http://www.andrewrobb.com.au RSS feeds for Andrew Robb MP - Federal Member for Goldstein 60 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1499/Address-to-the-Committee-for-Economic-Development-of-Australia-CEDA.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1499 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1499&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1499/Address-to-the-Committee-for-Economic-Development-of-Australia-CEDA.aspx Address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) Wednesday, 3 April 2013 To dismiss debt is to leave us vulnerable   I would like to tackle two myths today – firstly, the myth that the government’s fiscal stimulus saved us from the global financial crisis (GFC); and secondly the myth that Australia’s public debt levels are nothing to worry about. On the contrary, I would assert that both the government’s profligate and wasteful response to the GFC, and its failure to take seriously our rapidly accelerating public debt levels, are creating very real vulnerabilities which will have long term negative consequences for jobs and growth. Of course, as always, the government’s response will be to accuse me of talking down the economy.  Well I suggest it’s not good enough to just keep shooting the messenger, rather they should start taking responsibility for the fiscal and regulatory mess they are creating. For too long this government has used the GFC as an excuse for its wasteful spending, new and increased taxes, substantial debt build-up and nanny state re-regulation. Australia should be in a far better position given the circumstances we have been blessed with, notwithstanding the GFC. Let’s remember, it is now nearly half a decade since the peak of the financial crisis, and even then its principal impact was on the northern hemisphere. Since then Europe has continued to struggle, though Germany and others in Europe are back in surplus, while the United States is now responding to massive discoveries of cheap gas and oil, and a low US dollar. During this period Australia has been blessed with the highest terms of trade in 150 years, leading to massive resource projects, the envy of the world. Today Australia’s terms of trade remain around 15 per cent higher than in the final year of the Howard government, but you wouldn’t know it. We have continued to be the beneficiaries of 7-9 per cent growth of the Chinese economy. China is now by far our largest export market with the value of those exports growing from $8.8 billion in 2001-02 to $82.5 billion in 2011-12.   Yet the government has posted the four biggest budget deficits in our nation’s history, with a fifth set to follow. Federal government debt has gone from zero, with $70 billion in net assets, to net debt of $168 billion with annual interest payments exceeding $7 billion, while gross debt now stands at $267 billion. If spending levels had returned to the pre-stimulus trend Australia’s budget could, and should, have been back in surplus last year, much less this and subsequent years.  In fact the firm, Macroeconomics, argues that the budget should be in surplus by $15 billion, or one per cent of GDP, at this point in the economic cycle.   If several European countries can get back to surplus, there is absolutely no excuse for Australia. Before the global recession, monetary policy, in the form of interest rates was typically used by developed countries to increase or discourage consumer and business spending, as required. Government spending, or fiscal policy, was primarily focussed on incentives, savings and funding government services. Following the financial crisis, lowering interest rates to stimulate spending quickly ceased to be an option for many OECD countries because their interest rates reached nearly zero, while the monetary transmission mechanism was slowed and blunted because many households in those countries have fixed mortgage rates. Partly for this reason, and partly to support financial systems that had been inadequately supervised and come to grief, many northern hemisphere governments were forced to massively increase public spending to soften the impact of the recession. Rapid increases in public debt and deficits resulted. The Rudd Government mimicked this high spending northern hemisphere solution and failed to see the alternative Australian solution. Unlike the northern hemisphere, Australia entered the global financial crisis five years ago without a sub-prime fuelled housing bubble, with a properly regulated financial sector, with no government debt, with a $20 billion surplus, with $70 billion in net assets, a record low four per cent unemployment, a strong domestic pipeline of projects and demand from China for our energy and resources which took our terms of trade to 150 year highs. Alternative solutions to those adopted in the northern hemisphere were possible and far more appropriate in Australia. In Australia, the automatic economic stabilisers kicked in. The exchange rate dropped from 90c to the US dollar to 60c to the US dollar. This proved a massive aid to exports, prompting Australia’s largest ever trade surplus in the first quarter of 2009. Unlike the northern hemisphere, lower interest rates were able to work to significantly stimulate spending in Australia. The prevalence of variable mortgage rates in Australia, rather than the overseas fixed mortgage rates, meant that lower interest rates flowed straight through to people’s pockets. The progressive reduction of interest rates by 4.25 per cent saw immediate and very significant injections of cash into millions of households. Combined with long-standing, effective banking regulations and a very strong mining sector, both in the lead up to and during the down-turn, these measures, in combination with some of the first $10 billion fiscal stimulus, which was backed by the Coalition, ensured Australia had a soft landing. Yet, despite the emerging balance of trade data, and the very powerful impact of interest rate reductions, the government refused to adjust course or moderate its response.  Labor’s philosophical predisposition to borrow and spend and then inject government at the centre of everything came to the fore, as it deployed the third largest stimulus package in the OECD. Much of the subsequent $77 billion of stimulus money in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 was an unnecessary over-reaction which saw debt and spending expand rapidly, putting strong upward pressure on interest rates. In fact, the bulk of the money was spent when the immediate crisis was well and truly over, contributing to the Reserve Bank putting the brakes on higher interest rates.  Perversely, the government continued to stimulate the economy by spending borrowed money, including $31 billion of the $77 billion still being spent over 2010-11 and 2011-12. Yet, our Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has repeatedly claimed that the government’s $87 billion stimulus package ‘saved’ Australia from the GFC.  Mr Swan goes further and claims that Treasury modelling shows that 200,000 jobs, and billions in extra tax revenue, were saved. Remarkably, these claims are made despite Treasury never releasing any modelling of the stimulus package, apart from a short Treasury note outlining their forecast methodology. Subsequent academic analysis of this methodology has found it seriously wanting, and the claims about jobs and tax revenue saved to be totally misleading.  In particular, the academic critique finds that the modelling, based on this methodology, seriously underestimated the extent of leakage of Labor’s second, massive stimulus package spending to overseas (where it effectively became a stimulus to other countries’ economies rather that our own). Furthermore, the methodology overlooked the issue of domestic crowding out, as substantial discretionary spending continued even after the economy was recovering solidly, and also overlooked the costs of repaying the many tens of billions of dollars of debt run up, while underestimating the private savings response. Alternative modelling in a peer reviewed analysis by John Humphreys (ANU Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis & Reform, Vol. 19, No 2, 2012) which incorporates more realistic assumptions regarding these key channels shows that the impact of Labor’s second stimulus package on jobs and growth would have been far smaller, and in the longer term resulting in a loss of over 30,000 jobs. This is consistent with a number of studies by other academics including modelling by McKibbin and Stoeckel (2009), which showed the stimulus providing an initial boost, but then leading to a net drag on the economy, with a negative multiplier after the first year. These findings are consistent with the Coalition’s position on the appropriate approach to dealing with the financial circumstances of September and October 2008, namely support for the automatic exchange rate and interest rate stabilisers, and for the government’s first $10.4 billion stimulus package to deal with the initial crisis of confidence, followed by serious concern over the sheer size and need for the subsequent $77 billion of hand-outs and spending. So, far from saving Australia from the GFC, the fiscal stimulus has proven to be the catalyst for unprecedented and continuing levels of government spending, financed in large part by rapidly growing debt. This brings me to the second myth constantly asserted by the government, namely that Australia’s public debt levels are nothing to worry about. The fact that discussion of debt is studiously avoided by this government is probably as strong a sign as any that the size and growth of Australia’s public debt is understood by Labor to be its greatest Achilles heel, and Australia’s greatest vulnerability. Labor’s only response is to use public debt comparisons with countries in Europe and the US in an attempt to allay fears about Australia’s debt and deficit blow-outs. Needless to say, Labor never compares Australia’s performance with those of developed, commodity-exporting countries with balance sheets in the black, such as Chile, Norway and Finland. Labor never mentions that back in 2007-08, the aggregate of the federal government and state government’s actually had no net debt, and, in fact, the Federal government had $70 billion net assets.  These factors materially contributed to our soft landing following the GFC.  Now our total net public debt across state and federal governments is more like 22 per cent of GDP, or well over $300 billion and growing rapidly, despite the resources boom and terms of trade reaching 150 year highs. Just last week when sections of the media highlighted the debt problem, Labor responded by widely circulating a misleading graph comparing our net government debt to 22 other countries, including many of Europe’s cot cases. What the graph didn’t say was that the 10 per cent figure cited for Australia was for the federal government only, and for the general government sector only. For many of the other countries listed the debt levels were for both central government and other tiers of government – the equivalent of our states.  And in Australia’s case if we include the debt not only of the states and territories but also of public non-financial corporations, the resulting total public net debt figure is currently more than twice the level used by Labor in its chart. Nor did Labor explain how selective it was being in its selection in the countries it included. Why, for example, does the graph omit various commodity-exporting countries which I mentioned earlier like Chile – where net debt is effectively zero – or Norway, where net debt is massively negative (to the tune of around 170 per cent of GDP)? Why did Labor choose to include San Marino – not a country normally thought of as a key point of comparison for Australia – but not Sweden which, without the benefit of a record mining boom and despite being close to the European epicentre of the GFC, has managed to retain negative net debt of around 17 per cent of GDP, unchanged from its pre-crisis 2007 level? And what the graph couldn’t show, of course, is that if Labor can take net debt from minus $70 billion to a plus $168 billion in five years when our terms of trade are a 150 year high, where would debt be after another three years of a Labor government. Despite its track record, Labor now claims net debt will be paid off by 2020-21, even though it simultaneously forecasts it will still be $138 billion in 2015-16, just five years earlier.  Not surprisingly the target keeps getting pushed out from 2018-19, 2019-20 to 2020-21.  It is on the never never.  Like the pub with the sign out the front promising ‘free beer tomorrow’. Labor never mentions that if the structural budget problem isn’t tackled, where long term spending commitments massively exceed long term expected revenue, then Australia could end up with a debt crisis at some point in the not too distant future. And these problems can emerge quickly.  For example, in 2007 Ireland had a similar level of public debt to Australia’s current debt to GDP ratio, and just six years later their debt is over 100 per cent of GDP.  As respected economist, Saul Eslake observed recently when discussing the structural deficit problem, and I quote, “I can’t think of any crises where the lights went from green to amber – they typically went from green to red without any warning at all – that is you could go from ‘normal to crisis quite suddenly’”. As Tony Abbott observed last week “My fear, and the growing fear of the Australian public, is that the government will try to solve its problems by increasing your problems.  We have a Prime Minister that is mortgaging your future to secure her future”. The problem with record levels of debt is that increasingly options are closed off.  As anyone who has run a business will know, up to a point you control and make good use of debt.  However, beyond a certain level – perhaps 30 per cent debt for many businesses – the debt starts to control you. It is no different for a country.  With Federal government net debt reaching $168 billion, $7 billion a year is already going on interest payments rather than being available to fund infrastructure, education, health and other government spending priorities. What’s more, Australia’s public debt levels traditionally haven’t needed to rise nearly as high as in many other developed economies before becoming problematic, in view of Australia’s long-standing reliance on overseas capital to fund investment. As ratings agency Standard & Poor’s recently observed, this reliance on foreign capital means that a sudden change of heart by foreign lenders could trigger a rapid drop in the dollar, an abrupt capital outflow and higher interest rates.  S&P noted that the recent surge in foreign holders of government bonds, now running at about 70 per cent, was more likely to be suddenly reversed than more traditional direct investments in sectors such as mining. Consistent with this, it is worth remembering that when, under a previous Labor government,  Australia’s credit rating was downgraded twice by Moody’s and S&P in 1986 and 1989, federal government net debt as a share of GDP was around or lower than its current level. So a shift to a surplus, and a start to paying down the debt, would clearly be a prudent move that would see Australia much less exposed to the vagaries of capital markets. And we should pay heed to the warning from Moody’s Investors Service that Australia’s coveted AAA credit rating is dependent on the federal government keeping debt under control. No doubt, the view of rating agencies is also influenced by the record of Federal Labor governments having increased net debt in every year of office since 1990. In short, Australia is being put in an increasingly vulnerable position by excessive and wasteful spending, and Labor’s record of financial management. The Coalition has been sounding the alarm for several years now about the structural deficit - the key indicator of whether a government is living within its means.  Structural deficits are spending commitments made during boom times that cannot be sustained when things taper off. Recent analysis undertaken for the Minerals Council of Australia by Macroeconomics put the budget’s structural deficit at $66 billion in 2011-12, with the problem enduring “as far as the eye can see”, until at least 2025-26.  If correct, this implies a growing debt burden for a further decade or more. The Business Council of Australia warns of a $60 billion budget black hole over the forward estimates alone, while beyond this period the Australian Financial Review estimates unfunded spending promises by the government of around $120 billion for things like the NDIS, dental care and major defence acquisitions. The evidence continues to mount; this government has a spending problem, not the “woe is me” revenue problem it bemoans. Revenue continues to grow steadily, it just doesn’t keep up with Labor’s inflated revenue forecasts and excessive spending. The latest monthly financial statements show that the government raised $202.4 billion in the financial year through to January (2013) compared to  $188 billion at the same time last year, an eight per cent increase. Sadly, the government has played every trick in the book to disguise and avoid confronting the structural problems now entrenched in the budget. The release of a 2010 paper in Treasury’s Economic Roundup on Australia’s vulnerable structural deficit position, written by a number of Treasury economists, was clearly not appreciated by the Treasurer.  Needless to say such analysis has not been repeated by the Treasury, or if it has then publication has been strictly prohibited. Given the significance of such analysis, this lack of transparency is unforgivable. What is more, when the government talks about their budget savings they list as savings tax increases, the removal of announced but not yet introduced tax concessions and the failure to cut taxes.   So you find the flood levy, the decision not to cut company tax, and the decision to defer an increase in the superannuation cap for certain Australians, all listed as savings, along with Labor’s other 26 new or increased taxes. In fact, about half of the savings Labor has claimed in budgets and mid-year reviews over the past few years have actually been tax increases – and in the most recent mid-year review last October, this fraction was higher still at over 80 per cent. The deception continues with accounting tricks and byshifting spending “off budget”. For example, Labor’s Energy Security Fund, part of its carbon tax package, spent over $1 billion last year in 2011-12 and $1 billion again next year in 2013-14 and subsequent years, but less than $1 million this year in 2012-13.  This is called a surplus inspired money shuffle, and none too subtle. By MYEFO last year the Coalition had identified in detail at least $10 billion in blatant money–shuffles like this, while another $5 billion in NBN spending was being kept “off budget”. So Labor’s forecast wafer–thin surplus of $1 billion last October was already, even then, really a deficit of at least $14 billion. And so the debt keeps growing. Recent figures from the Immigration Department suggest that the Treasurer is taking fiscal trickery to an even higher level in the forthcoming May budget. Despite a record 17,000 people arriving by boat in 2012, and a further 3,864 in the first quarter this year, or a 200% increase on the same three months of last year, the government is assuming annual spending on illegal boat arrivals will be a billion dollars lower next financial year than this financial year, and almost a billion dollars lower again in 2014-15, to end up barely one-fifth of this year’s spending. This is why we have been calling for an honest budget; honesty in the budget assumptions on revenue, honesty in the budget forecasts particularly in relation to economic growth, honesty in regards to spending without “cooking the books”. Furthermore, the budget needs to provide an honest assessment of any structural increases in spending being built into Commonwealth outlays whose full fiscal impact may only become apparent beyond the forward estimates period. The presentation of a dishonest budget would only further undermine investor and consumer confidence. A dishonest budget would further confirm in the minds of many that the government’s only plan to deal with the lack of direction on so many fronts, including debt, is in American parlance, “to kick the can down the road”. Failure to begin seriously addressing the structural deficit problems will further expose the vulnerabilities stemming from several years of wasteful and excessive spending, new and increased taxes, the massive debt build-up, and nanny state re-regulation – all of which are making our nation an increasingly risky place to invest, and leading many Australians to ask “what have we got to show for it”.   Conclusion: The Nanny State, government knows best approach has failed.  Australia is directionless, a crisis of confidence pervades consumers who have gone on a spending strike, local businesses are afraid to invest and foreign investors are turning away from growing sovereign risk and massive cost increases. Given our fragile budgetary and debt position, Australia is exposed to any hard landing in China which would feed quickly through to export earnings, unemployment, defaults, and difficulties with bank financing, foreign investor confidence and Australia’s debt levels. Wasteful government spending, over-regulation and growing government debt got us into this problem, more of the same will only compound our vulnerabilities. There is another way.  The government must stop taxing, borrowing, spending and regulating, and start living with its means. The growth and role of big government must be displaced by fostering robust growth of our millions of small and large businesses, and by restoring consumer confidence to spend.  Government must once again provide a measure of certainty and stability, and encourage an appetite for risk and investment.  The Coalition’s plan for government is designed to deliver such a change. Andrew Robb Wed, 03 Apr 2013 02:09:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1499 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1482/Speech-on-the-National-Disability-Insurance-Scheme-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1482 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1482&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1482/Speech-on-the-National-Disability-Insurance-Scheme-Bill-2012.aspx Transcript E&OE.............. Mr ROBB (Goldstein) ( 10:17):  I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. The core function of government is to provide support for the disadvantaged. Outside of defence and security for our country, the government has a core responsibility to provide for the disadvantaged, including the profoundly disabled and their carers, who sacrifice so much. I would suggest that perhaps they are the highest priority among the disadvantaged. Yet, in my eight years as a member of parliament, the most illuminating issue for me in my local electorate and the thing that has surprised me most is the observation over time of the number of people in local communities who, in all sorts of ways, are profoundly disabled.  For many of the carers of those people it is almost a life sentence. They make an enormous sacrifice. Some have devoted their whole life to looking after a loved one who is profoundly disabled. In many ways, because they have led such an all-consuming life with that problem and that responsibility, many of them are not well placed to be champions for that issue in those areas of responsibility that the government has got. So we as parliamentarians tend to get appropriate representations from people across the community, dealing with all sorts of other legitimate disease issues, expressing grave concerns in the community and all sorts of other social issues and, in many cases, they are so well represented by champions, as they should be. Celebrities and others have often taken up the cause of any number of different, well-known diseases and problems in our community and, as a consequence, a fair proportion of what available moneys there are is devoted to so many of those areas. But in many ways in the case of the black spot, the black hole, the unseen one—and I have also seen this in particular with mental health because of the stigma and for the same reason—there are no champions. Quite frankly, the profoundly disabled are in a worst situation in terms of their ability to grab the national attention, to get what is and should be a significant focus on dealing with their needs before we deal with many others. This bill, this debate, this issue has progressively emerged in the last few years and I think now, quite properly, there is a clear focus on it. We now need to move forward and put in place in a very systematic, efficient, effective and compassionate way services that will meet the needs of the disabled, particularly the profoundly disabled. We have to make sure that we draw this distinction not in totality but in terms of where the priority is and I will come back to that a little later in my comments. This bill is the first step to providing appropriate support through a National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS. As the Leader of the Opposition and many of my colleagues have said, it is an idea whose time has come, and I agree. This is something that should be above politics, and the Coalition lends its unequivocal support to this bill. The Coalition has enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission; we supported the $1 billion in the last budget; we supported the five launch sites; we supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full, state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch; and we support this legislation. The NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform whose development will unfold over the life of three parliaments. It is complicated, it is comprehensive, it is enormously expensive and it has many components. As a piece of public policy, it needs to be properly considered, and we need to carry the community with us in this exercise. If we are to fund this, it will in many ways put pressure on other programs, but, again, government is about setting priorities. As I said at the outset, if there is one core responsibility of government on the social side, in my view it is looking after the profoundly disabled. The Coalition maintains that the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the implementation of the NDIS is not only appropriate but essential. The track record of the Rudd and Gillard governments in regard to program implementations suggests that it alone cannot be relied upon to implement the best possible NDIS. Given the complexity and the state nature of much of the services, a multi-government approach to this is needed, at this level—so that over several terms of office we have bipartisan commitment and carriage of this process. This process requires proper and extensive consultation and attention to detail. A parliamentary committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. This issue should not go to party politics. This is a golden opportunity for this place to demonstrate that some issues are clearly above party politics. There is no ideological difference on the issue of looking after the profoundly disabled. It is regrettable that the Government has rejected bipartisanship on many occasions in a bid to claim ownership. George Christensen has had for some time a motion in the House to establish this committee, but it has not been brought forward for a vote. Senator Fifield moved a similar motion to establish the oversight committee—Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate, sadly, to vote it down. From the outset, every Australian government and opposition, state and federal, endorsed what the Productivity Commission proposed. It takes special skill for a prime minister to turn this into a political bunfight. I hope that she will reconsider the approach that has been taken to date. Sustainably funding a full NDIS is crucial. Beyond the first $1 billion for the trials, the Government has provided no insight into how this might be achieved. If the assistance is not sustainable, expectations could far exceed the ability of the taxpayer to support it. We have to be very careful that there is a clear understanding in the community of what is involved in a financial sense. We need to carry the community with us in developing this. Even the $1 billion does not reconcile with the $3.9 billion the Productivity Commission said would be needed for the first stage. It is one-quarter of what was suggested by the Productivity Commission. What does that mean for a proper rollout—for design, preparation, planning and all the rest? It is totally unclear. An NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission, but only by a prudent government. It comes down to priorities and deciding what is important. It also comes down to clearly identifying who will be eligible, who will qualify, for NDIS support. In the announcement of support for this proposal, it seemed like the Government was making policy on the run. No prior thought seemed to have been given to it, including through discussions with the states. There seemed to be no idea of the reach and cost of the scheme. We now have seniors concerned that at 65 they will be cut off. These sorts of issues should not be emerging; they should have been given some thought before a formal announcement of the NDIS. There is an issue here which needs to be remembered: expectations have already been raised because of the vagueness in the process to date, the lack of definition of what was being considered when the announcement was made. I suspect there are well over a million people who think that their needs, often legitimate needs, will automatically be covered by the NDIS. The profoundly disabled probably number in the 300,000 or 400,000. They and their carers are the priority. They must be the ones that get the detail. They are the ones that need the services. And those who are beyond the expectations need to be managed; otherwise, we are going to have a very disgruntled community, with lots of unnecessary political debate, disagreement, and people feeling totally let down. It is unnecessary. We need to carry the community with us in this process if this whole thing is to be properly accepted and implemented and it is to do what it must do. We need to be in a position where government can fund the scheme. This goes back—and I will not dwell on this—to the whole substance of economic management and prudence. We are now paying $7 billion in interest each year on debt. These things are relevant to issues like this. That amount could perhaps cover much of the Commonwealth contribution, but it goes off in interest. We can only assume the government will make appropriate provision in the coming budget. The whole notion of the NDIS is to provide a ubiquitous level of support for those eligible wherever they live. As it stands, the level of support can vary depending on things such as the state or region you live in, whether your disability is congenital or was acquired, and, if it was acquired, whether it was acquired in the workplace or in a motor vehicle—and the list goes on. We need a new system based on need, not on rationing, with the entitlement to support resting with the individual. The NDIS is a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape—very important principles in the design of this program. There can be no full NDIS without an intergovernmental agreement with each state and territory, and it was a welcome development when New South Wales Premier O'Farrell and the Prime Minister signed such an agreement in December for a full state-wide NDIS rollout after the Hunter launch project. It is now up to the Prime Minister and the Government to continue this constructive approach. Momentum for an NDIS has gathered over the past five years. Those with disabilities, their families and carers and the organisations which support them have formed a loud and single voice. Much credit must go to them for bringing this important issue to the forefront of national political consideration. In my own electorate I acknowledge organisations which provide an enormous contribution to supporting people with disabilities, organisations such as MOIRA in Hampton East led by the very competent Warwick Cavanagh. Then there is Bayley House, an outstanding organisation which has been in the community since 1951 providing a wide range of services; Bruce Salvin, the CEO, is running an outstanding and wonderful organisation. Of similar quality is Marriott House in McKinnon, with CEO Dan Romanis, which provides a range of programs, including employment support, for adults with intellectual disabilities. Other groups include Autism Victoria in Black Rock and Hampton; CareChoice in Elwood; NIDKIDS Support Group in Caulfield; and Berendale School, a wonderful school at Hampton East under the guidance of Paula Barnett. These sorts of groups you find in all electorates. There are people all over our communities looking to support, but in many cases the services that they can access are disjointed, not available, inadequate, or good in some places and not in others. These things must be addressed and hopefully will be addressed as we move forward with this very important project. We want the NDIS to be a success—a huge success. We want its launch sites to be run smoothly. We stand ready to work with the Government and all jurisdictions to make the NDIS a reality, and to ensure that, in particular, the profoundly disabled and the carers who have sacrificed so much, while expecting, in so many cases, little in return—their demeanour just inspires me when I meet these people—are looked after. These people deserve to be looked after by us, and we will look after them if we get this bill in place properly. (Time expired)       Andrew Robb Thu, 14 Feb 2013 02:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1482 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1480/Appropriation-Bill-Debate-2013.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1480 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1480&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1480/Appropriation-Bill-Debate-2013.aspx TRANSCRIPT Mr ROBB» (Goldstein) (16:36): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-13 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-13. The two additional estimates bills seek to appropriate funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for additional expenditure requirements which have arisen since the May budget was brought down. In effect, they give effect to the announcements in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was brought down around October. The irony is that these things are probably just another mere introduction to endless other blowouts since that time. Since October we have had the Treasurer walk away from a surplus, given up on a surplus. There are no financial accounts which would inform us and the rest of the community, the finance sector, the people trying to do business out there, anyone trying to assess the state of the nation's books, trying to make investment decisions with some confidence, trying to make multi-million or multibillion-dollar investments when no-one has the foggiest idea about what the state of the books is. The government has walked away from it. This appropriation bill is probably a foretaste, a forerunner of more that might be introduced into this place to overcome further reckless spending of this government to further fill black holes. We know of $120 billion in unfunded promises: what else is there? We have got a raft of things here, many of which just happen in the course of normal government, and I accept that, but they are a symbol, if you like, another $1.27 billion symbol of a government that really has become quite inept at in any way managing the books. So much so that here we stand today several months after the Treasurer has stepped away from a surplus with absolutely no idea what the state of the books is. Yet every day we hear in the main chamber in particular, and I presume here and in the other place, cries of 'Where are your costings?' Of course the costings have been done. What no-one knows, including us, is how any of these things can be funded. What money is there to fund them? Are the government telling us how they are going to fund dental schemes, an NDIS or the Gonski recommendations in education? Are they telling us anything about the funding? Not on your nelly! That is not going to occur. Yet they want some anodyne discussion on the cost of things. We have put out the cost of things, if you had not noticed—so many things. What we are still waiting for, and what the community is waiting for—what everyone is waiting for—is what money is going to be there. What is in the piggy bank? What will be in there? The government do not know themselves. The Treasurer does not know. Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr «ROBB»: There is embarrassment on the other side, and feigned smiles and all the rest. Well, you had better go away and sort out your Treasurer. Get him to release what the books are and what is in the books so that we can have a sensible discussion not only about «appropriations» but about the general finances of this nation. This is serious business. No wonder no-one is investing out there. No wonder no-one is taking risks. No wonder there is an investment strike in the business community. No wonder people are not buying houses. It is because there is no confidence. How could there be when they look at a Treasurer who is growing whiter by the day, who stumbles through question time and who one day says on the basis of some shonky legal advice that he cannot tell us what revenue they are going to get from a certain tax and the next day releases it after pressure from the Greens and us? It is government by mistake, day in, day out, and the community absorb it. They feel it, they see it and they are shaken by it—so much so that many of the problems in the retail sector are because no-one is spending. They are paying back the mortgage and paying back the plastic because they are fearful of spending money and of making any commitments. They are not buying houses as they normally would. The general run of business—the turnover of business—has just stopped in its tracks in many cases in many parts of the country. There is a crisis of confidence, and there need not be. There should not be if there were prudent, sensible management. The thing is that they have seen the wanton waste in so much of what has been done. People understand that governments spend money. They vote a government in, and they will accept that government will make decisions about expenditure on their behalf. They might not understand it and they might not even like it, but in many cases they will accept that that is the responsibility of government. What they will not accept is wanton waste, and that is what they have seen now for five years. So much of the reckless spending by this government that has taken place has led to irresponsible, pathetic, wanton waste, with no attention to detail and no attempt to implement policies in a considered, rational and prudent fashion. People get fed up to the back teeth with it. They cannot understand it, they are angry about it, they are confused about it and they feel deeply let down by this process. Through all of this, all we hear as a reason for it—and, again, this is an insult for people; it is adding to that crisis of confidence and it is designed, almost, to undermine people's confidence in the government—is endless crying wolf. 'It was somebody else's fault.' 'The dog ate my homework.' Month after month, parading in through this chamber, the main chamber and other chambers, the Treasurer and his colleagues on that side of the House are saying that it is somebody else's fault. As the Treasurer said, we have here a huge revenue whack, if you like, out of the blue, which has made it very hard to get to a surplus in 2012-13. Instead of crying wolf endlessly, why not take responsibility for their own mistakes? Why not take responsibility for the problems that this government has created? Of course, the truth is that over the first four months of this financial year revenues were 9.2 per cent higher than in the previous year. This is at the same time that the Treasurer was on his feet saying, 'We've taken a whack out of the blue.' There had been a nine per cent increase in revenue since the budget. There are a lot of families who would do quite well and be quite satisfied with a 9.2 per cent increase in revenue. But what did we see accompanying that revenue increase? A further four per cent increase in spending—in four months. The record level of spending of this government just continues to go on, year in, year out, despite the sort of spin that we hear. People understand that. They see the waste. They know that four per cent is on top of what was already bloated and unnecessary spending of a massive order, so much so that the government have spent $172 billion, would you believe, more than they have received in revenue. It does not stop. No bells are ringing. No-one in the government is saying: 'Hang on. We'd better pull our heads in here.' Even if you just stopped new programs, over time it would reduce the proportion of government spending in the budget and take the pressure off, but, no, there are no programs of any order being cut. It is all new program after new program. They say, 'Don't worry about gross debt.' Well, that is what we pay interest on. We are paying $7 billion-plus a year of interest that was not being paid five years ago. We were not paying one cent five years ago. Now it is $7 billion a year. That could pay for seven first-class, world-centre-of-excellence hospitals, if you wanted them, but in one year it is just being given away in interest payments. It is money that could go to fund the NDIS. We would not have all the double backflips and machinations and—I can see it coming down the track—tricky accounting to try and get through how the government are going to fund the NDIS. Future governments will have to fund it, not this government. That is for certain. So we have got revenue steadily growing, but the government cannot catch up with their spending increases. Why not? What happens—and you can see it over every budget of this Treasurer—is that they deliberately assume unachievable levels of future revenue. I have seen it in business. I have seen CEOs with start-up businesses tell their boards they are going to make millions of dollars in revenue, and they get the boards and investors to commit to a lot of funding. They go and spend it, and then the revenue does not turn up. They do not get the contracts. They make it up. They deliberately assume unachievable levels of revenue. I look across the chamber each day and see the Treasurer, and I am looking at things I have seen before in another world, in the business world. This Treasurer is no different to some of these CEOs who make it up for their boards and their investors, get commitments of large lumps of money, either borrowed or invested, and then the revenue does not arrive. That is exactly what has happened here. In the budget, the Treasurer makes these politically inspired, deliberately unachievable assumptions of future revenue, and spends the money. Then, when the revenue does not come in, and there is a more realistic revenue stream—which is still increasing; revenue has increased every year—he cries wolf. 'Woe is me,' we hear all the time. Well, take some responsibility for the wanton and gross miscalculation on revenue forecast, the unachievable assumptions that have been made. We have been saying this for years, at every budget: 'These revenue forecasts are not achievable.' Lo and behold, that is what happens, and yet we hear: 'Woe is me. We've got some write-downs.' They are writing down their own forecasts. It is a joke, but it is just part of the usual spin and management that we see from this government—the media management rather than the housekeeping management, which is really what they were charged to do when they were voted in, or when they assumed a minority government with others, Independents and Greens. We have a situation which has been created by the government unnecessarily, and they say: 'The world is a difficult place. We've had a global financial crisis.' I accept that. The government took funding decisions which I think were grossly excessive. If they had not wasted and billions and billions of it, it would have been somewhat better. The fact of the matter is that an inherited strong balance sheet, monetary policy, 3¼ per cent reduction in interest rates, the devaluation of the Australian dollar—it went to 60c in the first quarter of 2009; we had the highest trade result in our history the quarter after the global financial crisis and it brought billions of dollars into our economy and into the pockets of households. In addition to that, we have had the heavy lifting by China—demand. Those were the four things—an inherited economy in great shape, monetary policy, the automatic stabiliser of a devaluation, and China—that got Australia a 150-year high in our terms of trade. We have been so blessed compared with other parts of the world. They were the things that got us through. The government then came along—six, eight or nine months later—with a massive injection of spending on school halls, which was wasted in many cases. They could have done most of that work for half the price. Lots of school in my area were saying that the buildings could have gone up for half or less than what they did. Then we had the pink batts debacle, cheques to dead people—for goodness sake! This is the sort of thing that leaves people just scratching their heads. It is why there is a crisis of confidence. There we are with a situation created, and yet they say to us: 'But it's such a difficult climate out there. How could we get to surplus with Europe going so badly? Europe has pulled us down into the mire. Europe is still hurting us.' Well let me tell you, there are seven other countries—including five in Europe—who are in surplus already. If European countries can be back in surplus, then there cannot be any excuse for Australia, which is at 150-year highs in their terms of trade. We are still 20 per cent higher in terms of trade today than when the Howard government lost office. They keep telling us that the Howard government benefited from the 'rivers of gold'; well the terms of trade are still 20 per cent higher. They are coming back, but they are still 20 per cent higher! Yet the Treasurer is saying he has got a whack out of the blue. How could that be a whack out of the blue when we still have record levels of terms of trade compared with over the past few years? What is going to happen when the terms of trade come back to more normal levels? I will tell you what is going to happen: we are going to find ourselves in the out years—next year, the year after, the year after that—with growing and increasing structural deficits, all of which have been assumed away by unbelievable forecasts of revenue or are being funded by taxes that turn out not to return any income. Can you believe it? So we have either got unbelievable and unachievable assumptions about revenue, which never materialise, or we have got taxes that have been introduced—27 new or increased taxes—and we even get a tax that does not produce any money. But not only does it not produce any money of any consequence and leaves a further black hole, which further undermines confidence and worries people deeply, but also people are waking up at 2.30 in the morning all over this country worried about whether they are going to keep their jobs. Why? Because they see a government in total disarray. They see a Treasurer who fumbles and mumbles through question time looking ashen and standing next to a Prime Minister who does no better, who keeps telling us things which you cannot trust, who signed a document and said, 'We won't change the mining tax,'—in black and white—and now, today, virtually admits that they are going to change the mining tax. How can business operate like this? How can people make decisions and feel comfortable that this country is in good hands when they keep seeing this charade of mistake, dissembling and incompetence. It is serious, people! Why is there anxiety at a time when we are so blessed with the resources we have got and the demand out there? It should not be this way. It should not be this way, but it is, and it is because of the government's incompetence and inability to focus on the job that they have to do: to tell people as it is, to make truthful statements about what they think is going to happen with the books and to stop playing politics endlessly. Stop worrying about your own jobs and worry about other people's jobs out there. That is the responsibility of governments. It is just not acceptable that this would happen. I should raise my voice! People are cross about it. I am cross about it. But it is not about us here; it is about the people out there. That is what it should be about, and yet here we are. We are going to go through this charade, I know, for months. There will be more dissembling. There will be more suggestions of other people's faults. There will be more misrepresentation of the accounts. There will be more clever accounting tricks, and there will be increases in taxes. We can see it coming. Some way or other, the super is going to happen. Already there has been so much speculation that people are frightened to invest or spend, go to the movies or do whatever. They are putting the money aside. They are not sure whether they can afford it or not or what is going to happen. We have had another month of speculation. Clearly the government are going to do something on super. They are going to get money from somewhere. They are going to try and tax people who have worked their tail off for years to put money aside. Now they are going to see it taxed. Now they are going to see a threat, a doubt, over their security in their later years. We will see a change to the mining tax. The government will say: 'How clever are we? We have just raised some more revenue.' But, of course, what they have done at the same time is cause a major problem with sovereign risk. That is forgotten. Forget about business! Don't put yourself in the shoes of people looking to risk billions of dollars! I went into Asia for a few days before Christmas to talk to business leaders, government leaders and others—investors. I wanted to see: what were the opportunities coming down the pipeline? What was our standing? What was going on? I sat in a meeting with the head of one of the region's major banks, an Asian bank. He said to me: 'Mr «Robb», could you explain something to me? Over the last four years, we have backed investments to the tune of billions of dollars into Australia. What has happened since is that there have been lots of rule changes. There have been new taxes which have affected these investments.' And he said: 'The ROI, the return on investment, in nearly all these projects has now been deeply undermined. Could you explain what is going on? Australia historically has been associated with being able to invest with some certainty, in that a deal is a deal. Once things are signed, once contracts are done, once we have reached some accommodation and understanding with the government, Australia historically has stuck with it.' Here I was not being lectured to, but in a way I was, and it is so galling. He was really saying that Australia and sovereign risk are now in the one sentence. That has never been the case. This is what is happening with this mining tax. This is what is happening when you change things. This is what happens when you change super rules having said you never will, you won't do it, of course you won't, not one dot, not one whatever—no, you will not do any of that! Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! Mr «ROBB»: You are just undermining the ability and the confidence not only of investors in this country but of investors outside this country, people who have already put big money in here and are confused themselves. You are confusing the world with the way in which you are managing the shop. Government members interjecting— Mr «ROBB»: You can try and shout me down. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. No. Mr «ROBB»: You can try and shout me down. You will have your turn. You get up and explain. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the member for Goldstein will stop using the word 'you', please. Mr «ROBB»: Okay. Those opposite will. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And they will cease interjecting. Let me deal with that. You will continue, in silence. Mr «ROBB»: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That would be nice, thank you. So here we are with a bill which has become almost a symbol of the uncertainty and lack of knowledge that anyone, including ourselves, has on what the state of the books really is. It is just another chapter of many chapters of overspending. Sitting suspended from 16:59 to 17:12 Mr «ROBB»: I should bring my comments to a conclusion, given the list of speakers who are following and given that I have made the principal point, which is that, as normal practice, we will not oppose or seek to amend this Appropriation Bill, although it does again demonstrate—and it has become a symbol of—the overspending, unexplained spending and confusion. So much of it could be clarified if the government were to show some transparency. Tell us the numbers and tell us really what the circumstance is, and it is not just 'us' the opposition, but us the community. That is why in this important election year we have again chosen what has been the normal practice: not to rely on the Treasurer and on what have been inflated or misleading forecasts or numbers or dissembling and all of the rest. This budget this year will be the first budget in the history of the parliament which will fall in the middle of an election campaign. We could not trust the last four budgets over the last four years, and so what hope would anyone have to trust what will come out in May this year? In many ways it will be a fiction. That is my expectation. That is why we have to wait and do what the head of the new Parliamentary Budget Office suggested: wait for the real numbers. The real numbers will help us understand the ability we and others have to fund policies that we would like to introduce. Those numbers will best come when Treasury and Finance, independent of the government of the day, come down with their forecasts and state of the books within 10 days of the writs being issued. When that happens, we will look at the capacity to fund on the real numbers, not on the fictional numbers, and we will put to the people a program which will return this country to prudent, stable, sensible, adult management. We will remove the waste. We will seek to restore the certainty and stability that people need to make decisions and get on with their lives. We will seek to remove the crisis of confidence which so envelops this country at the moment and which is not and should not be necessary given the blessings that this country has. What we need is good government, and the opportunity will present itself this year. Andrew Robb Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1480 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1464/ADDRESS-ON-THE-40TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-DIPLOMATIC-RELATIONS-WITH-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1464 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1464&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1464/ADDRESS-ON-THE-40TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-DIPLOMATIC-RELATIONS-WITH-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.aspx ADDRESS ON THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GREAT HALL, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA Madame Liu Yandong, and the many distinguished members of your delegation, Prime Minister of Australia, my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, distinguished guest, Ladies and Gentlemen. On behalf of the Opposition, it is my great privilege to warmly welcome this anniversary, an anniversary which highlights four decades of dramatic development in the relationship between Australia and China – to the point where China is among Australia’s most important international partnerships. Australians are immensely impressed with China’s great strides in recent decades.    In just over 30 years, hundreds of millions of Chinese have prospered, and increasingly enjoyed the freedoms, the self esteem and sense of fulfilment that comes with growth and development.   The people of China have become better educated, more thoroughly informed and more widely travelled.   And China is tracking to be the world’s largest economy, perhaps within two decades.   This has been a great watershed in human development as well as one of the most remarkable economic transformations in human history.   While Australia’s attitude on some issues may differ to China’s, our approach to managing differences is anchored by respect, and aims at being constructive and based on dialogue.   At the same time we recognise and acknowledge the vast improvement in living standards that Chinese people have enjoyed since the 1970s.   Thanks to China, the world now enjoys reliable and inexpensive consumer goods plus the benefits of selling its own products and services into an increasingly sophisticated Chinese market.   Proudly, Australia has played an important part in the rise of China.   Perhaps the export of iron ore has come to symbolise the strength of our modern day relationship with China.   It was September 1973 that Conzinc Riotinto of Australia made its first shipment of 22,000 tonnes of lump ore from Hamersley Basin in the Pilbara to China on the ship, Stolt Vista.   Since then Rio Tinto alone has exported well over one billion tonnes of iron ore to China.   Now our iron ore furnishes much of China’s steel, our coal and gas now powers much of its industry, and our universities and colleges help to train many of its people.   Before entering the Parliament in 2004, I personally had the great experience of being a member of Chevron’s investment team on the Gorgon Gas Project off the North West Shelf, and in that capacity also had an involvement with the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), which led later to a Chinese commitment to buy $50 billion worth of natural gas from the project.   Of course, that CNOOC involvement – just 10 short years ago - was a forerunner of many subsequent sales, investments and major joint ventures from Chinese energy and resource companies, irrevocably locking in the relationship we are celebrating this evening.   Yet it’s important to appreciate that the relationship between our two countries hasn’t simply been an economic one.   Modern Australia is an immigrant society to which Chinese people have been coming almost since the foundation of European settlement in 1788.   The founder of Australia’s wool industry, John Macarthur, employed Chinese.   The first Chinese person to achieve some prominence was Mak Sai Ying who ran a pub in Sydney in 1829.   Thousands of Chinese joined the gold rushes from the 1850s, feeding Australia’s first resources boom.   By the time the six colonies formed a new Commonwealth, at the turn of the last century, more than 100,000 Chinese had come to Australia.   Over the past fifty years, hundreds of thousands more Chinese people have settled in Australia and today 700,000 Australians have Chinese ancestry. Their emphasis on the importance of family, hard work and education; their business acumen and their instinct, in former Prime Minister’s Menzies’ words, to be, and I quote, “lifters not leaners” – all these characteristics have made them model citizens.   These days, Australians of Chinese background abound in our professions and dominate the academic results of many of our best schools.   Since Deng Xiaoping first introduced market reforms and opened China to the world, Australian governments of both sides have striven consistently to cultivate the best possible relations with China, based on mutual trust and respect.   Should the Coalition win the next election, we will again take that approach.   The Opposition’s Parliamentary leader, Tony Abbott, regrets not being able to attend tonight due to overseas commitments, but he did ask me to tell you that, among other things, he looks forward to repeating an experience during a visit to the Sichuan province when he was Health Minister in the Howard Government, where he was told he was the first Australian MP since Bob Hawke who was allowed to cuddle a baby Panda bear.   Ladies and Gentlemen, China is a good friend of Australia and it can be a better one.   The Coalition joins with the Australian Government in acknowledging this significant anniversary and all those people who made this relationship happen, and we commit to doing whatever we can to build further on our great partnership with China.   Thank you.   Andrew Robb Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:32:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1464 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1455/Our-financial-systems-missing-link--developing-a-retail-corporate-bond-market.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1455 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1455&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1455/Our-financial-systems-missing-link--developing-a-retail-corporate-bond-market.aspx Address to The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Business and Economics Introduction The need to develop the retail corporate bond market is widely supported by Government, ASIC and market participants. Despite this apparent consensus, progress has proven to be very slow. In March 2009 Tabcorp issued a 5 year retail senior bond at the height of the GFC, at a time when banks were only lending for three years. This was the first vanilla retail bond since Telecom Bonds in the 1980s/90s. However since then there have been less than five large listed issues. The Johnson report of November 2009 cited the need for an active retail corporate bond market and release of the Treasury consultation paper occurred in December 2011. There has been little public development since. At this rate of primary issuance a deep and liquid market will never be developed. A deep and liquid retail corporate bond market would provide access to capital for Australian corporations, lower risk and less volatile investment options for investors looking for long-term security and predictable income streams, such as self-managed superannuation funds, and create space on bank balance sheets to support Australian businesses, particularly small and medium business. NAB’s Rick Sawers recently said: “If I arrived from outer space this morning I could probably buy shares online by 5pm today, but it is much more difficult to buy a bond.” The retail corporate bond market should be comparable with the equities market. It should be as quick and as simple to purchase bonds as equities. It makes no sense to have very simple access to one type of investment, equity, yet have almost no access to lower risk corporate bonds. A transparent system in which the two types of asset can be compared and assessed side by side is needed. The Coalition understands that until there is a comparable market, government has not fulfilled its role and once there is, government should allow the market to function. The recent step of creating a market for Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS’s) is a useful start, and will allow retail investors to buy and sell CGS’s, at least for diversity purposes. However, with a coupon at 3 per cent Government bonds can’t compete with Government-backed bank term deposits at 5 per cent. Elmer Funke Kupper of the ASX has, not surprisingly, stepped in and said that the ASX will soon offer a platform for retail investors to trade government bonds. These steps are in the right direction, however we need to do much more, much more quickly. Stephen Bartholomeusz wrote last December that: “If we are still talking about this issue next December, the failure to attempt to create a market that has been talked about for decades may not just represent a missed opportunity to capitalise on the risk aversion and strong appetite of retail investors for high-quality yields but a failure to create some insurance against the risk posed to the stability of the domestic system by the disturbing developments in debt markets offshore.” This is right and progress has been far too slow. Government must act now to remove the barriers and facilitate and encourage the development of this market. It must support the development of bonds as an asset class comparable to and competitive with property, shares and cash/term deposits. And to do this it needs to deal with the bureaucracy and red tape that hold this development back and take much too long. Quality regulation is the key issue. Better regulation, not more regulation, can help remove barriers and create over time a competitive low cost market that is a genuine and viable alternative to issuing overseas whilst providing investors with greater choice of investments. The Coalition understands that the market needs to have confidence in regulatory settings and will avoid piecemeal change, constant change and change for the sake of change. If the Coalition gets the privilege of Government we will examine the regulations that influence both supply and demand, to look for ways to stimulate the development of the retail corporate bond market. These include: 1.Examining the scope for greater use of a short form prospectus – because prospectus requirements to issue corporate bonds may sometimes make issuing them unduly onerous relative to issuing equities to the retail market; 2.Utilising the continuous disclosure regime within the ASX – because the inability to use this existing system increases regulation and increases the documentation requirements unnecessarily; 3.Reviewing the director's liability for prospectus in line with the COAG review of director’s liability and investigating the scope to align it with the current requirements for short form prospectuses and cleansing notices; 4.Improving accessibility - because just as issuing of retail corporate bonds should be easier, the purchase of retail corporate bonds should be simpler; and, 5.Educating the market – because there is inadequate knowledge of corporate bonds among market participants and potential participants. These steps will create the framework for a retail corporate bond market that is comparable with other asset classes, particularly the equities market. The current situation Australia’s retail corporate bond market is severely under-developed and has a concentration of issuers and relatively short maturities. This underdevelopment is highlighted by the fact that the retail corporate bond market is dominated by subordinated issuance and very rarely sees senior vanilla issuance. Stephen Bartholomeusz has gone so far as to describe the state of the bond market as a “glaring deficiency in what is otherwise an exceptionally sophisticated financial system.” The Wholesale market, being mostly institutional investors and investors that meet the Corporations Act definition of a professional investor, have had significant access to corporate bonds, whilst access for a retail investor has been limited. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) had a profound impact on global capital markets. In the post GFC environment demands of and for capital have changed. For banks Basel III liquidity reforms have set new standards. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), which aims to ensure that authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADI’s) have sufficient high-quality liquid assets to survive liquidity stress for a period of 30 days, and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), which aims to provide more stable sources of funding, are challenging in countries such as Australia in which the amount of eligible assets on issuance is limited.  Whilst banks should continue to have sufficient capital and credit risk appetite to support corporate lending the requirements for funding loom as a source of increased constraint on bank balance sheets. In this context some of the financing needs of the corporate and infrastructure sectors may be better held within a retail corporate bond market. Indeed, given the expected constraints on bank balance sheets, a retail corporate bond market may prove vital in order to meet business funding needs when credit growth returns. The post GFC context has highlighted Australia’s lack of any considerable retail corporate bond market. From 2008 until late 2011 only a handful of issues came to market and these were mostly the domestic banks. However demand has gone in the opposite direction. The underperformance of equity investments and increasing number of investors requiring more conservative and/or diverse investment portfolios has led to greater demand for retail corporate bonds, driven by financial planners and the self-managed super industry. The sheer volumes and growth within the self-managed super industry - self-managed superannuation fund balances already exceed $478 billion and are growing at over $30 billion per annum - make a compelling case for the development of a deeper, more liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market. This is because SMSF’s and other investors with long-term horizons are looking for security of returns and diversity. This makes sense when you consider that Australian shares are still more than a third off their 2007 highs. However while the investors are interested, issuers are not providing sufficient supply to meet the demand for corporate bonds. Although the banks are large issuers in the retail bond market it is principally for non-senior or subordinated issues. The anticipated increased cost of borrowing within the Australian banking system under Basel III will mean that the capital markets are likely to be more attractive as a financing market. This may help with the development of a domestic retail corporate bond market, however it is time for government to act quickly to facilitate the rapid development of this market in order to support and improve the Australian financial system. Why does Australia need a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market? All stakeholders in the Australian financial sector will benefit from the development of a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market. Issuers For issuers simpler access to the local market should mean, particularly over time as scale develops, cheaper and easier to access funding. However at the moment while companies raise equities on the domestic market, they tend to go offshore to issue corporate bonds. This is because offshore markets, such as the USD 144a market, are much deeper and more liquid, despite dearer documentation. Over the last decade, the corporate loan market has more than doubled, from $218 billion in January 2002 to $486 billion in December 2011 (with a high of $530 billion in November 2008), and usage by Australia of other countries’ savings via Australian corporate offshore issuance has tripled, from $41 billion to $138 billion. Domestically we have seen a recent wave of blue-chip corporate issuance, however this has been available to wholesale investors only. And, even when there is retail access, liquidity limits the capacity for issuance to be freely traded on a market platform; for instance ASX listed turnover in 2011 was only $200 million of debt securities, including hybrids. For 2012 year-to-date we have seen approximately $13 billion issued in the listed hybrid/bond market, compared to around $11.4 billion in the wholesale corporate bond market, of which $1.75 billion comes from BHP and Telstra alone. Although there has been growth in domestic wholesale issuance it is clear that the majority of debt raising is taking place offshore. In 2012 to date there has been approximately US$31 billion of bond issuance completed by Australian corporates in offshore markets, and this excludes several very large issues by BHP and Rio Tinto. Australian companies have been accessing US and Asian markets and have been issuing senior as well as subordinated/high yield bonds and hybrids. This debt has been bought by a large range of institutional investors. Investors For investors the benefits of diversity of offerings and stability of returns are very appealing. There is demand for a new investment class for retail investors who are looking to diversify their investments and will accept a lower return for less risk. And most advisors will tell an investor that corporate bonds should be an important part of any investment or superannuation portfolio. Yet a recent OECD report found that Australian superannuation funds, with 50 per cent average allocation to shares, were the highest in the world. In contrast only 14 per cent of the funds are allocated to bonds, far lower than Japan, 56 per cent, the Netherlands, 50 per cent, and even the UK at 35 per cent and US at 27 per cent. This low proportion of superannuation investment is even more marked when it comes to self-managed super funds, where a meagre 1 per cent is invested in corporate bonds. Compulsory superannuation and savings from a prosperous economy delivered large pools of cash in funds under management in Australia. These investments suffered during the GFC. Many retirees suffered significant capital losses. This was exacerbated by the increased risk associated with the focus of Australia’s superannuation sector on equities. With no income to top up account balances, investors are now looking for different ways to structure their investment portfolios. Post-GFC, retail investors now have a greater interest in less volatile returns, safer regular income streams, and more diversified investment portfolios. Corporate bonds provide investors with greater income and capital certainty than equity investments, as well as lower volatility of returns. In a post GFC context retail corporate bonds would be a welcome addition to equities. Increased liquidity will also promote institutional investor participation. Many Australian fixed interest institutional investors currently participate in the USD 144a market and hedge the asset back into AUD, the reverse of Australian companies that issue USD then hedge the liability back into AUD. A liquid retail bond market in Australia in many instances could remove the need for both our investors and companies to hedge. The benefits of promoting institutional participation will be increased retail investor confidence in the market, and increased issuer confidence in tapping funds. Retail and institutional participation is complementary and will assist with liquidity, confidence and the efficient pricing of risk. Banks The benefits for banks are important. Prior to the GFC Australian banks had a heavy reliance on international wholesale financial markets to fund economic growth, particularly short-term funding. As the domestic retail corporate bond market develops the potentially improved ability of banks to attract more domestic funding would reduce their reliance on offshore funding. Research by the world’s largest bond trader PIMCO found that, in dollar terms, Commonwealth Government Securities were our second biggest export in 2011-12 at $58 billion, emphasising the government’s reliance on debt. Our determination to start paying off Commonwealth net debt will of course see a commensurate reduction in the issuance of government bonds. Consequently, the emergence over time of a substantive retail corporate bond market would further diversify our financial system by providing ready access to an asset class with many similar characteristics to Commonwealth Government Securities, which are currently 85 per cent foreign owned. In the context of the increased constraints on bank balance sheets discussed earlier this opportunity for diversification could assist Australian institutions seeking to comply with Basel III regulations that have direct implications for funding and liquidity.  Another benefit, that would assist both banks and businesses, is the space that might potentially be freed up on balance sheets to support small and medium sized enterprises. Business This balance sheet capacity for banks to support small and medium businesses would benefit businesses by assisting them to get greater access to capital. Traditionally it has been easier for corporations to raise capital with equity than with retail corporate bonds, particularly for companies that are not rated investment grade. The appropriate development of a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market would support business by providing companies with a competitive alternative to bank funding and equity. What does the Coalition propose? The Coalition understands that there is a role for government in facilitating the development of a deep, liquid and sustainable retail corporate bond market, but not in running it. This means that the market should be supported to develop adequate depth and liquidity to function efficiently, however it also means that the market must be left to function. There are barriers, such as low participation, execution risk for issuers and onerous conditions, and at present there are advantages in issuing offshore. However there are also a number of things government can potentially do to assist the development of the market. Moves to allow retail investors to trade CGS’s have helped to create momentum. The ASX’s continued commitment to providing a platform for traded retail corporate bonds in Australia continues this momentum. The time for government to capitalise on this momentum, the market conditions and the growing demand from issuers, banks, investors and businesses is now. The Coalition understands that the time is now and understands that regulation is the key issue. Better regulation, not more regulation, can help remove barriers and create a competitive low cost market that is a genuine and viable alternative to issuing overseas. From the beginning Government must work with all stakeholders, from originators, issuers, investors, trading houses and advisors to regulators and ratings agencies. The Coalition will ensure that the process of developing the retail corporate bond market is comprehensive and consultative and that the best outcome for Australian businesses and investors is achieved. As the retail corporate bond market develops comprehensive consultation will continue in order to make certain that the market attains the depth and liquidity to function effectively as quickly as possible. I said earlier that if the Coalition gets the privilege of Government we will examine the regulations that influence both supply and demand, to look for ways to stimulate the development of the retail corporate bond market. I will now go through some of the areas for possible change in greater detail: 1. Examining the scope for greater use of a short form prospectus – this is important because prospectus requirements to issue corporate bonds may sometimes make them unduly onerous relative to issuing equities to the retail market. Corporate bonds have an additional layer of protection compared to equities, as holders of bonds rank ahead of equity in the event of insolvency. The increased disclosure requirements are therefore arguably counter-intuitive, at least in some cases. If you look at any prospectus for a debt security, be it a corporate bond or a hybrid security, the vast bulk of the prospectus is taken up describing what you are buying. In the wholesale markets banks and companies establish debt programmes under which all terms of their debt are established and each new issue of debt is based. We will investigate the scope for this concept to be utilised for retail bonds, with issuers establishing a set of terms that would be a platform that then covers subsequent issuance across a range of maturities and interest rate structures. Essentially for equity issues this is the position in the market now – neither rights issues nor placements require a prospectus. As retail corporate bond issues have lower risk than equity, there may be scope, where a debt programme has been established, for a term sheet to replace existing prospectus requirements – or, where there is a need for additional information due to complexity or risk, for a simpler short-form prospectus to be used. For issuers, changes in this area could potentially reduce repetitive administration, simplify the process, reduce the preparation time required and significantly reduce the cost of issuing – subject to appropriate, strong protection for investors always being retained. For investors, changes might assist with informed decision making by enabling simpler comparison of bonds and providing easier to understand documentation. 2.Utilising the continuous disclosure regime within the ASX – this is important because the inability to use this existing system increases regulation and increases the additional, repetitive, documentation requirements for new issuers. Every corporation listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) must comply with continuous disclosure requirements under the Corporations Act. This ensures that the market is advised of information and events as they occur. Rather than creating additional reporting requirements, there may be efficiencies and benefits in prospective retail corporate bond issuers who are already required to comply with continuous disclosure requirements being able to utilise the information they have already provided to the marketplace. The Coalition, whilst recognising the different risks associated with corporate bonds, will examine the scope to utilise existing reporting requirements where possible, rather than using separate and additional requirements and documentation. For issuers this may have the potential to reduce duplication in reporting and reduce the costs associated with issuing. For investors, up-to-date information would ensure timely understanding and information and a more equal knowledge of investments due to having the same access to information. In addition all market participants stand to benefit from the good governance imposed by continuous disclosure and the likelihood that it will assist the market to efficiently discover and set prices. 3.Review the director's liability for prospectus in line with the COAG review of director’s liability and investigate the scope to align it with the current requirements for short form prospectuses and cleansing notices. Consistent with the COAG Reform process regarding the personal liability of directors there should be a review of the existing director’s deemed liability regime for retail corporate bonds. Provided any reforms in this area could be undertaken without compromising the integrity of the system and investor protections, any such reforms would have the potential to simplify issuing and reduce costs. For investors this could make retail bond issues more attractive and lead to a broader range of issuers potentially utilising the market. 4.Improving accessibility – this is important because just as issuing of retail corporate bonds must be easier, the purchase of retail corporate bonds must be simpler. The goal must be that investors can access the market as easily as other markets, such as equities. This should include access through trading platforms that can be used on laptop, tablet and mobile phone. With a growing number of investors looking to take a more active role in managing their portfolios, they must have access to the market. Furthermore there may be benefit in providing greater clarity around the definition of a ‘sophisticated investor’ under the Corporations Act. For issuers increased participation will enhance liquidity. For investors, improved accessibility will allow access to new investments that can provide certainty of income stream, lower capital risk and longer duration. For many investors, particularly those approaching retirement, these benefits are potentially substantial. 5.Educating the market – this is important because there is inadequate retail corporate bond market knowledge among market participants and potential participants.  The Coalition will task ASIC to work closely with the industry to develop a comprehensive education campaign to encourage and facilitate better knowledge and understanding of this asset class. The approach to education should be collaborative. It is necessary to improve retail investors’ understandings of all aspects of corporate bonds including terminology (such as duration, yield and coupon), features, the benefits and risks, the capital structure and where corporate bonds rank in relation to other assets. For issuers education will help with understanding of the market and the role the retail corporate bond market could play as a new source of funding, including longer term funding and the potential for this to reduce refinancing risk. For issuers education will lead to greater understanding of the investment and therefore reduce the risk of purchasing an unsuitable investment. Conclusion The Coalition understands that the issues I have just discussed are important areas of potential reform for Government which can see the market grow and develop. Many other aspects are up to the market to progress, such as relative pricing, fees, tenor, volume, etc Importantly the Coalition will consult with stakeholders before making any changes. As the market develops additional issues will doubtless be raised which may require further consideration by Government. For example, one area raised by some in the financial market relates to the scope and merit of facilitating existing “seasoned” wholesale bonds being moved to the listed debt platform, so they can be traded by retail and wholesale investors interchangeably – similar to the approach being taken for Commonwealth Government Securities. It is suggested that this would allow a large number of wholesale bonds to be available to retail investors, thereby creating better price transparency, more liquidity and a good foundation for future primary issuance, versus trying to build the market one new issue at a time. These and other issues would be matters for future consideration. In the meantime much can be done quickly to breath real life into the development of a sustainable retail corporate bond market. The Coalition stands ready to take such action. Andrew Robb Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1455 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1446/Speech--Motion-to-Suspend-Standing-and-Sessional-Orders.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1446 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1446&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1446/Speech--Motion-to-Suspend-Standing-and-Sessional-Orders.aspx MOTION TO SUSPEND STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:03): I second the motion. Standing orders should be suspended, because the final fig leaf hiding Labor's incompetence and economic ineptitude is withering before our eyes. The surplus is dead. Despite Labor's best efforts at budget fiddles and budget fraudulence, this government is finally being bludgeoned by the fiscal consequence of years of reckless spending. The government is squirming away from its non-negotiable promise to deliver a surplus. The pretence of having your cake and eating it as well has been exposed—and doesn't everybody know it. Standing orders need to be suspended, because we see today that only one in four Australians believe that Labor will be able to deliver its promise to get back into the black before the election. One in four, 25 per cent of Australians only, believe that this government can deliver a surplus—will get back into the black—after years of economic growth, after the biggest boom in our history, after terms of trade that were at 150-year highs, after an increase in commodity prices of only 350 per cent! Yet they still cannot deliver a surplus, and 75 per cent of Australians can see straight through the rhetoric of this government, see the emptiness of Labor's economic promises. That is why standing orders must be suspended. There is a crisis of confidence right across the community; there has been now for 18 months to two years: 13 per cent of all disposable income across 7½ million households is being saved, because people have no confidence to spend money. No wonder retail is on its knees. That is $120 billion taken out of the economy in one year in savings. Why? The only reason is that people have no confidence that this government will do what it says it will do. Seventy-five per cent today confirmed that they do not believe that this government will deliver a surplus. They do not believe any of the nonsense this government has been peddling in budget after budget—the shonky forecasts, the endless spending, the reckless spending. It goes on and on and on. The economic fraudulence of this government was so starkly exposed when, as my colleague said, within a day of the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, it was revealed that the first quarter's payment of the resources super tax was a bit fat zero. The Treasurer became the first Treasurer in history to initiate a tax that does not actually raise any money! In fact, we are told that it could in the years ahead lead to the payment of money back to companies. This is a oncer; this is a first. The important thing is that walking away from a surplus does have major consequences. It will result in more unfunded spending. It will open the floodgates to spending. The $120 billion black hole is only the start of it—this will open the floodgates for more spending. We have heard it today, with the Asia vision: billions of dollars being promised at this dispatch box, by implication. Where is that coming from? It is on top of the $120 billion black hole. We will see more borrowing, more debt, more issuing of government bonds, more pressure on the Australian dollar. Penny Wong, the finance minister, said in her first speech that 'this government has made it clear that the return to surplus is not negotiable'. Well, this government is crab-walking away from that promise, made over 150 times in the last two years. The backflip over this non-negotiable commitment to deliver a surplus is leaving Australia more vulnerable, more exposed—we need a change of government if we are to remove the crisis of confidence that is so endemic in our community. (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. If I do not get to put the question, you won't get to have a division. I call the Leader of the House. Andrew Robb Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:10:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1446 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1445/MPI--THE-FAILURE-OF-THE-GOVERNMENT-TO-DELIVER-AN-ECONOMIC-AND-FISCAL-PLAN-TO-RETURN-THE-BUDGET-TO-SURPLUS.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1445 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1445&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1445/MPI--THE-FAILURE-OF-THE-GOVERNMENT-TO-DELIVER-AN-ECONOMIC-AND-FISCAL-PLAN-TO-RETURN-THE-BUDGET-TO-SURPLUS.aspx THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DELIVER AN ECONOMIC AND FISCAL PLAN TO RETURN THE BUDGET TO SURPLUS   Mr Robb (Goldstein) (16:00):  Wouldn't you know it? This happens every time. I seem to follow the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Lindsay, every time we have a matter of public importance, which gives him an opportunity to defend the position of the government. He did not spend one second defending any position of the government. It was just another exercise in cheap shots, anecdotes and all the rest. As usual, he scurries off. It is a fruitless exercise but it does reinforce the point about this whole debate—that is, that the failure to outline a plan to return to surplus in MYEFO is yet again just another symbol, another example of the failure now for many years to present any sort of vision, any sort of road map as to where they are taking the country. That is why there is a crisis of confidence in Australia. That is why people are saving like there is no tomorrow. That is why businesses are sitting on, in many cases, very healthy balance sheets. There is no confidence about investing in this country and it largely stems from the absence of leadership.   There is failure, from the Prime Minister down, to articulate what this government will do not just to deal with the problems but to set us up for the opportunities. How can adding $257 billion of debt to Australia—and growing—be consistent with the rhetoric we heard over the weekend about Asia? We have the minister responsible for Asia now in the House. How can Australia properly take advantage of what should be a miraculous, spectacular three decades—in my view—if we are burdened with the highest debt this country has ever had? If you add federal and state debt together, we have nearly half a trillion dollars of debt and it is growing. There is nothing in the MYEFO or in the budget before it which shows that this government has any idea, has any prospect, has any concept of how it is going to take Australia to a better place. On 30 August this year the Australian Financial Review wrote a telling editorial in which it observed:   … going forward, the budget is facing a black hole of colossal proportions and Labor has no strategy to deal with it.   That is what the community thinks. Here is a government now with a black hole of colossal proportions. This is after, by the way, years of growth. Farmers will tell you that if you have a bunch of good seasons in a row then you put hay away for when you need it, when the bad season comes.   This government keeps telling us about trend growth and we do know that we have had the biggest mining boom and 150 years. Compared with the rest of the world, we are so blessed yet we have a debt going through the ceiling; we have a government with a colossal black hole. We saw not one thing in the budget which suggested how this government would pay for $120 billion of commitments that it floated are going to be made in the years ahead.   You watch at the next election the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government will claim credit for having introduced it. We are so far away from it that it does not matter. It is a con on the Australian public but, most importantly, on the most disadvantaged people in our community. They are being misled to believe that it is just around the corner, that it is funded and that it is deliverable. This government has no moral fibre. To go out there and mislead people in this way is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. It is because, as the Financial Review said, Labor has no strategy to deal with it, none whatsoever.   We saw nothing from the member for Lindsay. The Assistant Treasurer, would you believe, had 15 minutes to quietly and confidently articulate a case for the plan they have got to deliver a surplus. What did we hear? Nothing but cheap shots straight out of the Labor-union book of how to play politics. It is a game to them. It is game of politics, it is not about using politics to get in good policy. It is about playing with people's minds and with policy to deliver politics and power. That is the objective.   This absence of a plan or strategy that the Financial Review spoke about and the growing colossal black hole that the Financial Review also spoke about on August 23 are not new developments. The failure of this government to outline a plan to return Australia to surplus has been with us for some time as have the growing consequences.  I am not normally in the habit of quoting myself but I thought it would be instructive to remind people of what we on this side of the House and so many others over the last two or three years have been saying. It is instructive to go back and see what the nature of this debate was two years ago. I quote from a speech I gave on 16 February 2011. Right back then they were making cast-iron promises about a surplus in 2012-13 and it helped them get through the 2010 election.   They forecast nirvana. They forecast these things and then, when they do not happen, say, 'We've had to deal with some setbacks.' A 150-year high in terms of trade—what a setback that was! That was really bad luck! A 350 per cent increase in commodity prices—oh, shock, horror! How bad is that, to have to deal with those sorts of problems! I feel so sorry!   But to go back to what was said nearly two years ago:   Any "illusory" surplus in 2012-13 ignores the spending commitments being made during the boom times that still need to be met when the boom tapers off and revenues fall.   We were talking about terms of trade coming off—not collapsing but coming off—two years ago. But what did the government do? It ignored this advice. I went on to say:   On top of that, several leading economists claimed last week that a potential $7.4bn black hole existed in the mining tax forecasts due to the "highly risky" revenue stream.   Here we are: leading officials, leading business people and leading economists were warning two years ago that this mining tax was not going to deliver a cent. But the government blithely went on. They have been beating their breasts. They have been lying and obfuscating and misleading the population again and again and again.   Dr Emerson:  Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Consistent with the standing orders, I seek a withdrawal of the claim that this government has been lying. We know that the man who is at the dispatch box himself has a $70-billion black hole. He might tell the truth about that.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott):  The member for Goldstein will withdraw the word.   Mr Robb:  I withdraw. The minister opposite talks about black holes. Again, I refer the minister to 30 August—a $120-billion colossal black hole. We are not saying this; this is an analysis by the most respectable financial paper in the country. In that same speech I went on:   As a consequence of the blowout in the structural deficit, the cloud over the amount and volatility of the mining tax revenue and the potential collapse of revenue if the terms of trade drop … Swan and Penny Wong must guarantee full disclosure of the estimated structural deficit in this year's budget papers.   Well, of course, all of that is what we have seen in the last two years. The government has not responded to any of it. We have a government that has no direction and must be gone. Andrew Robb Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1445 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1440/Speech--Online-Education-in-the-Asian-Century--The-Australian-Opportunity.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1440 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1440&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1440/Speech--Online-Education-in-the-Asian-Century--The-Australian-Opportunity.aspx Wednesday, 17 October 2012 Presentation to Online Education Forum Online Education in the Asian Century – The Australian Opportunity   Earlier this year I expressed the view that there was no reason why Australian educators couldn’t be teaching 10 million international students in a decade.   In some quarters from within the education sector itself my remarks were met with scepticism.   How on earth could we go from teaching fewer than 700,000 international students to a mind boggling 10 million in 10 years?   It was clear that some who raised concern had the blinkers on.   Their immediate thought was how could we possibly accommodate all these students in Australia?   They missed the point.   While we should be aiming to increase international enrolments in-country, the real growth opportunities are off-shore.   Australian university and vocational education institutions are so well placed for major ‘bricks and mortar’ involvement within Asia Pacific countries.   The RMIT experience in Ho Chi Minh city, and now Hanoi, is a case in point, as is the recent opening of Monash University’s joint-graduate campus in Suzhou.   As importantly, content will be delivered over different online platforms in a variety of ways, online lectures via sophisticated videoconferencing, vocational training modules delivered over tablets and I-Phones, to increasing aggregation and partnerships of universities and VET institutions across the region.   I was most heartened after a story appeared in The Australian which reported my ’10 million’ comments, to be contacted by several individuals who are extremely active in this space.   Instead of saying: “Andrew, what were you thinking?” the response was: “You are right on the money.”   One of them was Jonathan Marshall who is one of the sponsors of today’s event.   His innovative thinking, his passion and his drive are infectious.   It was at Jonathan’s invitation that I have the privilege to speak to you today.   Education is one of our nation’s top strengths, up there with energy, resources, agriculture and medical research.   It has been tracking as our third largest export behind iron ore and coal, and represents more than 25 per cent of our total services exports.   ABS statistics track the sustained growth in exports of Australian education services. In 1999 total education exports were put at $4 billion and peaked in 2009-10 at an incredible $19 billion.   Australian international student enrolments have grown from just under 300,000 in 2002, to 450,000 in 2007 to 696,000 last year including 139,000 who were studying off-shore.   The training sector has however been hit in the recent dip we have seen in education exports on account of the high dollar and ham fisted changes to student visa requirements.   Analysis by PIMCO, the world’s largest bond trader, suggests that some of the stickiness of the $A at current high levels, despite easing terms of trade, reflects the impact of an unprecedented $256 billion in Commonwealth Government Bonds under issuance – our second biggest export in 2011-12.   But that’s another story and we’ll keep the politics out of this!   DFAT data shows that total education earnings fell by $2.6 billion between 2009 and 2011, with vocational colleges losing some $500 million in fees.   As with any person, or organisation or company, if we are to broaden and deepen our economic base and take advantage of our opportunities we must back our strengths.   Middle Class Growth   And the opportunity to take our strengths to a higher level is emerging on our doorstep, with the massive expansion of the middle class throughout the Asia Pacific over the coming decades.   OECD figures paint an extraordinary picture.   In 2009 the Asia Pacific accounted for 28 per cent of the global middle class or 525 million people.   By 2030, not 2050 or 2100, that figure is expected to be an almost inconceivable 66 per cent or 3.2 billion people. Europe by comparison will be a distant second at 14 per cent.   Over this period middle class spending is expected to surge from $4.9 billion to $32.5 billion.   Well paid employment is what will break billions of people out of poverty, and the lower classes, and into the middle class.   Education at various levels is the crucial ingredient for this to happen.   This extends from basic literacy and numeracy, tailored vocational training through to high level tertiary education.   For Australia there are simply wonderful opportunities in these developing mass markets.   As well, we are in the same geographic region.   The advantage of being in the same time zone is seldom recognised but can’t be emphasised enough.   I have run the Australian arm of a major global company headquartered in the eastern states of the U.S.A. Believe me, you tire very quickly of regular 24 hour each way trips, and of constant conference calls in the middle of the night.   By contrast, I have also run a company focussed on the Asian region. Overnight flights to and fro, and telephone and electronic contact in roughly the same time zone bring enormous efficiencies and advantages, not least of which is quality of life and impact on families.   But these opportunities won’t fall into our laps; the rest of the world has recognised the opportunity. If we don't take it, others will.   And the trend to online learning won't go away; in fact it is accelerating dramatically. In the United States close to 10 per cent of tertiary students in 2003 took at least one online course. That percentage grew to 25 per cent in 2008, nearly 30 per cent in 2009 and is forecast to be 50 per cent by 2014.   In education Australia has strong fundamentals, we have a good reputation; we have the technology and the capacity to innovate.    But there is no time to waste. We need to be flexible and responsive to the various demands of the market.   A Surging India   Let’s for a moment look at India, the world’s largest democracy, current population 1.24 billion.   It is estimated that India’s working age population will grow by 240 million over the next 20 years.   Currently, around 60-70 per cent of the Indian workforce has not completed secondary education.   The need to increase the education and skills base of the population is crucial given India’s annual growth targets of around 8 per cent on average over the next five years.   The magnitude of the challenge was highlighted in a recent significant study by McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).   It found that India will need to retrain at least 285 million working Indians with no secondary education – and 150 million of these have not even completed primary education.   Capacity constraints within the Indian education system present an enormous challenge.   For instance 15 million young Indians enter the labour market each year, yet current VET capacity is estimated at just three million and the standard of training is generally poor.   It is estimated that an additional 50,000 new VET colleges would be required to meet in-country demand and the cost of construction alone is prohibitive.   Demand for Skills   The need for vocationally skilled workers in India spans across most industry verticals including mining, agriculture, retail, automotive, hospitality, aged care, tourism and education itself.   The focus on skills and skill sets is vital. In the developing world the requirement to up-skill the workforce is paramount.   Rigid qualifications are far less important than the skills obtained.   Retail for instance will require an additional five million skilled workers by 2016.   There is a similar story in regard to VET demand across the Asia Pacific in countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. Then you have Africa.   It is estimated that nearly 60 per cent of a predicted 600 million net additions to the global labour force through to 2030 will occur in India, south Asia and Africa.   According to McKinsey unprecedented action will be required on education and training to address global mismatches in supply of workers with skills needed to drive 21st century economies.   Demand for Higher Education   While practical, vocational training will be critical to supporting growth, higher levels of skills and university qualifications are also in desperate need.   India for example needs four million capable engineering graduates per year, yet is only producing 500,000.   Of these an estimated 97 per cent required extra training in order to be employable, according to The Economist.   The utilisation of technology and the rapidly evolving online environment seems the obvious means of providing new educational firepower throughout the Asia Pacific.   The affordability of wireless mobile devices and the mobility they provide bring almost boundless opportunities for the delivery of online education and training.   They are also empowering millions and millions of people and can provide a virtual classroom almost regardless of where they live.   An estimated 120 million Indians currently have internet access, which includes about 90 million in regional areas.   By 2015 McKinsey estimates that figure will surge to 450 million.   Already the majority of internet access (55 per cent) is by way of mobile device, phones, tablets and notebooks.   McKinsey in fact predicts that India will become the first truly mobile digital society.   India’s online education market will be worth $40 billion by 2017 and that is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the region.    Look at the ECE market in India alone. It is growing by 25 per cent per year. Currently about 120 million children under the age of six receive no formal early childhood education.   More than 90 per cent of the current ECE workforce has no formal training.   By 2020 there is a projected need for an extra two million ECE teachers/educators, yet there is almost no physical training infrastructure in place.   For the masses in India and elsewhere, the online environment would seem the only cost-effective, scalable solution for the timely provision of innovative educational outcomes.   The technology and the platforms are and will be increasingly available but content will be king.   The potential of mobile devices as the enabler of new learning is well understood in India.    The price of Apple products and the like puts them out of reach of the vast majority of Indians, the very people who will help drive growth with training and education.   World’s Cheapest Tablet   Last year what is described as the ‘world’s cheapest tablet’ was launched in India.   