifically: how is the government making sure that departmental spending is efficient and helps contribute towards budget repair? Can the minister also update the chamber on what the savings achieved by the government's functional and efficiency reviews are, including over the forward estimates and the medium term? What kinds of reforms do these reviews achieve? What is the government doing to ensure that Commonwealth departments and agencies have the technology and the capability that they need to respond to growing public demand and expectations? What are some of the more significant projects that the Modernisation Fund, in particular, will be supporting?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is worth noting that we have had a lot of questions asked so far in this session but not a lot of answers. We can see what the assistant minister's strategy is. It is to hope that we get timed out—

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just ask your question, you sook!

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

answer a couple of friendly questions from those opposite—

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, you sook, just ask your question! What a sook you are! What a sook!

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's getting very chippy, Deputy Speaker. He must be having a bad day again.

An opposition member: It could be that half a trillion—

It could be that half a trillion dollars in gross debt that comes up tomorrow, Deputy Speaker.

An opposition member: He won't answer that question!

If I were him, I would try not to answer that question either, in fairness—as he sits over there and hides behind his colleagues and hopes that he never has to answer any questions.

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

An opposition member: We ask them. You answer them.

He seems to have this round the wrong way, but I will persevere anyway. In addition to all the questions asked by those opposite, as well as the member for Wakefield's questions about the workforce at the ASC, my question about wages and my questions about that record half a trillion dollars in gross debt which comes up tomorrow, which they are very embarrassed about, I will add some more to the pile that the assistant minister will not answer.

Those opposite wanted the budget to be all about the bank levy, as they tried to avoid the need for a banking royal commission and avoid the fact that they were giving $10 billion of a $65 billion tax cut to just four companies, the four big banks in this country. But the startling and defining feature of this budget is really how it looks after the wealthiest in our community at the expense of the most vulnerable. I mentioned the penalty rates cuts which come in on the first weekend of July—ironically, sadly, the same weekend that that tax cut comes in for high-income earners. That really is just a subset of a broader problem with this budget, a subset of the broader problem with the priorities of those opposite, which is that they will always shower largesse on the top end of town but they will always ask the weakest and most vulnerable people to carry the can for their budget failures and they will always ask people in the middle income levels of this economy to do something which they do not ask people at the highest level of income in this economy to do.

My questions for the assistant minister are really around the unfairness of the budget, not just the $65 billion tax cut, of which $10 billion goes to the four big banks, but also that personal income tax cut which sees someone on $1 million get a $16,400 tax cut on 1 July. My questions are really around why we would do this. On the $65 billion tax cut, could the assistant minister inform the chamber what the Treasury estimates or the Finance estimates are for the impact that will have on the economy? We are told that the first tranche of tax cuts only has a 0.2 per cent impact on the economy, and that is only when fully implemented. By the government's own numbers, we are told that the full $65 billion tax cut will only boost GDP by one per cent over 20 years—something like 0.05 per cent a year, which does not strike me as extraordinary bang for your buck.

At the same time they are giving away that $65 billion, they have record debt, record net debt, record gross debt and interest being paid on that by Australian working people. At the same time they are doing that, they are saying: 'We can't find that $22 billion for schools. We can't afford that, but we can afford the $65 billion for BHP and the big banks. We can't afford to unfreeze Medicare properly and immediately. That has to wait. We can't afford to ensure we have access to a university, particularly for working-class kids'—the type of kids I represent—'but, generally, we have to jack up the costs of university because we have a problem here. But we're still going to give away that $65 billion. We're still going to give away those income tax cuts by letting the deficit levy lapse.' This is at the same time that they are asking people under $87,000 a year to pay more tax.

I would like the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer to tell us: is it true that someone on $50,000 will pay $250 more tax a year when the tax hike comes in at the same time a millionaire will pay $16,000 less? Someone on $60,000 will pay $300 more, someone on $70,000 will pay $350 more and someone on $80,000 will pay $400 more tax a year at the same time that those at the top end get an extraordinarily large tax cut. Really, the question—and the core problem of this budget—is: how can the members on that side of the House be so out of touch? How can they possibly describe the situation I have just outlined as fair?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to have the member for Wakefield so excited to receive an answer. I will start with your question and the related questions from the member for Boothby in relation to the ASC. Luckily, the member for Wakefield is here to listen to the answer.

As you know, the government announced the structural separation of ASC into its three core functions: a shipbuilders business, a submarine sustainment business and the Collins class submarines. I can assure you that the government is determined to ensure these assets remain in Commonwealth hands because we do want to ensure that we maintain and sustain this industry on an ongoing basis. The member for Wakefield spoke about some of the issues, potentially, around skills. He was obviously not assisted by the fact that the government of which he was a member did not place one order for six years. Ultimately, that led them to the valley of death, which meant that there was a vacation of those skills. Unfortunately, people cannot hang around forever for a Labor government to make a decision, and that is probably the biggest single factor in this sense.

Of course, the member for Boothby rightly pointed out that we will be building nine of the future frigates in her home state, which is the member for Wakefield's home state. There was a total of 54 naval vessels that the coalition has committed to building in Australia compared, as I said, to the zero vessels that the government of which the member for Wakefield was a member built. During that time, the member for Wakefield was supposedly a champion of his community. I would say that your effectiveness in that caucus must be questioned by your constituents given that not one order was placed for six years.

Mr Champion interjecting—

You obviously do not have much pull in that caucus, Member for Wakefield.

I think this is good news. I think there are always fair questions to ask, including: how do we get the skilled workforce necessary? The one way you do not do it is not make an order for six years. On this side of the House, we absolutely have that commitment. I think the Australian people, especially South Australians and constituents in the member for Wakefield's electorate, can be confident that we will appropriately ramp up and assist ASC, which is an independent body, to ramp up their workforce to be able to meet those.

I also want to get onto another question that was asked. The member for Banks spoke about our housing affordability package and property divestment. In the 2014-15 budget, the government announced that we would rationalise Commonwealth non-Defence property through a divestment program, which, in effect, utilises the significant assets that have been sitting on the Commonwealth balance sheet for some time for more productive purposes. I report to the House that, since July 2014, 95 non-Defence properties have been sold or are under contract or offer, and, to date, around $37 million has been returned to the budget under the divestment program, and a further 56 non-Defence properties have been listed for divestment. This dovetails into one aspect of the housing affordability package in the budget, which is a commitment from this government to unlock Commonwealth land.

Compared to the states and local governments, we actually do not hold a truckload of land, but I think we have quite rightly and quiet fairly criticised state and local governments for not doing enough to ease housing affordability pressures, particularly in our big cities. One of the things we should do is lead by example. That means, where we have surplus land, in the case of Maribyrnong—

Mr Hill interjecting—

in my home town, 127 hectares less than 10 kilometres from the city—excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, can you ask the member to withdraw, please?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stand up.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate that I will actually run the chamber, thank you very much. The minister has asked for a withdrawal. The member has withdrawn.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. One hundred and twenty-seven hectares within 10 kilometres of the Melbourne CBD—this is land that has been essentially vacant for 15 years. Six years of a Labor government did nothing. We think that prime land—

An opposition member interjecting—

Yes—I will take the member's interjection—it is contaminated, and, had the decontamination work commenced during the Labor government's period, perhaps we would have houses on there now, but divestment is a key part of the plan. (Time expired)

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much interest will be paid on the $500 billion of gross debt which comes up tomorrow?

An honourable member: Sorry; can you repeat that?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I need to give the call to this side of the chamber.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the member for Rankin's earlier question. The member for Rankin has asked a succession of questions and complained about them not being answered, so I will work through them in order.

There are a lot of members of parliament who used to work for Peter Costello in this place, and they very proudly walk around this House speaking fondly of their experiences working for the greatest Treasurer that we have seen in a generation. It is quite extraordinary that the member for Rankin walks around as 'the brain of Wayne Swan'—and he takes that as a compliment!

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

I am glad that you take that as a compliment. I can assure the member for Rankin that it is not a meant as a compliment but, if you take it that way, congratulations.

In relation to the debt limit, which the member has referred to, just a bit of history: in December 2013 the former Treasurer directed that the debt limit would be $500 billion. On 9 May this year, on budget night, the Treasurer directed the debt limit would be increased to $600 billion. Gross debt subject to the Treasurer's direction, as at last Friday, 9 June, was $496.7 billion, and total gross debt, some of which is not subject to the Treasurer's direction, is $499.2 billion. This is where the member for Rankin and I agree. That is a truckload of debt. It is an absolutely extraordinary amount of debt, and he should hang his head in shame for being the man who set the debt bonfire alight.

Since being in opposition, since being rewarded for being the former Treasurer's brain—which he takes as a compliment, so I will keep saying it, because, if he takes it as a compliment, then surely he is happy with it. They set the debt bonfire alight and since then have done everything possible—every obstructionist tactic—to make the debt worse. Why? I suspect it is because the modern Labor Party is unable to say no to any new spending initiatives.

