Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I feel very, very sorry for two people in Parliament House tonight. One of them is Senator Doug Cameron, who has not been correct in anything he has said in the 18 minutes that I have listened to him, and, if he ever goes back to reflect on it—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Senator Birmingham tells me about the two minutes before. The other person I feel very sorry for is the gentleman who is going to stand up in about 47 minutes time, being Mr Shorten, who is going to have to give an address-in-reply to the budget. One can only ponder what the poor fellow has to say, because there is nothing left for him to say.

This is a brilliant budget. It is a brilliant business budget. It is a brilliant Billson business budget. This is going to set Australia back on the right path. In 2007 Australia was, of course, living high on the hog. We had no debt, a surplus and money in the bank. How did it come about? It was because of the Howard-Costello legacy of many years of prudence and of excellent management. Then we went from 2007 to September 2013, when that surplus was dissipated and we went from $20 billion in cash in the bank to a $200 billion deficit and, in a country unique in the world that had no debt, we went to a debt that is approaching $660 billion. As I have said in this place before, how are we going to address it, when, ladies and gentlemen, every month we are paying $1 billion in interest—$33 million a day. That is not repaying the $660 billion in debt. That is just for repaying the interest. You know what your credit card is like. You have to pay interest every month and if you do not pay it you are in default—and so would Australia be. So in September 2013 the good citizens of this country made a sensible decision because they knew that the country could no longer go the way it was going.

The first Abbott-Hockey budget made an attempt to start to address those issues. But the worst types of fools are not the ones who caused it; they are the ones who stand in the way of it being solved. In this place we have seen again and again the Labor opposition, who caused the debt and deficit problems, and the Greens, who helped them, stand in the way of recovery for this country.

Let me give those who are not in this place all the time one example. There was one circumstance of $5 billion of savings that Labor, in government, had booked, which, of course, we would have continued to support. Do you know what they did in opposition about the $5 billion of their own sayings? They opposed it. So you could actually go on paying more interest on the debt every month. Do you know what $33 million a day interest on the debt is? It is two new primary schools, seven days a week. Senator Bullock and I both know of a wonderful new hospital in Perth, the Fiona Stanley Hospital. Do you know that 11 weeks of interest—of money thrown away that we borrowed overseas—would have built the Fiona Stanley Hospital. Every three months we could have built a major new teaching hospital around Australia. We are just about to open a new childrens hospital. Eight weeks of interest—two lousy months—would have built the new childrens hospitals, and we could have built six of them around Australia if we did not have the debt that Labor gave us. When we pleaded with Labor, the Greens and the crossbenches to work with us to try to reverse that, they ignored it and said no. One of them in particular said, 'We will oppose everything until such time as we drive a double-dissolution election.' Is that responsible in a democracy? No, it is not.

Why is this a brilliant budget? Why do I call it the Billson business budget? I will tell you why: it is simply because it is aimed at small business—the engine room of this economy. It is aimed at small business leading us back towards that position of financial responsibility that every Australian wants and that every Australian expected we in this parliament would have protected and preserved.

Why small business? There are three major employment groups in this nation. There are government employers and employees. There are those employed by big business and there are those employed by the two million small businesses in this country. Everybody, whether it was Labor in government or us in government, knows that we will not be seeing an increase in the net number of employees employed by governments around Australia. We are just not going to see it. Like it or not, we are not going to see it. So we go back to big business. We know very well that big business is not employing more people. But we need more people employed. We need to make sure that there is an employment market out there. So, to whom do we turn? We turn to small business. And what have we done in this budget, led by Mr Hockey, Senator Cormann, the Prime Minister and, of course, the Minister for Small Business, Mr Billson? We have done two things. The first is that from 1 July we have decreased the taxation rate they will pay from 30 per cent down to 28.5 per cent. You might ask if that is really much. The taxable income for the average small business in Australia is $80,000 a year. Thirty per cent tax on that is $2,400, as of course the Assistant Minister for Health already knows. At 28.5 per cent, the $2,400 actually drops down to about $1,820, which is not very much of a saving.

But the beauty of it is this. Do you know what happens when you give incentives to small business, when you reduce their tax level, and when you get to the next part, which I will speak about in a moment? We will see taxable incomes increase. We will see small business out there doing more. And what is the down-flow effect of them doing more? First of all, money circulates through the economy. Secondly, their own business activity picks up. And do you know what else happens? They actually employ more employees.

So if in fact the Treasurer was concerned about how much he is likely to lose by reducing the tax rate from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent, I can allay his fears, because if that small business lifts its taxable income from $80,000 to $84,000, do you know what happens? The Treasurer gets the same level of $2,400 in tax back again. That is where the great benefit is, of course. We know our opponents do not like small business; they do not understand it. Very, very few people involved in the union movement are in small businesses. Why is that? Because we know that small businesses are dominated by the owners, their families and their employees, who are very much like families.

The second element of this wonderful Billson business budget is the fact that, starting today—starting last Tuesday night—anyone can go out and purchase up to $20,000 per item of equipment or an asset to improve the activity of their business. It could be a tradesman—say, Tony's Tradies—who says: 'I can go out and buy another forklift,' or 'I can go out and buy some more equipment in terms of the building industry.' Or if I am a plumber I might need another van; and if I get another van, I can put another apprentice on. That person, as of Tuesday night, can go out there and buy an asset up to $20,000. Since Tuesday night-Wednesday morning, I have had people call me from WA, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and South Australia, all telling me that that is exactly what they are doing. A business with which I am associated through a member of my family was going to defer a decision about purchasing some equipment to 1 July. What do you think they did yesterday afternoon? They went out and made the purchase. So it is going to be small business that benefits.