The ‘AaKash’ or ‘Sky’ in Hindi, is being sold to students at a subsidised price of just $35, but even at full price it retails for about $65.   While lacking the speed and whiz-bang features of the more sophisticated tablets we are accustomed to, it is light-weight, has a touch-screen and USB ports.   It supports video conferencing and has three hour battery life. It can connect to the Internet via WiFi and through mobile phone networks.   The development of fourth generation (4G) mobile networks will help address capacity constraints.   Infotel Broadband for instance has plans to roll out more than 100,000 towers which will deliver high-speed wireless services.   It is now estimated by Cisco that by 2016 there will be two billion networked devices, up from one billion in 2011.   The government’s aim is to use the ‘Aakash’ to help provide university students access to course materials.   India’s Telecoms and Education Minister Kapil Sibal said: “The rich have access to the digital world, the poor and ordinary have been excluded. ‘Aakash’ will end that digital divide.”   Clearly, with sophisticated content, specifically targeted to demand, the ‘Aakash’ and similar devices present enormous potential for delivering vocational training and base ‘job-readiness’ education.   The same applies in other developing parts of the globe, in major countries in our region such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand, and further afield in Africa and South America.   China’s Evolving Story   China’s demand for international education is also an evolving story.   Again, capacity constraints including fierce student competition for limited domestic places present enormous challenges.   Economic growth and increasing incomes have put overseas study within the reach of many.   There is also a keen appetite for western educational experiences.   Chinese government data shows that as of 2011 there were 339,700 Chinese students studying abroad, an increase of 19 per cent on 2010.   Between 1978 and 2011 a total of 2.2 million Chinese have studied abroad.   China’s embrace of online technology is underlined by projections that 45 per cent of the population will have Internet access by 2015.   This will also bring new demand for content and opportunities to train and educate the workforce required to drive growth in an ageing population.   Given the high regard and the fascination among younger Chinese for western products and experiences, those without the means to physically study or train abroad may increasingly turn to international online offerings, or online combined with shorter, more affordable international experiences.   A Brand to Leverage   Australian Universities and VET colleges in general, and many individually, have a stellar global reputation and they have an exciting opportunity to capitalise on transformative technology to digitise and distribute their content.   For starters there is almost a false dichotomy between the vocational and university sector, yet both have opportunities in both practical and theoretical content.   Much of the content universities sit on could focus more on the practical elements without losing their academic (theoretical) heritage and thus provide a very attractive educational product for the Indian and Asian markets.   They just have to overcome the stigma of the words ‘vocational’, ‘competencies’ and ‘skill sets’ and realise they have a strategic asset they should capitalise on.   For example the University of Queensland, the University of Melbourne, the University of New England and Charles Sturt University all have world class agricultural schools – they sit on content that could be contextualised for regional agricultural industry skills development needs – which also eventually create a pathway to qualification/certification in the future if or when there is sufficient economic validity to going down that path.   Tropical medicine is another example – there are always shortages of sufficiently qualified doctors in most of the region that could benefit from high quality visually based digital instructional content developed by say University of Queensland Health Sciences.   There is not one university in Australia that does not have content that could be contextualised and adapted to the needs of markets in the region and where it makes sense could partner with existing VET operators with shared capabilities in a particular domain.   Even mimicking the lab experience is being tackled in some U.S. universities; the boundaries of simulations are being aggressively pushed using the skills and experience of the online gaming world.   The point being universities and VET colleges have a terrific brand they can leverage and content they can adapt – they just need to view the opportunity through a different lens.   Yet, it is seen as too costly and risky.   Our education sector needs to approach the market opportunity as a business problem requiring a business solution – a solution that is efficient, effective and scalable.   As a country we need to identify and assess this Asian Pacific opportunity to determine the total addressable market for potential educational products and services – start with the big picture and work backwards.   Identify where the largest profit pools exist – Where’s the money? Who will pay?   Once key industry customers are identified – work with them to develop products to ensure these are designed to satisfy their needs and get assurance that they will purchase the product in principle – no ‘build it and they will come’ approaches.   We need to identify low cost scalable distribution channels and potential partners whose products complement ours, while targeting the same customer group.   We need to design core products to be adapted for different markets without significant and costly re-build (similar to standard car platforms).   And we need operational excellence as the key to sustainable success – design a lean business system that can scale efficiently to produce premium products at low cost.   Growth in demand for education both domestically and throughout the region is not going to be driven purely by secondary school leavers. In fact they are really only a small part of the picture I am talking about today.   Demand for skills and qualifications will constantly change as workforces adapt to technological and economic development, and in this context it is demand from the adult population that will really drive growth.   As many adults already work and don’t have the capacity to attend regular bricks and mortar institutions, the advent of online and electronic education is a true enabler.   This evolution will be very difficult for many individual educational institutions, and successful transition may well involve establishing autonomous business units unencumbered by existing processes and priorities. In many cases this will involve partnering with innovators.   Furthermore, enormous online opportunities exist to both enhance the educational experience within Australian universities and VET colleges, as well as using such material to capture international opportunities.   For example, some are streaming lectures, with the lecturer speaking in one window and slides or other teaching aids being clearly presented and in sync in another window.   Others are preparing similar online lectures but using them for what some call ‘hybrid teaching’ – asking students to view the online lecture as homework, and then using the time when they come to class to engage in active dialogue, rather than sit through a traditional lecture and have only a couple of minutes, if that, to answer questions at the end.   Targeting our Online Educational Effort   While this online adaption of traditional teaching methods will have a useful place, capturing the extraordinary educational needs in our region will involve highly sophisticated new age educational products, using enormous creativity and innovation.   It will have to take account of illiteracy and innumeracy, be user friendly, visual and interactive. It will involve role playing scenarios delivered via smart but simple apps.   Fundamentally most people learn by seeing and by doing, not by reading abstract texts and complex theories.   To be effective online content must be relevant and meaningful, it must be immersive, entertaining, stimulating and emotionally engaging.   The smartest and most driven of innovators already know all of this and they are working to make it happen.   They see a market opportunity as a business problem that requires a business solution not an academic solution – a solution that is efficient, effective and scalable.   They are building relationships and partnerships identifying need and developing content.   They are drawing on the talents of film producers, animators, programmers, language specialists and even script writers, actors and voice over specialists. And it isn’t cheap.    For example, developing an effective equivalent Certificate III course in retail, for use on a $35 tablet, could alone cost several million dollars.   They are spending time upfront in the design phase to ensure better end products and effective online content; content which sees students or employees become immersed in a 'story based' curriculum.   They are developing products that are intuitive, with extensive user testing ensuring user interfaces are user friendly.   They are working on designing such core products and platforms that can be readily adapted to different markets without the need for costly re-builds.   They are focusing on operational excellence with market scale providing the scope to deliver premium products at a necessary low cost.   The ultimate return on investment can be spectacular given the numbers of potential customers.     Collaboration and Quality   I understand concerns that the advent of free Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) will impact upon the way academics and universities work and teach.   However, while there isn’t a business model for MOOCs that stacks up, it does underscore that there are very large numbers of people following MOOCs who traditional higher education is not reaching.   MOOCs are also highlighting the power and potential of collaboration by quality professors, teachers and instructors across the education space to improve the skills being taught and the qualifications on offer.   Michael Jones, Google’s Chief Technology Advocate, recently spoke of ‘movie star’ professors and, whilst I am not going to get into that debate, I can envision collaboration by leaders in a field resulting in top-quality branded product for use in teaching, with much of the content involving animatics and simulations.   This collaboration might result in a purely online or electronically delivered course however it could also result in a flagship on-site course, perhaps a residential period as a portion of a full course, one semester in six for example.   The premium product offered through collaboration could well increase overall demand for the course based on the appeal of an in-person component hosted by a world-leading team.   Collaborative teams may even be cross-disciplinary, drawing together relevant aspects from different spheres, indeed that may be one of the best ways to make the most of collaboration.   Capturing the Opportunity   Australian university and vocational education has an enviable brand reputation but that will only take us so far, we need to be among the first movers because others are acting on the opportunity.   German, Singaporean, Malaysian and Israeli VET training entities are rapidly setting up operations in India.   They are developing partnerships like Israel in agriculture and Germany in automotives. They are adopting blended models utilising both technology and ‘training the trainers’.   Several large Indian private education and technology companies are also establishing partnerships with U.S. educational publishers to deliver online skills development content in India.   Elsewhere, global education leader Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) is combining with leading Korean wireless service provider SK Telecom to develop and deliver world-class educational content to mobile devices.   And in Singapore the Ministry of Education will launch a sophisticated online learning portal in 2013.   Complacency and narrow minded thinking will be our greatest enemy.   Simply providing some course material in PDF form, without visual engagement and tactility simply doesn’t cut it.   But I can understand how the need to evolve to meet global demand is a daunting task.   It has resulted in a reluctance among universities, major VET operators, including TAFEs and even private early childhood education (ECE) providers to invest or collaborate in the production of high quality online content.   Yet, education is a key part of the next wave of microeconomic reform that will boost productivity and innovation and ensure Australia’s prosperity in the decades ahead. Online and electronic education have a key role to play in this reform.      The Role of Government   To this end government can play a critical role in fostering a more entrepreneurial, risk-taking, innovative response from our university and vocational education institutions.   Reducing very significantly the strangling red tape is fundamental, as is providing much greater management autonomy, for the TAFE sector in particular, but also our universities, and increasingly the private providers.   Providers of higher education need more freedom and flexibility to leverage the particular strengths of their own institution, and to respond to the dramatically changing circumstances and opportunities they now confront.   The one-size-fits-all approach has held our tertiary education sector back. The emerging online technology and innovation facilitates a progression to policies that focus on competency and mastery, allowing students to accelerate or consolidate, making the most of their time.   To this end, especially in the VET space, we must progress to the recognition, accreditation and training of skill sets as a fundamental component of life-long learning.   The funding approaches to higher education needs to reflect the diverse missions of all our providers, while driving increasing quality, with decreasing cost.   Conclusion   Australia’s educational sector has the potential to lead our engagement with the emerging middle class of the Asia Pacific, and in the process establish literally tens of millions of personal linkages into the region.   Such linkages will contribute hugely to future economic and social engagement, and do more than anything else to foster peace and harmony with our regional neighbours.   For their part, Australia’s governments, both state and federal, need to lead Australia’s advocacy of our educational ambitions and abilities, but not in a predatory way, but rather in a way which treats our Asian Pacific neighbours as potential partners.   This means that Australian governments and Australian society must be ready for deeper relationships with Asia.   The future for Australia's university and vocational education sector is rich with opportunity, if only we have the courage and freedom to grasp it Andrew Robb Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:07:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1440 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1438/MPI--The-urgent-need-for-the-Government-to-provide-accurate-information-on-Australias-current-budgetary-situation.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1438 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1438&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1438/MPI--The-urgent-need-for-the-Government-to-provide-accurate-information-on-Australias-current-budgetary-situation.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:47): No wonder there is a crisis of confidence in the Australian community—people saving like they never have before; businesses not investing, despite cashed up balance sheets. We have just heard the member for Lindsay—the Assistant Treasurer, would you believe? He had 15 minutes and was unable to answer one question, not one question, posed to him by the shadow Treasurer. No wonder there is a crisis of confidence. No wonder he is leaving the chamber. Off he goes. He has not given one answer in 15 minutes. It is pathetic. For over two years now, we have been warning this government about its reckless spending and the impact that that is having on creating a structural deficit, a situation where the government has now committed this country to well over $100 billion of ongoing new spending, which—when the rivers of resource gold start to dry up to some extent; not collapse, but when they start to come back—we will be unable as a country to afford the commitment, the structural deficit, the reckless spending that this government has embarked on. Warren Buffett once said that it is only when the tide goes out that you discover who is swimming naked. The tide is going out on this government, and what it is revealing is not a pretty sight. You never hear this government refer to debt. When was the last time we heard this government talk about debt? Never. They never talk about it. You never hear this government refer to the significance of the four biggest budget deficits in this nation's history. You never hear this government talk about the impact on the broader economy of needing to fund this record debt. You saw no comment two weeks ago when that record debt went over a quarter of a trillion dollars. For the first time in our history, the Australian federal government now owes over a quarter of a trillion dollars. I will put this into some context by asking one simple question—I put this to the chamber: what was Australia's second-largest export last year? Easy question. Iron ore? No; that was the largest. Coal? Gas? Wool? No. I will give you the answer. Australia's second-largest export last year—according to PIMCO, the world's largest bond investor—was Commonwealth government bonds. Would you believe that? Have we ever heard this? Here we have a debate about the government providing accurate information but no-one in this chamber was able to answer the question. Minister Burke here is totally ignorant of the fact that the second-biggest export last year was Commonwealth government bonds. Would you believe it! Not only is that an interesting fact; it also has implications. Importantly, PIMCO go on to say that funding the record debt—described by them as a 'capital tidal wave'—has contributed to the high level of Australia's currency. Funding this debt has held up the Australian currency at record levels but it has also provided none of the direct economic benefits that other large exports provide when they increase terms of trade and push up the value of the dollar. The government bonds have been in the market pushing up the Australian dollar while this government says that it is doing all it can to help those affected by the high dollar—manufacturers, the tourist industry, those selling education overseas and the millions of businesses that are trade exposed in this country and do not have the benefit of iron ore and coal sales and associated activities. We have been blessed with high iron ore and coal prices. As terms of trade have gone up so has the dollar; that is what normally happens. In fact terms of trade are coming off in Australia at a much greater rate than was anticipated, even in the recent budget. The budget as it stands assumes a fall in the terms of trade of 5.75 per cent. So, when the Treasurer was asked, 'What have you allowed for this reduction or fall-off in price?' he said, 'Of course we have done that; we've assumed terms of trade to come back 5.75 per cent.' However, based on falls in commodity prices since June, economists are almost unanimous in projecting that the terms of trade are likely to fall this year a further 10 per cent over and above what the budget papers assumed just back in May. That gives a shortfall of about $20 billion. Just watch this upcoming MYEFO. It will be brought forward—it will come out sooner rather than later—so that they can make assumptions which they hope to get by with. Watch the trickery. Watch this government fudge these numbers with trickery and subterfuge. You will see it writ large again, as we saw it in the budget. This is a government that is not, in any way, making a contribution to accurate information on Australia's current budgetary situation. Let me tell you more, though, about the problem with relying on the funding of government debt on overseas markets through government bonds. When the banks borrow they hedge the dollar, and that borrowing has a minimum impact on the value of the Australian dollar. Many of the banks are pulling out or they are repaying offshore borrowing faster than they raise new debt. What we are seeing now, however, is that offshore investors in government bonds—many of them are central banks—often do not hedge their foreign exchange exposure, as they are specifically attempting to diversify their foreign exchange reserves. As a consequence, in contrast to the banks, who hedge their A-dollar proceeds, foreign investors buying Australian dollars to invest in government bonds on an unhedged basis put upward pressure on the Australian dollar. So this manic drive to spend, spend, spend is pushing up debt, debt, debt, which is resulting in a quarter of a trillion dollars of government bonds, which are going onto the world market unhedged because the buyers of those bonds do not want to hedge those things—they are trying to spread their risk. As a consequence the Australian dollar is being held up. I suspect that all of us in this chamber wander around our electorates and other parts of the community and now people—businessmen and others—are asking us, 'Why is the Australian dollar staying up when the commodity prices have come off?' After the global financial crisis, before they started to spend, spend, spend, the automatic stabiliser of a lower dollar came in. The dollar dropped from one to the US down to 60c. It was our biggest trade performance on record—ever—in the first quarter of 2009, because of the automatic stabiliser and low interest rates. That is what saved this economy, with a great budget position from which to go into that global financial crisis—not the wanton spending that has taken place in the year or two, or three or four since. That is not what saved jobs; it was this automatic stabiliser. Now their debt is stopping that happening again. As the commodity prices come off, the A-dollar is being held because this government is putting bonds into the market at a rate which is holding up the Australian dollar. It is materially impacting on the inability of manufacturers, our tourist operators and our education exporters to compete on world markets. This is dereliction of duty. This is misrepresentation. This is obfuscation of the facts in this situation. Of course, Minister Burke opposite just smiles. Why wouldn't those opposite smile? That is their answer to all of these things. There is no capacity for fiscal stimulus if things really come off now, because it can only be funded by debt, which means more pressure on the A-dollar. The Treasury monetary policy is being compromised, also, because it is down now to only 0.25 per cent above the so-called crisis level—as it was called by the Treasurer back during the GFC. So fiscal policy has been thrown out of the ring. We cannot use that if things turn down even further, and monetary policy is constrained. This government is incompetent. It has got us into a very vulnerable position. This government needs to give up the reins of office if we are to restore the stability and confidence that this country needs. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1438 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1437/Clean-Energy-Amendment-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1437 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1437&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1437/Clean-Energy-Amendment-Bill-2012.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (17:21): I rise to speak on the clean energy amendment bills, which are designed primarily to remove the price floor of $15 per tonne on carbon and to link Australia's carbon tax to the European emissions trading scheme. In coming to a response to these bills, I read the minister's second reading speech. Essentially, in amongst all the fantasy, the minister outlined the government's so-called underpinning principles of its carbon tax policy: (1) to be environmentally effective, (2) to be economically efficient and (3) to be socially fair. So it is not unreasonable to put those principles and the attempt to abide by those principles to the test, which is what I would like to do—to look at how environmentally effective, how economically efficient and how socially fair this might be. Senator Penny Wong, in her capacity as climate change minister in the previous parliament, said on 6 February 2008 at an AiG luncheon: The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain. I was the shadow minister for climate change for 12 months in the lead-up to the collapse of the CPRS. We were lectured and we were hectored in this chamber and all around the country for three years over the notion that you cannot go it alone, that you have to be part of a global scheme. This principle was at the heart of everything that the Rudd government sought to do with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. They said endlessly: 'We have to be part of a global scheme and a global scheme is coming. That's why you've got to vote for this. We can't be left behind. We've got to be part of it.' We all know now what happened at Copenhagen, and it cost the member for Griffith his job. He preached this so vehemently with all of his colleagues. After Copenhagen there was no global scheme; in fact, the world fractured in the face of the global financial crisis and saw that what was proposed was a monumental waste of money that was not going to deliver environmental outcomes. But we got lectured on this endlessly for three years. And now they dare come into this chamber and say they are acting on the principle of being environmentally effective. Let us have a look at it. The EU, which we are now irrevocably linking ourselves to on carbon pricing, is dictated to by the bureaucrats in Europe. No-one has disagreed with that. No-one has contradicted the fact that now and into the future the design of the carbon tax, the price level—all of these things—will be factors determined by bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels, over which we will have zero impact. Talk about handing over our sovereignty to another nation—in this case, to 30 other nations. It is inconceivable. Nevertheless, the EU accounts for less than five per cent of world emissions. So it is not that we are linking ourselves to carbon markets that are particularly representative. It is not a deep market, it is not a robust market and it is not a reliable market. It is almost a pilot scheme when you compare it with what has been introduced in Australia. The most striking feature of the market in the European community is its persistent instability, so much so that the price has collapsed to around $7 a tonne. There is absolutely zero incentive for investment in lower emissions technology. The price to produce a megawatt hour of coal is $35, for gas it is $55, for wind it is $90 and for solar it is $330. So can you tell me that $7 a tonne is going to have any impact on investment? It will have zero impact. What will a market that goes up to $50 and back to $7 do to potential investors? What are they going to think? The market in Europe is not working to encourage low-emissions technology. The price will ultimately be set by countries without any base in natural resources. The European community is not exactly a resource powerhouse. They might make glass and a few high-technology products, all sorts of things, but they are not a resource powerhouse. Our competitors, the countries that we compete with on resources and energy, are not European countries. They might be trading partners in other respects of some consequence, but they are not competitors. So we are putting a price on our product and looking to compete with countries which have no carbon price. Yet the minister stands in this chamber and tries to make out that we are now part of a world movement. I am afraid nothing happened at Copenhagen—in fact, it fell apart—and nothing has happened ever since, which gives no prospect of anything taking place in a global sense. There is no need for the Europeans to worry about what carbon prices, if any, are charged by Australian resource competitors. They will not worry about that. They are not going to sit there in Brussels and agonise over the terms and conditions they apply and the assistance they provide to industries because of the effect those things will have on us. We will have to compete against countries such as China, Brazil, Uruguay—South American and African countries—and Canada, none of which have a carbon price in place. The Europeans are not going to worry one whit about that. Yet we should. The EU exempts virtually all its export industries from emissions trading schemes. We do not exempt ours. Let us take dairy processing—no exemptions, no assistance. It is one of our strengths. It is one thing that we do better than just about anyone in the world, apart from the New Zealanders. A lot of our prosperity has been built on these sorts of industries. There is not one whit of assistance here for the dairy industry. What about in Europe? Ninety-three per cent free permits. We are linking ourselves to Europe and their industry will have that sort of advantage. I could give you endless examples. We hear from the minister that these sorts of facts are a baseless fear campaign and that the rest of the world is in lockstep on all of this. In fact, he said in the most disingenuous component of his whole speech that, from 2013, 850 million people will live in a place where polluters pay for their pollution. That is rubbish. You cannot say that the European emissions-trading scheme bears any resemblance in terms of size or impact. The amount that will have been paid by Australians through this carbon tax, since July, by October and November this year will be equivalent to all the tax raised through all of Europe, with a population of 200 million people, over the last five years. Is that comparing apples with apples? This is madness. The UK have predicted that over the next five years, through until 2015-16, the European emissions-trading scheme will cost the UK population £5½ billion—that is, A$8.6 billion. In that same period, through until 2015-16, the Treasury has estimated that Australians will pay $25 billion. Our friends in the United Kingdom will pay the equivalent of $8.6 billion and our taxpayers will pay $25 billion. The trouble is that there are 66 million people in the UK and only 22 million people here in Australia. So when you compare apples with apples on a per capita basis, or per 22 million people, the UK will pay $2.8 billion compared to Australia, which will pay $25 billion. In other words, the European scheme will have an impact nine times less on the community than the emissions-trading scheme/carbon tax brought in by the Australian government. Yet the government seek to pretend that we are comparing apples with apples. I fear that we are in fact linking up to a scheme which is costing us nine times more than what it is costing our counterparts in the United Kingdom. Yet we are told that we are all part of a global collegiate—that everyone is in it. That is a nonsense. It was a very disingenuous contribution to this debate, to try to give Australians the impression that we are following the world. We are ahead of the world, we are acting alone and we have a price which far exceeds the price of any other country. We are the only country that has a global price—a price across our nation—which is much greater than anywhere else in the world. What is economically efficient about a carbon scheme whose entire purpose, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency repeatedly stressed, was to provide a predictable long-term signal which investors in renewables and other emissions technologies could rely on? That was the whole purpose. That is what he said. Of the carbon scheme that the government introduced, he said: Moreover, the floor price was essential to achieving that goal, as it ensures "stability and predictability" and avoids "the risk of sharp downward movements in the carbon price, which could undermine long-term investment in clean technologies". Where is the predictability now, just two months after the introduction of the carbon tax? This is the eighth major change in two months of their scheme. The government are all over the place, just making it up on the run. The minister for climate change, just two months ago, said that this was irrevocable, immutable and that you had to have a carbon floor if you wanted predictability. Now we are linked to Europe and now we have decisions made by 30 countries—politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels—where we will have no influence. Our sovereignty has been totally removed on this matter and yet Europe does not compete in the markets that we compete in. Yet our prices will be set by them. This is just incompetence on a large scale. Let us call this what it is. The carbon tax is nothing more and nothing less than a grubby political decision to keep this Prime Minister and this government in office. That is all it is. That was the inspiration for the decision. It was the reason that this Prime Minister said one thing one week and three weeks later said the absolute opposite. She deceived the Australian people, only because of a grubby political deal to stay in office. It is environmentally ineffective. In fact, it is already pushing business offshore, it is closing down businesses in Australia, investments are not being made and it is not encouraging investment in low-emissions technology. It is environmentally ineffective, it is grossly economically inefficient and we are paying six times the tax over and above what is needed to fund that sort of emissions abatement. And it is socially unfair because it is costing jobs, it is increasing taxes and it is increasing electricity prices, yet it is doing nothing for the environment. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1437 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1430/Adjournment--Catherine-Jenner-and-Pompe-Disease.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1430 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1430&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1430/Adjournment--Catherine-Jenner-and-Pompe-Disease.aspx  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADJOURNMENT Pompe Disease   Tuesday, 11 September 2012 BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (22:19): Tonight I would like to raise the plight of Catherine Jenner, a young woman from Cheltenham, which is in my electorate of Goldstein. This mother of two is just one of 25 people in Australia to be suffering from the rare recessive metabolic disorder known as Pompe disease. Catherine's body is wasting away, despite approval some four years ago by the Therapeutic Goods Administration of treatment for this disease. The federal government has not seen fit to pay for this life-saving treatment. The disease, caused by a deficiency in an enzyme, will progressively disable the heart and muscles, and within two years Catherine is expected to be confined to a wheelchair. This is a tragic case because there is a very recognised treatment widely available. Myozyme is an enzyme replacement therapy—a well-established drug which stabilises the condition. It is now available in more than 50 countries. It is not a cure but it is effective in slowing the progress of this insidious disease. In 2008 this treatment received marketing approval from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. Since then the Australian Pompe's Association has lobbied the federal government to approve funding for this therapy. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has deferred a decision on listing pending further information. We all know what that means—it is a euphemism for delay which has been orchestrated from political circles, from the federal government. These types of delays are unfortunately typical of what we have increasingly seen from this government over recent years, and they are a direct result of financial mismanagement. In fact, they are delays which stem from things such as that evidenced just last week by the World Economic Forum report, which confirmed that, in 2007-08, Australia ranked 10th in the world in terms of wastefulness of government spending but that, by 2012-13, Australia had slumped to 48th in the world. When you turn that into real dollars—real programs and real quality of life for individuals—we are talking billions. Billions of dollars have been wasted by this government through lack of attention to detail, misplaced priorities and the sheer incompetence associated with things like the pink batts scheme and the schools program. The list goes on and on. That is why this government has a $120 billion black hole in unfunded promises. After all the potential benefit of the resources boom and after having had the terms of trade higher than we have seen for 150 years, we are left with a $120 billion black hole—and these sorts of programs not being able to be funded. This is a shame of the highest order. It is so frustrating that this government is indefinitely deferring access to desperately needed drugs and treatments. Catherine is the human face of the impact of the government's penny pinching and mismanagement. She said: The available treatment can't undo what is already done to my body but it can arrest the progress of the disease. My body is getting weaker and I am getting more and more exhausted. Within six months I will need a walking aid and a year after that I will be in a wheelchair. I need this treatment now. I go between anger and disbelief that I have a life-threatening disease for which treatment is available but my government won't cover the cost. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1430 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1432/Commonwealth-Government-Securities-Legislation-Amendment-Retail-Trading-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1432 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1432&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1432/Commonwealth-Government-Securities-Legislation-Amendment-Retail-Trading-Bill-2012.aspx   Commonwealth Government Securities Legislation Amendment (Retail Trading) Bill 2012 - Second Reading Speech    Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (18:07): We have just heard a contribution from the government, from the member for Robertson, who made some fairly disparaging remarks about my colleague as she opened her remarks. I do not think the member for Robertson, having listened to her now for a few minutes, is really one to judge what is riveting or not, on that performance. But I do say that we support this initiative. It is a good initiative. It is a good thing that small investors will be able to access government bonds through a retail facility. Again picking up the member for Robertson's rhetoric, I would not get too carried away. It is a good thing—I am not putting it down—but I do not know that it is one of the greatest financial reforms in the nation's history. It is not going to add great depth and liquidity to the Australian bond market. It is a good initiative. It is an important one, but let's not get carried away. There are further important steps that I think need to be considered in this regard. The fact of the matter is that, as the member for Robertson has said, there is a cultural issue which seems to militate against investments in debt rather than in equity products. What we have found is that compared with other countries, despite having substantial superannuation funds, the proportion of those funds held in products which give an annuity or a fixed return is much, much lower than what is typically the case in retirement funds elsewhere in the world. Currently, out of the $1.3 trillion, about 16 per cent is in investments which give a fixed return. I think the US is next at about 30 or 35 per cent, but typically for the developed world we are talking about 45 to 50 per cent as the proportion of retirement fund assets invested in products which give a fixed return. With many Australians having significant superannuation holdings, going through the global financial crisis and finding that the money put aside for their retirement was substantially diminished because of the preoccupation of so many of our super funds with equity products rather than a combination of equity and debt products, people have suffered accordingly. So there is a greater interest in, and there should be a greater interest in, doing whatever we can to encourage a greater portfolio spread amongst investments, including among self-managed funds. The large super funds have been able to access government bonds and securities through the wholesale market. This initiative does not increase liquidity for banks or large insurance companies in their investment portfolios across fixed products. But self-managed funds, which are becoming increasingly attractive—I think they are now the biggest fund as a category within the range of superannuation fund organisations—have not been able to access wholesale funds. I think that perhaps the most important part of this initiative is that we will now find an opportunity for people running their self-managed funds to have access to a product which may return less but which has much greater safety, security and certainty about the return. The other thing is that this initiative will not add new money or new liquidity in any great sense. The government debt is out there and is accessible now on the wholesale market to our large institutions. But we know that Australian companies are issuing more than $26 billion to global markets in corporate bonds, yet only about $6 billion was issued in the domestic market. A lot of that is to do with the complexity of issuing and often the difficulty of purchasing government securities compared with other products. This may well lead and should lead to consideration of a broader retail corporate bond market, which may attract companies and some of that $26 billion, which would be extremely important. That would be a reform of great moment because it would potentially attract a significant part of that $26 billion, which is currently being placed overseas on the corporate bond markets, back to Australia. When you have issues such as Basel III and the increasing demands and restrictions, if you like, on our major banks and other financial institutions in terms of the capital base that they are increasingly required to hold, we do need to look very seriously at a range of products which will attract more capital and more diverse forms of capital into our financial market. In this bill in particular, though, we have in front of us not an opportunity for the retail corporate bond market but an opportunity to reinstate a retail market for government bonds not dissimilar to that which existed some 20-odd years or 30 years ago. There are distinctions, though, and they are important ones, in the way in which this has been structured, which again we support. The government has chosen a model of indirect beneficial ownership to facilitate the retail trade, which basically means that retail investors will not acquire legal ownership of the actual debt security; they will acquire a financial product—a depository interest, as it is called—which will be linked to the government security and linked to its performance. The product will provide the purchaser with a beneficial stake in the government securities. It is a neat way of providing a system where selling can be done through intermediaries and managed so that the clearing and settlement facilities for debt can be dealt with efficiently and without too great a cost. The current system, as it has stood, has not been equipped really to deal with settlement of trading directly to retail investors. Hopefully what we have before us will overcome that problem where the market has been inaccessible to retail investors, albeit that it is simply for government bonds in this case. While this is a small step towards adding depth and liquidity—and access, more importantly—to the Australian bond market, there needs to be further clarity about the actual mechanics of this model on a couple of fronts. Firstly, there should be equalisation of tax treatment for income from equity investments and income from government securities. Currently, investors are able to receive a tax concession in the form of an imputation credit on dividend income received from equity investments, while interest income received from government securities is taxed at marginal tax rates when held by an individual. A tax incentive for income from equity investments creates a distortion in investment choice which will need to be addressed by the government with regard to the legislation we have before us. Secondly, there needs to be an education process in order to inform retail investors. Again I state the importance of self-managed superannuation funds, where there is a large body of investors who could and should be considering these sorts of investments in many cases, to give greater certainty and to have a body of investments which are secure because they are government bonds. There needs to be an education process in order to foster the development of this market. It should be accompanied by measures which foster the promotion of a market in conjunction with the industry. Finally, the arrangements for prospectus requirements will need to be reviewed. Currently, the government has exempted issuers of government security depository interest from having to provide investors with product disclosure statements, giving the AOFM sole responsibility for preparing disclosure documents for retail investors. The other issue is an issue which was dealt with some years ago, when the previous government, the Howard government, found itself in a situation where it had no government debt. That was related to strong financial management. It is not a problem that confronts this government, which has record debt and rising—and all the states where there have been Labor governments are lumbering under masses of state government debt. We have gone from debt which, in net terms, was nearly zero to debt now approaching, in gross terms, half a trillion dollars. The issue that Peter Costello confronted, as to whether we should have the issue of government bonds at all, will not have to be to addressed again for a long time, I suspect. But it was resolved—I think importantly—that, given the complexity of the market, and all the range of investors these days, a government bond market, both wholesale and retail, is important and we do need to have government bonds available for those purposes, to provide that greater liquidity. As I said, that is not a problem that will confront this government. In fact, it will hand over at some stage—hopefully at the next election—to us. Mr Shorten: Don't count your chickens! Mr ROBB: I said that I hope that at the next election it will hand over to us. As my colleague said in this chamber just a few minutes ago, it seems always to be the case that Labor gets in, spends the money, creates a problem and then we are required to fix up the mess. Then, when we do, we get pilloried, as the Queensland government and the New South Wales government are getting pilloried on a daily basis in this House for trying to get the books in order, for trying to get some semblance of sound financial management back into government. No doubt we will confront the same problem. Finally, I just want to make the observation that we should not stop with a government retail bond market. There is every good reason to look to a corporate retail bond market. It is grossly underdeveloped at the moment. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to really access. It has a concentration of issuers and relatively short maturities. The key to adding genuine depth and liquidity in debt markets is through the serious development of a corporate retail bond market. Once this bill is through and bedded down, all eyes should turn to that exercise. Andrew Robb Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1432 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1418/Statute-Stocktake-Appropriations-Bill-No-1-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1418 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1418&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1418/Statute-Stocktake-Appropriations-Bill-No-1-2012.aspx Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill (No. 1) 2012  Second Reading  Tuesday, 26 June 2012   Mr ROBB» (Goldstein) (18:12): I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill (No. 1) 2012. The purpose of this bill is to repeal whole acts and special appropriations that are no longer relevant or in fact are wholly redundant. For example, it repeals old appropriations that have been spent, exhausted or lapsed. The bill therefore is housekeeping in nature. Perhaps the term 'noncontroversial' was coined for this bill. It is the fifth stock-take bill since 1988. It forms part of an ongoing process to clean-up the statute book. Despite the bills title, 'Appropriations', it does not in fact enact any new legislation, nor does it seek to appropriate any funds. If enacted, it would repeal 93 redundant appropriation acts from 1984 to 1999, 35 redundant supply acts from 1984 to 1997 and three acts containing redundant appropriations from the Treasury portfolio, including the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (Transfer of Assets and Abolition) Repeal Act 2006, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (Transfer of Pre-Transfer Contracts) Act 2006 and the Mint Employees Act 1964. The bill also repeals three superannuation related provisions contained in the Superannuation Act 1922 and the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Act, which contain redundant provisions. Megan Shellie, a bright young law student who is currently doing work experience in my office, observed that housekeeping of this nature is indeed a very good thing. She said that this exercise will be of benefit to law students everywhere in reducing the amount of redundant legislation they have to read in the course of their studies. So we have helped law students all over the country, which is a great thing! The bill's explanatory memorandum states that the bill: … would also further the Government’s deregulation agenda. The Government has stepped up its deregulation reform program … It is important that continued progress is made by Government. While this work is worthwhile—and we support the nature of this bill and the removal of all those acts from the statute; it is indeed tidying up—it does not make any material change with regard to easing the regulatory burden on business, as suggested by the explanatory memorandum. It can hardly be described as a feature of a meaningful deregulation agenda to remove some appropriation bill that applied for three years some 20 years ago. This bill serves to remind us of how the government has failed to honour its key commitments on deregulation. We are reminded of the government's failure to honour its famous so-called 'one in, one out' commitment. Remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker? What a brave statement that was, heralded from one end of the country to the other. The government said it would be the champion of deregulation. That was a commitment to repeal one piece of red tape or regulation for every new piece introduced. I searched throughout this bill. I got quite excited. I thought we were going to see some material deregulation, something that was going to improve the abysmal productivity performance of the economy after five years of this government. Despite a rabid search of this bill, nothing could be found. This commitment to repeal one piece of red tape or regulation for every one piece introduced is not added to in any significant way by this piece of legislation. The latest analysis by the Parliamentary Library shows that, since coming to office, the government has in fact introduced 18,089 new regulations and has repealed just 86 items—not 18,086 items but 86 items. This would have to be one of the most abysmal failures in terms of promises in the history of the federal parliament, and that is a big stretch when you think of some of the things that have been broken in the last year or two. But the opportunity for deregulation in this bill unfortunately has not been taken up by the government. We know that, when convenient to do so, the government exempts proposals from regulatory impact statements. It exempted the NBN related legislation. We just had a most eloquent speech from the member for McEwen—I don't think!—on the question of the NBN. What he failed to mention was what will probably be another couple of thousand regulations associated with that white elephant in the end. That is not recorded, of course. It is only the biggest infrastructure project in our history, but it does not rate a mention when it comes to featuring in the budget bottom line or when we look at new regulations that have been added. This bill, while supported by the coalition, represents another massive missed opportunity for material reform in the area of deregulation—an area of abysmal failure, I am afraid, by this government. Nevertheless, I commend the bill to the House. Andrew Robb Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1418 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1417/Tax-Laws-Amendment-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Bill-2012-Income-Tax-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Amendment-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1417 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1417&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1417/Tax-Laws-Amendment-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Bill-2012-Income-Tax-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Amendment-Bill-2012.aspx Tax Laws Amendment (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2012, Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012  Second Reading  Tuesday, 26 June 2012 Mr ROBB» (Goldstein) (09:30): It is just a few weeks since the budget was brought down and on the night of the budget we saw the government announcing the doubling of the final withholding tax on managed investment trusts to 15 per cent for foreign investors. Run forward a few weeks and here we are. The measure was listed for debate last week with an increase in the tax from 7½ per cent to 15 per cent. It was listed for debate in the House as part of an omnibus group of bills. When the government came to speak they stood and withdrew that part of the omnibus set of bills which related to this increase in the final withholding tax. We thought, 'This is a good sign; the government have had second thoughts about the stupidity of their decision to double this tax in such a difficult international investment climate. They have suddenly realised not only the impact in the short term but also what this will do our reputation as a reliable place for foreign investment.' But, no, within a space of 24 or 48 hours we were told that they were going to reintroduce this measure. We assumed that there would have to be some changes, that they had had second thoughts and they would have tidied up this legislation. But what did we see? When the legislation was reintroduced, we saw that there was not one word changed in the whole thing. It is exactly the same as the stupidity that we saw on budget night, with the announcement of the doubling of the withholding tax. This of course confused everyone, including the business sector. But then we had the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in the other place, admit that the government were effectively being dictated to by the Greens. So the legislation is announced, it is introduced, it is withdrawn and it is reintroduced, and then we find out that there is some motive for all this flip-flopping and this embarrassing approach by this government. The Tax Laws Amendment (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 and the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 have become in many ways a classic symbol of the incompetence and chaos that we are seeing on the other side of the chamber in the way in which they are managing so many issues. The political management of this government is in chaos, and it has been for months. This is very much at the crisis of confidence that is now characterising the seven million households in Australia and the crisis of confidence that is running across the business sector outside of the resources sector. Even within the resources sector we are seeing so many Australian companies have now got their sights set on Africa. I worked in that industry for several years and I have lots of contacts in the resources sector. I was in Perth three weeks ago to see a lot of these people and to get an update on what was happening with investments et cetera. Half of the people that I went to see were not available because they were in Africa. Three hundred Australian mining companies are now in Africa. In Perth I met with one of the large investment funds from the US who have been there for four years. They are very active in placing investments from the United States into our mining sector. This fellow was ropeable. I met him at the airport. He was on his way back to the United States to have four meetings across the United States with a series of investors in his $5 billion investment fund. He was at pains to single me out and to list the litany of sovereign risk issues that have so damaged the reputation of Australia as a safe investment and the 40 per cent increase in the cost of mining projects. He was beside himself that he had to go back and at every one of these meetings across the United States say to each and every one of these important investors in his investment fund that they now needed to focus on Africa. So with potentially still several years left in the mining boom, still with a pipeline of a quarter of a trillion dollars that has not gone to FID—or final investment decision—here we have an investor, who has invested time and has lived in Perth to place these investments for the last four years, who has had to go back to the United States and had to tell people to go to Africa, that investments now from that fund will go to Africa. This is what it has come to. This government is even undermining the mining boom. It takes a lot of skill, a lot of great ability, to take what are rivers of gold and compromise them so comprehensively as this government has done. In the last few years of this mining boom every mine that we could have achieved, which would have given us another 50 years of prosperity, will now be something that goes to Africa in the main. Again, by this decision, this government sent shock waves around the world not because of the size of the decision but because of the way in which it has added to that litany of sovereign risk issues that we have now confronted. If passed, this tax increase—with no grandfathering provision, which effectively makes this a retrospective piece of legislation—will do untold damage to our reputation as a stable and reliable jurisdiction to invest in. The night after the budget I rang contacts in the United States—Australians who are trying to place investments here in Australia—and they were beside themselves. They said that all directors over there look at are the headlines. They do not have time, with so many destinations for possible investment, to understand the nuances. All they see are the headlines. They have seen the headlines about prime ministers coming and going as though we have a revolving door. They have seen attacks on former prime ministers by their own side that make their hair rise. They have seen headlines on carbon tax, on mining taxes and on the reregulation of the labour market, which has compromised the cost structure of doing business in the mining sector here. They have seen the way in which this government panicked in an extreme fashion with the live cattle exports, closing off 40 per cent of the protein going to our biggest neighbour. We can almost throw a stone over to Indonesia; it houses 300 million people on our doorstep, is a big part of our future and is growing very strongly. And what do we do? Three nights after a television program we send them an email—it did not even go via the ambassador, who heard of it in the car on the radio—telling them, 'By the way, 40 per cent of the protein coming into your country is being stopped indefinitely as of now.' What a way to handle our relationship. What total humiliation of a neighbour. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Can I draw the member for Goldstein back to the bill before the House. I think he has ranged off widely this time. «ROBB»:I have not ranged widely. What I am saying is this adds to —Government members interjecting— «ROBB»: They can all laugh on the other side. This is just politics to them. This is simple and pure politics. It has nothing to do with our reputation as investors. So keep laughing! It is the way in which they deal with the serious issues in this country. This issue of the doubling of the withholding tax adds to this litany of sovereign risk issues which I have been seeking to draw attention to. Greg Hyland, the Shanghai based Regional Director for Asia Pacific Capital Markets with Jones Lang LaSalle, said recently:«ROBB»: People like investing in Australia because it has certainty, and when that environment changes people sit back and reassess the situation. Obviously, when you double taxes, it's not attractive for investors. It undermines Australia as a safe haven to invest. This sovereign risk in Australia has been monumentally enhanced by this government, and all for $260 million. Those opposite are going to sacrifice billions of dollars of investment for the sake of trying to meet a target surplus which they will never meet. They know that. They are not going to get there but, in order to try to demonstrate, that they will go to any lengths and sacrifice the integrity of our reputation as a safe investment haven. This is so perplexing, and it totally contradicts budget night 2008. On that budget night former Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, announced a progressive reduction in the withholding tax from 30 per cent to its current rate of 7.5 per cent. It is a matter which was widely regarded and supported. It was part of Labor's plan to develop Australia as a financial hub for Asia and the Pacific: The government had acted to 'dramatically improve the competitiveness of the Australian managed funds industry', Bowen said. The move, he added, would provide a 'significant boost to Australia's ability to compete globally' and would support the aim of growing assets under our management from the current $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2015. How things have changed in just four short years! Now we have a situation in which the sound principles and objectives that the then minister espoused have evaporated with this bill. More so, the Assistant Treasurer has the gall to attack us for defending Labor's original policy of 7.5 per cent. He is there attacking us for defending Labor's policy, which was widely heralded and widely admired and which has promoted significant investment in this country. There is a requirement for MITs to have an in-country office. Several major retirement funds are in the process of developing those offices, and what do we do in the middle of it? Just as people become comfortable and encouraged by this provision the government pulls the rug out. Not only that, but it does not even grandfather the provision so that they are now stuck with investments that have been made at 7½ per cent which may well not have stacked up at 15 per cent. These are multimillion-dollar and in some cases billion-dollar investments. The Assistant Treasurer claims that we have used flawed modelling from the Allen Consulting Group. Give me a break! Talk about flawed modelling. This government would have to have the worst record of any government for unreliable forecasts. The UBS forecasts miners will pay $4.78 billion over the next four years against Treasury's estimate of $13.4 billion. Look at the budget forecast—it went from $12 billion to $44 billion after making several jumps along the way over 18 months. How can people reliably assess or make investment decisions—or any decisions, for that matter—with the record this government has? This government will stoop to any level to distract and to play politics. This is an act of base politics. Clearly, they have done a deal with the Greens. Something will come up in the Senate, and we will have more confusion. This bill will be amended again in the Senate—you can see it coming. The Assistant Treasurer will stand up and defend the bills, knowing full well that they have done some deal with the Greens. It will confuse the investment market once again, and who knows what strings are attached? Who knows what other pieces of legislation will come into this place that we know nothing about and which are part of this grubby deal that the Assistant Treasurer is going to seek to put through with the Greens in the other place? This government is a walking sovereign risk. This bill is part of that. The legislation should stay as it was. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1417 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1413/Adjournment--Carbon-Tax-and-the-Economy.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1413 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1413&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1413/Adjournment--Carbon-Tax-and-the-Economy.aspx   Adjournment - Carbon Tax and the Economy Thursday, 21 June 2012   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (16:50): Retail is already struggling. We have had a year where a crisis of confidence, an anxiety, about the lack of direction and certainty has been building within households all over the country.   Australia's seven million households have been saving, on average, 12 per cent of their discretionary income. This is extraordinary and has gone on for over 12 months. It translates into something close to $90 billion. That is money which would normally have been spent in shops and on other activities.   Instead, it has been paying off mortgages, paying off plastic and being deposited in banks. That has meant that $90 billion has not been spent. No wonder retailers are on their knees in so many places.  They are already struggling because of the economic circumstances that have been created by this Government over the last three or four years.   In the Victorian regional centre of Shepparton, 140 shops have closed. That is 140 former business owners, and families, who no longer have a living. It is a disgrace. It is an example of what I think we have all witnessed in our own electorates—shopping centres which have an inordinate number of empty shops.   Traders in my electorate are suffering the same anxiety and loss of trade and are extremely anxious about the carbon tax. Nick, who runs the cafe opposite my electorate office, told me how his business is already down 30 per cent year on year because of the collapse of confidence among typical consumers in my electorate. People who used to buy two coffees a day are down to one. If you put that across all his customer base he has a serious loss of trade.   Electricity is one of the biggest inputs into what he does—his coffee machines, fridges, ovens, lighting, heating and air-conditioning. Then there will be cost rises, with the new carbon tax, on the things that he buys in—the milk, which goes through various processes before it reaches his store, and the bread he buys from the baker, whose power bills are also going to dramatically rise. You name it.   Here is Nick's dilemma: if he passes on the increased costs to his customers, his business might be down not 30 per cent but 50 per cent. It is his significant venture. He has put a lot of his life's earnings into this business. He works long hours, as nearly everyone does in hospitality, and yet he is being punished and penalised again, despite his business and millions of other businesses being under enormous financial pressure. They are now going to be subject to a carbon tax and told to get used to it:   'This is a transitional change we have to have.' No-one else in the world is doing it. No other country, no other part of the world, has this change forced down its throats. Yet Australia is doing it at an enormous cost—not only the financial cost but also in the impact on morale, on people's incentives, people's will, to chase some blue sky and try to make a better life for themselves and their families. And there is not one cent of compensation for any one of those 2.4 million small businesses.   That is a story that is reflected right across this country. It is a total disregard for those millions of people and families who worked so hard and so long to try to make a go of a small business venture. There is not one cent of compensation.   Every one of them is affected by it and some of them in a most grievous way. Let us look at the disadvantaged for a second. We have seniors who are forced to go to shopping centres, community centres, libraries and the like now because they cannot afford heaters and air-conditioners. Those numbers will only increase with the carbon tax and a massive increase in their cost of living. This is a bad tax which must be got rid of. (Time expired)   Andrew Robb Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:24:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1413 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1414/Tax-Laws-Amendment-2012-Measures-No-2-Bill-2012-Income-Tax-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Amendment-Bill-2012-Pay-As-You-Go-Withholding-Non-compliance-Tax-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1414 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1414&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1414/Tax-Laws-Amendment-2012-Measures-No-2-Bill-2012-Income-Tax-Managed-Investment-Trust-Withholding-Tax-Amendment-Bill-2012-Pay-As-You-Go-Withholding-Non-compliance-Tax-Bill-2012.aspx Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012, Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012, Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012 Second Reading Wednesday, 20 June 2012 Mr ROBB» (Goldstein) (10:11): It is always fascinating to follow the member for Blair. He seems to have one theme, no matter what he is talking about. It is always contradictory when you sit and listen. He stands up and, in the most virulent manner, accuses the opposition of endless negativity and then proceeds for the length of his 15-minute contribution—or whatever it may be—with endless negativity. The government seem to be obsessed with abusing this side of politics and the member for Blair is a classic example of that. I think it reflects the fact that, even though they are the government and should have plenty to say because they are responsible for introducing measures and legislation and defending that legislation, they have nothing to say really. The member for Blair read what is contained in the bill and in essence gave no argument of any consequence in support of those measures. The bill has been in the public arena now for some weeks. There have been some very trenchant concerns and frustrations about some of these provisions. There have been statements made not only by the opposition—let us put us aside—but by the people in the businesses and investors who will be affected by the changes that are proposed. At the very least the lead speaker for the government on this bill should provide some critique of the concerns that have been raised by important members of the community, people who are creating thousands of jobs, looking to promote billions of dollars of investment, looking for certainty, looking for the absence of sovereign risk. You would think that the member for Blair would address some of these concerns that have been listed over several weeks very prominently in the newspapers and elsewhere, yet he went on an exercise of simply reading out what is in the legislation in between all these histrionic attacks on the opposition and inflammatory language about the way in which we have expressed our concerns over the legislation. I must say it is a pathetic contribution and it adds nothing to this debate. It does reflect the morale that we see on the other side and the concern by the adults on the other side that this government is one of the most inept, if not the most inept, governments in our lifetime. It is a government which has lost any sense of direction, if it ever had any. It is a government that is confusing people all over this economy and, externally, with investors in foreign markets. It is a government that has, at its root—because of its incompetence, inconsistency, flip-flopping and lack of direction—very materially created a crisis of confidence amongst households in this country. They have been saving disposable income at a rate of 12 per cent over the last year because they are afraid to spend. They are building up reserves and paying off the mortgage because of their fear. They are worried about their jobs. There is a crisis of confidence. They have pulled $90 billion of discretionary income out of the marketplace. No wonder our retail sector is on its knees. It is because of the lack of confidence. It is because they are waking up at 2.30 in the morning worried about whether they are going to have a job. We see endlessly, each week, reports of companies that are going to the wall and putting off thousands of people. Sure, we are blessed with what is going on with the mining boom in the west and in Queensland. Put that aside, and the rest of the country has stopped. The investors, major companies, have got serious money on their balances sheets that they are not investing because there is a crisis of confidence not only amongst households but also amongst businesses. This sort of legislation is another classic example, another symbol, of the deep sense of confusion and lack of confidence and uncertainty that is now riddled through our economy—at a time when we are blessed with the mining boom. It is a boom that has been going for 10 years and has been wasted by this government. Every dollar of the $800 cheques that are going out is still being borrowed. Can you believe it! After 10 years of a boom and the highest terms of trade in our history—monumentally higher than anything we ever had before—we still have $800 going out to households, every dollar being borrowed. And then there is the flip-flopping that is represented in this bill. We will not be supporting this set of bills, as my colleague the shadow Treasurer announced, because it adds to the great uncertainty and concern about consistency, flip-flopping and the litany of sovereign risk issues that now confront investors who may be looking to put their money in Australia—or investors in Australia looking to take a risk and invest in and create jobs. The changes proposed under the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 do not appropriately target phoenix activity. The government has failed to argue a strong enough public justification for the retrospective application of proposed changes contained in schedules 2 and 3 of the tax laws amendment bill. This is in relation to consolidation tax cost-setting arrangements and related changes to taxation and financial arrangements. My colleague the shadow Treasurer went through in some detail—and with great clarity—the way in which schedules 2 and 3 are a lazy attempt to plug some spending holes that this government has. It is a lazy attempt to use retrospective legislation to grab some tax from years ago. The retrospective application of these changes heightens our sovereign risk profile. As an opposition we have very strong in-principle opposition to retrospective tax changes and if anything were ever to be done it would need enormous justification. The reasons this government has put forward are very shallow. In fact, if you listened to the member for Blair he gave no justification of any consequence for the retrospection. All he did was criticise and defame the shadow Treasurer and others on this side of the House. Our opposition stems from the fact that retrospective tax changes can change the substance of bargains struck between taxpayers who made every effort to comply with laws prevailing at the time the agreement was entered into. People who acted lawfully are now going to be slugged, potentially some years later, with an unexpected and in some cases highly significant tax grab by this government. We are opposed to retrospective changes because they can expose taxpayers to penalties in circumstances where taxpayers could not possibly have taken steps, at the earlier time, to mitigate the potential for penalties. We oppose retrospective changes because they may change taxpayers' tax profiles. This, in turn, can materially impact on the financial viability of investment decisions and the pricing of those decisions—years after they were taken, years after people acted in good faith and made a case based on the prevailing legislation. They did their ROI assessments and deals with other companies and took risks based on the prevailing legislation. Now they find they will be lumped with an unexpected, highly material and in some cases debilitating tax bill. It will also leave a mark on their reputation. For many if not all who have acted within the law they will feel they have been unjustly labelled as tax cheats. In some cases, businesses will go to the wall because they took decisions at the time based on the prevailing law. We are opposed to retrospective tax changes because they could increase Australia's level of perceived sovereign risk. Added to these changes is the litany of sovereign risk issues from the introduction of a carbon tax, which was promised never to be introduced, and from the introduction of the mining tax, which exists nowhere else in the world, and, again, the incompetent way in which that has been dealt with over the last 18 months or nearly two years. Then there is the way in which they handled the live cattle job. They have actually created a long-term poisoned pill in the middle of our relationship with Indonesia—our closest neighbour, with a population of nearly 300 million, and a big part of our future, and yet our trade with that country is smaller than with New Zealand and its four million people. Can you believe it? And yet this government has gone out of its way to compromise and frustrate and demean that nation by, overnight, with absolutely no forewarning, announcing, via email, that we were going to cut off 40 per cent of their imported protein, indefinitely, because of a television program three nights before in Australia. Can you believe it? This is the sign of a government which is just amateur hour, and people see all of these things. Now we have a whole raft of changes which have retrospective elements to them. The final element of these bills is the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012. We hear rumours now that it is going to be withdrawn and possibly some grubby deal is to be done with the Greens. Maybe we will see it introduced, who knows? Nothing will surprise us. Nothing will surprise the rest of business. It will only confirm the judgment they are making: 'Let's not invest. There's too much uncertainty. This government's got no idea.' They have already made a change, yesterday, in the CPI matter, for the passenger movement charge—only a lazy $140 million! But they have withdrawn that. Now, today, we hear that they may well have withdrawn this bill, which increases the withholding tax on foreign investment from 7½ per cent to 15 per cent—just another lazy $265 million! It is the only reason they introduced it in the first place. It was a measure that they introduced some four years ago and received great commendation, including from ourselves. It was an inspired move, to reduce the withholding tax to 7½ per cent. And it has had a material effect. There have been literally billions of dollars, especially coming into the housing and construction sector. We were starting to see billions of dollars being invested in infrastructure through this mechanism. Now all of that will be put on hold. We are literally sacrificing billions and billions of dollars of investment, and a decision, which got commendation around the world and certainly within this country, has now been turned on its head for a miserable $264 million. We even have a situation where research subsequently conducted by Allen Consulting Group is saying that, for every billion-dollar drop in investment—and there will be billions, many billions—from the increased tax, it will raise $40 million less in revenue from the tax increase in 2015-16, than the $75 million predicted by the government. So it is not even going to raise the money they expected. So they have taken this step which has again materially affected our sovereign risk for no good reason. So we have a $400 million hole in the budget. And today we see the Reserve Bank has indicated that the forecast sharp swing to budget surplus next financial year mostly reflects shuffling of spending that will limit the scope for further interest rate rises. The RBA has just confirmed that the budget surplus is a hoax—it is a con. It is a fiction. What we have been saying all along—and what businesses suspects, and what everyone suspects, everyone knows—is that the one-and-a-half-billion-dollar surplus is a con. It is never going to happen. Again, it is a sovereign risk issue now. All of these things are adding up—adding up to a point where this is very dangerous for the country. We are opposed to these bills. This government is out of control. It is all over the place. It must be stopped. The only way this will happen is with an election. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1414 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1415/Financial-Framework-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-No-2-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1415 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1415&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1415/Financial-Framework-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-No-2-2012.aspx   Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 Second Reading Tuesday, 19 June 2012 Mr ROBB» (Goldstein) (17:59): I rise to speak on Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. This bill seeks to make technical amendments to 21 acts across six portfolios. It forms part of an ongoing program of improving the financial framework as issues arise. The coalition supports the program in principle. This is the 10th financial framework amendment bill since 2004. It seeks to correct anomalies, to add clarity and to ensure consistency across government acts. It aims to ensure legislation is up to date and properly reflects actual and efficient financial practices. The program also seeks to ensure financial arrangements are consistent with constitutional requirements. It is tedious work, but it is important work. Making the financial framework more efficient is, of course, a good thing. There are 140 items of amendment in this bill alone to achieve both clarity and efficiency across a raft of legislation. It would be a good thing if this level of rigour was also extended to the government's deregulation agenda. The government promised a one-in one-out approach to new regulation. Of course, instead, we have seen 18,089 new pieces of regulation introduced and just 86 items repealed—just a little margin of error of about 18,000 pieces of legislation that have not been removed! This particular bill is broad in its reach. The amendments are technical but vigilance is required. We have to be mindful of unintended consequences or inequitable outcomes. We do not want to see changes that make people worse off. The coalition has closely examined amendments associated with various acts under the agriculture portfolio, as well as those related to the validation of certain benefits under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 which were made as a result of Commonwealth administrative breaches. There are also amendments proposed across various superannuation related acts. These would put in place provisions for the Commonwealth to recover inadvertent overpayments, in line with provisions under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Other amendments in the superannuation area would allow payments made between a recipient's death and the time when the Commonwealth is notified to be recoverable from the deceased's estate. Of course, the government has some form when it comes to sending out cheques to the deceased. Previous Treasury figures showed that, of $12 billion worth of $900 cheques that went out as stimulus payments, $40 million worth were sent out to 16,000 dead people and 27,000 expatriates. So these provisions of this bill are well placed. There are also provisions under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 which would allow the Commissioner of Taxation or their delegate to make discretionary recoverable advance payments. This relates to benefits that may be in dispute but for which entitlement is likely to be established or re-established. This would only be applied if the Commonwealth was satisfied that the eventual costs associated with halting payments would be greater than if the advances were made. This is designed to require considerations of 'efficient, effective and economical factors' in making payments consistent with the FMA Act. In the agriculture portfolio there are amendments which clarify the arrangements around Commonwealth support payments to industry bodies. These payments are subject to a limit of 0.5 per cent of an industry's annual gross value of production. They are based on data prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. In practice, the most up-to-date ABARES data may not be available until after payments are required. As a result, payments made could inadvertently exceed the 0.5 per cent limit. The amendments would allow for determinations to be made by 31 October. If the amount paid ultimately exceeds 0.5 per cent, the recipient body will pay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to the excess. If an amount has not been determined by 31 October, the payment will be based on the industry's gross value of production from the previous year. It has been highlighted that payments made during the year which exceed 0.5 per cent risk breaching section 83 of the Constitution. The shadow minister for agriculture has been consulting with relevant groups, and no concerns have emerged. In the agriculture portfolio there are also amendments which put in place more efficient ways of recovering administrative costs associated with making payments to agencies. Under the National Residue Survey Administration Act 1992 there are amendments which align payment approval requirements with actual practice. The NRS is entrusted with monitoring for harmful residues in Australian agricultural products and is funded through industry levies. In relation to amendments in the DFRDB and other areas of superannuation it is important that the government commits to fully communicating any changes to scheme members—for example, the changes associated with provisions to recover overpayments for deceased estates. The amendments under schedule 2 of the bill in relation to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act, importantly, have provisions in place to offset debts owed by members as a consequence of previous administrative breaches. The changes in this bill are reasonable. There has been a genuine effort to improve the efficiency of the financial framework. It is a shame that the rather forensic and technical nature of the amendments in this bill does not reflect the broader approach to financing of this government. For example, this bill gets into the weeds of the financial framework and does some effective work. It is an ongoing program to dot the i's and cross the t's. Yet, on the other hand, you have a government that refuses to subject the $50 billion NBN project—the biggest infrastructure project in the nation's history—to cost-benefit analysis. So here we are, spending important, appropriate, time in this House, and we have spent not one minute on looking at the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis of a $50 billion project. It beggars belief. And the government is prepared to risk $10 billion of borrowed taxpayer dollars on speculative clean energy projects. These are the sorts of things which confuse the community. They are a reason for the crisis of confidence in the community: they see no consistency. They see a government that is prepared to back its bureaucracy in doing forensic and detailed work at this micro level, and yet where the big bucks are spent we see a very amateur approach being taken. If only the government took this approach to its broader financial activities, we would not be lumbered with $144 billion of net debt and we would be far more resilient to any further shockwaves that might come from Europe or elsewhere. We support the bill. Andrew Robb Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:32:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1415 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1398/Matter-of-Public-Importance.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1398 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1398&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1398/Matter-of-Public-Importance.aspx The Failure of the Government to Properly Manage the Budget   Wasn't that pathetic! This is the Assistant Treasurer of Australia. This is the deputy to the Treasurer in the construction and the implementation of this budget. On the afternoon after they presented a budget he had 15 minutes to speak and he spent no time defending the budget. The matter before the House is 'the failure of the government to properly manage the budget' and we have seen absolutely no time spent defending it. So you should walk out; that was a most pathetic performance. Go and read the budget papers and come back and tell us something about it. The member for Lindsay also said that this government has presided over Australia being the leading country after the global financial crisis. We did get through the global financial crisis in much better shape than other countries because of the state of the economy when that crisis hit. There was no debt; in fact, there was $70 billion of net assets and the unemployment figure had a 4 in front of it. That is why we got through that crisis the way we did. By the time this government started to spend, spend, spend, the economy was already raging out of that crisis because of the exchange rate, which fell to 60c in the dollar and saw us with the biggest trade surplus in our history in that first quarter of 2009, and because the Reserve Bank of Australia lowered interest rates by over three per cent. Those factors are why we got out of that crisis. It had absolutely nothing to do with the stimulus spending which subsequently occurred and pushed up interest rates, costing Australian workers billions and billions of dollars since because of the way this government has run the economy. The Assistant Treasurer, again, should be across these things, but the International Monetary Fund just a few days ago released the state of the books of countries around the world on a comparative basis. Of course, six developed countries are reported to have structural surpluses today. A structural surplus is something that the Treasurer would salivate over, but, of course, Australia still has a significant structural deficit. If the prices come off commodities anytime in the next year because of all sorts of things that might happen outside of our control, this government has left us deeply vulnerable. This budget has done nothing—it has provided no strategy to pay down the debt; it has provided no strategy to grow the economy, create and protect jobs, and restore confidence. Nothing in this budget will address those issues. That is why we still have a structural deficit, unlike six other developed countries that have structural surpluses today. We are not coming out of this global financial crisis better than the rest of the world; we are being led by others now that went into it with much bigger debt levels than we had. Last night, the Treasurer said that this is a Labor budget 'to its bootstraps'. I do not know about old Labor, but this certainly is a new-Labor budget to its bootstraps. It is a budget you cannot trust. It is a budget riddled with deceit. It is a budget of deception by omission. It is a budget which cooks the books. It is a budget that increases debt. It is a budget where many of the so-called savings are in fact tax increases. Can you believe it? They are parading them as disciplined savings, but they are tax increases. It is a budget which resorted to bribes—grubby bribes to try and cover up the biggest carbon tax in the world. It is a budget with broken promises. It is a budget that makes many promises but at the same time breaks many promises. It is a budget which has the world's biggest carbon tax at its heart. It is a budget devoid of any strategy to pay down debt, to grow the economy, to create jobs and to restore confidence. It is a budget motivated by politics, not genuine economic principles. It is a budget motivated by political survival. That is all it is. It is a budget for this week and next week and the week after; it is not even a budget for the next six months. It is a budget to keep the Prime Minister in the job of Prime Minister while those behind her try and sort out who might replace her. It is nothing more and nothing less than a political document. This truly is a new-Labor budget: no trust, deceit, more spending, more taxing and more borrowing. Let me explore a couple of those points a little more. It is a budget you cannot trust. Of course, my colleague pointed out the fact that there have been five different levels of deficit anticipated and forecast over the last 18 months, up from $12 billion to $44 billion—and, of course, the year has not even finished. I bet we will find by September that it is even bigger than $44 billion. How can people trust this government to get a $1.5 billion surplus after all of the fiddles that it has done and after all the moving of cash here, there and everywhere off budget? How can the community trust this government when the deficit this year has gone from $12 billion to $44 billion with five different estimates through the last 18 months and the government has gotten everyone of them wrong? Also, how can Australians have any confidence in the revenue? I say today, the total revenue could not possibly go up by 11.8 per cent. That is impossible yet they expect people to believe it. This whole budget depends on that 11.8 per cent growth estimate. Welfare will grow by more than 3.8 per cent because of this budget. The Australian dollar, coal prices and resource share prices are all forward indicators and they are all going down. Add to that two new socialist governments in Europe. Unemployment is tracking up again in the US and we have a totally dysfunctional government. This is a government which is divided in so many respects. Everyone is reporting that the Prime Minister's office cannot talk to the Treasurer's office. You have got this deep division. You have got people grouping as possible pairs to run for the leadership in the next few months. This is a deeply divided government and it is why they are making so many errors of judgment. It is why they are so dysfunctional. There can be no trust. Just today we saw the consumer confidence figures released. Consumer confidence, despite the Reserve Bank reducing interest rates by half of one per cent—a very significant amount and more than what was anticipated by most commentators—today has dropped a further 2.1 points. What all this says is that people do not believe this government. They do not trust this government. It is why we have got a crisis of confidence amongst households and why we have a crisis of confidence amongst businesses. Now we turn to the debt situation, one of the most outrageous things. Australia has a high debt in terms of what is good for Australia. I am sick of people saying, 'Why don't you compare yourselves to basket cases in Europe?' What we need to do is apply a measure against Australian standards. We have a high debt in terms of what is good for Australia because we need in Australia—and always have needed—a debt relatively small compared with the rest of the world. We are a small open economy which is influenced heavily by commodity price movements, not like the US, not like big economies in Europe; They have large domestic markets. We need a low relative debt. We have seen in this budget an increase in the debt ceiling to $300 billion. This is a government which knows nothing but spending and borrowing and taxing. We have seen it again in this budget. The Office of Financial Management confirmed that it has lost confidence in the government because they have asked the Treasurer to increase the debt ceiling to $300 billion as a buffer. This is truly a new Labor budget to its bootstraps: no trust, deceit, more spending, more taxing and much more borrowing. (Time expired)   　 Andrew Robb Wed, 09 May 2012 08:59:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1398 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1392/Australia-in-the-Asian-Century-Setting-the-Scene--Address-to-the-Global-Foundation-Australia-Summit-4-May-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1392 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1392&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1392/Australia-in-the-Asian-Century-Setting-the-Scene--Address-to-the-Global-Foundation-Australia-Summit-4-May-2012.aspx   It is a privilege to address The Global Foundation, and to be representing the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott.   Australia’s engagement with Asia, and other countries for that matter, must be in the context of our national interest.   Assessing what is in our national interest must not only involve a consideration of the economic, social and security issues, but must also include a values dimension.   This holds true as necessary public support for our trade and foreign policy activities will quickly evaporate if they are inconsistent with our national interest.     Such an approach during the Howard Government years saw Australia develop much stronger regional ties on the basis of ‘shared interests and mutual respect’, without compromising our strategic interests or our values.   Such an approach proved we had no need to choose between deeper engagement with our region and our traditional ties with friends beyond.     A future Coalition government will restore this proven approach.  A first priority will be to repair regional relations that have suffered as a result of domestic political interests being put ahead of our broader national interests within our region.     For example, the experience of the Rudd-Gillard governments has taught us the hard way, that any government that, for domestic political reasons, encourages the people smugglers to revive their trade – which inevitably passes our South-East Asian neighbours – also inflicts serious damage on Australia’s regional relations.   Another key factor behind the Howard government’s success in Asia was the strength of Australia’s economic management.   Eliminating Labor’s debt and deficits from the 1990’s enabled Australia, along with Japan, to commit over $3 billion to support Thailand, Korea and Indonesia through the East Asia financial crisis.   It enabled the rebuilding of the Australian Defence Force which subsequently ensure that Australia could lead the intervention in East Timor and deploy forces in the war on terror and in the Solomon Islands.     Again, a future Coalition Government will ensure that strong and prudent financial management will create the circumstances and confidence for Australia to grow strongly once again, and for our businesses to capitalise on the enormous opportunities emerging in Asia.   To this end, the growth of Asia’s middle class will be the defining characteristic of the 21st century.   One simple statistic says it all – namely the percentage of the world’s middle class by major regions in the world.   According to the OECD, 28 per cent of the world’s middle class resided in the Asia Pacific region in 2009.     Now the OECD forecast for 2030, not 2050, not 2100, but for 2030, that 66 per cent of the world’s middle class will reside in the Asia Pacific region, from India across China to Japan and all countries in between.    This would see the number of middle class grow from 525 million to an almost incomprehensible 3 billion, with spending surging from $4.9 billion to $32.5 billion.   Of course, the rest of the world has worked out that China, India, Indonesia and other Asian Pacific countries are on the brink of an explosion in middle class wealth and spending.  The developed world is rushing to the region in an attempt to grab major market share in these rapidly emerging commercial giants.     At a time when speed of engagement is of the essence, the Gillard government is instead erecting, or not confronting economic and strategic vulnerabilities which could severely limit our ability to compete for the commercial relations which would otherwise profoundly change Australia for the better.     This Asian engagement should go well beyond energy and resources.   The exploding Asia Pacific middle class is already creating huge new mass markets.  But it will also create very large niche markets suited to the higher cost, higher quality goods and services available in Australia.     I have got a friend who is currently selling mangoes in Shanghai, and they’re retailing, he is not getting this, but they’re retailing at $30 a mango, not a box.     My point is, we’re not about to dominate the world mango market, but my point is that there will be developing mass markets, and they’ll look to us, a mass of niche markets for higher quality, higher value goods and services for Australians who are inevitably higher value, higher cost producers of goods and services.   Australia could become the high quality, high gross margin ‘food bowl’ for Asia.  We currently feed 60 million people a year and our agricultural technology helps feed 400 million.  With sensible water catchment and deployment of the latest agricultural and soil management techniques as well as transport and logistics technology, Australia could feed 120 million, or many more.   Not only is much greater productivity and production possible within the already developed areas of Australian agriculture, but the largely undeveloped north of Australia is on the verge of finding nearby markets large enough and wealthy enough to warrant the expense of infrastructure necessary to realise the north’s enormous agricultural potential.   Seventy per cent of all the water that falls in Australia, falls above a line roughly between Broome and Townsville, 11 and a half million hectares of arable soil exists in a sort of mosaic right across the north.  Much of that soil is black soil and highly productive soil.  It is a question of adding water at the right times.   A Coalition government will be focused on the potential in the north, as well as realising much greater output from already developed areas.     One starting point will be to re-introduce the CSIRO to Australia’s north, and reverse the inexplicable rundown over recent years of research and development funds for agriculture.     A government that recognised our strengths and opportunities wouldn’t unilaterally shut down overnight 40 per cent of a neighbouring countries imported protein on the strength of a single television segment.   Instead of educating 250,000 foreign students, within 20 years we could be educating three to eight million Asian students at both secondary and tertiary levels.   Much of this education could occur in their home counties, and via multiple delivery channels.   Realising this potential in increasing our educational export sector would, among other things, be greatly enhanced by far greater foreign language skills among Australians.    The Australia’s great discredit, in 1960, 40 per cent of Year 12 students studies a second language compared to just 14 per cent today.  Fewer than five per cent now complete secondary school studying an Asian language.  Ninety five per cent of students undertaking Mandarin at Year 12 are either native speakers of Chinese or have Chinese heritage.     The reason for this collapse is clear.  In the past university entrance required either mathematics or a foreign language to be studied at Year 12.     While recognising the now shortage of qualified teachers, a Coalition government will work with the states in seeking to restore the appropriate incentives to ensure many high school students stick with foreign languages.     Greatly enhanced Asian foreign language skills will be critical to fully realising the Asian opportunities across so many sectors.  Combined with our export of education, tens of millions of invaluable linkages will be made which form the basis of future trust and success in our region.     Our world leading clinical and medical research sector presents enormous opportunities, including providing the world’s centre of excellence for tropical medicine, both clinical and research.     This would also be consistent with our foreign affairs responsibilities in the region, especially the Islands, PNG and Indonesia.   Going forward with that explosion of the wealth in the middle class, there will be a great demand for protein and education but also for health.  These are the three staples which a well financed community seeks in the first instance.   The demand for our medical and related services will also be prompted by the significant population ageing in the foreseeable future in a range of Asian countries, including China, Korea and Japan.  By contrast, Indonesia and India continue to see rapid increases in population.     A resurgence in manufacturing could occur around high value added manufacturing targeted at these huge emerging niche markets prepared to pay for the best.     This could also involve exploiting the value added opportunities in various resource and energy products, which have not previously been economic.   Australia’s expertise in construction, technology, security, urban design, tourism and a wide range of professional services also have a place at the quality end of these market opportunities.   These opportunities are best seized from a position of economic strength and confidence.     In fact to this end Australia has a moral obligation to make the most of our strengths, such as the many centuries of our resources and energy stocks, our extensive and highly sustainable agricultural and forestry resources, our highly educated and skilled workforce across the professions, the trades, the arts and sports, our increasingly specialised and flexible education sector and our world recognised medical research fraternity.     Leveraging these recognised strengths, and more, will be the focus of a Coalition government’s engagement with Asia.   Making the most of our strengths is the way to success and fulfilment for every individual and every person, for companies and organisations, for sporting clubs and for community groups.  And I put to you, so it is for a country.   Yet the vulnerabilities presented by an absence of political leadership, Australia’s burgeoning debt and structural deficits, reckless spending, waste, a raft of new taxes, choking regulations, an inflexible and confrontational labour market, high interest rates, re-nationalisation of our telecommunications sector and various foreign risk actions has created a crisis of confidence among Australian households and the non-resource business sectors.     To address these vulnerabilities, and more to capture the revolution in opportunities on our doorstep, Australia needs a government that will live within its means, provide steady and responsible leadership, reverse the ‘government know best’ nanny state approach, restore a culture of personal responsibility and very importantly, back our strengths.   The last four and half years of government in Australia has clearly shown that philosophy does matter, and these principles that I have just outlined are the philosophical ‘tram tracks’ that are shaping the policy agenda of a future Coalition government; an agenda heavily focused on realising our potential involvement in the Asian Century.   Table 1 (above)           Projected growth of the global middle class     Andrew Robb Fri, 04 May 2012 04:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1392 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1378/Condolence-Motion-Jim-Stynes.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1378 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1378&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1378/Condolence-Motion-Jim-Stynes.