We saw when we came to government that the forward estimates were laden with hidden time bombs, presumably thought up by the member for Rankin as a bit of a way to ensure that it was very difficult to repair the damage of six years of Labor mismanagement in the fiscal space. Whether that was in unrealistic funding to the states, whether it was underfunding the NDIS or whether it was underfunding a whole host of programs, we know, and I can assure the member for Rankin that the Australian people know, that the Labor Party are the ones who have created this mess, and we are toiling every single day, making very hard choices and difficult decisions, to reduce it. The rate of growth of debt has slowed significantly—again, at a time when our terms of trade were nothing like what the Labor party had when iron ore prices were well north of $100. Now, with an iron ore price lower than $50, we are seeing improvements in the budget bottom line.

So we will not take any lectures from the Labor Party, particularly given that, on the eve of the last election, they accepted a whole host of savings measures that they had criticised up hill and down dale. They accepted them for the purposes of their own budget assumptions. But, notwithstanding the fact that they caved on all of those things, they still went to the election promising to borrow an additional $16 billion. So, whatever the number is today that the member for Rankin complains about, you can add the Labor Party's $16 billion, plus all of the unfunded promises that have been made since the election. So I think it would be much closer to $30 billion or $40 billion on a hypothecated basis. So to the member for Rankin I would say: if $500 billion is very troubling for you then you must be much more concerned about $520 billion, $530 billion or $540 billion, which would be the alternative case should the Labor Party have been in government. But you are not in government. You lost the election, and you lost the election for a very good reason.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the member for Rankin starts, I just remind members that all members of this House must be referred to by their titles, not by their names.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fairness to the , who struggled through this rationale for record gross and net debt under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, the problem with this government is not that the assistant minister is the worst of them; the problem with the government is that the assistant minister is no worse than the Treasurer or the Minister for Finance when it comes to trying to rationalise this record debt.

One of the things that I would like to respond to that the assistant minister talked about is the difference in the bottom line between the government and the opposition at the last election. It is very troubling that somebody who is a Treasury assistant minister has not realised that the difference he describes between the bottom lines of the two major parties at that election has been abandoned by his own government. The measures that created the difference—the so-called zombie measures—no longer exist. I would hope, in the interests of the country, that somebody who is a Treasury assistant minister in a federal government would understand that some weeks ago, in the budget that we are talking about right now and that he has been sent in to defend, that difference was abandoned when they abandoned the so-called zombie measures. The reality is that we said at the election that those measures would not go ahead and that the government's bottom line was not an accurate reflection of the difference between the two parties, and we were actually proven right on budget night. It is troubling and disappointing. It is not even funny; it is really just quite a shame that that has not yet dawned on an assistant minister in the Treasury portfolio and nobody has yet explained to him that that difference has been abandoned by those opposite.

Predictably, as I anticipated before, those opposite, after four years of government, would like to pretend that gross debt, which in the life of this parliament will double from what they inherited, is somebody else's fault. They do that right across, whether it is power prices or a number of things where those opposite think that everything bad that happens in this country is Labor's fault. So I want to put on the record these numbers, which show that the pace of the accumulation of debt has been faster under those opposite than it was under the former Labor government—remembering, of course, that the former Labor government had to deal with the sharpest synchronised downturn in the global economy since the Great Depression, with everything that that means for the budget, whereas those opposite have relatively rosy global conditions. They have no excuses to point to for this substantial deterioration in budget. These are the numbers that should be on the record.

Those opposite, the coalition, are accruing gross debt $1.65 billion a month more quickly than the former government. They are accruing net debt $511 million a month more quickly than their predecessors, the Labor government—that is $380 million a week and $55.3 million a day quicker for gross debt, and $118.2 million a week or $16.9 million a day faster for net debt. Before they try and pretend that those numbers have been pulled out of the air, they can do the calculations if they like, or, in the assistant minister's case, he should probably get somebody else to do them for him. Gross debt grew under Rudd and Gillard by $226 billion in 69 months; under Abbott and Turnbull it has grown by $219 billion in less than two-thirds of the time, which is 44½ months.

These are not numbers that the Labor Party has made up. These are not numbers that we have pulled out of the air. These are basic calculations from the government's own budget papers and from the budget updates which are provided to the Australian people on a regular basis. If you use that measure, if you use those budget updates, which are generally put out on a Friday afternoon, for good reason—in the hope that all the journos have gone home—you will see that, when it comes to net debt, there was $175 billion on the day they came to office; it is now $317 billion. Gross debt was $280 billion, and it will be $500 billion tomorrow. That does give you a sense not just of the state of the books, which the assistant minister has described as 'a truckload of debt', which is a pretty apt description—

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was talking about a Labor debt—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no—you did not say that. I say to the people of Hansard: keep an eye out for this one! He said it was a truckload of debt. I wrote it down. I wrote it down here in the little squiggly lines: 'truckload of debt', which is a pretty apt description. How much interest will Australians pay on that truckload of debt? (Time expired)

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Hughes would like the call, if both sides would like to be quiet.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister: does he think that, since we are seeing such concern from the Labor members about debt, the concern that they are showing today, it is possible that they may join with the coalition and they may help to approve some expenditure cuts? Do you think that is possible, Minister, or will we see the continuation of the reckless approach of Labor in continuing to block everything that the coalition tries to do to bring our budget back into balance?

I would also ask you, Minister: can you tell us about the risks to the economy if we go down Labor's track and maintain an internationally uncompetitive corporate tax rate? What risks are there to investment flows into Australia if we have a 30 per cent rate of corporate tax but the US go down to 15 per cent and the UK is at 20 per cent? What risks are there to our economy from that? I also ask you: if we have, combining with that, a personal rate of marginal tax that the Labor Party want, a top rate of 49½ per cent, what risk does that have for our international competitiveness? And what risk does it have if we go down Labor's track with energy, where they want a 50 per cent renewable energy target, giving us some of the highest costs for energy in the world? How are we going to have a competitive economy in the years ahead if we go down that trilemma of Labor's: uncompetitive rates of corporate tax, uncompetitive top rates of marginal tax and uncompetitive electricity prices? What is the future for our nation if we do that?

I would also like to ask you about the issue of housing affordability. We hear Labor talk about how they want to abolish negative gearing. Are there any historical precedents—what happened when we previously abolished negative gearing? What happened to the rental markets in Sydney? What happened to the rental markets in Melbourne? Perhaps you could explain why, if this is the magic bullet that Labor suggests, we are seeing some markets with such large increases in housing prices and other markets with decreases, when we have the same negative gearing policies across the nation.

Also, Minister, you may like to comment on the rate of interest that this government has to pay on the debt that it inherited from Labor. How much is that? How much is that going forward? How is that financed, Minister, and what are the Labor Party actually doing to assist the coalition to try and bring the debt that we have under control? If we could have some discussion on those things—because we have heard some wonderfully eloquent speeches by Labor members about their concern about the debt to date, and we share those concerns. So we would hope that, in the weeks and months and years to come, it is possible that we could see the Labor Party join hands with us and work together.

The other thing, Minister, is: can you also please advise us how the government is using efficiency dividends to ensure that Australian taxpayers will actually receive value for money from all governments and their departments? Minister, with any time left, is this possible?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister seeking to wrap up?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will answer this question if I have time.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would normally go to the other side. If you want to wrap up and make your final comments, you can do that.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank everyone for their contributions. Can I say specifically to the honourable member who has just asked a succession of questions that this government is absolutely determined to ensure that it does not bequeath to the next generation ever-higher debt. The member was right to point out in his questions that the trajectory of the level of debt that we inherited when entering government was significantly worse than where we are now, notwithstanding all of the obstructionist approach we have seen in the Senate to reducing the debt and reducing the rate at which the debt has grown.

I can assure the member that we are committed to delivering on the corporate tax cuts that he referred to in his questions. Yes, by reducing corporate tax rates and becoming more internationally competitive, we attract investment to this country, and by attracting investment to the country we obviously grow and provide better and higher paid jobs, and it also has the benefit of improving our budget bottom line. The forward estimates and the projections of Treasury are clear in that respect.

Just briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, on housing: the member is right to point out in his questions that the failed experiment of removing negative gearing has been seen before in this country. It was tried in the 1980s. It was hastily abandoned because it had a devastating impact on our housing market, and it had a devastating impact on those who could least afford it, the 30 per cent of people who rent, the forgotten people in the housing market. If you remove negative gearing, you increase rents. We know it. This is not hypothetical. We have seen it all before. So I want to thank the honourable member for his questions. In fact, I want to thank all honourable members for their questions in this consideration in detail.

Expenditure agreed to.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a brief opening statement and then accept questions relating to the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. The 2017-18 budget is designed to enhance Australia's national security and economic prosperity at an uncertain and highly dynamic time in world affairs. Australia's strong international engagement is essential to our economic and strategic interests, creating more and better-paying jobs and keeping Australians safe.

In addition to bolstering the resourcing of our key foreign national security agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Turnbull government has allocated $231.2 million to maintain our diplomatic presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for a further two years. These overseas posts play an important role in supporting our defence and counterterrorism efforts, contributing to global, regional and, importantly, domestic security. Our continued representation will facilitate Australia's engagement with alliance partners and support our humanitarian and capacity-building efforts, which are so vital. This budget also takes important steps to further strengthen our engagement within the Indo-Pacific region at a time of heightened geopolitical uncertainty. When we came to government, we began a program of expansion in Australia's diplomatic footprints—the biggest such expansion undertaken in over 40 years. With 10 new missions planned across seven continents, we are creating new opportunities for engagement and new opportunities for Australia.