Why is it so exciting for the likes of us from rural and regional areas? It is because we know that small business is also the engine room of employment in rural areas, in regional areas, in remote areas, in towns and in cities across this country. It is not big business—it is not big business in central Tasmania. It is small businesses throughout this country. They are the ones who are going to benefit and who are benefiting already. Not only can they purchase those assets of up to $20,000; there is also no limit on the number of assets they can purchase. If a family were considering opening up a cafe or a restaurant, they could purchase every item that sets up that small business up to a maximum of $20,000. Then they could open up that business, employ members of their family and, if and as their expertise and their entrepreneurship works, they could start employing people in that town, in that community, in that district. We will see an on-flow happening. That is why this is such a critically important area.

Again, as Senator Nash knows only too well, the two areas where we all agree across this chamber that the real employment challenges are are with youth and older Australians. I go back to my point about government: is government likely to be picking up youth and older Australians? No. Is big business likely to be picking up youth and older Australians? No, it is not. But I will tell you who is: it is small business. Hospitality is an example. In this country today there is an urgent need for some 80,000 jobs in the hospitality and tourism areas. If we are to see the stimulus which I believe will happen as a result of these decisions, we are going to see the demand for older people and for young people being picked up by the engine room of our economy—and that, of course, is within small business. How disappointing it was to hear poor old Senator Cameron, who, when he is bereft of any ideas, loses concentration and then starts to attack people. That of itself is disappointing but, nevertheless, I will not be distracted by him. I will simply say again that if there is one standout of this budget it will be to look back in 18 months time and say: 'What was it that really turned the Australian economy around, that really started to see a change in employment and employability and where we saw cash flowing through this economy?' Mark my words: it was on Tuesday evening when Treasurer Hockey made those statements.

There are a couple of other areas that I want to address in the minutes that are available to me, and these are in the childcare safety net area, where again the government has seen where the needs are. The government has seen that we have got to be able to provide support for those who need it the most. We have got to be able to provide support so that people and families can go back into training and back into employment and get the financial support that they need. As a result of the budget the other night, we are seeing additional subsidies in child care and in childcare support that are focused on those who are most disadvantaged, minimising barriers to participation and providing access to early learning. Those of us who work in the education space know only too well how critically important it is that, from their youngest age, these children have a level of engagement. And we know that that is driven by parents from those very earliest ages.

There is the Community Child Care Fund—another initiative that is financed in this budget. And another one I am very pleased to see is the pilot program to financially support nannies in houses. I think it is going to be a wonderful initiative, and I will look at it very, very carefully over time. It is quite common overseas; so many young Australian girls have gone and worked overseas and do so to this day, working with families in the UK and on the Continent. It has taken a long time for us here in Australia to pull this on as a pilot. We are not talking about the high-socioeconomic sector of our society; we are talking right across it. We are talking about the nanny who can come in and help the children with their breakfast so that husband and wife can get away to work early, if that is what is required, and who can get the children to school and be there to pick them up after school. All of those sorts of advantages mean this is going to be an absolutely wonderful initiative.

Of course, you have seen the initiatives in terms of welfare that were announced in the budget, but I would plead that the best form of welfare is work. The best way to address unemployment and to lift the wellbeing and the thinking of the person who does not have a job is to help them into a job. So I must always come back to these initiatives in the small business area, where I think we will see something absolutely wonderful.

I was interested to learn, when Mr Hockey brought the budget down, of the extension of the income management program. I have mentioned before in this place that I happen to be a member of a philanthropic board in Malaysia which supplies financial support to some 500,000 people—about 100,000 families—on an income support basis in that country, for the mothers only of low socio-economic families. And I have observed, over the last five or six years that I have been on the board of that foundation, the enormous impact there has been when these people have been able to learn about managing money.

In the Australian context—it is happening with this income management program—we have made sure that Centrelink funds that are available to families do not get squandered on alcohol, nicotine, drugs or those other areas of expenditure that take money away from rent, food, clothing and education opportunities for children. Having had the experience of seeing the benefit to low socio-economic families of this type of program, I feel very passionately about this.

I am quite pleased to say that as a result of this program, which is organised around a credit card type of arrangement, I have been able to provide feedback to Mr Tudge, who has responsibility to the Prime Minister for the introduction and maintenance of that program. I certainly hope that this program is going to have a long-lasting effect on those families who simply do not have the capacity to manage their incomes.

From my personal experience let me say to you that one of the biggest benefits is to those Aboriginal communities trying to be dry, but where illegal alcohol sales occur and where drugs and pornography come in. An income management system such as this one, in which money is managed for people in the community, takes cash out of the community. It takes cash away from those who would illegally sell alcohol, drugs and other products, which the community itself has decided to be rid of.

In the few moments available to me I want to reflect briefly on the initiatives in the budget for our agricultural industries. Of course those initiatives are separate from those that have been recently announced by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Agriculture Mr Joyce, which will assist famers, pastoralists and graziers affected by drought. But these, again, are fantastic measures in the budget. Farmers will now have the capacity to accelerate the depreciation on their spending on water, water sources, water resources and reticulation. They will be able to accelerate depreciation on fodder so that they can accumulate fodder—be it hay, silage or whatever it is—so that they can immunise themselves better against the impacts of drought in good times because they can conserve fodder.

Finally, all of us who know about agriculture, and the vagaries of the problems, know that if you are going to get on top of crop control and animal management, and if you are going to get on top of feral animals and other things, you must be able to fence adequately. Indeed, from an environmental point of view, you need fencing if you want to make sure that you minimise the impact of erosion and all of those things.

Some of the small business tax cuts that I mentioned earlier in my contribution will assist many of the 110,000 farm businesses around Australia who have receipts of $2 million cash or less. So we have had the $38 million that was pre-announced for drought funding. I say again how proud I am to be a member of a coalition government that will have small business leading this country back to a sound economy.