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:10)– It is a greatprivilege for me to have this opportunity to reflect on what has been an extraordinary life, that of Jim Stynes, and to honour that life in a modest way and to express my deep regret and sympathy to his wife and family, and to his parents, who in fact reside in my electorate and whose citizenship I presided over a few years ago. Jim and his wife were there, together with other family members. That experience, along with many others I have had with Jim Stynes, was one to remember. He was that sort of fellow. He was a leader of men and women, and he had a capacity to connect with people in all sorts of walks of life. He was known in the football world for his sportsmanship and his leadership role in combating racism and encouraging players to lead by example in their off-field endeavours. He bought so much to the game. He extended the proud history of Irish immigration in Australia. The first time I met him I thought of my family having come originally from Ireland, but 150 or 160 years ago. It made me think at the time of the way in which it would be difficult to uproot yourself and come to another country and to seek to make your mark.   He was a man who made an extraordinary mark. But, he had difficulties when he first got here—over the first two or three years—to establish himself and combat the expectations and cynicism in lots of quarters over whether this experiment, if you like, would work. Despite the early setbacks he persisted and became an astonishingly successful ruckman. He played 264 games in the process—244 without missing a game. In that sort of context that is an extraordinary feat in itself.   I suspect in many games he did take to the field with injuries and problems that would have certainly meant that other players would not have fronted—would not have been able to contest a full match. Yet he played and he played in the ruck, which is a very significant contact part of the game.   He became the only overseas born player to win the highest individual honour in the AFL, the Brownlow medal. He won the best and fairest award four times for Melbourne, received all sorts of other All Australian honours, representing the state in the State of Origin and was inducted into the AFL Hall of Fame. So he is man who obviously achieved such an enormous amount, yet through all of that the humility of Jim was extraordinary. He did not see that what he was doing was anything special. He had gifts—he had wonderful gifts. He made the most of those gifts, and that is all that can be asked of somebody.   My initial contact with Jim was through the Reach Foundation when I attended some of the fundraising functions and then got the opportunity to observe Jim in action. He had this extraordinary capacity to connect with young people. It is something that is hard to describe because it is an intangible, but I did have the great privilege of seeing him work with young people. He had this ability to help them confront the issues that were bedevilling them. It is true of so many problems in life, I think, that if you have the courage to confront it, it can make an enormous difference to the resolution of those problems. I am the last one to speak about that, having spent 43 years denying something. But it takes a lot for people to confront issues and Jim Stynes had this wonderful ability. He gave support and self-belief. You could see the self-esteem of some of those young people growing with his belief in them. Almost before your eyes you could see them gaining strength and courage from not just his words but his manner, his identification. He would ask the hard questions but in a way which was not passing judgment, it was in a way which would help some of these young people confront their issues.   The program he has been responsible for in Reach, I think there are now some 60,000 taking part nationally each year. It is modelled somewhat on his personal experience in Ireland with programs where young people work with other young people in camps to improve self-belief and to develop resilience and emotional awareness amongst young people. At 45, to achieve what Jim has achieved is quite remarkable in many respects. To have 60,000 young people each year taking part in these programs, these camps, is a most extraordinary thing, quite apart from what he has done with the Melbourne Football Club and the inspiration that he has been for so many millions of Australians in the way in which he has tackled issues.   He has left an indelible mark on his adopted country and quite a number of extraordinary legacies. He was a giant of a man in so many ways. Yet through all of that, you would not have found a more humble and self-effacing individual who had all the moods of all the rest of us, but overwhelmingly was a person of great character and with great concern about others.   He just oozed interest in what you were doing and what you were saying. When you were talking to Jim Stynes you felt that you were the only person that was important, notwithstanding his responsibilities and notwithstanding the fact that often he might have just been out of hospital for four days, having had several cancerous growths removed. That happened so often; it was quite remarkable.   I would just say about Jim that he showed in so many stages of his life that striving and struggling to reach our own potential is ultimately what gives meaning to our lives. It is what dictates the uniqueness and the dignity of each person, and Jim's life teaches us that life is meaningful. He was a man who found great meaning in his own life. He was a man who realized that life was expecting something from him despite his circumstances. Despite the fact the he was riddled with cancer and was battling in these last three years with such an overwhelming threat to his life and all of the endless operations and chemotherapy and all of these issues, through those three years he grabbed a football club that was inexorably sliding into a dysfunctional state and turned it on its head. He resolved a $5 million debt; breathed commitment, hope and interest into a board; developed a strong and effective administration; and in so many ways very significantly turned around the fortunes of the Melbourne Football Club, which for me is something of great significance seeing that I have been barracking for them since 1957. The last time they got a flag was 1964. I have taken much greater interest had more involvement in the club over the last few years since I came back to Melbourne and assumed the parliamentary role that I have. Again, I have had the privilege in that connection with the Melbourne Football Club in the last few years to see Jim quite often and to just interact and pass the time of day and catch up with what he is doing. At no stage through all of that—and, of course, much of that has been a time when he has been very ill—would he ever reflect on his own state of health. He was always putting a brave and uncomplaining face to the world.   I want to convey my deep condolences to his wife, Sam, to his kids and to his brothers and sisters, and a special mention to his parents, who as I said earlier are in my electorate and are wonderful people. I have met them on a couple of occasions now and I would see them at the club now and again. They share, as you would expect, the same qualities of openness. They are people who are so easy to talk to and relate to and, whilst being extremely distressed and upset and sad, they must be immensely proud of their son, who has been such a wonderful example to all of us and who has already made in his short time in Australia such an extraordinary contribution—someone who has been Victorian of the Year on two occasions and Melburnian of the Year because of the community work he has conducted and his other leadership responsibilities. The Melbourne Football Club, the AFL community and Australia have lost a great son with the passing of Jim Stynes. Thank you. Andrew Robb Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1378 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1376/Corporations-Amendment-Future-of-Financial-Advice-Bill-2011-Corporations-Amendment-Further-Future-of-Financial-Advice-Measures-Bill-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1376 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1376&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1376/Corporations-Amendment-Future-of-Financial-Advice-Bill-2011-Corporations-Amendment-Further-Future-of-Financial-Advice-Measures-Bill-2011.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (18:00): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Corporations Amendment (Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2011 and the Corporations Amendment (Further Future of Financial Advice Measures) Bill 2011. I start with a note of thanks. This is a highly complex area, highly important. So many thousands of people's lives are affected by this decision, not only those receiving advice, most importantly, but also those that are giving the advice. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 18:21 Mr ROBB: As I was saying before we were rudely interrupted with a division, I would like to begin my comments with a vote of thanks in particular to John McInerney, who is a financial planning consultant from Bentley and has given me enormous assistance, with invaluable, informed advice and insights from the coalface. He organised some 60 fellow professionals within the financial planning profession locally to gather with our shadow minister, Mathias Cormann. We had a 2½ hour session on the impacts of the legislation on their services and on the way they interact with their clients. It was a most valuable exercise. John has been in the financial planning industry since 1988, and before that spent 23 years as an educator, so he is a person with the sorts of qualities to be very effective, as he has been in providing advice to clients. He has also been an active participant in raising the standards in the profession, as a member of FPA's Towards Professionalism Task Force, and has assisted the Securities Institute of Australia to develop its financial planning course amongst the profession. I feel I had some very good guidance locally, meeting so many of them from the southern suburbs in Melbourne. It is certainly something that has greatly exercised the sector, and this legislation is very important. They are very proud of the profession that they are part of and the service that they give to individuals. I suspect that the one-on-one nature of the profession is something that elicits from so many of them a great desire to assist and ensure that the quality of life and the opportunities of their clients are maximised. You would expect that they are 'people people', and they are professionals who take great pleasure in seeing the success of others, because, if that happens, that means they have been successful. The coalition cannot support the future of financial advice bills in their current form. This is very unfortunate because, as we all know, a cross-party committee—the Ripoll committee—did some very solid work, coming up with a list of comprehensive, balanced recommendations that had the support of both sides of the House. Sadly the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, after several months of being influenced by other vested interests, has materially changed some recommendations and added other recommendations which we find unnecessary and in fact counterproductive and in particular serving the interests of one part of the industry—the industry funds. This reflects the continuing bias of the minister for workplace relations. I see him as the minister for unions in much of what he does. This is a very unfortunate development. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:26 to 18:39 Mr ROBB: As I was saying before the division, it is a bit ironic that after a day in the House when there were quite wild and ridiculous assertions being made of undue influence, here we have in this very bill tonight a concrete example in legislation. A very strong bipartisan position has been derailed by the decisions of the minister, who has been quite clearly and unduly influenced by former colleagues and cronies within the union movement. It really is an unfortunate state of affairs that we have here a piece of such significant reform legislation which has been so sadly derailed, one which was agreed on by those who are very experienced and well credentialled on both sides of the House on these issues. Their agreement had laid out a series of comprehensive and quite effective measures that would have been dealt with in a bipartisan way. If this legislation were to be amended along the lines put forward by the coalition, we could return to a position of bipartisanship, instead of a position that will quite clearly benefit a certain sector of this industry in a most unfortunate way and will impact dramatically on the lives, the profession and the businesses of many thousands of people who are so strongly experienced in this sector. Unfortunately, the FOFA package of legislation in its current form is unnecessarily complex and in large part still quite unclear. It is expected to cause increased unemployment and it is legislating to enshrine what is really an unlevel playing field amongst advice providers while inappropriately favouring a government-friendly business model. It is likely to cost about $700 million to implement and a further $350 million per annum to comply with, according to conservative industry estimates. To go from a position where there was industry and bipartisan support for a range of measures to one with all of those faults is quite unacceptable. I can understand what has happened but, for the life of me, I do not know how the minister can stand there with a straight face and support the measures he has now made decisions on. In some cases, as I have said, they are decisions which are still unclear about how the measures would operate—and I am not sure that he knows either. As it currently stands, the legislation will lead to quite significantly increased costs and reduced choice for Australians seeking financial advice. The coalition will be moving a series of amendments, the most important of which are that the government be required by parliament to table a regulatory impact statement on FOFA which has been assessed as compliant by the government's Office of Best Practice Regulation. The level of regulatory impact of this bill is just beyond the pale. In the last 3½ to four years we have seen the greatest growth of government in our lives, and that includes the Whitlam era. This place is now awash with legislation despite the hand-on-heart commitments given by former Prime Minister Rudd, when in opposition, about one regulation in and another one out. I think it is currently something like 16,000 pieces of regulation in and at most 200 or 300—and I think I am being generous—pieces of regulation out. We are awash with regulation and this bill will add another bucketful to the industry and massively increase costs. The opt-in arrangement should be removed from FOFA. It is something that was not part of the bipartisan agreement. The opt-in arrangement imposes a mandatory requirement on consumers to re-sign contracts with their financial advisers on a regular basis. Not only is this a significant increase in red tape and cost for both planners and consumers, it will make Australia the world champion in financial services red tape. It was not part of the initial Ripoll inquiry recommendations. In this context it is important to note that the Industry Super Network provided, not surprisingly, the only submission to the original Ripoll inquiry, arguing in favour of opt-in. The proposal for a mandatory opt-in requirement was not accepted by that very comprehensive inquiry. The minister has been unable to point to another example anywhere in the world where the government has sought to impose a mandatory requirement on consumers to re-sign contracts with their financial advisers on a regular basis. On our side of the House we strongly oppose Labor's push to force people to re-sign contracts with their advisers on such a basis. If you know anything about the nature of the industry and what functions within some of these Industry Super Network organisations you can see that they will have a very clear advantage. This is what it is there for: to siphon customers away from small business people who have spent a lifetime developing relationship and expertise and giving independent advice. They will be siphoned off into industry funds because of these sorts of arrangements. The industry funds can absorb a lot of this complicated procedure and they have other benefits that the small independent players may not such as connections with different policies and all the rest those things that will come into play. Again, all of that is within organisations—these industry funds—where there is no transparency about the directors who run the organisations and the salaries they get. These are the sorts of things that are commonplace within the corporate world. They are multibillion-dollar industries and organisations that are responsible for billions in funds. We have this extraordinary situation where they are able to pull the levers of influence and not have any transparency. We had a day in the House on transparency and here is another perfect example where there is no attempt for real application of it. Yet one of the major recommendations of the Cooper inquiry was to shed some light on the inner workings of the sector so that there is more competition. When there is competition you get self-regulation in many respects, because the consumer is able to make their own judgments and they will discipline organisations by taking their business to where they see they will get the best opportunity. Amongst these amendments the coalition has moved—and for which we are looking for support—we also see proposals that the retrospective application of the additional annual fee disclosure requirement be removed; the drafting of the 'best interest' duty be improved; the ban of commissions on risk insurance inside super be further refined; and the implementation of FOFA be delayed until 1 July 2013, to align with MySuper. Minister Shorten and the crossbench members should seriously consider these amendments. This industry provides important financial services and advice. It helps Australians with their financial health and wellbeing. Australians are becoming far more financially literate and far better able and prepared to seek advice and have an informed view themselves to balance up the advice they get from these advisers. The services are dealing with other people's money, which is why it is so important to have an appropriately robust regulatory framework in place. The framework worked satisfactorily through the global financial crisis. We think there is room for further improvement and that is why within the very comprehensive Ripoll committee inquiry we agreed to a raft of changes on a bipartisan basis with those on the other side of the House. Certain elements of it have been turned on their head for no good reason. There has been no justification. You just get an assertion from the minister that this is the way it is going to be, and you will cop it. Well, we are not going to cop it. If we do not get these amendments in place we are going to oppose these things so that we can protect the livelihoods of so many thousands of very strong and professional people— (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1376 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1377/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Budget-Honesty.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1377 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1377&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1377/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Budget-Honesty.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:19): Over the last 10 years in office, Labor has never delivered a surplus. In fact, it has racked up a total of $241 billion worth of deficits— or a quarter of a trillion dollars—over those 10 years of wall-to-wall deficits since 1989. This compares with $103 billion of cumulative surpluses over the last 10 years of coalition government. To go from such a surplus to such a deficit and to have nothing to show for it is what Australians find unbelievable and unforgivable. Yet, if you listen to Australia's lightweight Treasurer, you would think all was well. It means that we all have to look beyond Labor's spin and instead look at the facts because Labor has turned sophistry—clever but deceitful arguments—into a fine art. Today I would like to provide just three examples of potentially hundreds of examples of this sophistry. I highlight the deceit of Labor's stimulus claims, I highlight the deceit of Labor's spending claims and I highlight the deceit of Labor's surplus claims.   Let us look at Labor's stimulus claims. A report out today by the Australian National Audit Office once again suggests that the mammoth $87 billion spending splurge failed to boost growth as promised or, as endlessly claimed by our lightweight Treasurer, that the overall stimulus meant that Australia avoided a recession in 2009. The auditors found that the last of the payments under the inspired Greens initiative to create jobs by building bike paths, a key part of the $650 million so-called Jobs Fund, unveiled at the height of the GFC, was not expected to be made until next month. This is almost two years after the funds were meant to have been spent and a full three years since the end of the first quarter of 2009, the quarter that would have confirmed a recession following the negative 0.7 per cent growth quarter at the end of 2008. The Audit Office actually rebuked the government for not ensuring that taxpayer funds delivered the economic gain.   A similar audit from 10 July of the separate $550 million regional community infrastructure project found the cash was spent too slowly to ensure the gains first claimed—the sorts of claims we have heard ad nauseam in this place for three years now. We know Treasury confirmed that a massive $10 billion of stimulus money was still to be spent this year, 2011-12. These are the facts as distinct from the spin. By the way, it is all borrowed money which will not be repaid for years and years.   The Orgill report into the $16 billion school funding program showed that spending began several months later than planned and it is still being spent to this day—several years after the GFC. One-ninth of the stimulus was spent towards the end of the one quarter of negative growth, which was the 2008 December quarter. We supported that first stimulus because of the collapse of confidence. In fact we suggested how it should be spent. Despite the nonsense peddled by our lightweight Treasurer, a Treasurer so far out of his depth.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): Order! The member for Goldstein will refer to the member appropriately.   Mr ROBB: Despite the absolute nonsense peddled by our Treasurer, a Treasurer so far out of his depth, a Treasurer who claims that the stimulus was the reason Australia avoided a technical recession, almost all the stimulus was spent after the economy was bouncing back, which it was by the end of the first quarter and the start of the second quarter of 2009.   It was the automatic economic stabiliser of the exchange rate and the work of the Reserve Bank which restarted our economy. In the first quarter, you might recall, our exchange rate fell to 60c against the US dollar. We all understand the significance of that now. It is not a surprise that the biggest trade surplus in Australia's history came in that first quarter of 2009—in the middle of the global financial crisis. Then the Reserve Bank cut interest rates—not only cut but slashed. They took 4.25 percentage points off interest rates between September 2008 and April 2009. The stimulus money had not been spent, but by April 2009 the pockets of households had more in them than they had ever had as a result of the 4.25 percentage point cut in interest rates.   The interesting point is that seven months later, in November 2009, when some of the spending was starting to take place, interest rates were back up by 3½ percentage points. Why was that? It appears the Reserve Bank was worried about overspending in the economy. The RBA had reduced interest rates by 4.25 percentage points—that got us going—but by the time the money was being spent out of the government's $87 billion stimulus, they were reducing interest rates due to worries about overspending. These are the facts as distinct from the spin. By the way again, it was all borrowed money and it will not be repaid for years and years.   This deceit has been used to justify borrowing and spending of $87 billion and more. All that has meant is that the government has been in the market borrowing $100 million a day ever since. The effect has been to push up interest rates for households and for small and large businesses; push up our exchange rate; ensure that many small and medium sized businesses have not been able to access finance for love or money, many going to the wall as a consequence; and make Australia highly vulnerable to any—even a reasonably modest—downturn in commodity prices. That vulnerability is due to our huge structural deficit, a deficit which is twice Germany's and even 30 per cent worse than Italy's, would you believe. Yet you never hear our Treasurer talk about structural deficits. Do not lecture us about transparency. The rest of the world, especially Europe, talks—is consumed with concern—about structural deficits. The Treasury are not even allowed to produce a figure for the structural deficit. The words have hardly ever even passed the Treasurer's lips in this place. This is yet more spin.   Let us look at the deceit of Labor's stimulus claims. I could recite a litany of issues which have not been addressed by this government, yet they continue to parade this nonsense that the stimulus had some effect. It has had an effect; it has had a deeply negative effect over the last three years and it is contributing to the huge debt hanging around the neck of every Australian.   Let us look at the deceit of Labor's spending claims. The government's response to every problem has been to tax, borrow and spend, spend, spend and then to do high fives after they have passed each tax and spin it as reform. The government should be paying down debt to position Australia for some of the best and most extraordinary opportunities—across virtually every sector, including manufacturing—which are emerging in the Asia-Pacific. They should be paying down debt to weatherproof Australia's economy against growing volatility on world financial and commodity markets—as the Howard-Costello government did ahead of the global financial crisis. That is why we got through the global financial crisis—we went into it with a $20 billion surplus and with a balance sheet that was $70 billion in the black. That and the automatic stabilisers are why we got through it, not the politically inspired stimulus spending which we are still suffering from and which businesses are still suffering from.   Instead, this Treasurer who is out of his depth has consecutively delivered the four biggest deficits in Australia's history—$27 billion, $55 billion, $48 billion and $37 billion. I will not be surprised if that $37 billion blows out a lot further to help manufacture a surplus for 2012-13. Under Labor, annual spending has grown from $272 billion in 2008 to an estimated $370 billion this year. That is an increase of $100 billion in just 4½ years—$100 billion out of a budget which started at $262 billion. That is a 40 per cent increase. I suppose they would say it has kept pace with inflation, but inflation over those 4½ years was only 13½ per cent.   Despite all that, they are increasing spending again this year. Forget the stimulus for a moment. Let us say that the stimulus was warranted, that it has not brought thousands of small businesses to their knees because they cannot get finance as a result of having to compete against a government borrowing $100 million a day. You would think that, after they had spent the money on the stimulus, they would come back to something like the long-term level of spending, would you not? That is what a household would do if they had put an extension on their house. The next year they would come back to their long-term level of spending.   Not this mob.   Under this government the deficit has gone up and up—$87 billion, but they could better that. Now they are at $100 billion more than they were spending 4½ years ago. That is why they never talk about expenditure. This Treasurer is out of his depth and he never talks about expenditure. This government has had two to three per cent more over expenditure than previous governments as a percentage of GDP every year, on average, for 4½ years. Look at the facts, not the spin. So much for fiscal consolidation. It is a monstrous amount of money, much more than the $87 billion. This government has spent $70 billion over and above that $87 billion they have spent above the long-term spending trend. And they talk about fiscal responsibility. This fiscal consolidation line is, again, more spin.   Labor's third outrageous line of spin is its claims about the surplus. Labor has been boasting for three years about its projected 2012-13 surplus while delivering the biggest deficits in our nation's history. You will hear it again this time—they will brag about a surplus that they have never delivered and try to bury one of the four biggest deficits in our history. In fact, a detailed look at their budget figures shows we have every reason to treat the surplus, if we ever see it, as thoroughly dodgy and thoroughly manufactured. It is a product of accounting tricks to shuffle money and hide spending to keep it off the budget bottom line and engineer the appearance of a surplus next year.   Let me give just one of the many examples that I documented in a speech last Friday to VECCI. Labor accept that their damaging carbon tax poses a threat to Australia's energy security, and in response they will spend over $1 billion this year, 2011-12, to support energy markets through its Energy Security Fund. Jump forward two years, to 2013-14 and 2014-15. They will spend another billion dollars in each of those years. What happened in the middle? What happened to 2012-13? Apparently the carbon tax magically poses no threat to energy security in 2012-13. They are spending 1,000 times less—$1 million, not $1 billion. So it is a billion, one million, a billion, a billion.   I could take you through 34 examples of very obvious cases where they have done this. Again and again they have brought spending forward or they have pushed it back into those two years. Get up and answer those claims. Explain to us why it is a billion, one million and then a billion, a billion to alleviate the threat to business from the carbon tax. This Treasurer has been pulling forward expenditure for two years and now it is being pushed out from 2012-13 into the subsequent two years, and he does not think anyone is looking. A forensic examination of the budget papers shows dozens of examples of this sort of chicanery. It is one reason why Labor's claim to be delivering a wafer-thin surplus in 2012-13 should be taken with a very large grain of salt. All these things add up to tens of billions of dollars. In fact, whatever they come up with in May, the real truth will be tens of billions of dollars more in deficit. This is a government that has practised and perfected the art of spin.   Finally, we have the most notorious example of the government's spin. They have not only shuffled money around but have about $100 billion of items for which there is no identified funding, or they are hidden. They have taken it off the balance sheet or they have not identified funding. There is the Clean Energy Fund, the NBN, the structural black holes inherent in the mining and carbon taxes, the 12 new Australian-designed submarines—all of these add up to an extraordinary amount of money, $100 billion. That is the real $100 billion black hole. Remember on budget night Labor's $100 billion real black hole? Remember Labor's cumulative deficits over the last 10 years in office, including a whopping and shameful deficit this financial year of $37 billion, adding up to a total of over $200 billion? For God's sake, look beyond the spin and look at the statistics. (Time expired)   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The last comment was not worthy of parliament.   Andrew Robb Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:38:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1377 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1372/Address-to-VECCI-Confronting-Vulnerability-Restoring-Confidence.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1372 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1372&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1372/Address-to-VECCI-Confronting-Vulnerability-Restoring-Confidence.aspx                                                                                   CLICK BELOW TO DOWNLOAD SPEECH Andrew Robb Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:44:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1372 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1356/Fairer-Private-Health-Insurance-Incentives-Bill-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1356 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1356&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1356/Fairer-Private-Health-Insurance-Incentives-Bill-2012.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:25)—I rise tonight to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011. These bills are clearly a reflection of the creeping class warfare nonsense that we are increasingly hearing from this government. We are starting to hear it from the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten, and others who are sowing the seeds of division in this community. This is another classic example of a means by which they are seeking political advantage.   We are harking back decades. The BLF influence in the CFMEU is starting to manifest itself in a grubby and ugly fashion. It is true, this is a problem. The culture is changing. Why would they play the politics of envy? Why would the Prime Minister, and other senior ministers, come in here day after day and, in a grubby and irresponsible way, start to build resentment against people who are making money, who are employing others and who are already carrying much of the cost of taxation within this community? This is a further sign of the collapse of this government's moral fibre. In a rush for a cash grab by what is one of the most profligate governments in our history—in fact, it is the most profligate government in our history—we are seeing that they are prepared to pit Australian against Australian, and to do it in a most disingenuous way. Even the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong, responded last week:   We don’t think as a government it is fair for low-income Australians to be subsidising the health insurance of millionaires.   This goes straight onto the theme of building resentment—the politics of envy—in an attempt to pit Australian against Australian by totally misrepresenting the impact of this bill. They are prepared not only to take away this highly effective measure just to acquire moneys to meet the four record deficits of this government, and try to pay some contribution to that, but also to misrepresent the effect of this.   Of course, it will be low-income people who will pay for much of this measure that we are debating here tonight. Low-income people will form part of the smaller pool of those who are insured, and as a consequence we will see that they will be paying higher and higher premiums. Low-income people who cannot afford insurance will now find themselves lining up for longer and longer, with increases of months and months in the availability of healthcare services, as people flock to the public health system and away from the private health system. This government is so far out of touch with everyday Australians it is breathtaking. They are prepared to offend, to pit Australian against Australian, to pitch the politics of envy and to get down in the gutter in this way simply for their political advantage.   These bills have been rejected by the parliament twice, but this government just does not get it. It has no respect for the view of the parliament. It is just another broken promise, after Labor solemnly vowed not to attack the 30 per cent rebate. But after what we saw on the 7.30 Report tonight, it is little wonder. We are getting used to a government whose word cannot be trusted. No wonder there is a crisis of confidence, and this bill will add to that crisis of confidence, which is starting to permeate every household and business in the country. This government has lost direction. This is another classic example of this government's failure on so many fronts. They are willing to do things that are not rational or sensible on any basis so that they can exploit the politics of envy and resentment, which is what they are doing with this debate.   This attack on private health crystallises the clear philosophical difference between the coalition and Labor. It is the difference between backing personal choice and personal responsibility and more of the insulting nanny state, government-knows-best approach that is so typical of Labor.   There are many millions of people on very low incomes who make enormous sacrifice to take out private health insurance. They are very proud of the fact that they are taking personal responsibility for some of their health care. And they also feel they have some control. If in the next decade or two they find themselves with a medical problem, they feel that taking out private health insurance is a sensible thing for them to do. It gives them some control. They are not reliant on whether or not there is an understaffed public hospital emergency ward that can meet their needs. They do not have the fear that when they come to need vital services those services will not be there, or they will be there 12 hours later after they have sat in an emergency waiting room for some overworked doctor to make an assessment and do something with them. It gives them peace of mind. It gives them a sense of personal responsibility. It gives them control over one very important element of their lives: their health, and how it can be managed.   The government is oblivious to the sentiments and sense of self-worth of so many people who make huge sacrifices, who have not really got the money but are prepared to do it. It is at the heart of the philosophical difference. We have seen it writ large in so many things with this government.   These changes will force everyday Australians to drop private health or go onto cheaper policies with more exclusions. There is no doubt about it. Already people are becoming anxious about the impact it is going to have.   My electorate of Goldstein has amongst the highest number of people in private health insurance in the country—74.5 per cent of voters in my electorate are in private health, with more than 106,000 covered, including more than 24,000 families. This will push up premiums for those remaining in private cover, including retirees and families with children battling to make ends meet.   The public response in my electorate to this proposal has been white hot, and so it should be. The anger is palpable, with the rhetoric of the likes of Senator Wong, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations spreading the evil of the politics of envy and resentment to people who might have a bit more money. These are people who are working overtime and whose partners are working so that they can have things like private health insurance. These are the people who are concerned that they will be affected. It is coming from families who have mortgages, car loans and kids at school and are earning a combined $160,000—if you listen to the government, of course they are the filthy rich! Two teachers earning $75,000 each are the filthy rich in this country! It is coming from singles who are earning $80,000 to $93,000. These people are not the rich. These are everyday Australians. It is coming from couples on low incomes, including pensioners and self-funded retirees, who see themselves paying higher premiums because of a smaller pool of insured people or people taking out cover with fewer features than they currently have. It is coming from people who have no private health cover and see themselves as being disadvantaged because of overstacked public hospitals as people move away from private hospitals.   I would like to share with you part of an email from a constituent of mine who has clearly had enough of this government's attacks on working families—the forgotten families. It reads:   Dear Andrew, We are very rarely moved to contact our local representatives, but the news that the government appears to now have the numbers to pass legislation to means test the private health insurance rebate has sufficiently infuriated us to do so. If and when this motley collection of spendthrift amateurs and union criminals enacts the legislation, through the complicity of the intellectually vacant hillbilly Independents, our family of five will be forced to find something in the region of a further $1,600 annually. The alternative is to lower our insurance cover to a level where we and our children are not adequately protected in case of illness or injury, or to pay extra income tax. Some choice. As usual, under this atrocious government those who work the hardest and the longest end up penalised instead of rewarded. We trust that the next election restores some sanity, responsibility and decency to government, and we seek a commitment from the coalition that once in government it will abolish any means test on the private health insurance rebate.   If you are single and earning more than $124,000, the rebate is gone. If you are a couple earning $160,000 the rebate is slashed. Those forced out of private health will be hit with a higher Medicare levy, rising from one per cent to 1.25 per cent or to 1.5 per cent depending on the tier.   All this government knows is taxing, borrowing and spending. This is another example. This is a cash grab simply to meet the borrowing and spending habits that this government has got into. Two point four million people will be directly affected by these changes and face immediate increases in premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent and 43 per cent in the respective income tiers.   Deloitte analysis of the changes shows that, in the first year, 175,000 people would be expected to withdraw from private hospital cover and a further 583,000 to downgrade. Over five years, it is expected that 1.6 million people will drop cover and 4.3 million will downgrade. Typically, this government will not disclose the numbers of people expected to downgrade, but, as premiums increase significantly for those in the income tiers, logically many will seek cheaper alternatives.   Most perversely, these changes will add new pressure to our stretched public health system. The private health system plays a critical role in easing pressure on overcrowded public hospitals. Private hospitals treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia. In 2009-10, private hospitals treated 3.5 million patients. Private hospitals perform the majority of elective surgery in Australia, 64 per cent. Twelve million Australians, or nearly 53 per cent, have private health insurance. Ten point three million people, or 46 per cent, have hospital treatment cover. Under the Howard government, we saw support for private health go from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. Sixty-four per cent of the population believe the rebates represent a good use of taxpayers' money.   The changes will present an enormous compliance burden on industry and on individuals completing their tax returns. Deloitte predict that private health insurance premiums will rise by 10 per cent above what they would otherwise be. There will be $3.8 billion in additional recurrent costs for the public hospital system. Where is the money for that? The government has no idea—just shove that off to the states. This is a government that has lost all control of finances. You can never trust Labor with money. This legislation is an abomination.   The change will also have an impact on access to allied health services, with 2.8 million people with general treatment cover expected to withdraw and 5.7 million to downgrade over five years. This legislation is the price that everyday Australians are paying for this government's profligacy, its record levels of debt, deficit and waste. It makes a mockery of the government's claims to be concerned about cost of living. It is doing this and then it is going to add a carbon tax on top, which will increase the costs for pensioners heating and cooling their houses and increase the costs for families of their power bills and everything else. At the same time, the government is potentially increasing the cost of private health cover for an average family by anything up to $1,600 a year. Imagine how these families are going to feel when that increased $800 bill comes half-yearly. What is the compensation for the carbon tax? It pales into insignificance and only meets the costs of some people. I urge Australians who are adversely affected by these changes to mobilise, to bombard the Minister for the Health and the Prime Minister and tell them that they are not going to accept this sort of change. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:59:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1356 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1355/Appropriation-Bills-No-3-and-No-4.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1355 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1355&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1355/Appropriation-Bills-No-3-and-No-4.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (16:30): I rise today to speak on appropriation bills 3 and 4 of 2011-12. These bills support government funding commitments and variations outlined in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The total appropriations that are being sought are $3.1 billion, which includes $2.82 billion through Appropriation Bill (No. 3) across 19 portfolios and $341.1 million through Appropriation Bill (No. 4) across 13 portfolios.   These bills form part of the government's quite cynical fiscal strategy to create a budget surplus in 2012-13. These bills shine a very clear light on the fact that the government are embarking on a quite sophisticated and orchestrated attempt to manufacture, if they can, a surplus, whether it is a dollar or $1 billion, to manufacture a surplus in 2012-13 for political gain. Yet in the process they are hiding the true nature of the spending patterns of this government, the reckless spending that has occurred and continues to occur. It is a strategy which in many ways disguises the true vulnerability that is now starting to characterise so much of this government's budgetary process and is evidenced by the fact that not one new job was created last year for the first time in 20 years. If that is not evidence that we have problems, what is?   It is a strategy that includes pushing spending outside of 2012-13 and, in several instances, bringing forward into this financial year expenditure that would typically fall in 2012-13. In other cases substantial funds are allocated for programs in 2011-12 and 2013-14, but not in 2012-13. What a coincidence! In many respects, if the 2012-13 foreshadowed surplus is consistent with the wafer-thin number, the $1.4 billion pencilled in to this MYEFO, it will be illusionary; it will be a totally manufactured surplus. Despite all of the nonsense about fiscal consolidation, this is a very big-spending government. It is now spending virtually $100 billion a year more compared to the last year of the Howard government, an increase of some 37 per cent.   You might say that there was fiscal stimulus during the global financial crisis. Let us assume that the 16 per cent increase in spending in 2008-09—the fiscal stimulus in the form of $900 cheques and the gross waste of money on school halls and pink batts, the latter featuring in the MYEFO and appearing to be never ending—was justified and essential despite the fact that the economy they inherited in 2007 was by far the best in the world. But let us assume that 16 per cent was necessary, that massive $87 billion spike was essential, you would expect the year after the spike that government spending would return to somewhere near the long-term trend.   You would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your own household expenditure, that if you and your husband decide to put on extensions this year, you have a spike—you have a stimulus to family spending for one year. You have your household expenditure and you have the spike, and you get something for it. The next year you should probably return to your long-term spending pattern, because that reflects your income and your way of life.   But not with this government; not on your ‘nelly’. They had a long-term trend of spending. They had a spike of $87 billion and then they had another spike, greater than $87 billion, and another one. In fact, the $87 billion has now become a permanent feature of government spending. They never had any downturn in expenditure, despite the biggest spike in spending by any government in our country's history. The following year they spent more money again, and this year they are spending more money again. According to MYEFO, that $100 billion will continue to be a permanent feature of government spending. It is an increase of nearly 40 per cent in four years. Yet in that period of time inflation rates were nothing like that, just a minor fraction. And there has been a permanent 40 per cent increase in government spending. It makes a nonsense of all this talk of fiscal consolidation. Of course the rate of increase on top of that would have to be smaller than you would expect, because they have already incorporated an extra $100 billion within the body of every annual budget, and they pretend that they have some fiscal rectitude. It is just an illusion and a deception, and it needs to be fingered. This is a government that blew out spending by more than 16 per cent over two budgets and has not stopped since.   This government has, for these reasons, proved quite incapable of living within its means. It took over a budget that had absolutely no debt, and $70 billion in reserves. Sure, they had a fiscal stimulus—$87 billion—one year. But they have had the highest terms of trade in 140 years. This is a long and protracted mining boom, which we more than any other country are enjoying the benefit of. That is going on and on and on. They had no debt. They had $70 billion in the bank, and they have spent $87 billion. Yet we now see a debt of $136 billion. We have now seen the four biggest deficits in our history, a total of $167 billion. Not only that, but they have also funded a raft of things off budget—which, again, is borrowings—such as the $50 billion NBN white elephant.   Even worse is the environmental slush fund that has been created—the ‘Bob Brown bank’—and the skulduggery in the middle of the night to get the carbon tax through. What does another $10 billion here or there matter? That fund is almost identical to other funds within the current budget of this government—funds that companies can apply for to undertake renewable energy projects. This extra $10 billion is absolutely no different. People will apply, they will be assessed, they will be given money and they will seek to undertake a renewable energy project. They will do all that, and yet it is off budget. One program is on budget and the next is off budget. It is just a convenience to hide another $10 billion worth of debt and not have it on the balance sheet. It is a deception ; that is all it is. It is like someone with 10 credit cards. They have debt on this one, debt on that one and debt on the other one. They have an overdraft at the bank and they have a mortgage. They are hiding funds everywhere. Lift up the mattress; there is probably something hidden away.   This is a government that will pull any trick in the book to deceive and mislead. But people are not misled. Households on average have been saving 13 per cent of their disposable income over the last year. This is unprecedented saving by households. Households have got a sense that something is wrong; they have got a sense that there is a vulnerability. They had a sense 12 months ago that their jobs were suspect. Dick Warburton is a man who has been employed by both sides of politics to assist them with major policy projects over recent decades. He is a man of great manufacturing experience and he still has his finger on the pulse as executive chairman of Manufacturing Australia. He said today that we could expect up to 400,000 Australians to be in danger of losing their jobs this year.   What a chilling warning. People smelt this 12 months ago. The average mum and dad out there smelt this; they sensed it. Yet the Treasurer said today that the economy walks tall. That was said with a sense of complacency borne out of ignorance and deception. People face the prospect of another 400,000 jobs going and not one new job was created last year. Yet the Treasurer is saying our economy walks tall and the Prime Minister says this is all just 'growing pains'. This is the ignorance, or arrogance—or both—of the two people who are leading this government.   No wonder people are confused. No wonder they feel a crisis of confidence. No wonder they are saving 13 per cent. Here is a government that is spending like there is no tomorrow and not living within its means. Yet we have every household living within their means. They are doing the responsible thing and taking responsibility for their lives in the areas they can influence.   And we have got businesses not investing. There is money on balance sheets; a lot of businesses are cashed up. So why are they not spending? It is because they have got a crisis of confidence. Much of that is borne out of the government's lack of direction, lack of conviction, lack of competency, lack of understanding and preoccupation with the Prime Minister's job, not other people's jobs. They see it all. They feel that the Treasurer, in particular, and the Prime Minister are both out of their depth. They are. You see it on the faces of their colleagues behind them every day in this House. They see that lack of confidence; everyone has got it. In fact, from the time this Prime Minister took over, there has not been a sense in the eyes of the people behind her that she is giving them confidence in where she wants to take the economy and where it is going.   There is no story. There is no capacity to tell a story because they have not got one. Jobs are going left, right and centre. We are in the middle of the biggest mining boom in our history. They inherited an economy which, compared to the rest of the world, was in unbelievable shape. They have wasted it all. They have wasted a mining boom. They are still wasting a mining boom. There are still pressures. There are still people waking up at night wondering how they are going to pay the bills if they lose their job. There is no peace of mind. You have got oldies, grandparents, sensing the disquiet among their own children and grandchildren. You have got businesses expressing warnings to their staff about the difficult times.   It is all because there is no vision, no competence, no attention, no focus. This is a government which is derelict. It is totally preoccupied with internecine disputes. There is no sense of team work going on. The Treasurer cannot even sit next to the foreign minister in the cabinet. This beggars belief. This is an appalling statement about this government. The Prime Minister cannot talk to the foreign minister. These are the heads of Australia's government! The relationships have totally collapsed.   People sense this; they know this. It causes enormous disquiet. And what is happening? All that happens is we get abused by the Prime Minister, day in and day out, rather than her doing something constructive. There is a total preoccupation with their internal wrangles, with the Prime Minister's job and the Treasurer's job. In boardrooms throughout this country, no-one has any respect for this Treasurer. He is seen as a total lightweight. He is seen as a treasurer who is out of his depth. He is seen as a hapless treasurer. He is seen as a treasurer who is totally captive, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Treasury. Whatever they say goes. They have an important view, but it is not the only view. As the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, you need to balance all points of view. You need to take everything into account, listen and have some capacity. But all we hear is class warfare, a sense of resentment and jealousy about anything to do with wealth.   Increasingly in that chamber all we hear is something I have not heard for 20 years, a growing sense that there are great divisions within our community and that there is something wrong with anyone who is creating wealth or creating jobs. It is thought that they are doing something inherently distrustful or dishonest and that they deserve to be brought down a peg or two. It is a very nasty development. It is a cultural change. It is a reversion to 40 or 50 years ago. It smacks of the old union. You can see the BLF coming up through the CFMEU, and now they are dominating this government. They are pulling the strings in this dirty culture, grubby culture, unfortunate culture associated with a government that is now starting to sow the seeds of significant class division for political capital. It is pathetic. It is dangerous. It is unnecessary. It underscores the need for an election in this country right here and now, because people are suffering. Those who are suffering are the 22 million Australians watching a pantomime played out by this Labor Party government. It has to be fixed.   This MYEFO is just another characterisation of it. We have this tricky strategy to try and pull money forward and push money back, so that in 2012-13 there is some manufactured surplus. There is some sense that everything is fine. As he said: 'Our economy walks tall; there is no vulnerability. The prices of commodities are going to keep going at 140-year highs for ever. We're okay.' There is a complacency, because they do not know what to do. Nothing real is happening. What has happened to productivity? The front pages of today's papers are full of business people, people who normally do not speak out, decrying the fact that there is no productivity in this country. They are spending billions and billions, borrowing hundreds of billions, and yet there is no productivity improvement. We are not seeing any gain out of this wasteful expenditure.   Waste, waste, waste and debt and deficit and new taxes, that is what we are seeing. That is the characterisation, the legacy that this government will leave. It will leave a lack of peace of mind for Australians all over this country. It will leave businesses bewildered and going offshore. Listening in the chamber, you would think all was well, that there were opportunities and we are such a blessed country. We are in the middle of the biggest mining boom. We are in Asia and it is going to be the century of food security. It is going to be the century of opportunity for us, with education, with agricultural output and with mining. We have it all. What has happened with agriculture? The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been stripped. This budget takes $100 million off R&D in agriculture, in the century of food security. What vision! They have no sense of what is going on out there in the bush or in Asia.   They tell us about Asia and new economies. It will be agriculture. The thing the Americans feel is most likely to cause international disputes in this century is a lack of food. We have an opportunity with millions of hectares of black soil across the north and 76 per cent of our water falling above the line from Broome through to Townsville. It all falls in three months and we capture about half a percent of it. The Greens have a veto over any development in this country.   I have been all over the country with my dams committee. There has not been a dam in 30 years. People have got their heads down, because everywhere you say: 'That's a good project. You've spent thousands of dollars coming up with that thought, that proposal. You know your local area. You know the hydrology of this. You know the opportunity. Why aren't you going ahead with it?', they put their heads down and they say, 'It is the Greens. You can't get it through.' We have this enormous opportunity in the north of Australia. It just reeks of opportunity, and we are doing nothing with it.   This government is visionless. It has no strategy and no sense of where this century is going. We are sitting there in a time warp and now we are culturally going back to snarling at one another about who has money and who has not and who is ripping off the system and all the small-business people working their 20-hour days are all 'crooks' according to this government. They do not like it. They do not understand growth; they are all about redistribution. You have to grow the cake; then we can redistribute.   Real wages increased through the Howard term by 22½ per cent. Look at the Keating-Hawke years. What happened there? A negative-1.2 per cent increase in real wages over 13 years of office. Twenty-two per cent increase in real wages is money people's pockets. That is mums and dads who want to send their kids to school and go and have holidays and make a go of their lives.   This MYEFO document is just a charade. It is another piece of evidence that we can put on the table. We have a debt ceiling. Look at all the trickiness that is in these things. On the other side of the building, the minister for finance, the person responsible for this appropriation bill, is sitting up there in Senate estimates and in response to every question about the debt, she says, 'Not my responsibility. No. That is Treasury.' She is very quick, a lawyer practiced at saying nothing. A lawyer practiced at getting out of every proposition. This finance minister has done nothing except pour scorn over us in 85 per cent of her press releases. That is all she does.   Today, when asked about the debt again and again, she says, 'That is Treasury.' Yet her appropriation bill at the last budget sought to increase the debt ceiling—in the depths of night—to $250 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars. That was her responsibility and now she is saying she has nothing to do with debt, as they climb towards that quarter of a trillion dollars. They will be back again asking for permission to increase it, so they can keep going with their debt binge, so they can keep creating the vulnerability and turn what was a magnificent opportunity—the blessings this country has and just waste—them.   We have had deficit after deficit after deficit. All this spending that I have talked about, this wanton spending, has increased interest rates. They have been in the market and they are still in the market for $100 million a day every day. They have pushed up the price of money because of that demand, and that has meant that many small and medium-sized businesses who are trying to refinance are unable to get money at any price. Doors have closed. In Moorabbin I am on the doorstep of the biggest mid-tier manufacturing community in Australia. Really good healthy businesses that have been long-term family businesses just cannot get the finances to refinance their mortgage. Mortgages average $800,000 across that whole precinct. Yet they are closing because they cannot get the money or they are paying very high rates.   They are pushing up interest rates and that is pushing up the exchange rate. A lot of other factors affect the exchange rate, but when money is coming out of the US, when people feel some confidence about the US, immediately money starts to look for more opportunistic opportunities and it goes where the highest interest rate is. The gap between our interest rate, our cash rate and the cash rate of other developed countries has grown through the term of this government. That is because they are spending like there is no tomorrow. It is because they are in the market for $100 million every day. It is because they are competing. They put pressure on the exchange rate yet the Prime Minister comes in here in her ignorance and talks about the exchange rate being just a function of how strong we are. With 400,000 jobs being threatened this year—all these vulnerabilities.   It is because the fast money is chasing high interest rates. If the government spent less, there would be lower interest rates and the exchange rate would be down—if it was only two or three points, it would be down, and that would be a big help. But, no, they are blind to all of that; they are blind to doing anything. We have this enormous mismatch between fiscal and monetary policy.   You have people out there now confused. The government spent two weeks talking up the banks and trying to bully the banks into reducing interest rates. We have had two weeks of the Treasurer saying, 'There's room, there's room.' You have to see there is room; they are making lots of profits. There is room for the banks to bring down interest rates. He has been verballing the banks for two weeks. People believe that the government knows what it is doing. They think he was competent. They assume that the Reserve Bank is going to listen. What has happened? Interest rates have gone up, not down. Now you have families out there anxious the government really does not know what to do, so much so that the Reserve Bank does not listen to them anymore and the banks do not listen to them anymore. Interest rates are going up and they do not feel any sense of control over their situation.   Ms Rishworth interjecting—   Mr ROBB: You can bleat on over there, but the fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of thousands of people potentially losing jobs this year. Interest rates are going up. You go and pay their bills! The government is spending so much money. Why doesn't this government do something? There is a mismatch between monetary and fiscal policy. They have left all the hard yards and heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank, and they done nothing but borrow, spend and create new taxes. This is a government that needs to be ashamed of what it is doing.   On top of all this, you have a carbon tax. Can you believe it? After all the things I have talked about. I have not talked about the carbon tax yet. Here we are, with all that vulnerability, all that opportunity, and we are going to introduce a carbon tax and go it alone.   I had climate change for nearly two years. I got sick of being lectured about how we had to be part of a global scheme 'because nothing else made any sense'.   Mr Hayes interjecting—   Mr ROBB: I got lectured endlessly, and now we are the only ones in. Here we have mountains of expenditure, hundreds of millions of dollars, to create this massive bureaucracy, to churn—   Ms Rishworth interjecting—   Mr ROBB: this money, to redistribute income. This is a government that is introducing a tax at the absolute worst time. People are confused. There is no confidence in the community in the business sector. They scratch their heads and say: 'What the hell is this government doing? Why would they introduce a tax when this vulnerability exists? Why would they introduce a tax when manufacturing is on its knees? Why would they introduce a tax when we are trying to maximise the market share from the mining boom while we can and take every advantage?' No. Instead, the government says: 'Let's put two taxes on! Not just carbon tax but a mining tax too. Let's put a lead weight around our best player.' They are running out into the grand final—the mining boom—with a lead weight on the captain. This stupidity is profound.   I had a lot more to say here but I think you have the gist of it. This document is another sad piece of evidence that what we need in this country is a government which will help people get ahead and help get things back on track. We need a government that will live within its means, that will end the waste, reduce the debt and the deficit and stop the new taxes. It is not hard. If you stop spending, if you start living within your means like every household in this country—saving on average 13 per cent of their income—you start to see some confidence grow. People would feel that there was a government that had some empathy with the problems they face and with the circumstances we face in the world—and the opportunities we face in the world. They despair at the waste. They despair at the cynicism. They despair at the focus on one person's job—the Prime Minister's—and not every Australian's job. There is great despair about this government, a lack of confidence, and it needs to be addressed.   In that sense, I move:   That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:   “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that, in light of global economic uncertainty and existing pressures on Australian industry and jobs, the Government should not appropriate funds for measures associated with the introduction of a carbon tax to allow for the postponement of introduction of the tax until after elections have been held for the 44th Parliament and the Parliament has met.”   I rest my case.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou): Is the amendment seconded?   Mr Somlyay: I second the amendment.   Andrew Robb Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1355 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1354/Matter-of-Public-Importance-The-urgent-need-of-the-government-to-protect-the-jobs-of-Australian-workers.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1354 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1354&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1354/Matter-of-Public-Importance-The-urgent-need-of-the-government-to-protect-the-jobs-of-Australian-workers.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:42): The last 13 minutes says it all. There are thousands of jobs being lost in our community and the person the government throws up to defend their management of this economy—to set out what they are doing to stop this loss of jobs that is so damaging to so many thousands of families across the country—could not even use his full 15 minutes. He did not even spend any time describing what the government is doing. No defence. We had the Prime Minister here last week urging an economic debate. Here is an economic debate. Here is an economic problem: thousands of jobs lost. What did we hear? Just a whole lot of scuttlebutt derived from Google from the member opposite. This is pathetic.   This is a classic example of why there is a crisis of confidence throughout our community. That is at the heart of the problems we are facing; it is at the heart of the job problem. It is why last year there was no net increase in jobs in the middle of a mining boom. Off goes the member for Blaxland, who did not even know that the market interest rates are different to the cash rate. No wonder this government is incompetent from an economic point of view. There is no confidence in this government amongst every Australian and amongst every business in Australia. It is evidenced by the fact that over the last 12 months savings rates amongst families have skyrocketed to plus 13 per cent of their disposable income.   They are paying off the mortgage, they are paying off the plastic and they are putting money on deposit, because they are scared. They have no confidence; they have no sense of direction; they have no feel that this government is on top of its job. That is why they are saving like they never have before. They have sensed the vulnerability in our economy for 12 months, and yet this government has had a sense of complacency. It has a sense of entitlement about sitting on those benches; it has an obsession with holding onto its members' jobs and not worrying about other people's jobs.   This crisis of confidence has also infected business. We have got a business sector that has not created one new net job in the last 12 months. We had a situation today where Dick Warburton, who is the Executive Chairman of Manufacturing Australia and a most experienced manufacturer, someone who has been asked by both sides of politics to assist with major policy decisions, warned that up to 400,000 Australians are in danger of losing their jobs during this year. What a chilling warning that is from someone who has got his finger on the pulse. When did you last speak to the manufacturers in some sort of serious way, other than for a photo op?   I put it to the parliament that we have a crisis of confidence and that is the reason people are saving like there is no tomorrow, the reason they are waking up at 2.30 in the morning worrying about what losing their job will mean for their mortgage payments and their ability to look after their families and the reason that business people have got lots of money on their balance sheets but are not spending or investing any of it. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have a Treasurer and a Prime Minister who have created this crisis of confidence. We have a Treasurer who has displayed some very special talents over the last few years.   This Treasurer has taken the highest terms of trade in 140 years, a balance sheet with not an ounce of debt on it, a balance sheet with nearly $70 billion of reserves, a highly skilled workforce, a workforce which had unemployment rates at four per cent and an unprecedented and prolonged global mining boom and he has wasted it. He has taken all of that and he has wasted the boom. He wasted terms of trade at 140 year highs. He has presided over a panic reaction to the global financial crisis—$87 billion, $900 cheques, pink batts and school halls. It is just criminal the waste that this Treasurer has presided over.   This Treasurer has presided over the four biggest budget deficits in our history—$167 billion. This Treasurer has now increased the spending of this government by around 40 per cent. In 2007 the budget was $272 billion. The budget for 2011 is expected to be $370 billion. That is an increase of around $100 billion. This is like a household who are spending a certain amount of money and then one year decide to put on major extensions. So they have a real spike in their spending for that year. It is a bit like a stimulus for that family for one year. Then the next year, what do they do? They go back to their original level of spending. Has the government done that? Not on your ‘nelly’. They have gone up above the spike.   The $87 billion is now embodied in every year's budget. They are spending it on other programs. Yet they had the gall to talk about fiscal prudence and this fastest fiscal consolidation, using mumbo jumbo words that no-one can understand when in actual fact what they are doing is hiding the great deception of a government that has spent like there is no tomorrow.   An increase of 40 per cent is $100 billion. What would be the inflation rate over the last four years? It pales in comparison, yet they try to tell us that they are fiscally responsible. No wonder we have had the four biggest budget deficits in our history. No wonder we have got a debt which is approaching $136 billion. No wonder we have got exchange rates under pressure. That $100 billion a day in the market has pushed up the price of money, which has attracted more overseas capital. Some of that exchange rate increase is directly at the door of this government, yet they wash their hands of it. They do not do anything about it. Some of the interest rate rises are a result of this government's spending, which continues.   We have got a Treasurer who is a dangerous lightweight. He is a wholly owned subsidiary of Treasury; he has not got an original thought. They say 'You jump' and he says 'How high?' On Friday I did my 76th boardroom since I got this job two years ago. I can report that the Treasurer is viewed with contempt in boardrooms across Australia. He is seen as out of his depth. He is seen as hapless and he is seen as anti-business. No-one for a second believes he can sell your economic story because he has not got one. He is not up to it and he cannot fashion an economic program that is suitable to the problems.   The Treasurer has created a vulnerability in this economy, yet he has the gall to walk in here today and say Australia's economy walks tall—said with a sense of complacency born of ignorance. This is a Treasurer who, combined with the Prime Minister, has no vision, has no direction and cannot be trusted—   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member will be careful with his terminology about members in this place.   Mr ROBB: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought I was being quite judicious.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I get to decide if you are being judicious and I do not think you are.   Mr ROBB: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can decide. The Prime Minister is a leader with no authority. She is a leader who is just consumed with looking after her job and not the jobs of thousands and thousands of Australians who are out of work now or are in jeopardy this year. With all of the nonsense decisions—the live cattle exports, the attack on private health insurance and the culture war that is now starting to be introduced into this parliament for the first time in about 20 years—this is an incompetent, ignorant, dysfunctional government and it needs to go. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:09:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1354 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1351/Condolence-Motion-Sir-Zelman-Cowan.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1351 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1351&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1351/Condolence-Motion-Sir-Zelman-Cowan.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (11:18): For me it is a great privilege to have an opportunity to say a few words of condolence about this very great Australian. I must say how much I enjoyed and endorse the comments by the member for Wentworth which were put so eruditely and finely in the last few minutes. I enjoyed also the interactions that Malcolm Turnbull experienced with Sir Zelman over a long period of time.   For me I had the great honour of getting to know Sir Zelman perhaps over the last 15 years. As the member for Wentworth mentioned, we were engaged with Sir Zelman in all sorts of ways during the republic debate and I shared Sir Zelman's view of how it should proceed and what shape it should take, the minimalist model and the lack of election of a president, which he felt very strongly about as did I and still do.   That gave us a point of connection and it gave me a great opportunity to get to know the man and to appreciate what so many others have eloquently put in this chamber about the qualities of Sir Zelman and the reasons for which he is so widely respected within the Australian community and the global community in the many areas that he has interacted with. I have been able to maintain some measure of contact, often by coincidence, as Sir Zelman lived near my electorate. Caulfield, in which he resided, is the neighbouring suburb to my electorate. I have around 8,000 members of the Jewish community in my electorate of Goldstein and I enjoy my regular interactions with the Jewish community. I would often find myself at the same function or event as Sir Zelman as a consequence.   The thing that struck me about him, both in my interactions with him and in the way he dealt with other people, was his humility. I found it hugely instructive and also a source of great admiration that a man of such extraordinary achievements—and not just for the magnificent role as Governor-General but through the history of his achievements which have already been chronicled so well by so many: from a young age as dux of his school, as a Rhodes scholar and then later as the Dean of Law at the University of Melbourne at the age of 30—marked him as a man of remarkable intellect and capacity. I suspect, despite the humble, sympathetic and empathetic manner that he always brought to interactions with people, there was clearly great strength of character. He was a man who was not easily swayed from his view of things. He had a capacity to stay true to what he believed and to argue it and influence others without any bombast and without any acrimony. It is again a lesson for many of us in this place that there are multiple ways of achieving outcomes and multiple ways of legitimately disagreeing with one another without some of the nastiness that can surround proceedings not just here but in other parts of our community.   Sir Zelman was operational in Darwin when the bombings took place in the Second World War. He experienced the bombings, which in fact exceeded Pearl Harbour. This is not well understood due to the strategic approach taken at the time not to frighten the rest of the community with what was happening up north. To this day, I do not think Australians appreciate the significance of the magnitude of the disaster or the intensity of the hundreds of Japanese bombings that took place. Sir Zelman experienced all of that. He was a patron of the Darwin Defenders group and without exception attended the Darwin Defenders service, which is held on 19 February each year in Melbourne and in other parts of the country.   For the years I have been in parliament I have attended each year, and he has always been there, no matter what his state of health has been. Again, he was always responsive to people and always had that great capacity, which the member for Wentworth described so eloquently, for mentoring. He had this innate ability, whether you were speaking to him for one minute or for 30 minutes, to influence what you thought, without preaching at you or imposing a point of view. It is very hard to articulate; he was a very remarkable man and he had this quality about him. Others, such as the member for Kooyong, have spoken eloquently about this capacity, and they have enjoyed that experience, perhaps more than others, with Sir Zelman. I saw it again and again. In every interaction I had with him over the last 15 years, that was the thing that stayed with me. I always came away from that discussion, no matter how short or how long it was, with a feeling of more certainty about certain issues and with something to think about. Again, it was all done in a gentle manner. His humility was a constant and it was extraordinary. He had many reasons to have a touch of arrogance or hubris, given his contribution, but you never saw it for a second.   He was a man of great empathy and patience. When Malcolm described that unruly shareholder meeting, I could visualise it. I could see the patience that he would exert, the wisdom that he would convey in his comments and the respect and empathy that I know he would have shown for everyone in that room. That invites cooperation. It calms things down and leads to constructive outcomes. I was not at the meeting, although I have read about it. I can see him in my mind's eye carrying out that role that the member for Wentworth so adequately described. The patience, empathy, intellect, loyalty that he showed to the Darwin defenders constituted a life and a respect that is not unique but is as strong as you would ever find for any individual in Australia.   It is a great immigrant story, and many have spoken about that. It reinforces the pride that I have, and the confidence that most Australians have, that we are a much greater nation because of the millions of immigrant stories, and this is another immigrant story of great quality. Not only does it help to form the glue that holds this country together; it also ensures that we go from strength to strength. The sorts of stories, experiences and qualities that he is an example of broadens and deepens the Australian character. I think there are many great Australians who have had profound influences over the development of Australia in the last 200 years. There are people who have done things which have unambiguously had long-term influences in shaping either the physical attributes or the cultural attributes of Australia.   So there are many great Australians through history, but I think it could be reasonably argued that no-one has had an influence that exceeded his. They might be equal to him, but no-one has had a singular influence that exceeded the unique healing role that he so magnificently performed during his time as Governor-General.   I do think it was a time when Australia could have been heading towards a significant fracturing of our fundamental institutions or culture or sense of oneness. It had that potential to go off the rails, and that could have been a long-term, damaging and unfortunate development. But I think to the great surprise of everyone in such a short period—he had 4½ years as Governor-General but, really, this was within two years—he had taken hold of that source of division, angst and potential fracturing and calmed it down. He had shown a greater purpose that we have all got together, and the value of putting those things behind us and moving on. Things happen—in a family, in an organisation, in a country; they cannot be removed, they happen, but you have to find ways of dealing with them. I think he showed Australia a way of dealing with that issue. For that if for nothing else, even though he made the most extraordinary contributions in so many areas, he must have the undying gratitude of all Australians for many decades into the future. He shaped Australia. He made a critical and fundamental contribution to the essence of the Australian character through the civilising influence he bought to that job. I do feel that he and his family should be enormously proud of that role that he played.   There is so much more that others have said, and said more eloquently than I could. His achievements are just remarkable. As the member for Wentworth said, it never stopped. He contributed at an extraordinary level right through to the end. Despite years of ill-health in the latter part of his life, he was still having this extraordinary influence on people and events.   I conclude by saying that it was a great life. He was so greatly respected. His life was one of simply great accomplishments. But he was a man who was marked by extraordinary humility, empathy and respect for others. We salute Sir Zelman Cowen. His was a life well lived. We offer our condolences to his widow, Lady Anna, his children, all those that were close to him and all those that he loved so much. Andrew Robb Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:38:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1351 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1350/Adjournment-Manufacturing-in-Goldstein.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1350 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1350&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1350/Adjournment-Manufacturing-in-Goldstein.aspx    Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:42): Many people in my Melbourne Bayside electorate of Goldstein rely for their jobs on the light and mid-tier manufacturing hub situated on the doorstep of my electorate in the Moorabbin and Braeside areas. This hub straddles parts of the electorates of the member for Isaacs and the member for Hotham, and in many ways I am speaking on their behalf with my comments tonight. It is the largest concentration of mid-tier manufacturing in Australia, with an output of over $5 billion from some 8,000 businesses, employing over 70,000 people. This is a centre of innovation and value-add: highly productive enterprises making a major contribution to both the local and national economy.   Its history lies over the last 30 or 40 years. Often these thousands of small and mid-tier businesses have moved on to the next generation of family members and leadership. Often they have moved well up the high-tech value-added chain to stay competitive, spending a considerable fortune in many cases on new technology, adding value to some simpler process that their parents or their predecessors started the business with.   These companies have been paying the price for the Gillard government's manic borrowing, which has pushed up interest rates and reduced the companies' access to finance for three years now. Yet, incredibly, Labor are still in the market borrowing $100 million a day. Every day they are out there competing against these 8,000 companies who are trying to access finance at a rate that allows them to keep their doors open. The average small business overdraft rate, for example, under this government is 10.23 per cent compared to an average of 8.89 per cent under Costello during his time in government. This represents the real borrowing costs to business, yet this government continues to show both its naivety and its lack of empathy by pointing to the base rate of 4.25 per cent. It is irrelevant to these small and mid-tier businesses.   In November 2007, the spread between the RBA cash rate and the average small business unsecured overdraft was 355 basis points. In January 2012 the spread was 600 basis points. Unfortunately, the Treasurer and finance minister have no understanding of, or empathy for, these facts. The record shows that a typical small business with an unsecured overdraft of some $200,000 was on average $223 a month better off under the coalition. Under this government, there is also an enormous extra pressure on local businesses in securing loans and rolling over their borrowing requirements. Many have had to close their doors because finance is not available because the government has been in the market for another $100 million every day of every week for the last three years. That is why we have a debt heading towards $136 billion—the biggest in our history. Compounding this situation for a number of local businesses, many of them in export markets, is the high Australian dollar. Again, Labor's loose fiscal policy has placed upward pressure on the exchange rate.   The government talks about fiscal consolidation, yet its spending in this year's budget alone is $100 billion more than it spent in the 2007-08 budget. That is more than a 35 per cent increase in this year alone. What household could sustainably increase their spending by nearly 40 per cent over any three-year period? It is impossible without pushing up pressures on their budget and their ability to stay in good economic shape. On top of all this, this government is whacking on a carbon tax. It is madness. One company from my area with a $200 million business, who saw me yesterday and talked me through their situation, said that, after modelling the carbon tax, they are going to face a new annual tax of $1 million—one business and no compensation. Think of the impact that is going to have on jobs for decades to come in this local area of mine.   On another matter I table a petition by those who wish to save the Highett Grassy Woodland.      The petition read as follows—   To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives   This petition of Australian Citizens draws to the attention of the House the existence of, and the need to preserve, an environmentally and historically significant area of land, known as the Highett Grassy Woodland.   The Highett Grassy Woodland is approximately a 3 hectare section within the 9.3 hectare Commonwealth and Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) site in Highett, Victoria. The entire CSIRO site is in the process of being sold through a Federal Government process.   The Highett Grassy Woodland area contains a class of vegetation that is endangered in the bioregion, with the main trees being the regionally rare Yellow Box and River Red Gums.   The Highett area has been assessed by the relevant Council, Bayside City Council, as deficient in open space. This deficiency will increase with the State of Victoria's plans to increase population throughout metropolitan Melbourne.   We therefore ask the House to take any administrative action available to the House, during the sale process of the CSIRO site, which will enable the protection and preservation in perpetuity of at least 3 hectares of the site for the conservation of the Grassy Woodland and for passive open space, which will be a profound benefit to the community, now and into the future.   from 1,960 citizens   Petition received.   (Time expired) Andrew Robb Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1350 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1321/Minerals-Resource-Rent-Tax-Bill-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1321 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1321&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1321/Minerals-Resource-Rent-Tax-Bill-2011.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:46):  I rise to speak today on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill (2011) and associated bills. I think the comments by the most recent speaker, the member for Wakefield, say it all in a way. He mentioned early in his speech that 'any mug can deliver a surplus in a growing economy'. Perhaps I should remind the member for Wakefield that the government he is a part of have proudly talked about keeping the economy growing and yet at the same time have presided over the three biggest deficits in this country's history— by a country mile.   This is the level of economic incompetence that is running this country. This is what we have got to deal with. This is what industry has to deal with. This is why we have seen such enormous frustration from industry, not just the mining industry but so many other areas of industry, who are just gobsmacked by the economic illiteracy of those opposite—and it was characterised today by the member for Wakefield. He said it all and he said on behalf of all his colleagues. They do not understand business. They do not understand economics. They are all about politics and spin.   We heard recently from the CEO of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Dr Nikki Williams—and, again, I think this says it all:   "We are the darlings of the business pages, yet we painted as demons in the early general news. "We help treasurers keep budgets healthy and give Australia the strength to stave off the threat of recession, yet our industry is a lightning rod for the most adversarial of political debates."   The report goes on:   Dr Williams said Australia was in the middle of one of the longest mining booms in the nation's history. "Yet we face multiple policy, regulatory and legislative challenges that might collectively render our sector a less attractive destination for international investment than countries such as Indonesia, Colombia or even Mongolia," she warned.   This is at the heart of the problem that we have with this stupid tax, this dangerous tax, this tax born of envy and paraded as a subject of envy when in fact what it is doing is ensuring that Australia once again in a policy sense under this government shoots itself in the foot.   The attempted implementation of this mining tax over the last 18 months has been one of the most shambolic policy episodes this country has ever seen. This legislation comes 18 months after the Treasurer announced his half-baked so-called resources super profits tax. The first version brought down one Prime Minister who had not even seen out a term. This second version is contributing significantly to the imminent demise of another, if we are to believe the private talk of those opposite—and are they talking! And are they worried! The member for Wakefield should be in one of the safest seats around, but even he has got problems.   Mr Champion:  I'm not worried about you!   Mr ROBB:  This tax is yet another symbol of the gross incompetence of this government. Firstly they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector—   Mr Champion:  What are you going to do with your taxing measures?   Mr ROBB:  Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this ignorance from the other side?   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams):  Order! I ask the honourable member for Goldstein to keep to his speech and not take any notice of interjections.   Mr ROBB:  It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Order! And I ask for the interjections to cease or I will have to deal with people.   Mr ROBB:  Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker.   Firstly, they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector. This is unprecedented and it spooked investors around the world. Now it targets the mid-tier miners. It is a highly discriminatory tax. It is still in a very dysfunctional form as a tax. It has not received any favourable treatment—except from the three big miners. It is seen as a bungled proposal and it reinforces the government's core instinct of taxing, spending and borrowing.   If you are responsible in any organisation, whether you are in business, sport or government, the first thing you do is identify your strengths. Once you have identified the two or three major strengths of your business or your country, you then seek to nurture, develop and protect those strengths, because they underpin your success. You do not see a football team send their champion player out on to the ground with a lead weight around his neck. You nurture your best players. They are the ones that give you the premiership. They are the ones that do something magical in the last half of the last quarter.   Clearly the mining and resources sector is one of our nation's great strengths. But what do we see? We see a government that has sought to introduce not just one, a carbon tax, but two, a mining tax, into the environment of a mining boom—when our mining and resources sector, perhaps our greatest strength, has contributed to the quality of life that we enjoy in Australia so importantly for well over 100 years. This government is imposing in the middle of a mining boom two new taxes. It is ignorance; it is envy; but, most importantly of all, it is dangerous. It is dangerous in terms of the lost job opportunities and the lost investment opportunities—and we are seeing sovereign risk manifest as a consequence.   Not only did they bungle the proposal in terms of its design—it has taken 18 months—it is now being rushed in as a symbolic attempt of achievement by a Prime Minister who is hanging by her fingernails to the leadership. That is what this is about. The way this thing has been designed and the way it is being introduced is all about politics.   Agriculture is another of our great strengths. And look at the way they handled the live cattle job. The incompetence with which they handled that has added to sovereign risk. Our international education effort is another one of our great strengths, but they introduced a visa requirement where families have to have three years of the education cost and accommodation to get a visa. Then they wonder why 20,000 Chinese students have stopped coming here. There is ignorance and incompetence. They are obsessed with taxing, spending and borrowing. That drives every piece of policy of this government. They are an old style socialist government; under pressure all they know how to do tax, spend and borrow. This mining tax is nothing but a tax grab, pure and simple, a tax that will discourage investment. It is a discriminatory tax.   Let's look at where it falls. In research released today by BDO, a major research group, the mining tax liability on Rio Tinto was calculated for the first five years and it was: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. They calculated the mining tax liability on BHP, and the first five years, you will not be surprised is another five zeros. They have taken the real-life numbers of a small emerging miner who is making revenue in the order of $600 million to $700 million and calculated its mining tax revenue: first year, 2012, zero; second year, $49 million; third year, $107 million; fourth year, $96 million; fifth year, $68 million; and the following year, $63 million. So we are seeing a total effective tax rate of: 40.18 per cent in the first year that they pay, 45.68 per cent in the second year; 45.76 per cent in the third year, 46.12 per cent in the fourth year, and 46.20 per cent in the fifth year.   This is a scandal. We are putting a lead weight around the neck of our greatest strength in this economy. When you look at our competitors around the world—and they are significant, they are large and they are coming at us as they invest in infrastructure to move a mountain of resources that exist around the world—the highest effective rate of tax including royalties is 40 per cent in Canada. We are talking about mid-tier companies paying 46 per cent effective rate of tax with this new tax. Other countries, like Brazil and Mongolia and other major future competitors, are paying in some cases as low as 30 per cent and less. It is a lazy and short-sighted attempt by an incompetent government to prop up its budget. That is all it is.   Let's for a minute examine the myth that the minerals sector is somehow not paying its way. They paid very little in fact in 1999, but by 2002-03, when the mining boom was just taking off, they paid around $6 billion in taxes including royalties and corporate taxes. In 2010-11, that figure exceeded $23 billion, a fourfold increase. The profits based company tax was in the order of $4 billion in 2002-03. That grew to nearly $15 billion. A massive new investment as well over the next four or five years and the reduction in costs to offset against profits will mean that revenue will continue in a very strong way, depending on the price of the product. So here we have with the existing taxes, a fourfold increase which is likely to get much higher in the next three or four years. Yet the government wants to come in with a carbon tax and a mining tax which are going to add billions and billions to the tax that these companies are paying—and the effective rate of tax heading towards 50 per cent.   This is nonsense. At a time when we should be locking in all of the potential investment that this great resources sector can produce, we are inviting competitors around the world as we see a supply response coming down the line. We think we are awash with resources, and we are. Our iron ore is 13 per cent of the world's supply and our coal is 15 or 16 per cent of the world's supply. But there are mountains of it elsewhere and this government is oblivious to that. They are inviting competition, they are ensuring that we will not be competitive and they are taking great risks. They have already spent this money before they have earnt it.   Then there is the prospect of China. Global reports came from Paul Wiseman yesterday that China's comedown is being engineered by its policy makers. They want to slow expansion just enough to cool inflation. If they get down to six or seven per cent growth, which will cool inflation, it is still strong growth but it will see a 15, 25 or 30 per cent reduction in prices. This government is vulnerable, our structural deficit at the last budget was twice Germany's and was 30 per cent higher than even Italy.   Mr Champion interjecting—   Mr ROBB:  The member for Wakefield smiles. He does not understand what a structural deficit is.   Mr Champion:  I understand it.   Mr ROBB:  It means we are highly vulnerable. The government are spending money they have not got with this mining tax and the carbon tax. This means we are being put in a highly vulnerable position with deficits potentially out for another 10 years.   This bill should never have come before this House. It is the politics of envy. It means that, as a country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Under this appalling government it will turn away job creating investment, it will make our economy more vulnerable, it is antigrowth and it is just another piece of stupidity. If we get the privilege of government, we will remove this tax. Andrew Robb Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1321 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1309/Banking-Amendment-Covered-Bonds-Bill-2011--12-October-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1309 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1309&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1309/Banking-Amendment-Covered-Bonds-Bill-2011--12-October-2011.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (11:33): I rise to speak today on the Banking Amendment (Covered Bonds) Bill 2011. This bill amends the Banking Act 1959 to enable authorised deposit-taking institutions, including banks, credit unions and building societies, to issue covered bonds.   This proposal allows complying ADIs to raise a relatively small portion of their total funds by the issuing of covered bonds up to a limit—as the previous speaker has said—of eight per cent of the total value of the institution's assets. It will provide greater flexibility by increasing financing options for domestic Australian deposit-taking institutions. This will go some way to reducing their exposure to volatile overseas markets.   The proposed use of covered bonds is supported by the coalition, in part because the member for North Sydney first raised it back in October 2010. We have had a long interest in the role that covered bonds may take, certainly in the uncertain international financial climate that we face and given our dependence as a financial sector on wholesale funds from credit markets overseas. The government has lifted this idea, if you like, from the coalition's competitive and sustainable banking system plan. Covered bonds will increase the scope of ADIs to source funds domestically and will reduce their reliance on offshore markets for funding.   There will be an increase in domestic sourcing of funds because the wholesale price will in all likelihood be cheaper using the covered bonds than trying to access funds on international markets. Covered bonds are likely to be mainly used by the big four banks, although the bill does provide for ADIs to enter into an aggregating entity to issue covered bonds. This gives some scope to the smaller institutions to be involved in this market. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the smallest ADIs will use this funding facility. Any increase in domestic sources of funding for the financial system as a whole, though, is certainly worthwhile.   In the specific case of conventional bonds issued by a bank, Australian law has always required that the bank's depositors have the first claim on the remaining assets of the institution in the event that it fails and that they rank ahead of bond holders. Compared with the traditional claim by depositors on all assets with conventional bonds, the key feature of the covered bonds is that they entail the issuing bank setting aside a pool of assets specifically to back the bond, with this asset pool required to be topped up periodically as needed if the value of the assets in it falls. The value of assets in a covered bond pool must be at least 103 per cent of the value of the covered bonds. In the event of insolvency, the holder has recourse to the pool of assets underpinning the bonds and covered bond holders have first claim on these assets over other depositors. That is the key difference that has been introduced.   Despite that preference now being given to covered bond holders, having first claim on the assets of any institution that might fail, the rights of other holders of debts are protected in this bill. Firstly, the proportion of Australian assets which can be committed to the covered bonds pool is limited to eight per cent. That is a very important component, as we are seeing at the present time in Europe, given that there is a capacity and has been for a long time, as I understand it, to issue covered bonds. What is happening at the moment is that many of the financial institutions, given the parlous financial state of the credit markets in Europe, are issuing covered bonds which are simply being bought by other banks. It is becoming a very circular activity and, in many respects, further undermines confidence and the prospect of the European financial system finding an answer to the crisis that which currently confronts it. So it is quite important to put a cap on the proportion of funds that banks can hold which are made up of covered bonds.   Secondly, the Financial Claims Scheme provides a government guarantee for small depositors, currently up to a limit of $1 million and reducing to $250,000 from February 2012. As a last resort, there is a measure where the government could levy the financial sector to protect the depositors in any failed institution. So, on a number of accounts, the longstanding preference given to your normal depositor is protected, I feel, in this bill. Unfortunately, during the global financial crisis this government botched the handling of the government guarantees—that is, the $1 million government guarantee on depositors, which is in the near future to be reduced to $250,000. By providing that guarantee initially to the four big banks we saw a rush of depositors' money flood out of smaller ADIs, regional banks and building societies. We saw some very longstanding and reliable trust funds find that they had a rush on the deposits that they held.   