In 2017-18, Australia will also deliver an aid program worth $3.9 billion, making us the 13th largest donor of official development assistance in the OECD. Over 90 per cent of our overseas development assistance will be spent in the Indo-Pacific region as we focus on our neighbourhood, where our national interests are most concentrated and where we can make the biggest difference. We will make investments aimed at delivering sustainable economic growth, poverty reduction and regional stability, with a continued focus on improving the lives of women and girls. We will contribute $55 million to the Gender Equality Fund to strengthen gender equality and women's economic empowerment in our region. We will continue our efforts to improve the efficacy of our aid investments, with a focus on private sector partnerships and a commitment to innovation rather than arbitrary spending targets. We will also increase our humanitarian assistance, with funding of around $400 million in 2017-18, an increase of $60 million. This is a deliberate strategy to focus on the expanding humanitarian crises that we see around the world.

The government's commitment to open markets and a rules-based international trading system continues to drive growth in the Australian economy. In 2016, Australia's net goods and services exports contributed 1.4 percentage points to our 2.4 per cent annual growth in real GDP, and we expect to see our export sector continue its strong performance. In 2017-18, the government will continue our efforts to build on our trifecta of free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea by seeking more opportunities for Australian businesses abroad, which means more investment and more job opportunities for Australians at home. A country does not become wealthy by selling to itself. We need to continue to conclude agreements, and we are focusing on Indonesia, Hong Kong and Peru. We are launching negotiations with the European Union and continuing to pursue the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP, which covers almost half the world's population, and that is not forgetting our ongoing work to capture the benefits of the Trans Pacific Partnership.

We recognise the importance of tourism in creating jobs and sustaining many small businesses. Tourism Australia will continue to receive record funding. As a result of our efforts, international tourists are staying longer and spending more when they visit Australia. During the last year, tourists from across the globe spent almost $40 billion on 262 million visitor nights. Recognising the need to support Australians affected by the devastation of Cyclone Debbie, particularly the region's vital tourism industry, the government was swift to act, with a joint $10 million tourism recovery package. This package includes new international marketing for the region.

The Turnbull government will continue to back Australians at home and overseas for the growth and prosperity of our nation. The 2017-18 budget enhances security and prosperity for all Australians.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of the problem with the Turnbull government is that they talk a big game but do not deliver. There is no better example of that than trade. The Liberal Party paint themselves in this place and across the country as the great economic reformers and free traders, but the fact is that it is the Labor Party that has done the big, heavy lifting here.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjections, which make me think I have hit a sore point. The fact is that the open economy that we have today has been built on the wreckage of tariff walls ripped down first by the Whitlam government, then the Hawke government and then the Keating government. The results speak for themselves. Our economy is now three times the size it was in the early eighties, when the Hawke government was elected. Real wages have gone up, living standards have gone up, unemployment fell and our economy has kept growing, year on year, now 26 years in a row. That is our record, the work we have done in government that has delivered this new, open, competitive economy.

At the other end of the spectrum is the Turnbull government. John Howard delivered three new free trade agreements. The last time we were in government we also delivered three new free trade agreements. So did the Abbott government. The Turnbull government, though, which has been in power almost as long as the Abbott government, has delivered just one new free trade agreement, which was signed yesterday and which, I should point out to the foreign minister, was started under Labor.

Anybody who looks seriously at this issue knows that free trade is not popular—it does not win you votes—but it is important, particularly for a country like Australia, which is a trading nation. Our prosperity depends on access to overseas markets. From the US elections and the approach taken by President Trump and by Bernie Sanders, you can see how on the nose trade is around the world. You see it through Brexit as well. Not everybody around the world thinks that trade creates jobs. In the US, Pew research shows that only one in five Americans thinks that trade creates local American jobs. A poll conducted in Australia by Essential last year showed the same result—only one in five Australians thinks that trade creates local jobs. That might not be what the evidence shows but it is what a lot of people think. It is a challenge for both sides of the chamber.

Many Australians are struggling. They feel like life is getting tougher. Wage growth is plateauing. Electricity prices are going up. House prices are through the roof. People are hurting, and that is what makes them suspicious. Trade is not the reason for this, but if we are going to convince Australians that new trade deals are good for them then we have to provide the evidence. This is why economic modelling is so important, and this is the point I want the minister to address in her answer. A number of Senate committees now have called for the government—for her department—to conduct economic modelling on all new free trade agreements. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has asked for the same thing.

The assistant minister, Keith Pitt, was on Sky television a couple of weeks ago, and he also seemed to back this idea. He dodged and weaved a couple of times when he was asked questions about this by Tom Connell and Samantha Maiden. He bumbled his way through a couple of answers and then, finally, Samantha Maiden said this: 'Look, it's okay if you're not sure or if you don't know. Does the process include modelling or not?' And that is when the assistant minister for trade said this: 'The process always includes modelling on our behalf as to what is in the best interests for this country.' In other words, whenever they do a new free trade deal they do economic modelling.

If that is the case and if that is what is going to happen in the future, that is terrific; that is good news. It has not always happened in the past. I am sure the foreign minister knows it did not apply with all of the agreements that she has just mentioned that the Abbott government put into place. But if you are going to do it now that is terrific. The problem is we asked the same question in estimates a couple of weeks ago and we got a different answer from your department. They said:

… there is no government directive to model or not to model. We deal with each particular FTA negotiation on a case-by-case basis.

So my question to the Foreign Minister is this: what is going on? Who is telling the truth, your assistant minister on Sky television who said you model everything or your department in estimates who said you do not? And, most particularly, will you conduct economic modelling on every future trade agreement that this government signs?

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a terrific performance from the member for Blaxland. However, after the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era of foreign policy, I am baffled that the Labor Party actually has the hide to stand and suggest that the coalition has not driven the agenda on trade. In that era, of course, Kevin Rudd was the indefinite spokesperson for foreign affairs, and his greatest contribution was this intellectual argument about the specificities of the Asia-Pacific architecture. It was absolutely academic; there was no real action.

Conversely, what you have from the coalition is action. What you have from the coalition is the penning and the signing of free trade agreements. What you have in the foreign minister is somebody who has beaten the drum for years on the importance of not just political diplomacy—which is what the Labor Party only ever thinks about—but also economic diplomacy, which unlocks the economic potential for Australia, particularly with its Asian partners.

I am actually here today to ask the minister a question about the New Colombo Plan, and I do so as somebody who first went to Asia at the age of 13 with my father on business. My first major stint up there was at 18. I was living and breathing up there, speaking the language of greater China, at the age of 21. So with 20-plus years of experience in international business, I cannot tell you how important it is that economic diplomacy is put at the centre of our agenda, and, if you look at even those 30 years since I first visited Asia, how things have changed for Australia, as to the role that Australia now plays within the Asia-Pacific region, investing in the relationships that we have today, and the leadership role that Australia takes in certain debates.

Australia knows its place in the world. We know we are a middle power and we are often relied on to play a key regional role when needed. We do not set the agenda for other nations, but we offer assistance and we reinforce the region's stability. There is perhaps no better incubator for our role than the New Colombo Plan. Originally conceived by Minister Julie Bishop when minister for education under the Howard government, this signature coalition initiative aims to boost knowledge and understanding of the Indo-Pacific within Australia by supporting Australian undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 28 to gain work experience and to study in overseas communities across the region.

Since its inception as a pilot program in 2014, the government's New Colombo Plan has funded around 17½ thousand young Australians. Just one of these is Caleb Mattiske, a student at the University of the Sunshine Coast—the greatest region in Australia, I might add. This student went to South Korea for his New Colombo Plan experience and, when you speak to Caleb, now that he has returned, you hear the aspirations of a young Australian with a truly global outlook, and this is precisely what our nation needs to build our future on.

One of the features of the New Colombo Plan that excites me the most is the fact that work experience is included, which ties back to the minister's view on the importance of economic diplomacy—that each of these young Australians should actually get their hands dirty and work side by side in the host nation. This is the very experience that will lead them to be leaders in industry or government or academia in the future.

I know this from my own personal experience. When you have young Australians up in Asia, you realise the leadership role they play. There is something in our DNA as Australians—something in our culture. It is our adaptability as Australians. That is why, the world over, you see Australian expats leading the way, across many industries, and it is why the New Colombo Plan is so important. That is why I ask the minister today to explain the New Colombo Plan and what it really means to Australia.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to raise the issue of tourism with the minister. I might begin with a quote:

The Turnbull Government has jeopardised the growth of Australia's visitor economy and put at risk the ability of the tourism sector to become one of the nation's largest employment sectors by treating the sector as a cash cow.

That quote is not from the Labor Party. That is from the peak organisation Tourism & Transport Forum Australia. The Australian Federation of Travel Agents said this about the budget:

The Australian Federation of Travel Agents (AFTA) is disappointed with the direction and lack of support that tonight's Federal Budget has delivered for the Travel & Tourism Industry.

