David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Assistant Treasurer. As part of its competitiveness agenda, the government recently announced industry assistance of $188 million for five industries that the government considers to be promising. The government stated that this will assist businesses with winning strategies in these five industries. Can the minister explain the difference between funding winning businesses within promising industries and the discredited practice of picking winners? Can the minister outline the share of the economy that these five industries currently represent and explain whether the government wants or expects this share to increase? Finally, can the minister explain why spending $188 million of borrowed money on five industries is better than paying off $188 million of debt?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for that question. I can assure Senator Leyonhjelm and the Senate that this government is working very hard to build a stronger, more prosperous economy where everyone can get ahead. The industry and competitiveness agenda that Senator Leyonhjelm refers to is an essential part of that agenda. Senator Leyonhjelm would be well aware that unlike the previous government this government does not pick individual winners. When it comes to industry policy we have been very clear not to use taxpayers' money to help one business compete with another business. These are the decisions we have made consistently in the 12 months or so that we have been the government of Australia.

However, we have also said—unashamedly—that there are sectors of the economy that we believe are going to be central to economic growth across Australia into the future, and those are the areas we identified in the lead-up to the last election: obviously our energy and resources sector, obviously our manufacturing sector, obviously our agricultural sector, obviously our services sector. So, through the industry and competitiveness agenda we are unashamedly providing support in a strategic and well-targeted way to assist and to facilitate. This government understands that it is not the government itself that is creating jobs. We understand that it is up to the government to create the environment within which the private sector, within which individual Australians and within which individual businesses across Australia ought to be encouraged to be as successful as they possibly can be. Under the previous government, whenever somebody was successful there was the suspicion that they must have done something wrong and the idea that the government must go after them with either more new taxes or more new red tape. This government encourages individual Australians to be as successful as they can be. (Time expired)

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Also in the government's competitiveness agenda is a call to reduce debt and deficits. I note that maximising returns on government financial investments will help to reduce debt and deficits, whereas adopting ethical investing criteria will not. Under an act you administer, Commonwealth entities are required to inform ministers of significant decisions. In this context, do you consider a Commonwealth entity's decision to adopt ethical investing criteria to be a significant decision?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, Senator Leyonhjelm is absolutely right: we are totally focused on dealing with the debt and deficit disaster that we have inherited from the previous government, because we believe that we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to leave our country in a stronger and better position than we found it in and with better prospects. The previous government, having inherited a very strong fiscal position, having inherited a position with no government net debt—a $20 billion surplus, money in the bank, more than $1 billion—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order: the specific question was, do you consider a Commonwealth entity's decision to adopt ethical investing criteria to be a significant decision?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has about half of his time to answer the question. I draw the minister's attention to the question.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, the question also went to maximising the return for the Commonwealth from its investments. The point I was about to make was that, in the last year of the Howard government, the federal government was collecting more than $1 billion in net interest payments, on the back of a positive net asset position, whereas, of course, now we have to pay more than $1.2 billion in debt interest to service the debt that Labor left behind. Of course, we would absolutely expect every one of the Commonwealth organisations to invest, to maximise return, and these are important decisions. (Time expired)

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. An action to come under the government's competitiveness agenda is a Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia's workplace relations framework. Does the Productivity Commission currently have room in its schedule to commence this inquiry?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his question. The answer: absolutely. The government, of course—the Treasurer, in particular—has the capacity to make these sorts of referrals to the Productivity Commission from time to time. Obviously, the Productivity Commission will make room to respond to these referrals as is appropriate.