As a consequence, the position in the market, quite contrary to what the previous member has claimed—that there is an increase in competition—is that the opposite in fact happened. The botched use of the guarantees led to the big four banks having a massive increase in their deposits, all at the expense of other financial institutions, and it added further pressure for the amalgamation of the St George Bank that would never have happened outside of the global financial crisis. It has further diminished the competition and further enhanced the position of the big four banks. The government loves to belt the big four banks but I think it was hoodwinked on this occasion. There was a sense of panic running through the government and on a number of measures, including of course the extraordinary and massive spending that went on as a consequence. In this instance it has materially improved the market power of the big four banks by the way in which it botched the handling of the guarantees.   The government was not satisfied with just giving a preference to the big four in the first instance. We have now seen so many small institutions, particularly some of the trust funds which had been specialising in small and medium business financing for 50 years—they had been around forever, had been very reliable and had very deep experience in the way in which they serviced particular parts of the market—disappear; they have gone forever. In some cases, people are still waiting and still have their deposits frozen. Here we are, some years after the global financial crisis but, because of the way in which the government panicked, gave preference to the big four banks and saw a rush on all of our smaller financial institutions, we still have people who cannot access their own savings. Their funds are still frozen in a number of institutions. So we now see continued tinkering with the guarantees and, again, I think it is going to disadvantage the smaller players in reducing it, as is in prospect, from $1 million down to $250,000.   The big banks have an implicit guarantee already because they are too big to fail. In fact, the government really inferred that by the preference given to the big four banks during the global financial crisis. The government inferred that these banks are too big to fail. Most people would deposit money in all of our big four with that assumption. Those with investments which exceed $250,000 will see no advantage in keeping their accounts with the regional institutions, and I refer particularly to, say, local government. So many local governments have placed money in local regional banks in order to support their local industry and, in this case, their local banks. They might have $600, $700, $800, $900 or $1 million deposited in regional banks.   Now, with the reduction of the depositor guarantee to $250,000 and with the big four banks being too big too fail, we are going to see the credit unions, regional banks and smaller players again materially disadvantaged. Their customers and others will walk from them, which is understandable because they will seek to take advantage of the extra layer of implicit guarantee afforded to the big banks.   The other issue, of course, is that when the government provided that million-dollar guarantee it imposed a fee, which was not unreasonable. But the fee for the big banks was 70 basis points cheaper than it was for the smaller institutions. So on several counts during the global financial crisis the position of the big four banks was materially advantaged by the government's actions. There is no case if you are providing a positive guarantee. We were talking about a risk factor, but with the deposit guarantee there is no case for discriminating between the different financial institutions as they have done. It is still unclear what the government will do with the cost in the case of the $250,000 deposit guarantee, but I urge the government to consider not disadvantaging the smaller institutions, because they have already been put under enormous pressure in trying to access funds to keep their activities and their ability to compete with the big banks going.   In relation to covered bonds there is an expectation that investors in this class of asset will be satisfied by a lower interest rate than they would demand for a conventional bond given the greater security they are provided. For this reason covered bonds are often argued to be a way in which banks would be able to raise funds more cheaply and therefore, it is suggested in turn, lend at lower rates. The use of covered bonds as outlined by this bill will positively increase the product range offered by ADIs. It will also cater to a class of investors who would not otherwise consider putting their money into Australian bonds but who might do so if covered bonds with their more secure characteristics were available. In theory the allowance of covered bonds will increase the total supply of funds in the market and certainly the total supply of funds sourced locally, thereby reducing borrowing costs and in turn reducing Australia's exposure to needing to borrow wholesale funds on international credit markets.   There is no doubt that international credit markets will come under increasing pressure. In my view, funds will be dearer over the next few years as Europe seeks to grapple with their massive sovereign debt problem. In particular, the idea that the use of covered bonds by banks would allow them to hold their standard variable home rates lower than otherwise has been put forward in the media as one of the key benefits such bonds would bring were they to be permitted in Australia. While this may be right, I think it should not be overstated. As the RBA has noted, to the extent banks have to commit high-quality assets to back any covered bonds they issue, the average credit quality of their remaining assets will be commensurately lower. Hence the rate lenders will presumably demand for the ordinary bonds that banks issue to obtain the rest of their funding will likely be higher than otherwise, offsetting the lower rates the banks can expect to have to pay on their covered bonds.   Covered bonds are not a panacea, but properly managed they contribute a useful addition to the suite of financial products available to be offered. As such, the coalition supports the bill. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:59:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1309 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1301/Migration-Legislation-Amendment-Offshore-Processing-and-Other-Measures-Bill-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1301 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1301&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1301/Migration-Legislation-Amendment-Offshore-Processing-and-Other-Measures-Bill-2011.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (13:21): I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The Coalition strongly support offshore processing. In fact, we developed an effective program for offshore processing, one that worked. It worked under us. It worked for many years under us. It worked so well that, when the Labor Party took office in 2007, there were just four people—four, not even a handful—in detention. It was a remarkable success. Yet 12,000 people have arrived by boat since that time.   We oppose the government's Malaysian proposal because it is bad policy. It is bad policy because, firstly, for every asylum seeker Malaysia takes, we receive five back here. It is not an acceptable arrangement. It is not a sustainable arrangement. It will work, if at all from that point of view, on a one-off basis. What happens after the 800 have arrived? There has been no satisfactory answer. In fact, when the Prime Minister was asked that question last week, you could see from her body language that she had not thought it through. She was all at sea. She had effective spin prepared for every other question that day, but, when it was put to her in question 8 last week, 'What will you do when you reach the 800,' she clearly had no idea. There is no plan B.   It is, on all grounds, a policy conceived out of politics. It has been continued because the Prime Minister is too pig-headed to eat humble pie for a day and do the effective thing. I think everyone expected, after the Labor Party formed government at the most recent election, that politics would be put aside and the Prime Minister would pick up the phone to Nauru and seek to get an effective solution in place. It would have involved 24 hours of some egg on the face, but people out there really do not care who conceives an effective policy. They do not give points according to who the idea came from, whether it was from Tony Abbott or anyone else, for that matter. They just look to the government to adopt effective solutions. And, in the end, a government will be rewarded for adopting effective solutions—but not this Prime Minister. The only thing standing in the way of a return to a proven offshore model is the stubbornness and pigheadedness of the Prime Minister. She does not want to lose one skerrick of face by conceding that there may be already in place, already available, a proven offshore model.   The other ground on which we oppose this Malaysian proposal is that it provides no guarantee of protection. The High Court itself disallowed this arrangement in the first place, and in our view there are still no guarantees. There are just good faith obligations. That is all there is in this proposed bill. There are good faith obligations but no guarantees that the human rights protections that should sit around any offshore arrangement—or any onshore arrangement, for that matter—are there. There is a very real prospect, in fact, that the High Court would also rule this legislation invalid because, although the government, in this week's version of the legislation, as distinct from its version last week, has reintroduced the protections that are the essence of the UN refugee convention, those basic requirements do not have any legal backing, such as Malaysia signing up to the refugee convention. So, if legally challenged again, the government will most likely end up with a black eye again.   This sums up four years now of incompetence on this issue. This has been a running sore for the government for four years. Try as they might, on all sorts of fronts, the one thing they are determined not to do is to take on a proven model, because the proven model is associated with their political opponents. That betrays a lack of political confidence, and the government are paying the price. They are paying the price for their lack of confidence in themselves to take a proven model and put it into effect. Their handling of this issue not only displays remarkable incompetence; it also displays a lack of principle.   Just before I came into the House, I received a note from my neighbour member, the member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, along with a publication from Freedom House. Of course, the member for Melbourne Ports has a strong and well-deserved reputation for defending freedom and human rights. It has been a hallmark of his career in this place. Michael, whom I consider a friend, sent me this booklet, Freedom in the World 2011, which assesses the level of freedom in different countries. In his note to me, he says: 'In my view, this Freedom House survey gives you the big picture on the overall situation in any given country, and some context to political developments that affect democratic rights.' The categories for countries are 'free', 'partly free' and 'not free'. I looked up the definitions. The booklet says:   A Free country is one where there is open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media. A Partly Free country is one in which there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties. Partly Free states frequently suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism. A Not Free country is one where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied.   I then went to the very comprehensive table in this publication recommended to me by a member of the government who has a very well deserved reputation for defending freedom and civil and human rights. I see that Australia is listed as a free country. On political rights and civil liberties respectively, Australia has scores of one and one. The scores go from one to seven, with one being the optimum score. I then looked at how Nauru is classified—all those years, were we, the coalition, sending refugees to a country which was not free and did not respect political rights and civil liberties? Nauru is classified by Freedom House as a free country and also gets top ratings—one for political rights and one for respect for civil liberties.   I then had a look at the classification of Malaysia. It is classified as partly free. I remind the House that a partly free country is one where: 'there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties. Partly Free states frequently suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism'. On a scale of one to seven, Malaysia rates four on political rights and four on respect for civil liberties.   This confirms the fears that we have had about the protections which are embodied in the UN refugee convention not being guaranteed. Malaysia which mitigates respect for the civil liberties and political rights of those that come there. All of the anecdotal evidence associated with immigration cases that has been presented over the last five years—30,000 canings associated with immigration, and much more—is confirmed by those ratings of four and four. This is one of the reasons why we have been so strongly opposed.   There is a workable alternative. It was working and it respected human rights. Yet we were told by Prime Minister Rudd that it must change because there was a more compassionate way of dealing with this issue. My friend and colleague the shadow minister for immigration personally inspected the circumstances under which the 95,000 or 100,000 refugees are currently living in Malaysia. When I asked, 'What is it really like, Scott?' he said, 'You wouldn't send your worst enemy to those refugee camps.' Forget about the kids—of course they should not be there under any circumstances—but 'you wouldn't send', he said, 'your worst enemy'. Yet here we have a party which has had a proud history of at least supporting human rights issues and they are now unilaterally pursuing an approach which is, in all likelihood, going to have no guarantee that fundamental human rights will be adhered to.   That might be a hard choice for a government if there was no alternative, but obviously there is an alternative that has worked, and I will recount what happened. We were told that there had to be a change because of push factors: the Afghani action and the Iraq war. The invasion of Afghanistan started in October 2001 and the Iraq war started in March 2003. We saw: in 2001-02, 19 boats; in 2002-03, no boats; in 2003-04, one boat; in 2004-05, no boats; in 2005-06, eight boats; in 2006-07, four boats and in 2007-08, three boats. Throughout seven years of action in Afghanistan and six years of war in Iraq, we saw a handful of boats and four people left in detention.   This is unacceptable. The community is hostile to queue jumping, the community saw a boat program that worked and the community sees this proven system not being pursued because of pig-headedness. The bill must not be supported; the amendment must not be supported. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1301 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1298/90-Second-Statement-Interest-Rates.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1298 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1298&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1298/90-Second-Statement-Interest-Rates.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (13:57): Outside the mining sector there is a crisis of confidence across Australian houses and businesses. In our two-track economy many sectors are effectively in recession. It has become imperative that their costs be cut if jobs and businesses are to survive, yet an ignorant, spendthrift Gillard government continues to borrow and grow government debt, which is now above $200 billion. It is a government incapable of living within its means. The Gillard government has forced our interest rates higher than they should be by spending far too much. In turn, this excessive borrowing and spending has pushed our currency higher than it otherwise would be, and finance for small and medium sized businesses is still hard to get and very expensive.   The Director of Deloitte Access Economics, Chris Richardson, said that the rule of thumb is that you have to cut by about $13 billion a year to achieve a one per cent reduction in interest rates which might in turn make a cent or two difference to the level of the Australian dollar. There is a case for the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates and see a lower exchange rate to cut industry costs and to force a complacent Gillard government to do more to rein in debt. At the moment the economic heavy lifting is being left to the blunt instrument of interest rates. This heavy lifting must be shared by fiscal policy, allowing room for the Reserve Bank to bring interest rates down with the flow-on effect on our currency. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1298 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1296/Clean-Energy-Bill.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1296 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1296&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1296/Clean-Energy-Bill.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:16): I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Bill 2011. In the absence of a global emissions trading scheme, imposing a carbon tax in Australia is an act of economic self harm and totally futile from an environmental perspective. I think that both sides of the House share the view that we should protect our land and our country, but this bad policy does nothing. There is no obligation to support bad and futile policy in the pursuit of supposedly protecting our land.   To better understand why going it alone on a carbon tax will harm the Australian economy, think for a second about the question solely in an Australian context. What would happen if a great big new tax on carbon was levelled at businesses only in my home state of Victoria and in no other state? In no time at all, in order to remain competitive, Victorian businesses and jobs would start to relocate—to the great detriment of the Victorian economy—to New South Wales, to Queensland and to other states where no tax was applied, and the emissions that relocating businesses generated would go with them. If you go back and think about the proposed carbon tax, you will realise that the same thing will happen, except that in this case it will happen on a global basis, because our businesses, becoming increasingly uncompetitive, will simply relocate to other parts of the world, and the emissions created by those businesses will go with them. Australian businesses, jobs and emissions will relocate where no tax applies.   Key Republican congressman on climate change Jim Sensenbrenner, who led the US congressional delegation to Kyoto, described what the Gillard government is doing as 'unilateral economic disarmament'. We know that the prospects of either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax are dead in the US. We know from key Democrats that President Obama will not be campaigning on either in the lead up to next year's election. After the failure of the Copenhagen conference, the world is further away from a global agreement than it has ever been. The government lectured us for three years about the importance of a global scheme in the lead up to the last election, but now we are being lectured about the importance of bringing in a scheme unilaterally. The world is further away from a global arrangement than ever before, yet there is urgency here in the face of very difficult economic circumstances for many sectors of manufacturing is to bring in a great big new tax. It makes no sense unless you look at the politics behind the introduction of this bill.   While the Gillard government likes to highlight the European emissions trading scheme as a reason that we need to undermine our great strengths, even in Europe there is a high degree of pessimism about the prospect of a global scheme. In fact, the UK parliament's Energy and Climate Change Committee recently launched a new inquiry into the EU emissions trading system. The committee's said that, in the absence of binding emissions reduction commitments under the UN reduction framework, the scheme 'is looking increasingly isolated'. It went on to say:   The lack of an international framework for emissions reductions and carbon trading poses some serious difficulties for the future viability of the EU ETS …   Regardless, though you would not know it from the rhetoric, the European scheme—which has been the subject of huge rorts—is really nothing more than a pilot scheme is a mere pilot compared to the carbon tax proposed here. The European scheme does not apply at all, in many cases, to electricity generators, much less many other trade exposed industries.   The Gillard-Brown scheme will raise more in revenue in its first four months than the European trading system has raised in total over the last five years. If you were to put a price on carbon, this scheme would be just about the most inefficient and most complex way you could go about it. It is the most bureaucratic, the most interventionist and the most socialistic scheme that you could contrive. There are many other schemes that you could use if you were to put a price on carbon. There are even cap-and-trade schemes which you could design to put a price on carbon and which would give you exactly the same price but not strip the balance sheets of companies, which is what will happen with this government scheme—they will tax every tonne of CO2, and the cost of abatement is only one sixth of the total tax take. This is a scheme designed to maximise the tax return—as we are seeing in Ireland, where they have just doubled the price of carbon because they have a fiscal problem. The same thing will happen in Australia, and it will not be one scheme but 500 schemes.   The so-called '500 big polluters' that Labor has raged about for 12 months no longer matter, but we still do not even know which companies will be taxed. When we do, however, there will be bureaucrats crawling all over them. Under the government's scheme, different activity definitions apply, different levels of assistance apply and the enormous tax churn not only underscores the scheme's inefficiency but also suggests that first and foremost the scheme is a vehicle for wealth redistribution.   Herein lies the fundamental difference between the carbon tax and the coalition's far more efficient direct action policy. The carbon tax approach requires many tens of billions of dollars in compensation because of the huge increases in electricity prices, and the direct action approach requires no compensation because it does not drive up the electricity costs. Frontier Economics exposed this fact with an analysis it did based on Treasury's 2008 modelling of a carbon price. Looking at electricity generators alone, it found that the cost of technology to reduce CO2 emissions from 2012 to 2020 was $6.6 billion—that is, the cost of abatement for electricity generators over the next eight years would be $6.6 billion. During that period the government would reap not $6.6 billion but $37.5 billion in tax from the generators, and consumers would pay an additional $45 billion for electricity; the price would be passed on to electricity consumers. This shows that those who are creating the CO2—the so-called 'big polluters', the derogatory term used by this government—are not paying. It will be consumers who pay, and everyone knows this. The government is doing itself a great disservice by trying to imply that the tax falls on the so-called 'big polluters' and not on individual Australians and small business.   This shows, too, that the government's tax take is almost six times the actual abatement cost, and the increased cost of electricity is nearly eight times the actual abatement cost. As Frontier's Danny Price prophetically said earlier this year 'the excess tax will be churned via the political process which will bring its own distortions'. Bureaucrats will be making decisions about technology and innovation, not companies themselves. This town will be crawling with lobbyists seeking some investment crumbs from the government's table. It is a giant money-go-round, but the money will end up in the hands of politically well-chosen beneficiaries. Danny Price said that political control of so much tax revenue explains why the Greens have been such enthusiastic supporters of the carbon tax. He said, 'They will be in the box seat in deciding how these funds will be distributed,' and he was spot on.   These bills will provide for the creation of the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation—or the Bob Brown bank. The slush fund—   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) (12:25): Order! The member knows he must refer to people by their appropriate titles.   Mr ROBB: will be all borrowed money. It will be used to fund high-risk pet projects of the Greens and Labor, projects the private sector would not touch with a barge pole. The lessons of the failed Tricontinental bank, the failed State Bank of South Australia and WA Inc. are so easily forgotten. It is criminal; it is pure politics; it is not policy inspired. No less than Don Argus said he was bemused that such vast sums of money were being staked on risky and expensive renewable energy and not carbon capture and storage—it was explicitly excluded from those $10 billion funds. He said:   This example highlights just how politically expedient this government's tax reform agenda has been. … The government has rushed ahead with proposals that are … not in the best interests of our country—   despite the endless mantra about what is the in the interest of the country being pursued.   While Senator Brown rages against foreign ownership in mining, he remains silent about wind farms. About 30 per cent of Australian wind farms are foreign owned and their manufactures are all foreign owned. Doesn't he have a problem with this—their proliferation and the way they are shattering communities?   We know from the lessons learned in Europe that all the talk about green jobs, which will replace jobs in traditional industries, is pure nonsense. In fact, it is quite disingenuous the way in which this government comes into this House every day to talk about green jobs. The US study by Verso Economics recently found that for every green job created 3.7 jobs in other parts of the economy were destroyed. This supports similar findings from Spain, Germany and other parts of Europe. This is what we can expect in Australia in manufacturing, mining and resources. Thousands of jobs will be lost—and the cost of green jobs is extraordinarily high, compared with traditional jobs. Look at the billions this government has wasted on green rip-offs: $2.4 billion on pink batts, $850 million on solar homes, $300 million on green loans and, despite the enormous tax take under this scheme, $9 billion a year that cannot even make the numbers add up. Incredibly, this scheme will cost the budget $4.3 billion over the forward estimates. That is a real black hole, yet, according to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, this adds up to broadly budget neutral, and they wonder why people are so sceptical about their management skills of this economy. No wonder they are a laughing stock. Senator Wong wants nothing to do with this carbon tax. Here is a snapshot of her past comments:   The carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.     …   …   … A carbon tax … is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes.   She goes on to say that the introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. That is the current Finance minister, the former Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. These are all contradictory in terms of the carbon tax policy that has been laid down and which we are debating here today. I could not have said it better myself.   They are also creating six new bureaucracies to administer this dog's breakfast of a scheme. This will cost a staggering $382 million. I went to Tasmania recently, where they built a beautiful dam for $34 with hydro. It changed the economics of that small region. You could build 11 of those around the country for the cost of the carbon tax bureaucrats each year. By contrast, the coalition's direct action policy will cost $3.2 billion over four years and it will be transparently funded from savings within budget—and capped. Virtually all this money will be spent on purchasing least cost abatement through competitive tender.   Competitive tendering is a market based system but one which does not come with tens of billions of dollars of new tax and tens of billions of dollars of higher electricity charges. Direct action is a no-regrets policy.   If there is still no global agreement by 2020, Australia will have remained competitive while reducing emissions by five per cent, avoiding tens of billions of dollars of tax, yet still in a good position to assess the way forward from there. The direct incentives to invest in lower energy and emissions technology in our business sector, greater carbon levels in our soils and tree planting in appropriate areas will see major productivity gains regardless of action taken by the rest of the world.   On the other hand, going it alone with a carbon tax and then an emissions trading scheme is highly irresponsible. This politically inspired going-it-alone policy approach guarantees that Australia will be far worse off than if a global agreement applied. In fact, under a global scheme, closures of inefficient power generation and value-adding resource plants, such as zinc and aluminium smelters, would occur elsewhere in the world first. This carbon tax will deliver around 40 million tonnes, or just 25 per cent, of overall abatements. The world economy is facing the likelihood of a further major slump over the next 12 months, yet this government wants to introduce an economy-wide tax. I urge any government members opposite who want to do the right thing by our nation and our communities to reject these bills. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1296 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1293/Adjournment--Goldstein-Electorate-Superannuation-and-Highett-Recreation-Centre.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1293 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1293&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1293/Adjournment--Goldstein-Electorate-Superannuation-and-Highett-Recreation-Centre.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:03): I rise to highlight the inequity in superannuation law which is seeing many proud and highly capable senior workers in my electorate of Goldstein who are discriminated against because of their age. Once a worker turns 70, the employer has the choice of whether or not to pay their superannuation entitlement. When they turn 75, it is against the law for the employer to pay any entitlement. This is a constant source of understandable frustration for people who have so much more to offer but feel they are being ripped off. These are fit and active people, and in many instances they are very successful career people who, well into their 70s and beyond, have so much knowledge and experience to contribute to employers. In this day and age and with skills shortages guaranteed to grow this situation is ridiculous. These workers should have the same lawful entitlement to fair pay and conditions as someone aged 20, 30, 40, 50 or 69. This is not only a disincentive but also a punishment to keep working. One gentleman in my electorate told me that, where he had worked, age was not an issue. It was never mentioned and never considered. That was the case until the ATO wrote to his employer when he turned 70 to inform the employer that at 70 the employee was no longer eligible for an automatic contribution benefit, that it was a choice for the employer, and that at 75 he would no longer be able to contribute to his super. Suddenly age became an issue. It was mentioned continually and he was without a job within six months. This also amounted to a 10 per cent pay cut on the grounds of age. At a time of low unemployment, people with so much to keep giving should be encouraged to stay in the workforce, but they are being forced out. The coalition understands that this is plain wrong, and that is why we have committed to abolishing the superannuation guarantee age limit. Under our plan any worker, no matter their age, will be guaranteed to receive superannuation contributions from their employer. We have tried to make this important reform from opposition. The member for Mackellar moved a private member's bill which was voted down by the Gillard government and the likes of the members for New England, Lyne and Denison. I reassure the senior workers of Goldstein that a coalition government will make this happen. On a separate matter, the current Highett Youth Club building on Livingston Street in Highett was built in the 1960s and, although well-loved, the building is ageing and dilapidated. Last year the Bayside City Council undertook a feasibility study into the construction of a new community facility that would meet the needs of existing tenants as well as complement other facilities on the site such as the community and seniors centre and the children and family services centre. It was proposed to be a great community hub and recreation centre. Bayside council approached me, as did many members of that community, and I was pleased to provide whatever support and urging I could. In particular, a number of people made this vision happen. Plans for the $4 million project were formalised last month, jointly funded through council rates, state and federal government grants and significant contributions from future tenants such as the Highett Youth Club. The new Highett Recreation Centre and Community Hub will incorporate a gymnastics hall, two activity halls, a community workshop and a cafe. Construction is set to commence in June next year. It is a centre which has already done remarkable things for the region. Already there are many hundreds of young people, particularly in gymnastics, who are provided with a wonderful service and opportunity, many of them drawn from all over the south-east. I conclude with particular thanks to a number of people who have made this project a reality. In particular, I thank Terry O'Brien, who has pursued this like a dog with a bone for many years and who has provided a great source of encouragement and enthusiasm for others involved, Wendy Wroblewski, Rebecca Pyper, Janice Munt and the ward councillors and the council officers of the Bayside City Council. They should all feel very proud of the contribution they have made and of the pleasure, the fulfilment and the satisfaction that many thousands of young people will receive in the many years ahead. ddtreemenu.createTree("tocMenu", false) Andrew Robb Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1293 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1294/Parliamentary-Service-Amendment-Parliamentary-Budget-Officer-Bill-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1294 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1294&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1294/Parliamentary-Service-Amendment-Parliamentary-Budget-Officer-Bill-2011.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:43): I rise to speak today on the Parliamentary Services Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Services Act 1999 to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office and position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. This was a commitment made by the government to help woo the Independents and the Greens. It is a concept—a concept, I say, in particular: not necessarily a structure, but a concept—lifted straight from coalition policy which was first canvassed in May 2009, when the member for Wentworth called for the creation of a parliamentary budget office in keeping with the US Congressional Budget Office. The entity that would be created by this bill, sadly, ain't no Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the government would save a lot of time and effort by simply supporting the bills introduced by the member for North Sydney. Those amendments provide for a responsive and flexible parliamentary budget office that will perform a range of important functions as required, including, of course, costing policy. Perhaps most importantly, the services provided under the coalition model would be totally discreet and confidential. Instead, this bill before the House has all the look of a token effort, with many restrictions and shortcomings, perhaps intentionally so. It is, in fact, hard to believe that it has taken the government more than 12 months to get the Parliamentary Budget Office to this stage. I cannot stress enough how critical the establishment of a proper parliamentary budget office is. We saw the highly unfortunate charade and preoccupation by this government at the last election of misrepresentation of so much of what we put before the public. We all remember the grubby way this government grossly politicised and abused the costings process during and after the 2010 election. We all remember the pathetic leak during the campaign of supposedly confidential Treasury analysis of the coalition's $2.4 billion savings measure associated with scrapping the NBN. We all remember how the Australian Federal Police were called in to investigate that leak, which so obviously had that lightweight embarrassment of a Treasurer's fingerprints all over it. The leak was bad enough, but what made it worse was the way in which inaccurate, and later totally discredited, Treasury assumptions were used to discredit our savings measure. The coalition got fitted up with a $900 million black hole that simply did not exist—and the government knows it. Treasury used a flawed assumption to calculate the savings on cancelled borrowings. We used an interest rate of 5.5 per cent; Treasury, inexplicably, used a rate of just 4.9 per cent and refused to say how it arrived at that figure. In 3½ hours of private discussion, the best we got was, 'We've made a decision.' That was the rationale. Of course, they were wrong and we were right, but the damage was done, with the newspaper headlines in mid-August based on the leaked material. Yet here is what the Australian Financial Review headline was on 9 September—of course, some weeks after the event: 'Analysts back Coalition's base rate assumption'. I quote from the article: … several bond market estimates backed the Coalition assumption of a 5.5 per cent rate based on the 10-year bond rate. 'The current 10-year bond rate is as fair as anything else,' said UBS market strategist Matthew Johnson. Meanwhile, the Managing Director of Citi Investment Research and Analysis, Paul Brennan, said of Treasury's assumption: '4.9 per cent looks on the low side to me.' Furthermore in a separate briefing note Treasury cited the government commissioned NBN implementation study as the basis for estimating that the NBN could be built for $42.8 billion. The problem for Treasury is that that study was underpinned by an interest rate of—you guessed it!—5.5 per cent, the rate that we had used earlier in our other costings document. This is one example of why major reform in the costings process is so critical, especially when you have a desperate government that has no qualms in politicising the process. We need a truly independent parliamentary budget office that is not simply a subsidiary of Treasury and Finance. The critical need for this was starkly highlighted in a front-page story in the Australian on 7 September last year by highly respected national affairs correspondent Jennifer Hewett. The article was headed: 'Coalition counts cost of Treasury's "political game"'. Hewett reports straight out: THE lengthy September 1 meeting between Canberra's top bureaucrats and the three independents was supposed to be crucial in influencing whether Labor or the Liberals would form government. But previously secret minutes of that meeting … reveal how much it was politicised and influenced by the opinions of the senior bureaucrats, while some of their conclusions didn't take market impact into account. At the same time, Michael Stutchbury from the Australian said: … there is no $11 billion "black hole" in the Coalition's projected budget surplus … Ken Henry has found a few potholes that can be repaired without too much trouble. The government used the work done by its Treasury to claim we had a $10.6 billion black hole. This supposed black hole came down to differences of opinion in relation to assumptions used. In a couple of the examples I have already cited, the Treasury officials could not even give a reason for the difference in assumptions, yet the marketplace accepted our assumptions and Treasury had used our numbers in other related material. The NBN example I cited earlier is a key example. I will give you another, and it relates to something called the conservative bias allowance. Here is what Jennifer Hewett had to say about this: … the biggest dispute in money terms—$2.5bn over four years—was a more modest version of a similar $4.6bn change adopted by the Labor government in its own budget the previous year. Treasury and Finance secretaries decided that, because they advised against a downward adjustment of the conservative bias allowance with regard to the current government, they could not book it as a saving from opposition. But the official notes from the meeting the departmental secretaries had with the Independents, dated 1 September 2010, read: The Secretaries indicated that they accepted that it was an option open to governments to prepare their budget papers on the basis of a lower CBA— conservative bias allowance— as the budget papers are prepared on the authority of Ministers. Moreover, the Secretaries also accepted that an incoming government may wish to report this as a policy measure. This is unbelievable given the 3½ hours of debate that we had with these secretaries who told us to our faces that they had made a decision and that this was immutable, yet there they were in a meeting a few days later with the Independents—a meeting that was structured to inform them about who was best placed to take government—saying that it was in fact a policy measure that was possible for any incoming government. This process was heavily politicised. With my colleague's amendments to the bill that was presented by the Treasurer, this afternoon we have an opportunity to remove the prospect of politicising this process. Here is a final example of why the Parliamentary Budget Office has to be set up properly and well in advance of the next election. We identified at the last election $3.3 billion in investment expenditure to be redirected from the Health and Hospitals Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Building Australia Fund. Before the election we asked the government for the list: 'Tell us, out of those funds, what have you already contracted? What commitments have you already made?' Surprise, surprise: we were ignored. When we made some decisions, took a conservative figure that we thought would not be contracted out of those funds, the secretaries decided we could not book them because we could not identify specific Labor programs to be paid for from these funds that we would cancel prior to the election. We had asked the government for this information and we were ignored. As it turned out, the problem was that all the projects were on a secret list. I said, 'Give me a copy of the list now and I will tell you which projects we will get rid of.' Finance and Treasury could not even identify all the projects funded and contracted out of these three funds. The accounting used within the Department of Infrastructure and Transport did not allow for a quick stocktake. Here is the clinker: the secretaries did confirm that there was more than enough uncontracted money in the various infrastructure funds to meet the spending priorities that we had identified. Our projects were called a black hole, yet the money was there on a secret list that the government would not provide and Treasury officials knew that there was still enough uncontracted money within the funds. There was no black hole. This was a politicised black hole. This was something fabricated with the use of Treasury officials to give the government a political advantage. If the PBO had been up and running it could have requested the government's project list and we would not have had the problem. One thing the Treasury secretary and the Finance secretary did verify was that under a coalition government net debt would have been reduced by at least $23 billion compared to a Labor government. It is a bit hard to swallow claims of black holes coming from that lot opposite. I remind those opposite of what the Financial Review said in its editorial of 6 September last year about its black hole claim. I quote: It can't necessarily be taken at face value given Treasury's own spotty forecasting record, not to mention gross errors in recent Labor policies such as the mining tax and the school halls, rooftop solar, green loans and roof insulation scandals. It will probably pale beside blow-outs in big government Labor policies such as the $43 billion national broadband network, and the pork-barrellin g demanded by the independents. I also remind those opposite of MYEFO, which estimated a budget deficit of $41.5 billion. What was it just six months later, in this year's budget? It was $49.3 billion. That is right—a $7.8 billion blow-out in just six months, not over four years. And what about the carbon tax? There is a $4.3 billion revenue shortfall in that. That is okay in 'Wayne's World', the planet the Treasurer and Senator Wong are on. It all adds up to broadly budget neutral, they said. They are a joke. They are also dangerous. It is little wonder that the top CEOs of this country rate this government at 2.6 out of 10. I have not been to a boardroom meeting yet, out of 63 since March before this year, where they have not said that they have not seen the Treasurer or, if they have, he was underwhelming in the extreme. Today it is revealed that they have plans to raid the Future Fund to the tune of several hundred million dollars. They have been exposed, despite Senator Wong's denials. Senator Wong's own department confirmed that in a question taken on notice, and now she is ducking for cover, in damage control. A statement said it was 'completely incorrect'. It went on to say that the government 'is not making withdrawals from the Future Fund. The Future Fund is simply making a small change to the types of assets it holds'. It does that every day! They have just sold a poultice of Telstra shares. Have they gone to the government? No, they have not. They are back in the fund. That was an asset they sold. They have brought other assets. This is $250 million, or whatever it is—a serious sum of money—and it is the thin edge of the wedge. If the PBO as structured in the opposition's bill, or as amended in this bill according to our amendments, were up and running, there would be a 'please explain'. Under this proposed PBO the office would not dare contradict the government of the day. This is structured to intimidate and politicise the process. It will effectively be an arm of Treasury unless the amendments that we have put up are accepted by the government. This bill is deeply flawed. It will perpetuate the political process. It needs to be amended or else we will not present our material at the next election. (Time expired) ddtreemenu.createTree("tocMenu", false) Andrew Robb Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1294 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1295/Parliamentary-Budget-Office-Bill-2011-Charter-of-Budget-Honesty-Amendment-Bill-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1295 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1295&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1295/Parliamentary-Budget-Office-Bill-2011-Charter-of-Budget-Honesty-Amendment-Bill-2011.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (10:47): I rise to second the motion on the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 and the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 introduced by my friend and colleague the member for North Sydney. These bills are about restoring credibility and integrity to the policy costings process which has been so grossly politicised and abused by the Gillard government following the 2010 federal election. This was exposed by Jennifer Hewett in a front-page story in the Australian last September titled 'Coalition counts cost of Treasury's "political game"'. Jennifer Hewett wrote that meeting minutes revealed how the process was 'politicised and influenced by the opinions of the senior bureaucrats'. This was confirmed in the article written by Jennifer Hewett in the Australian. She said: But the detailed Coalition rebuttal, also obtained by The Australian, demonstrates that the biggest dispute in money terms - $2.5bn over four years - was a more modest version of a similar $4.6bn change adopted by the Labor government in its own budget the previous year. The opposition claimed $2.5bn in savings from adjusting what is known as the conservative bias allowance (CBA). This effectively meant that the opposition claimed it would be more efficient in delivering spending programs and could therefore reduce the small percentage buffer included to allow for programs going over budget. There is no doubt that the record of the coalition government on sensible, commonsense and detailed economic management and program management far exceeds that of the Labor government. In just four short years this government has wasted tens of billions of dollars on the pink batts program, the NBN and the education revolution program. All of these things have resulted in tens of billions of dollars of overruns and yet Treasury refused, in this instance, to allow the coalition to exercise a discretion to lower the amount of money allowed for overruns. Of course, the Treasury had a $5 billion allowance for overruns for this government. We chose to reduce that to $2½ billion because we would oversee these programs in a sensible and effective manner. In subsequent hearings the secretaries accepted that an incoming government might wish to do so as a policy measure. In other words, the same secretaries that sat with us for 3¼ hours in that politicised meeting after the federal election and before a government was formed—the secretaries who told us that they had made a decision and that that was the best they could do to justify taking $2½ billion as a so-called black hole—have subsequently, within weeks, admitted that we had that policy discretion. This confirms, again and again, the deeply politicised nature. We have had to wear, ever since, what was a political decision by secretaries of departments who sat there and told us, 'We've made our decision,' without giving any justification. That was 25 per cent of the so-called black hole. We went through that process again and again as we challenged assumptions. My colleague mentioned one of those in relation to the interest charged on the debt coming from the NBN. This bill aims to clear away the capacity of an incumbent government—particularly a Labor incumbent government, which is disposed to this sort of activity—to heavily politicise the nature of the bureaucratic involvement. This bill would set up an office very similar to the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, which is unequivocally independent. It is a model for budget offices around the world. It removes the opportunity for the government of the day to politicise a costing process, as this government did so comprehensively in the last election. It probably delivered them government. The way in which they politicised the process made a significant contribution and gave some of the Independents the excuse they were looking for. These bills provide for a far more superior model for a parliamentary budget office than that proposed by the government. The government have panicked—they have introduced their own bill two days after we introduced the private member's bill in a panicked move to head off this initiative. They want to go into the next election with every possible advantage, including politicising the Public Service once again. These bills will stop that process. They will ensure that there is an independent group that will take our material—and potentially take the government's material and that of the Greens and the Independents—and will independently assess it. We will have the opportunity to look at the assumptions they make and to amend our proposals accordingly, if that is necessary. It will give this independent office access, without FOIs, which are an interminable process and are included in the government's bill to frustrate this very process. They have decided not to have a parliamentary budget office. The government's bill, which we will debate later today, is for a politicised budget office. That is what they are looking to create. They are looking to throttle the very vehicle that has been designed to overcome the politicisation of this process. Wouldn't it be good to go into the next election and debate policy without finding ourselves on a daily basis seeking to justify leaks out of the Treasurer's office about our costing process? We spent three weeks of the campaign trying to deal with a politicised leak out of the Treasurer's office in the last campaign, until the point that we gave up any faith in that process and stopped submitting our material. Wouldn't it be sensible, wouldn't it be the process that the community would wish to see, to go into an election after 33 days of campaigning with all of our policies having been independently and authoritatively costed by this independent parliamentary budget office, and not having to run the gauntlet of a politicised bureaucracy, a government having played tricks the whole way through the campaign? Wouldn't it be far better to go in there and debate policy? They do not want to debate policy; that is their problem. They want to frustrate and politicise the process. In doing so, they are short-changing the community. We have to have a bill which creates an independent parliamentary budget office. Our bill, the bill introduced by the member for North Sydney, does that. It ensures that this independent office can access information and provide independent advice, with suitably qualified people running the office who look at both our work and the government's work. We will not then see the frustration arising from the nonsense that has gone on in the last 12 months or two years in terms of Treasury's spotty forecasting ability. It has been all over the place, and yet we are expected to tug the forelock and accept every word they say, even when we can demonstrate in private that their assumptions are demonstrably wrong. There is something fundamentally wrong with this process. We need a parliamentary budget office. We introduced this notion some three years ago, under the former leader, the member for Wentworth. This process has been proven in the United States. This process was adopted by the Greens and the Independents. The government only agreed to it, in the end, to placate the Independents and the Greens—again, to get into office. They got into office, and what have they done? They have presented their own bill—and we will go through this chapter and verse later today—which totally frustrates the intention of this bill. It removes the objective and unbiased approach in the bill. What it does—you will see this bill this afternoon—is make the office just another arm of the bureaucracy, three chairs in the corner of the Parliamentary Library. It is an abuse of the process. We need a bill which establishes a well-resourced, fully independent and confidential parliamentary budget office. I commend this bill to the House. ddtreemenu.createTree("tocMenu", false) Andrew Robb Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1295 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1292/Black-Dog-Daze-Booklaunch--E-Y-Melbourne.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1292 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1292&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1292/Black-Dog-Daze-Booklaunch--E-Y-Melbourne.aspx     Andrew Robb Tue, 30 Aug 2011 04:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1292 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1278/Direct-Action-an-efficient-no-regrets-approach-to-reducing-CO2-emissions.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1278 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1278&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1278/Direct-Action-an-efficient-no-regrets-approach-to-reducing-CO2-emissions.aspx   Tuesday, 19 July, 2011    Direct Action: an efficient, ‘no regrets’ approach to reducing CO2 emissions   Carbon Price Forum  Sydney Harbour Marriott – 9.15am   In the absence of a global emissions trading scheme, imposing a carbon tax on Australia is an act of economic self-harm and totally futile from an environmental perspective.   For four years prior to 2011, both our opponents and our own colleagues quite rightly argued that a global scheme was a necessary pre-condition for successful and efficient abatement through an emissions trading scheme – that going it alone would be stupid and highly damaging.   This was emphatically asserted by Peter Shergold, John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull, Ross Garnaut, Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd.   So what changed?  The need for the Prime Minister to do a deal with the Greens to save her political skin is what changed.   Recently, key Republican climate change Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner – who led the U.S. congressional delegation to Kyoto – described what the Gillard Government is doing as “unilateral economic disarmament”.   He said the prospects of either a cap and trade system or carbon tax were “dead in the U.S.”.   Key Democrats agree: President Obama will not be campaigning on either in the lead-up to next year’s election.   After the failure of the Copenhagen conference the world is further away from a global agreement than it’s ever been.   While the Gillard government likes to highlight the European emissions trading system as a reason why we need to undermine our great strengths, there is a high degree of pessimism in Europe about the prospects of a global scheme.   In fact the U.K Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Committee recently launched a new inquiry into the E.U. Emissions Trading System.   The committee says in the absence of binding emissions reduction commitments under the U.N. framework the scheme “is looking increasingly isolated”.   It goes on to say: “The lack of an international framework for emissions reductions and carbon trading poses some serious difficulties for the future viability of the E.U. ETS.”   Regardless, the European scheme, which has been the subject of rorts, is a mere pilot compared to the carbon tax proposed here.   The Gillard-Brown scheme will raise more in revenue in its first four months than the European trading system has raised in total over the last five years – even the electricity generators contribute virtually nothing.   To better understand why going it alone on a carbon tax will harm the Australian economy think about it for a second solely in an Australian context.   What would happen if a big new carbon tax was levelled against businesses only in NSW and no other state?   In no time at all, to remain competitive, you would start to see NSW businesses and jobs relocate to Victoria, Queensland and other states, where no tax applied, to the great detriment of the NSW economy. The emissions that relocating businesses generate would go with them.   Back to the proposed carbon tax and the same will happen, but on a global basis. Australian businesses, jobs and emissions will relocate overseas, where no tax applies.   If you were to put a price on carbon the Gillard-Brown scheme is about the most inefficient and complex way you could go about it.   It will not be one scheme, but 500 schemes (now that the other so-called 500 big polluters that Labor has raged against for 12 months no longer matter).   There will be bureaucrats crawling all over each of the companies that will be taxed. Different activity definitions apply, different levels of assistance apply.   The enormous level of tax churn under the government’s scheme not only underscores its inefficiency but suggests that first and foremost this is a vehicle for wealth redistribution.   Herein lies the fundamental difference between the carbon tax and the Coalition’s far more efficient Direct Action policy.   The carbon tax approach requires many tens-of-billions-of-dollars compensation because of huge increases in electricity prices; the Direct Action approach requires no compensation because it does not drive up electricity costs.   Frontier Economics exposed this fact with analysis it did based on Treasury’s 2008 modelling of a carbon price.   Looking at electricity generators alone it found that the actual cost of technology to reduce CO2 emissions from 2012 to 2020 was $6.6 billion – in other words, the cost of abatements was $6.6 billion.   During that period the government would reap $37.5 billion in tax from generators, and consumers would pay an additional $45 billion for electricity.   This shows that the government’s tax take is almost six times the actual abatement cost, and the increased cost of electricity is nearly eight times the actual abatement cost.   As Frontier’s Danny Price prophetically said earlier this year the excess tax will be churned via the political process which will bring its own distortions.   It is a giant money-go-round, but the money will end up in the hands of politically well-chosen beneficiaries.   He said the political control of so much tax revenue explains why the Greens have been such enthusiastic supporters of the carbon tax.   “They will be in the box seat in deciding how these funds will be distributed,” Price said.   He was spot on. The $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation or ‘Bob Brown Bank’ is effectively a slush fund that will be used to support pet projects of the Greens and those that the private sector consider too risky to finance.   The lessons of the failed Tricontinental bank, and the failed S.A. State Bank and W.A. Inc. are so easily forgotten.   The ban on the ‘Bob Brown Bank’ from investing in Carbon Capture and Storage at the insistence of the Greens, despite its abatement potential as backed by Treasury, confirms this is dripping in politics.   I’d like to foreshadow that a Coalition Government would block such a fund. We would not support government guaranteed borrowings or equity injections from borrowed money to finance what is effectively a slush fund. This is bad policy; dangerous policy.   By contrast the Coalition’s Direct Action policy will cost $3.2 billion over four years and it will be transparently funded from savings within the budget. This sounds like a small amount compared with the $9 billion a year tax take under Labor’s carbon tax. However, as explained earlier, the actual cost of abatement is only one sixth of the Government’s tax take.   Virtually all this Direct Action money will be spent on purchasing least cost abatement through competitive tender.   Competitive tendering is a market based system, but one which doesn’t come with tens-of-billions-of-dollars of new tax and tens-of-billions-of-dollars of higher electricity charges.   Unlike the government’s scheme there will not be six new bureaucracies costing $382 million under our plan.   Direct Action is a ‘no regrets’ policy.   If there is still no global agreement by 2020 Australia will have remained competitive while reducing emissions by five per cent; avoided tens-of-billions-of-tax, yet still be in a good position to assess the way forward from there.   Direct incentives to invest in lower energy and emissions technology in our business sector, greater carbon levels in our soils and tree planting in appropriate areas will see major productivity gains regardless of action taken by the rest of the world.   For example, on some farming land, soil carbon has dropped from five per cent to one per cent and even less.   If you increase soil carbon by one per cent, that will add 15 tonnes of carbon per hectare into the soil.   There are 3.77 tonnes of CO2 per one tonne of carbon, so if you increase soil carbon by one per cent that equates to taking 50 tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere.   If soil carbon is increased by three per cent over the 450 million hectares of agricultural land in Australia, that equates to 65 billion tonnes of CO2 into the soil.   Australia produces about 560 million tonnes of CO2 per year, so by increasing soil carbon by three per cent, that would equate with 100 per cent of our emissions for more than 100 years.   Increased soil carbon enhances microbial activity and water retention and has a marked impact on productivity.   Rehabilitating millions of hectares of existing agricultural soil would seriously contribute to food security issues of the 21st century.   This demonstrates the great potential of soil carbon. Our Direct Action policy allows for up to 85 million tonnes of soil carbon by 2020, a figure more conservative than CSIRO estimates.   This ‘no regrets’ policy can be easily adapted to reflect changes globally and will not result in price rises of virtually everything across the economy, as would occur under a carbon tax.   On the other hand, going it alone with a carbon tax and then an emissions trading system is highly irresponsible.   This politically inspired ‘going it alone’ policy approach guarantees that Australia will be far worse off than if a global agreement applied.   In fact, under a global scheme, closures of inefficient power generation and value-adding resource plants, such as zinc and aluminium smelters, would occur elsewhere in the world first.   Australia, under a truly global scheme, with great expertise, experience and efficiency in energy and resources, could well see an increase in emissions per head, as global investment moved to Australia – one of the world’s most efficient and lowest emission areas of production.   For example, producing a tonne of zinc in Australia leads to 2.6 tonnes of CO2 being emitted, whereas a tonne of zinc produced in China sees 6.8 tonnes of CO2 being emitted.   Also, under the government’s scheme we have learnt that in order to achieve the 160 million tonnes per year reduction by 2020, almost 100 million tonnes will come from the purchase of overseas permits.   This would come at an annual cost of around $3.5 billion. This effectively means that $3.5 billion of Australia’s carbon tax is spent annually on abatement in other countries.   A further 20 million tonnes of abatement would be achieved through the retirement of 2,000 megawatts of brown coal fired power generation.   Despite all the fevered claims that Direct Action won’t work, the single biggest abatement measure in the Government’s scheme happens to be a Direct Action proposal – namely, the closure of Hazelwood power station. The Government’s carbon tax itself will only deliver around 40 million tonnes of abatement in Australia, or just 25 per cent of the overall abatement.   To put this all into some perspective Professor Ross Garnaut projects that China’s emissions will increase by around a staggering 7,000 million tonnes per annum by 2020.   So while Julia Gillard says the carbon tax will take the equivalent of 45 million cars off the road, China’s increases alone will put the equivalent of more than 1.7 billion cars back on it.   And some of that increase in China’s emissions will come from former Australian industries that have migrated to China because our unilateral carbon tax will have made steel, zinc, aluminium, cement or other industries uncompetitive.   This figure demonstrates why in the absence of meaningful global action an increasing number of Australians are asking, just what is the point of the carbon tax, when ‘no regrets’ alternative approaches exist.     Andrew Robb Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:42:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1278 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1266/Adjournment--Goldstein-Electorate-Graffiti-in-Bentleigh.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1266 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1266&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1266/Adjournment--Goldstein-Electorate-Graffiti-in-Bentleigh.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:54): I would like to discuss today the marked increase in the incidence of graffiti and vandalism in my electorate of Goldstein, a series of incidents which is increasingly common across many other parts of Melbourne. I cite as an example the very shopping strip in which my office is based in Centre Road in Bentleigh, one of the 17 suburbs in my electorate. It is a wonderful shopping strip but it has increasingly been confronted with endless graffiti: shopfront hits and tagged windows and advertisements on bus shelters and a host of other sites up and down that strip and the surrounding streets. All of the signs are being attacked and defaced by graffiti and it is dreadful. At a time when retail is hurting, and the last 12 months have been perhaps the worst in 20 years, it saps morale. It is ugly, it is a blight on the landscape and so many local residents and traders alike are fed up and are calling for action on graffiti. We have people reporting that while graffiti has always been around, it is increasingly becoming out of control. Centre Road has been made a most unattractive place to shop due to the extent of graffiti. President Tania Moss of the Bentleigh Traders Association, whom I have met with on a number of occasions, said the traders paid for the graffiti to be removed from shops on a weekly basis. Every week they have a person coming in for nearly one day to remove graffiti up and down the strip. It is costing literally thousands of dollars—no assistance from council—and all in an attempt to maintain the truly pleasant nature of that strip at a time when retail sales are really being hit all over the country. This is but one example. I could talk in equal terms about many other areas in my electorate including the shopping strip in Highett, Carnegie, Hampton Street, the Beaumaris Concourse, Ormond, Black Rock and Sandringham. It is very unfortunate that some of these sorts of local community issues could well have been dealt with in the last 12 months and, in fact, the voters and the members of my electorate have been denied effective action because, unfortunately, we were not able to get onto the government benches at the last election. We were taking to local electorates all over the country a very flexible and responsive program designed very much to tackle these sorts of issues of graffiti, vandalism and other unnecessary local violence. The program was intended to enable councils and local community groups to apply for funding for crime prevention projects and strategies to deal with crime prevention. It was to include CCTV systems for community hubs and shopping strips, security patrols, graffiti removal kits for traders associations and alarm systems for sporting clubs. It was to be a highly flexible and responsive program to deal with the fundamental concerns of Australians. At the moment Australians are deeply anxious about their circumstance. The government is offering no direction and no leadership, you have a leader with no authority and people are concerned. That is why savings rates have gone up dramatically. That is why retail sales are down. This sort of cost is being imposed on our retailers who can ill afford to be dealing with graffiti and other incidents and damage and vandalism. We need a government in place that can live within its means, focus on the issues that are of concern to our local communities and make sure that Australia heads in the right direction again. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:57:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1266 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1280/SPEECH--Statute-Stocktake-Bill-No-1-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1280 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1280&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1280/SPEECH--Statute-Stocktake-Bill-No-1-2011.aspx HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEECH - Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 Thursday, 23 June 2011   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (17:35): I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011. The purpose of this bill is to repeal 39 redundant special appropriations relating to the Commonwealth's financial framework. This would include the abolition of 39 special appropriations, including the repeal of one statutory special account and 25 redundant acts in their entirety. It is essentially a government housekeeping bill and has no material consequence in relation to the provision of government programs, funding or new policy. The government committed to regular stocktakes of special appropriation vehicles in response to the Operation Sunlight: overhauling budgetary transparency report released in December 2008. The bill is part of an ongoing bipartisan commitment to clean up the statute books, as has occurred through five previous financial framework legislation amendment acts between 2005 and 2010 and a Statute Stocktake (Regulatory and Other Laws) Act 2009. Examples of the types of redundant legislation that this bill seeks to repeal include Papua New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1974,which related to the Commonwealth's guarantee of a loan that PNG took out with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This loan has since been repaid, so the act is redundant. Second, the State Grant (Special Assistance to South Australia) Act 1960, which granted financial assistance to South Australia during the 1959-60 financial year. That appropriation has been long spent. While this bill is non-controversial in nature, it poses a question of how many other redundant pieces of legislation remain on the statute book. The government is drawing an extremely long bow in its promotion of this bill as part of its commitment to reducing red tape, at least within the government's own administration. But what it really does, in my view, is remind us of the failures of this government when it comes to reducing red tape and easing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses. Many sectors of our economy are choking in unnecessary red tape, regulations and reporting requirements. I think there has been a cultural shift over many years, and it has been accelerated most significantly in the last four years, where regulation has become a very major cost burden across so many areas of organisations and businesses. It is human nature to want to grow your business and bureaucrats are no different. They want to grow their business, and their business is regulation. They are very good at growing their business. In fact, they are expert at growing their business. In 2007 the Rudd-Gillard government made a big pitch to business based on their commitment to cutting red tape. Labor promised to make life easier for business by pursuing a 'one in, one out' rule for new regulation. They got a lot of mileage out of the one in, one out rule for new regulation. No new law was supposed to be introduced unless an existing one was taken off the books, but instead let's look at the record. Labor have imposed 220 new regulations for each one that they have removed—220 for one, not one for one. It is a huge disparity. The more regulation that government puts on business, the more time, money and effort business people have to divert from real work to filling in forms for bureaucrats in Canberra. The corporate reporting requirements have massively increased across so many areas. Excess red tape and regulation benefits no-one. It only means more costs for business. It stops new jobs, stifles investment, lowers innovation, lessens productivity and ultimately creates a lower standard of living for Australians. The morale of hundreds of thousands of small business people in particular is lowered immeasurably by the significant growth of regulation. The coalition will always be a pro-business party. We have demonstrated that in opposition with the policies we have put forward for small business and the stance we have taken against job-destroying new taxes. The carbon tax and mining tax will undermine our competitive advantage. The carbon tax, which will morph into an ETS, an emissions trading scheme, will be the most bureaucratic scheme you could possibly devise. The eventual emissions trading scheme will not be one scheme; it will be 1,000 schemes because there will be 1,000 Australian companies involved. Already most of those companies have spent in excess of $1 million, some of them several million dollars, seeking to start to comply with the set-up arrangements that are required for this scheme. Thousands of bureaucrats are crawling all over these 1,000 companies, and think of the regulation, intervention and involvement of bureaucracy when you get $10 billion of tax to recycle and churn. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you an example of regulation gone mad under this government's watch. Last year the Australian Securities and Investments Commission sent a secret directive to our top financial services companies requiring them to complete an 800-question audit—800 questions. It is breathtaking. And if they make a mistake in that document the next thing is they will be hauled before the courts. These are things that people do not see day to day, but think of the costs, the burden and the nonsense—and the arrogance, for that matter—associated with thinking that they can impose an 800-question audit on all of our financial services companies and expect them to welcome this, to be able to do it without incurring some major costs. Of course, these companies are liable before the courts if they unwittingly get something wrong in that 800-question audit. We have also heard that the Taxation Office has been signalling to many companies and accountants that it will be using its extraordinary investigative powers to sit in and monitor in real time business deals taking place, under the guise of live auditing. If that is so, does the government support such a practice? The fact is that a culture has developed under this government where different organisations—the tax office, ASIC and others—feel that they can now interfere with critical, market sensitive, confidential material and, furthermore, interfere with established corporate governance practices and actually sit at the table when mergers and acquisitions are taking place. This is bizarre, but it is an example of the way in which regulation has gone mad under this government's watch. The coalition is not just going to talk about reducing red tape and regulation; we are going to do something about it, unlike this government, and we are going to do something substantial. For starters, the Leader of the Opposition has announced that for the first time at a federal level we are going to develop a model to put a value on the cost to business of the regulations that are managed by each federal department. Then we are going to take an axe to red tape to the value of $1 billion a year. Our commitment to this $1 billion a year reduction follows the successful adoption of annual dollar based red tape reduction targets by the Victorian government. Victoria's approach to regulatory reform is highly regarded by business. They topped the Business Council of Australia's scorecard of red tape reform in 2007 and 2010, and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry is supportive of Victoria's dedicated regulation reduction program. The coalition will recognise the proven success of this deregulation policy and will adapt and refine it. Federal departments will be required to inform a coalition government how many hours small business will spend filling in government paperwork and how much it will cost. This will include things like new software, advice from accountants, training and time spent away from work to learn any new requirements. Departments and bureaucrats will also have to explain how many businesses will be impacted by regulatory changes and how much they will have to do to comply. Any cost provided will need to be examined by the Productivity Commission and it will be transparent and included in departmental annual reports. So the weight of regulation in each department will be assessed for how much it costs typical businesses in a sector, and it will be extended to identify the costs across a sector. With this information in hand, departments will then be set targets for reducing the costs to business of their regulations and the targets will add up to at least $1 billion per annum. It will be a transparent system that will enable a coalition government to properly assess the ability of departments to reduce the costs of their regulations. I think for the first time many of those in the departments will start to consider the cost implications of their regulations. They are looking to increase and extend the nature of their regulatory operations, but this time they will be forced to see the implications of those regulations. Today we are here repealing redundant legislation. In that vein we should be repealing the volumes of legislation and regulations introduced to cover up the activities of the National Broadband Network. The NBN marks an ugly new chapter in government intervention. Australia is the only country in the world that is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector. It is an irony that we are here today repealing redundant and unnecessary legislation when on the same day the government has signed a deal to require Telstra to decommission their fixed copper network to give NBN Co. unfettered, sole access to their pits and ducts and to migrate all of their fixed line customers to the NBN. Telstra will not be able to deliver broadband over their HFC network which currently passes about 2.2 million of Australia's 7.5 million households. To achieve this deal the government has engaged in extortion and blackmail as part of a relentless and sustained attack on one of Australia's great companies. A government monopoly is being created, with all of its attendant inefficiencies. It is being done through more regulation and by removing the transparency that should apply to even a normal corporation. We should be repealing that redundant legislation today because it is being imposed on the most dynamic and innovative sector in our economy. Despite this bill and other legislation today being debated in the Main Committee to also improve the efficiency of legislation, we have seen this government snub its nose at good government, at transparency, at the competitive free enterprise culture in Australia and at its responsibility to efficiently manage taxpayers' dollars by holding a gun to the head of one of our major companies in order to deliver a political outcome for a desperate, dysfunctional government. Remember that this was conceived by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on an aircraft travelling from Melbourne to Brisbane. This $50 billion investment was conceived without consulting cabinet and getting its approval. It was conceived by two people who were facing the ignominy of a failed $4.7 billion program that they had promised would solve all the problems of the world. This was a decision made for political advantage and not for the advantage of the Australian taxpayer or the telecommunications sector. This was a political decision. Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order by drawing your attention to standing order 75 relating to irrelevance and tedious repetition. The member for Goldstein is giving the same speech he gave on an unrelated matter in the Main Committee earlier today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): There is no point of order. Mr ROBB: We just saw another example of the embarrassment that is being caused by the government's announcement today. I thank the member for intervening because all he really did was make my case. This is a bill about repealing redundant legislation and the NBN legislation should certainly be in here. In conclusion, mark my words: we will be back in this chamber at some point in the future to repeal the failed, dangerous and highly wasteful NBN legislation.         Andrew Robb Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:35:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1280 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1259/Budget-Appropiation-Speech-Second-Reading-23-May-2011.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1259 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1259&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1259/Budget-Appropiation-Speech-Second-Reading-23-May-2011.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (13:31)—This budget confirmed in my mind that the Gillard government has all the look of one of those dodgy companies before they hit the wall. They put out a glossy annual report, they fill it with heroic assumptions and at the same time their debts continue to grow and on the sly they push for an extension to their credit limit. We have seen these companies. You know when it happens that they have been all front and no substance. It is like a company which has never turned a profit, like this government has never turned a surplus. Everything it touches turns to custard yet they tell us to trust them that the best years are ahead of us.   Does this ring true? Does it sound similar? This is what we have seen now for many months, in fact for years. They implore us to ignore their dreadful track record and to believe them, as an article of faith, when they claim they are getting back into the black. It is forever in the never-never; they never talk about the present. You have not heard anybody here today on the other side talk about the massive deficit last year and this year, the increased deficit this year over what was expected and the massive deficit next year. They are talking about some time well into the future. As Alan Kohler, a respected economic commentator said:   Any decent CFO would have been embarrassed by this budget. Revenue forecasts made just six months ago have proved to be way too high, yet spending has gone on regardless. What’s more the optimistic forecasts remain just as optimistic.   Mr Kohler is on the money. He fingered this. This is a budget where forecasts have been shown to be rubbery and inaccurate again and again, yet the spending continues at this rate. It has the look of a shonky company that is about to hit the wall. The truth is that this government has all the look of a company in distress. It is acting without direction and it is concealing information. No credible company would deliver an annual report which ignored publicly announced revenue and expenditure measures.   The carbon tax, worth in the order of $11 ½ billion each year, does just this. No credible company would use accounting tricks to remove major new investments from the balance sheet; yet massive new investments are being made without so much as a benefit-cost analysis. So we see what they have done just with that budget treatment of the NBN, what will cost taxpayers $18.2 billion over the forward estimates—and, of course, a lot later—and we see nothing of it. None of the treatment of this NBN is disclosed. If this government was a publicly listed company, all of this information would have to have been disclosed. It would not be good enough for a CFO to ignore continuous disclosure obligations; yet the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation are happy to do just that.   Under the Corporations Act, companies must disclose any information that would have a material effect on the entity's finances. Think about the NBN. Think of the tens of billions of dollars being spent on the NBN. A lot of what is being done—a lot of the assumptions, a lot of the actions, a lot of that decisions—has a material effect on the entity's finance. All of this is withheld, not disclosed. The Corporations Act would require this of any publicly listed company, an act brought in by the government and supported by this government, yet actions within the Corporations Act, required of public companies but ignored by this government.   Despite the fact that every Australian taxpayer is a government shareholder, Labor does not hold itself to the same standards it expects of business. Such is the level of non-disclosure, the government, if it were a publicly listed company, would be investigated for a breach of the Corporations Act. In fact, ASIC provides guidance regarding disclosure obligations and the government could do worse than take a note.   This budget is all smoke and mirrors. This government has not met its obligations to support the ethical and effective running of the budget in the way in which it requires the ethical and effective running of companies. None of the standard procedures that are required by the Corporations Act and enforced by ASIC apply to the running of the business of government under this administration. It tells you a lot. They are running blind on the other side. There is, in many respects, an administration which is deluding itself. It is an administration which lacks direction. It is an administration in which the public has lost confidence.   This budget died overnight because it confirmed the view of typical Australians that this government cannot be trusted. What they saw was more of the same. It confirmed the view that has led to the great anxiety that is out there. Why have people across the country in the last 12 months gone from a minus one per cent savings rate to a plus 10 per cent rate? There are unprecedented levels of saving in this country amongst all the mums and dads and others out there. People are anxious. They feel vulnerable. They feel that this government has lost control. They feel that if something happened overseas they would not be prepared. They think that the government is not prepared. This budget confirmed that anxiety. People thought, 'This is just more of the same.' There is no interest in this budget except to the extent that it reinforces people's view that this government is a dysfunctional and dangerous government in many respects.   That 10 per cent increase in savings across the population is a reflection of millions of households who are seeking to live within their means. They feel, despite the great Chinese opportunity that is presented, the way in which we are blessed with resources demanded in the region and the way in which we have got the highest terms of trade in 140 years—despite all of that—that they are burdened by cost of living increases that they are finding insurmountable. They are waking up at night worrying about how they can meet their expenses. They are feeling anxious. They are paying off the mortgage. They are paying off the plastic. They are putting money in the bank. In fact, there has been $75 billion more saved this year by average Australians than is saved under our usual savings rate. People are seeking to live within their means and be in a position to deal with financial stress, yet all the while this government keeps spending, spending, spending; it keeps borrowing, borrowing, borrowing; and it keeps taxing, taxing, taxing.   This is a government that shows no example, is irresponsible, is dysfunctional, has no authority, has no leadership and is creating a crisis of confidence amongst the community. No wonder retail has been under enormous pressure. You take $75 billion out of the normal spending of the Australian community and you put enormous pressure on retail.   While families are trying to live within their means, the government is not. This is exemplified by a couple of numbers in this budget. Before this budget, this government was in the market every day for two years borrowing $100 million a day, competing with small business and mid-sized business, pushing up interest rates, putting enormous pressure on mortgages and, in the process, accumulating more and more debt.   Here is a budget that was supposed to be tough. That is what we got told for weeks: 'This is going to be a tough budget.' Yet, after the budget, it is not $100 million a day that this government is in the market for; it is $135 million a day—pushing up interest rates, denying small and medium sized business money to roll over their commitments, squeezing small business. This is a tofu budget in terms of spending.   Dr Southcott: Not as healthy!   Mr ROBB: Certainly not as healthy. The gross debt grows massively under this budget. While the government keep spending, the debt keeps going up and up. It grows massively, and they are trying to tell us they are acting responsibly. Then, in the middle of that, we find buried in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 an amendment to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911. This has never happened before. This sort of amendment has never been buried in an appropriation bill. They want to raise the debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion and eliminate the special circumstances clause. Again, this has all the smell of a dodgy company before it hits the wall: delusional management team, heroic assumptions, never turned a profit, promises that the best years are ahead of us, yet a growing debt while pushing an extension of the credit limit on the sly. The Treasurer, away from the spotlight, had the Assistant Treasurer creep into this House on budget night after the speech was given and quietly introduce what had the appearance of a standard appropriations bill, but on the sly what this government did was slip in a proposal to lift the Commonwealth debt ceiling by another $50 billion. It has already raised it by $150 billion or $125 billion. It hoped nobody would notice. Well, we have noticed and something needs to be done about it. To that end, I move the following second reading amendment:   That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:      “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:   (1) condemns the government for incorporating in an annual appropriation bill provisions to increase the limit on government borrowings above the total of $200 billion; (2) recognises that a special case must be made for such a significant increase in borrowing limits and that the government must explain any special circumstances that it believes justify such an increase; and (3) demands that the parliament be given the opportunity to consider separately and vote on the proposed increases in borrowing limits set out in Part 5 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-12 and on any occasion on which the government seeks to increase Commonwealth debt above $200 billion.   If this government is going to be reckless with Australia's money and increase debt willy-nilly while everyone is trying to live within their means, the parliament must scrutinise any increase above $200 billion. It must give its approval. The government must come into this House and, instead of removing the clause for special circumstances, it should be required to explain why this borrowing limit has to increase.   MR ROBB (Goldstein) (15:48)—Earlier, I was addressing the underhand and deceptive way in which this government has sought to increase the Commonwealth debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion. In order that this parliament has the transparency that should be granted by any responsible government on a matter of this consequence, I formally move the amendment previously circulated in this chamber: I move:   That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:      “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:   (1) condemns the government for incorporating in an annual appropriation bill provisions to increase the limit on government borrowings above the total of $200 billion; (2) recognises that a special case must be made for such a significant increase in borrowing limits and that the government must explain any special circumstances that it believes justify such an increase; and (3) demands that the parliament be given the opportunity to consider separately and vote on the proposed increases in borrowing limits set out in Part 5 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-12.   Rather than live within its means, this government is not only increasing taxes and spending but also increasing government debt. At a time when millions and millions of Australian families are seeking desperately to live within their means and to meet their cost-of-living expenses and at a time when a government is increasing debt in such magnitude, to massively lift this debt ceiling without proper parliamentary scrutiny is totally unacceptable. It has never before happened in this chamber that this sort of measure would be included within an appropriation bill. Trying to hide this measure under the cover of an appropriation bill has confirmed the fears and the anxieties of millions of Australians about the competency and trustworthiness of this government. This is a failed government. It is a dysfunctional government. It is a dangerous government. I urge this House to support the amendment that is now before them.   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) (15:50)—Is the amendment seconded?   Andrew Robb Mon, 23 May 2011 23:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1259 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1241/Carbon-Tax-Undermines-Our-Economic-Comparative-Advantage.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1241 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1241&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1241/Carbon-Tax-Undermines-Our-Economic-Comparative-Advantage.aspx     Matter of Public Importance ROBB (Goldstein) (4.01 pm)—Australians need to clearly understand that this decision to introduce a carbon tax is driven solely by politics—opportunistic, cynical and totally self-serving politics. It is the price of a single vote in this chamber.   That is the nub of it. It is the price of saving the Prime Minister’s political skin. And the price will not be paid ultimately by some anonymous nasty big business; it will be paid by Australian families, by Australian seniors, by all of us. It will be paid in higher costs of living, in lost jobs, or in both. For every million dollars raised, $100,000 will, by agreement, go off to the United Nations. Can you believe this? One hundred thousand in every million will go off to the United Nations. That is akin to spending it on pink batts. It is like throwing the money away. This is a self-serving, cynical move by this government.   This debate is an argument about who can deliver a five per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 with the least impact on electricity prices and on jobs. It is about incentives, really. In going it alone on a carbon tax and then, subsequently, an emissions trading scheme, the incentive is to shift emissions and jobs overseas. In going with direct action, the incentive is to reduce emissions in Australia in a way which reduces global emissions without increasing electricity prices or costing jobs. This is a fact which is consistently ignored, misrepresented and lied about in the arguments put by those opposite. There are alternatives. There is a better way, and we have it. The crux of the better way is the fact that we are going alone on this measure of a carbon tax and then an emissions trading scheme. The key flaw in the Gillard government’s decision to impose an $11 billion tax every year on Australians is the failure of the rest of the world, and in particular our major competitors, to come with us, to act in unison. Yet we have been lectured in a sanctimonious fashion for years and years and years by those opposite about the imperative of a global scheme.   We heard it endlessly from the former Prime Minister, from the former Deputy Prime Minister, from the former minister for climate change. They said: if emissions are to be reduced, and reduced in the most economically efficient manner and in a way which will reduce global emissions, we had to have a global scheme. And they were right. If we had a global agreement which included our major competitors it would mean Australia, with its cheap coal, would be one of the last countries to transition away from coal for electricity generation. This occurs because if a global emissions trading scheme or a global carbon tax scheme was in place, the world’s emissions would be cut fastest and at least cost by Australia buying international emissions permits rather than converting its own power stations. It is all about comparative advantage. It is basic economics, but you would not know it from the gobbledygook about the markets that we have heard from the other side. It is basic economics that if the rest of the world have got higher cost emissions, those plants will be phased out sooner than our plants. Yet this has been totally ignored; in fact, I do not think they really understand it. And that means that we could have coal fired power generation that will be scrapped possibly decades ahead of what could happen, if we go it alone.   We could have 30 or 40 years of coal fired power generation scrapped when, if there was a global agreement, other countries would be scrapping their coal fired power generation and we would still have cheaper electricity with our hundreds of years of cheap, good quality coal. But, no, we will scrap our industries and send them offshore—our lead smelters, our zinc smelters, our aluminium smelters, our cement works, on many of which whole towns rely. Whole communities, people’s lives, their families, their grandparents, the kids, the schools, the community spirit—gone because of political expediency. That is the sole reason they have stepped aside from what they told us for years must apply—a global scheme, otherwise we are not competitive internationally—to go unilaterally to save their skin, to get that one vote up there. One Green vote in this House to save your political skin. It is pathetic. It is a self-serving. It is cynical. It is irresponsible. At the cost of Australian jobs and at the cost of the living standards of Australians, you are prepared to do what you are going to do: make the biggest structural change in our history, scrap coal fired power plants years before they would, scrap all these other industries, cost us tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs—all in the interests of saving your political skin.   Acting unilaterally will be irrational, and a very costly adjustment in Australia to the great advantage of our competitors. Acting alone with a tax is not rational. Acting alone ignores the fact that the market they endlessly parrot on about is now a global market. When they talk here, preaching to us about the marketplace and the need for market forces, they are assuming that the market we are talking about is Australia. We are now in a global market, okay? In case they do not know, we are in a global market. This means that we cannot quarantine Australia from the world market. It is like putting a carbon tax on in Victoria and no other state, and then all standing around scratching our heads wondering why hundreds of jobs and lots of industries are moving into New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. It is the same thing: we are going to put a tax on Australia and scratch our heads, wondering why jobs are going to move into China, Malaysia, Thailand and India and into all of the neighbouring regions, and why our competitors around the world are getting a free run.   This is irresponsible, this is inane and this is naive. They do not know what they are talking about, and their economics is not even at a prep school level. They misrepresent it and they misunderstand it. We have a situation where the former Prime Minister understood it, and that is why when he was so disconsolate after the Copenhagen round that he gave in to the urgings of those opposite to scrap a global scheme—he suffered accordingly. He understood it and industry understands it: if you want to change global emissions you need a global agreement. The Europeans, in their stupidity, have proven this. Since 1990, the Europeans’ emissions from production have fallen flat—no change. They are priding themselves and are so pleased with themselves that they have had no increase in emissions of production. But their consumption of carbon has gone up by—only—44 per cent. What we have seen is a hollowing out of manufacturing in Europe, and it has all gone to China—emissions from Europe have gone to China. As sure as night follows day this carbon tax will see a hollowing out of manufacturing in Australia. A global agreement must include our competitors. Who are they? Countries like Brazil, the biggest global producer of iron ore, or countries like Qatar in the Middle East—the biggest producer of gas.   There is Sakhalin in Russia, which also produces gas. There is North America, and in Africa countries such as Cameroon, with huge oil and iron ore deposits. This is a government which is going to put us at an enormous disadvantage, undermine the great opportunities this country offers and kill the morale of so many people. This is a government which is irresponsible and is acting solely out of political motive. They must be condemned. (Time expired)     Andrew Robb Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1241 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1229/Second-Reading-Speech--Appropriations-Bills-No-3-and-No-4.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1229 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1229&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1229/Second-Reading-Speech--Appropriations-Bills-No-3-and-No-4.aspx ROBB, Hon. Andrew - (Goldstein) (10.00 am)—I rise to consider the appropriation bills that are before us today. The main purpose of these bills, of course, is to propose appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government in addition to those provided in the 2010-11 budget. The appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2010-2011 is around $1.4 billion and the total appropriation in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2010-2011 is just over $1 billion. These are appropriations required for moneys that were not anticipated at the time of the framing of the budget, so they are overruns or expenses adding up to close to $2½ billion that were not anticipated some eight months ago. In the context of these bills, there are funds being appropriated to support what would appear to be bad management and poor process. In other words, these appropriation bills will become a symbol of the incompetence, the waste and the failure of due process that have come to characterise this administration. For example, for the Department of Climate Change and Energy, there is an appropriation of $15 million to support functions that were simply transferred from the former Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Why do you need an extra $15 million for a new bunch of public servants to do exactly what a previous bunch of public servants had to do? Fifteen million dollars rolls easily off the tongue. It is not considered by those on the other side to be of any consequence. But it is a lot of money—a lot of money—and, at a time when households are pulling in their heads to try and make ends meet, to live within their means, we have a government that continues with this approach to public funding and the management of taxpayers’ funds which is unacceptable.   There is $45.6 million for the closure of the Home Insulation Program. Now, the government made provision for this in the last budget. They spent all last year and part of the year before with red faces, apologising, as community resentment built by the day over the total incompetence of the Home Insulation Program. Given the public outcry that occurred with this program, you would have thought that the government would have at least given every consideration to what it was going to cost to mop up the mess—how much it would take to close the damn thing down and how much it was going to cost for public servants and others to do their best to fix the situation and satisfy the literally hundreds of thousands of householders who were dudded under this pathetic and mismanaged program.   Six months later we find another $46 million, more or less, is required for the closure of this program. They still got that wrong. What can they get right in managing taxpayers’ money? This is another example of waste that just keeps on giving. The government seem incapable of taking full responsibility for this program: for the waste, the hurt and the deaths that have occurred. This program has so much against it, yet they are not capable of properly costing even the closure of the program.   