So right across the sector this budget was met with contempt by organisations who understand that tourism is of course one of the supergrowth sectors of the economy, that the potential we have because of where we are located in the world and that the fastest growth that the world has ever seen is the growth of the middle-class throughout the region. Yet what we have seen in the budget is a $35 million cut to Tourism Australia over the next four years. Tourism Australia have identified a return on investment of 16 to one—that is, for every dollar that is invested, the national economy gets $16 back. It would seem to be very counterproductive indeed to be cutting back on tourism promotion.

The other concern that the sector have expressed is the increase in the visa application charges. One of the things about our modern globalised economy is that consumers can get information in real time about the respective competitive measures, and in tourism we are, of course, competing with the United States and New Zealand and with other potential destinations. The government has made a lot rhetorically of ensuring that Australia is competitive, yet in the budget the government changed visa application charges to receive an additional $410 million increase in revenue. That follows the increase in the passenger movement charge that was pushed through the parliament which was opposed by Labor, because both the major political parties went to the election in July last year saying that for this term of parliament there would be no increase in the passenger movement charge. Of course, the government threw that out and they have at least, to their credit, appointed a tourism minister. In their first term, they forgot to appoint a tourism minister, which showed the contempt that the coalition have for this sector.

Government members interjecting—

Those opposite actually think, and it is on the record from the new kid from on the block—where are you from?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Goldstein.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He raises the view that it is not important to have a tourism minister. Well, the sector thought it was important to have a tourism minister and that is why they raise the contempt for those opposite.

Government members interjecting—

You can tell how defensive they are on the issue of tourism by how loudly they bellow. They bellow almost as loudly here as they yell at each other in their party room meetings when they are talking about climate change.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. I think the member quite correctly points out that the interjections might be fun but they are too loud. I ask people to interject less loudly next time.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the new kid on the block, as I am now apparently referred to quite fondly and affectionately—it is like every time I ask a question in question time and the Labor Party start off with the term 'freedom boy'. All I can say is how delighted I am to think that I am so young, but it is a compliment and thank you very much for those views.

The important issue on the table today is trade—trade investment and opportunity for Australian so that we can continue to grow Australia's economy into the future. My question and my interest is on the gains from the coalition's free trade agreements. I have to say I am particularly privileged to be able to talk on this issue as the member for Goldstein, because my predecessor was the former trade minister, the great Andrew Robb. One of his contributions was in negotiating free trade agreements that have helped secure the future of this country and its economy for many years to come for younger Australians so they can engage in exporting products, goods and services to countries all throughout our region and across the globe to improve wealth and opportunity for every Australian. That is the legacy this government has around free trade agreements, and we are only warming up—so many other agreements are going to be secured over the life of this parliament. It is something that I think we should be enormously proud of, and I hear this all the time from businesses within the Goldstein community.

Recently we had a wonderful forum, bringing together exporters from across the Goldstein community who live there or who may have businesses there, to have discussions about what we can do in this space to make sure that our community can continue to lead the nation in driving economic development and investment. The forum brought together about 30 different businesses to have that dialogue with the trade minister, Steve Ciobo. What became abundantly clear was that businesses are constantly seeking out new avenues and opportunities to secure pathways to grow their businesses. We had a local business that exports socks—a high-value investment in socks which are used by competitive athletes all across the world who are concerned about their health and making sure their socks have longevity. There is another business just outside of my electorate, owned by somebody from within my electorate, which produces high-quality packaging for agricultural products which are processed and produced into food products to take to market and to the retail sector—so that they can be in packaging which is necessary to make sure they have longevity, so they can get onto supermarket shelves and then get to the consumer. That is something that we as a country should always be proud of: our capacity to feed the world and to make a contribution through processed foods that enables people to achieve their level of sustenance and dietary requirements. The opportunities from these free trade agreements for businesses either within Goldstein, just outside of Goldstein, or owned by people living in Goldstein are incredibly important, and that is what people are saying to me—how much they value the coalition's legacy but also how much more work they want to see us doing to continue to invest in this space and create those opportunities.

To the minister, I am interested today to ask: what are some of the tangible benefits for Australian businesses we are now seeing come through from the coalition's FTAs with countries like Korea, Japan and China? These are countries that have always been important trading partners of our nation, but hopefully this will continue and will increase into the future, particularly with countries that are either developed or developing—countries within our region that are able to supply and support a large middle class within their own countries. We need to make sure that we as a nation are in the best position to continue to leverage the advantages of these free trade agreements.

One of the unique things about the Goldstein community—and why we have such an interest in this space, in trade agreements and their potential—is that we actually do not have much industry in the electorate. It makes it quite unique among electorates across the country. But we are industrious people, whether it is through financing of investments, working professional services sectors in Melbourne's CBD, or running small businesses out of the electorate which enable people to electorate to export locally and across the globe. That was my experience, in part, before I entered parliament: prior to my service in my former capacity as a commissioner, I ran my own small business exporting professional services to the United States and throughout Europe, to help businesses operate in a globally competitive environment and dealing particularly with some of the challenges they had around government policy and research to make sure they could be competitive and relevant into the 21st century.

The question I have for the minister is: what are the gains from these free trade agreements that the government has negotiated, under the current trade minister and the previous one? And where are the opportunities into the future?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I made this point a moment ago: this government talks a very big game on trade, but has delivered very, very little. Remember, the Abbott government delivered three free trade agreements in two years; the Turnbull government has been in power for almost two years and they have only delivered one—and that was signed yesterday and was started under a Labor government. That is all they have done. Just like they talk a big game on trade, they also talk a big game when it comes to foreign workers. This is the next question I want to ask the foreign minister. She will remember the Prime Minister said this back in April:

… if a job is able to be done by an Australian it should be done by an Australian … every nation is entitled to take that point of view and we certainly do.

A couple of days later the Prime Minister announced his big plan to get rid of 457 visas and institute a new regime, and in that announcement he said:

It will require in almost all cases, the majority of cases, mandatory labour market testing.

It sounds good, but in the policy document, the fact sheet that was released the same day, there is a tricky little get-out clause, and I draw the minister's attention to page 3 of that fact sheet, which says:

Labour market testing (LMT): LMT will be mandatory, unless an international obligation applies.

That means labour market testing is mandatory unless it has been waived in free trade agreements. And that is exactly what this government has done: it waived it in the China free trade agreement, it waived it in the South Korea free trade agreement, it waived it in the Japan free trade agreement, it has waived it in the changes to the Singapore free trade agreement and it attempted to do it for six countries in the TPP agreement that was signed in New Zealand last year as well.

What does this mean? This means that foreign workers from those countries—China, South Korea, Japan and Singapore—can come to Australia and work for a company without that company first having to check if there is an Aussie who can do that job. This is the sort of stuff that makes Australians angry. Surely, before a company brings in an electrician or a plumber or a carpenter or a mechanic into Australia to do a job, first they should have to go through the basic task of seeing if there is an Aussie who can do the job. But this is not happening, and the government is using trade deals to get rid of this by the back door.

Despite all the tough talk from the Prime Minister back in April when he made this announcement, it looks like this is going to keep happening. I challenged the trade minister about this on Sunrise a few weeks ago, and he refused to rule out doing this. I asked him to rule out waiving labour market testing in future free trade agreements. He would not do it. We asked about this again in estimates two weeks ago, and we were told by the department that the government have not directed them to retain labour market testing in future deals. So we can assume this is going to keep happening, and the government have made the point today that they are negotiating bilateral and regional trade deals with a number of countries. I have heard India mentioned, as well as Indonesia, Peru, UK, Hong Kong, Brunei, Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and the Philippines—they are all part of RCEP—and you have 27 countries in Europe. Now, Foreign Minister, if you waive labour market testing in these agreements, it will mean 75 per cent of the people who come to Australia to work will come here without the company they work for first having to check if there is an Australian who can do the job—75 per cent. If you do that, it will make a lie of what the Prime Minister said in April. Remember what he promised? He said:

It will require in almost all cases, the majority of cases, mandatory labour market testing.

If you waive labour market testing in these agreements, this will not happen and what the Prime Minister said will not be true. So, if this government is good to its word, it will now rule out waiving labour market testing in future deals. That is my question to the foreign minister: will you rule out removing labour market testing in future deals, or are you going to make your Prime Minister a liar?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Blaxland to withdraw that last comment.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not calling anyone a liar, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you look carefully at the standing orders, I am not calling anyone a liar. I am drawing the attention of the foreign minister to the commitment the Prime Minister made, and the government needs to make good on that commitment. If it does not make good on that commitment, it will make the Prime Minister a liar. I am not calling the Prime Minister a liar.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Blaxland to withdraw that word.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is unparliamentary.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it satisfies the House, I will rephrase the question: will the government ensure that labour market testing is not waived in future trade agreements to ensure that what the Prime Minister said in April remains true?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that the member has rephrased the question. I ask him to withdraw the word.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I have not, I am happy to so. I am happy to withdraw that.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister answer the question?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's scaremongering on 457 visas is as despicable as its antitrade agenda, as we saw during the ChAFTA negotiations. Despite the doomsday cries from Labor and the unions that there would be an influx of Chinese workers when the ChAFTA commenced, that did not happen. In fact, there are now fewer Chinese 457 workers in Australia than there were prior to the commencement of the ChAFTA. We see this across our free trade agreements, from China to Japan to Malaysia. The number of 457 users peaked under Labor and before the free trade agreements came into force. Labor would have you believe that they have clean hands on the issue of labour market testing, when in fact the record, Member for Blaxland, says the exact opposite. Labor concluded three free trade agreements during their six years in office—with Malaysia, Chile and the ASEAN. Those agreements are explicit. The agreements do not impose mandatory labour market testing for a range of occupations, including contractual services suppliers, which would include jobs such as electricians, teachers and nurses. If Labor were so concerned about Australian workers, they would have made labour market testing mandatory in the free trade agreements that they negotiated. The bottom line is: they did not. They are hypocrites on this issue.

I also want to answer the points put forward by the member for Goldstein. This government does recognise the role businesses play in growing jobs and wages in our economy. We understand that opening new markets for Australian businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, is key for their long-term sustainability and growth. We know that small and medium-sized Australian exporters on average employ more workers than businesses that do not export, and they pay higher wages. That is why the coalition government, through our ambitious trade agenda, are committed to assisting Australian businesses to access overseas exporting opportunities. As the member for Goldstein knows, our free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China are already delivering, whether it is Australian exports of fresh table grapes to Japan or cherries to Korea. And of course our trade agreement with China, which Labor called 'a dud deal', has achieved massive increases in exports across a range of sectors including beef, wine, dairy and services.

The government are building on our track record. We have a full forward trade agenda aimed at delivering further market access gains for Australian businesses, gains that will spur economic growth and create new jobs. The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment has launched negotiations with Hong Kong and Peru. He has also committed to working with the remaining 11 members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But, at the first sign of trouble, Labor wanted Australia to walk away from the TPP, just like they are walking away from the liberal economic policies of the Hawke-Keating era.

The member for Blaxland was almost disarming in the way he misled, unwittingly, the chamber on Labor's commitment to free trade. Take one of the most significant free trade agreements this country has ever concluded, the agreement with China. They inherited the negotiations from the Howard government, yet they had never once intended to conclude a trade agreement with China. When they came to office, Labor ripped out the funding that the Howard government had allocated to nine government departments and agencies to continue trade negotiations, including funding for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They were not going to conclude free trade agreements. Labor and the unions did everything possible to kneecap negotiations short of formally pulling out, which would have been an international diplomatic incident of unprecedented proportions. In fact, Labor's trade minister at the time, Craig Emerson, labelled a trade agreement with Australia's largest export market as 'overrated'. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, joined the disgraceful xenophobic union campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. But Labor are torn between their allegiance to their trade unions, like the CFMEU and the MUA, and Australia's national interest.

Labor says it is going to scrap the government's economic diplomacy agenda. This is creating jobs for Australian workers through increased trade and investment opportunities, as trade unions like the CFMEU use their influence to prevent further free trade negotiations and attempts to reopen existing agreements. Labor does not have a plan to grow the economy. Labor has a plan for massive spending, which is a recipe for more Labor debt and more Labor deficit. That is true to the Labor tradition of profligate spending. I must say, our trade agreements are always negotiated to open new markets for Australian exporters who will drive economic growth. The decision to model FTA outcomes is made on a case-by-case basis, as Labor well knows.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I was watching the last scene of The Matrix there, where Keanu Reeves finally learns how to dodge bullets. We saw the foreign minister doing her very, very best to do everything but answer a couple of simple questions. I do not know how long the foreign minister has been in this parliament. It must be about 20 years. I thought she would be good enough to answer a question. I know they do not answer questions when it comes to question time down in the House of Representatives—

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

I asked you one yesterday, and you did not want to answer that. This is an opportunity here for you to tell us a few things.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look how many people she has behind her!

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They know; they just do not want to tell us. Two very simple questions I have already asked and no answers. I said: are you going to provide economic modelling for future agreements? It is very simple—yes or no? The fact that she refuses to answer the question tells you of the contempt with which this foreign minister and this government hold this process.

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

On a case-by-case basis—in other words, no!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No? I didn't say that at all.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said 'on a case-by-case basis'.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Blaxland has the call.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made the point in my contribution before that you have Senate committees and you have the Chamber of Commerce saying you need to do it with every agreement, and then you refuse to commit to do it.

Then I asked a second question. I asked whether you would rule out waving labour market testing in future agreements. Again, Keanu Reeves at the dispatch box, desperate not to answer the question.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're not that handsome!

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People in glasshouses! All we need to do here is to show a bit of honesty. You do not need to talk for five minutes. Just tell us the truth. Are you going to wave labour market testing in future trade deals or not? While I am here, I want to ask you a couple more questions because I am assuming you will get back up and tell us that you cannot answer that question as well.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The foreign minister answers in emoji.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a Keanu Reeves emoji, perhaps! Let me ask a couple of questions about foreign aid. Can the minister confirm that the Abbott and Turnbull governments have now cut the overseas aid budget by $11.3 billion since coming to power in 2013—a 24.2 per cent reduction? At the same time as you have committed to a $65 billion tax cut for big business, the 2016-17 budget has delivered the weakest levels of Australian development assistance in history, spending just 23c in every $100 of our national income on foreign aid. Can I ask the minister as well, under her leadership, has the Abbott government and Turnbull government abandoned Australia's bipartisan commitment to GNI growth and put the aid budget on an ever-decreasing trajectory that, on current forecasts, will dip to just 0.17 per cent of GNI?

Does the minister agree with Caritas that these humanitarian crises happening around the world combined with rising inequality and the growing impacts of climate change mean that Australia's leadership in this area is more important than ever and that, by continually slashing our overseas aid program, we undermine progress in these areas that are fundamental to human development and stability? Does the minister also agree that Australia's aid program plays a critical role in supporting tens of millions of people to move out of poverty and live a life of dignity and that, by continually reducing our overseas aid program, we undermine our standing in the world and our ability to help end global poverty as it goes against our values? This comes at a time when other countries are not cutting aid, and DAC totals of aid-giving are rising, putting Australia at odds with the global commitments made with the Sustainable Development Goals. Does the minister agree that the Turnbull government's cuts to development assistance are already a source of international embarrassment for Australia and are at odds with the generous spirit of the Australian people?

Can the minister explain why she has again failed to stand up for her portfolio, given these latest cuts will only worsen our already embarrassingly low level of international development assistance and harm our efforts to alleviate poverty and make our region safer and more secure?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is providing an aid program that Australia can afford and that makes us the 13th-largest donor in the OECD world. If the shadow minister for foreign affairs had done her job when she was the minister for finance, the Australian budget—and hence the Australian aid budget—would not be in the position it was in. You might recall that Senator Wong took a $23 billion forecast deficit in 2011-12 and turned it into a $43 billion deficit. She took a $1.5 billion forecast surplus in 2012-13 and turned it into a $19 billion deficit. That was Labor's contribution to the aid budget. They took a $1.5 billion forecast surplus—remember the member for Lilley's famous surplus—and turned it into a $19 billion deficit.

I do want to address the points raised by the member for Fairfax in relation to the New Colombo Plan, because it is an extraordinary example of soft-power diplomacy at its best. These are not just my words—this has been reflected in our region as leader after leader has endorsed the Australian government's New Colombo Plan as a magnificent example of international engagement and a vision for the future of our country and the region. As the member for Fairfax pointed out, so many young Australians are benefiting from it because we are investing in the future of young Australians. In the first four years of the program, 2014 to 2017, the New Colombo Plan has supported around 17½ thousand to 18,000 young Australian undergraduates to study and undertake work placements in our region.

This is an extraordinarily successful program. The take-up by students and universities and governments in the region has been phenomenal, and the number of businesses and entities that have come on board as sponsors and supporters has been remarkable. I will focus on Queensland because the member for Fairfax asked the question. Close to 3,000 of these students are from Queensland. They include 68 recipients of prestigious New Colombo Plan scholarships for 12 months. A further 2,900 Queensland students have been awarded mobility grants to undertake short-term or semester-length study programs in the region. This is a story that is being repeated across Australia. Over 230 business and community partners have signed up to support the program, offering internships, practicums and mentorships. For example, the National Australia Bank offices in Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mumbai have welcomed New Colombo Plan students to undertake internships across multiple disciplines, including commerce, finance, marketing, human resources and law.

Queensland universities have also developed innovative partnerships with the private sector to expand the opportunities for their students, and this includes the University of Queensland's partnering with China's NewSoft Corporation to provide opportunities for students to gain practical experience developing an IT product, getting it market ready and distributing it to the global marketplace. It is in innovation writ large. The Queensland University of Technology is partnering with Mitsui & Co from Japan to provide students with an opportunity to explore Japanese and Australian industry relations in a business context, where students gain an insight into Japanese business etiquette, customs and the like.