In relation to immigration and citizenship, of the $2.5 billion nearly $300 million is supplementary funding for operational costs associated with the management of offshore asylum seekers. In the space of six months the government has underestimated the cost of border protection to the tune of $300 million. It shows how out of control this government is when it comes to managing our borders. We now have about 6,000 people on the mainland due to be processed. We have boats arriving almost weekly, even though it is the wrong season. Individuals are putting their lives at great risk, as we saw tragically a few weeks ago. This government provides absolutely no deterrent for people who risk breaking through our borders. It has no control over the borders, which means people have no confidence in the whole immigration program. Is it any wonder that people are concerned more generally about the way this country is being managed and its borders are being protected?   No country has even signed up to the East Timor proposition. The Prime Minister had a thought bubble before the election and put out there as the ultimate solution that there would be a processing centre set up in East Timor. After six months of the most assiduous representations by our departmental officials all over the region, not one country has shown a scintilla of interest in signing up for that program. Yet Nauru is still willing to sign the UN agreements. It is just pure politics that is stopping this government from doing what it has to do. It is letting politics interfere with the cost of running these programs and it is threatening human life because of this lack of deterrent for people who seek to break through our borders.   In the space of six months the government have underestimated the cost of spending on the border protection program to the tune of $300 million. We are now billions of dollars behind what was anticipated in the forward estimates some two or three years ago. This is a symbol of great waste and incompetence. The measures in these appropriation bills are endless symbols of the waste and incompetence by this government. This is a snapshot of some of the activities to be funded through these appropriations. These modest amounts add up to significant sums—in this case, $2.3 billion. The government would say these modest amounts are neither here nor there: ‘What is $15 million here or $300 million there?’   This is why we have a debt heading towards $90 billion. This is why we are aiming at a deficit this year of $40 billion and had one of $57 billion last year—the two worst deficit situations in our history. It has occurred because if you do not look after the pennies you do not look after the pounds. How can you justify a $40 billion deficit? How can you justify a $57 billion deficit and then stand there and say that you are managing this economy? How can you put up appropriations like this that demonstrate enormous incompetence? Overruns on so many programs should have been anticipated but have not been anticipated.   Last night I stood in the main chamber and debated the levy for flood reconstruction. It is nearly $2 billion for this levy. If the government had stuck with its budget of six months ago it would have paid for that levy and more. If the government had shown that it was able to manage this place without further waste, without further overspending—if it could live within its means like every Australian family is being required to do at this point in time, despite massive increases in prices—we would not have to have the levy. It is quite ironic. We have two debates going on almost in tandem that demonstrate that the money was there—is there—to pay for that levy. There was no need for the levy, but of course this is a government whose instinct is to tax, to spend and to borrow.   That is all they have done since they arrived: borrowed, taxed and spent. Where has there been one hard decision on the fiscal front? Even the measures towards flood reconstruction that they are paying for out of savings were basically all measures that we had identified at the time of the election. This government pilloried us in a political sense for putting up those savings. Now, after we went out and took the heat for those political decisions some months ago, they have taken those savings. Who has bleated about any of those savings? More or less one or two interest groups have, and they have caved in on those. They caved into the Greens. They bought off the Greens and Independents with hundreds of millions of dollars in order to enable their program to go forward. They cannot even make a tough decision and make it stick. They cave in to the political demands of the crossbenchers.   It must be remembered that this government, in the middle of all this, is borrowing $100 million a day. A lot of the interest rate increases are because this government is still borrowing $100 million a day. In other words, every 17 days this government borrows what it is going to collect on the levy. Every 17 days it has borrowed an amount equivalent to the levy. This government is being exposed almost daily with its incompetence and its lack of fiscal rectitude.   There is a $45 billion interest bill to be paid over the next four years. This is incompetence in the extreme. There is no plan to address this funding and fiscal situation. They claim that a surplus will be achieved in 2012-13. It may be manufactured, but what they are not telling you—the dead cat on the table—is the situation with the structural deficit. It is the issue that needs to be explained, it is the issue that the Treasurer has studiously avoided and it is the blow-out of the underlying structural deficit that puts a lie to all the rhetoric we hear about the government having some plan to address our debt and deficit situation.   So what is a structural deficit? A structural deficit represents ongoing spending commitments that are relied on from revenue that will not persist, in this case the mining boom. It is a bit like a situation where someone has been achieving overtime for a couple of years, say, $20,000 a year overtime for the last couple of years, and then thinks, ‘I’ll take out a mortgage. I can now afford a $500,000 mortgage with my regular pay and overtime.’ The expectation is that the overtime will continue into the future. So, the worker takes out a $500,000, 25-year mortgage and then finds out two years later that the overtime has stopped. The excess demand for the products that the company was producing has dried up. He is back on his normal pay. All of a sudden he realises—   Mr Champion—You’d fix up the penalty rates.   Mr ROBB—Here we are. The incompetence pouring out of those opposite.   So you have a situation where this person finds that he now can only afford a mortgage of $300,000 to $350,000 and not $500,000. But he has got a 25-year commitment. He has got a problem. He has to sell the house and get a smaller mortgage. He has to take tough decisions to live within his means. He has a structural deficit. He has got long-term commitments but the income to pay for those long-term commitments has not persisted.   It is the same thing with this country. We have got long-term commitments, in this case nearly $100 billion of debt that this government is building up, and we have got spending programs that will continue on. They are recurrent expenditure. They will come year in, year out as annuals commitments that this government is making and that have no end. Yet, they are funding those commitments out of the proceeds of the mining boom. They are wasting the mining boom. There is an illusion about the state of the books of this country. They are going to use the mining boom money to meet current commitments, maybe in 2012-13. But what you find is that when you allow for the mining boom and commodity prices to go back to normal, and they will. There will be a supply response and the demand will come off at some stage. There are 1,000 mines around the world that are now being put into production. There is infrastructure being built in Mongolia, in South America, in Africa, in Eastern Europe and in North America. There is port infrastructure to take the resources from thousands of mines to meet demand. So, the supply response will increase. We think we are awash with gas, and we are, but we have still only got two per cent of the world’s gas reserves. So we will face competition. We will still do well but the mining boom will come off, and it may come off sooner than we anticipate. It is all right to predict for 10 years.   I was in agriculture for 18 years and there were always booms and busts. And every time there was a boom in grain people would move out of sheep into grain and everyone would always predict a longer boom that what really occurred. Invariably, it was because no-one anticipated the supply response, not only the extra grain production within the country but the extra grain production around the world. Invariably, the price came back. It did not necessarily collapse; it came back to more normal levels because of the supply response. It invariably came back sooner than everyone had predicted. There is a sort of boom mentality that wants to make assumptions about how long these things are going to last.   So we have those on the other side feeding in 10 and 15 year assumptions about the mining boom. It is unrealistic. It demonstrates their lack of contact with the real world—with the commercial world. We now have a situation where in the 2009-10 budget papers the government featured this structural deficit. There had been a small structural deficit beginning at the end of our previous term in office, but it was about $2.5 billion. You know what it is today? It is $50 billion. There is an underlying structural budget deficit that has been identified by Treasury. It was first put in the budget papers of 2009-10. In 2010-11 there is no reference to it; it has disappeared. Six months after last year’s budget Treasury quietly put out a paper that updated the structural deficit. It showed the structural deficit was growing astronomically—that instead of coming out of it in 2015-16 we would come out of it in 2020. So we have a structural deficit of some large order.   The reality of the budget as identified by the Treasury, as agreed by the government but never talked about by the government, is that the government have an underlying budget deficit which is going to go through at least to 2020. This means we will not have paid off one cent of debt—you do not pay off debt until you are into a real surplus—until 2020. We will not have paid this debt off until 2030. We are talking 20 years until the debt is paid off.   What an absolute disgrace that this government would put us in such a vulnerable position. We are a small, open economy. If there is a double-dip recession or if there is a serious downturn in any way—instability coming from the Middle East with oil prices going up—then we are vulnerable. This government needs to restore the economic resilience that they inherited and subsequently trashed. That economic resilience that we need as a small country to work our way through things that are outside of our control, and the rest of the world’s control. But no, we go on blindly as though everything is fine. Spending, spending, spending; more commitments, bigger structural deficit, off into the future using all of the mining industry money. What a disgrace. What an absolutely irresponsible, inconsiderate, highly politicised approach to government. They are just looking to save their own jobs every three years. That is the total preoccupation of this government. That motivates all of their major decisions and it is has driven the spending, spending, spending approach of this government. They need to be held to account.   These appropriations are a huge symbol of the waste and incompetence and politicisation of this whole budget process. This is a government which needs to take stock. It needs to do what every family in Australia is doing—that is, seeking to live within its means. For at least 12 months now every family in Australia has delaying incurring expenses they were going to incur. Delaying things they were going to purchase because they can no longer afford it, because the electricity bills have gone up 35 per cent in three years, because interest rates have gone up $6,000 on the average mortgage in the past 12 months. This government’s $100 million a day in the finance market, that is putting pressure on interest rates. At least half of the interest-rate rise is due to the excessive spending of this government. So $3,000 a year is due to the incompetence and politicisation of this government and its spending programs. That is the contribution they have made to average families in Australia, and it is putting enormous pressure on them.   If this government exercised the same fiscal rectitude, if it exercised the same restraint that families who need to live within their means are exercising, then we would find that the economy would start to take some shape. But all we hear is spin and all we see is illusion. They have created the illusion of progress, and it is not there. Look at the structural deficit. Explain the structural deficit. Explain the worsening of the structural deficit. The government tried to say in 2009 it was due to the stimulus spending. What do they say now as it grows and grows and grows in the face of a mining boom of unprecedented proportions? It beggars belief that we are seeing this unfold. An opportunity to set Australia up for the future, set Australia up resilient against any major events outside of our control, but it has been squandered by this government.   We need some checks and balances here. We need a situation where these sorts of things can be exposed. At the present time the government hides behind the so-called independence of the Treasury. Of course it is not independent; it is there to work for the government of the day. Most of the material in the red books and the blue books that came out after the election is blacked out. You could not see what any of the figures were; you could not see the really tough advice that was given to this government. All we ever see from the public service is what the government wants us to see.   We have not got any group that is capable of providing some independent assessment. This is why we put up a proposal for a Parliamentary Budget Office at the last election. We were looking to have an independent and well-resourced statutory authority located in Parliament House, an authority tasked with providing objective and impartial advice and analysis on the Commonwealth budget and the budget cycle, on the medium- and long-term budget projections and on the cost of policy proposals. Look how politicised that was last time. We put up $50 billion of savings and the whole process was politicised by this government. I met with Ken Henry for 3½ hours and, on nearly all of the proposals for which the government subsequently pilloried us, the only difference was assumptions. Even when we put up a case, in most cases the head of the Treasury said, ‘We’ve made our decision.’ Sometimes it was a case of just two per cent—82 per cent versus 84 per cent—in terms of a take-up factor, but when you put that over four years, in a big program, it looks like a $900 billion hole. They were simply assumptions and they were very close together. But Ken Henry said: ‘We’ve made our decision. That’s what we’ve put into our model. You can like it or lump it.’ That was the politicisation of this process.   We need to take the politics out of the budget and the campaign process. We need a Parliamentary Budget Office. The government fought this proposal all the way through and denigrated it when we put it forward during the last term, but they accepted it when the Greens and the crossbenchers insisted upon it. But what are we seeing? Nothing as yet. It is our expectation that this office will be three desks in the corner of the library; that is what will get. It will be another political response to a very legitimate concern. If we were in government we would have to face this scrutiny and objective assessment as well. This is not something put up to advantage us on one side of politics. This is a genuine, legitimate and sensible proposal. We should have an independent body, stationed within Parliament House, that can respond to any member or senator in terms of individual issues, deal with the policy costings of both sides of politics well in advance of an election and find numbers that everyone accepts are the right numbers. We can then have a debate about policy in the election and not some orchestrated political process in a campaign which seeks to denigrate the opposition because the government has numbers and assumptions which may differ from other authorities. This is a really important proposal and it needs to be adequately financed so that we get the politics taken out of this process.   I have another example of the great hypocrisy associated with this government on many issues. If you look at the forward estimates you will find that, in the latter years, the appropriation for natural disasters is the lowest in 10 years. I talked about it being an illusion if we get to a surplus. The government is seeking to manufacture a surplus. The appropriation is $80 million. We have just had to agree to $5.6 billion of expenditure for natural disasters. The government has a provision of $80 million, which is the smallest amount in 10 years. When the Minister for Finance, Senator Wong, was the climate change minister, she warned that: Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including cyclones, storms, droughts, heatwaves bushfires and floods.   The Finance Minister is on record saying we are going to experience far more natural disasters in the years ahead, because of this government’s belief in the consequences of climate change, yet she has reduced the appropriation for natural disasters to its lowest level in 10 years. What hypocrisy! It just shows that there is an attempt across this government to manufacture a surplus in 2012-13 and ignore the structural deficit. This is politics. This is another example of the hypocrisy of this government in the way in which it is constructing and running the finances of this country.   This government needs to tackle the cost of living. This was its big election pitch in 2007 but it has failed on all counts. There are families around this country who are facing deep financial pressures but living within their means. This government needs to take a leaf out of the book of Australian families and live within its means. (Time expired) Andrew Robb Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:49:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1229 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1226/Restoring-Australias-Resilience-Playing-to-our-Strengths.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1226 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1226&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1226/Restoring-Australias-Resilience-Playing-to-our-Strengths.aspx Address to Australian Young Liberals Convention 2011 The devastating Queensland and Victorian floods are a sobering reminder of our vulnerability to unforseen events. In a similar vein the floods have highlighted just how exposed this government has left us if the Northern Hemisphere experiences a double dip recession – Labor’s now obvious inability to budget and to provide back-up funds for emergencies has been exposed. For well over 12 months now the Coalition, the RBA, Treasury, Finance and business have been urging the government to stop its endless spending and $100 million-a-day borrowing. To take pressure off interest rates. To tackle productivity reforms. To restore some economic resilience, to restore some prudence to their financial management. The government’s failure to take the tough decisions explains the serious cost of living pressures being felt by millions of Australians. Sadly, a leopard doesn’t change its spots. Labor has wasted the last three years, and is wasting the mining boom. The reason is simple, philosophy matters. Labor believes in making choices for people. They have been making bad choices. We believe in people and businesses making choices for themselves, and taking responsibility for their actions. It’s a nanny state versus the freedom to choose. And for that reason again, it now looks like the Labor-Green government is going to waste another three years. Treasury’s post-election advice to the Gillard government confirmed that Labor had indeed lost its way. Nearly five months later Labor, now beholden to the Greens, continues to lose its way. Labor remains with no agenda, no coherent policy framework, no real reform program; their values have been vanquished and they continue to shirk all the hard issues. They are obsessed with the pretence of doing ‘grand things’, instead of kick-starting a reform agenda. Julia Gillard is drowning in unresolved problems and has provided no direction, no authority. Her colleagues are all doing their own thing, particularly Kevin Rudd, who is playing a totally lone hand. Labor exists as a leaderless rabble. As a country we are treading water, which means we are going backwards. Imagine where we will be after another three years of such incompetence and hand-wringing? Niccolo Machiavelli once wrote: “After a strong prince, a weak prince may maintain himself, but after one weak prince, no kingdom can stand a second.” Well. Time’s up. We now need a strong and decisive government which: - lives within its means, - backs Australia’s strengths, - restores the economic resilience the Rudd-Gillard government inherited and subsequently wasted; and - a government that will trust individuals, communities and businesses to make their own choices and to take responsibility for what matters most to them. Global Uncertainty With increasing financial globalisation over recent decades, we now find that regional pockets of financial instability transmit that instability immediately around the world. As this phenomenon has developed so too has the influence of government actions on business uncertainty. The recent global financial crisis (GFC) showed that governments are now among the most influential factors in the markets today; bailing out or nationalising companies, or pouring hundreds-of-billions or trillions of dollars into economies. As a consequence, the major advanced economies of Europe, the US and Japan are deep in debt with no obvious exit strategy. The need now to anticipate the minds of global policy makers has added enormous complexity to the role of investors. This added uncertainty suggests that much greater market volatility is here to stay. And higher uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth. In tackling the global financial crisis, the IMF corralled the G20 group of nations into a massive Keynesian response. This contributed hugely to the subsequent Europe-focussed, sovereign debt crisis, as debt moved from the finance sector to the public sector. International lenders refused to finance larger and larger budget deficits in southern Europe, forcing the IMF to totally reverse their earlier advice and prescribe spending austerity by these governments. The implications for Australia of the growing volatility are profound. Given the highly exposed nature of our economy, with our massive dependence on foreign capital to finance much of our development, we must not allow ourselves to be panicked by the G20 into inappropriate policy moves, as happened with the massive overspend on Australia’s stimulus packages. The Coalition supported the first $10 billion stimulus package top restore confidence. All the second $20 billion stimulus did was give us now the highest interest rates in the developed world. While the G20 has potentially much to offer as a forum, we nevertheless must be masters of our own destiny. While there may be comfort in numbers, it can often be short-lived. The fact is that renewed volatility in global financial markets underscores the risk of massive levels of sovereign debt, and the fragility of much of the developed world. Australia is highly vulnerable. If a global financial contagion takes hold, sparked by concerns over sovereign liquidity in Europe, then the commodities boom will again be cut short. The rapid growth of emerging markets such as China, Brazil and India are fuelling spiralling food, oil and raw material prices around the globe, raising fears of inflation and higher interest rates. This comes at a time when Europe is balancing a widening debt crisis, and the US is printing money as if there is no tomorrow. And history suggests that banking defaults are followed by sovereign defaults which prompt monetary responses that end in inflation running wild. Our response must be to urgently rebuild the economic resilience the Rudd-Gillard government inherited, if we are to build business and consumer confidence, and weather any new world-wide financial crisis. The response must stop unnecessary and wasteful spending. It must lock in true budget surpluses so we can start to pay down debt. It must back our strengths. And it must embark on a bold productivity-based growth strategy. Structural Deficit – Living Beyond Our Means The Rudd-Gillard governments have been spending all the proceeds of the mining boom on today’s budget rather than putting it aside for a rainy day. It’s like the worker in a car factory who takes out a 25-year, $550,000 mortgage on the strength of an extra $20,000 a year in overtime from a surge in new orders. While the overtime is coming in he can meet the $47,000 annual repayments. But when the overtime dries up he will have a $20,000 annual shortfall and realise that based on his regular earnings he should have borrowed $300,000 maximum. He can get further into debt or reduce his expenses, and pay down his debt by buying a cheaper house. This factory worker’s household budget has what is known as a structural deficit; that is once the good times have ended he can no longer afford the commitments he made during those good times. For the Rudd-Gillard government the China resources boom is like the overtime the factory worker once enjoyed. But boom times don’t last forever. The Rudd-Gillard governments have won the lottery with the resources boom, and are in the middle of wasting it. So even if the Gillard government does record a tiny surplus in 2012-13, it will be an illusion; it can only occur because they are spending all the proceeds of the mining boom. As it is, the flood disaster has highlighted the fact that the 2012-2013 budget forecast had no contingency whatsoever for any unforeseen events. The ‘so-called’ surplus also ignores the spending commitments made during the boom times which still need to be met once the boom tapers off and revenues fall, commitments that will very quickly see the budget dive into deficit. By failing to ‘bank’ the windfall gains, and by making spending commitments that require boom time income to sustain, it means that whoever is in government will spend the remainder of this decade paying off Labor’s structural deficit. The magic pudding that is Labor’s balance sheet today will be exposed. The Treasury predicted this in a paper released on 1 October 2010. If you adjust the budget for movements in the business cycle and return to typical commodity prices the structural deficit remains around $50 billion for the next four years from 2010-11 through to 2013-14. So these massive deficits confront Australians for the next decade despite China’s two recent booms adding an extraordinary $230 billion to the budget bottom line over the last 10 years. And remember, it is only after these staggering deficits are paid off that the Federal Government of the day can then start to pay off the $90-100 billion debt created over the last two years. You can’t pay off debt while your costs continue to exceed your income. And it is not as though the Rudd-Gillard government has exercised any spending constraint, even if you disregard the panicked and hugely wasteful over-spend on their stimulus programs. Currently, if you exclude the effect of the stimulus spending, the rate of real spending growth is averaging close to 4 per cent over the forward estimates. Both Treasury and Finance have warned the government that spending all the proceeds of the mining boom will overheat the economy, create a serious skills shortage and exacerbate the structural deficit problem. And so, this profligacy has played a big part in interest rates climbing over the last 15 months. Mortgage payments have increased by $6000 a year on the average $300,000 mortgage. At least half of the $6000 increase in mortgage payments can be attributed to this excessive government spending. A concerted attack on government spending would take some pressure off further rises in interest rates and the strong dollar. This growth in spending, of course, makes no allowance for major spending commitments cleverly announced for just outside the budget outlook. This includes Defence acquisitions and significant infrastructure, including $3.57 billion worth of road and rail projects from 2014-15. There are also annual costs of $1.7 billion for overseas Defence operations not factored into the Budget beyond 2010-11. Labor’s post-election commitments to the Greens and Independents worth $2.4 billion also remain largely unfunded. Our Federal Government is living seriously beyond its means. It’s no wonder they are looking for every opportunity to introduce new taxes. The Gillard government should own up to the real state of the books and begin a substantial round of spending cuts and reforms to restore the economic resilience inherited by the Rudd-Gillard government; to provide a safety buffer of public savings in the case we need it again. So the real surplus is one that acknowledges and meets the cost of the structural deficit. At the moment Treasury estimates that to be a decade away. Backing Our Strengths At all times the best outcome is achieved if you back your strengths, whether you are talking about the strengths of an individual, a business or organisation, or a country. This is particularly true at times of vulnerability, as is the case with Australia in a very uncertain world. To punish our great strengths, our wealth-creating sectors such as the miners rather than encouraging them to do the heavy lifting in growing the economic pie, is a perverse and misguided way to address the two-speed economy. Labor’s age-old instinct to redistribute monies, even at the expense of damaging Australia’s wealth generating capacity, still remains strong. In Australia’s case our major strengths, our major areas of comparative advantage, are the mining sector, the agricultural sector and services, particularly the education sector. i) The Mining Sector The government’s so-called super profits tax on the resources sector is a tax grab to pay for continued politically indulgent spending, it is not tax reform. Playing politics with our strengths is a very dangerous ploy. You don’t prosper by penalising your strengths. And how are the several measures ear-marked to be funded by the mining tax going to be funded when the mining sector is no longer making so-called super profits? This could happen sooner than we think. If there is a double dip recession in the Northern Hemisphere the first prices to collapse will be commodity prices, and projected budget income from the mining tax will evaporate. The longer-term problem is that Australia’s mining competition in other countries pay much less than the proposed 45 per cent in Australia, with the US at 40 per cent, Brazil at 38 per cent, Canada at 32 per cent and down from there. Now Australia looks riskier and far less profitable. There is a growing sense that the government doesn’t understand the nature of investment in a globalised world, nor how key markets work, that they are dangerously out of their depth. Attracting international investors will be harder going, and not just for mining, now that Australia has gained a reputation for reckless decision making and an appetite for retrospective taxation. Now we have a sovereign risk problem. The mining tax must be dropped. ii) Coal Much of Australia’s prosperity, and in particular Victoria’s, was built over the last 100 or so years on the back of cheap electricity, cheap coal-fired electricity. At a global and company level it is freely acknowledged that by 2070/2080 the composition of the global energy mix will still have coal at around 70 per cent of the total energy used, despite generous assumptions about the growth of renewable energy sources and nuclear power stations. Australia has hundreds of years of brown and black coal. China is completing the construction of a 500 MWH coal fired power station every nine days, and plans to continue to do so for the next 10 years. These facts don’t change whether or not there is a world tax on carbon. Yet, we are now proposing to impose a super tax on coal, in addition to a carbon tax. We are proposing to penalise one of Australia’s great strengths. Coal will be demanded and produced around the world for at least the next two centuries, regardless of whether Australia today seeks to regulate and price it out of use. Many, many thousands-of-millions-of-dollars have been spent on renewables, pink batts and other programs, with relatively little research and development spent on ways to reduce or eliminate Co2 emissions from the use of this massive and cheap energy source. Carbon capture and storage in underground aquifers has been exhaustively investigated and is likely to be commercially viable only in exceptional cases. Research and development of alternative techniques of minimising or capturing Co2 emissions from the uses of coal must be a national priority. Advanced technology which captures 100 per cent of Co2 from coal fired power stations in fuel produced via blue-green algae, is at the stage of being commercially proven in the United States. Similar Australian ventures have been largely ignored by this government. Yet success would mean not only solving a major emissions issue, but also see Australia produce a large proportion of its fuel needs. The anti-coal sentiment of this government and its advisers must change. One of our great strengths is being undermined and threatened through blind ideology. iii) Uranium Similarly, blind ideology and internal Labor factional politics is behind the Rudd-Gillard government’s banning of uranium sales to India for peaceful, nuclear power generation. The decision defies all logic and continues to undermine Australia’s relationship with the world’s largest democracy. From the perspective of reducing global emissions the Gillard government could do nothing more effective than assisting India to meet much of its rapidly growing energy needs with clean, nuclear power generation. This is supported by the very stringent conditions India has accepted to enter the international market for uranium for peaceful purposes. Global non-proliferation would also be greatly strengthened by including India, a country which has an exemplary record on not sharing or selling nuclear technology. Yet, the Gillard government is more than happy to sell our uranium to the likes of Russia and China. The Rudd-Gillard government reneged on the agreement by the Howard government to allow the export of Australian uranium to India. Given that Australia has 40 per cent of the world’s known uranium reserves, this undermining of one of our great strengths is illogical and totally unacceptable. A Coalition government will immediately reinstate the agreement by the Howard government to allow the export of Australian uranium to India. iv) Agricultural Sector Australia long rode on the sheep’s back. While mining, services, manufacturing and other sectors have progressively grown, agriculture remains a huge strength. Despite challenging environmental conditions and competition from subsidised overseas goods, our farmers have continuously improved both the quality and quantity of their produce. Our farmers are among the most innovative in the world. So as the world’s population grows, and grows more prosperous, the potential for agriculture is enormous. Already Australian agriculture feeds 60 million people a year and has scope to do much better. This is evidenced by productivity improvements. For the 20 years prior to the arrival of the recent drought, and now flooding rains, agriculture led all other sectors in Australia in terms of productivity improvements. In fact, some of the slow-down in productivity this century must be attributed to the impact of drought on agriculture. In the past, strong industry and government-funded research and development have underpinned this productivity performance.  The $75 million cut by this Labor government out of agricultural research, to part-fund massive waste in other areas of their budget, is extremely short-sighted. Many of this government’s priorities are sadly misplaced. This displays ignorance more than indifference, towards Australian agriculture by the Rudd-Gillard governments. This ignorance is on display in regards to the other critical issue impacting on our agricultural sector, namely, water availability and management. If agriculture is to reach its potential and restore confidence and some certainty to key areas, particularly the Murray-Darling Basin, the issue of water rights and availability must be sorted out. The badly botched attempt by the Gillard government to address this issue gives no-one any confidence. If Australia’s vulnerability in an uncertain world is to be helped by a high-performing agricultural sector, this water issue must be effectively resolved, and as a priority. Many changes and innovations have driven agriculture’s strong productivity record. These changes of course include the vast agribusiness component of the agricultural sector. With the increasing globalisation of business, much change is occurring world-wide with the structure and ownership of agribusinesses. Given the critical importance of competition in maximising productivity outcomes, government and the ACCC need to be vigilant in ensuring that no sector of agribusiness develops too great a concentration of ownership. v) Education Sector Australia’s human capital, backed by the strength of our schools and higher education sector, is often underestimated, but clearly is one of Australia’s top three strengths. Wise investment in improving the quality and breadth of our educational experience, through all stages of our lives, is critical to the continued growth in our economy and improvement in our quality of life. The emergence of a major secondary and tertiary international student sector over the last 20 years is testament to the strength of the educational offering in Australia. The enduring and vast regional networks generated from this international student cohort will be of immeasurable benefit to Australia’s future relationships, particularly in our Asia-Pacific region. It will significantly aid our further economic integration into the region, as well as assist understanding and respect in our people-to-people and country-to-country relationships. Maintaining and further improving our educational offerings, depends critically on maintaining and further improving the quality and experience of our teachers. As well as greater community investment in our teachers, this objective will be further advanced by greater management autonomy throughout all of our educational institutions, greater customer choice and greater flexibility to provide incentives and a teaching experience tailored to the preferences of individual teachers. The dreadful $6-8 billion waste of monies in the Gillard government’s Building the Education Revolution program has not only sold the education sector sadly short , but has undermined the community’s trust in Labor’s ability to manage money. The $1.7 billion blow-out to date in the BER program is virtually the amount of money Labor plans to raise from its new flood tax, and BER could blow-out further with reports that funds are not sufficient to cover the overall cost of projects. Under all circumstances a Coalition government will seek to build and foster greater effectiveness across our education and training sector. Productivity Kevin Rudd started 2020 with an announcement of his intention to deliver productivity growth of 2 per cent per year. Yet, 2010 saw the Rudd-Gillard government go backwards on productivity with the re-regulation of industrial relations, the gambling of $50 billion of taxpayers’ money to re-nationalise telecommunications, Wayne Swan’s botched mining tax, the choking bureaucratisation of COAG, the huge loss of competition in the finance market, the new taxpayers subsidies for coastal shipping, the chaotic handling of the Murray-Darling Basin management and the billions-of-dollars spent on desalination plants and subsidising wind farms, as well as uncertainty over tax reform and emissions trading. Much is to be done on the productivity front to reverse this sorry story: i) Policy politicisation The policy reviews commissioned by the Rudd-Gillard government, which have preceded any proposed major reform, have either been perceived as being not at arm’s length, not above politics, or virtually ignored, as is the case with the Garnaut volumes on an emissions trading scheme. As such, the central role in making the case for reform played in the past by independent, high-level public inquiries has been sorely missing. As a consequence, the reform process has run into the sand. And under Julia Gillard things have only gone from bad to worse. The review committee established by Julia Gillard to investigate the merit of a tax on carbon is bound to secrecy, and only ‘true believers’ were eligible to take part. The obvious merit of a broad-ranging public review of the finance sector, following the global financial crisis, has been rejected out of hand. The heavy politicisation of the policy reform process by this government has not engendered the necessary community trust and understanding necessary for success. Under a Coalition government this will change. ii) COAG Much of the reform required in the areas of water, energy, business regulation, transport, health, and other economic and social infrastructure, requires the cooperation of the states. Yet, the much heralded era of cooperative federalism through a revamped COAG, has largely ended in a state of paralysis, buried under a suffocating weight of bureaucracy, and a federal government with a tin ear, where cooperative federalism invariably meant falling into line with the Commonwealth’s great wisdom and wishes. The fact is Australia is not a one state country, it is a federation of autonomous states; and there is much wisdom and benefit in a country of the size and diverse nature as Australia, maintaining a truly federalist model. This does not mean we can’t achieve harmonisation of rules where it makes sense, but the essential competitive benefits of autonomous states must be accommodated. At the moment COAG is a process which invariably establishes the lowest common denominator, if anything is established at all. A Coalition government will respect the role of the states, and seek to establish approaches which reflect the nature of a federalist structure, such as negotiating baseline positions above which states are free to apply differing provisions for competitive or local reasons. iii) Transparency and Value for Money Over the last few decades has emerged a tradition of rigorous cost-benefit analyses of major public investments following the 1965 Vernon Report which poured scorn over the poor investment assessment of public projects and the consequent waste of billions-of-dollars of taxpayers’ money. Without proper appraisal governments cannot be held to account. About three years ago, fresh from electoral victory, the then Labor Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner announced that the Rudd-Gillard government would undertake no significant project without a published cost-benefit analysis. Yet, despite since committing close to $100 billion in infrastructure projects, there’s been no project that has had a benefit-cost analysis. Not one. It is why Labor has failed so absolutely to provide a convincing business case for Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure project, the National Broadband Network. This $50 billion project holds major risks for the public balance sheet, for competition and for efficiency. This arrogant broken promise is a hugely irresponsible act, and is part of Labor’s retreat from genuine micro-economic reform. Such analyses act as vital insurance against potentially massive waste of taxpayer monies. iv) Tax/Welfare-to-Work/Skills Shortages Incentives and disincentives are a most powerful factor in influencing human behaviour. As such, skills shortages, the rising cost of paying disability pensions, Australia’s competitive position, managing issues associated with an ageing population and maximising the incentive and reward for hard work and enterprise means taxation reform, including an overhaul of welfare-to-work incentives, is a very high priority. Despite this, it is now nine months since the Henry tax review was released. While pursuing one dud recommendation, a tax on our greatest economic driver, mining, almost all of the 138 recommendations remain in limbo, untouched. Yet many of the tax proposals warrant serious consideration such as the recommendation to markedly increase the tax free threshold and seriously flatten and lower income tax rates. Such an approach will encourage those out of the workforce to look for work, encourage those on disability benefits to return to work, and reward and encourage the enterprise of those in work. The Coalition will pursue that direction of policy. To that end the Coalition will put a detailed tax reform proposal to the people at the next election, with a view to beginning immediately with its implementation. v) Industrial Relations The Rudd-Gillard opposition rode to electoral success in 2007 with its centrepiece policy to remove Work Choices. This principally meant restoring the “no disadvantage test” to all forms of wage negotiation. The Labor government was given that clear mandate and has since removed Work Choices. A future Coalition government will accept that mandate and will not revisit Work Choices.The concern that is being conveyed by both business and employees is that the Rudd-Gillard government has not only removed Work Choices, but has also reversed key elements of reforms introduced as far back as the Howard government reforms in 1996, and even elements of Paul Keating’s reforms in 1992. These discarded reforms are considered to have contributed hugely to the strong productivity performance through to the early years of this century, and laid the foundations for the 22 per cent real increases in wages over the Howard years. The only way to get sustainable real wage increases is to see productivity improvements. Concern is being expressed that the Gillard changes have gone well beyond Work Choices and are encouraging a return to the inflexible, centralised, union-dominated industrial relations culture of the 1980s – the antithesis of productivity. Certainly, the swagger of the unions has returned. Concern is being expressed that the Gillard changes have tipped the balance too far the other way, to the point that the Fair Work Act has made the system neither simpler, fairer nor more productive. In fact, reports are that employers are finding flexibility diminishing, compliance very challenging and more costly, and a system that is increasingly interfering in the capacity of businesses to reward and organise their workforce to encourage innovation and greater competitiveness. With interest rates and the dollar rising, and wage pressures growing, Australia can ill-afford to go backwards on productivity in the workplace. As the Coalition promised at the last election, we will assess the implications of the Gillard reforms during this term. We are relying on feedback from employers, workers and industry groups and the like to verify the reports. If we confirm that the changes have in fact tipped the balance too far, we will present necessary changes for consideration at the next election.   vi) Health Labor’s so-called health reforms centralise more power in Canberra, establish yet another layer of bureaucracy and reinforce the power of public sector unions. Canberra’s 5,000 health bureaucrats know much about funding states to run hospitals but haven’t a clue about their day-to-day running. Now Julia Gillard wants the bureaucrats to be part of running 762 hospitals. This is proposed despite state-run hospitals already operating under a huge administrative burden as many states have steadily increased their power over hospitals, often abolishing the critical positions of medical superintendent and matron. The solution is not more one-size-fits-all administration. The Gillard government proposal just continues the mistakes of the last two decades where hospital administration has expanded even further, at the expense of spending more money, and spending it better, in the public hospitals themselves. From a productivity point of view this will take Australia backwards. Micro-managing hospitals from a distance has failed. To extend that micromanagement to Canberra would be a deeply retrograde step. Rather than add further layers to the bloated and ineffectual centralised administration that already exists, the opposite must occur, with local hospital boards being established and given true responsibility for overseeing the management and effectiveness of their hospital.  vii) Vocational Education and Training In the future over 60 per cent of jobs will require technical or vocational qualifications, yet only 30 per cent of the population has these qualifications. If this is to be corrected we must start by restoring the status of technical and vocational training. The relentless talking down of technical education through the ’80s and ’90s has fostered a generation of parents who feel that they have failed if their children do not pursue a university education, regardless of the particular technical, creative or other vocational talents of their children. This attitude has effectively denied many of the recent generations of young Australians the fulfillment and happiness that comes from doing what they do best, and to the best of their ability. We need a nation that once again values a high quality technical education as much as a university degree. A responsive and flexible culture in the workplace is fundamental to the Australia of the 21st century, and as far as vocational and technical training goes, is based on choice, access and industry involvement. Choices in training drive innovation and quality, fill training gaps as training organisations compete to meet industry needs, and provide individuals with control over where they get their training, how they get their training and at what level. But choice can be illusory if it is not matched with access.   Access should be tailored to individual circumstances, whether on-line to regional centres, on-the-job in small businesses or manufacturing plants, after hours, at home or within the more traditional training environment. True choice also requires industry involvement in the training agenda to ensure that it is relevant and effective, that it meets not just the demands of today but tomorrow. The characteristics of choice, access and industry involvement, along with self-esteem, incentives and portability will drive our training programs to be responsive and relevant, in the TAFEs, private training and community training organisations. The nation’s 74 TAFE colleges, across 1,386 locations, teach more than three quarters of all vocational and technical students. The leading TAFEs are typically $100 million businesses, with a client base totalling more than 1.4 million individuals, and industry sectors relying critically on their performance. Australia’s TAFE sector would benefit from greater microeconomic reform. They need to be more responsive to the users of the system – employers and students alike. That in the end is what microeconomic reform is all about. To achieve this, TAFE colleges need a measure of autonomy at least equal to that which universities enjoy. Yet, some state governments still exercise choking centralised control which precludes effective industry involvement, and leads to little meaningful connection with the workplace during training and little experience and training on current technology. These rigidities have been extended as Labor’s award ‘modernisation’ has now drawn in private training providers that previously operated under individual contracts. Victoria runs by far the most decentralised model, where TAFEs are able to operate on a commercial basis, removed from centralised control. Others are heading in that direction. The irony is, the reforms that make the Victorian TAFE system the outstanding performer in Australia started in the mid ’90s because the State had to become competitive again, after the basket case that was Victoria in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Such TAFEs can be more flexible in delivering courses and training; can adjust to new course demands faster; are able to develop customised curriculum to suit individual and employer requirements; raise the largest amount of revenue, have more overseas campuses, and see significant numbers of students studying for a diploma, or higher. Increasing the autonomy of TAFEs like they have done in Victoria would breathe new life into a massive training infrastructure, and is essential if vocational and technical training is to have the responsiveness and flexibility needed for the Australia of tomorrow. A Coalition government will, as a priority, seek to foster far greater autonomy in the management of many TAFEs. viii) Mental Health Mental illness afflicts more Australians than almost all other health disorders. Almost half the nation’s population will experience a mental health disorder at some stage in their life. Countless others will be impacted by mental illness as a family member or friend grapples with a mental health problem. Studies have revealed that one in five Australians will experience some type of mental health disorder in any given year. Yet, only one third of sufferers seek help and an alarming 65 per cent of sufferers battle their disorder alone or only with the help of family or a friend. There is enormous scope to see a strong productivity dividend result if significant numbers of those affected were to seek professional treatment, literally hundred-of-thousands could find themselves more productive in the workplace or able to re-enter the workforce. As well as a funding need, existing resources could deliver more with greater coordination, targeting and improved accessibility. The issue of stigma attached to mental illness remains a significant barrier to people confronting their condition. In conclusion In conclusion, despite Labor’s ‘fiscal conservative’ campaign rhetoric of the 2007 election, the Rudd-Gillard government has turned out to be a totally different beast. Mr Rudd’s rhetoric proved to be a Trojan horse for old-style, interventionist Labor – a government that has overseen the greatest growth of government in our lives since the disastrous Whitlam years. There is an urgency about reversing this interventionist approach which has led Australia to be so vulnerable. And remember, the mess from three years of Whitlam took over 20 years to fix. In three short years the Rudd-Gillard government has provided a most powerful reminder that the nanny state doesn’t work. To prosper as a people, Australians must be free to make their own choices, and take responsibility for how they lead their lives, as long as they do no harm to others. Philosophy does matter.           Andrew Robb Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:11:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1226 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1213/Financial-Framework-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-2010.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1213 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1213&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1213/Financial-Framework-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-2010.aspx I rise to speak on the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.  As noted by the member for Brand, when he introduced this bill on 30 September, this is the seventh Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill since 2004. These bills have continued the coalition’s work to promote transparent and accountable government finances for Australian government departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities and companies which are predominately contained in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. This bill, in particular, seeks to update the framework, improve operational efficiency and assist with the operation of interjurisdictional entities. Firstly, the bill repeals 20 redundant special appropriations, including six acts in their entirety. Secondly, the bill seeks to improve the governance framework, established by the FMA Act and the CAC Act, both of which govern the management and accountability of Commonwealth agencies, authorities and the executive arm of the government. The bill will allow ministers to delegate certain functions under the CAC Act to departmental secretaries, relating to the oversight of Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies. It also seeks to allow relevant state and territory ministers to request information about FMA Act agencies and Commonwealth authorities operating under the CAC Act. Thirdly, the bill consolidates the Australian Institute of Criminology with the Criminology Research Council into a single agency, while also transferring them from the CAC Act to the FMA Act. It also seeks to transfer the governance of the Australian Law Reform Commission from the CAC Act to the FMA Act. Further, the National Transport Commission will be brought under the CAC Act as it currently sits outside existing frameworks, other than for its annual reporting. The coalition broadly supports this amending legislation. However, I draw the attention of the House to page 5.2 of the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s red book, the incoming government brief, publicly released on 1 October, which stated: Through this Bill— the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment bill 2010— there is also an opportunity for the Government to reconfirm its support for a strong financial framework dealing with Commonwealth resources by expanding the definition of ‘proper use’ to  include ‘economical’. While proper use already includes ‘efficient, effective and ethical’, inclusion of the word ‘economical’ will increase the focus on the level of resources the Commonwealth applies to achieve outcomes. This was the department’s subtle way of acknowledging the government’s reckless waste and mismanagement across myriad programs over the past three years and the need for something to be done about it. Even though the language was somewhat tortuous, it was quite pointed for a department to advise its own government in such a significant way about the monumental waste and mismanagement of which we have seen endless examples, such as the $2.8 billion pink batts debacle. That program was rushed out and led to 207 house fires, 4,000 potential cases of fraud and, tragically, four deaths. It was one of the monumental policy failures in this country’s history. We also saw the $850 million solar panel scheme blow-out. We saw the dumping of the $275 million Green Loans program. We saw $6 billion to $8 billion wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school hall program, with state schools paying twice as much per square metre as Catholic schools for the same buildings—a disgrace to proper management in anyone’s language. We saw the embarrassing implementation of the Indigenous housing program. We saw the $1 billion blow-out in the Computers in Schools program. We saw the $1 billion blow-out due to the Labor government’s loss of control of our nation’s borders. We saw the gross waste and mismanagement of our $4 billion-a-year foreign aid budget. We saw $1.5 million spent to send 113 delegates to the Copenhagen conference. We saw the failed GroceryWatch website set up and shut down at a cost of $10 million. We saw the bungled Fuelwatch scheme and, of course, the $43 billion NBN, which we now know is $50 billion—from $4.7 billion originally. And now we see a project cost— Mr Ripoll and Mr Husic interjecting— Mr ROBB—If you do not know what a project cost is, go back to accounting 101. See what the cost is to the community: $50 billion. Some in the industry are saying it is $55 billion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The members for Oxley and Chifley will restrain themselves. Mr ROBB —So it has gone from $4.7 billion to $43 billion, and the Prime Minister stood up here today and tried to dissemble, saying, ‘Well, you only look at capex, of course; you don’t look at what the NBN has to pay to Telstra.’ This is real money. It is not like the $600 that the now Treasurer said was not real money before he got into office. It is real money. Get over it and start concentrating on how you can pay it back. With the NBN we have seen the scope to produce the greatest level of waste this country has ever seen. This has been further highlighted by this government’s refusal to conduct a cost-benefit analysis despite the fact that it promised, before coming into office, that every significant infrastructure project would have a cost-benefit analysis. Not one significant infrastructure project in the last three years has seen a cost-benefit analysis. Nothing has been released. There has been politics writ large with every major decision, from the school halls program to the road decisions to the NBN: politics, politics, politics and spin. There has been not one cost-benefit analysis. Yet, go back and see what the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport said unambiguously and endlessly before the 2007 election: that this government, if it got into government, would undertake one and release it in a transparent way. Such a litany of waste and mismanagement has never been seen in the history of this country. It is the most egregious and devastating waste and mismanagement, and this government stands condemned. This waste and mismanagement is one of the principal reasons the government came so close to losing the election despite the fact that, around the world and in Australia, a first-term government is hardly ever tossed out—in fact, it has only happened once in Australia’s history. Only recently the Australian National Audit Office also revealed that taxpayers are not getting value for money in up to three-quarters of government purchases. The ANAO concluded that government agencies failed to routinely compare prices when direct sourcing goods and services worth a mere $10.2 billion a year. Again, the now retired former Minister for Finance and Deregulation said endlessly that the government had sought to improve and upgrade the sorts of processes required by government agencies. Now we see that it has failed to routinely compare prices across $10.2 billion worth of goods and services. The report stated: For 74 per cent of the Direct Source procurements in the ANAO sample, agencies were unable to demonstrate whether the procurement gave them value for money. In the majority of cases there was a lack of evidence of any comparative analysis of the relevant costs and benefits of different procurement options to support the procurement decision. All this waste is occurring when interest rates are going up, with the average mortgage holder paying up to $6,000 more on interest payments than they were a year ago. Cost-of-living pressures are increasing, with household bills continuing to rise and a budget built on the back of more than $40 billion worth of new taxes since 2008. The government continues to borrow $100 million a day and does not have the courage to make the tough decisions to rein in its reckless spending. This has all contributed. It is a matter of good governance, transparency and strong financial management. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand there is a need to sum up quickly. I had other comments to make on this. What I do foreshadow is that we have sought to move an amendment. We sought in the other place to move a private member’s bill, which failed to gain support, to introduce the need for the notion of value for money to be included within this act to ensure that there is a proper focus on the requirements to properly look after the nation’s finances. That was unsuccessful. We foreshadowed an amendment to introduce value for money along the lines consistent with what the Department of Finance and Deregulation have recommended. We were unable to get agreement from the government but they have agreed to an amendment, I understand, where we would include ‘economical’, instead of ‘value for money’, as recommended by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. So I will move that amendment in due course when other speakers have concluded. In conclusion, while the amendment I will formally move today is a small amendment to the FMA Act, it will be a further step in reminding this government of the obligation it has to every Australian taxpayer. The coalition does not oppose the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. It builds on the work carried out by the Howard government between 2004 and 2007. I commend the bill to the House.   Andrew Robb Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:42:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1213 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1214/Address-in-Reply.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1214 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1214&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1214/Address-in-Reply.aspx It is a great privilege to have the opportunity again to represent the people of Goldstein in this place. I have had this honour now since 2004. I would like to thank the people of Goldstein for their continued trust and support, and again commit myself to seeking to represent every member of the Goldstein community. The local interaction with the people of my electorate remains for me the most enjoyable and rewarding aspect of my job. As I said, I have now had six years representing the Goldstein community, which is a very vibrant community in a beautiful part of Melbourne on the bay. We have 60,000 households and 50 schools, and I enjoy the contact with all of that, but the 980 community organisations I have identified is an area of work that I have found particularly enjoyable. What has struck me since becoming a member of parliament is the number of people in each electorate who volunteer to assist with so much of what makes our communities as vibrant as they are. Amongst the 130,000 people in my electorate, I estimate that there are close to 30,000 who do some sort of voluntary work. They make the football clubs, the tennis clubs, the bowling clubs, the community and ethnic organisations and all those sorts of activities work. But the groups that deal with people with disabilities are the ones that I have found the most rewarding to deal with and the ones that I am most in awe of, in a sense. Places like Bayley House, Marriott House and the Berendale School, among others, are wonderful places with wonderful people. In relation to the overall election result, to get so near to forming government but to find ourselves back in opposition is both disappointing and frustrating, particular considering that we won more seats than our principal opponent, the Labor Party, and 700,000 more primary votes than Labor. It is truly remarkable that the effectiveness of the coalition resulted for the first time since Federation in a first-time Prime Minister not lasting until an election and, for the second time only, a first-time government losing its majority. Much credit should go to our leader, Tony Abbott, who has been truly magnificent in holding this government to account and has continued in that vein very strongly since we have continued in opposition after the election. Tony had a wonderful campaign and has led a united and disciplined team, supported by strong policy work by our shadow ministers. We must continue the efforts of the last 12 months in order to remove what in my view is really a quite dangerous Labor-Green government. In the three years of the Rudd-Gillard government, very little was done, and what was done involved major increases in the nanny state. I do think that this explains a lot of results. Once people were able to focus on the nature of the government over the past three years and the implications of that, we saw that unprecedented movement against a first-term government. Nothing has been done or said to suggest that we can expect anything different in this Labor term. In fact, the last three years and now the alliance formed with the Greens have shown me that philosophy matters. It shows me why we are here. It often annoys me that people say that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no longer any difference between the two parties. From my observations at both the state and federal levels over the last 30 years, that is not correct. There are two legitimately held philosophical positions but they are fundamentally different. On our side we believe in the great value of the individual, and it is our belief that the collective wellbeing, happiness and prosperity of any community is maximised by government creating an environment where each person is free to make decisions about how they conduct their own lives as long as they do not harm others—in other words, a community where people have choices, the freedom to choose. That freedom of course carries with it an obligation to take personal responsibility for your own actions and decisions. By contrast, turning to Labor and its Green allies, instinctively both those parties think the best decisions are made by Canberra—that the government knows best and people who make the wrong decisions are victims and need to be protected from themselves. It is a legitimate philosophy, but it is fundamentally different from the philosophy held on this side of the House. And it is that different philosophy that is brought to bear on everyday policies that affect everyday people in the way in which they go about their lives. In that respect, I feel concern about the danger that is being created for the future years of our community under this government. I feel that, in this context of a nanny state, in the last three years we have seen, arguably, the greatest growth of government in our lives, probably including the Whitlam years. Using the excuse, in many respects, of combating the global financial crisis and now of needing the cooperation of the Greens, the Rudd-Gillard-Brown governments have taken every opportunity to impose their will on our lives. We are the only country in the world that re-regulated the labour market during the global financial crisis. We are the only country in the world that I know of that is renationalising its telecommunications sector. We are the only country in the world that sought to bring in the most bureaucratic, most taxing—$114 billion in the next 10 years—and most invasive emissions trading scheme imaginable. We were looking to auction 70 per cent of permits from day one; in Europe, they auction four per cent, and in Europe it is just a pilot compared to what was proposed here. And we were going to lead the world! Of course, now the US have said they will not be bringing in such a scheme. How stupid would we have looked last year if we had, lemming like, followed the Prime Minister of the day into that most invasive, bureaucratic and difficult scheme. In the last three years, we have seen the government seek to undermine and ultimately get rid of private health insurance. We have seen them seek to get rid of employee share ownership. We saw them seek to set up a government bank while systematically removing 25 years of building up competition—25 years of competition in the finance sector all gone because they botched the introduction and the use of the wholesale and the deposit guarantees. Now the government are trying to back-pedal and find some way to improve competition at the margin. When the Treasurer agreed to the merger of St George Bank, what a folly that was. He also agreed to the merger of other banks and agreed to the disassembling of trust funds that in some cases had been there for 50 years. We have seen the attempt to control the internet with filtering. We have seen the mining tax, with an attempt to introduce nationalisation of 40 per cent of the mining industry. When you think about it, it beggars belief. But that was what was on the table—all rush, all without consultation, all for political motives, all through instinct, because they think government know best. Tax, spend and borrow is the instinct to solve a problem. Of course, paying back $90 billion in debt, with tax increases for many years to come, again reduces choices. It is a bad government; it is a dangerous government. Notwithstanding the disappointment of losing the election, we as an opposition need to very assiduously keep this government to account so that we can in fact be successful at the next election and try our best to reverse much of the damage done, the incursion and the introduction of the nanny state, writ large, over the last three years. On the local front, in my electorate we saw a similarly disciplined and effective campaign to the one run nationally, which produced a swing of almost half a per cent to us, compared to the disappointing statewide swing of almost one per cent against us. In general, the result in Victoria was disappointing and we need to take stock. But the future is bright. We have introduced very significant changes in the way in which candidates are preselected in Victoria. This time it threw up a most outstanding field of candidates. Many of them were successful, as many others have been in the last election or two. In Victoria and around the country we really do have reason to be very confident over the next 15 or 20 years about the skill that is now available at a young level. Some people need more time in the paddock, but they will be the future leaders of our party and the country. I think those who support our side of politics have every reason to be enormously confident in the capacity of the coalition to strongly lead this country for a long time to come. We have a good mix, as I say, of experience and youth. Again, we have to use this three years in opposition to keep the government to account and to give the talent that is coming through every opportunity to gain the experience so that we can have a very powerful influence over the politics of Australia in the years ahead. As always in my electorate we have a very highly experienced and committed team of party members. I have almost 700 members of the Liberal Party in my electorate. I have had wonderful leadership, in Jeannette Rawlinson, of each campaign for the three elections that I have contested. She is a person of great experience and a good friend. She has served the party with great skill and certainly supported me. The leadership was even more important this time round, as I had other significant responsibilities at our campaign headquarters. I needed to have the organisation very well finetuned so that I could spend what time I had most effectively in my own electorate and not have to worry about any of the logistical matters. I have never had to do so in the three campaigns that I have contested. Our campaign saw over 500 Liberal volunteers, helping with prepoll and mobile booths, providing office assistance, doing street walks et cetera. I would like to sincerely thank those 500-plus volunteers and take this opportunity to mention very briefly a number of them, most of whom have helped me not only in the last 12 months and during this campaign but also over the six years that I have had the great privilege of representing all of those people who live in the electorate of Goldstein. Jeannette Rawlinson, who I mentioned, was my campaign manager. Kaye Farrow, who has been our FEC chair now for three years, did another outstanding job as deputy campaign manager but also took so many other responsibilities. Ralph Wollmer, Ramon Frederico, Colin Gourley, Terry Farrow, Brett Hogan, Leonie Abbott, Fazal Cader, Andrew Hudgson, Andrew Tame, Lee Trevena, Mike Rawlinson, Hanife Bushby, Tim Wildash, Tammy van Wisse, Kim Dunstan—all of those people and many more provided great assistance. I wish I had time to go through some of the things that they turned their hand to. It had been in some cases many months in getting properly organised. It really did run as a very smoothly oiled machine. My staff have been exceptional. Many other members are similarly blessed but in my case Vanessa Kimpton, my PA, is a wonderful person and highly skilled and a great office manager and PA for me. Nick Troja and Cameron Hill are fellows of great skill and commitment and a pleasure to work with. Within my electorate office Skye Buttenshaw and Samantha Russell have been so well-regarded by all of those who have the need to contact my office. I am very blessed with the campaign staff and the office staff I have got. Young Scott McCloud has served me very well as a part-time member of our team while he completed his university studies. Finally on that front, I mention my wife and three children. Maureen is long-suffering not only with this responsibility but many before it, having flown over 2,500 return domestic flights in the last 30 years in different jobs. I think it probably is the best way of explaining the load that my wonderful wife has carried, with our three kids, Tom, Joe and Philippa. This time I have the great pleasure of my son Joe, who was in the campaign headquarters looking after social media, which he has had a strong background in. So I not only had the pleasure of his company but also was brought up to speed on my social media skills at the same time. That was an added bonus for this campaign. I would like to finish on a couple of other points. Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to announce the winner of my annual Christmas card design competition. Lachlan Williams from Larmenier, an outstanding school in Hampton in my electorate, is this year’s winner with a bright and happy drawing of Jesus in the manger complete with Christmas star and approving animals. Each year I have a competition with different organisations dealing with disadvantaged or disabled people, young people usually but not always. Lachlan Williams’ piece of art will feature on the front cover of thousands of Christmas cards, with an inside picture of him, my wife, Maureen, and me. It is a truly outstanding school located in Bluff Road in Hampton in my electorate. It is run by the Catholic primary schools and families within the Archdiocese of Melbourne, dealing with students displaying social and emotional and behavioural difficulties which may contribute to learning difficulties. They take these young people in, they go one or two days a week or perhaps full-time, and then they integrate them back into the schools whence they have come. The dedication, the patience and the faith in every human being that is displayed by the principal, Patrice Duggan, and her staff are things I am totally in awe of. They are wonderful people, highly skilled, who do an outstanding job. I have seen so many young people come from all parts of Melbourne and go to that school, and it might take 18 months or two years but it has had an enormous effect on their quality of life and future. We all owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they do in a selfless way for our community, but in this case it covers all of Melbourne. Finally, in the short time I have left, I would like to acknowledge and thank so many people on both sides of the House. I have had a depressive condition in the mornings which I had never confronted—and I have had it all my life. I had never admitted to it. It used to lift at eight o’clock but in the last few years went on to nine o’clock, 10 o’clock or 12 o’clock. I was finally forced, for certain reasons, to confront it. I thought it might mean that my political career had come to an end, but that was not the case. I have had thousands of emails from people which have been an enormous source of encouragement. There is still a strong stigma, which probably explains why mental health is still the poor relation amongst health services. But, as I said, I would like to thank everyone on both sides of the House for the way in which they have given me encouragement. Fortunately, in my case, after six months of experimentation and lots of uncomfortable side effects, I have found something that helps, and for the last five months I have had mornings that I have never had in my life. I have never been better. I am looking to demonstrate to millions of others that you can have this sort of condition. It is just like another illness. Not in all cases but in many, many cases you can deal with it effectively, get on with life, stay in the same profession and hopefully even do better in the same profession. So thank you to everybody on that front. It has been an interesting phase of my life. I am now looking to move to the next. Andrew Robb Mon, 22 Nov 2010 02:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1214 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1209/Commonwealth-Electoral-Amendment-Bill-Political-Donations-and-Other-Matters.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1209 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1209&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1209/Commonwealth-Electoral-Amendment-Bill-Political-Donations-and-Other-Matters.aspx I rise to speak on and strongly oppose the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Let there be no mistake: this bill is, first and foremost, an attempt by the Labor Party to aid its own political and financial position under the guise of transparency and reform. The reintroduction of this bill by the Labor Party is to fulfil their obligations under the Labor-Greens-Independents alliance—the tail wagging the dog. We are seeing it endlessly and it is already causing enormous confusion across so many policy fronts for those on the other side of the chamber. This is essentially the third iteration of the same bill. Ironically, it follows Coalition calls for a comprehensive inquiry into Australia’s campaign finance laws following the Wollongong sex-and-bribery scandal, a call that was made in good faith and, as we understood at the time, that good faith was to be reciprocated. But what we found is that was opposed by the government. They did give an indication that they were willing to act in good faith for an objective assessment across the board of Australia’s campaign finances. The government subsequently announced the development of a green paper, which we applauded, for electoral reform. Yet ahead of dealing with that green paper, we see a series of cherry-picked amendments, as represented in this bill today, which would essentially advantage the Labor Party: ‘Forget the holistic approach. Forget acting in good faith with each other. Let’s just bring in some grubby amendments to try to disadvantage the coalition parties.’ There was a mad rush to bring these amendments in before the last election. There was no coincidence about that! They tried to get it all passed before we rose last time. The cynicism was exposed, the self-interest was exposed and the crass political nature of these provisions were exposed.   Once again the bill reinforces that electoral reform should not be done in an ad hoc fashion nor cherry-picked for political advantage but needs to be undertaken in a holistic sense as part of a large suite of electoral reforms. This bill contains provisions that primarily discourage business donations. In fact, that is its objective, primarily to discourage donations to one side of politics. We have measures such as that of reducing the disclosure threshold from $11½ thousand, indexed to the consumer price index annually, to $1,000, non-indexed, a measure directed at the heart of small business donations to the Coalition parties. We see that the bill requires people who make gifts above the threshold, to candidates or members of groups during the election disclosure period, to furnish a return within eight weeks of the calling of an election. This is a blatant attempt to put the frighteners on small businesses and other businesses who are quite happy to reveal a donation. But to do so and making it public in the context of an election campaign makes it possible for political actions to be taken and makes it possible for intimidation to occur and makes it possible to discourage others who might have the ‘affront’ to make a donation of more than $1,000 to the coalition parties.   It also makes unlawful the receipt of a gift of foreign property by political parties, candidates and members of a Senate group — and we have been quite open-minded about exploring those sorts of issues in a more holistic bill. It prohibits all anonymous gifts above $50 except in two specified situations — again, Labor’s penchant for bureaucracy. This will be unmanageable for so many thousands of volunteers around the country, but in the interests of discouraging donations to my side of politics that does not worry the Labor Party. It also provides that public funding of election campaigning is limited to declared expenditure incurred by the eligible political party, candidate or Senate group or the sum payable calculated on the number of first preference votes received where they have satisfied the four per cent threshold, whichever is the lesser — again a provision that we would be prepared to discuss; we would be prepared to discuss versions of it in the context of a holistic approach.   The new arrangements are set to commence on 1 July 2011. Of course, there is no mention of the privileged and irregular position of the unions in any part of this bill. It is all directed at those people who primarily form part of our support base and who would be keen to see our side of politics sufficiently armed with resources to announce an effective campaign and to put our case for government. But there is no mention of the privileged and irregular position of the unions in regard to political donations and there is no mention of third parties—all the issues that must be addressed if there is to be a balanced approach. These are issues that are fundamental to seeing a balanced approach and for the community to have confidence in the laws that regulate political donations.   What lies at the heart of this bill is Labor’s real agenda to shore up its own fortunes while at the same time severely hampering those of its political opponents. Of course, the significant direct and indirect support provided by the union movement, amounting to over $65 million in the years prior to the 2007 election, is not addressed in this bill. The bill is also silent on the intervention of third parties, such as GetUp!, Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the like, in the political process. The historical trend has been that unions continue to provide massive support to the Labor Party while businesses have either split donations on a 50-50 basis or have withdrawn their support for the funding of political parties altogether.   Much of that 50-50 split and/or the withdrawal of funding altogether has resulted after a concerted campaign over the last 15 years by the Labor Party to intimidate so many businesses around this country. There has been a concerted campaign to identify those donors from the electoral rolls and, by other anecdotal advice, to identify smaller donors and for Labor Party heavies to physically meet with the heads of those companies over a period of time, which has had the effect of either forcing a 50-50 split of donations or, in many cases, discouraging any donations at all.   In terms of delegates to the ALP conference, affiliated unions make up 427 voting members and party members make up only 426. Unions also retain their 50 per cent share of selection committees. There is a great funding source. It is a group that largely dictates to the Labor Party, and yet there is no mention of the propriety or the arrangements of many of the donations that are passed through from the union movement. New South Wales ALP members who are members of affiliated unions number fewer than 2,500 people. That is about 0.6 per cent of the total affiliated union membership in New South Wales of 384,000. Thus, the 99.4 per cent of members of affiliated unions in New South Wales who have actively chosen not to join the ALP are still financing the political ambitions of the 0.6 per cent who have.   Also, this connection with the unions and what it means is revealed today in the Herald Sun in a piece by Phillip Hudson. He revealed that earlier this month we saw Labor’s links with the trade unions writ large with the appointment of the failed Labor candidate in the seat of Melbourne, a former ACTU official, to the lucrative position of chief executive of the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust. AGEST has over $3.8 billion in assets and over 140,000 members. That is 140,000 people whose retirement funds, their future, is locked up in AGEST. They are predominantly from the Commonwealth, Northern Territory and ACT governments. Many members in this chamber, including me, have funds in AGEST. The board is appointed by the finance minister and the ACTU. Labor needs to demonstrate today that the appointment of Ms Bowtell, the failed candidate for Labor in the seat of Melbourne, was not a consolation prize for her standing in and losing the seat of Melbourne. The minister responsible, Senator Wong, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, made the too-clever-by-half comment when approached by journalists that she played no part in the appointment, that it was nominated by the board members. She made no other comment. She refused to pursue any other investigation of the appointment. But, of course, AGEST Super was created by the Labor government and the ACTU in 1990. They appoint three directors each and jointly select the chair. The federal minister in charge is the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, who took over from Lindsay Tanner, who stood down as the ALP member for Melbourne and Ms Bowtell was selected to replace him. Ms Bowtell failed to hold the seat for Labor. She is also a former senior ACTU official who missed out on the role of union president.   The 140,000 people with their life savings for their retirement being managed by AGEST need to be given the comfort that Ms Bowtell has the experience to manage such a responsible job. When selling herself recently to the voters in the seat of Melbourne, Ms Bowtell made no reference to any experience in the investment of funds. In fact, she said, ‘My early career was spent representing workers in the education sector.’ She also said: ‘For the past 15 years I worked at the ACTU advocating for ordinary, working Australian people.’ When you go to the website of AGEST, you find one paragraph outlining her professional credentials to oversee a $3.8 billion super fund—a huge sum of money. It says:   Cath has a law degree and has been a superannuation trustee for over ten years, with five years on the board of AGEST … She has been an active member of investment and audit committees and for six years was responsible for superannuation policy at the ACTU.   There is no mention whatsoever of investment experience. I was an independent member of the board of Sinclair Knight Merz, Australia’s biggest consulting engineering group with 6,000 consulting engineers. After five years, I brought a perspective to that board, but I am not an engineer. I was in no way equipped—and it would be laughable to suggest I was in that position—to take over as CEO of that consulting engineering company. In the same way, there is no evidence of investment experience.   This person will be competing against a great deal of experience and expertise in this marketplace. Usually, those running a multibillion dollar investment fund would have at least 20 years of senior investment experience. What hands-on investment experience and what managerial experience has Ms Botwell had? None of this is canvassed on the AGEST website and none of it has been put in the public arena. We have every right to seriously question the appointment, given Labor’s track record of looking after Labor mates. This is a very serious issue and it goes to the heart of this bill. It shows that Labor is not serious about transparency and that Labor is looking to use any piece of legislation to advantage itself or its mates. It is captured again and again in this bill. We see the issue with GetUp, a third-party group which pretends to be non-aligned, yet in the 2007 election where was all of its focus in the last four weeks? In the marginal seats that we were seeking to defend. And what did you see at the last election? The CFMEU giving a significant $1.2 million to GetUp to run ads against the coalition. They are an arms-length party to the Labor Party. They are a wholly owned subsidiary, in my view, of the Labor Party. They are doing their job.   Martin Ferguson interjecting—   Mr ROBB—You are the only one advocating some Liberal Party policies. This bill reeks of partisanship, opportunism and grubby politics. It must be opposed. We will oppose it very strongly. We need to get back to a holistic approach to political donations.   Andrew Robb Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:57:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1209 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1208/Family-Relationship-Centres.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1208 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1208&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1208/Family-Relationship-Centres.aspx Tonight I rise to speak about the slashing of nearly $50 million from the family counselling and dispute resolution services of family relationship centres. This is a Labor Party cut described by the masters of spin as a rebalancing. These huge cuts to reduce funding for family relationship services, flagged in the 2010 budget, are causing both anxiety and bewilderment in this critically important sector. The Attorney-General’s Department is looking to cut $48.4 million over three years across the sector—a reduction of about 12 per cent. These cuts will take effect next year and there is considerable uncertainty about how they will be applied. This rebalancing of the system is to help fund increases to community legal centres, legal aid and family violence legal services. The Labor Party is looking after its Labor mates within the legal system to the great detriment of families at a time of enormous emotional distress. This represents a deliberate shift back to a heavier reliance on a very adversarial legal approach in the resolution of family disputes, which can be extremely costly, traumatic and drag on and on. It was a system that failed. It was the reason for the creation of the family relationship centres in the first place. $36 million will be cut from family relationship centres. This will see a dramatic reduction of three free hours of family dispute resolution to just one free hour. Those on an income of $50,000 per annum will be charged $30 per hour for the additional third and fourth hour. Cuts of $4.5 million over three years are also planned in the family counselling area, resulting from increased efficiencies. There is, however, no explanation for how the figure was arrived at and no detail about how the cuts will be applied. It is also unclear as to whether this measure will apply across all family relationship centres or will vary according to demographics. The Attorney General’s Department has also advised that funding for research and development will also be ceased. It makes little sense eroding funding for family support. Demand for family counselling is higher than it has ever been and shows no sign of declining. Anecdotally, waiting times are currently as long as eight weeks. Counselling and dispute resolution not only can help keep families together but also, in the event of separation, can result in amicable and workable post-separation arrangements. The alternative is a highly destructive, adversarial legal approach. The case for early intervention for couples who have only recently separated and who are finding it difficult to agree on arrangements for children is compelling. Early support of a non-litigious nature reduces problems down the track, which is supported by the fact that Family Court filings have been on the decrease since the introduction of family relationship centres and the free dispute resolution. Research released early this year from the Frankston Family Relationship Centre found there has been a cultural shift in regard to families seeking help when separation occurs. The research also found that 67 per cent of parents reported that, with the support of the centre, they had achieved new ways of viewing their relationships with their children, families and former partners. The Frankston centre is operated by a wonderful organisation in Family Life, based in Sandringham in my electorate. Family Life chief executive Jo Cavanagh is a leading thinker and doer in the family support field. She makes this very valid point: ‘We are not in a position to determine whether increases in funding to legal services is warranted or not, but it is a mistake to treat family separation as a legal problem rather than a social problem and return to an overreliance on legal responses to family disputes.’ While families should of course have access to legal services, that should not come at the expense of the highly successful family relationship centres, which have achieved so much success in such a short period of time. This decision by the government to transfer nearly $50 million of funding from family relationship centres to funding Labor lawyers is a highly cynical and retrograde step. It confirms that Labor has truly lost its way. ddtreemenu.createTree("tocMenu", false)     statusTime("1.49");   Andrew Robb Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1208 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1195/Response-to-Statement-by-Prime-Minister-on-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1195 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1195&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1195/Response-to-Statement-by-Prime-Minister-on-Afghanistan.aspx 28 October 2010 On 7 October, 2001 President Bush ordered strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This followed the barbaric, cold blooded terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and four commercial airliners.  Over 5000 people were brutally murdered, from around 80 countries, including 22 Australians. The attacks were not simply an assault on America. It was an attack on all people in the world who have a commitment to freedom and liberty; an attack on all those who hold immutable the right to individual freedom, democracy, human rights, religious tolerance and the free flow of global trade and commerce. Australia joined the UN-led International Coalition against Terrorism after invoking the mutual-defence clauses of the ANZUS Treaty on 14 September, 2001.  This was the first time the Treaty’s clauses on acting to meet a common danger had been invoked since it was enacted in 1952. Australia’s commitment became part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations and activities in Afghanistan after ISAF was established via a unanimous resolution of the US Security Council. Today, nine years later, a force of 120,000 troops from 47 countries remain part of the NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Australian combat deaths have reached 21, with 152 wounded in action.  The ultimate sacrifice by these young men, the grief of their families and friends and the continuing commitment of our 1550 troops still in Afghanistan warrant not only our lasting support and gratitude, but also a clear explanation by this Parliament of our future involvement, our strategy. The immediate goal of the NATO led operations in Afghanistan were to “seek out and destroy al-Qaeda” and ensure that “Afghanistan can never again serve as a base from which terrorists can operate”. In 2001 John Howard spelt out that while the destruction of the al-Qaeda network was our first priority, the “long term aim of this war is to demonstrate that organised, international, state-sanctioned terrorism will not be tolerated by the world community”. The question before us today is to assess the extent to which our efforts in Afghanistan to date have helped to achieve these objectives, and the merit and nature of any continued involvement. Twelve months after joining the security mission in Afghanistan, Australia withdrew its combat force after the defeat of much of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the factional warlords, and the focus then shifted to Iraq. Yet, within three years we again deployed Special Forces because of the re-emergence of the threat due to the re-grouping of insurgent forces. In the meantime a new face of Islamic terrorism emerged via home grown terrorists, with bombings in London.  This highlighted the global impact of the training role of terrorists in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. As well, Australia suffered a huge number of civilian casualties in two bombings, 3 years apart, in Bali, and the world observed terrorism cells emerge in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, and al-Qaeda was very active in Iraq. The fact is that Islamic terrorists have continued their attempts at spreading global fear and terror. In the 8 years before 9/11 there were six significant attacks by the terrorist group al-Qaeda.  In the 9 years since 9/11 there have been more than 48 significant al-Qaeda attacks, with over half of them in the last four years. These figures of growing al-Qaeda activity mask the success of concerted international action on the intelligence, law enforcement and financial fronts. Over the past nine years it is evident that the terrorist bombings have increasingly occurred in Muslim countries, albeit often with Westerners as their intended target. No doubt many plans have been made to continue to spread terror in Europe and North America, and other Western countries, but many hundreds of terrorist plots have been foiled. Clearly, the responsibility and actions of free countries to first, and foremost, protect their citizens and interests at home and abroad, have been remarkably, and increasingly effective. Yet, radical Islam remains the greatest threat facing the world.  Not only do non-Muslims face the problem, moderate Muslims need to accept that it is also their problem. Australia is a nation blessed with peace.  Yet, in a world of random and wanton terror, there can be no peace unless we deal with the threat. This threat of terrorism includes the increasing danger of terrorists getting possession of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons.  We know that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are eager to obtain these types of destructive weapons.  If these aims were to be achieved the potential to cause enormous damage and loss of life in our cities would be enormous.  This threat underlines the vital need of the civilised world to maintain maximum pressure on terrorist organisations wherever they may be operating around the globe. This growing threat makes it extremely important for the effort in Afghanistan to succeed; and makes it just as important to see related efforts in Pakistan succeed. Failure, or premature withdrawal from Afghanistan, would be very badly interpreted by those countries inhabited by unwanted terrorist cells, such as Pakistan, and celebrated by Islamic terrorists themselves. It would see countries lose confidence in the resolve of the developed world.  In turn these countries would themselves lose resolve.  It would encourage efforts by local authorities to seek accommodations with terrorists rather than continued resistance.  Yet, attempts to appease evil elements never succeed. It would also greatly embolden terrorist elements. The current objectives of the UN-led forces to stabilise Afghanistan by military and economic means, to train the Afghan National Army and security forces to the point where they can provide for the nation’s security and to prevent the terrorists regaining any hold over the Government in Kabul, and at local levels, must be followed through. Real progress is being made:  In January 2009, Afghan Security Forces numbered 156,000, today there are more than 231,000 ANSF members. Schools have been reopened for the first time in years – school enrolment has increased from less than 1 million when the Taliban fell, to more than 6 million, with more than 2 million of these females. 85 per cent of the population can now access some type of healthcare facility within one hour. In 2001 there were less than 1 million in the Kabul region, now there are more than 5 million. More than 5 million Afghan refugees have returned home. And today, 70 per cent of Afghans believe that their children will live in a peaceful and secure Afghanistan, despite more than 30 years of continuous war. While patience was always central to success in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the UN-led forces should nevertheless aim to achieve these outcomes as quickly as possible. This underscores the importance of providing sufficient fire power and other resources. If the Government is to rely as much as they do on our military leaders’ advice on appropriate levels of resources required to achieve each strategic objective, then these military advisers must be held more accountable for the achievement or non achievement of these outcomes. Consideration should be given to a forum for our military leaders and parliamentarians, similar to the Congressional hearings of US generals in the United States, which would not only bring greater accountability to our military leaders but, importantly, better inform the parliamentarians who must take greater, and ultimate, responsibility.  Rather than setting a particular withdrawal date for the UN-led forces, the achievement of these outcomes should determine the exit strategy.  Otherwise the insurgents may decide to simply sit out the prescribed exit date. In saying as much, there must be a clear recognition that achieving a stabilised situation in Afghanistan, which denies terrorists a safe haven there, requires the Pakistani Government to be willing and able to stabilise its own border with Afghanistan. At the moment this border region is a development zone for jihadi terrorists. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself, where the US assisted both Afghanistan and Pakistan to remove the Soviet Union in the 1980’s, then left Pakistan to deal with a politically unstable Afghanistan, and an obliging Taliban willing to help Pakistan end the conflict.  This Taliban and Kabul connection also provided Pakistan with a counter-weight to India. An effective ongoing partnership with Pakistan is inextricably linked to success in Afghanistan.  Pakistan must not be left to pick up the pieces. Australia should be prepared to help the US and other countries support Pakistan deal with its huge challenges – not only militarily, but also with debilitating regional issues like the recent devastating floods which will create local social and political problems for years to come. Pakistan must know that the West is strongly committed to Pakistan’s security and prosperity.  Unfortunately, many Pakistani’s view the West as a threat, not as a partner.            Changing this perception is a major and critical challenge. In due course, the timing and nature of the departure of UN-led forces from Afghanistan is critical.  In particular, it must be done in a way which maintains the military credibility of the US. In the decade ahead the security resources of the UN countries, and particularly the United States, must be progressively freed up to deal with the more global positioning of terrorist cells, and other non-terror related strategic challenges. It is particularly in Australia’s interests to see the US presence and standing in the Asia Pacific undiminished in the coming decades as China presents increasing challenges, especially for the West Pacific region, as its military capability continues to rapidly increase. Our mission in Afghanistan is now clearly defined.  It is to: Help reconstruct and build the economic fabric of Afghanistan, Train the Afghan National Army, and security forces to take over security of their population, and With the Afghan National Security Forces fight the battles needed to secure the population centres. Our mission is just. Our mission is critical. Our mission involves a transition strategy which is working. The date of our exit should be determined by the achievement of the above outcomes and not dictated by a nominated point in time. All that remains is that we maintain the courage of our convictions and the commitment of necessary resources in a timely fashion.  Global terrorism will remain a fact of life for a long time into the future.  It will require ongoing management, resolve and vigilance.   Andrew Robb Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:07:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1195 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1189/Labors-failure-to-ease-cost-of-living-pressures.