And this is important: the New Colombo Plan is supporting students from a broad array of backgrounds—Indigenous students, students with disabilities, students from regional and remote areas, students who began their life in a refugee camp, students who are the first in their family to attend university or, indeed, the first in their family to have a passport or to travel overseas. Sixty per cent of New Colombo Plan mobility grant recipients are female, 30 per cent were born overseas, 21 per cent speak a language other than English at home and nine per cent have never travelled overseas before. But what I want to tell you is this: so short-sighted and so lacking in vision are Labor that, at the last election, they committed to slash funding for the New Colombo Plan program. Not only would this severely damage Australia's ability to build deeper ties within our region; it would reduce a unique educational opportunity for young students. Labor's policy will hurt thousands of students who cannot afford to participate in an overseas study experience without government support. It will hurt our relationship with countries who are now partnering with us on investing in our young people to ensure that our bilateral relationships and our relationships in the region continue to grow. Only the coalition understands that investing in young Australians is investing in our future.

Expenditure agreed to.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Mr Husic interjecting—

I remind the member for Chifley not to interject on the Chair.

Opposition members interjecting—

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the committee for this opportunity to make an opening statement, and I trust I will be given the clean air to make that statement, despite those opposite. The Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, as you may know, has 13 agencies that receive funding from the government. The 2017-18 budget provides the portfolio with ordinary annual funding of $5.5 billion in 2017-18 and an average staffing level of just over 5,000 people. In the 2017-18 budget the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has funding for 13 new measures—and I will come back to some of those in a moment—ordinary annual funding of $2 billion, an average staffing level 2,061 and a relatively stable level of funding through the forward years.

A real priority for the government is the delivery of further investment in infrastructure across our cities, and the budget allocated $17 million over four years from 2017-18 to establish the Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency. The aim of that agency is to assist in the identification, development and assessment of innovative financing options in major infrastructure projects. For many years governments have been talking about the need to match the large amount of capital available for high-quality infrastructure projects with the desperate need for more investment in infrastructure. We are getting on and doing it and we are creating a team that has the skills to match that, not just talking about how it could be a theoretical possibility.

There is also $23½ million over four years from 2017-18 to expand the capacity of the government's Cities task force, which is part of our commitment to making our cities more productive and livable. The Deputy Speaker will know that not only are we focusing on our capital cities but we also have a very strong focus on regional cities, with the first of our City Deals completed in Townsville and Launceston, and we are now working in Western Sydney. This funding will continue the work of the task force and drive implementation of the Commonwealth's agenda for Australian cities, a genuine agenda driven from the centre of government. For the first time in this country's history—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind those members opposite that we focused from the beginning on Townsville and Launceston regional cities and on outer suburban areas in Western Sydney. They should take note of this because they are focused on the centre of Sydney, and it is time they got beyond the green, left focus of their agenda.

Under the Western Sydney city deal, which we are working on right now, the government will offer incentive payments to state and local governments to support planning and zoning reform—which is desperately needed, we all know that. This will also accelerate housing supply—and we need more houses in Sydney, with less than half the houses needed to support population growth actually having been built over the last 15 years. And it will deliver affordable housing outcomes in Western Sydney, something we are deeply committed to. The funding also supports the trial of incentive payments in Western Sydney, where we are facing above-average population growth and very serious housing affordability pressures. The deal will provide a shared growth plan for the region—and we know how much we need that—backed by funding and reform across all levels of government. These problems are only solved when we involve all levels of government. The housing package will be finalised in negotiation with our City Deal partners at the state and local level.

In 2017-18, $37.7 million will be provided for the hosting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-Australia leaders summit in 2018. The government will also provide $20 million over four years to supplement the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to support the delivery of critical policy advice and assist the government in meeting its objectives.

One other important measure that it is worth drawing your attention to is the modernisation fund. The budget allocated funding for five initiatives and reforms, and through these we will aim to deliver quality government services at lower cost—and we know how much we need to do that—using leading technology and collaborative approaches.

Within the PM&C portfolio, the Digital Transformation Agency will receive $10.7 million over four years. We will also have a Cyber Security Advisory Office working with agencies to ensure they are appropriately managing the risks of cyber and other digital vulnerabilities on digital services. We know how crucial that is. We have seen illustrations of this in recent times.

I thank the Chamber for this opportunity to set out the portfolio's budget measures and give a brief insight into how they will benefit our community and our economy.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the minister some questions about the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards. It has been reported that the former Minister for Trade and Investment, Mr Andrew Robb, is now working for Landbridge, a Chinese corporation that invests in Australia. Mr Robb commenced employment with Landbridge on 1 July 2016, before he had been replaced as the member for Goldstein at the 2016 federal election. Mr Robb's employment with Landbridge is a part-time position which pays a pretty significant amount, actually—in fact, it is a whopping $880,000 a year. Can the minister please advise the Chamber of whether the Prime Minister has bothered to obtain any advice at all from either the secretary of his department or Mr Robb himself about whether Mr Robb may be in breach of the postministerial employment obligations in the Statement of Ministerial Standards? Of course, I refer in particular to clause 2.24 of the ministerial standards, which states:

Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office. Ministers are also required to undertake that, on leaving office, they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.

That is clause 2.24 of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards. Noting that Landbridge is a foreign company, Minister, which apparently has trade and investment interests in Australia, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to satisfy himself that Mr Robb is complying with this specific provision of the ministerial standards? What steps are being taken to ensure that he is not in breach of any undertakings that he was required to give under the Prime Minister's Statement of Prime Ministerial Standards?

I refer also to clause 2.25 of the ministerial standards, which states:

Ministers shall ensure that their personal conduct is consistent with the dignity, reputation and integrity of the Parliament.

I ask the minister: noting that Mr Robb started his $880,000-a-year part-time job on 1 July 2016—and I suspect the minister might have a better prospect of answering the questions if he listens to them—before he was replaced in the House as the member for Goldstein at the federal election, is the Prime Minister satisfied that Mr Robb's conduct is consistent with clause 2.25 of the ministerial standards? I also ask that the minister advise the House of how Mr Robb's conduct could possibly be consistent with the dignity, reputation and integrity of parliament when he does not even wait until he is replaced as the member for Goldstein before he accepts his $880,000-a-year part-time job with Landbridge. Isn't this an insult to this parliament and an insult to the people of Goldstein? Will the minister now admit that Mr Robb has done the wrong thing and call on him to apologise?

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Providing landmark infrastructure and finding innovative ways to pay for this infrastructure is essential for the development and to address the imbalance of settlement between Australian cities and regions. Just over six months ago, I led an inquiry into the very subject of funding infrastructure. We heard from experts from across the country and around the world to put together an Australian best practice for financing and retrofitting the infrastructure that our cities crave. The extremely high cost of land in our cities has made the cost of resuming land prohibitive, making the retrofitting of infrastructure difficult at best and impossible at worst. It has regularly led to the decision to tunnel, but when tunnelling is too expensive often nothing happens. This challenge is exacerbated by the pressure of growth that our cities alone shoulder.

Value capture represents the most equitable method to fund infrastructure with the added benefit of relieving demands on consolidated revenues. From listening to expert advice, it became apparent that value capture works in different ways around the world, in many ways it is a catch-all term. Cross-city rail is often held up as a successful example; however, its value capture model focused on an untargeted levy across the community. Levies like this are not necessarily the most efficient though, and do not take into account the inherent land values of the areas it is affecting.

We need a bespoke version here that capitalises on our unique situation. Wherever infrastructure projects are happening in this country land values are going up. In situations of both decentralisation or renewal, the combination of infrastructure and land use optimises land values. These are the essential ingredients to maximise funding through value capture. In some cases, land values are so low that the provision of infrastructure will lead to astronomic price increases. Take for example the Inland Rail link, which will bring huge rises in properties to a number of regional towns. Parkes, at the junction between the main north-south and the main east-west lines, will see huge growth. Indeed, it has been reported that speculators are already buying up land in anticipation of this uplift in growth.

Taxpayers around the country are paying for this infrastructure but the monetary benefit will only fall to a small group of canny investors with the capacity to buy up speculative land or existing lucky land owners. Infrastructure should be funded out of the profits of these few rather than putting the burden on the taxpayer. The Badgerys Creek airport and associated developments are another opportunity that seems to be flying by. The number of businesses flocking out there is a testament to the quality of our city's deal, but we are watching the funding opportunity disappear. Our bespoke value capture model should seek to fund infrastructure out of the profit of these few rather than putting the burden on the taxpayer. Value capture needs to take an equitable proportion of the unearnt increase that the infrastructure and zoning has created. This funding when collected across all the properties which are gaining an upper left will raise billions.