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1189 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1189&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1189/Labors-failure-to-ease-cost-of-living-pressures.aspx In March 2008, several months before Lehman Bros collapsed, we saw Australian consumers cut their spending when the government was still increasing interest rates. People had no sense of what was coming, yet, several months before Lehman Bros collapsed, we saw typical Australians cut spending. In fact, the savings rate went from minus four per cent to plus four per cent in those six months. Average working Australians had an instinct: they felt exposed. They had an instinct about the problems that were brewing. A lot of it was contained within the cost-of-living pressures that they were starting to face. If we fast forward to today, 2010, we are starting to see a similar phenomenon. Today, consumers are again showing renewed signs of caution about the economic outlook, preferring to pay down debt rather than ramp up their spending or build new homes. The official figures for the last two months have confirmed a significant drop in consumer sentiment and dwelling starts. Yet, we have just heard the contribution from the member for Maribyrnong, which I think you could best paraphrase as ‘They’ve never had it so good’. There is litany of expenses by this government—spending, spending and spending. The member never mentioned the fact that $100 million a day is being borrowed to pay for all of that spending and that someone has to pay for the $100 million—and that is the taxpayer of Australia. He did not mention the costs that people are incurring. He just mentioned the money that the government is spending, spending and spending. The fact of the matter is that Australians are not convinced that the northern hemisphere countries have weathered the financial crisis—we would not know it in this House from the lack of reference over many months to what is going on in Europe and the United States and whether we need to take some precautions as a consequence. Australians do not trust the pollyanna view that the government has for the next four years—a view that the government has pedalled for months. Australians are feeling exposed. There is an anxiety in the community. A lot of it is borne out of cost-of-living pressures that everyday Australians are facing. This was the issue at the election. People were trying to make a judgment about who would best manage their circumstances, and for the first time since 1940 they actually eliminated the majority of a first-term government. They took that big step. You find in countries everywhere in the world that people’s instinct is to give a government a second chance. It is true in Australia; it is true in most countries around the world. Not since 1940 have we seen what has happened in this country, and it happened because people were concerned about the cost-of-living pressures that they were facing. A family might sense that the future holds some risks. They might have some concerns. They might not be able to articulate them but they can sense them, and they think the government has no plan to deal with these circumstances—that is what they are sensing; that is their fear. What do they do? They stop spending. They pay off their credit card. They pay down their debt. That is what they are doing now. Again, instinctively, people are out there doing that. They are cutting their spending and they are spending wisely. That is happening amongst most households in Australia at the present time, and the official figures are confirming that. It is no different at a country level. This is not rocket science. If you sense that the future holds some risks then you should pay down the country’s debt, you should cut spending, you should spend wisely and you should live within the country’s means. But what are we seeing? A government with a pollyanna view. This is a government so inexperienced in handling money, in running the shop, that they are more obsessed with spin than with substance. They are more obsessed with trying to kid people into what is going on and more obsessed with creating what I think are pseudo budget surpluses in the out years. Just this week Access Economics said that 2012-13 will be five minutes of fiscal sunshine before the budget slumps back to a $1.8 billion deficit in 2013-14. Access expects softer export prices, arguing that mining companies will boost their production levels to meet the spurt in Asian demand. What they are seeing and predicting is a supply response. It is something that we have talked about for months. During my 18 years in agriculture, I saw it again and again: a supply response to higher prices which was never anticipated. People always underestimated the supply response and the speed of that response. If they had bothered to talk to the mining companies, they would know that there are many thousands of new mines around the world awaiting the infrastructure to take those resources into China and India. If we do not at this point in time capture some of that, we will miss much of the opportunity that the budget predicts will occur. But all of that new mining will create a supply response that will reduce the price of resources, which will mean that we will never have a hope of producing the sorts of surpluses the government has predicted. Access Economics warned that if the subsequent drop in commodity prices was much bigger than Treasury was expecting the budget was a ‘house of cards’. Have you heard that before? How often have we heard that? They said it would be a ‘house of cards, an accident waiting to happen’. They also said: The return to surplus trumpeted in the official forecasts is a pure punt that China and India will keep growing faster than the world’s miners will keep digging deeper. How astute is that. We have a situation where Australia faces many vulnerabilities, yet we have a pollyanna government that is blind to what is really going on. The response of so many Australian households—paying down debt, cutting spending and spending wisely—is primarily why Australia got through the global financial crisis in such good shape compared with other industrialised countries. It was our having no debt, massive reserves, four per cent unemployment and a 12-month pipeline of projects that kept us going until the crisis was in fact pretty much over. Combined with the 4¼ per cent response by the Reserve Bank, which is the normal measure you take to increase demand, we had exchange rate flexibility—it dropped to 60 cents in the dollar and then went back up again later on—and, because of the 60 cents in the dollar collapse, we had the highest trade surplus in our history in 2009. And what did the government do? They panicked. Not only did they have an early stimulus, which we supported in 2008, sensibly, for confidence reasons. By 2009, they had committed $42 billion. They panicked. By the time the budget passed through this chamber the crisis was over. And what has that $42 billion done? It has done what my colleague the member for North Sydney said again and again: it has put pressure on interest rates and it has created a problem for small business, where there are 330,000 fewer people employed today in small business than there were before this crisis. How good is that? Australia is built on small business; it is the innovative centre of Australia. Big business has outsourced innovation to small business. We have 330,000 fewer people employed in small business that we had three years ago. This is a failure of this government; it is why people are feeling vulnerable. And this government is not for turning. They have spent and spent to the $42 billion. The targets they chose were political targets—school targets, a school in every electorate. They chose pink batts for homes in every electorate, green loans in every electorate and community infrastructure programs. All of these things have turned to custard. This government has made error after error and misjudgement after misjudgement. They have been concerned primarily with saving their political skin—to ensure that spin beats substance every day of the week. They have produced a $54 billion deficit. This is the sort of reckless spending has put so much pressure on the cost of living for families, and this must stop. (Time expired)   Andrew Robb Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:22:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1189 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1098/An-Address-to-The-Sydney-Institute-The-Coalition-Roadmap-to-Responsible-Economic-Management-and-Growth.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1098 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1098&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1098/An-Address-to-The-Sydney-Institute-The-Coalition-Roadmap-to-Responsible-Economic-Management-and-Growth.aspx LinkClick.aspx - The Sydney Institute Speech - June 2010.pdf On the eve of an election, after three years of governing, the extraordinary thing is that people still ask the question of Mr Rudd, “what do you really stand for, and what can you actually deliver?” In this speech tonight I would like to contrast the Rudd Government’s approach, and its consequences, as opposed to what the Coalition stands for, and the roadmap of real action that we will follow in regaining control of Australia’s finances, and protecting and growing our economy. There is no sense in the community that the Government is in control of things, no sense that Mr Rudd has a plan to protect and grow the economy. In fact, people feel the Government is simply responding to events as they occur, and with a political strategy not an economic strategy.  Australians actually need a government with the capability and conviction to deliver on the things they promise. To this end the Coalition is determined to offer a clear alternative choice of government to the Australian people. Australia’s Mood I sense the mood among Australians as one of uncertainty and caution about the future. As a consequence, Australians are looking for leadership, they are looking for calm and sure-footed judgement, and they are looking for a policy road map consistent with the uncertainties and opportunities we face. The recent wild swings in global equity, bond and currency markets compounds this mood. Australians understand that the major advanced economies of Europe, the US and Japan are deep in debt, without an obvious exit strategy. They know that the global financial woes that be-devilled the world twelve to eighteen months ago have not been put to bed.  In one sense they are worse.  Eighteen months ago the crisis was one of banks and financial institutions, but recently this has been compounded by the risk of default by western countries. Yet, the Rudd Government’s view of the future is confused. One minute Mr Rudd is warning that the debt crisis in Europe means Australia is ‘not out of the woods’.  The next minute he is saying that the next commodity price boom has arrived, and is here to stay. The fact is that the renewed volatility in global financial markets underscores the risk of massive levels of sovereign debt, and the fragility of much of the developed world. The response is to urgently re-build the economic resilience that the Rudd Government inherited if we are to build business and consumer confidence, and weather any new world-wide financial crisis. The response is to bring down the debt, embark on a bold productivity-based growth strategy, stop the reckless spending, lock in budget surpluses, rein in the make-work projects which add nothing to productivity growth and protect the ‘safe haven’ reputation for global investment that we have enjoyed for 30 years. We must not forget that events in Europe, in particular in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, are due in large part to reform fatigue.  As The Economist noted “they relaxed and gave up the tiresome business of pushing through reforms to enhance competition, hold down labour costs and boost productivity.” The Rudd Government Approach Mr Rudd came to office with enormous support for reform.  Expectations ran high.  There was trust. Yet, after three years of the Rudd government I despair at the lost opportunities, the cynicism, the incompetence and the extraordinary growth of government in our lives. I despair at the loss of international respect, the emergence of major sovereign risk for those who look to invest in Australia, the mounting cost pressures on families and the impact these pressures have on their enjoyment of life. Wealth is best created when people and organisations are empowered to maximise their potential, to go with their strengths, to take risks, to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Labor does not understand this dynamic. Rather, for them, government knows best, and if you see a problem, throw our money at it, even if it is borrowed. Labor believes that they know how to spend your money better than you do. And, for Rudd Labor, all reform revolves around spending money.  And if the country’s multi-billion dollars surplus and reserves run out, then spend borrowed money, and increase taxes. Mr Rudd has initiated no fundamental reform, much less any unpopular reform, even if it means revealing, for all to see, that he lacks the courage of his convictions.  His promises have proven worthless. The Rudd Government harks back to the worst of the Whitlam era, minus the conviction. It is a far cry from the Hawke era, with the likes of Peter Walsh, where the importance of markets and productivity was understood, as was the notion that you don’t solve all problems by throwing money at them.  Shame about the impulsiveness and pigheadedness of Paul Keating, which delivered “the recession we had to have”, with its 22 per cent interest rates and one million unemployed. The Coalition Alternative Roadmap The Coalition believes that the Australian community is best served by backing the particular talents, strengths and decisions of each individual Australian. With this in mind a Coalition government will shape a secure economic future for Australia around sustainable, strong growth and prudent financial management. High productivity, without debt and deficits, will provide the foundations of this secure economic future. To this end, the economic roadmap features: • Smaller government, with a greater reliance on the private sector and individual initiative, and a keen focus on improving the quality of government spending; • A flexible, fair and internationally competitive tax system for business and individuals, with flatter and lower levels of income taxation; • Fairer and more flexible workplaces, where real wage increases can be expected; • World class education, training and health services, where excellence and efficiency is rewarded, and greater local control is achieved; • A compassionate welfare system, where personal responsibility is encouraged and expected; • A sustainable population, involving a plan for immigration and growth which values and enhances individual quality of life; • Flexible energy, water, transport and telecommunication markets; • Improved efficiency of existing infrastructure including social infrastructure (aged care, hospitals etc), plus new infrastructure based on publicly available cost benefit analyses; • Sustainable water use; • A more competitive financial sector, with particular focus on small business; • Improved housing affordability, where land release is encouraged and other investments are made more attractive; • A major focus on indigenous education and work opportunities, without paternalism; • A sustainable and clean environment, where research and rehabilitation is prominent; • Less regulation, with a priority attack on excessive reporting requirements; • More effective Federal-State relations, with a return to the “Competition Policy” model applied to a range of policy objectives; and • Playing to our strengths, by further reinforcing areas of comparative advantage. Playing to our strengths means, among other things, not over taxing industries where we have comparative advantage compared with our overseas competitors. Australia spent decades over taxing industries such as mining, agriculture, and other successful export and import competing industries, through a wall of manufacturing tariffs which significantly increased the cost of so many inputs. The Rudd Government is now reverting back to this long discredited practice of over taxing a major area of comparative advantage, the mining sector.  It is a great folly to return to a policy approach which reduces competitiveness, kills investment and jobs, and undermines the great strengths with which Australia is blessed. The Rudd Government ‘Experiment’ Reviewing the three years of the Rudd Government ‘experiment’ tells us much about what we must do to turnaround the mess of debt and deficits. Before the global recession, monetary policy, in the form of interest rates was typically used to increase or discourage consumer and business spending, as required.  Government spending, or fiscal policy, was primarily focussed on incentives, savings and funding government services. Following the arrival of the financial crisis, lowering interest rates to stimulate spending was not an option for many OECD countries because their interest rates were nearly zero, and most households in those countries have fixed mortgage rates. For this reason the northern hemisphere governments were forced to massively increase public spending to soften the impact of the recession.  Rapid increases in public debt and deficits resulted.  The Rudd Government panicked, and over-reacted, by mimicking this high spending northern hemisphere solution.  Rubbing shoulders with the northern hemisphere ‘big boys’ clouded the judgement of Mr Rudd and Mr Swan; they were blinkered, and failed to see the alternative Australian solution. Unlike the northern hemisphere, Australia entered the global financial crisis with no public debt, a $20 billion surplus, $45 billion in the bank, a record low 4 per cent unemployment, a strong pipeline of projects and a properly regulated financial sector.  Alternative solutions were possible and far more appropriate in Australia. In Australia, the automatic economic stabilisers kicked in.  The exchange rate dropped from 90c to the US dollar to 60c to the US dollar.  This proved a massive aid to exports, prompting Australia’s largest ever trade surplus in the first quarter of 2009. Unlike the northern hemisphere, lower interest rates were able to work to significantly stimulate spending in Australia. The prevalence of variable mortgage rates in Australia, rather than the overseas fixed mortgage rates, meant that lower interest rates flowed straight through to people’s pockets.  The progressive reduction of interest rates by 4 ¼ per cent saw immediate and very significant injections of cash into millions of households.   Combined with long-standing, effective banking regulations and a very strong mining sector, both in the lead up to and during the down-turn, these measures, in combination with some of the first $10 billion fiscal stimulus, which was backed by the Coalition, ensured Australia had a soft landing. Yet, much of the second tranche of $42 billion of stimulus money in 2009 was an unnecessary over-reaction which saw debt and spending expand rapidly, making it very difficult to wind back deficits, and putting strong upward pressure on interest rates. This reckless spending continues, putting major pressure on interest rates, and leading to six interest rate rises in a row.  And we have the ludicrous situation where fiscal policy is at loggerheads with monetary policy – one stimulating the economy and crowding out private investment, while the other puts the brakes on. Australia is now paying the price through a $57 billion deficit, debt approaching $130 billion once the broadband billions are borrowed, Government borrowing of $700 million a week for the next two years, multi-billion dollar interest repayments for years to come, six interest rate increases in a row and much greater vulnerability for all of us if the world experiences a double dip recession. Households who took out a typical mortgage last year are now paying $4000 to $5000 per year more in loan repayments, resulting in enormous cost of living pressures. This reckless stimulus spending, a response to one-quarter of negative growth in the December quarter of 2008, is programmed to continue until 2012, four years after the global financial crisis.  It makes no sense. This spending has been accompanied by the greatest growth of government in our lives since the disastrous Whitlam era. Despite Kevin Rudd coming to power as a self-proclaimed ‘fiscal conservative’, championing risk, enterprise and lower taxes, the Rudd government used the world recession as a Trojan horse to push an old-style Labor, interventionist agenda: • to be the only country in the world to re-regulate its labour market during the financial crisis; • to be the only country I know that is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector, through the $43 billion broadband proposal; • to design an emissions trading scheme which maximised government revenue and maximised government involvement in investment decisions, rather than leaving company balance sheets strong enough to invest in low emissions technology; • to further undermine private health insurance; • to seek to dismantle employee share ownership; • to kill competition in the financial markets that had taken nearly 30 years to build; • to seek to establish a government bank – the Ruddbank; • to limit the choices of our children and grandchildren as they pay higher taxes for decades to repay the hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars of Commonwealth, and guaranteed Commonwealth State Government, debt; and, • to enter into a so-called ‘passive’ partnership in every mining project in the country trough the imposition of a great big new mining tax. Along the way, in seeking to introduce this agenda of taxing, spending, borrowing and government intervention, the Rudd Government has established a reputation as an incompetent administration after the monumental mismanagement of the $2.4 billion home insulation fiasco, the $6-$8 billions of dollars wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school halls program, the $1.2 billion blow-out with the computer and schools program, the extra $1 billion price tag from the failure to control our borders and stop boats coming, the embarrassing indigenous housing program, the broken promises over the emissions trading scheme, private health insurance, childcare, GP super clinics, broadband, political advertising by the Government, tax hikes on employer superannuation, and a huge new tax which will make our resources sector the highest taxed resources sector in the world by a country mile.  So much for protecting our competitiveness. And the incompetence, spin, arrogance and electoral panic continues. The Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has just authorised the spending of a further $5.5 billion for the next phase of the Building the Education Revolution stimulus program, despite promising to wait and consider a $14 million investigation, she commissioned, into this chronically wasteful and discredited program. A Coalition government will tackle the debt and deficits head-on, and stop the reckless spending. Already we have announced $22 billion dollars of capital account savings which will come straight off the Rudd Government’s projected debt. In addition, we have announced detailed cuts to 39 Rudd Government spending programs, totalling $24.7 billion.  This is an unprecedented pre-election commitment. Significant additional cuts have been identified, and will be announced ahead of the election. In addition to better quality spending, the cuts will see a multi-billion dollar reduction to next year’s deficit, and hasten real, not imagined, progress in getting the books back in the black. China To this end, we must not squander the financial benefits that will flow from the demand from China in the immediate future.  We must not be lulled into adopting the naïve Rudd Government assumption, on which the Budget was based, that the commodities boom will continue indefinitely, predicting a ‘decades-long’ resources boom. A commodities boom will have a limited future if we face a world experiencing another major loss of financial confidence, and a flight from risk. Furthermore, eighteen years of professional involvement in agriculture exposed me to many commodity booms and busts.  Almost always the booms tapered off much sooner that expected. Invariably, forecasters and industry members badly underestimated the size and speed of the world-wide supply response to surging commodity prices. The same is happening now in the resources sector.  The world is awash with mineral resources, and thousands of projects are on the drawing boards in Eastern Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Africa. There is a four or five year window in which to capture many new resource projects that will benefit Australia for 30, 40 or 50 years.  If we don’t capture this opportunity we will have missed the boat, and future generations of Australians will be much the poorer for it. It is why the Rudd Government’s introduction of a deeply flawed and onerous 40 % resources rent tax in the middle of all this is so stupid. The proposal and the manner in which it has been announced puts this investment at risk.  It is why Australians no longer believe that the Rudd Government has the right answers, or the courage to see reform through. Banking Competition/Small Business The Rudd Government’s panicked response to the financial crisis had another long-term adverse consequence; the destruction of much of the competition in the banking sector built up over nearly 30 years. The small business sector has suffered most. The taxpayer funded bank guarantee, designed to secure credit supply and reduce the borrowing costs of the banks, was not passed on to customers despite having perhaps the lowest cost guarantee among OECD countries, at 70 basis points. Banking analysts estimate that of the four and a quarter per cent reduction in interest rates that occurred from 3 September, 2008, around 3.8 per cent was passed on to home loans, yet 2 per cent or less was passed on to small business and farmers. In the middle of a financial crisis we saw the four big banks not only secure much greater market share through mergers, acquisitions and the flight of deposits, but also make record profits. During this time the banks chased the home mortgage market, while neglecting lending to businesses.  In particular, the bar was raised for small business with a significant hike in risk premiums, and a marked reduction in credit availability and length of loans. Banks work for their shareholders.  So, given the opportunity, the banks used the Government guarantees to minimise risk, maximise market share and maximise profits. The failure was the Rudd Government’s.  The Government was intimidated by the big four banks. The taxpayer funded guarantees should have come with conditions attached to ensure that business, especially small business, shared properly in the benefits of the guarantees. Higher productivity is the foundation on which debt and deficits will be eliminated. Given that small business is the engine room of innovation in Australia, from a productivity and employment point of view particular attention should have been given to protecting these productive assets. The reverse happened. As well as cutting the size of Government to reduce the crowding out of small business seeking finance, the Coalition is exploring additional ways in which the continuing squeeze on credit can be addressed by the banks and others, as well as opportunities to restore more competition into what is now one of the most concentrated banking markets in the world. Resource Rent Tax The Government’s so-called super profits tax on the resources sector is a bugger’s muddle. Each day brings forward a new unintended consequence, confirming how little thought went into the consequences of the tax. It is a great big tax grab to pay for continued reckless spending, it is not tax reform. A decade ago, when the Howard Government introduced the GST, at the same time reducing income tax and abolishing a whole raft of inefficient taxes, the catchcry was “It’s not a new tax, it’s a new system.”  Well, this is not a new tax system, it’s just a great big new tax. The tax will increase the retail price of gas and electricity.  When you increase the cost of producing energy, someone will have to pay.  No doubt it is the end user. The superannuation savings of millions of Australians will be significantly affected, and all to pay for the Government’s reckless spending.  One thing I did observe working on farms in my teens, even before studying economics, was that when the profits from producing wheat or sheep or beef went down significantly, farmers produced less of that product, and moved to producing more of something else which gave greater returns.   In a similar vein, I would have thought that if the returns from producing minerals in Australia went down significantly because of a 40 per cent tax on profits, then companies would be inclined to set up new mines in other countries where returns for the same generic commodity were much higher, and where the rules didn’t change mid-stream, without consultation, at the whim of an ignorant government. No matter what the theoretical models say, with their assumptions of perfect capital markets and guaranteed growth, the real world doesn’t work this way. The tax will see dozens of future new mining projects shelved.  Billions of dollars of investment, and tens of thousands of jobs will go elsewhere in the world. Before standing for Parliament in 2004, one commercial project I was involved with was two years as a member of one of Chevron’s investment teams assessing the massive Gorgon gas field off the North-West shelf.  One of the many things I learnt was the existence of many such Chevron investment teams running a similar ruler over similar projects in the four corners of the globe.  There was intense competition between these projects.  A 15 per cent return of investment was merely the starting gate of getting your project ahead of any others.  My abiding conclusion was that these big resource companies have options, and many of them.  As well, the competitive position of each project was extremely sensitive to relative taxation positions between countries.  It wasn’t a rash claim when Rio Tinto chief Tom Albanese said recently “from my own perspective, this is my number one sovereign risk issue on a global basis”.  Xstrata chief executive Mick Davis has backed these comments. The Rudd Government is playing with fire. Bank finance will be further discouraged because banks value the loss reimbursement component of the tax at zero.  As well, banks don’t like interest and other tax not being deductible in determining the profit figure which will be taxed. The 40 per cent funding of the losses of firms that go bust is part nationalisation of the mining sector.  To suggest it is a ‘passive’ involvement by government is spin of the highest order. If I was the Finance Minister, and taxpayers faced the prospect of rewarding failed mines to the tune of tens-of-billions-of-dollars, I would have a responsibility not to remain ‘passive’. Our country is not some African dictatorship.  This level of involvement of government in industry has no place in 21st century Australia. As well, I can see thousands of pages of reporting requirements emerging from bureaucrats looking to cover many a backside. Yet, the current Finance Minister, Mr Tanner, said last Sunday “these are overwhelmingly very, very large companies with very sophisticated accounting and computer systems where questions of this kind are always going to be able to be dealt with, so I do not believe this is a substantial issue in the debate”. Mr Tanner has to get out more. If he did he might discover that there are 4200 mines around Australia, including hundreds of family owned sand and gravel quarries, limestone mines, small opal operations, and thousands of other mid-size mineral and precious metal businesses that pour millions of dollars into their local communities.  For these more bureaucracy, red tape and the absence of finance is not a trivial issue.  It is the difference between surviving or not. The government has cleverly and deceitfully implied that the mining sector currently pays nothing extra for the privilege of mining a resource that is finite and belongs to all Australians; implying that only by paying more tax will it pay its ‘fair share’. What is never made clear is that the mining sector does pay around 33 per cent more tax than every other sector of the economy, namely around 40 per cent average effective rate of tax versus 28, 29 or 30 per cent paid by every other sector.  And the mining sector should pay this extra 33 per cent tax as its ‘fair share’. However, what the Government never makes clear is that it wants to increase the extra tax paid by the mining sector from 33 per cent to around 85 per cent more tax than every other business in Australia, namely an increase from 40 per cent to 55 per cent effective rate of tax versus 28, 29 or 30 per cent paid by other business sectors. Contrary to the nonsense the Government has been asserting, these numbers were confirmed overnight with the release of KPMG work, modelled over the life of the projects across key minerals. This study, by the same company that did the Government’s analysis, confirmed dramatic reductions in the net present value of up to 57 per cent, making nickel, copper and goldmines economically unviable. The problem is that Australia’s mining competition in other countries pay much less than the proposed 58 per cent in Australia, with the US at 40 per cent, Brazil at 38 per cent, Canada at 32 per cent and down from there. Now Australia looks a lot riskier and far less profitable. The brutal and personal political attacks by the Government on this important export industry and its leaders, combined with the naïve and dangerous design of the tax and the deliberate failure to consult, has left Australian business and overseas investors bewildered. There is a growing sense that the Government and their advisors don’t understand the nature of investment in a globalised world, nor how key markets work, that they are dangerously out of their depth.  Business confidence in the Government has been shattered. In particular, optimism that once surrounded the Prime Minister is rapidly fading. Trust has ebbed away. Attracting international investors will be much harder going, and not just for mining, now that Australia has gained a reputation for reckless decision making and retrospective taxation.  We now have a sovereign risk problem. The widespread community uncertainty that prevails in Australia has been compounded by this very damaging tax, and the events that have surrounded its proposed introduction. A Coalition government will cut through this uncertainty, and the great threat to the current engine of economic growth in Australia, by scrapping this job destroying resources tax. Conclusion Ronald Reagan said Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:  ‘if it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidise it’. I suggest Kevin Rudd’s approach could be summed up even more simply: If money has been saved, spend it; if an industry is profitable and successful, tax it; if it questions or opposes you, vilify it. This is not reform.  It is governing by the news cycle. We need a government that makes decisions.  Mr Rudd has yet to make a hard decision; he can’t see over his groaning to-do list.  He’s all talk and no action. The next twelve months are critical; the next three years are absolutely critical.  What if Australia has another three years like the last?  Australia needs clear policies, but also the resolve to see it through.  And the strength to say no - a word foreign to Messrs Rudd, Swan and Tanner. The Coalition has a plan, a roadmap, and the strength to do the job. If Australia supports that plan, we will see any future challenges through, and make the most of the wonderful opportunities Australia presents.  You make your own luck. Andrew Robb Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1098 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1083/The-cost-to-the-nation-of-waste-and-mismanagement-within-government-programs.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1083 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1083&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1083/The-cost-to-the-nation-of-waste-and-mismanagement-within-government-programs.aspx This speech condemning the shameful waste and mismanagement of this government is given by me more in sadness than in anger. We all come to this place to see Australia go ahead, to become a better place, no matter who is in government. But after three years of the Rudd government I despair at the lost opportunities, the cynicism, the incompetence and the extraordinary growth of government in our lives. I despair at the loss of international respect and standing, the emergence of major sovereign risk for those who look to invest in Australia, and the mounting cost pressures on families and the impact these have on their enjoyment of life. We could fill days of debate documenting the monumental waste and mismanagement that has become the hallmark of this government, the waste and mismanagement that has cost this country billions of dollars and that has driven the serious cost-of-living pressures facing millions of Australians—the waste and mismanagement that now defines this government. We could go on and on about this shameful three-year record, but the critical question to ask is: why? Why is it that this government is now best known for its failure to manage the shop with any level of competence and judgement? Why is it that in three short years so little has been achieved and yet so much has been claimed? Why is it that the Australian people feel so short-changed? Why is it that so much the Rudd government touches turns to custard? Why is it that Labor’s promised program of computers in schools for every student in years 9 to 12 has so far only delivered 220,000 of the one million computers and a blow-out of $1 billion? Why is it that Labor promised to cut spending on consultancies but have instead awarded $1.2 billion in consultancy contracts since coming to office? Why is it that Labor promised broadband for $4.7 billion but broke that promise, replacing it with a plan for $43 billion? Of course, in the process, they wasted $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spent another $25 million on yet another report by consultants—all for a white elephant that will put up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk. Why is it that Labor claim to have all the answers on climate change and the environment but have dumped the ETS for the cynical purpose of trying to make some of the parameters within a budget work? Prime Minister, you know that that $10 billion was fundamental to reaching one of the key parameters in the budget. It was a very cynical move by this government, despite the Prime Minister on so many occasions saying this is the great moral challenge of this century. They have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Just think of the money spent on thousands and thousands of hours of work by companies and individuals who took seriously the endless process of Senate committee inquiries, Garnaut reports 1, 2 and 3, the green paper and the white paper—all of that for nothing. There was $50 million worth of climate change advertising; 150 public servants administered the scheme, at a cost of $81 million; and 68 delegates were sent to Copenhagen, at a cost of $1½ million. On top of this, in the environment area, there was the solar panel blow-out of $850 million and the dumping of $175 million on the Green Loans Program. The pink batts program, costing $2.45 billion, represents one of the monumental policy failures in this country’s history. It has resulted in 240,000 substandard installations, 1,500 electrified roofs, 120 house fires, four deaths and about $1 billion in waste—$1 billion of waste, four deaths and endless fires, and yet we discover that the Prime Minister knew about this, he was advised about this on several occasions over the last 12 months, and did nothing about it, and nor did his minister. He has misled this House by refusing to answer. He gave the impression he saw none of this, but by implication he has misled this House. All the minister for finance could say, in pathetic defence of this mismanagement and waste, was that it ‘wasn’t right to expect the government to be dotting i’s and crossing t’s because we are in a crisis situation’. So far the most notorious example of government waste has been the pink batts, but this is likely to be superseded by the school halls program, which looks to have wasted many billions of its $16.7 billion. Dozens of examples of unconscionable waste are already in the public arena and each day seems to bring fresh evidence of more. Independent assessment has found that these school halls cost four times the amount of commercial buildings of a similar structure and nature. We are seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being wasted, and this is the responsibility—though you would not think it—of the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is it that border protection is seeing a $1 billion blow-out? The Prime Minister promised to take a very tough line on people-smuggling, promising before the election to turn around the boats, yet we have had 120 boats arrive during this government’s time in office, and that number is growing. Prior to that, under the Howard government, we had 18 boats in six years. This is again a monumental failure of policy, a fundamental failure of courage. Why is it that the Prime Minister pledged to tackle the cost of living for working families and yet in my city of Melbourne, over the last 12 months, electricity has gone up by 23 per cent, petrol by 7.4 per cent, rent by 4.4 per cent, child care by 7.9 per cent, water by 17.6 per cent, medical costs by 6.8 per cent and fruit and veg by eight per cent? This is all after setting up and shutting down GroceryWatch at a cost of $10 million and setting up and shutting down Fuelwatch while petrol prices continued to rise. Furthermore, why is it that Australia has the highest interest rates in the developed world, with the endless, reckless spending, overspending and bad spending of $52 billion of stimulus money, resulting in six interest rate rises, and pressure on interest rates and our exchange rate, costing families thousands of dollars extra on their mortgages and hurting our exporters with higher exchange rates? Young couples who bought houses last year on the promise of cheaper housing, with a scheme designed to encourage them to buy houses, are now paying up to $5,000 more in mortgage payments just one year later because of the panicked spending and misspending by this government over a 12-month period. Why is it that many millions of dollars have been wasted on seeking a UN Security Council seat? Why is it that the government has managed to weaken our relationships with Japan, China and India, at great cost to us in the years ahead? Why is it that the government has proposed a 40 per cent tax on our great mining industry, threatening $310 billion worth of mining projects, hundreds of thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars of revenue over the next 30, 40 or 50 years? We have a window of opportunity in the next four or five years to put our foot on a whole host of 30-, 40- and 50-year projects. If we do not secure those, they will go to the rest of the world. We will export projects. We will export jobs. And we will see up to two or three generations of Australians materially worse off because of the short-sightedness and the political crassness of this government, which has imposed a tax to meet a budget requirement due to its incompetence, its mismanagement, its overspending, its bad spending and its waste and mismanagement. The politics of envy has put at great risk the opportunity to rebuild the resilience of the economy that this government inherited. This government is incompetent in not urgently dealing with the issue of uncertainty that still prevails in the world economy. Why did this government break promises on superannuation, private health insurance, 260 childcare centres, capping IVF treatment, delivering GP clinics, being an economic conservative, means-testing the baby bonus, changes to employee share ownership and stopping whaling? And why did this government present a budget that is simply not believable, a house of cards, a budget that will collapse under the weight of a huge tax on the engine of growth and employment in Australia? Its budget surplus is a mirage. It will never occur because of the waste and mismanagement and the duplicity of this government in structuring a budget that is simply not believable, which is under threat from its own measures from within the budget. This is what it has come to: a litany of failures and disappointments, a litany of incompetence and lack of performance. Government by spin. I put it to you that competence and performance is primarily a function of character, strength of character. Character is what you do when no-one is watching. Character is when you reach inside your soul and follow your convictions. Character is finishing what you start. Character is about courage and judgement, not belligerence and panic under pressure. Character is taking responsibility for inevitable mistakes. Character is staying true to commitments solemnly made. Character is leading by listening. And character is about trust—trusting others around you, your colleagues and trusting yourself; staying true to yourself. Sadly, under all the pressures of government, the Prime Minister and his government have failed so often on these tests of character and all Australians are paying the price. The Prime Minister and his government have not stayed true to commitments solemnly made. Promise after promise has been broken with gay abandon or the cynicism of crass politics. The Prime Minister and his government have not shown courage and judgement under pressure. In response to the financial woes that struck the Northern Hemisphere so powerfully two years ago and then challenged the resilience of Australia’s economy and others, the Prime Minister panicked. The government overspent and poorly spent and, in the process, spent tens of billions of dollars of reserves—built-up with so much work and effort over the previous decade—and built a $100 billion debt in no time at all. Rather than quickly rebuilding the resilience of the economy they inherited, they have the highest interest rates in the developed world, huge cost of living pressures and great big new job-destroying taxes as a consequence. The Prime Minister has not shown trust in those around him and has not shown the trust and courage to stick by his own convictions. Dumping the emissions trading scheme to manipulate a budget outcome and avoid a political battle showed enormous weakness, given his professed view that this was the greatest moral and economic challenge of this century. It is pathetic. Seeking ownership of every government decision shows a lack of trust in colleagues and a lack of personal confidence and self-belief. The Prime Minister reminds me of the home handyman we all know—he enthusiastically starts a hundred jobs and he finishes none of them. He lacks the character to finish what he starts. The Prime Minister and his government have failed to lead by listening. If they were listening, they would be focused, overwhelmingly, on reducing the cost of living pressures that face millions of Australians and their families. Instead of endless reckless spending and mountains of debt, the government would have pushed interest rates down rather than up. The government should be living within its means. Instead of new taxes to pay for the reckless spending, the government should have the courage to make tough decisions. Instead of billions of dollars of waste and mismanagement, the government should focus less on managing the media spin each day and more on doing the hard yards of managing programs effectively. The PM and his government have failed to take responsibility for inevitable mistakes. This character weakness worries people. They feel uncertainty about the PM’s strength in dealing with whatever lies ahead. Character is what you do when no-one is watching. Do we know this Prime Minister? Does he have the courage of his convictions, or is he a chameleon? A government that believes in nothing will deliver nothing. To date, the government is known as a government of all talk and no action. If you do not know where you are going, you will never get there. All of this is a direct result of the failure of the Prime Minister and his government to pass the character test. It is why we have witnessed a government lurching from one failure to another, building a monumental level of waste and mismanagement. Andrew Robb Thu, 13 May 2010 00:03:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1083 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1082/The-failure-of-the-Governments-budget-to-secure-Australias-economic-future.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1082 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1082&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1082/The-failure-of-the-Governments-budget-to-secure-Australias-economic-future.aspx This budget and its outcomes are simply not believable. It is a house of cards. It is a con. The surpluses forecast in this budget are manufactured with new taxes—taxes pulled out of the hat some two to three weeks ago when the government saw that the budget parameters were not going to be met. This government was spooked. This government had knee-jerk policy for crass political purposes. These surpluses are based on minerals growth and new taxes yet the minerals growth will be choked off by the biggest of these taxes, the $9 billion a year tax on mining. No-one can have confidence in the forecast as a consequence of these new taxes—new taxes which were literally conceived in the last two to three weeks, new taxes which received no consultation with business, new taxes which put $9 billion a year on our strongest and most profitable sector in this economy in a world which faces great uncertainty. I had a call from a friend of mine a few days ago. The friend runs some significant mines in countries in Asia, countries that have some political risk. This friend of mine rang the other day and said he is no longer being asked about political risk in Asia. He said the sovereign risk which has always dogged his attempts to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in these Asian countries is now similarly enjoyed by Australia. Australia is now the laughing stock of sharemarkets around the world because they cannot understand how the government of Australia—so blessed with resources, so blessed with the opportunity to protect itself against further shocks in the world financial markets—would seek to tax those companies that exploit those resources in a way which would make Australian companies uncompetitive. They cannot understand how a government would reduce the competitiveness of our mining companies and impose an effective tax level of 57 per cent, when the nearest tax level of other competing countries is 40 per cent in the United States, 38 per cent in Brazil and lower for every other country. This means that many of the new projects—the $310 billion worth of projects that are being considered by companies at the present time—will not pass the hurdle rate, will not pass the necessary return on investment, because our mining industries are facing an effective rate of tax of 57 per cent. It is a disgrace. It does indicate the lack of instinct that this government has for the risk associated with business, for the way in which decisions are taken with regard to these major resources. It does show the political crassness of this government and the way in which it goes about constructing important documents like this budget. There is great uncertainty associated with the forecast side of resources. By putting a great big new tax on, already we are seeing many projects that are no longer being considered or are being put on a shelf so that companies can reconsider where those investments go. Already people are being put off in terms of potential job opportunities. Combine that with the forecast increase in spending—a $26 billion blow-out in spending over the next three years in this budget—and you see the pressure on interest rates going up, and uncertainty associated with the spending programs and with the forecast revenue. This budget confirms this is a government that is losing its way. Andrew Robb Wed, 12 May 2010 00:01:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1082 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1058/Joint-Standing-Committee-on-Electoral-Matters-Report-on-the-2007-federal-electionevents-in-the-Division-of-Lindsay.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1058 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1058&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1058/Joint-Standing-Committee-on-Electoral-Matters-Report-on-the-2007-federal-electionevents-in-the-Division-of-Lindsay.aspx I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report on the 2007 federal election—events in the division of Lindsay. In reflecting on the incident in general, I concur with the view of the then Prime Minister, John Howard, at the National Press Club on 22 November 2007. He stated: I condemn what happened. It was an unauthorised document, it does not represent my views, it was tasteless and offensive. There are many, there are myriad legitimate criticisms that can be made of the Australian Labor Party, but I do not believe that the Australian Labor Party has ever had any sympathy for the Bali bombers and I thought it was an outrageous thing to say. That’s my view, I think the party organisation has dealt with it with lightning speed and great effectiveness. In my view, this report on that incident—which was a most unfortunate incident—presents an exhaustive and factual approach to the issue. I am grateful to the chairman, in particular, and other members of the committee for the approach that was taken. As well, it importantly reviews the adequacy of the penalty provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in light of the events that occurred on the evening of 20 November 2007 that led to five people being charged with breaching the act. The actions of those individuals were totally unacceptable and reprehensible but I think in no way reflective of the Liberal Party, its members, supporters and candidates at large. Those events did, however, bring into focus the inadequacy of the penalties, as set out in section 328 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, for breaching the act’s guidelines. The current penalties are $1,000 for an individual and $5,000 for a body corporate for non-compliance. Opposition members and senators agree that these penalties, which have not been updated since 1983, are inadequate and act as an insufficient deterrence. In addition to this, opposition members support recommendation 2 of this report. It states: The committee recommends that section 328 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 be redrafted as a strict liability offence, and the maximum penalties be 60 penalty units for an individual and 300 penalty units for a body corporate. These increased penalty units currently equate to $6,600 for an individual and $33,000 for a body corporate. We believe these increased penalties and the offence being redrafted as a strict liability offence strike the right balance. As the report states: In the future, party member or non-aligned persons should think very carefully about the ramifications of undertaking the illegal practice of distributing unauthorised election material. These penalties do represent, in my view, a significant deterrence and if properly understood and made known by all parties to people associated with their party will act as a significant deterrence and strike the right balance. In brief, recommendation 1 of the report states the amending legislation with assistance from the Attorney-General, should use the schedule provided by the Australian Electoral Commission as a guide.  The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 should be updated accordingly, and the amending legislation be put to the committee so that it can conduct a bills inquiry. Recommendation 3 states that the Australian Electoral Commission should, at the next federal election, record all polling booth offences that are reported, the actions that were taken and provide an appraisal of the adequacy of the powers under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to deal with polling place offences. Opposition members support both these recommendations. Finally, I would like to add my thanks to my committee colleagues and, in particular, the chairman, the member for Banks, for the approach taken. Also, I would like to thank the committee secretariat and those organisations and individuals who prepared submissions and appeared as witnesses before the committee. Andrew Robb Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1058 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1057/Youth-Connect.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1057 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1057&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1057/Youth-Connect.aspx I rise tonight to speak about Youth Connect, a not-for-profit community focused organisation that offers assistance to young people in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. In particular, I want to highlight a new program that has recently been implemented called Right Step, a young offenders’ diversion and re-engagement program. Established in 2004 following the merger of the Moorabbin Oakleigh Springvale development group and various bayside organisations, Youth Connect is located in the Victorian suburb of Bentleigh. Youth Connect has established itself as an outstanding example of an organisation supporting young people who are disengaged or at risk of disengaging from education, training and employment. The organisation works with the local community to provide pathways for all young people through secondary education, further learning and employment. Danny Schwarz and his team do a terrific job. In my view they are truly inspiring in what they have done and are doing. Youth Connect and its predecessors have, through the delivery of government funded initiatives including the Howard government’s Jobs Pathways Program, Youth Pathways, Local Community Partnerships and the Victorian government’s workforce participation programs, supported more than 5,000 young people to re-engage in education, training and employment. The Right Step program was born out of a need first identified by Victoria Police and has been developed through extensive collaboration with many community organisations, including the Moorabbin police and the Moorabbin Justice Centre, the Department of Human Services, the City of Bayside and the City of Kingston. The need for Right Step was verified by rising crime statistics in the Bayside area, which revealed that 1,625 young people between 10 and 18 years of age had been dealt with by local police in the 2008-09 financial year. What is even more disturbing is that nearly 50 per cent of these young adults had already been charged with multiple offences. The Right Step program has been designed to keep these young offenders from the court system and to assist in identifying and addressing issues that may put the young person at risk of reoffending. The referral of the young offender is determined by the police member at the time of the charges being laid. The program involves counselling, guidance, coaching, education and career pathway planning. It also encourages the young person to set goals, steps and tasks to overcome the identified barriers that are causing them to reoffend. Right Step involves the young offender agreeing to participate in the program, and the young person is then obligated to attend and participate in at least eight sessions over an eight-week period. The assigned case manager will then determine whether it is necessary for the individual to attend additional appointments. Following the completion of the program, a report is written to the court for the magistrate to take into consideration when reaching a determination. At the discretion of the magistrate, the charges could be reduced or even dismissed. Youth Connect then maintains contact with the young person for a period of 12 months. It has been remarkably successful already. Recently the Productivity Commission identified that the recurrent cost of an adult prisoner per year was over $75,000. Youth Connect estimates that to foster a young person through their program would only cost an average of $2,500 to $3,000, clearly a great investment. The sustainability of the Right Step program will rely heavily on government and community funding to establish sound evidence of its impact. However, due to lack of funding, the Right Step program has been established only as a three-year pilot, and currently Youth Connect is using their own reserves, with a small philanthropic grant. Through its dedicated work, Youth Connect is now providing an opportunity for the community through Right Step to see change in legislation that will allow magistrates and police to divert young people into programs that provide intervention and support. In turn, both federal and state governments will include diversion programs for young people in appropriate departmental budgets. Additional federal and state government funding to help young offenders get an opportunity to rehabilitate and avoid the court system is a very cost-effective investment, and I ask the Australian government to seriously consider such an investment. Without the support of Youth Connect, many of these young people will be forced to navigate the welfare system, and source support, on their own or, more likely, end up in jail. I applaud very strongly the efforts of Danny Schwarz and his colleagues. Andrew Robb Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:47:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1057 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1056/Inquiry-into-the-New-South-Wales-Parliamentary-Electorates-and-Elections-Amendment-Automatic-Enrolment-Bill-2009.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1056 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1056&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1056/Inquiry-into-the-New-South-Wales-Parliamentary-Electorates-and-Elections-Amendment-Automatic-Enrolment-Bill-2009.aspx I rise to speak on this Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry, which looked into the implications of the New South Wales Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Bill 2009 for the conduct of Commonwealth elections, including any consequences for the enrolment of persons living in New South Wales for the purposes of Commonwealth elections. We have just heard the chair of the committee provide the formal report and the recommendations that were made by the government members on the committee. The first recommendation that has been made in the report by the government members is: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 be amended to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to automatically enrol electors on the basis of data provided by trusted agencies. The second recommendation is: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 be amended to allow for electors to enrol on Election Day and to issue a provisional vote, subject to the elector being able to provide suitable identification to the Australian Electoral Commission. The third recommendation is for complementary amendments to give effect to these recommendations. Opposition members and senators agree with the objective of increasing the number of eligible Australians enrolled and eligible to exercise the franchise. It is a very important objective and one that we have consistently sought to give effect to in this place. However, the maintenance of the integrity of the roll is critical. It is absolutely fundamental that people have confidence in the integrity of the roll, for the value of the franchise as well as public faith in our electoral processes. As a consequence, opposition members have put in a dissenting report. We do not agree—we strongly disagree—with the recommendations that are listed in this report. The proposal to enact a radical and untested provision to automatically enrol voters to the Commonwealth electoral roll endangers the integrity of the electoral roll and potentially the degree of public faith in it. The government majority report based its case for automatic enrolment on an alleged decline in participation. However, no evidence is provided to illustrate that Australia is undergoing a dramatic decline in enrolment or voting due to the current processes, procedures and requirements. Indeed, if you look over the last three or four years, the improved management of the rolls by the AEC—which is, I think, commended by both sides of the House—may well lead to a temporary decline in numbers due to the more effective management of the rolls and the removal of those not entitled to be enrolled. Furthermore, the responsibility to enrol to vote lies with the individual. This is a very important factor, I think, in the consideration of this report. We have to have a responsibility of people in the community to ensure that they are enrolled. It is fundamentally their responsibility. It is not for the state to automatically enrol people without their knowledge and for them to just assume, turn up and expect to be enrolled. It is a fundamental responsibility within our democracy for people to exercise their duty to ensure that they are properly enrolled and, when they move, that they advise the commission accordingly and then remain on the roll as a part of their fundamental responsibility. The Commonwealth Electoral Act requires those eligible to enrol to vote. Any implication that there is an onerous requirement should be rejected. Complying with the current requirement is not especially difficult; in fact, it is made very easy by the commission and it is far simpler than many other standard procedures that people apply for in their everyday lives. Recommendation 1, which looks at amending the act to automatically enrol voters on the basis of data provided by trusted agencies, is strongly opposed by the opposition members and senators. The provisions of the New South Wales amendments have not yet been tested either in practice between elections or at an election, and there remain substantial questions about their effectiveness and their impact upon the integrity of the roll. The experiment in moving away from the traditional and well-regarded enrolment procedure should not be replicated in Commonwealth legislation, as the risks have not been assessed in any sense. The AEC believes that the declining enrolment rate is in part caused by outdated and overly prescriptive legislation. If this is taken at face value, there is a reason to reconsider some of these practices, but it does not justify a movement away from individual registration to automatic enrolment. Firstly, the reliance on external data sources that have been collated and then are utilised for other purposes does not make them fit for use in forming the electoral roll. Even the government majority concedes this in paragraph 2.3 of the majority report: … there is concern about the potential for the integrity of the electoral roll to be compromised by allowing elector records to be updated based on data received from trusted agencies— such as tax file numbers, driving licences or whatever—when that data has not been collected specifically for the purpose of updating the electoral roll. Furthermore, while the New South Wales procedures allow the commissioner to determine trusted data, opposition members and senators remain to be convinced that government-held data sources are appropriate for such a necessarily rigorous process as compiling the electoral roll. A 1999 report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, Numbers on the run: review of the ANAO audit report No. 37 1998-99 on the management of tax file numbers, found that there were 3.2 million more tax file numbers than people in Australia at the last census, that there were 185,000 potential duplicate tax records for individuals and that 62 per cent of deceased clients were not recorded as deceased in a sample match. That sort of inaccuracy is common among other trusted data sources, and to rely on those trusted data sources as a basis for enrolling people is fraught with danger, and the integrity of the roll is put at great risk. In simple terms, where there are such examples of inconsistency in Commonwealth data, there cannot be sufficient faith in this data being used to automatically add people to the electoral roll. Given that there are a number of federal electorates that have margins under 100 votes, such as McEwen, Bowman and Robertson, even a one per cent error in the information sourced from the various agencies would have significant ramifications for the outcome of a seat or even an election. The second recommendation, which is looking to allow electors to enrol on election day, also has a number of major problems, as it will expose the roll to fraudulent enrolments and potentially cause significant delays on election day. The uncertainty of this provision was illustrated by Mr Barry, New South Wales Electoral Commissioner: We are going into some uncharted territories. There are some risks associated with the uncertainty about how many people are going to turn up on election day … In addition, it cannot be expected that the election officials, given the pressures and time constraints placed upon them on election day, will closely cross-check every enrolment form accurately. In some cases the election official is also open to people claiming to be the person on the driver’s licence when indeed they are not. There will be fundamental disputes with election officials on election day. Secondly, the recommendation will cause lengthy queues on election day. It will also provide delays in finalising the count while awaiting verification of the enrolments received that day. Third, the election day enrolment will inadvertently provide an incentive for people not to comply with the existing law and initially enrol or update their election details when they move residence. Finally, election day enrolment breaches the important principle that candidates should know their electors. In conclusion, such changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as recommended in this inquiry could exacerbate perceptions in the community that the electoral system is flawed. It is more important to have a system that takes every step to maintain the integrity of the processes involved than to undertake untested measures to increase enrolment numbers. If the electoral system is seen to be lacking in transparency or integrity, there is every chance that Australians will become less likely to participate in the voting process, to the detriment of our democratic system. Andrew Robb Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1056 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1052/Parliamentary-Speech-on-the-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Legislation.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1052 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1052&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1052/Parliamentary-Speech-on-the-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Legislation.aspx This emissions trading scheme bill, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Bill 2010 is not in the national interest. It remains a deeply flawed policy. It will destroy tens of thousands of jobs while delivering little or no environmental benefit. It is a great big new tax masquerading as an environmental policy. It would take us too far ahead of the world. It would see us export jobs and export emissions. It would destroy the ability of companies to invest in emissions reduction technology. This new tax creates a long-term pot of gold for government worth tens of billions of dollars every year once compensation ceases. There are alternative scheme designs which would leave much of the money on company balance sheets to invest in emissions reduction technology, but a big new tax is irresistible to Labor. It will see regional centres shrink as resources and energy investment head to competing countries. It will rob Peter to compensate Paul with the transfer through the next decade of over $100 billion from one section of the community to another. In the process, a huge new administrative bureaucracy will emerge. It will provide an opportunity for Mr Rudd to make a big man of himself by mailing out millions of cheques each year, redistributing other people’s money.  In the next 10 years it will see a $10 billion tax on small businesses, with no compensation and, for many, no capacity to avoid it. It is a scheme that defies explanation. It is incomprehensible. It is an extraordinarily expensive act of faith. Not only do many government members privately disagree with the scheme; no government member, from the Prime Minister down, can explain it. This is not one ETS scheme but a thousand ETS schemes as bureaucrats impose individual arrangements, definitions and requirements on just about every one of the 1,000 ‘covered’ companies. Its complexity has been deliberately used by the Rudd government as a Trojan Horse to hide the introduction of a great big new tax. It is a con. It will be a huge tax on Australia’s 150-year success with resources and energy while our competitors face no tax. It makes no sense. It will see an increase in everyone’s power bills of around 20 per cent and indirectly see an increase in the price of most services and items purchased. It will be equivalent to increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12½ per cent. Yet, without our major competitors engaging in some form of ETS, Australia’s actions will have absolutely no impact on the Great Barrier Reef or on the environment generally. In fact, global emissions could actually increase as investments and jobs, especially from major regional centres, leave Australia and go to developing countries where less efficient factories pump out much more CO2 than Australia does. And without our major competitors engaging in some form of scheme the cost to Australians will be much greater. This cost will be measured in the premature closure of many coal mines, cement works, coal powered generators and fuel refineries and the loss of major investment in new smelters, metal refineries, LNG gas projects, cement works, exploration and much more. There will be a significant direct and indirect tax on agricultural and manufacturing businesses competing against foreign products where no such tax applies. For example, the average dairy farmer will face a $9,000 tax, with no capacity to offset this cost. The scheme will see tens of thousands of jobs at risk, the permanent and serious shrinkage of major regional centres, and the loss of major investments; yet little or no impact on CO2 emissions. In fact, work commissioned by the state governments suggests that 126,000 jobs will be at risk and key regional centres will shrink by 20 per cent. One $4 billion investment to extend an aluminium smelter in the Hunter Valley will be shelved. This project alone will see the loss of 15,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs. It is why Australia must not find itself, effectively, going alone. These problems were obvious last year. Yet, to add salt to the wound, the government has ignored the implications of the fiasco in Copenhagen. None of the world’s top five emitters of greenhouse gases look like introducing an emissions trading scheme. For nearly two months now the Rudd government has ducked any debate about Copenhagen’s failure to make any progress on a global approach to carbon emissions, or to discuss the extraordinary problems confronting the IPCC. It is a case of ‘see no evil, hear no evil’. It only serves to reinforce community suspicions that the Mr Rudd is more interested in the politics than in good policy for Australia. Mr Rudd cannot keep demanding that it is ‘my way or the highway’ when so much is at stake and attempts to achieve a global approach to carbon abatement are in disarray. It is totally wrong and disingenuous to suggest that a climate change disaster is the inevitable consequence of not supporting this deeply flawed emissions trading scheme, or to suggest that Australians have no choice or no alternative but to lock themselves into this ETS ahead of our major competitors. There is nothing God-given about Mr Rudd's scheme. There are other designs for emissions trading schemes and there are other direct action plans. In fact, a large number of countries, including the United States and most of our major competitors, at this stage are looking at reducing emissions without an emissions trading scheme—using direct action such as incentives and regulations combined with energy efficiency measures, renewable energy, reafforestation, storing carbon in soil, cleaning up industrial practices and coal fired electricity generation, algae, fugitive emissions, transport, nuclear power and more. Many of these mirror the coalition’s direct action plans. Yet the government suggest that their ETS is necessary for business certainty. This is a furphy. The only certainty facing Australian business if we go it alone with an ETS would be that they face a great big new tax which fluctuates somewhere between $25 and $40 per tonne of CO2 in the first few years, costing between $12 billion and $16 billion a year, while their competitors face zero tax. Surely major uncertainty would exist in the making of long-term investments in Australia if companies have no idea if, and even when, their major competitors would face a price on carbon. It could be 10, 15, 20 or 30 years away. The government suggest that their ETS will cap emissions. This rings somewhat hollow when Treasury modelling estimates that Australia’s emissions will continue to increase under Mr Rudd’s ETS until the mid-2030s, over 20 years away. It also ignores the fact that nearly half the government’s emissions reduction will not occur in Australia. They will occur in other countries who sell offsets to Australian companies to meet their obligations. In fact, according to Treasury modelling, Australia’s actual annual CO2 emissions in 2020 under the ETS will be a mere two million tonnes less than they will be in 2012, with 585 million tonnes as against 587 million tonnes without the ETS. Whereas the five per cent reduction in CO2 emissions under the coalition plan will occur in Australia, with emissions in 2020 reduced to 525 million tonnes, as against the government’s 585 million tonnes. Furthermore, the ETS in Europe has failed miserably to cut emissions in Europe or to achieve any sort of cap in Europe. Most European nations will not even meet their Kyoto targets. That is why Penny Wong refuses to guarantee that the Rudd ETS will cut carbon emissions. The government claims that Mr Rudd's ETS is necessary and preferable because the polluter pays, and not the taxpayer. This proposition is simply dishonest. To begin with, if the polluter pays and not the taxpayer then why is it proposed to have billions of dollars of compensation? The truth is that ultimately the $12 billion to $16 billion tax is passed on to households in the form of higher prices and/or lost jobs, and to small and medium businesses in the form of higher costs, lost business opportunities and less growth. Our electricity generators do not compete against imports and do not export their electricity. Apart from the billions of dollars lost in their asset values, these generators will pass on the billions of dollars of CO2 tax they will pay each year in the form of higher electricity prices. That is why electricity prices will rise quickly by around 20 per cent. The electricity price increase hits households and the 750,000 small to medium size businesses. Many businesses will pass on some or all of the cost increase, where they can, in the form of higher prices for goods and services. However, hundreds of thousands of businesses that export or compete against imports that have no ETS tax will not be able to pass it on. It will go straight to their bottom line and they will be less competitive. Less growth and job losses will be the end result. Other large companies competing on export markets, like aluminium or coal producers, or competing against imports, like cement manufacturers, will be less competitive. For example, in the first 10 years of the Mr Rudd's ETS, coal producers will face an estimated total CO2 tax of around $14 billion and get compensation of $1.5 billion. This represents a net tax of $12.5 billion on our coal industry at a time when world demand for energy is expected to increase by 30 per cent in the next 20 years to 2030, and when coal is expected to fill 27 per cent of that 30 per cent increase in energy demand because of the lack of alternative energy sources. This $12.5 billion tax will see the closure of some coalmines and fewer new coalmines open. It makes absolutely no sense. Jobs and investment will be lost and all for no global environmental advantage, as the coal will simply be sourced from other countries, often from sources of dirtier coal. If Australia goes it alone with this great big new tax, investment in all these large energy intensive and resource based companies competing on world markets will be reduced. Many will invest in other countries where there is no ETS. In effect, Australia’s ETS will lead to the export of Australian jobs and the export of emissions. In the end, the big polluters will not pay; households and small businesses will pay in terms of higher prices or lost jobs or both. These are the reasons why the coalition has rejected the government’s scheme twice and will do so again. With the release of the coalition’s direct action plan there is now an alternative. Now the Australian people have a choice before them on the question of dealing with emissions abatement and emissions reduction. Australians have a choice between a practical, direct action approach to reducing emissions or a great big new tax which carries huge risks for jobs, for the cost of living and for many industries. Not only that; the Australian people have a choice between a practical, direct action scheme which is understandable and an emissions trading scheme which is incomprehensible. People now have a choice between an incentive based scheme or a highly punitive tax based scheme. People have a choice now between an affordable $10 billion scheme or an economically crushing $114 billion tax based scheme. Our scheme is much, much cheaper while meeting the same targets in 2020. The Labor member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, describes the government’s ETS as an insurance policy. Well, the coalition’s direct action plan is also an insurance policy. Both insurance policies will deliver a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020, but the difference is that one carries a policy premium of $114 billion and the other a premium of $10 billion. Furthermore, the ETS insurance policy also carries an excess involving uncompetitive industries, lost jobs and the prices of everything we buy being driven up. The coalition’s plan provides incentives for Australian families and businesses to reduce their carbon emissions, while addressing some of Australia’s serious environmental problems. An emissions reduction fund will provide financial incentives to support practical carbon reduction activities by business and industry. Businesses will put in a market tender for these incentives to help them finance the improvements of energy efficiency, the storing of carbon in the soil or trees, the harnessing of fugitive methane emissions at coalmines or landfills, the development of renewable energy, the phased closure of old and inefficient coal fired generators and so on. Those that can deliver the least cost abatement will be successful with their tender, as overseen by an independent board. Carbon abatement can involve market mechanisms without the use of an ETS. As such, the centrepiece of the coalition’s direct action plan is totally consistent with Liberal market principles. Furthermore, rebates which the direct action plan provides will aim to see one million additional solar energy roofs on homes around Australia. Solar towns and solar schools will be created, along with encouragement of geothermal and tidal towns, green corridors and urban forests. The coalition’s direct action plan mirrors similar direct action initiatives that dominate the response, for the foreseeable future, of our major competitors. In many ways the plan also captures the sort of excellent thinking that drove the development of the Howard government’s $10 billion direct action water plan for the long-term rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling system. There are very successful precedents for these sorts of direct action plans. They dominate the thinking and the approach being adopted in the United States, the biggest emitter, in China, the second biggest emitter, in India, the third biggest emitter, in Japan and in many other countries around the world. People are looking to see what progress they can make while there is further thinking being given to a global approach. In conclusion, the coalition plan buys Australia time to see what the rest of the world is doing. It allows Australia to do constructive things, to meet the five per cent 2020 targets without breaking the bank or doing risky, job-destroying things by going it alone on this emissions trading scheme. It ensures we do not get too far ahead of the world. Yet it does not preclude Australia being part of any future global scheme if that should occur. It is plain common sense which protects jobs while making progress on emission reductions. As Dick Warburton, chairman of the government’s Expert Advisory Committee on emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities, said after Copenhagen’s failure: 'I think there should be a delay in whatever we do until we have a clear picture of the best course.' Mr Warburton said there was no rush—‘We need to get it right.’ Here is a man with enormous business experience, someone who involved himself deeply in helping the government with the design of the scheme, giving independent advice on the impact so that the major employing industries, the big resource and energy industries, the industries that we are so good at, the industries that we have led the world with for 150 years, are not disadvantaged. We are good at these industries. That is why we have to make sure they are not disadvantaged by the premature introduction of a scheme here when there is no equivalent scheme amongst our major competitors. We have to maintain our competitive position, as Dick Warburton signals with his comments, in any scheme that we bring in. We need to apply some plain common sense to protect jobs while still starting the process of encouraging important and effective investment in emission reduction technology and activities around this country. Mr Rudd's ETS is a dog of a scheme and must be opposed. People now have a choice: they can either incur the massive tax, the risk, the uncertainty, the increased cost of everyday living and the job insecurity that will come with the Mr Rudd's emissions trading scheme or they can choose a direct action scheme which is affordable and understandable and which will provide an incentive for industry in Australia to reduce CO2 emissions. Andrew Robb Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:35:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1052 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1050/Parliamentary-Speech-on-Climate-Change.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1050 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1050&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1050/Parliamentary-Speech-on-Climate-Change.aspx About 16 months ago when I assumed responsibilities for climate change within the coalition to examine the merit of a deeply flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme put up by the government, the first call I got the next morning at 20 to seven was from a friend of mine who runs a cattle station in the Northern Territory. He has 10,000 to 12,000 head of cattle. He said to me, ‘Andrew, I see you have some new responsibilities and I just want to let you know what I have been up and I want to make a request.’ He said that for the last four years he had been funding his own research at an institute in Alice Springs into the capture of CO2 in mulga. He said to me, ‘Andrew, whatever you do in the next 16 months, make sure you develop a scheme which will provide the incentive and the opportunity for me to develop the mulga on my place’—his hundreds of square miles where he can improve what has been a quite degraded arid region because of overstocking in the early development of the Northern Territory. He said, ‘There are huge productivity gains, but I cannot afford to do it unless there is some incentive. Whatever you do in the next 16 months, provide some opportunity because there is so much that can be done out here.’ When Professor Garnaut released his report, my attention was drawn to his comments about the opportunities for enhancing the very degraded areas of our arid region by encouraging the owners, the cattlemen. In this case, my friend, who is 68 years of age, had been funding it long before anyone had started really talking in Australia about the design of schemes. I saw in the Garnaut report that Professor Garnaut estimated that the restoration of mulga in the arid regions would contribute up to 250 million tonnes of CO2 per year for many, many decades. That is nearly twice our target for 2020. The Garnaut report also of course looked at other agricultural areas, such as crop land and high-volume grazing land, and the opportunity to apply good agricultural practice further than it had been to capture CO2 and rehabilitate or enhance the productive capacity of crop land and high-volume grazing land. His estimate was that there was another 354 million tonnes of CO2 for many decades in that part of the agricultural sector. This government has never mentioned the arid region. There is no focus on the arid region. That partly, I think, reflects the city based attitudes of those opposite. In the design of most of their policy they ignore the bush. They have ignored the opportunity out there in terms of carbon reduction. They have ignored the arid region and they have ignored other agricultural regions. We are talking about a total of 600 million tonnes—which is about equivalent to the emissions we produce across the nation now—just in agriculture. If we captured that opportunity, we could meet all of our requirements, I suspect, for decades. What it does confirm is that there is every common sense in having a focus on incentives and not a punitive tax. My friend who owns a cattle station has lived in the Northern Territory all his life. If he was taxed then he would have less ability to work with the mulga, to replant, to increase the productive capacity and at the same time to store many tonnes of carbon. What the Garnaut report and what my friend have crystallised is that there is every sense in having a focus on agriculture in the arid region and in other areas. The member for Watson has just sought in this House to suggest that it is not possible to do this. Well, of course it is possible. You could give incentives today. This government could be working today to give incentives in these areas without waiting many years to implement a scheme. It is certainly possible. He talked about the international carbon accounting rules. Of course, very disingenuously and selectively, he did not acknowledge what was said in the paper released today by the coalition. That paper quite explicitly states: … soil carbons are not recognised under existing Kyoto Treaty arrangements, any new global CO2 emissions reduction agreement is expected to include soil carbons. Our paper went on to say in particular: … draft US emissions reduction legislation specifically includes soil carbons, and without their inclusion it is unlikely that a global agreement will be reached. I went to Washington in the fortnight after the Waxman-Markey bill was passed by the lower house there. I went to see what was in the bill and what the attitudes were of people on both sides of the house and of industry. I met with nine industry groups. I met with senators from both sides of the house. What was very clear in what was said to me was that that US draft bill includes agriculture and provides an opportunity for agriculture to be very much part of the international carbon accounting rules. I was told in no uncertain terms that no global agreement would be agreed to by the United States unless agriculture was included. The member for Watson stood up here and sought to mislead the public in terms of what our paper said, what is likely to happen and the opportunities. If we ignore what is going on in the United States, in China and in other areas where big competitors exist then we will perpetuate the core problem with much of the government’s scheme in front of us—that is, it is too far ahead of the rest of the world. It does not accept what is taking place in the design of schemes or the progress in other parts of the world. Now the Australian people have a choice before them on the question of dealing with emissions abatement and emissions reduction. They have a choice between a practical, direct action approach to reducing emissions or a great big new tax which carries huge risks for jobs, for the cost of living and living standards, and for many industries. It carries huge risks. Not only that, the Australian people have a choice between a practical, direct action scheme which is understandable. This will be very clear to people. You give an incentive to a 68-year-old cattleman in the Northern Territory, he undertakes then to plant a certain quantity of new mulga across hundreds of square miles on his property, and that captures CO2. Try and explain to me how the ETS works. I bet the frontbench on the other side could not explain how it works. Certainly the backbench cannot. Certainly the Minister for Climate Change and Water in two years has not been able to, and nor has the Prime Minister. There were discussions at Christmas barbeques all over Australia where people scratched their heads and tried to work out what the hell the ETS was. How did it work? How does paying billions of dollars of taxes—and miraculously increasing the price of electricity by 25 per cent, increasing the cost of grocery bills each week by many dollars and increasing the price of everything in this country—reduce carbon emissions? They have not explained it. They have not stood up here in the House and explained it on any occasion. It is incomprehensible and should not be supported. People now have a choice between an incentive based scheme or a highly punitive penalty based game. What do you think will be the psychology of people in that regard? I think people will cooperate. If a 68-year-old cattleman who has been there all his life took an initiative at his own expense to do something about it nearly eight years ago, it does show where people’s heads are at. If you give them an incentive and give them some assistance to do what they can do, things will happen. People have a choice now between an affordable $10 billion scheme or an economically crushing $115 billion scheme. Our scheme is much, much cheaper while meeting the same targets in 2020. In the scheme that is being proposed by the government, they will auction 70 per cent of all of the permits in the second year. They will issue permits for all of the CO2 production in the country. They will auction 70 per cent and take that money. In the first year it is about $11 billion or $12 billion. The first year in taxes is the cost of our scheme over the whole period through until 2020. They will tax that money. It is 70 per cent of all permits being auctioned. Let’s look at what is happening elsewhere in the world, at what the EU put up as the beacon of emissions trading schemes. They auction four per cent of permits. They get a tax revenue of four per cent of all permits. The Prime Minister and the Labor government will get 70 per cent of all permits. This is massively ahead of the rest of the world. In the US scheme, which is in a draft form and still to be debated—and it could take two years before it ever gets through the House, if it does at all—15 per cent are being auctioned, not the Australian 70 per cent. We are so far ahead of the world that if we pass this ETS we will be absorbing enormous risks. That is why, if we do pass this scheme with those big risks, we will expose ourselves to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, because industry here will be trying to absorb that tax and pass it on to consumers, where their competitors in other countries have none of that tax. We will export jobs and export emissions if we go along with the government’s scheme. People now have a choice: they can get the same target without that loss of jobs, without industries being put under threat and potentially investing overseas, without any of the fear, uncertainty and confusion that exists in regard to this emissions trading scheme—and, what is more, without a massive big tax of $112 billion or $115 billion coming off the balance sheets of Australian companies which have been the strongest in the world on resources and energy. We are good at it. We have had 150 years of resources and energy. Their balance sheets will be intact so that they can invest in low-emission technology, which we can export. We can lead the world with the technology. That is possible with our scheme, with a direct action scheme. It is impossible with the government’s ETS which is currently on the table. They are looking to choke the potential for industries to develop low-emissions technologies. We saw that today with the Minerals Council’s media release, where they said: The failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks underscored the need to promote and adopt economically conservative climate change policies aligned with the rate of development of policies and actions across the rest of the world. There is no point trying to lead the world with aggressive climate change schemes if the major economies are not interested in following—or worse still, regard Australia’s initiatives as an example of what not to do. The Copenhagen fiasco amply demonstrated that the major economies and Australia’s export competitors have no appetite for radical CPRS-style economic re-engineering in response to climate change. The proposed CPRS remains the most costly emissions trading scheme in the world—while failing to deliver material reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. That says it all. This is a dog of a scheme that the government has put up. People now have a choice: they can either incur that massive tax, the risk, the uncertainty, the decrease in living standards, the increased cost of everyday living and the job insecurity that will come with that scheme, or they can have the choice of a direct action scheme which is affordable and understandable and which will provide an incentive for industry in Australia to reduce CO2 emissions. Andrew Robb Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:01:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1050 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1025/Keynote-Address-to-Partnerships-2009-Infrastructure-Investment-Conference.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1025 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1025&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1025/Keynote-Address-to-Partnerships-2009-Infrastructure-Investment-Conference.aspx OUR RECORD I have the dual responsibility of climate change and infrastructure.  After nearly twelve months I have formed the very strong view that Climate Change is best tackled from a position of economic strength. Only companies with strong balance sheets and a competitive edge will be able to fund the innovative technology necessary to meet even modest abatement targets. This is where Australia can show leadership. This need to work from a position of economic strength is equally true of other key challenges we face as a community, including maintaining and growing the nation’s infrastructure.   It explains why total infrastructure spending in Australia, in constant 2007 dollars, rose from $21 billion in 1996 to $56 billion in 2007, an increase from nearly three per cent of GDP to 5.4 percent of GDP.   Despite the endless denigration and misrepresentation from our political opponents, that is a significant and massive growth in infrastructure spending as a proportion of GDP over 11 ½ years.   And it didn’t come about by borrowing and spending.   We had to start by fixing Australia’s financial infrastructure when we took over in 1996.   We paid off $96 billion of Government debt. This government would have been confronted with an extra $8 ½ billion in interest payments each year, solely from that debt, if the former government had not paid if off.   Paying off that debt and avoiding those interest payments meant close to $100 billion extra was available over those years to spend on infrastructure, on services and on lower taxes to create jobs for Australians; and we saw nearly 2 million of those created.   Fixing Australia’s financial infrastructure meant turning around a culture of running massive deficits under the previous Labor administration and replacing it with a culture of running budget surpluses.   The Coalition fixed up other financial infrastructure. We created an independent Reserve Bank and introduced rules to govern our financial sector through APRA and ASIC. Those rules are now the envy of others in the Western world and go a long way to explaining Australia’s resilience in the face of the global financial crisis – though you wouldn’t know reading the Prime Minister’s recent 6,000 word indulgence.   We introduced major reform of the indirect tax system, giving States a huge growth tax to fund vital infrastructure. Sadly, incompetent State Labor governments have wasted that legacy.   And, we made major reforms to superannuation.   Again over our 11½ years in government our sadly depleted defence infrastructure faced a major overhaul, with real annual growth of 3 per cent throughout that period (involving a 47% increase over 12 years from $10.6bn in 1995-96 to $22bn in 2007-08).   Our workforce infrastructure was brought into the 21st century.   On the wharves we had the epic battle to modernise the Australian waterfront.   The result has been a 60% improvement in productivity with average crane rates increasing from 17 movements per hour to world’s best practice of 27 or 28 per hour.   In the workplace we faced political opposition at every turn, yet introduced major flexibility and abolished the job-destroying unfair dismissal laws for small business.   All this resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, a youth participation rate ranked second among OECD countries and a real increase in wages, over and above inflation, of nearly 22 per cent.   In the building and construction industries the establishment of the ABCC has had a profound impact. Working days lost per thousand employees due to industrial action plummeted from 37.4 in late 2005 to just 1.7 in mid 2007.   Productivity increased markedly with projects being delivered on time and within budget, resulting in a staggering 1.5% boost to Australia’s GDP, or over 5 billion in dollar terms each year.   This is a far cry from the pre-ABCC days of unbridled union power, when union bosses directed construction schedules, and threatening and intimidatory behaviour was commonplace.   No government in its right mind would wind back such a major reform.   I can assure you that the Coalition will continue to oppose any attempt by the Rudd Government to effectively abolish or water down the ABCC.   These reforms mean that Australia faces the difficulties now and ahead from a position of strength.   The reforms did:   o   Inject a large measure of flexibility into our economy o   Paid off all Federal Government debt of $96 billion o   Created a $60 billion Future Fund o   Created $38 billion for Auslink I and II o   Created multi-billion dollar heath and education funds o   Provided all the funds for this Government’s Building Australia Fund, and o   Created a $10 billion water infrastructure fund   All of that off the back of real reform. I mention this to underscore the importance of real productivity related reform if we are to afford and attract strong infrastructure spending in the years ahead. Building mountains of Government debt is not a sustainable long term plan.   Against this background, you have to ask the question if the Reserve Bank is flagging the possibility of a “housing price bubble” emerging in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in 80 years that maybe the Government has overreached with its debt funding spending binge in some areas.   LABOR’S TRACK RECORD   What is even more concerning is that with a growth of Commonwealth debt to $315 billion, a mere $8.5 billion has been ear-marked over the next few years for vital economic, productivity producing infrastructure?   Furthermore, with this level of debt hanging over future generations, the priority should be to spend every one of these dollars as wisely and as effectively as possible.   To this end, the evaluation and ranking of infrastructure proposals must be part of a truly objective and transparent process.   Investors and the community need to have an understanding of why projects are chosen, what is the expected contribution of productivity, the relative benefits that would flow from competing projects and the impact on economic growth?   This level of transparency was promised repeatedly in the lead up to the last election by the Labor party. Again, in last year’s Budget there was a cast iron commitment “to transparency at all stages of the decision making process”.   Yet the Rudd Government has now committed to spending tens of billions of largely borrowed funds with absolutely no transparency about how these projects were prioritised, why some have been funded over others or even the presentation of the top-line benefit cost numbers.   The Government’s claims of objectivity and impartiality ring hollow. The smell of politics is potent.   In the Budget the Government committed to $80 billion worth of projects - $60 billion unfunded – without releasing one skerrick of the analyses on which these projects were based. This is a scandal. It is unacceptable.   Yet, the so-called Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, now claims that it is not possible to make this kind of information public because it is commercially sensitive. What disingenuous nonsense.   How could anyone with a straight face pretend that revealing that a project has a benefit cost analysis of 1.8 or 0.9, or 0.2, as I suspect is the case with the $14.7 billion being spent on school halls, how could they protest it was commercially sensitive.   In March 2008 when Sir Rod Eddington completed the East West Link Needs Assessment (EWLNA) and delivered his report to the Victorian Government, the public was drowned in information.   More than 1,700 pages of reports and supporting technical documents are still currently open for the public to view at the Victorian Department of Transport’s website.   This includes a report by three economic consultancy firms outlining the economic benefits and costs of the transport infrastructure options that were considered by the East West team.   Present value of costs, present value of benefits, benefit cost ratios, it’s all there.   Why shouldn’t all the cost-benefit analysis including data, assumptions and the models carried out by Infrastructure Australia across a wider range of infrastructure spending also be made public?   The Rudd Government must come clean with this information if their integrity is not to be open to serious question.   Not only has the Minister for Infrastructure failed to demonstrate that tax payer dollars are spent on infrastructure projects that deliver the greatest value for money, but he has failed to provide clear performance standards for the infrastructure investments the government is making.   The government’s infrastructure spending has been based on the principle of obscurity. Tens of billions of dollars of spending and borrowing have been directed to projects that have not been subject to either robust selection criteria or to clear performance standards. Where is the hard edged economic analysis about the make-up of the stimulus package?   There are no means for assessing whether the spending on infrastructure is prudent because the performance standards have not been clearly set.   It is unacceptable for a government to spend tax payer dollars and to borrow vast amounts of future generations’ money without providing transparency and accountability.   