Another finding of the inquiry was the urgent need to link the three levels of government. Long-term master planning and sustainable funding through value capture can only be achieved through the alignment of the three tiers of government and landowners and developers. It is imperative that the three levels of government recognise the opportunities that to sustainably fund infrastructure depends on their ability to cooperate. They must be willing to forego individual revenues to ultimately maximise total revenues. This overarching alignment of governments has been one of the largest benefits of the city deals. However, I would like to see this rolled out across the country as standard practice. I know that value capture is being investigated in certain situations. However, what is clear is that we need an overarching federal value capture policy that will operate across the country and across the three levels of government whenever new infrastructure is being built. So there is a clear need for more infrastructure and a clear, simple way that it can be funded. To this end, can the minister outline how the budget supports the Commonwealth to invest in more landmark infrastructure and how these reforms will create more opportunities for the private sector and government— (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to raise with the assistant minister the gap between the government's rhetoric and the reality. In relation to City Deals, there have been three proposed by the government. Two of those, Townsville and Launceston, were simply matching previous commitments that had been made by the Labor opposition, dressing them up with the same amount of funding—many months afterwards—and dressing them up as somehow being City Deals. When it comes to Western Sydney, Blacktown is not even included in Western Sydney. And there has been no substance, no advance of any real plans there, at the same time as there is, again, no funding in this budget for rail through Badgerys Creek Airport to the north and to the south, from Campbelltown up to the north-west, connecting with that western line. Because Badgerys Creek Airport will open up employment—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler is entitled to be heard in silence. The assistant minister and the member for Chifley will remain silent.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the assistant minister shows his vulnerability by his actions. I also want to raise the issue of infrastructure financing, and the government's establishment of the Infrastructure Financing Unit, or the IFU, as we like to call it. This is a solution looking for a problem because, as Infrastructure Partnerships Australia have said very clearly:

We cannot identify any currently proposed infrastructure projects which are commercially viable and not already attracting finance; therefore we cannot see how the IFU will increase the pace of infrastructure project delivery

That is what the peak industry organisation have to say. What is worse is that the unit has been established using funding cut from the actual infrastructure budget—money that was put aside to build roads and railway lines is now being used to create another bureaucracy in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Of course, Infrastructure Australia is already mandated to perform the task of financing of infrastructure. I ask the assistant minister: is he aware that section 5C, part 2 of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 reads as follows:

… Infrastructure Australia has the function of providing advice to the Minister, Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments, investors in infrastructure and owners of infrastructure on matters relating to infrastructure, including in relation to the following:

…   …   …

(f) mechanisms for financing investment in infrastructure;

And indeed, that is what it has done. The Gold Coast Light Rail line was a $365 million injection from the Commonwealth which led to a project worth over $1.2 billion being constructed, a PPP, organised with Infrastructure Australia's support—with support from the Commonwealth. Similarly, innovative financing arrangements were already in place, with an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Queensland government for the Cross River Rail project. They were in place—and a board was actually appointed for the Melbourne Metro project; again, using innovative financing but not pretending that something can be done for nothing.

The fact is, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when you look at federal infrastructure funding under this government, it goes from $8 billion in 2017-18, the next year down to 6.2, the next year down to 5.1 and down to 4.2 in 2020-21. What is actually happening is that the government is refusing to invest in infrastructure. What is actually happening is that the government is not engaged in cities. And they are onto the assistant minister—who gives the same speech at every forum, and he will give the same one again in a couple of weeks at the Australian Financial Review's National Infrastructure Summit—where there is nothing actually of substance to back up the engagement. They abolished the Major Cities Unit. They have not engaged in important projects like Cross River Rail, Melbourne Metro or Western Sydney Rail along that north-south corridor that is required to open up access to those jobs. I say to the minister: why has he sidelined Infrastructure Australia by establishing the Infrastructure Financing Unit to do the job that Infrastructure Australia, under its legislation, is tasked to do?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me work through the range of questions I have received here. I am very happy to focus on the ones that are related to the appropriation bill. I will, though, start by focusing on the first of the questions we heard. I hate to break it to the member opposite, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriation bill. It is true that I would dearly love to talk about Labor's track record on links with foreign companies. I would love to talk about the Yuhu Group and how you received a donation of $260,000; the Top Education Group, which paid for Sam Dastyari's, 'dim Sam's', $1,670 of debts; the Australia Kingold Investment Development Company, which donated $635,000 to the Labor Party; the Australian Chinese Business Elite Awards, which donated $260,000 to the Australia Labor Party—however, none of this has anything to do with appropriation, so I suggest that the member opposite focus on asking those questions in the appropriate forum, which is not this forum.

Let me turn to the very sensible question I received from the member for Bennelong in relation to infrastructure financing. I remind those members opposite, including the member for Grayndler, that there is a fundamental difference between economic evaluation, which is done by Infrastructure Australia, and financing. That is not a distinction that those opposite would ever understand, because none of them have ever done any infrastructure financing. What we need in this country is an agency that can link the extraordinary amounts of money out there wanting to invest in infrastructure with the opportunities that we all know—every one of us on this side of the parliament knows—need investment. Those opportunities are there and real. The question from the member for Bennelong in relation to those opportunities was an excellent one, because he, as so many members on this side of the Chamber know, seized the opportunity to match those very significant pools of capital with opportunities to shape our cities, to shape our regions, to invest in infrastructure that is going to drive productivity, livability, amenity and all those things that we know that we did not get under past Labor governments, who consistently underinvested in infrastructure. I will come back to that in a moment.

For decades, the approach of Australian governments has been grant by default when it comes to infrastructure. All that this has delivered us is in fact a chronic infrastructure deficit, because grant funding will never be enough to meet the infrastructure deficit in this country. We have to partner in infrastructure. We have to partner with states and the private sector to invest. That is absolutely crucial. Where the private sector will do it, we should encourage it. But what is lacking at the federal government level is the skill set, the team that understands how to match those pools of capital, that large amount of money wanting to get into infrastructure, particularly in this country—it is a very, very good destination for infrastructure investment—with the opportunities. If we can do that—and we are doing that now: Badgerys Creek airport is a terrific example; Inland Rail is a terrific example of it—we can stretch taxpayer dollars further and open up opportunities for private sector involvement in public infrastructure.

I will remind the member for Grayndler, who has decided to leave, who is not interested in the answer to the question: you have seen in this budget a 25 per cent increase in investment in infrastructure from this government. The reason we have been able to do that is matching grant funding with genuine investment in projects like Western Sydney Airport, a crucial project for Western Sydney. Unfortunately, the member opposite opposes this terrific project—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which can create jobs, local jobs, connectivity, amenity and opportunity for the people of Western Sydney that you do not care about. Most importantly, we need to deliver the best possible returns for taxpayers. We need investments that address today's challenges and prepare us for the future. The member for Bennelong knows well that that means we need the right people inside the federal government, who can create those revenue streams from infrastructure projects on the back of which we are able to invest, whether it is rail, roads or airports, for instance. We know those opportunities are there, and the member for Bennelong has long been a champion of this approach to investing, an approach that this government firmly believes in.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is likely to be considered in the history of digital transformation in this country is the fact that the launched a book and presided over bungle after bungle. We have seen, in the space of 12 to 18 months, a series of stuff-ups when it comes to digital transformation—a project that deserves and I think has support from both sides of the House, because everyone recognises that this does need to happen and that government can work in a smarter, more efficient way. If we make the right investment, we can see differences in the way that service is provided to general citizens.

But we have had the census debacle, we have had robo-debt, we have had problems with the Child Support Agency IT upgrade and we have had issues with the Australian tax office—their website was completely down for days, with genuine concerns about the loss of data and where that data has gone. Accountants are concerned about what has happened with the information they have provided to the ATO—no answer. We have had online NAPLAN fall apart. This is in an environment where general ICT spending when the government were elected was at $5 billion and it has gone up to $10 billion.

The government are questioned on this, and we had the assistant minister say recently on television that it was because Labor had gutted ICT spending. That was his answer. Then you go to their own audit, which they did as a political exercise to try and embarrass Labor. It was their own political audit that Finance conducted for them, the desktop review, which had to be basically prised out of their hands via an FOI request. That revealed that spending was adequate, there was no gutting and there was a standard level of investment over the term of the last government. There was no gutting whatsoever. So the assistant minister was denied that convenient lever of trying to argue that it was because investment had been cut massively by Labor. That does not exist on paper, and we have had stuff-up after stuff-up after stuff-up.

But the biggest one under his watch is the situation where we had nearly 2,000 websites being run by government, with a cost to build them and a cost to maintain them across government, and a project was put in place to consolidate them in Gov.au. And the business case that this government requested the former DTO to do was all of a sudden pulled, half an hour before it had to go in to be submitted by cabinet. What would be interesting to know is: if there were so many concerns about this business case and project, why weren't there steps taken—signals given about whether or not this project was worthy of the investment? Over three-quarters of a million dollars was invested in this business case. Why didn't it happen? How many times did the assistant minister meet with the former head of the DTO? We have been asking that question, and I am asking the question today. After he assumed the role of assistant minister for digital transformation, how many times did he meet with them? How many times did he express his concerns about the way in which the business case was being managed, the resources that were being applied, the potential outcome as a result of this project and whether or not it would meet the stated aim of consolidating those websites into one portal that would make it easy for people? We have no answer yet as to why.

They do a functional efficiency review, which the representatives of the DTA hid when they appeared before estimates in October, after the announcement of this 'vowel-led restructure' of the DTO to the DTA, and they have not explained how the senior figures within DTA were involved in that review. They are not releasing the review. They are not indicating why they made the change from the DTO to the DTA. They are not indicating to us what the expected improvement in performance is. So again I am asking the question: was the former CEO involved in the functional efficiency review? How many times did the assistant minister meet with the former head of the DTO to express views about whether or not gov.au was on track and whether or not it was worth putting a business case together on it? And why is it that we are constantly seeing stuff-up after stuff-up after stuff-up? They have doubled the digital spend and doubled the number of stuff-ups under that assistant minister's watch.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Digital transformation is such an important issue for government. The reality is that, for too long now, the public sector has been way behind the private sector in adopting digital technologies and in making the most of those technologies for consumers. This government is very committed to addressing this challenge head-on and really transforming Australia's infrastructure in the digital space in government.

It is particularly important that the government is looking very closely at the issue of platforms and creating platforms that are scalable, that can be used by multiple agencies, so that we do not have a situation where we have these silos in every department that are very much standalone, that do not talk to each other and that cost millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars and are sometimes far from best practice. So creating these scalable platforms is particularly important.

I also want to note that, in the context of digital transformation, it has been very important that the government has recently announced that it will be requiring the Australian banking and financial services sector to open up access to consumer data. This is something that came out of our recent House of Representatives inquiry into the banking sector. Effectively, digital technology enables a situation where there is all of this consumer data—which, at the end of the day, is your data, as the customer; it is data about your transactions and so on. At the moment it is sitting behind proprietary walls of the banks. What that means is that that asset is not being used by the consumer. It is not available to potential competitors of the banks. As a consequence, we have this latent asset which is not being exploited as it should be.

What the government said is: 'By the end of this year, a detailed road map will be published which will require the banking sector to open up access to that data at the request of consumers.' That is going to be a very big deal. It is going to seed a whole range of new opportunities in the financial services sector. It is going to encourage new start-ups in the financial services sector. Most importantly, it is going to increase competition. So that is another example of this government's forward-leaning disposition when it comes to things digital.

We saw something similar in the reforms the government put in place in relation to investments in start-ups, many of which, these days, are digital in nature. The government's initiatives to significantly reduce the tax burden on investors in start-up companies have already paid huge dividends. We saw the total amount of venture capital in Australia between 2013 and 2016 more than triple. So it is very important to continue to focus on these digital initiatives.

The platform funding that is outlined in this bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, is particularly important: $33.6 million over three years for the work of the DTA in the platform area. This is going to enable the agencies to learn, to test and to have shared platforms that will enable greater collaboration across the government sector, because the last thing we want is government agencies being islands unto themselves, each focusing on their own little environment. We want the best practice in technology to be adopted across government, and it may be that one department has a particularly smart way of doing something in the digital space and that that should be adopted across government. That is precisely what this program will identify. The 'Tell us Once' beta will also deliver on the government's election commitment to make it so much easier for people to update their details online, because it is very frustrating when you have to say the same thing over and over again. This is an important initiative in the appropriations bill.

I do have a question for the minister, and that is: can the minister please outline how the government's funding of core digital and data programs will increase the effectiveness of our projects, deliver better services and drive efficiencies in how government does its business?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say, the Australian people just hate this stuff. Andrew Robb, the former Minister for Trade and Investment, on 1 July—before the election had even been held and before he had even been replaced as the member for Goldstein—took up a job of nearly 900 grand per year working for a Chinese company that invests in Australia, Landbridge. The Australian people hate it. For the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation to stand up and refuse to answer the question, just because he is not really minded to defend the Prime Minister, is very disappointing for the Australian people when these sorts of questions are asked.

It is important to people to know that, if there is a prime ministerial statement of ministerial standards, it will actually be upheld by the Prime Minister. It is important to the Australian people to know that ministers will not be trying to get jobs with foreign corporations while they are still in the ministry. It is important for the Australian people to know that standards actually mean something, that ethics mean something, that undertakings that are given by ministers actually mean something and that prime ministers' statements of ministerial standards actually mean something. It is important to hold the Prime Minister to account for the upholding of the statement of ministerial standards.

As the member for Gellibrand, who is in the chamber said, though, the assistant minister's defence of the Prime Minister was Abbott-esque in its faintness, in its weakness. There was no defence of the Prime Minister. The assistant minister stood up and threw the Prime Minister under a bus. It was very disappointing. I think the Prime Minister will be very disappointed. I think that the people of Australia will be very disappointed that the assistant minister was not willing to deal with these very important issues.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They won't be disappointed in the member for Gellibrand, though.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They certainly will not be disappointed with the member for Gellibrand, or with the member for Chifley, but they will be disappointed with the assistant minister, because, in failing to even remark about the appropriateness of the conduct of the former member for Goldstein, in failing to even deal with the question of whether the Prime Minister was doing anything at all to uphold the statement of ministerial standards, to hold the former minister to the undertaking that he had been required to give, pursuant to the statement of ministerial standards, the assistant minister has shown that, firstly, he is not interested in meeting the legitimate and very real concerns of the Australian people in respect of the ministerial standards, and he has also shown quite an interesting—I think you would have to describe it—reluctance to defend the Prime Minister. It is an interesting reluctance to do anything at all other than to, as I said earlier, throw the Prime Minister under a bus in relation to this issue.

If I were an assistant minister to the Prime Minister, I reckon I would probably want to defend the Prime Minister. I think that that is probably what I would want to do. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suspect that if you were the assistant minister to the Prime Minister, you would also seek to loyally defend the Prime Minister's interest, and yet here we have someone who in fact has been compared to the member for Warringah in the press today as being quite influential in current stirrings in the coalition—current disputation, current unrest and the upbraiding of the Prime Minister recently.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's gone from A-Tay to Abbott-Tay.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has gone from A-Tay to Abbott-Tay. That is probably actually better than A-Tay, Member for Chifley, so well done on that one. Unfortunately, the assistant minister has shown a complete reluctance to do anything remotely like defending the Prime Minister or upholding the statement of ministerial standards or responding to the legitimate and genuine concerns of the Australian people.

Given that the minister was completely unable—or unwilling, perhaps—to properly address doubts about Andrew Robb's compliance with the ministerial standards, isn't it the case that this Prime Minister's standards are just so low that he does not care what his former ministers do?

Or is the Prime Minister really so weak that he cannot stand up to his colleagues even when they can no longer vote against him in leadership ballots in the party room?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really struggling with this question. It is extraordinary that you could stretch an appropriation bill consideration in detail to the broad-ranging discussion you want to talk about. I would love to spend some time talking about, as I said, Top Education Group—this is a very interesting bit—who paid dim Sam's $1,670 of debt or Wei Wah International Trading Pty Ltd, who donated $200,000 to the Australian Labor Party in 2013. This would be terrific to discuss. But we are here to talk about consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill. That is what I will focus on. But I encourage you, in the appropriate forum, to ask your questions.

The member for Chifley did ask a question. It deserves a response, despite the fact that the implication of it is clearly wrong. Before I get to that, I want to spend a moment on the member for Banks's question, which was an absolutely outstanding question. He understands, unlike those opposite, that big IT projects are crucial to the future of this country and that investment in IT—the right digital projects and the right data projects—can yield substantial impact to the government. But it takes time. Investments made today have impacts over many years. That is why we need to have consistent levels of investment in IT infrastructure and in IT and digital and data projects.

That is what we did not see during the six years airbrushed by those opposite, when they were in government. I thought it would be worthwhile just going back through what we have had to deal with in the IT and digital space from the time when they were in government. They were rolling along okay, because, when the GFC hit, they only took $700 million out of IT investment—you had to pay for those pink batts somehow. That was $700 million ripped out of IT investment in 2009-10. That was the reality, because you did have to pay for the clunkers and you did have to pay for the pink batts. At that point, they realised the error of their ways; they knew these systems were going to collapse in a few years time. So they got to 2011-12 and they ripped another $100 million out. But then they got through from Rudd to Gillard and back to Rudd, and they were really out of money. So look what happened in 2012-13. Do you know how much they ripped out of the budget in 2012-13? It was $1.2 billion of investment just gone. They expected that the systems—the IT and the digital and data strategy—was going to work, having ripped $1.2 billion out of investment in 2012-13.

The member for Banks understands that, if we are to have quality services provided to the people of Australia and if we are to have data projects that are going to deliver on every one of our programs in welfare, health, infrastructure and cities, we need consistent quality investment. And we need that commercial acumen—that kind of savvy that the member for Banks has and those opposite clearly lack.

We are doing that through investments like the $1.5 million for the Digital Investment Management Office and the $13 million for building capabilities and skills that are fundamentally important. They are being overseen by DTA, and I meet with the head of the digital transformation team on a regular basis, as I have since I got into this job—in answer to one of his questions. We are reviewing every project over $10 million. Some of those projects that those opposite put in motion in their time in government have not been great successes. It is true that we need to review them, we need to get on top of them and we need to make them effective. On top of that, there is a real focus in this government on data integration. The Data Integration Partnership of Australia project is crucial to making sure that we make the most of the data that we have in health, welfare, infrastructure and elsewhere. It will integrate datasets that allow us to make the right policy decisions to make sure our services are effective. That DIPA project is one that I am personally invested in and that I firmly believe can have a very positive impact for Australia and for Australians for many years to come. $131 million in the DIPA project— (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.