In order to spend every infrastructure dollar wisely and effectively the Labor Party came to Government with its central plank of infrastructure policy being the creation of an independent Commonwealth Statutory Authority called Infrastructure Australia, designed to advise of the nation’s infrastructure decisions in a fair and objective fashion.   I support that objective and the creation of Infrastructure Australia.   In making its pre-election case for the creation of Infrastructure Australia, Mr Albanese said, and I quote:   “Infrastructure is not currently dealt with in a systematic way. The silo approach of considering rail infrastructure separately to port infrastructure, and economic infrastructure separately from social infrastructure, impedes economic growth and social cohesion.   It is necessary to adopt a whole of system approach and make sure the entire supply chain runs efficiently. This can only be achieved by national co-ordination and leadership”. End of quote.   Given that the Commonwealth now provides significant funding to all these areas, I agree with these sentiments.   This was Labor’s claim back in 2007, but unfortunately the rhetoric hasn’t matched reality.   On Budget night earlier this year Minister Albanese flooded journalists inboxes with a total of 18 media releases detailing the Rudd Government’s infrastructure commitments.   Road projects – tick. Rail projects – tick. Ports – tick.   But if you go through each media release you won’t find any mention of water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, social infrastructure, school’s funding, hospital funding or for that matter, communications infrastructure.   Where was the Minister for Infrastructure when the Prime Minister announced the “single largest nation building infrastructure project in Australian history”? The $43 billion National Broadband Network.    Infrastructure Australia was established to ensure evidence-based Government investment in infrastructure projects yet was given no role whatsoever in assessing Labor’s $43 billion broadband project.   Instead we saw the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on television imploring Australians to invest in a company which had no business case, no cost-benefit analysis and no feasibility study. It was the sort of corporate cowboy behaviour our Prime Minister has so condemned in his sanctimonious sermons about neo-liberals.   It seems that the Rudd Government will use Infrastructure Australia as a political shield when its accused of lacking transparency but deem it irrelevant when politically convenient to do so.   The Rudd Government can’t have it both ways.   Labor promised to give Infrastructure Australia a much wider mandate in terms of assessing the merit of large scale infrastructure spending to cover communications, water, energy, health and for that matter education and other social infrastructure.   This would make sense.   Yet, no where is Labor’s need for rigour in spending borrowed billions more evident than in what is termed “the single largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history,” which the Minister for Infrastructure and Infrastructure Australia also played no part in.   From showering schools set for the wrecking ball with federal funding to state administrators carving out their own share, the $14.7 billion education spend is riddled with inefficiencies at the expense of the taxpayer.   All of which has been funded by debt but yet was carried out with no analysis of its productive potential for the economy.    In the Prime Minister’s recent 6,000 word essay, he stated that, and I quote,   “..The Government is implementing a strategic, co-ordinated approach to development, integration and planning of Australia's critical infrastructure.” End of quote.   Give me a break.   It is impossible to identify any coherence in the federal Government’s infrastructure spending plans.   Far from removing the silo approach, and adopting a whole of system approach, the Government has embarked on a hotchpotch of multi-billion dollar spending, much of it appearing to be politically inspired and none of it transparent and accountable.   And where is the co-ordinating Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, in all this? - focussing on transport.   Anthony Albanese is not our first ever Federal Minister of Infrastructure, as promised, he is in reality Australia’s 33rd Federal Minister for Transport.   REFORMING THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT   After the release of the May Budget earlier this year, KPMG estimated that on top of the $22 billion the Rudd Government had committed to infrastructure another $60 billion from the private sector or Government borrowing would be needed if most of these projects were ever to be completed.   Yet the global financial crisis has created a challenging environment for raising large scale private capital for infrastructure projects.   At a time when the Federal and State Government’s are issuing hundreds of billions of dollars of government bonds to pay for their unprecedented debt, private investment to fill this funding “black hole” for infrastructure projects is highly problematic. It is simply being crowded out.   In addition, given the difficult economic environment, superannuation funds do not have the appetite as part of their asset allocation strategy to invest large sums in greenfield projects with factors such as the level of patronage and the illiquid nature of such investments proving too much risk to shoulder.    Instead, such funds are eyeing off distressed infrastructure assets which are already operational both here and overseas as the preferred form of asset class to get the returns for their fund members.   As demonstrated by the previous Coalition Government though not all reform comes with a big financial price tag such as the reform of the waterfront.   If Mr Rudd wants to do something constructive to attract private investment he should use the crisis to cut through the mountains of federal, state and local government red tape.   The economic crisis has provided a unique political opportunity to reform highly complex and expensive tendering processes, the myriad of planning and project approvals and the financial instruments and risk sharing for major projects.   PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNESHIPS   The Minister has stated that “building infrastructure needs will require a partnership between public and private sectors”.   However, the economic downturn, as you would all know, has led to a massive reduction in available credit financing through the limit on funding available.   As IPA has stated, “constraints on capacity on existing infrastructure will limit economic activity and restrict growth”.   Unless the Federal Government intends to take combined Federal and State Government debt to half a trillion dollars, the government’s response to the $60 billion shortfall in its projected infrastructure commitments appears to be a wishful reliance on the private sector.   But given that the government has failed to provide clear performance standards and accountability for its own infrastructure projects, how can it be reasonably expected that the private sector will contribute $60 billion or more to government projects?   No investor would be forthcoming with their funds unless they understand why investment projects have been selected, how they will be held accountable, and what their investment returns will be.   These are characteristics of effective public private partnerships that the government has manifestly failed to establish or apply in its Nation Building Program.   It is also important to note that the $60 billion shortfall in the government’s infrastructure projects is nearly twice the total amount of PPP projects estimated to have taken place in the twenty-five years between 1980 and 2005.   So the government is hoping that somehow the private sector, in the midst of a global squeeze in credit, will provide nearly double the amount in PPP funding provided over a twenty-five year period. This is more a fancy than a concerted and robust approach to ensuring Australia has the infrastructure it needs to compete in the future.   CONCLUSION   Setting an overarching national infrastructure strategy would be a constructive starting point for the Federal Government and COAG. It would drive regulatory reforms, inform private investment in economic and social infrastructure, inform immigration policy, water policy and even influence the development of policies such as the emissions trading scheme where ill-informed policy is already putting the brakes on crucial investment in electricity generation and other areas.   In the face of mountains of debt, Australia needs an infrastructure road map – a co-ordinated program that provides value for money through high productivity and maximum private sector involvement, transparency, vision, innovation and excellence. A co-ordinated program of future projects that have been subject to rigorous analysis and are consistent with a realistic long term funding program.   Media Contact: Nick Xerakias, 0410 417 173   Andrew Robb Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1025 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1024/Climate-Change-Policy-Choices-Politics--ANU-Centre-for-Climate-Change.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1024 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1024&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1024/Climate-Change-Policy-Choices-Politics--ANU-Centre-for-Climate-Change.aspx The emissions trading scheme proposed to be voted on next week is the biggest deliberate structural change ever to be considered in our economy. While there has been endless publicity about global warming and a welter of government and business reports, any real debate about how best to design a scheme to tackle it has effectively been stifled.   We have had the Garnaut volumes, a Green Paper, a White Paper, exposure draft legislation, several Senate Committees of Inquiry and a final Bill, yet no alternative views on scheme design have really been entertained or empirically assessed.   It has been an exercise in ‘take it or leave it’ by the Rudd Government. No dissent has been tolerated.   We have had a number of distinguished and highly experienced contributors here today who have well reasoned, alternative views on how to tackle CO2 abatement.    At best they have been humored by this Government. In the main they have been dismissed in less than a page out of thousands of pages of reports.   More broadly, other points of view, especially those from the Opposition, have been instantly labeled as the views of deniers or skeptics in a McCarthyist style campaign which avoids any mature discussion.   It is an undemocratic and highly dangerous way to govern.   It is why there has been essentially no change of any consequence in the eight months since the release of the White Paper, except for the politically inspired delay of the start date.   Yet outside of the Government, the legislation is friendless. The Greens, business, prominent researchers and policy advisors see major flaws in the legislation.   It is why we have had to commission our own analysis, at our own expense, to test the merit of alternative scheme designs.   It is why we have had to travel to Washington and Beijing to find out the truth about the substantial differences emerging in the way the big global emitters are tackling this issue, differences that would put Australia at a substantial competitive disadvantage for absolutely no environmental gain.   It is why the Opposition will vote against this legislation next week if the Government doesn’t accept our very sensible request to delay the vote to allow Australia to be better informed about the shape of the United States scheme, to be informed about the outcome of Copenhagen and to allow some empirical assessment of alternatives, or modifications, to the design of the Government’s scheme.   The Coalition doesn’t seek to stall or block Government legislation lightly, but we’ve got to get it right. That’s why we have asked the Government to defer the vote until the first Parliamentary sitting next year.   As with the Government’s response to the global financial crisis, the Rudd Government has had too much of an eye on the politics of their emissions trading scheme and not enough of an eye on what’s best for Australia, what is workable, and what protects jobs while reducing emissions.   Selfish political considerations are overshadowing sensible policy imperatives.   In its panic to get to an early election before the community sees the depth and extent of their financial ineptitude, the Government is stampeding this flawed Bill through the Parliament.   We saw it again here today with a thirty minute political rant against the Coalition by Minister Penny Wong.   Again the Minister made no attempt to explain the Government’s Scheme. Most Australians would not have the foggiest idea how it works or what impact it might have on them.   Today was an opportunity for Minister Wong to at least address the concerns of the Greens, business, State Government’s and the community. It was an opportunity lost.   The Minister used the time to create nine straw men around the nine proposals or principles we put to the Government for discussion, and then unsurprisingly proceeded to dismiss each and every one of them out of hand.   These nine proposals reflect months of representations and concerns expressed by industry and other groups about the failings of the legislation.   The nine proposals or principles warrant serious discussion. To propose that an Australian emissions trading scheme should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American emissions trading scheme is a totally valid proposition when the Government itself has repeatedly said that there is no Australian solution, there must be a global solution, and when you consider that Australia, a highly exposed economy, produces around one per cent of the world’s emissions and the US produces over 20 per cent.    Yet the Minister duly misrepresented the proposition and then dismissed it out of hand, along with the other eight propositions.   This confirms the Rudd Government’s response is all about politics, not the environment.   Even the delay to the start date to put it beyond the next election was about politics; it was prompted by the screams of Labor Mayors in key regional marginal seats about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in regional countries.   The Government should use this delay to the start date to see what President Obama does during this year in finalising his legislation, to see what the world decides at Copenhagen and to do the work necessary to correct the many flaws in Australia’s scheme.   Commonsense dictates that the vote on this legislation should wait until the New Year.    Now that the Coalition has provided the Government with a truly Australian position on targets to be taken to, and negotiated at, Copenhagen in December, there is absolutely no reason to seek to ram this flawed scheme through this Parliament.   This was confirmed last week when the Executive Secretary of the UN organising Committee for Copenhagen Yvo de Boer revealed that the UN does not expect Australia to have legislation in place before Copenhagen.   The Government’s emissions trading scheme has been designed for a world where every country has such a scheme, where every country has a price on carbon, a level playing field.    If the world was moving as one, the contentious issues surrounding the Government’s scheme would largely disappear.   If our competitors were also imposing a price on carbon our own industries would remain strong, competitive and innovative.   In this regard, everyone acknowledges that with Australia producing just over one percent of the world’s emissions, there is no unilateral Australian solution, only a global solution.   Misleading the Public   It is why the Government’s claim that for a $1 a day their scheme will save the Great Barrier Reef is so wrong and disingenuous.    The Government was at it again yesterday scaremongering that unless their Bill is finalized in eleven days time, the Opera House and many other Heritage sites will be in jeopardy.   This is the totally false impression given to the community by the Government’s very misleading presentation of the Treasury modeling.    If this was the real cost why wouldn’t you put up your hand in support?   The public hasn’t really engaged because they have been told that there is no personal cost to them.  They have been duped.   For most Australian families the annual tax the Government will impose on electricity and other energy intensive companies will result in a 30 to 40 per cent increase in power bills, and indirectly in increases in the price of most services and items purchased.   It will be equivalent to increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12 ½ per cent.   Yet, without the rest of the world engaging in some form of carbon reduction scheme, Australia’s actions will have absolutely no impact on the Great Barrier Reef, or on the environment generally.    In fact, global emissions could actually increase as investments and jobs, especially from major regional centres, leave Australia and go to developing countries where less efficient factories pump out much more CO2 than in Australia.   And, without our major competitors engaging in some form of scheme the cost to Australians will be much greater.    This cost will be measured in the premature closure of many coal mines, cement works, coal powered generators and fuel refineries and the loss of major investment in new smelters, metal refineries, LNG gas projects, cement works, exploration and much more, as foreshadowed by NSW Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal.   There will be a significant added direct and indirect tax on agricultural and manufacturing businesses competing against foreign products where no such tax applies. For example, the average dairy farmer will face a $9000 tax, with no capacity to offset this cost.   The scheme will see tens of thousands of jobs at risk, the permanent and serious shrinkage of major regional centres and the loss of major investments, yet little or no impact on CO2 emissions.    One $4 billion investment to extend an aluminum smelter in the Hunter Valley will be shelved.  This project alone will see the loss of 15,000 construction jobs and 3000 permanent jobs.   It is why Australia must not find itself effectively going alone.    Showing Leadership   We can and we should influence and assist the world to respond, but we can’t get too far ahead of our major competitors.   Australia is one of only five countries in the world that will meet its 2012 Kyoto target for emissions reductions.  This result and leadership was delivered by the former Howard Government, along with setting up AP6 and the global forest initiative.     The Critical Transition   But putting a multi-billion dollar new tax on our businesses many years before our competitors do likewise would get us too far ahead of the world.   It is why the critical debate we are having is all about how we transition to a lower carbon world, not whether we transition.   It is about how we calibrate that transition to be broadly in step with the willingness of our major competitors to do something similar in terms of putting a tax on carbon.   It is how we deal with the next 10, 15, 20 years or more of transition that is critical.   If the transition is mishandled, if we get too far ahead of the world, we will see the great strength of our economy wantonly undermined and damaged for no good environmental outcome.   Global Action or Inaction   Yet, the design of the Rudd Government’s scheme assumes that our major competitors will put in place a major new tax on carbon in the early years.    What if China, India, Indonesia, the Middle Eastern countries, the South American countries and many other competing developing countries don’t apply a tax on carbon for 15, 20 or more years.    On a Wing and a Prayer   Why wasn’t the Treasury required to test such scenarios?  It has been seven months since the Treasury modelling was released, and still no such analysis.    All they had to do was change some assumptions and run the model again. They have refused.   A major independent analysis conducted by the Centre for International Economics took no issue with the 2050 forecasts when you might assume there is a world price of carbon in place, but concluded that we know nothing of the 20 to 30 year transition period because:   ·         There is no analysis of different scenarios concerning delayed start dates by major competing countries during that 20 to 30 year transition period; and   ·         There is no empirical analysis of alternative approaches to achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions. If passed in its current form, the biggest deliberate structural change in our history would be more a product of blind faith and pig-headedness than rigorous analysis.    Is the design of this scheme robust enough to deal with scenarios which haven’t been modelled, where our competitors take 10, 15, 20 years or more to adopt a price of carbon? Are there alternative scheme designs?   It is why we moved an amendment requesting that the Productivity Commission be required over the next 6 months to do the missing analysis identified by the Centre for International Economics.   The Government rejection of that amendment has led us, with Senator Nick Xenophon, to commission our own analysis. We will receive the final report shortly. The results will be telling.   The deliberate failure of the Government to require such analysis has meant that individual companies and organisations have been forced to commission such research.   In so many cases this research has shown that many years of going it alone will severely weaken key industry sectors in our economy while delivering little or no significant reductions in global CO2 abatement.   Research commissioned by the NSW Government into the regional impacts of the Government’s scheme found that regional centres across Australia, such as Gippsland, Geelong, central-west Queensland, the Hunter Valley, central Western Australia, the Kimberley region and Whyalla / Port Pirie, would shrink by over 20 per cent under the Government’s scheme. How stupid would we look if in 10 or 15 or 20 years time our major competitors still have no scheme in place or have protected their trade exposed industries, and we have been imposing these costs, and more (because of the built-in annual reduction of free permits).   Such stupidity is already being exposed as the details of a future Obama emissions trading scheme takes shape in the United States.   Notwithstanding the dissembling this morning, the draft US Bill now provides for 100% protection for all US export and import energy intensive industries until 2025, and continuing levels of such assistance if competitors still have no scheme in place.    As well, for the US electricity generators, the Obama draft bill provides for assistance through until 2030, compared to three times less assistance for the Australian electricity sector phasing out by 2016.    It emphatically confirms that the Rudd scheme will see Australia effectively “going it alone”.   It is all about design; design features which give you the robustness and the capacity to maneuver to play a part in all this but not get too far ahead of the rest of the world, not go it alone.   In addition to our concern about undermining our competitive position, the Bill contains other major deficiencies.   It is my observation that existing large emitters have the greatest incentive and capacity to lead Australia, and their industries, to a low CO2 environment, as long as their balance sheets remain strong enough to fund the billions of dollars to finance the necessary technology and innovation to lead that transition.   For Australia, global leadership should be about technologies. If we can’t retro fit the coal fired power stations, being built in China at the rate of one finished every nine days, then the world will see very little CO2 reductions for generations.   Australian industry has the capacity to lead the development and export such technology if the balance sheet of the major generators and other manufacturers are not crippled.   Yet, the balance sheets of some companies will see half or more of their average profitability over the last eight years taken up with the effective tax they are going to face, or see a loss of uncompensated asset value of billions of dollars.   The other balance sheet issue is the existence of large numbers of free permits on a balance sheet.   When investors are approached to fund a 40 year energy or resource project and they see a balance sheet with a large number of free permits that are reviewable in 5 years, and are there solely at the whim of the government of the day, they become concerned about sovereign risk.   Projects are already facing this financing dilemma, including a new gas fired power generation plant.   This relates to the third issue, the problem of churn or recycling of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies through the system at the Government’s discretion.   Each year the sale of permits will see the Federal Government reap a huge new tax revenue - $13 billion in year two, growing rapidly to $20 billion a year by 2020, or thereabouts.    This major increase in electricity prices in Australia is much greater than proposed with the design of the US scheme, and will result in tens of thousands of businesses facing indirect costs which many, in the short term, will be able to do nothing about. It then just becomes a tax on industry and growth.   As well, the Government intends to recycle some billions of these dollars to compensate low income earners for the 30 to 40 per cent increase in electricity costs.   This will see millions of cheques continue to be mailed to Australian households each year.  This Government is addicted to mailing out cheques.  It’s not hard to see why.   A huge administration will be set up to churn billions of dollars back through the economy, with the Government picking winners as to who gets compensation and who doesn’t.   Furthermore, no new energy or resource project will get off the ground without companies coming on ‘bended knee’ to get a quota of free permits from the Government to make their investment competitive – this will foster a mendicant, Nanny State.   Finally, in our view the Government has not looked at significant low cost opportunities or complementary measures that are available.  Too much is being expected of an emissions trading scheme in the absence of global action.   Complementary measures directed at capturing carbon in soil, reducing energy usage, especially in commercial buildings, other bio-sequestration and recognising the efforts of individuals and families in reducing emissions have the potential to quickly deliver very significant cuts in net emissions without putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs and the fabric of many major regional centres.   All these possibilities have largely been ignored in the Government’s scheme, ignored in the Government’s rush to be seen to be “punishing” the big emitters.   All these complementary possibilities, in concert with a major focus on promoting renewables, provide an opportunity to minimise the risk of putting too much onus on an emissions trading scheme while the intended action or inaction of the rest of the world is still not clear.   It is why the Coalition has proposed the establishment of a Government – authorised voluntary carbon market from 1 January, 2010 based on the Chicago Climate Exchange.   This would enable the immediate involvement of individuals and communities, agriculture and bio-sequestration, the commercial building sector, energy efficiencies by business, and other complementary measures in creating bankable offsets.   These voluntary measures will enable immediate action on achieving Australia’s 2020 targets and will create an opportunity for individuals, communities and firms to help Australia deliver larger abatement than the Government targets once a full scheme is in place.   As to the Government’s argument that this scheme must be passed now to provide certainty, the comments of the CEO of Anglo Coal reflect the view put to me by so many other companies, namely “we don’t want the certainty of a bullet”.    Conclusion   The Government’s rushed scheme, as designed, puts major industries, and the jobs that go with them, at great risk for little or no environmental gain.  Commercial realities have been ignored.  President Obama’s plans have been ignored.  The scheme is deeply flawed.   We have to better understand the prospect and implications of effectively going it alone in Australia with this scheme before we make any decisions about finalising a scheme.   And, all at a time when we will need the energy and resources sector, and other businesses, to play a big part in getting on top of the mountain of debt accumulated so rapidly by the Rudd Government.   It is a time for prudence, careful policy making and commonsense. It is not the time to gamble with people’s livelihoods and their futures in the cause of political expediency.   The 12 month delay in the starting date provides a breathing space to see the intentions of the rest of the world at Copenhagen.   It also allows the time to undertake an empirical assessment of the loss of jobs and investment, the impact on global emissions if our competitors don’t put a tax on their CO2 emissions for 10, 15, 20 years or more.   It provides an opportunity to look with an open mind, and empirically, at alternative design approaches.   This is the biggest deliberate structural change to our economy ever.  We must get it right.   Media Contact:          Nick Xerakias, 0410 417 173       Andrew Robb Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:53:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1024 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1015/Citizenship-Mr-Roger-Allan.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1015 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1015&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1015/Citizenship-Mr-Roger-Allan.aspx I rise tonight to speak on behalf of Mr Roger Allan in regard to a legislative oversight in section 16(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. In 1922, Roger’s father, Mr Peter Allan, was born in Melbourne marking the fourth generation of his Australian born family. During World War II Peter served in the Royal Australian Air Force. In 1944 in Cairo this young Australian pilot met Barbara, an English nurse. Later that year Peter and Barbara married and by early 1945 they were expecting their first child. Tragically, however, on 19 April 1945, in the concluding days of the war, Peter’s plane was shot down in a battle over Italy and he was killed—it was five months prior to the birth of his son, Roger. Barbara returned to the United Kingdom to be closer to her own family and there on 29 September 1945 Roger was born. Now, at the age of 64, Roger is seeking to become an Australian citizen, but due to the unyielding nature of the current act he is prevented from doing so. Prior to 26 January 1949 Australian citizens did not exist as such. Those who lived in Australia, even those who had been born in Australia, were considered to be British subjects. It was only from 26 January 1949, following the establishment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, that British subjects living in Australia were considered to be Australian citizens. As Peter was killed in action defending Australia almost four years prior to this date he was never considered to be an Australian citizen. He remained a British subject despite being born in Australia and serving in the Royal Australian Air Force. Recently the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was updated to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, but even under the revised legislation Peter remains a British subject. Section 16(3) of the current act states that a person born outside Australia before 26 January 1949 is eligible to become an Australian citizen by descent if: (a) a parent of the person became an Australian citizen on 26 January 1949; and (b) the parent was born in Australia or New Guinea or was naturalised in Australia before the person’s birth; and (c) if the person is or has ever been a national or a citizen of any country, or if article 1(2)(iii) of the Stateless Persons Convention applies to the person—the Minister is satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application. Peter was born in Australia as were three previous Allan family generations. But, as Peter was not alive on 26 January 1949, under the act Roger is therefore not eligible to apply for citizenship by descent. Roger’s circumstances seem beyond exceptional. Not only was Roger’s father born in Australia but so too was his grandfather, his great-grandfather, his great-great-grandfather and great-great-great-grandfather. Furthermore, Roger’s father served in the Royal Australian Air Force and died defending Australia. It is because of men such as Peter that we have the opportunity to live in this free and democratic country. Yet it seems that due to a legislative oversight the son of a man who gave his life for our freedom and democracy is not eligible to be part of his Australian family. Roger currently lives in the United Kingdom with his wife and two children. His mother, Barbara, has passed away. To Roger, family is everything and his remaining extended family all live here in Australia, many in my electorate of Goldstein. Roger would like the opportunity to be with his family here in Australia, the country his father died for. In the eyes of all of us here in the House we would view Roger’s claim for citizenship not only as legitimate but with deep concern that the matter has come this far. Senator Evans, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, stated that he was: … unable to intervene in Mr Allan’s case as the act provides no scope to do so. That is simply not good enough. Today I call on the Australian government to consider Roger’s exceptional circumstances and urge the review of his application for Australian citizenship. I also strongly appeal to Minister Evans to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 so that the children of British subjects who were not alive on 26 January 1949 are eligible for citizenship by descent. Mr Peter Allan was one amongst many who fought to make Australia what it is today. It seems only right his son be granted citizenship. Andrew Robb Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1015 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1014/Parliamentary-Speech-on-the-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Legislation.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1014 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1014&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1014/Parliamentary-Speech-on-the-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Legislation.aspx Significantly reducing the global level of CO2 in the atmosphere is an issue of great consequence.   What we do, the consequences, who is with us, how well thought through any scheme may be and what we need to do to get it right is all important.   Sadly, the development of an emissions trading scheme has been very badly mishandled by the Rudd Government, just as Mr Rudd has mishandled the nation’s finances and saddled Australians with massive debt.    As with the Government’s response to the global financial crisis, the Rudd Government has had too much of an eye on the politics of their emissions trading scheme and not enough of an eye on what’s best for Australia, what is workable, what will protect jobs while reducing emissions.   Selfish political considerations are overshadowing sensible policy imperatives.   In its panic to get to an early election before the community sees the depth and extent of their financial ineptitude, the Government is stampeding this flawed Bill through the Parliament.   Before the last election Mr Rudd promised deep cuts in emissions without disadvantaging our export and import competing industries.   Yet the Government’s scheme fails on all counts – it will cost tens of thousands of jobs, kill major investments and do little or nothing to reduce emissions.  The Scheme is deeply flawed.   Mr Rudd’s scheme is testament to the fact that his promise cannot be delivered if our major competitors are not also taxing their emissions.   Mr Rudd’s response is to stick with a proposal so ill-considered, so awful that it cannot be supported by anyone – neither the Greens, the crossbenches or the Coalition.   Mr Rudd wants to go to an early election claiming he tried on climate change, but blaming his inaction and incompetence on everyone else. This is all about politics, not the environment.   At least the Rudd Government was mugged by reality and forced to delay the start date by twelve months.    The Government should use this delay to see what President Obama does during this year in finalising his legislation, to see what the world decides at Copenhagen and to do the work necessary to correct the many flaws in Australia’s scheme.   Commonsense dictates that the vote on this legislation should wait until the New Year.  It is why the Coalition is moving to amend this Bill to ensure that is deferred until then.   Now that the Coalition has provided the Government with a truly Australian position on targets to be taken to, and negotiated at, Copenhagen in December there is absolutely no reason to seek to ram this flawed scheme through this Parliament.   This was confirmed last week when the Executive Secretary of the UN organising Committee for Copenhagen Yvo de Boer revealed that the UN does not expect countries to have legislation in place before Copenhagen.   The Government’s emissions trading scheme has been designed for a world where every country has such a scheme, where every country has a price on carbon, a level playing field.    If the world was moving as one the contentious issues surrounding the Government’s scheme would largely disappear.   If our competitors were also imposing a price on carbon our own industries would remain strong, competitive and innovative.   In this regard, everyone acknowledges that with Australia producing just over one percent of the world’s emissions, there is no unilateral Australian solution, only a global solution.   Misleading the Public   It is why the Government’s claim that for a $1 a day their scheme will save the Great Barrier Reef is so wrong and disingenuous.  This is the totally false impression given to the community by the Government’s very misleading presentation of the Treasury modelling.   If this was the real cost why wouldn’t you put up your hand in support?   The public hasn’t the foggiest idea what an emissions trading scheme is and hasn’t really engaged because they have been told that there is no personal cost to them.  They have been duped.   For most Australian families the annual tax the Government will impose on electricity and other energy intensive companies will result in a 30 to 40 per cent increase in power bills, and indirectly in increases in the price of most services and items purchased.   It will be equivalent to increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12 ½ per cent.   Yet, without the rest of the world engaging in some form of carbon reduction scheme Australia’s actions will have absolutely no impact on the Great Barrier Reef, or on the environment generally.    In fact, global emissions could actually increase as investments and jobs, especially from major regional centres, leave Australia and go to developing countries where less efficient factories pump out much more CO2 than in Australia.   And, without our major competitors engaging in some form of scheme the cost to Australians will be much greater.    This cost will be measured in the premature closure of many coal mines, cement works, coal powered generators and fuel refineries and the loss of major investment in new smelters, metal refineries, LNG gas projects, cement works, exploration and much more.    There will be a significant added direct and indirect tax on agricultural and manufacturing businesses competing against foreign products where no such tax applies. For example, the average diary farmer will face a $9000 tax, with no capacity to offset this cost.   The scheme will see tens of thousands of jobs at risk, the permanent and serious shrinkage of major regional centres and the loss of major investments, yet little or no impact on CO2 emissions.    One $4 billion investment to extend an aluminium smelter in the Hunter Valley will be shelved.  This project alone will see the loss of 15,000 construction jobs and 3000 permanent jobs.   It is why Australia must not find itself effectively going alone.    Showing Leadership   We can and we should influence and assist the world to respond, but we can’t get too far ahead of our major competitors.   Australia is one of only five countries in the world that will meet its 2012 Kyoto target for emissions reductions.  This result and leadership was delivered by the former Howard Government, along with setting up AP6 and the global forest initiative.   The Critical Transition   But putting a multi-billion dollar new tax on our businesses many years before our competitors do likewise would get us too far ahead of the world.   It is why the critical debate we are having is all about how we transition to a lower carbon world, not whether we transition.   It is about how we calibrate that transition to be broadly in step with the willingness of our major competitors to do something similar in terms of putting a tax on carbon.   It is how we deal with the next 10, 15, 20 years or more of transition that is critical.   If the transition is mishandled, if we go it alone, if we get too far ahead of the world, we will see the great strength of our economy wantonly undermined and damaged for no good environmental outcome.   Global Action or Inaction   Yet, the design of the Rudd Government scheme assumes that our major competitors will put in place a major new tax on carbon in the early years.    What if China, India, Indonesia, the Middle Eastern countries, the South American countries and many other competing developing countries don’t apply a tax on carbon for 15, 20 or more years.    On a Wing and a Prayer   Why wasn’t the Treasury required to test such scenarios?  It has been seven months since the Treasury modelling was released, and still no such analysis.  Not a whiff of it.   All they had to do was change some assumptions and run the model again. They have refused.   A major independent analysis conducted by the Centre for International Economics concluded that we know nothing of the 20 to 30 year transition period because:   ·         There is no analysis of different scenarios concerning delayed start dates by major competing countries during that 20 to 30 year transition period; ·         There is no analysis of the impact of the global financial crisis; and ·         There is no empirical analysis of alternative approaches to achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions. If passed in its current form, the biggest deliberate structural change in our history would be more a product of blind faith and pig-headedness than rigorous analysis.    Is the design of this scheme robust enough to deal with scenarios which haven’t been modelled, where our competitors take 10, 15, 20 years or more to adopt a price of carbon?   It is why we are moving an amendment requesting that the Productivity Commission be required over the next 6 months to do the missing analysis identified by the Centre for International Economics.   This call has been supported by ACCI, The Cement Industry Federation, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Master Builders Association, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA and Woodside.   The deliberate failure of the Government to require such analysis has meant that individual companies and organisations have been forced to commission such research.   In so many cases this research has shown that many years of going it alone will severely weaken key industry sectors in our economy.   In the end it all translates into jobs.  Over recent months company after company have publicly indicated the cost of this proposed scheme in terms of lost jobs: The Minerals Council, Rio Tinto, Xstrata, Alcoa, Exxon, Bluescope and OneSteel, Hydro Alumina Kurri Kurri, ZeroGen and Envirogen, Ford, Woodside, Chevron and many others. And research commissioned by the NSW Government into the regional impacts of the Government’s scheme found that regional centres across Australia, such as Gippsland, Geelong, central-west Queensland, the Hunter Valley, central Western Australia, the Kimberley region and Whyalla / Port Pirie, would shrink by over 20 per cent under the Government’s scheme. How stupid would we look if in 10 or 15 or 20 years time our major competitors still have no scheme in place or have protected their trade exposed industries, and we have been imposing these costs, and more (because of the built-in annual reduction of free permits).   Such stupidity is already being exposed as the details of a future Obama emissions trading scheme takes shape in the United States.   Specifically the draft Bill now provides for 100% protection for all US export and import energy intensive industries until 2025, and continuing levels of such assistance if competitors still have no scheme in place.    As well, for the US electricity generators, the Obama draft bill provides for assistance through until 2030, compared to far less assistance for the Australian electricity sector phasing out by 2016.    It emphatically confirms that the Rudd scheme will see Australia effectively “going it alone”.   It is all about design; design features which give you the robustness and the capacity to manoeuvrer to play a part in all this but not get too far ahead of the rest of the world, not go it alone.   In addition to our concern about undermining our competitive position, the Bill contains other major deficiencies.   It is my observation that existing large emitters are the companies best placed to lead Australia, and their industries, to a low CO2 environment, as long as their balance sheets remain strong enough to fund the billions of dollars to finance the necessary technology and innovation to lead that transition.   Yet, the balance sheets of some companies will see half or more of their average profitability over the last eight years taken up with the effective tax they are going to face, or see a loss of uncompensated asset value of billions of dollars.   The other balance sheet issue is the existence of large numbers of free permits on a balance sheet.   When investors are approached to fund a 40 year energy or resource project and they see a balance sheet with a large number of free permits that are reviewable in 5 years, and are there solely at the whim of the government of the day, they become concerned about sovereign risk.   Projects are already facing this financing dilemma, including a new gas fired power generation plant.   This relates to the third issue, the problem of churn or recycling of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies through the system at the Government’s discretion.   Each year the sale of permits will see the Federal Government reap a huge new tax revenue - $13 billion in year two, growing rapidly to $20 billion a year by 2020, or thereabouts.    The Government intends to recycle some billions of these dollars to compensate low income earners for the 30 to 40 per cent increase in electricity costs.   This will see millions of cheques continue to be mailed to Australian households each year.  This Government is addicted to mailing out cheques.  It’s not hard to see why.   A huge administration will be set up to churn billions of dollars back through the economy, with the Government picking winners as to who gets compensation and who doesn’t.   No new energy or resource project will get off the ground without companies coming on ‘bended knee’ to get a quota of free permits from the Government to make their investment competitive.   Finally, in our view the Government has not looked at significant low cost opportunities or complementary measures that are available.  Too much is being expected of an emissions trading scheme in the absence of global action.   Complementary measures directed at capturing carbon in soil, reducing energy usage, especially in commercial buildings, other bio-sequestration and recognising the efforts of individuals and families in reducing emissions have the potential to quickly deliver very significant cuts in net emissions without putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs and the fabric of many major regional centres.   All these possibilities have largely been ignored in the Government’s scheme, ignored in the Government’s rush to be seen to be “punishing” the big emitters.   All these complementary possibilities, in concert with a major focus on promoting renewables, provide an opportunity to minimise the risk of putting too much onus on an emissions trading scheme while the intended action or inaction of the rest of the world is still not clear.   It is why the Coalition has proposed the establishment of a Government –authorised voluntary carbon market from 1 January, 2010 based on the Chicago Climate Exchange.   This would enable the immediate involvement of individuals and communities, agriculture and bio-sequestration, the commercial building sector, energy efficiencies by business, and other complementary measures in creating bankable offsets.   These voluntary measures will enable immediate action on achieving Australia’s 2020 targets and will create an opportunity for individuals, communities and firms to help Australia deliver larger abatement than the Government targets once a full scheme is in place.   As to the Government’s argument that this scheme must be passed now to provide certainty, the comments of the CEO of Anglo Coal reflect the view put to me by so many other companies, namely “we don’t want the certainty of a bullet”.   Conclusion   The Government’s rushed scheme, as designed, puts major industries, and the jobs that go with them, at great risk for little or no environmental gain.  Commercial realities have been ignored.  President Obama’s plans have been ignored.  The scheme is deeply flawed.   We have to better understand the prospect and implications of effectively going it alone in Australia with this scheme before we make any decisions about finalising a scheme.   And, all at a time when we will need the energy and resources sector, and other businesses, to play a big part in getting on top of the mountain of debt accumulated so rapidly by the Rudd Government.   It is a time for prudence, careful policy making and commonsense. It is not the time to gamble with people’s livelihoods and their futures in the cause of political expediency.   The Government’s scheme is in no shape to be passed, and the vote must be deferred until after Copenhagen and when the Obama scheme is clearer.  There is no Plan B if the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit.    This is the biggest deliberate structural change to our economy ever.  We must get it right.     Andrew Robb Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:16:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1014 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/996/The-Risk-and-Uncertainty-of-Going-it-Alone-The-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=996 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=996&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/996/The-Risk-and-Uncertainty-of-Going-it-Alone-The-Governments-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx Victorian Liberal Party State Council, Melbourne. Significantly reducing the global level of CO2 in the atmosphere is an issue of great consequence. And it is unchartered waters. What we do, the consequences, who is with us, how well thought through any scheme may be and what we need to do to get it right is all important. To this end, the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme fails badly in taking proper account of Australia finding itself effectively going alone. As a consequence the design remains deeply flawed, risking tens of thousands of jobs, killing major investments and doing little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. The Government’s emissions trading scheme has been designed for a world where every country has such a scheme, where every country has a price on carbon, a level playing field. If we had such a world, we would not be having this debate. If the world was moving as one the contentious issues surrounding the Government’s scheme would largely disappear. If our competitors were also imposing a price on carbon our own industries would remain strong, competitive and innovative as Australia and our competitors transformed to a lower carbon world. In this regard, everyone acknowledges that only co-ordinated global action will deliver meaningful reductions of CO2 in the atmosphere. With Australia producing just over one percent of the world’s emissions, there is no unilateral Australian solution, only a global solution. So a global response must happen or else Australia will have embarked on a futile exercise as far as the world environment is concerned, and embarked on a highly damaging exercise as far as our economy is concerned. Misleading the Public It is why the Government’s claim that for a $1 a day their scheme will save the Great Barrier Reef is so wrong and disingenuous. This is the totally false impression given to the community by the Government’s very misleading presentation of the Treasury modelling. If this was the real cost why wouldn’t you put up your hand in support? It is why there is no real debate. It is why it has received so little coverage in so many newspapers. The public hasn’t the foggiest idea what an emissions trading scheme is and hasn’t really engaged because they see no personal cost to them. They have been duped. Yet, without the rest of the world engaging in some form of carbon reduction scheme Australia’s actions will have absolutely no impact on the Great Barrier Reef, or on the environment generally. In fact, global emissions could actually increase as investments leave Australia and go to developing countries where less efficient factories pump out much more CO2 than in Australia. And, without our major competitors engaging in some form of scheme the cost to Australians will be much greater. This cost will be measured in the premature closure of many coal mines, cement works, coal powered generators and fuel refineries and the loss of major investment in new smelters, metal refineries, LNG gas projects, cement works, exploration and much more. There will be a significant added direct and indirect tax on agricultural and manufacturing businesses competing against foreign products where no such tax applies. This will see tens of thousands of jobs at risk, the permanent and serious shrinkage of major regional centres and the loss of major investments, yet little or no impact on CO2 emissions. One $4 billion investment to extend an aluminium smelter in the Hunter Valley will be shelved. This project alone will see the loss of 15,000 construction jobs and 3000 permanent jobs. It is why Australia must not find itself effectively going alone. Showing Leadership We can and we should influence and assist the world to respond, but we can’t get too far ahead of our major competitors. It was the former Government that helped set up AP6 (Group of six Asia Pacific countries) to help develop and transfer low emitting technology to developing countries. It is still the only international agreement which involved China and India and the United States – the big emitters. For purely political reasons the Rudd Government stymied this six country program. Yet without such leadership we won’t ever see the coal fired power stations which are being completed one in every nine days in China retro-fitted with low CO2 technology. And if not, then nothing we do anywhere is going to materially reduce the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere for generations. And AP6 was doing very substantial work. With the United States and others we were putting serious money into new technology, taking technology to Greenfield developments in these countries. We are good at innovation relating to energy and resources. We have done it for 150 years. It’s one reason we have the great quality of life that we enjoy today. Furthermore, Australia is also one of only five countries in the world that will meet its 2010 Kyoto target for emissions reductions. This result and leadership was delivered by the former Howard Government. So, as a wealthy, developed nation we can and we have shown leadership and we should continue to assist international efforts in many ways. The Critical Transition But putting a multi-billion dollar new tax on our businesses many years before our competitors do likewise would get us too far ahead of the world. It is why the critical debate we are having is all about how we transition to a lower carbon world, not whether we transition. It is about how we calibrate that transition to be broadly in step with the willingness of our major competitors to do something similar in terms of putting a tax on carbon. It is how we deal with the next 10, 15, 20 years or more of transition that is critical. If the transition is mishandled, if we go it alone, if we get too far ahead of the world, we will see the great strength of our economy wantonly undermined and damaged for no good environmental outcome. Global Action or Inaction The Government likes to infer that much action on emissions trading schemes is taking place elsewhere around the world, and we’d better get with it. Yet, as Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister last year, I travelled extensively and dealt with leading politicians in our region and beyond. I found it difficult to get a discussion on climate change, much less any meaningful discussion on an emissions trading scheme. There is clearly greater awareness in North America where I have spent time looking at US State schemes and the Canadian scheme, but even there the global financial crisis has seen community interest wane substantially in the face of major economic challenges. The Canadian scheme has been put on ice waiting to see what the US does. So, unless there is significant leadership from the US we are all wasting our time on this issue. In this regard, the outcome of Copenhagen is fundamental, as is the design of President Obama’s scheme which is being negotiated throughout this year. Even the much vaunted European model doesn’t bear up well under close inspection. It is not much more than a pilot scheme – they require business to purchase from the government (at auction) 4% of permits. The Rudd Government will be requiring 70% of permits to be purchased (The Obama plan is looking at 15% of permits to be purchased). There is very little in place in terms of a price on carbon elsewhere around the world. Under the Government’s proposed scheme design we would be making a very major leap in comparison with the rest of the world. The Coalition’s very great concern is that the Rudd Government has deliberately largely ignored the impact of their scheme on our competitiveness and jobs in the first 20 years of transition, if our major competitors don’t reciprocate. The design of the Rudd Government scheme assumes that our major competitors will move to put in place a major new tax on carbon across their economies, including their export and import competing industries, in the early years. The Government assumed the US would begin an equivalent scheme by 2010, China by 2015 and finally India by 2020. None of this is remotely possible. What if China, India, Indonesia, the Middle Eastern countries, the South American countries and many other competing developing countries don’t apply a tax on carbon for 15, 20 or more years. On a Wing and a Prayer This is more than likely, yet the Government has provided no analysis whatsoever of the impact of their scheme on Australian businesses, Australian jobs, on the Australian economy or the impact on global emissions if our competitors drag their feet. Why wasn’t the Treasury required to test such scenarios? It has been seven months since the Treasury modelling was released, and still no such analysis. Not a whiff of it. There has been ample opportunity, in the face of the global financial meltdown, when every other projection and every other statistic has been recalibrated to see what effect it has had on fiscal policy and monetary policy, yet there has been no work done, no analysis done, no repeat of the modelling with a change of just a few assumptions to measure the robustness of the proposed model. All they had to do was change some assumptions and run the model again. They have refused. A major independent analysis conducted by the Centre for International Economics concluded that the Government and the community could have little or no knowledge of the costs and effectiveness of the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme over the 20 to 30 year transition period because: • There is no analysis of different scenarios concerning delayed start dates by major competing countries during that 20 to 30 year transition period; • There is no analysis of the impact of the global financial crisis; and • There is no empirical analysis of alternative approaches to achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions. It beggars belief that the Government has not privately commissioned such analysis. If not, why not? If so, then release it. If passed in its current form, the biggest deliberate structural change in our history would be more a product of blind faith and pig-headedness than rigorous analysis. The Government can’t and won’t tell business and the community anything about the near-term risks and costs of their scheme. The deliberate failure of the Government to require such analysis has meant that individual companies and organisations have been forced to commission such research. In so many cases this research has shown that many years of going it alone will severely weaken key industry sectors in our economy. Preserving a strong economy We must never forget that as a community, as a country we best tackle climate change from a position of economic strength. At a personal or family level, if someone wants to do something concerning climate change by installing solar panels on their home or putting in a water tank, then they are much better placed if they have a job and/or money in the bank. In the same way at a national level we are best placed to finance the necessary research, innovation and adjustment if people are in work, if the balance sheets of businesses are strong and competitive and if the Government has strong taxation revenue. It is why we must get the design of the scheme right. It is why it is too important to play politics with this issue. The big issue is how long will our companies be facing a major tax impost, either directly or indirectly, which our competitors will not be facing? Is the design of this scheme robust enough to deal with scenarios which haven’t been modelled, where our competitors take 10, 15, 20 years or more to adopt a price of carbon? The work leaked from the NSW Government analysed the impact of the Government’s scheme at a regional level and found that all of the major regional centres – the Hunter, Gladstone, Central West Queensland, Illawarra, the Kimberley, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Geelong, Gippsland and some parts of Tasmania would shrink by 20 per cent or more. Why has the Government withheld this information? Yet we know if the world had a price of carbon today our energy, resources and manufacturing sectors wouldn’t shrink because the further development of energy and resources would occur in those countries that are most efficient, and we’re in that league. It is why we’ve been so successful. Political Expediency My concern from the outset is that much of the Government’s response has been dripping with politics at the expense of measured and properly considered policy developments. Many of the problems stem from the fact that Kevin Rudd nominated an artificial 2010 start date just to score a political point against John Howard, to nominate an earlier start date. As well, Kevin Rudd raised huge expectations and promised a scheme delivering deep cuts in emissions while not putting our export and import competing companies at a competitive disadvantage. His scheme fails miserably on both counts principally because our competitors are not doing likewise. Without the rest of the world engaging, Mr Rudd’s promise of deep cuts with no disadvantage to export and import competing companies is an impossible equation unless you do other things, such as complementary measures and major investment in renewables. I dispute the contention of Senator Wong that we can’t have incentive based and regulatory based activities alongside a market based system. In fact, if you look at the latest proposed US legislation, it explicitly excludes agriculture from the cap but explicitly includes agriculture in the opportunities to develop offsets; to create a revenue stream for farmers. This is a clear indication that the US is heading towards the development of a market based scheme, in concert with voluntary, regulatory and incentive based measures. Such possibilities have been totally ignored in the frantic rush to see legislation before the Parliament. For two years Mr Rudd has said the start date must be 2010 – it could not wait one day further. After months of asserting that the global financial crisis increased the case for an early 2010 start date, the Prime Minister recently announced a delay of the start date by 12 months because of the global financial crisis. Confusion reigns. Like so many areas of Government policy Mr Rudd is making it up as he goes along. On the start date Mr Rudd is beginning to be mugged by reality. The back flip on the start date was accompanied by the announcement of other changes. These changes were presented as substantive changes. Yet the changes were not substantive. It was tinkering. They did not address in any sense the fundamental flaws that we have identified in the scheme. Using the delay The twelve month delay does present an opportunity to see what the world decides at Copenhagen in December, and to do the work that should have been done to get the scheme right. Despite being forced to delay the start of the scheme by twelve months, because it’s flaws provide a source of much uncertainty, Mr Rudd is now insisting this deeply flawed scheme be rushed though the Parliament on the pretext of ‘certainty’. I have been contacted by many companies who have said they don’t want the certainty of not being able to compete. They want a scheme which preserves their international competitive position. This is a view which is known to be commonly held within the Labor caucus, many of whom no doubt breathed a huge sigh of relief that the start date had been bumped out beyond the next election. But simply delaying the start date doesn’t fix the design flaws. Scheme flaws There are four overarching areas of concern, outside of some industry specific issues, that the Coalition has with the legislation. The first, and by far the greatest concern, is the threat that thousands of Australian companies will face a major tax, for years, that none of their competitors will face. It is the threat that this scheme holds for the competitiveness of thousands of our companies if our major competitors do not adopt a similar price of carbon for 10, 15, 20 years or more. Much damage could be done, especially to many major rural regional centres, because as it stands now, despite the recent tinkering, Australian companies, employing millions of Australians, will have to pay a significant new tax, either directly or indirectly, that none of their competitors will be paying. If Australia finds itself going alone with a huge tax on energy and CO2 emissions, Australian jobs and emissions will go where energy is cheap. We would outsource jobs and industries to developing countries, and see global carbon emissions rise, not fall, as production transfers to less efficient industries in the countries of our major competitors. For example, with LNG industries alone, the proposed scheme will perversely prevent up to 180 million tonnes of CO2 (one third of Australia’s emissions) being avoided each year because of gas projects that won’t go ahead. For every tonne of greenhouse gas associated with the production of LNG in Australia, between 4.5 and 9 tonnes are avoided in the Asia-Pacific region when this gas is substituted for coal in generating electricity. LNG is part of the global solution, not part of the problem yet the scheme significantly penalises LNG exports. It makes no sense. Yet no assessment has been made by the Government of the loss of jobs and investment if our competitors don’t co-operate. The Government has deliberately avoided this critical piece of work. It can be done, should be done, must be done before any scheme is voted on in the Parliament. And, it should be done by an independent agency, namely the Productivity Commission. It can be done within six months. This further analysis should also review empirically how the proposed Government model measures up against other serious approaches that are available – the McKibbin model, a carbon tax, the Carmody Consumption tax or the Canadian version of a cap and trade scheme. None of his comparative analysis has been done to see which is the lowest cost approach, which is the most robust model in the uncertain times ahead. Given that an emissions trading scheme is the biggest deliberate structural change in Australia’s history, it must be done correctly or else tens of thousands of jobs are at risk. Serious competitiveness issues arise if our major competitors don’t come on board. If you look at the current scheme; 43% of the revenue comes from high energy using export and import competing industries, yet only 27% goes back in terms of free permits, even after recent tinkering which saw free permits rise from 25% to 27%. Over five years this represents a tax on those industries of more than $12 billion that is not faced by our competitors. On top of this there are tens of thousands of businesses that will face major tax imposts, without any compensation, that can’t be passed on because they compete in world markets. Work presented at the recent Farm Institute Conference showed that the average dairy farm will face a new annual indirect tax impost of $8,000 to $10,000, with no capacity to offset this cost. Similarly, the beef and sugar industries will each see a $60 million tax passed back in the price they receive for their cattle and sugar cane. The grains industry, a very low emitter, will face annual indirect costs of $ ½ billion. This emissions tax would sit on top of tariffs faced by our grains industry of 3% in the USA, 16% in Canada, 45% in the EU and 70% in Japan. Similarly, thousands of small to medium manufacturing plants will face similar indirect costs. At a time when their balance sheets are under enormous pressure, the capacity of these companies to invest in innovative technology to seek to offset increased energy costs, and other indirect costs passed back to them, will be highly compromised. If our major competitors don’t impose a similar impost for well over a decade what will be the impact locally? How is the design of the Government’s scheme calibrated to deal with this likely eventuality? The silence from the Government is deafening. In the end it all translates into jobs. Over recent months company after company have publicly indicated the cost of this proposed scheme in terms of lost jobs: • The Minerals Council has found over 66,000 jobs will be lost or foregone • Rio Tinto has stated that "put simply, the CPRS as proposed will cost jobs - now and in the future". • Xstrata predicts that between 5,000 to 10,000 jobs nationally may be lost. • Alcoa has raised concerns about 1,800 jobs at risk in Geelong and Portland. • Exxon predicts that 350 jobs could be lost at their Altona refinery • Bluescope and OneSteel say “hundreds of jobs would be lost” across the country and the 12,000 jobs that the Port Kembla steel works supports “would be under threat.” • Norske Hydro and Hydro Alumina Kurri Kurri see the ETS “jeopardising the future of the Australian aluminium smelting industry” and that cancelling their expansion plans under an ETS “means a loss of 3,000 permanent jobs and 15,000 construction jobs” • Clean energy projects such as ZeroGen and Envirogen say that up to 1,000 jobs will go begging if future investment is cancelled because of the ETS • Ford Australia believes the ETS will drive jobs overseas • And research commissioned by the NSW Government into the regional impacts of the Government’s scheme found that regional centres across Australia, such as Gippsland, Geelong, central-west Queensland, the Hunter Valley, central Western Australia, the Kimberley region and Whyalla / Port Pirie, would shrink by over 20 per cent under the Government’s scheme. How stupid would we look if in 10 or 15 or 20 years time our major competitors still have no scheme in place or have protected their trade exposed industries, and we have been imposing these costs, and more (because of the built-in annual reduction of free permits). Such stupidity is already being exposed as the details of a future Obama emissions trading scheme takes shape. Draft emissions trading legislation was sponsored by Democrat Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edwards Markey on March 30th, this year with the blessing of President Obama. Less than a week ago, on May 18th, further amendments to this draft Bill were incorporated by Congressman Waxman, including very specific provisions relating to the treatment of US export and import competing industries in any future emissions trading scheme. Specifically the draft Bill now provides for 100% protection for all US export and import energy intensive industries until 2025. What is more the Obama draft Bill now says that a reduction in protection of these industries will only occur after 2025 where more than 70 percent of global output for that sector is produced or manufactured in countries that have scheme equivalent to that operating in the United States. As well, for the US electricity generators, the Obama draft bill provides for a much higher proportion of transitional free permits, applying through until 2030. Whereas it is proposed that the Australian electricity sector receive far less, and phasing out by 2016. The Australian generator industry, desperately competing for capital in US and world markets, will find it very difficult to attract critical finance. One thing is certain, as this Obama draft takes further shape in the US it will only get more sympathetic to US export and import competing industries, not less. This is a wake up call of monumental proportions for Mr Rudd and Senator Wong. It emphatically confirms that the Rudd scheme will see Australia effectively “going it alone” in the significant taxing of our export and import competing industries for the first 12 years of a scheme, and potentially for many years beyond. It confirms that from 2012 Australia’s energy intensive export and import competing industries will be paying billions of dollars of tax, and increasing each year, while the same industries in the United States will have 100% protection through until 2025, and potentially well beyond if other major competing countries have not come on board. The competitive position of so many key Australian industries will be trashed as they pay our Government billions of dollars in taxes not being paid by our competitors, including US companies. This is gross incompetence. It confirms the commonsense of the Coalition’s repeated requests to defer the finalisation of any scheme until we see what the US proposes to do and until we see the outcome at Copenhagen. It is all about design; design features which give you the robustness and the capacity to manoeuvrer to play a part in all this but not get too far ahead of the rest of the world, not go it alone. The second issue is the balance sheet issue. Some companies will see half or more of their average profitability over the last eight years taken up with the effective tax they are going to face. That is going to have a serious impact on the capacity of companies to fund the technology transition to a lower carbon footprint. It is a “Catch 22” situation. Yet, it is my observation that existing large emitters are the companies best placed to lead Australia, and their industries, to a low CO2 environment, as long as their balance sheets remain strong enough to find the billions of dollars to finance the necessary technology and innovation to lead that transition. Perversely, the requirement to purchase billions of dollars of permits – a tax not faced by competitors - will use up cash that could otherwise be used to fund abatement projects. The other balance sheet issue is the existence of large numbers of free permits on a balance sheet. When investors are approached to fund a 40 year energy or resource project and they see a balance sheet with a large number of free permits that are there solely at the whim of the government of the day, they become concerned about sovereign risk. When these investors find out that the level of free permits faces a mandatory annual reduction and is reviewable in five years, on a forty year project, investors will think twice. Many will invest in countries where that sovereign risk doesn’t exist. Sovereign risk will stop much new investment in its tracks. Projects are already facing this financing dilemma, including a new gas fired power generation plant. This relates to the third issue, the problem of churn or recycling of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies through the system at the Government’s discretion. Each year the sale of permits will see the Federal Government reap a huge new tax revenue - $13 billion in year two, growing rapidly to $20 billion a year by 2020, or thereabouts. In 2012 this will be equivalent to an increase in GST to 12 ½ per cent. For most Australian families, like GST, they will pay this increased tax directly in the form of 30 to 40 per cent higher power bills, and indirectly in increases in the price of most services and items purchased. The Government intends to recycle some billions of these dollars to compensate low income earners for the 30 to 40 per cent increase in electricity costs. This will see millions of cheques continue to be mailed to Australian households each year. This Government is addicted to mailing out cheques. It’s not hard to see why. A huge administration will be set up to churn billions of dollars back through the economy, with the Government picking winners as to who gets compensation and who doesn’t. No new energy or resource project will get off the ground without companies coming on ‘bended knee’ to get a quota of free permits from the Government to make their investment competitive. It will foster a Nanny State, mendicant attitude. Most investors won’t risk this balance sheet gamble. There are alternatives. The design of the Canadian cap and trade scheme sees the same price of carbon established but leaves much of the money on the balance sheets of companies rather than a new source of tax revenue for the Government. Such design features need to receive serious consideration. They haven’t. Finally, in our view the Government has not looked at significant low cost opportunities or complementary measures that are available. Too much is being expected of an emissions trading scheme in the absence of global action. Complementary measures directed at capturing carbon in soil, reducing energy usage, especially in commercial buildings, other bio-sequestration and recognising the efforts of individuals and families in reducing emissions have the potential to quickly deliver very significant cuts in net emissions without putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs and the fabric of many major regional centres. All these possibilities have largely been ignored in the Government’s scheme, ignored in the Government’s rush to be seen to be “punishing” the big emitters. All these complementary possibilities, in concert with a major focus on promoting renewables, provide an opportunity to minimise the risk of putting too much onus on an emissions trading scheme while the intended action or inaction of the rest of the world is still not clear. The Government’s legislation has been trapped within the 20th century policies and rules of Kyoto, rather than expanding the range of processes to cover 21st century solutions such as the many forms of bio-sequestration or energy efficiency measures. Only in this way can strong targets be delivered by processes that don’t threaten jobs, processes that not only abate greenhouse gases from the atmosphere but also produce clean energy, fuel, feed and fertilizer, rehabilitate soils, improve crop yields and deliver sustainable green jobs and industries. Agriculture alone has huge potential, as does algae, to provide large scale sequestration. Agriculture is a biological system that emits carbon and very effectively stores or sequesters carbon. To date, there is no acknowledgement by the Government of the sequestering opportunities. Yet it is very low hanging fruit. Respected scientist, Freeman Dyson has said “to stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we need only to grow the bio mass in the soil and the carbon it contains by a hundredth of an inch per year”. The technology and agricultural practice is known. There is huge scope with the right incentives to see tens of millions of tons of CO2 stored in soil, while rehabilitating large tracts of agricultural land in the process. In Australia alone, 4.8 billion tonnes of dirt moves across our continent every year through sheet and river erosion. Salinity is a creeping cancer. A greater focus on complementary measures would enable a much quicker start in achieving the targets in CO2 reductions at least equal to the Government’s targets. Conclusion In Mr Rudd’s haste to “lead the world” on emissions trading he runs the great risk of unwittingly going it alone, and for little or no environmental gain. The Government’s scheme, as designed, puts major industries, and the jobs that go with them, at great risk. Commercial realities have been ignored. President Obama’s plans have been ignored. The scheme is deeply flawed. We have to better understand the prospect and implications of effectively going it alone in Australia with this scheme before we make any decisions about finalising a scheme. If Australia gets this reform wrong, the impact could be hugely detrimental. And, all at a time when we will need the energy and resources sector, and other businesses, to play a big part in getting on top of the mountain of debt accumulated so rapidly by the Rudd Government. It is a time for prudence, careful policy making and commonsense. It is not the time to gamble with people’s livelihoods and their futures in the cause of political expediency. The Government’s scheme is in no shape to be passed, and the vote must be deferred until after Copenhagen and when the Obama scheme is clearer. There is no Plan B if the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit. The 12 month delay in the starting date provides a breathing space to see the intentions of the rest of the world at Copenhagen. It also allows the time to undertake an empirical assessment of the loss of jobs and investment, and the impact on global emissions, if our competitors don’t put a tax on their CO2 emissions for 10, 15, 20 years or more. This is the biggest deliberate structural change to our economy ever. We must get it right.   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 23 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:996 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/992/Nation-Building-Funds-Amendment-Bill-2009.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=992 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=992&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/992/Nation-Building-Funds-Amendment-Bill-2009.aspx I rise to speak on the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is designed to strip $2½ billion out of the Education Investment Fund, a fund established with much fanfare last year. It is a bill designed to strip $2½ billion out of this education fund and direct those moneys to the funding of the new Clean Energy Initiative. The Education Investment Fund was explicitly created just 12 months ago for universities and for vocational education and training—two areas absolutely critical to our nation’s capacity to increase productivity so that we can rebound as quickly as possible in the future from this economic malaise and repay the massive home-grown government debt being incurred by this reckless and panicked government. As well, universities and vocational education and training are two areas we were told ad nauseam were absolutely fundamental to the government’s so-called education revolution. The government would not see this bill as anything of great moment. In the face of a $200 billion debt created in 12 months by this government, the government would say this bill is neither here nor there. But as one of the first bills introduced after the budget was brought down last night it is an ironic and powerful piece of symbolism. It captures the very essence of the budget. It is a snapshot, if you like, of the government’s wider problems. This bill in a sense symbolises the loss of control of the nation’s finances by this Labor government, the sense that this budget lacks coherence and gravitas, lacks any sense of the real problem that they are charged with tackling. The bill demonstrates the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree. The bill highlights one of the many ways our children will quickly start to pay the price of this massive debt with the lower priority given to education. The bill confirms Labor’s lack of any long-term coherent plan for infrastructure. There is no sense of priority from one year to the next. The bill says that Labor’s commitments cannot be trusted, even after being put into l-a-w law. The bill betrays a great measure of confusion and panic about this government. You get a sense of a government looking for a $2 coin under the lounge cushion, a government raiding the kid’s piggy bank. You get this sense of panic and confusion. This government has lost control of the nation’s finances. This bill flies in the face of all the government has said about infrastructure funds over the last 12 months. We had the Prime Minister on 25 August saying: … one of the main vehicles for turning productivity around in the Budget was the announcement of a Building Australia Fund and an Education Investment Fund. Of course, these have been massively underspent compared with the handouts that have been provided over the last few months. So much for priority. And now they are raiding these very funds. On 21 May last year the Treasurer said: The fund will … ensure our education and skills needs are met in the long term. Of course, that was 12 months ago. The fund is now $4.5 billion smaller than provided for in the Treasurer’s last budget. So much for those commitments. The Minister for Education on 13 May last year, in announcing this Education Investment Fund, said: The Rudd Labor government will transform Australia’s higher education and vocational education and training … institutions over the next decade with a new $11 billion Education Investment Fund. Of course, it never got to $11 billion—$2 billion was taken out of it in the early stages. And now another $2½ billion are being stripped out of this fund. The minister went on to say: The Education Investment Fund is a major component of the Rudd Government’s Education Revolution. It was a cornerstone of the education revolution. So much for these pious sentiments, these strong commitments. They have lived off this sort of rhetoric for 12 months, and then quietly, in a deep night, they run this bill into the House, 20 or 30 minutes after the budget has been released. The Minister for Education went on to say last year: This means that substantial investment can be made in our educational institutions in the coming years, transforming the capacity of these sectors to educate and train Australians. The bill totally undermines the minister’s comment. It also undermines future comments by this minister and by the government and their commitment to the educational revolution. Having made a monumental mess of the introduction of computers in schools, they are now stripping funds—generated by the previous government, I might add—to use for other purposes. The funds are being used to cover their excessive, wanton and reckless spending; the tens of billions of dollars of handouts. We are now seeing the price being paid by our kids, by future generations, because of the lack of commitment and spending for university and vocational education. The minister also said on 13 May last year: Decisions about annual disbursements from the Education Investment Fund will occur through the annual appropriation process, which would ensure transparency and allow parliamentary scrutiny. Some very high sounding sentiments; the sorts of sentiments we have heard ad nauseam from all those on the other side, from all the ministers, on and on, about how they will ensure transparency and allow parliamentary scrutiny. These commitments are meaningless. How can you trust this? At 8.30 last night, this bill was introduced half an hour after the budget was brought down. The bill runs counter to everything said for 12 months by this government about the priorities they are giving to education, about how they will manage the finances of this country, about the commitments that people can assume are going to be followed through, about how they can plan with future investments and other commitments because of the existence of these funds, which are now being stripped away for other purposes. This was all said for 12 months by this government and now, 15 hours after the budget, this bill is being rammed through this parliament. It makes a mockery of the commitments made by this government. This is Labor-style transparency and parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister for Education said on 13 May last year: The Future Fund Board of Guardians will be responsible for managing the fund. Well, the guardians have had the rug pulled from underneath them. Nearly half the money has gone from the fund without any commitment of those funds for education and vocational education. What is more, we are told in the budget papers, in the most sanctimonious terms, that the $2½ billion of funds being transferred to the clean energy initiative will only be used: … subject to endorsement by the Education Investment Fund Advisory Board once suitable projects are identified. It is not apparent to me, and I suspect to the advisory board members themselves, what particular expertise these education advisory board members have with regard to carbon capture and storage, solar energy generation and any other clean energy project that may be identified in the future. As it stands, only $400 million of the $2.5 billion being stripped out of the education fund is committed to particular projects. The remaining $2.1 billion is yet to be allocated. I can sense, at the very least, major confusion having members of the education board—people presumably highly skilled and experienced in education matters—now being required to endorse any transfer of funds ‘once suitable projects are identified’. What a nonsense. It does betray the confusion running through this government on all sorts of matters at every level. It is either confusion or a major snow job in the making. All of this demonstrates the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree. The $13.8 billion committed in last night’s budget to be spent in total from the three infrastructure funds—$3.2 billion from the Health and Hospitals Fund, $3 billion from the Education Investment Fund and $7.6 billion from the Building Australia Fund—all of this put together, the $13.8 billion, is less than two-thirds of the $22 billion spent in recent months on Labor’s cash splash, less than two-thirds of the $22 billion spent on handouts. The handouts have forced Labor to raid these funds for other initiatives. How short-sighted to run out there with the handouts—the cheques are still going out—and then be forced, in a matter of not even months later, to raid funds that were put in place 12 months ago which have been, in a rhetorical sense, committed to ever since. They are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It makes a mockery of all that the minister has said about the education revolution program. The handouts have forced Labor to raid these funds for other initiatives. It demonstrates again the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree—what it has done to long-term planning, what it has done to sensible management of finances and government. Labor cannot even manage moneys given to them. Every dollar in those funds—every dollar of that $13.8 billion—was generated and gifted by the Howard government to this government. They cannot even manage moneys given to them, much less generate moneys themselves. No fund or funding commitment anywhere across this government can now be trusted. Moneys could end up anywhere. Commitments, even commitments that have been legislated for, as we have seen with the education fund, are meaningless. Given that much of the foreshadowed investment takes place over the next seven, eight, 10 years, a lot of those commitments last night are many years away. With this money promised, committed, for long-term projects, what confidence can the community have that these projects will not be dropped or modified or dealt with in all sorts of ways in the years ahead in the wake of incompetent financial management? This bill also highlights how our children will start to pay the price, as they will for decades, for this massive debt. This is just one example—unanticipated, but one of many. Not only will the $9,000 debt hanging over every man, woman and child need to be paid off in the decades ahead but diminished investments and services will also eat into the opportunities and quality of life of our children and their children, as signalled by this raid on the education funds. This bill also confirms Labor’s lack of any long-term, coherent plan for infrastructure. Labor told us endlessly before the last election that they had a coherent, well-developed plan for Australia’s major infrastructure. We heard it time and again, as it was one of their four planks on which they sought to win government. It was one of their major commitments—along with the education revolution, which is in tatters after last night’s announcements. Here we are, 18 months later, seeing the first decisions about any major infrastructure—18 months after they said they had a plan. They said that they had worked out a plan, a comprehensive, well-developed plan for Australia’s major infrastructure. We have lost 18 months during which major infrastructure projects could have been committed to and major infrastructure spending could have been well on the way. Last night’s budget represents the first decisions about any major infrastructure project since this government took office, and most of the projects announced last night as being under consideration were advanced by the former government. The only money being spent is money generated and gifted by the former government. And the total spending on major infrastructure announced last night is dwarfed by the total moneys sent out in cheques as handouts. Where do the government’s priorities lie? What is their focus? How can you have any confidence that this government understands the significance of spending every dollar as wisely as possible, during the worst financial crisis in 80 years, if we are to see maximum impact on productivity to help us to come out of this crisis, whenever the end occurs, and enable to rebound quickly, ahead of the rest of the world? Now the funds that were to go towards advancing the productivity and the human capital of our young people are being raided, despite the comments of the Minister for Education after last year’s budget: One measure in last week’s budget—establishing the $11 billion Education Investment Fund—is an indication of the long term perspective we are adopting. Labor has no coherent plan for infrastructure and no long-term perspective that anyone can have any confidence in. The approach of the government, as characterised by this bill, is no way to run our country. While the coalition will not stand in the way of this bill, we do express great consternation about what it represents. It represents the government’s lack of any plan for recovery. It represents the government’s lack of priority and its flip-flopping under pressure. The content of this bill demonstrates the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree. The bill represents the confusion and panic that appear to be gripping this government. The government’s loss of control of the nation’s finances is symbolised by this bill.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 12 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:992 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/953/Persecution-of-people-of-the-Bahai-faith-in-Iran.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=953 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=953&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/953/Persecution-of-people-of-the-Bahai-faith-in-Iran.aspx I rise to speak on the persecution of people of the Baha’i faith in Iran—in particular, the seven believers who have been incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin Prison for eight months. Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Here in Australia, section 116 of our Constitution prohibits the government controlling or mandating a particular religion. However, such is not the case in Iran. On 18 February this year, I met with two representatives of the Bayside and Glen Eira Baha’i communities, Mr Murray Davies and Ms Niloufar Zamani. Mr Davies and Ms Zamani sought to share with me what they called ‘the continuing abuse of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian Baha’i community’ and what they saw as ‘a renewed wave of persecution and control similar to that which occurred in the 1930s in Nazi Germany’. Founded in 1844, the Baha’i faith is the youngest of the world’s independent religions. Today the faith has more than five million believers. The largest population of Baha’is live in India, numbering around 2.2 million. The next largest population exists in Iran, at roughly 350,000 people. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the Baha’i community has suffered the effects of a systematic campaign orchestrated by the Iranian government. The government’s aim is to eliminate the Baha’i community as a viable entity in Iran, despite Iran being the birthplace of the faith. To begin, the Iranian constitution does not recognise the religion. Baha’is are not permitted to meet, to hold religious ceremonies or to practise their religion communally. Holy places, shrines and cemeteries have been confiscated and demolished. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of Baha’is have been executed for refusing to recant their faith and embrace Islam. Since the election of President Ahmadinejad in 2005, dozens more have been arrested. Amongst those who have been recently arrested are seven leaders of the Baha’i organisation known as Friends of Iran. The organisation is believed to have served as an ad hoc coordinating body representative of Baha’is in Iran, apparently to the full knowledge of the Iranian government. Recently, however, the government labelled the organisation illegal and arrested its seven leaders—one in March 2008 and the other six in May 2008. They are expected to go on trial shortly on charges of espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the system. Amnesty International considers the charges to be politically motivated and those held to be prisoners of conscience, detained solely because of their conscientiously held beliefs or their peaceful activities on behalf of the Baha’i community. The accusation of spying has been used as a pretext to persecute Baha’is for more than 75 years. They have been accused of being tools of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and, most recently, Zionism. The seven imprisoned leaders are being held in section 209 of Tehran’s infamous Evin prison, run by the Iranian ministry of intelligence. After eight months, no evidence has been brought to light by the prosecutors. The five male detainees are said to be held together in one cell of about 10 metres squared without any beds. All have been permitted access to relatives but none has been granted access to their lawyer. The lawyer is said to have been harassed, intimidated and threatened since taking on the case. The trial is expected to take place shortly in the Iranian revolutionary court. If convicted, the seven will face lengthy prison terms or even the death penalty. This is not the first time the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran has been raised in this House. In 2006, the members for Macmillan, Boothby and Stirling, with strong support from the other side of the House, spoke with heavy hearts as they recounted stories of persecution passed on to them from their local communities. As they did then, I today call on the Australian government to continue to raise this matter with the Iranian embassy and urge the immediate and unconditional release of the seven prisoners. I appeal to authorities to ensure that the seven prisoners are protected from torture and other ill treatment and to ensure that they are given regular access to their relatives and lawyer. Finally, I implore the Iranian government to stop persecuting the Baha’i people and allow their citizens the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:953 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/951/The-adverse-effect-of-the-Governments-emissions-trading-scheme-on-employment-and-the-economy.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=951 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=951&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/951/The-adverse-effect-of-the-Governments-emissions-trading-scheme-on-employment-and-the-economy.aspx This is an issue of great consequence for all Australians, yet it requires judgment and great common sense, especially in the difficult times that the country is now experiencing. Sadly, however, on the question of climate change this government is legislating for certainty—the certainty of unemployment. The loss of tens of thousands of jobs will be directly attributable to the government’s flawed emissions trading scheme if it goes ahead. We all know that we best tackle climate change from a position of economic strength. It is no different for our nation than it is for a family. If a family or an individual wants to install a solar panel or a water tank to make a contribution to the climate, they cannot do it without a job or money in the bank. They cannot do it if they are not in a strong financial position. The same is true for Australia as a nation. Our ability to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be negligible if our economy is under severe financial pressure, if unemployment is high, if people do not have jobs, if debt levels are high and if investment is stalled. It requires people in jobs, it requires businesses to be performing strongly and it requires a cashed-up economy. If we get this emissions trading scheme wrong, not only will it do untold damage, it will also see the collapse of support for any future scheme designed to tackle carbon dioxide abatement. Everyone agrees that as a country producing only 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, there is no Australian solution to climate change. There is only a global solution. Everyone agrees that only coordinated global action will put a price on emitting or storing carbon dioxide. Only global action will have any impact on reducing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For this reason, the design of any Australian emissions trading scheme must be responsive to the existence, or the absence, of a global agreement. If an emissions trading scheme does not take account of what is happening, or not happening, in other countries then the design of the scheme is deeply flawed. Such a flawed design will seriously damage the competitive position of many of our industries and will see Australian jobs, investment and CO2 emissions being exported to countries where no price is being imposed on carbon. The government’s white paper on emissions trading is deeply flawed in this way. Our economy will be badly affected. I agree with Bob Brown that a badly designed scheme is worse than no scheme at all. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to introduce an emissions trading scheme which would lead to deep cuts in CO2 emissions in our economy but which would not disadvantage Australia’s export and import competing industries. This promise was repeated again and again by the Prime Minister in the lead up to the election. He said that he would not disadvantage any of our export or import competing industries when he introduced a scheme, and the scheme would lead to significant and deep reductions in CO2 emissions. These were the expectations that were created and these were the promises that were given. This was the mandate that he had to tackle climate change in this country. Of course, that promise was repeated by many colleagues in the lead up to the election, but since the election not one member of the government has dared to repeat that promise. They have not uttered the words that they will not disadvantage export and import competing industries. As it has turned out, the government’s proposal is immensely complex. Of all the 50 or 60 industries that have come through my door, every one of them has a different scheme; every one of them has a different deal that is invariably unsatisfactory and invariably crippling. This is not a scheme to design one price of carbon; there are 50 or 60 or 70 or 100 prices of carbon because every scheme is different for every industry. This is a disaster. This government is in disarray on this program. This has been a mess from day one. This government scheme would seriously disadvantage our export and import competing industries and cost thousands of jobs. It will kill investment yet not produce any meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions. It fails on all counts. Under the Rudd scheme, from year one Australian export and import competing industries will be effectively taxed an extra $2½ billion that they cannot pass on as they are price takers. This is in the face of a promise not to disadvantage export and import competing industries. Of the $12 billion that will come into the government coffers in year one, 44 per cent will come from trade exposed industries, but less than 25 per cent will go back to those industries as free allocations of permits. The difference is over 20 per cent or around $2½ billion. With our economy approaching recession—the Rudd recession—and much of it in recession already, jobs in many sectors will come under severe pressure with the introduction of this scheme. For many export and import competing industries in Australia, the design of the government’s emissions trading scheme will act like a reverse tariff. For these industries, we will be the only country in the world to effectively impose a carbon tax, a tax on industries that are price takers, a tax on industries that have no capacity to pass on costs not faced by their competitors, a punitive tax on industries that the Prime Minister promised not to disadvantage—$2½ billion in the first year. For example, Australia accounts for 0.6 per cent of the world’s steel production, but we will be the only country in the world to impose a carbon tax in the middle of the biggest world recession since World War II, according to the IMF. Even in Europe, all of the industries are covered until 2012 and there is serious talk of extensions for them all. Yet, we are talking about 2010 and a $2½ billion tax immediately on all of our export and import competing industries. For many industries, a price of carbon of $25 per tonne of CO2 accounts for 50 per cent of their profits in good times and up to 100 per cent or more of profits in bad years. We could see a situation where companies will have to borrow to pay for their permits. Think about it: companies will have to borrow, in some cases, millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars to pay for their permits. What banks in this current climate will lend tens of millions of dollars to pay for permits in the midst of the biggest credit crunch for 80 years? What is more, if we move too far ahead of the world, any cuts in Australia’s emissions will not necessarily have a global impact. Our aluminium and zinc industries produce 50 or 60 per cent less CO2 than similar industries in China and other countries. If we impose this tax and industries then move offshore, we could see a dramatic increase in global emissions. Not only will we cripple jobs in this economy, not only will we stymie our ability to rebound out of the recession that is coming, but we will in fact contribute to higher CO2 emissions around the world. To rush the introduction of this scheme without knowing the outcome of the December 2009 global environment summit in Copenhagen, without knowing what and when President Obama will do—in fact the only budget allocation in the US system we have already seen for this is in 2012, some two years after we are supposed to be introducing it—and without knowing the impact of the global financial meltdown on our real economy is reckless in the extreme. We will meet the Kyoto target by 2012—one of only five countries in the world to do so. There is no need to rush into this if it is not ready. The government scheme is in disarray. Individuals who take action will make no contribution. Any families or any individuals who make contributions to reducing CO2 emissions will find that it only increases the capacity for industry to increase their emissions. The Treasury modelling was months overdue. It took no account of the financial crisis. It assumed that all other countries in the world were part of the global scheme. It was a useless piece of work. It is being used by the government purely as propaganda and as a prop to carry forward and not take any account of the discussions and negotiations that they have been having with industry. It is self serving, it is misleading and it is irresponsible. The government does not know if there are better approaches because they forbid Treasury to look at other approaches. That is why we have had to set up a Senate select committee with the Greens to explore other approaches and complementary measures, and to see what else could be done in an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions without causing enormous damage to our economy. The Rudd scheme involves generating permit revenue of nearly $12 billion from year one—a massive increase in taxation. This will see a huge administration set up to churn billions of dollars back through the economy with the government picking winners as to who gets compensation and who does not. No wonder the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is here. He will have responsibility for another $12 billion of administration. We need to know how the government will effectively manage the churn that will take place of billions of dollars back through the economy. The government will be picking winners as to who gets compensation and who does not. I predict that in the years ahead there will be no new resource projects in Australia that will get off the ground without companies coming cap in hand to the minister to get a quota of free permits from the government to make their investments competitive. It will foster a nanny state, a mendicant attitude. Already we are seeing investments that are being shelved by global companies which cannot believe that Australia would introduce a scheme with so much uncertainty, so much cost and so much disadvantage compared with our major competitors. Already we are seeing investment that is being killed. When things in the world turn around, companies will look to invest heavily. However, they will not pour money into a jurisdiction where there is a cloud hanging over the long-term competitiveness of various projects and various industries. Australia will miss any upswing that is coming after what we are going through. We will lose a generation of investments. We are in the process of killing investments already with this proposed scheme that the government is putting before the parliament. In many cases, also, the best placed companies to develop and fund the migration to cleaner energy processes, including renewables, are the big emitting companies themselves. Putting a big hole in the balance sheets of these companies will kill this opportunity. Stripping billions of dollars out of the balance sheets of companies to compensate households and to put money back into free allocations for some companies will strip the capacity of other companies and their balance sheets to do any meaningful migration to a more effective technology within their plants. The government have little or no understanding of what is important in terms of investment in our resource sector and what has been important over many decades in the very strong position we have held as a country. On top of this, the government have made little or no attempt to consider the impact of the global financial meltdown on the capacity of companies to either administratively or competitively cope with the transition. If they had bothered to meet meaningfully with chief executives, they would have seen the great fear of companies as this financial meltdown has evolved, their great fear about just their physical capacity to introduce what is going to be one of the biggest structural changes in Australia’s history into their operation in the middle of the worst financial meltdown in 80 years. You know it, Gary. You know it yourself. This is an impost which is going to cost Australia dearly in jobs, investments and finance. The government’s scheme is in disarray. It is rushed and bungled. It is deeply flawed because it has been rushed to suit a purely political timetable. The design is not flexible enough to cope with the financial meltdown. The design of the Rudd scheme fails on all counts. It will cost jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. It will kill investment, which means future jobs, and it will do very little, if anything, to reduce CO2 emissions. No-one outside the government supports the scheme. Industry opposes it. The green groups oppose it. And there is substantial dissension within the government’s own ranks, within caucus and within cabinet, in opposition to this. With the design of the government’s emissions trading scheme, this government is legislating for unemployment. (Time expired)   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:951 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/934/Black-Saturday--Victorian-Bushfires-Condolence-Motion.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=934 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=934&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/934/Black-Saturday--Victorian-Bushfires-Condolence-Motion.aspx I rise to convey my deep regrets to and sympathy for all those involved in the recent Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria. In particular, I mourn for those who lost their lives in this horrific blaze and I pray for those who lost loved ones. The tragedy is all the more real for me because I know many of the areas so well. The first five years of my life were on a soldier-settler’s block at Flowerdale, where my parents had a sheep property. My forebears, extended family and many friends come from Yea, Alexandra, Thornton, Kerrisdale, Whittlesea, Kinglake, Doreen and the Yarra Valley and surrounding areas. A brother lives at Traralgon. It is hard to reconcile the devastation and the ferocity of the fires with the beauty and the serenity that I know and the uncomplicated and welcoming nature of these very special parts of Victoria. I feel deeply for all those affected. I admire enormously the efforts of the brave and selfless firefighters and the many forms of assistance provided so willingly and instinctively by so many members of our community. It is a great tribute to the character of our community. For so many, their lives will be altered for good. Scars will remain. Memories will not diminish. I still remember vividly—most vividly—as a nine-year-old grabbing treasured possessions and being bundled into our FJ Holden with my many brothers and sisters as fires bore down on our dairy farm at Epping, not that far from the areas hit by the Black Saturday fires. I remember the sense of loss and destruction when my parents told us that our property had been burnt out, despite saving the house, sheds and cows, and the sense of deep anguish and sheer disbelief that a neighbour had died on our property when his knapsack was caught in the fence wire as the fire swept through. That was nearly 50 years ago, yet it is with me still. The memory is as clear as if it was yesterday. So too will the memories and the emotions remain with those affected in the Black Saturday fires. Yet we are a resilient people, and those affected will in due course pick up the pieces and seek to make the most of life. I offer my condolences and my best wishes.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:934 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/923/Situation-in-Sri-Lanka.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=923 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=923&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/923/Situation-in-Sri-Lanka.aspx I rise in response to the ministerial statement on the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. In my previous role as shadow minister for foreign affairs for the coalition I became acutely aware of this ongoing conflict taking place in Sri Lanka, a civil conflict which has been raging since July 1983 following the most destructive explosion of communal rioting in the history of that island nation—a period in Sri Lanka’s history commonly referred to as ‘Black July’. This conflict has taken the lives of over 70,000 people and displaced some 400,000 people, who are now living in refugee camps. The coalition welcomes any well-targeted measures that extend humanitarian assistance to those innocent victims of this conflict and helps facilitate both parties following the path of a sustainable peace agreement. Under former Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, the previous government provided more than $30 million between 2005 and 2007 to experienced and reputable multilateral organisations to provide humanitarian relief across a range of areas to those affected civilians in Sri Lanka. We also welcome multilateral actions such as the statement by the so-called Tokyo Co-Chairs—Norway, Japan, United States and the European Union—urging the Tamil Tigers to discuss with the government of Sri Lanka ways to end the hostilities, including the laying down of arms and the renunciation of violence and to assist those desperate civilians caught up in the conflict and unable to leave the area. The coalition strongly urges the Tamil Tigers to free civilians currently trapped within the conflict. The lessons of history confirm that a political solution is the only effective way to end the violence, resolve the conflict and provide a durable peace in Sri Lanka. The coalition joins the Australian Government in calling for a peaceful resolution to this conflict as soon as possible for the sake of all the citizens of Sri Lanka.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:923 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/898/Nation-Building-Funds-Bill-2008.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=898 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=898&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/898/Nation-Building-Funds-Bill-2008.aspx I rise to speak on the Nation-building Funds Bill 2008 and related bills. We are here debating a set of bills that is at least eight months overdue. The fact is that there has not been one decision in 12 months on infrastructure—not one decision. It has been a lost 12 months for Australia at a very critical time. In this critical time there has not been one decision on infrastructure. Labor said they had a plan. We heard it all last year during the campaign. We heard it all this year. They have a plan. It turns out that the plan was to set up a committee to devise a plan—a committee! We have had ministers put in place, we have had departments of infrastructure and we have had committees put in place, but no decisions—no action. Instead of action, all we have heard from those opposite is endless denigration of the former government. We just heard it from the previous speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro—10 minutes of his 20 minutes were just denigration of those opposite. There is no contribution—it is all talk and no action. What we have seen, contrary to all the denigration and the misrepresentation that we have heard from the other side already in this debate, is that total infrastructure spending in Australia in constant 2007 dollars rose from $21 billion in 1996 to $56 billion in 2007, an increase from nearly three per cent of GDP to 5.4 per cent of GDP. That is action. That is not talk; that is not committees. That is a significant and massive growth in infrastructure spending as a proportion of GDP over 11½ years. It gives the lie to the Rudd government’s pathetic mantra. We have heard it again and again tonight in this chamber. To make that happen, the former government had to fix a few things. In referring to this I would like to scotch this absurd notion peddled by the government that the former government did nothing to set Australia up for the future. Of course the opposite is the case and it is why the Prime Minister can strut his stuff on the world stage and say to the rest of the world, ‘Australia is better placed to deal with the consequences of this financial meltdown.’ Why? There is only one reason and it is that the former government spent 11½ years fixing the mess they inherited and then setting us on a course to have the strongest economy in the OECD. Those facts are overlooked time and again. We had to start by fixing Australia’s financial infrastructure when we took over in 1996. We paid off $96 billion of government debt. This government would have been confronted with an extra $8½ billion in interest payments this year solely from that debt if the former government had not paid it off—$8½ billion a year. That is $100 billion extra out of taxpayers’ money to pay interest over the last 12 years. That is $100 billion available to spend on infrastructure and on services to create jobs for Australians, and we have seen a lot of those created. We turned around a culture of running massive deficits under the previous Labor administration and we replaced it with a culture of running budget surpluses. The coalition fixed up other financial infrastructure. It created an independent Reserve Bank, a step which I think has meant a lot to the healthy condition in which Australia finds itself at the moment. The former government introduced rules to govern our financial sector through APRA and ASIC. We fixed up many regulations in the financial area. We got some commonsense and some judgement into the nature of rules governing our financial sector. Those rules are now the envy of others in the Western World who have failed to do likewise. We have had major reform of the indirect tax system, which gave states a huge growth tax to fund vital infrastructure and other commitments. Unfortunately, Labor state governments have presided throughout the country and they have not made use of that money. In fact, we have the situation in New South Wales where it is a total embarrassment, a total disgrace. It is criminal the way in which they have mismanaged that economy, misused the huge amounts of money that have been made available to that and other state governments around the country who have not taken advantage of that money and not shouldered responsibility for their part of the infrastructure bargain. The former government had to fix up defence infrastructure. It had been massively wound back by the former Labor government. The coalition brought about 47 per cent growth over 12 years from $10.6 billion in 1995-96 to $22 billion in 2007-08. It had been sadly neglected. Infrastructure refers to many areas of the economy. Defence is an area where we have massively increased investment in infrastructure, bringing about 47 per cent growth which was very necessary. I would have thought the former speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro, of all people would have had some appreciation of the increase in defence spending and the pathetic position that our former government found itself in when it came into office in 1996 in terms of defence spending and infrastructure. Another area of infrastructure that we had to deal with was workplace infrastructure, workforce infrastructure. We brought that into the 21st century. Again, it was a situation which was holding Australia back. The Australian waterfront was modernised. The coalition brought about a 60 per cent improvement in productivity with average crane rates increasing from 17 movements per hour to world’s best practice of 27 or 28 movements per hour. We were a joke in the world. We were ridiculed. The Japanese, a major customer, complained endlessly about conditions on our waterfront—the unreliability and the cost. That was massively turned around. It took the former government to take tough decisions not easy decisions, not just talk and no action but tough decisions to turn that around and create productivity improvements, and to increase the capacity of Australian industry to build, grow and create jobs. We established the ABCC. It led to a massive reduction in working days lost per thousand employees due to industrial action. It plummeted from 37.4 days lost in late 2005 to just 1.7 in mid-2007—a massive improvement In the construction area, so critical to capitalising on the mining boom of recent years, productivity was increased markedly because of the introduction of the ABCC and the workplace changes, so much so that it resulted in a staggering 1.5 per cent boost to Australia’s GDP, or over $5 billion each year. Add that to the $8½ billion a year in interest savings on the debt that was paid off by the previous government and you are talking real money. That is more money in those two initiatives alone than we are seeing in the Building Australia Fund, which the government has talked up and talked up but does not even have the funds in there which equate with the savings each year that the coalition made from those two initiatives. And of course we introduced much greater flexibility into our workforce through the 12 years of the Howard government. All of this resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years; a youth participation rate ranked second among OECD countries; a real increase of nearly 22 per cent in wages over and above inflation; $38 billion for infrastructure for our roads and rail system via AusLink 1 and 2; funds available for other necessary transport infrastructure; a $10 billion water infrastructure fund; a $60 billion Future Fund; $6 billion higher education fund; and $20 billion surpluses. All of that generated off the back of real reform to infrastructure: financial infrastructure, defence infrastructure, workplace infrastructure and other forms of infrastructure in this economy. The bill that we are debating has enabled the government to establish three separate financial asset funds: the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund. The building fund will have $12.6 billion in it, with $7.5 billion coming from the 2007-08 surplus and the remainder from T3 proceeds and the balance of the Communications Fund. The education fund will have $8.7 billion, $2½ billion from the 2007-08 surplus and the remainder from the closed Higher Education Endowment Fund. The health fund will have $5 billion, which is entirely from the surplus of 2007-08. There is a $14.7 billion shortfall on what the government initially predicted. What that means is that not one dollar generated by the Rudd government will be spent from all of these funds that we are talking about and debating. Every dollar allocated to these funds was created by the former Howard-Costello government. Every dollar to be spent was inherited by the Rudd government. They spent two years talking up what they would do with infrastructure, only to populate the funds totally with moneys generated by the former government, yet they do not have a skerrick of embarrassment. You would think they would be embarrassed by that. The prospect of additional funds is doubtful, given the demand on government funds that is coming down the line. Most of the surplus has been spent and we must not see the government starting to put its fingers into other pies around the budget. The AusLink funds must not be reassigned to other projects. Watch this space—watch this government try and financially engineer some changes and do some tricky things. The test of this government will be its ability to put not Howard-Costello government dollars but Rudd government dollars into these funds. That will be the test of this government over the next one, two and three years. How many Rudd government dollars will be generated and put into these funds? That is the test. The coalition has said it would take a very hard nosed approach to evaluating this legislation and any projects which emanate from it. We must satisfy ourselves that the hard earned surplus will be spent wisely and not as a Labor slush fund to bail out failed Labor states. Now that the government has wiped $40 billion off its forward estimates there is much greater emphasis on the need for quality investments. That is very important now that there is probably only $7 billion a year over the next two or three years in the road, rail and ports fund to fund the hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure projects that have come into Infrastructure Australia. It means that the quality of every decision is paramount. To get that we must have transparency and full disclosure of the results of cost-benefit analyses for projects recommended and for those rejected, including all data, assumptions and models used. It also means there must be transparency in PPP contracts. Slush fund concerns are exacerbated because the original legislation was pulled. This legislation was in the House on the blue sheet and it was pulled because, as we understand it, the minister for finance was concerned about the minister for infrastructure requiring greater ministerial discretion. No wonder we are worried about this money being used and abused! We have also seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer instruct the New South Wales government to abandon the $12 billion North West Metro proposal in Sydney because there were no votes in it for Labor. The government is attempting to circumvent the evaluation process by not even allowing some projects to be submitted to Infrastructure Australia. We do not even get a chance to assess some of these projects. There is grubby politics being played already and we have not even got the funds set up. No wonder we are worried about these funds being spent to bail out failed Labor states and going into some sort of slush fund for the Labor Party. We will look at every project and run a fine toothed comb over it, because we are concerned about the potential for this to be used as a slush fund. We remain concerned that state governments may also simply remove infrastructure projects off their own books and bid for federal funds. The recent New South Wales minibudget maps out a whole lot of projects and says in black and white, ‘We will only proceed before 2012 if these are substantially funded by the Commonwealth.’ These are projects that have historically been the overwhelming responsibility of state governments. Now New South Wales is saying: ‘Forget that. None of these projects will go ahead unless they are overwhelmingly funded by the Commonwealth.’ This is why we have foreshadowed several amendments. The insertion of transparency clauses to require the public disclosure of all documentation, evaluation criteria, business cases, cost-benefit analyses, advisory board evaluation against criteria relating to the projects and reports to the finance and advisory boards. This is critical—and do not tell us that there are commercial-in-confidence issues. This is mandatory in the United States and in Scandinavian countries and it is common practice around the world. People should be able to see the basis on which decisions have been taken. We are also looking for analysis which supports any project to be made public before final decisions are taken by the Rudd government. In their submission to the Senate committee considering these bills, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said they ‘would like to see the funds set up to have the greatest transparency possible’. That is critical. In the amendments that will be put to the Senate, given the significance the government has rightly attached to the need to see strong productivity outcomes from any project, we will propose an amendment requiring that money only be spent on projects that have been analysed by the Productivity Commission and that commission reports be published. The bill also precludes funds for ongoing running or maintenance costs. This is a serious deficiency, one that was corrected in AusLink projects but now has been reversed with these bills. That is why we are proposing a clause which requires that all project funding decisions ensure that there are financial commitments from all asset owners and stakeholders to meet the whole-of-life asset costs. A hospital costing half a billion dollars requires half a billion dollars of revenue each year for expenses. Those costs are ongoing and that hospital cannot function without that money. To make a decision based on the capital costs without looking at the whole-of-life asset costs is just ridiculous and naive, and we have seen that happen already. This government has already got form. We saw it with the case of computers, about the only infrastructure thing they have done this year. They had a billion-dollar project. What they had not thought of were the costs of implementation, maintenance and ongoing costs, which are in the order of something like $2 billion. Schools all around the country have got boxes of computers lined up in corridors because they cannot use them. New South Wales is bailing out of the program. This is naivety. This is lack of experience and understanding. These things have to be dealt with properly. In every case there should be an opportunity to see that the whole-of-life asset costs have been built into the project and that there are guarantees about ongoing funding commitments, otherwise we will have empty coliseums all over this country. That is what we will end up with. There is no recognition in this bill of the problems associated with up-front payments. As a consequence, we will seek an amendment which will prohibit the payment of up-front fees on projects. Over recent years we have seen the ridiculous situation in New South Wales where they have treated infrastructure projects as a revenue source. With the cross-city tunnel, $100 million was required to be paid up front before one sod was turned on the project by the private operators. In that one day another dollar was added to the toll before the project even started. This was seen as a revenue-raising activity. It has compromised many projects. This bill should have a provision which requires the prohibition of the payment of up-front fees for projects. The Rudd government came to office 12 months ago saying they had a strong plan for Australia’s infrastructure, yet there has not been one decision in 12 months. They are one-third of the way through their term. This is unacceptable. They are standing here beating their chests about what they have done and what they have not done. This is symptomatic of what we are seeing right across so many government areas. They are all talk and no action. In 12 months there has not been one project. After 12 months we get this bill, which has got serious deficiencies in transparency and in many other aspects. The legislation must be amended to ensure a totally transparent process. We cannot have a situation where hard-earned taxpayers’ money becomes a slush fund to bail out failed Labor states—and haven’t we got some of those around the country! Anything less than this would be a disaster: we must have transparency; we must have a bill which looks to the wise and sensible management of these hard-earned moneys so that we can put in place infrastructure to see jobs created and people’s welfare protected. Andrew Robb MP Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:898 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/894/Anaphylaxis.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=894 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=894&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/894/Anaphylaxis.aspx I rise today to speak on the critically important issue of anaphylaxis management in schools and, in particular, the availability of affordable EpiPens. Anaphylaxis is the most severe form of allergic reaction which, according to Anaphylaxis Australia, usually occurs within 20 minutes of exposure to a trigger such as milk or eggs and can rapidly become life threatening. Therefore, it must be treated as a medical emergency, requiring immediate and urgent medical attention. A crucial aspect of this is that the incidence of anaphylaxis due to peanut allergies, for example, has doubled over the past 30 years. It is becoming more prevalent and we therefore must become even more vigilant. In July this year Mrs Sue Newton, Acting Principal of Beaumaris North Primary School in my electorate of Goldstein, copied me into a letter to the Victorian Department of Education regarding essential funding required to purchase Epipens. Beaumaris North Primary has 515 students and currently has 19 known children who are at risk of anaphylaxis. This is significantly higher than the norm. The school has a comprehensive anaphylaxis management scheme in place, consistent with the recent Victorian government guidelines that were acted on after strong lobbying from those in the community such as Anaphylaxis Australia and the Ilhan Food Allergy Foundation. However, as Mrs Newton stated: There are regular occasions … where current policies do not provide adequate safety for all children—not just those currently presenting as at risk of anaphylaxis. Mrs Newton continued: We would not be exercising our full duty of care if this group of unknown anaphylactic risks were not prepared for. There are a number of occasions, most notably lunchtime breaks, whereby there are large distances to be covered for an EpiPen to be retrieved should an anaphylactic episode occur to a student without any pre-existing anaphylactic history. It has also been documented that two EpiPens have been required during some anaphylactic episodes. In response to this, Beaumaris North Primary purchased four EpiPens at their own expense, outside their budget, so that their teachers could carry them on yard duty. Understandably, the school council at Beaumaris North has concerns about funding the expense to provide the EpiPens, as they require replacement on an annual basis. Beaumaris North assessed that they require six EpiPens annually, and with each generic EpiPen costing upwards of $135 it is unrealistic to expect our schools to fund this in full within already tight operating budgets. After receiving this letter from Mrs Newton I contacted the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Jan McLucas, to consider Mrs Newton’s concerns and act on them. Minister Gillard noted Beaumaris North Primary School’s approach to the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development as ‘an appropriate course of action’ given that they are ‘responsible for managing schools and bear legal responsibility for the duty of care of their students’. In other words, she washed her hands of the issue. The Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, however, told Mrs Newton that there was no funding available for such purposes and that the matter lies with the federal Department of Health and Ageing in relation to the possibility of considering EpiPens under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for such circumstances. However, Senator McLucas noted that, while EpiPens are available under the PBS for those assessed as high risk, schools are not eligible to purchase EpiPens at PBS subsidised prices. All of this represents a very unacceptable case of buck passing. PBS subsidised EpiPens at a rate of $31.30 or a concessional rate of $5 would significantly help schools, often on strained budgets, to be prepared. As well, there is a need for a truly national approach to training in the use of EpiPens and in their management. Nationally agreed guidelines would help to ensure that all teachers know the symptoms of anaphylaxis and are trained in the use of EpiPens in a way which satisfies health and education authorities. COAG should be the vehicle to see legislation and guidelines amended where necessary to ensure that the use of EpiPens by teachers is consistent and places safety first in clear, unambiguous terms. In circumstances where children’s lives are at stake, we must all exercise the utmost vigilance because one child’s life lost is one too many, as I am sure everyone inside and outside this House would agree.   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:894 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/890/Government-Strategy-to-Silence-Critics.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=890 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=890&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/890/Government-Strategy-to-Silence-Critics.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (6.06 pm, November 12, 2008)—Just under 12 months ago, the former government left this economy with no debt and a strong $20 billion plus surplus. Within 12 months the surplus is virtually all spent, and the community is being softened up for deficit spending and a return to debt. It took 12 years to build these foundations and only 12 months to undermine them. The Howard-Costello government fixed the financial infrastructure of our great country. If we had not paid off the $96 billion debt left to the country by the former Labor administration, if we had not done the hard yards, if we had not had a plan and if we had not had some comprehensive, concerted effort to reduce and eliminate that debt then Australian taxpayers would have paid more than $100 billion over those 12 years in interest payments alone on Labor’s debt. Think of the millstone that would have been for our economy over the last 12 years. We would have paid $8½ billion a year in interest. If we had not paid off Labor’s $96 billion debt then Mr Swan would have forecast four deficits last week, not four surpluses, because $8½ billion dollars a year of taxpayers’ money in interest rates would have been going out the door. The government would not have had the $10 billion that is the subject of this bill; it would not have been available. This is a bill which we support and, like all the other measures of the government, we reserve the right to be able to ask legitimate questions about the effectiveness, the structure and the way these things will impact on individuals around the country. If we had not built the record surpluses and created multibillion-dollar reserves, Australia would be far worse placed to deal with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We would not have been in a position, as we are now, to spend $10 billion as a fiscal stimulus. This option would not be available to us. We started with 20 per cent of GDP as debt 12 years ago. Now it is zero; in fact, it is negative debt because of the massive reserves that we have built up. Compare that with United States and most of the OECD, who have 50 per cent of GDP in government debt today. How well placed are they to deal with this crisis compared with Australia? Why? This job was done through financial management over 12 years. In 12 months those foundations have been undermined severely. All of this effort to remove the debt took measured judgement. It required accountability, and we were accountable. We did not object to people asking questions, because it helped us get policy right and it helped us make right decisions. It required an ability to listen, which is something very foreign to those on the other side of the chamber. It required resolve and it required considered, informed responses seeking the right advice, not making a decision about an unlimited deposit guarantee of great consequence which has subsequently been one of the biggest bungles we have seen in economic management for a long time. They took that monetary policy decision of great moment and did not even have the Reserve Bank in the room. They did not even ask the Reserve Bank’s explicit advice about the merit of such a proposal or how it should be structured so that there would not be a lot of unintended consequences. This is an approach of ill-informed responses and ill-informed decisions. Yet what do we see with this government in the face of a financial crisis? We see in many respects, as I look across the chamber, a rabbit in the spotlight. They spent 11 months doing nothing, taking no decisions. We saw all talk and no action. That is what you hear all around the country. What do a lot of people who voted for you on the other side of the chamber say to me? It is deep disappointment: ‘They are all talk and no action.’ Not being used to taking decisions for 11 months, when they finally took a decision and introduced an unlimited deposit guarantee it was rushed, it was bungled, it was not well informed, it was not coherent, it was not logical and consistent, it was not easily followed and understood and it was not a plan where all the elements stick together. This is not a coherent strategy to deal with the deep malaise that could confront us if we do not act properly. Anyone who dares to probe, anyone who dares to question and anyone who dares to make suggestions is not answered. They are defamed, they are put down, they are ridiculed and they are vilified. It is a form of McCarthyism. If anyone asks questions about infrastructure funding, they are accused of being against nation building. If anyone asks questions about the government’s response to climate change, they are labelled a sceptic. If anyone has any questions about immigration, they are called a racist. If anyone questions any of their economic documentation or reports, they are accused of attacking Treasury officials. This behaviour is a part of a broad, deliberate campaign to silence any legitimate questions. It is a form of McCarthyism by those opposite. They fear being accountable, but the nation will suffer and their government will suffer if they are not accountable. You make good decisions by being held accountable. You do not make good decisions by silencing people and by ensuring that no-one else has a point of view that is considered. It betrays a state of mind in this government which is defensive and which in many respects is lacking confidence. It is a state of mind lacking an instinct for managing an economy. They do not know what they do not know. We saw today the arrogance of ignorance again on display in this chamber from those opposite. It betrays a government which has no plan. It has no plan; it has got a political strategy but it has not got an economic strategy, and that is the problem. So when we ask legitimate questions about the economic advice on which these critical decisions rest, we are accused of vilifying Treasury officials. For example, my comments yesterday were not directed at the Treasury. Mr Albanese—Rubbish! Mr ROBB—They were not directed at the Treasury. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is a government document. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr ROBB—You are in government; you had better find out about government documents that are not Treasury documents. It is the Treasurer’s document and the Treasurer is entitled to change it. It is a government document. My comments have been deliberately misconstrued, by the government, as an attack on Treasury, and this is an attempt to silence anybody who asks legitimate questions of the government. The opposition reserve the right to ask legitimate questions about how well thought through these government programs are; how they will affect individuals; and how they will affect jobs, businesses and the lives of people around Australia. We reserve that right. Instead of attending to the questions surrounding the government’s deeply flawed, rushed, and mismanaged emissions trading scheme, Senator Wong sees fit to obfuscate—rather than answer any objections—by calling many in the coalition climate change sceptics, including me. Mr Albanese—You are! Mr ROBB—I am not a climate change sceptic; I am a Rudd sceptic. I do not see the ability on the other side of the House to manage this serious issue in a way which not only protects and strengthens our great economy but, at the same time, protects the wonderful environment that we have and the world environment. I do not see that ability. In relation to infrastructure—and we have the minister here—on the first question asked of the minister about Infrastructure Australia his response was: … I predict we will see nitpicking around the sides because they do not really support nation building … Mr Albanese—Yes. Mr ROBB—Again, we see this McCarthyism. As soon as you make any point or question any issue about infrastructure, you are against nation building! Government members interjecting— Mr ROBB—What a lot of nonsense that is: ‘You are against nation building. You are a sceptic. You are attacking Treasury officials.’ It is a form of McCarthyism, vilification, pigeonholing— The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)— Order! Members on my right, there are ample opportunities in this place to have your views heard. The member deserves to be heard in silence. Mr ROBB—Again, the minister for infrastructure said: And the opposition should get out of the way and support Labor’s agenda. He said that the opposition should support these funds. He said that the former government was against nation building. He said that the legislation for these funds would be introduced in the coming weeks. Well, of course, that was months ago; and where is the legislation? It is not here. Who is undermining nation building? It was to be a rapid program of introducing new infrastructure projects. We thought the legislation was arriving weeks ago. It was held up. Why was it held up? It was held up because the Minister for Finance and Deregulation was concerned about the minister for infrastructure requiring a lot more ministerial discretion. Yet we heard about objectivity. We heard about the way these projects would be assessed. And now we find out that a minister in the Labor government is concerned about the Minister for Infrastructure Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and his desire to see a lot more ministerial discretion embodied in that legislation. Well, we await the legislation. Whenever questions are raised about the great failures of state Labor governments we are accused of playing the blame game. Again, this is McCarthyism! In every area of questioning, they have some technique to silence those who are asking the questions. Yesterday, when asked about New South Wales cutting jobs, raising taxes and dumping infrastructure spending, the Prime Minister said: This government has embarked upon a course of action which does not simply perpetuate the blame game of the past. Again, this was an attempt to intimidate us, to vilify us and to silence us. No doubt, with the new bodies that have proliferated around COAG, the government has an agenda that is, in many respects, not accountable. I am sure when I raise the fact that nobody is ultimately responsible for the works of these bodies I will be accused of the blame game. Just watch this space! Rather than silence critics, the government should be listening to people. In the last 24 hours Exxon Mobil, Nyrstar, and Alcoa have all said that they are reconsidering their investments, which will affect the jobs of thousands of Australians. This government needs to listen. It needs accountability. If it is going to take solid decisions and if it is going to alter its plans to fit in with good judgement and good decisions then it needs to be accountable. It needs resolve. It needs considered, informed responses. Ridiculing, defaming and pigeonholing critics with a form of McCarthyism is no way to put in place a coherent strategy to deal with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It is no way to run a country. On this side of the House we support a stimulatory package. In this context, on this bill, we have taken the government on trust and we will support this package. We have taken them on trust. None of our questions have been answered on this or any other matter but we are taking the government on trust and we will support this bill. But we will not resile from our responsibility to keep the government accountable.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:890 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/882/Keynote-Address--Civil-Contractors-Federation-National-Conference.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=882 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=882&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/882/Keynote-Address--Civil-Contractors-Federation-National-Conference.aspx I am a student of Machiavelli. He lived 500 years ago. And, the principles he observed back then hold true today – in politics, in business, in organisations. Well, when Philip wrote to invite me to speak he said I might reflect on the role of government in future infrastructure. In that vein, I thought when any of you see Kevin Rudd or a State Premier, it may be in your interest to quote Machiavelli who observed, and I quote – “A successful prince has always planned and completed great projects, which have always kept his subjects in a state of suspense and wonder, and intent on their outcome. And his moves have followed closely upon one another in such a way that he has never allowed time and opportunity for people to plot quietly against them.” End of quote. I always think of Jeff Kennett when I read that quote. Jeff very successfully followed that rule to the letter in Melbourne, with a succession of great and sorely needed projects – his downfall was to allow too much time and opportunity between projects in the ‘bush’, which resulted in country people quietly plotting against him. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to join you this morning. Dookie College anecdote As I said, I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I greatly respect the risks you take, day-in, day-out. I have some sense of what’s involved. I built and ran a nationwide database technology company. I know the feeling of waking at 5.30am in a cold sweat wondering where I would get the salaries for 120 staff – do I increase the sales team?, do I increase or narrow the product line, cut costs, whatever? Equally, I am always impressed by people who employ others. I had the great privilege of working for Kerry Packer for a few years. I once asked him what was his greatest source of satisfaction. He shot back “Creating jobs for tens of thousands of people.” All of you do a great thing for Australia, and for our fellow Australians. And it’s not easy. You should be very proud of what you do, and what you have done to build our nation. The last few years have been a time of feverish activity – your industry has been at the centre of it. Yet, success has come with its own challenges – • Labour shortages and the related skill shortages, • The frustrations stemming from differences between State, territory and local government in regard to tendering, prequalifications, procurement, licensing, OH&S, and much more, • The uncertainty surrounding the lack of forward planning, • Doubts about the retention of the ABCC, • Those things working against small and medium sized contractors getting a fair go in many civil construction projects. • In turn, the impact this is having on the number of civil contractors left in small regional communities, and. • The impact of the move to an emissions trading scheme. The last few weeks has seen the world face a huge reality check. The party is over. Much world growth had been driven by unsustainable levels of debt. Billions of dollars lent to those who had little or no prospect of servicing their debt. I’ve no doubt that this financial meltdown will have a profound impact on our real economy over the next 24 months and beyond. I’ve been touring major infrastructure players in our resource, mining and infrastructure sectors over recent weeks. For the first time I can remember, a major topic has been the prospect or otherwise of securing financing for future stages of major ventures. If these global players are talking this way, the liquidity of tens of thousands of smaller companies across Australia will be particularly problematic. We have tough times ahead. For infrastructure investment, the heavy lifting done by the private sector in recent years will need to be supported by significant government efforts, not only with capital injections, but also with co-ordinated national forward planning and harmonisation of many regulatory issues. As a country we can take some real comfort from the state of our national balance sheet as we head into these turbulent seas. Over the last 12 years the financial infrastructure within Australia faced a major repair job. • $96 billion of government debt was paid off. • That means there is now $8.5 billion every year that is available for spending on infrastructure or other programs that would otherwise have been required to pay interest on the debt. • The culture of running massive deficits was replaced with a culture of budget surpluses. • An independent reserve bank was created • The rules introduced to govern our financial sector through APRA and ASIC are now the envy of others in the western world who failed to do likewise • Major reform of the indirect tax system gave states a huge growth tax to fund vital infrastructure and other commitments. Again over the last 12 years our sadly depleted defence infrastructure faced a major overhaul, with real annual growth of 3 per cent throughout that period (47% over 12 years from $10.6bn in 1995-96 to $22bn in 2007-08 ). Throughout the last 12 years our workforce infrastructure was brought into the 21st century. On the wharves we had the epic battle to modernise the Australian waterfront. The result has been a 60% improvement in productivity with average crane rates increasing from 17 movements per hour to world’s best practice of 27 or 28 per hour. In the workplace we faced political opposition at every turn, yet introduced major flexibility and abolished the job-destroying unfair dismissal laws for small business. All this resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, a youth participation rate ranked second among OECD countries and a real increase in wages, over and above inflation, of nearly 22 per cent. In the building and construction industries the establishment of the ABCC has had a profound impact. Working days lost per thousand employees due to industrial action plummeted from 37.4 in late 2005 to just 1.7 in mid 2007. Productivity has increased markedly with projects being delivered on time and within budget, resulting in a staggering 1.5% boost to Australia’s GDP, or over 5 billion in dollar terms each year This is a far cry from the pre-ABCC days of unbridled union power, when union bosses directed construction schedules, and threatening and intimidatory behaviour was commonplace. No government in its right mind would wind back such a major reform. I can assure you that the Coalition will not take a backwards step in opposing any attempt by the Rudd Government to effectively abolish or water down the ABCC. These reforms mean that Australia faces the difficulties ahead from a position of strength. The reforms have: • Injected a large measure of flexibility into our economy • Paid off all Federal Government debt of $96 billion • Created a $60 billion Future Fund • Created $ 21 billion for heath and education infrastructure funds • Created $38 billion for Auslink I and II • Created a $20 billion Building Australia Fund • Created a $10 billion water infrastructure fund, and Saw total infrastructure spending in Australia, in constant 2007 dollars, rise from $21 billion in 1996 to $56 billion dollars in 2007 – an increase from nearly 3 per cent of GDP to 5.4% of GDP. This situation compares with the balance sheets of the United States and Europe where net government debt levels are typically around 50 per cent of GDP. As a country we need to build on these reforms if we are to deal effectively with what lies ahead in the real economy. Civil construction can be one of the anchors in weathering this storm. Sensible infrastructure projects steadily coming on stream over the next three years will not only provide critical commercial activity in difficult times, but also provide a springboard to bounce out of the world downturn in due course, off the back of new productivity improving infrastructure. In this regard, new capital injections by Government and the private sector is a necessary but not sufficient condition, for this to happen. A major infrastructure impact will require a steady hand at the top of Government to instil confidence and resolve in the community. We must not see a repeat of the rushed and bungled decision by the Federal Government to impose an unlimited guarantee on bank deposits. In his rush to look in charge Mr Rudd grossly over-reached, and in the process he has seriously destabilised those many significant institutions denied the guarantee. The subsequent back peddling is compounding the erosion of confidence. It is always difficult to unscramble an omelette. We need cool heads at the top. A major infrastructure impact will also require the removal of regulatory and other impediments that undermine your ability to do the job required. There is an urgent need for COAG and local government to resolve the mish-mash of approaches to tendering, prequalification, procurement, licensing, OH&S, contract standardisation, and the rest, that characterises disjointed regulation across states, territories and local government. Consistency, transparency and flexibility (eg. Mutual recognition) must be the benchmarks in any attempts by COAG and local government to address these issues. To this end, these regulatory matters must get equal billing with project consideration at the forthcoming infrastructure meetings of COAG, and at the Federal Government summit with local government leaders. A major infrastructure impact will also require co-ordinated and objective forward planning between the Federal, State and Local Governments. The Rudd Government came to office nearly 12 months ago saying they had a strong plan for Australia’s infrastructure. After 12 months they have not made one decision. No plan is on the table. The urgency and onus on Infrastructure Australia to deliver an integrated forward plan, which is objectively based, is growing by the day. Such a plan, and the subsequent political decisions regarding individual projects, will have community and business support if the process is transparent. This means full disclosure of the results of cost benefit analysis for projects recommended and for those rejected, including al data, assumptions and models used. It also means transparency of PPP contracts. The Coalition is a strong believer in infrastructure. It is for this reason that we will take a very hard nosed approach to evaluating the output of Infrastructure Australia, and the subsequent political decisions. Given the significance of infrastructure projects as part of dealing with the economic difficulties ahead, these hard earned surpluses, gifted to the Rudd Government, must be put to the best possible use. The infrastructure funds must not end up as a slush fund to bail out incompetent State Labor Governments. Such planning must also be alert to the financial environment we are heading into. For example, the returns on some major infrastructure projects, such as ports or housing infrastructure in the Pilbara, will continue to be significant and are likely to be attractive in stimulating private sector investment by superannuation funds. An eye to unlocking private investment, at a time of severe global liquidity constraints, will be critical. A major infrastructure impact will also require addressing labour and skill shortages in civil construction. The ANZSCO code drives skilled migration lists. The failure of this code to reflect the range of skill needs in the civil construction industry is unacceptable. The Coalition will strongly support any push for an urgent review of the ANZSCO code to correct this serious deficiency. As Minister for Vocational and Further Education last year I was committed to the opening up of skills training by our state systems so that it could be delivered in a way that suited you and your apprentices and trainees, and delivered where and when you wanted it. In Victoria in the ‘90’s, Jeff Kennett delivered great autonomy to the TAFE’s. The Directors can run their institutions as a business. As such, in Victoria there exists a more effective and decentralised approach to technical education. It can be delivered on site, at nights, in flexible blocks or many other combinations. Profits flowing from industry partnerships are invested back into the TAFE’s that generate such income. Queensland has also taken steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, in many other states technical and skills education is still controlled by centralised, union dominated bureaucracy. The needs of industry, and students, are severely compromised. This is not in anyone’s best interest, except the unions. Another measure that we introduced was skills vouchers as part of the $2.9 billion allocated to technical training in the 2007/08 Budget. This allocated up to $3,000 for people to train or retrain (depending on their circumstances). These vouchers could be combined. For example, a group of ten employees could combine their vouchers and have a training professional come out on site and deliver training at a time that suited them and the business. Flexibility and convenience was the key. The demand was so great we had to uncap the program. One of the first acts of the Rudd Government was to scrap these vouchers. I believe this was a very bad mistake. One final issue likely to greatly influence the impact infrastructure can have in the years ahead is the design and timing of the Government’s planned emissions trading scheme. Without doubt, climate change is best tackled from a position of economic strength. To this end, an effective emissions trading scheme must be designed to protect our export and import competing industries until the rest of the world has signed up to a course of action. However, as it stands today, the Rudd Government’s preferred design for an emissions trading scheme would effectively impose billions of dollars of tax on those Australian export and import competing industries which are high users of energy, ahead of any commitment by our major trade competitors to sign up to such a scheme. This makes no sense. The proposal for an emissions trading scheme is a structural change of major proportions. Yet, over recent weeks, I have had over 30 meetings with companies and industry bodies covering concrete, zinc, lime, steel, energy, metal works, paper, waste, dairy and much more. All confirm the Government’s determination to heavily tax the emissions of these export and import competing industries, irrespective of what the rest of the world is doing. In the past I have been employed commercially as part of investment teams working up development proposals on major resource projects. For these reasons, I am keenly aware that in a global world, companies have endless options, and they have responsibilities to share holders. Over time, margins are often thin. We must be extremely careful not to shoot ourselves in the foot, and see industries close and move offshore, or resource projects never materialising. In both cases, jobs and emissions head overseas. The Rudd Government must defer the politically inspired start date of 2010 until we have some idea what the rest of the world decides late next year in Copenhagen and what the new US President intends to do. As well, we must have some feel for the impact of the financial meltdown on Australia’s real economy, and the capacity of Australia’s industry to cope with a new tax. In this regard, the Government’s much delayed economic modelling of the impact of an emissions trading scheme is expected to be released today. The revelation that this modelling takes no account of the global financial meltdown beggars belief, and leaves the exercise dead in the water. After all, it was Kevin Rudd who told us just two and a half weeks ago that the world has changed as we know it in the wake of the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. It reveals much about the Rudd Government’s ideological rush to implement an emissions trading scheme by an artificial 2010 deadline, come what may. Again, it has all the hallmarks of the rushed and bungled decision to provide an unlimited guarantee on all bank deposits. Australia is one of only five countries in the world that will meet its 2010 Kyoto target for emissions reductions. We got that right. We should be equally level-headed in designing what we do beyond 2012. For its part, the Coalition is very committed to an effective response to climate change, but we see no point in doing things which have little or no environmental benefit, but which would do a great deal of economic harm. As a country we should have no intention of exporting emissions and jobs. It does nothing for the environment or our economy. But this is exactly what will happen if Australia gets too far ahead of the world. As Professor Garnaut concluded, there is no Australian solution to climate change, there is only a global solution. The civil construction industry is again at the centre of things at a critical time in our history. It is my sincere hope that government, at all levels, gives you the opportunity to contribute at your peak. Thank you for giving me the honour of opening your conference, and best wishes. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:882 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/875/Burma.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=875 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=875&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/875/Burma.aspx I rise in response to the ministerial statement on Burma. I have long had a personal concern with the oppressive regime in Burma. During my time in business I had many commercial interests in Thailand and gained an appreciation of the totally unacceptable conditions that applied across the border. I visited many of the border regions on business and in conversations over meals at night would be told of the horrific incidents that were taking place within that country. As Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs responsible for the settlement of refugees I had firsthand exposure to the refugee camps and the horrendous experience of many people throughout their lifetime being exposed to a life in a refugee camp and all that goes with it. Earlier this year I attended a meeting of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly and had a one-hour private meeting with a group of exiled Burmese politicians. Again, many of my views of the regime were reinforced. There is an urgency about dealing with the situation in Burma. The coalition welcomes any well targeted measures that extend Australia’s deep concerns relating to the violation of human rights and the suppression of democratic ambitions in the state of Burma. Burma’s regime, the so-called State Peace Development Council, has overseen economic decay and social disintegration since 1988. The regime has ensured that Burma is now the cot case of South-East Asia. The events of September last year briefly brought the plight of the Burmese people to the world’s attention, but in no way have the problems which have led to such protests subsided. The ongoing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, has become the symbol of the brutal nature of this regime. Her release is paramount to reaching a peaceful solution and settlement. The Australian government must persist, as the previous government did, in making formal representations at the highest levels of government in urging the Burmese regime to address human rights and the release of all political prisoners. This must be done in cooperation with our regional neighbours, including China and Thailand, who are among Burma’s leading trade partners. It is also critical that ASEAN be front and centre of such efforts. The further sanctions announced today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs follow on from the previous sanctions implemented in October last year by the former government. These financial sanctions announced by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, were well targeted against 418 individuals, including members of the State Peace and Development Council, cabinet ministers and senior military figures. This coincided with $14 million in humanitarian assistance to the Burmese people, who are the innocent victims of this regime. These funds were directed through a number of organisations and supported basic health, water and sanitation for vulnerable people among the south-east and northern border regions of Burma. I note the statement by the minister that the initial response of the Burmese regime to Cyclone Nargis was very disappointing—and indeed it was very disappointing and caused great hardship to many hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of Burmese. However, I also must note that the initial $3 million response from the Australian government was also very disappointing—it was a pittance. The death toll from the cyclone was of 2004 tsunami proportions. It is estimated that over 200,000 Burmese died as a result of the cyclone. As was the case with the tsunami in late 2004, Australia should have been taking a strong and immediate lead in responding to this tragedy. An AusAID team should have been made available immediately and Australia should have indicated that we were prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars, as we did with the tsunami, in assistance to this country in such difficult circumstances. This is our region. We are a successful, developed country with leadership responsibility to respond effectively to emergencies in our region, and especially to emergencies which relate to a country which is in such a dire situation and where the people are so oppressed. Australia was well placed to respond to the situation in Burma due to the investment by the Howard government in Australia’s ability to respond to regional crises. In the final two budgets of the Howard government, over $100 million was set aside to improve Australia’s response to emergencies in the region. I do acknowledge the final contribution by the Australian federal government to this crisis. I would also like to warmly acknowledge the work of Australian aid bodies, including World Vision and Care Australia. I have met previously with those bodies and was very impressed by the work they had undertaken. As these organisations told me, the effects of the cyclone were comparable to those of the 2004 tsunami yet there was much less media coverage given and consequently private donations were much fewer than they were in 2004. We are a generous country, and I am sure most would be surprised to hear that World Vision received only $5 million in private donations for cyclone relief compared to over $100 million following the 2004 tsunami.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:875 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/860/Age-Pension.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=860 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=860&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/860/Age-Pension.aspx I rise to speak on the current plight facing Australia’s pensioners and I thank the member for Tangney for bringing forward this motion. In its first 10 months, the Rudd government has ignored senior Australians and, as in so many other areas of government, it has been all talk and no action. But talk offers little solace to single age pensioners, who are doing it extremely tough at the moment. They are doing it so tough that the Prime Minister and most of his front bench have said that they could not survive on $281 a week, yet they have done nothing. They have said, ‘You hang on for another 12 months while we finish an inquiry.’ Single age pensioners, including over 6,000 in my own electorate of Goldstein, who currently receive just $281 a week are facing increasing cost-of-living pressures—food, petrol, often rent or rates, and it goes on. That is why the coalition is advocating a $30 a week increase to single age pensioners by introducing legislation titled Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 into the Senate to allow this increase to happen. This immediate additional payment will be for recipients of the single age pension, recipients of the widow B pension and recipients of the single age service pension. It is a test for Labor parliamentary members to show where they stand on the dignity of so many senior Australians. We are giving members of the Labor government the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are. Since coming to office, Mr Rudd has announced some 170 reports, reviews, committees and commissions. Pensioners will now have to wait for yet another one before Mr Rudd takes any action. Australia’s single age pensioners need this increase and they need it now, not in a year’s time. Despite Mr Rudd’s claims that the government assisted older Australian in the budget by paying a one-off bonus, it must be remembered, despite the rhetoric of the previous speaker, that this was the bonus that Mr Rudd was planning to scrap before succumbing to pressure from both the coalition and pension groups. It is troubling to think of what position senior Australians would find themselves in today if Mr Rudd had had his way and the bonus had been scrapped. In government, the coalition—again, despite the nonsense spoken by the previous member—was able due to strong economic management to pay a dividend to improve the financial position of pensioners. This was after paying off Labor’s $96 billion of debt. We increased pensions at two per cent a year above the rate of inflation. We introduced the utilities allowance to assist pensioners with the cost of utilities bills such as gas and electricity. We introduced the non-taxable $500 bonus payment annually. We introduced a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate to ease the financial pressures on pensioners, which Labor voted against. Labor’s proposed changes to the Medicare levy surcharge threshold will further hurt pensioners by forcing up premiums for private health insurance—so much for compassion. We also legislated that the age pension be set to at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings or increased by the CPI, whichever is greater. As a result, the maximum single rate pension is now $72.80 a fortnight higher than it would have been otherwise. Partnered pensioners are now better off by $122.60 every fortnight than they would have been under Labor’s ad hoc approach to increasing pensions. To further encourage workplace participation, we increased the amount of age pension a part-time pensioner receives above the income test free area by reducing the pension income test withdrawal rate from 50c in the dollar to 40c and we halved the assets test taper rate from $3 to $1.50 per fortnight for each $1,000 of assets above the allowable asset limits—a whole host of things which improved the lot of Australia’s seniors. Instead of offering token sympathy, Mr Rudd must start offering solutions and delivering on them now. There is no reason why the government could not take some immediate action while continuing with their longer term review. In its first budget, the Rudd government, backed by a $21 billion surplus inherited from the coalition, delivered increased taxes and spending and even a politically motivated slush fund, but failed to deliver for pensioners. Something must be done, they are a group who have done so much to build our country and we owe them a great deal.   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:860 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/836/Australia-in-the-World-Past-Present-and-Future.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=836 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=836&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/836/Australia-in-the-World-Past-Present-and-Future.aspx “The decision by the Rudd Government to support the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s approval of the agreement between India and the USA, effectively condones the sale of uranium to India by other countries around the world. “As the Coalition has been saying, the Government had no choice but to reverse their earlier opposition to these sales if they were serious about climate change and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” said Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. “As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “The removal of the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources could see as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs being met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. “This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Mr Rudd could propose. “Mr Rudd and his Government now need to go one step further and reverse the other half of their decision which overturned the Howard government agreement to supply India with Australian uranium, provided certain conditions were met, and help India supply greenhouse gas-free electricity to its growing population . “The Rudd Government's decision to overturn this policy was wrong and deeply offensive to India. “It is hypocritical in the extreme for Australia to refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium. “As well, it makes no sense for Australia to sell uranium to China and Russia, but not India. “The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. “To block Australian uranium sales to India while supporting the sale by other countries makes no sense and is an affront to India. “It is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed.”   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:836 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/833/Australia--Israel-Jewish-Affairs-Council-on-return-from-Israel.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=833 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=833&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/833/Australia--Israel-Jewish-Affairs-Council-on-return-from-Israel.aspx The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Member for Goldstein, recently addressed a lunch hosted by the Australia / Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) after returning from a six-day visit to Israel. During Mr Robb’s visit to Israel he visited Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, Massada, Galilee, the Golan Heights, Tel Aviv, Sderot and Beersheba, and met with Israeli government Ministers and officials, members of the Knesset, members of the security forces and numerous members of the Israeli media. Below is an extract of remarks made during an AIJAC lunch held on Thursday, July 31st – “Firstly I would like to extend my thanks to the Australia / Israel Jewish Affairs Council and the Rambam fellowship for their support of this visit. “While I have been a student of the middle east since I was 17 years of age, my six day visit to Israel has greatly honed my perspective; although I am conscious of not appearing to be an “instant expert”. “I left Israel with a number of powerful impressions. “When I first arrived in Jerusalem at 4.45am on a Saturday morning, I went for a walk as the sun rose. I strolled past the King David Hotel and Herrod’s tombs. As I took photos of Mt Sion and the valleys of Jerusalem and looked out over the buildings, two things, in particular, struck me. “Firstly, I found it a profound spiritual experience. “The other thing was the inspired town planning and the decision to mandate the white buildings; it is unbelievably striking. “Another impression is that despite everything else that has happened in Israel over the last 60 years, it is a state that is flourishing and thriving. Not just economically, which I think is an achievement in itself, but thriving in spirit, in culture, in science, in technology, in agriculture and in industry. “Wherever we travelled it conjured that impression. “I was also impressed by the extraordinary geography. For a country a third of the side of Tasmania are deserts, lush agriculture, strong industrial areas, sophisticated modern cities, of course historical cities and sites thousands of years old. “It confirmed to me that the Israeli achievements and strengths derive from the Jewish brain and spirit as there aren’t many resources. “Another impression is the ever present threat of provocation. No incidents occurred while we were there; however, I was amazed by the way weapons and guns have become an extension of people’s bodies “While I was in the Golan Heights it was brought home that the only stable thing within the Middle East is instability. “In Beersheba I was reminded of the long standing connections between Israel and Australia, when I visited the memorial to the Light Horsemen and the military cemetery where so many young Australians lie. “Within Israel there is great diversity; one nation, many tribes. “Twenty percent of the population are Arab Israeli’s, there are Bedouin encampments in Negev and elsewhere and there is huge diversity within the Jewish community itself. “It is almost as though the Jewish community wanted a nation state so they could be whatever they wanted. “On the political front I left extremely optimistic about the spirit and resilience of the Israeli Jewish community, but pessimistic about the peace process. “At the heart of this pessimism is the sense that so many people in the Middle East do not accept the legitimacy of the Jewish Sate. It is a wrong, but it is an ever present fact that must inform future actions.”   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:833 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/804/Matter-of-Public-Importance-The-Governments-failures-in-foreign-affairs.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=804 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=804&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/804/Matter-of-Public-Importance-The-Governments-failures-in-foreign-affairs.aspx “The failure of the Government to manage, protect and grow Australia’s foreign relationships in the Asia / Pacific in a balanced manner.” Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (3.25 pm)—For all the talk of the Prime Minister’s foreign affairs experience, after six months in government all the talk in our region is about the Prime Minister’s obsession with China at the expense of all other major relationships in North, East and South-East Asia. Already there has emerged a serious concern about the lack of balance and perspective in Australia’s regional foreign policy under the Rudd government. Already it is clear that this government came to office with no clear plan for protecting and growing and balancing our critical relationships in the Asia-Pacific region. Outside of China the major actions so far appear to be designed to ‘trail our coats’ with old friends and with strategic allies alike. In just six months the Prime Minister has failed to pick up the phone to the Prime Minister of Japan to explain Australia’s gunboat diplomacy against Japanese whalers. It took 5½ months to make contact despite the great honour that Japan bestowed on Australia immediately after the election in inviting our Prime Minister to the G8 talks in July. That was an invitation which was purely at the discretion of the Japanese Prime Minister and yet there has been no contact despite highly provocative actions being taken by Australia against the Japanese. In just six months the Prime Minister has snubbed Japan and every other Asian country except China in his 17-day world tour. In just six months the Prime Minister has taken the axe to an already lean Department of Foreign Affairs by slashing over $100 million from the budget despite already committing Australia to an increased role in climate change, the UN, Asia and the Pacific and in Afghanistan. Again, this government does not match actions with words. It slashed $100 million from the Department of Foreign Affairs despite announcing a much upgraded program on the world stage. In just six months the Prime Minister downgraded negotiations of a free trade agreement with both China and Japan. In just six months the Prime Minister effectively told India that we do not trust them with our uranium by reneging on the agreement of the former coalition government to supply India with uranium for power generation, seriously reducing India’s capacity to combat climate change. In just six months the Prime Minister abandoned Australia’s commitment to the quadrilateral dialogue with India, United States, Japan and Australia again raising concerns especially with India and Japan about the Rudd government’s China bias. All of this is against a background where the standing and the influence of Australia had never been higher when the Rudd government took office. Yet all those actions have occurred in the space of six months, which have undermined that standing and influence. Over nearly 12 years of coalition government Australia found its confidence on the world stage and did not shy away from its responsibilities as a free nation. We were able to balance both of those important objectives. Over 12 years the coalition worked to strengthen simultaneously all of our key relationships. As a result the US alliance had never been stronger or our ties with Japan as broad and as deep. Relations with China had never been more productive. We enjoyed a close and frank relationship with the democratic leaders of Indonesia, and we welcomed India as a major emerging power in global affairs. Our approach to foreign policy was, first and foremost, directed to deliver greater national security and economic prosperity to Australians. It was grounded in realism to serve the national interest and was so ably led by our former Prime Minister and the member for Mayo. We ensured that Australia played an important leadership role in our own neighbourhood while also being willing to fulfil broader international responsibilities with confidence and with resolve. Much of that in six months in the region has been undermined. Years of painstaking work to strike that balance has been undermined. We strongly believe that Australia can and should make a positive and enduring difference in international affairs. Critically, our standing and influence around the globe, and in particular in our own region, was built upon an uninterrupted and superior economic performance compared with other major Western economies over the last 12 years, despite confronting the Asian financial crisis, the 2001 US recession, the tech bubble, 9-11 and the worst drought in 100 years. Much of our position, standing and influence in the region was born out of that superior economic performance. Good economic management assists good diplomacy, and good diplomacy helps to deliver good economic management. It enabled us to strike good relationships and to develop a measure of cooperation, especially with countries in the region, many of whom were very badly affected by the Asian financial crisis and the US recession, saw the aftermath of 9-11 in a serious way, and were affected by the tech bubble. Because of our performance as an economy we were able to provide cooperation and that in turn enabled us to weather those storms. But all of those things are about consistency and balance in our international affairs. In this context, Mr Rudd’s longstanding relationship with China and his Mandarin speaking abilities should be a great advantage to Australia. However, to fully capitalise on those attributes—that longstanding relationship, that knowledge of China—Mr Rudd needs to almost overcompensate with other countries in the region so that fears of China bias do not sour many other critical relationships. So far, the opposite has been the case. India and Japan have been offended—gratuitously, unnecessarily. Indonesia has been overlooked—gratuitously, unnecessarily. Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and many others have rated no mention—no consideration. In March, Indonesia’s defence minister made the most unusual public intervention when he publicly expressed concern that the Rudd government may be putting too much stock in its relationship with China to the detriment of its links with near neighbours. As our strongest friend in Asia, and our largest export market by a country mile, the only question the Japanese wanted answered when the Prime Minister took office after 24 November was: would he visit Tokyo before Beijing? Here is a man who is supposedly enormously experienced in the region and in international affairs. He understood the implications of not only not going to Tokyo before Beijing but ignoring the Japanese government and the Japanese Prime Minister for 5½ months, despite taking highly provocative action against whaling, despite receiving an invitation to the G-8 summit and despite all sorts of other issues—ignoring all of those overtures from Japan. The Prime Minister must have understood the implications of his actions. For Mr Rudd to then spend four days in China on a 17-day world tour and not find one hour to visit Japan caused a great loss of face in Japan. He must have understood this. He knows these things. It was an act of diplomatic stupidity or, the more I look at it and try to search for explanations, an act of diplomatic perversity. No doubt this action will serve to undermine Japan’s sense of confidence in its own position and in its relationship with Australia. It has set back our relationship a long way. This is our closest friend in Asia. We have had 50 years of a most extraordinary relationship with this country, Japan. And with six months of, in my view, ignorance, the Prime Minister of this country has severely undermined that relationship. Japan also lost face when our Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, made his offensively worded remarks on the abandonment of the quadrilateral talks between Australia, United States, Japan and India while in a press conference with China’s foreign minister. Can you imagine that? What were they thinking about to put our foreign minister up with the Chinese foreign minister at a time when a series of actions had made other countries in the region doubt and worry about the China bias? What were they thinking about to put our foreign minister up to announce the unilateral abandonment of the quadrilateral talks? This has worried not only Japan but also India, and it has confused the United States. They wonder what we are on about. This is disturbing. China is of course of great importance to Australia. It is called balance; that is what we are talking about. The quadrilateral dialogue of democracies was clearly abandoned to appease China. This is disturbing. China is of great importance to Australia, but we must not be in the position of tugging the forelock to any country. We must not be in that position. Further concerns have been raised in Japan and India and among South-East Asian countries over the lack of meaningful consultation with Australia over the Prime Minister’s preference to institutionalise and expand the six-party talks that were originally established to discuss North Korea—expand them to include Australia but not India or Indonesia. The Rudd government’s decision to reverse the former coalition government agreement to supply India with uranium for clean power generation is also a serious snub to India and reduces India’s capacity to combat climate change. Its grubby motivation for reneging on this understanding with India is borne purely out of party politics. And that is what they told the Indians—this is just a matter of party politics; this is not about the national interest. Nuclear power generation would be a safe, sustainable and nonpolluting source of energy for India. Clean nuclear power has the potential to meet 35 per cent of all of India’s expanded energy needs by 2050. Yet what do we do with 40 per cent of the world’s uranium? We put our heads in the sand. It makes absolutely no sense at all to sell uranium to China and Russia and not to India. And 95 per cent of the people on the other side would believe, accept and agree with that. But, no, party politics says otherwise. Indian government officials have said they were angered by the Rudd government’s pathetic hypocrisy on this issue. This issue alone could make an Australia a strategically important partner to India, the world’s largest democracy and an emerging regional powerhouse. It is the only thing they really want from us, the major thing. It is a big issue. To date the Prime Minister has offended or ignored most countries in Asia, and has failed to present a coherent policy towards Asia other than for China. Even in China, there are growing and persistent concerns about the way in which they are being discouraged from investing in resource projects in Australia. They are getting all sorts of funny signals coming out of Australia. They are being directly told to withdraw applications while this Australian government thinks about it. It is another watching exercise. But this is a dangerous situation. The Howard government demonstrated that Australia could simultaneously deepen and broaden all of these relationships. The Rudd government has a regional repair job to do, and do it fast. The Prime Minister should start tonight, in his address to the Asia Society annual dinner, and acknowledge the damage his 5½ month snubbing of Japan has done—(Time expired)   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:804 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/799/60th-Anniversary-of-UN-Peacekeeping-Operations.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=799 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=799&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/799/60th-Anniversary-of-UN-Peacekeeping-Operations.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (3.41 pm)—On behalf of the opposition, it is my privilege to support the sentiments just expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 60 years. In Indonesia in 1947, Australians were part of the very first group of UN military observers anywhere in the world and were, in fact, the first into the field. Currently there are 17 UN peacekeeping operations across the world and Australia is playing its part in the Middle East, Sudan, Cyprus—where Australians have assisted since 1964—and East Timor. In marking this 60th anniversary of the first UN peacekeeping operation, the approach of the tens of thousands of Australians who have participated in UN operations I think is typified by those Australian peacekeepers, led exceptionally by General Cosgrove, who in 1999 answered the call of help for the small and vulnerable community of East Timor. The East Timor operation was highly successful, but the events of earlier this year highlight that there are still many challenges to overcome and Australia must continue to stand side by side in addressing such challenges. What is more, the Australians involved in this ongoing peacekeeping mission helped restore Australia’s relationship with neighbouring Indonesia following our 1999 intervention. As General Cosgrove has stated: ‘I was extremely proud of the pragmatic, good-humoured, cooperative way the Australians cooperated with the Indonesians. It was a milestone in our relationship, both at the military level, which had taken some hits, and even country to country.’ In a similar vein, over six decades Australia has contributed over 35,000 Australian military and police personnel to more than 50 peace operations around the world. It is a record which all of us in this House and in our nation should be immensely proud of. We have contributed to rebuilding nation states from the bottom up. From Sudan to the Sinai, Australia can stand tall in the international community, and we all owe gratitude to the men and women who bravely represent us in such missions. Worldwide there are 110,000 people deployed in UN peacekeeping at the moment from nearly 120 countries. They deserve our thanks and appreciation. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage Australians to donate to the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project and to thank those individuals and corporations that have already donated. I note the minister’s comments that the Australian government has decided to seek election to a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2013-14 period. As stated by the opposition previously, this is a legitimate objective but, given the nature of elections to such positions these days, it must not be achieved by compromising our principles or national interest to gain a majority of votes from the, now, 192 member countries. Given the harmony and the common sense that has for so long characterised our nation, Australia is well credentialed to contribute to peacekeeping roles. I commend the professionalism and the effectiveness of all those who have carried out the roles on our behalf. Our continued participation is a good thing. It is a very principled and important obligation. It is a demonstration of our belief and support for peace and stability throughout the world.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 27 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:799 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/765/Address-to-the-Sydney-Insitute--Uranium-Sales-to-India-A-Strategic-Imperative.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=765 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=765&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/765/Address-to-the-Sydney-Insitute--Uranium-Sales-to-India-A-Strategic-Imperative.aspx Address to the Sydney Insitute - Uranium Sales to India: A Strategic Imperative 31 March 2008 - The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. In August 2007 the Howard Government agreed to export uranium to India. The uranium was intended only for power generation and would not contribute to nuclear proliferation. The decision has since been overturned by the Rudd Government. The Rudd Government position is wrong and unsustainable. The decision also reflects confused and inconsistent policy priorities given that one of Mr Rudd’s supposed three pillars of his foreign policy is enhancing relations with Asia. Ultimately I expect that the Rudd Government will need to reverse this decision not to sell Australian yellowcake to India. The decision, and the amateur way in which the decision was communicated to the Indian Government, has left a very bitter taste in Indian mouths. From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in India, the world community and Australia, addressing the reality of India’s energy needs, given the very stringent conditions India is prepared to accept to enter the international nuclear market for peaceful energy purposes. The Rudd Government’s position will also set back the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The nuclear protocols agreed to last August would see 65 per cent of all nuclear reactors in India coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Global non-proliferation would be greatly strengthened by including India, a country which has an exemplary record on non-proliferation. Furthermore, the Rudd Government’s position is unsustainable from the point of view of wider bilateral interests, notably the potential free-trade agreement between our two countries. In August 2007 Australia and India agreed to undertake a joint feasibility study on the merits of a bilateral free-trade agreement between the two countries, with a view to seeing large-scale elimination of trade, investment and services barriers between our two economies. The economic, social and security implications of such an agreement are potentially of enormous benefit to our community. Australian opposition to uranium sales to India for energy purposes could severely compromise and undermine any worthwhile progress on a bilateral free-trade agreement. An Historical Perspective: From independence through until the end of the 20th Century, Australia-India relations could best be described as qualified indifference. The foreign policy position of non-alignment pioneered by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru saw us on opposite sides on many international issues through the Cold War period, from the Korean War, to India’s support for China in the UN, to the Vietnam War and to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. All of this, when combined with the state of the Indian economy, a 1980s and ‘90s Australian view of India through the narrow prism of the ‘India-Pakistan’ conflict and the nuclear tests of 1998, meant that relations between our two countries came to be characterised more by mutual disinterest or mutual testiness. Our shared commitment to cricket and democracy probably helped us weather significant differences which sprung from other commitments and other alignments over these decades. As well, the bond of the Commonwealth should not be underestimated in the role it played in carrying us through our differences. However, in this century so much has changed. In a few short years our relations have not only normalised, but reached the point of a potentially strong and enduring strategic partnership. And, just as the powerful strategic partnership India is forging with the United States has as its cornerstone the agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation, so too is this nuclear cooperation a primary factor in India’s prospective full engagement with Australia. For Mr Rudd not to see this is a serious error of judgement. This is particularly so at a time when Mr Rudd is seeking a rotating seat on the UN Security Council while denying India reliable clean energy, the very thing that will bolster India’s legitimate claim to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Australia must engage because India has truly begun to look east with constructive and responsible eyes. India is increasingly playing a vital role in the evolution of our region. It is the emerging economic powerhouse of South Asia. It is expected that India will pass China’s population as the worlds largest within 20 years, at around 1.5 billion people. The economic revolution masterminded by India’s current Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, when he was Finance Minister, heralds an economic awakening comparable to that prompted by Deng Xiaoping in China. Along with China, the rise of India in the years ahead look to be the major forces altering the global economy and world politics. The time for Australia to make a major political investment in India is now. The strategic imperative is overwhelming. In recent years important groundwork has been lain, beginning with the significant counter-terrorism cooperation with India following 9/11, the joint action over the Tsunami, the decision by the Howard Government to allow the export of Australian uranium for civilian nuclear energy, the active support for India’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the beginning of negotiations for a bilateral free-trade agreement, the involvement of Australia in quadrilateral talks involving the US, Japan and India, the joint naval exercise held in the Bay of Bengal in 2007 and the extraordinary growth in our trade. Already India is Australia’s fourth largest export market, with exports growing at year-on-year rates in excess of 30 per cent since 2000, faster than export growth to China. Mining and agriculture are obvious growth centres, but investment and services also hold huge potential for growth, with India already our second largest source of overseas students, and tourism expanding dramatically. All of this on top of the 250,000 strong Australian Indian community that contributes so vibrantly to the multicultural success of our nation, no less than our successful Chinese community. In terms of strategic initiatives of enormous moment to Australia since World War II, we should aim to be in a position in future years to look back and see comprehensive engagement with India in the 21st Century standing alongside our achievement of other great partnerships - the signing of ANZUS in 1951, the formalising of our involvement with Japan in the 1950s and our engagement with China in the 1990s and into this century. India’s energy needs: Rapid population and economic growth will see a rapid rise in India’s energy needs as it seeks to grow at close to 10% to lift its people out of poverty. As India grows it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage. Power generation will account for much of the increase in primary energy demand, given surging electricity demand in industry and in residential and commercial buildings. Most of the new electricity generating capacity will be fuelled by coal. Among end-users, energy demand for transport sees the fastest rate of growth, as rising household incomes drive accelerating demand for motor vehicles. In the absence of strong alternative policy action, galloping energy demand will see major increases in imports of coal, oil and gas, and in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Over the next 25 years, for logistical and quality reasons, much of India’s coal needs will need to be met by imports. The trend is evidenced by the growth in Australia’s coal exports to India since 2000. Until 1990, Australia exported no coal to India. In 2000/2001 Australia exported just over $800 million worth of coal to India; last year our coal trade reached $2.5 billion, an extraordinary 300 per cent growth in six years. Again, over the next 25 year period primary energy demand in India is expected to double, with India overtaking Japan before 2025 to become the world’s third largest net importer of oil after the United States and China. India’s greenhouse gas emissions: All of this adds up to India becoming the world’s third largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2015, after ranking fifth in 2005. Two-thirds of India’s emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation, this share of emissions from coal fired power stations will increase through to 2030, and beyond. India will not sacrifice development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will only occur by employing less carbon-intensive energy – nuclear, gas or clean coal. This has been strongly emphasised by Prime Minister Singh who has said, “Nuclear energy offers a way out by providing clean energy for development. So I see enormous opportunities for members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and India with regard to supply of raw materials, technology and reactors”. The greenhouse impact of nuclear power generation is brought home by the fact that the export of Australian uranium ore concentrates in 2006-07 was sufficient to power 50 reactors, producing about 40 per cent more than Australia’s total electricity production. Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources. Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year. If the uranium deal succeeds, and the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, it is estimated that by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. Australia’s Uranium Exports Policy: Australia’s uranium export policy acknowledges the strategic significance which distinguishes uranium from other energy sources. Australian policy has consistently recognised that special arrangements need to be put in place to distinguish between the civil and military applications of nuclear energy. When adopted in 1977, Australia’s export policy was a more rigorous safeguards policy than that of any country supplying uranium to world markets. Today it is now very similar to that of the USA and Canada. Australia’s policy embodies fundamental tenets first outlined in 1977, and adjusted to reflect a number of developments in the intervening period. For example, the sale of uranium to a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not unprecedented. In 1981, the Fraser Government negotiated an agreement to sell uranium to France, with Australia exporting uranium to them throughout the ‘80s under the Hawke Government. However, France did not become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until 1992. Australia has always required assurances that exported uranium and its derivatives cannot assist the development of nuclear weapons or be used in other military programs. It is only sold for exclusively peaceful purposes of power generation and related research and development. This is done by precisely accounting for amounts of Australia-Obligated Nuclear Material as it moves through the nuclear fuel cycle. It is exported under Australia’s network of bilateral safeguards agreements which ensures coverage by the International Atomic Energy Agency from the time it leaves Australian ownership, for the full life of the material. Nature of the Australia/India Uranium Agreement: The US-India nuclear deal, struck personally between Prime Minister Singh and President Bush, was concluded in principle last August after two years of negotiation. The deal separates India’s nuclear energy program from its nuclear weapons program. To be finalised, the agreement must pass the US Congress, get the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet a special protocol to oversight India’s peaceful nuclear power plants and receive agreement by the 45 member Nuclear Suppliers Group to sell uranium to India. Very importantly, the US/India deal will strengthen nuclear non-proliferation by making very significant progress in drawing India in under the safeguards and oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In due course this may prompt progress with other non signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The agreement will put 65 per cent of India’s nuclear program, or 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors, under the stringent safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement would be a break with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which disallows sales of uranium to countries with nuclear weapons, except the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. As India has nuclear weapons it cannot join the NPT, despite never proliferating nuclear technology to any nation. Against this background the US-India agreement accepts the reality of India as a weapons state, but allows India’s peaceful nuclear energy program to gain access to uranium, nuclear technology and nuclear reactors. It is a commonsense accommodation of India’s circumstances, just as sensible accommodations have been made for China in various regional and global matters. The Howard Government agreed last August to sell uranium to India subject to the finalisation of the US-India deal, and the conclusion of a bilateral Australia-India safeguards agreement. Strategic Importance to Australia: It was proposed that Australia sell uranium to India according to the identical strict safeguards under which we sell uranium to China and Russia. In years gone by China has sold nuclear technology to Pakistan and North Korea; unlike India which has abided by the NPT obligations, even from the outside. In these circumstances, and provided the conditions agreed with India are fully met, it would be highly hypocritical to deny India this technology while China benefits from full nuclear access. Furthermore, if the US-India agreement is finalised, including approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency, then any Australian Government opposition would be a very serious matter, and invite long-term misunderstanding in our relationship with India. India and Australia are two great democracies sharing the common values and interests of democracies. We are partners in regionalism as members of the Commonwealth members of the East Asia Summit. This is a critical moment in seeking to cement an Australian/Indian strategic partnership – a relationship of great importance to Australia’s interests and Australia’s future. It is a strategic partnership that can be built around the challenge of energy in an energy hungry world, while simultaneously addressing two of the great challenges of our time – climate change and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. On greenhouse considerations alone this agreement is a ‘must do’. Opposing it forces India into increasing reliance on its substantial dirty coal reserves. However, other considerations are also compelling. There is strategic sense in seeing the largest democracy in the region taking a stronger role in the region, and in a way where it enjoys the respect and standing of other major regional powers. There is India’s position as our fourth biggest export market, in a burgeoning trade relationship, to be protected and nurtured. There is a growing bilateral security relationship to be fostered, especially involving cooperation in counter-terrorism and in maintaining stability in the Indian Ocean. And, critically, there is an opportunity to significantly advance the cause of non-proliferation by bringing 65 per cent of all India’s nuclear reactors under UN inspections, and under the protocols of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the same time, it creates a safer and more secure environment for these nuclear power stations. Labor Government Position: Given all these considerations, it is remarkable that one of Labor’s first acts as a government was to summon the Indian nuclear envoy, Shyam Saran, and advise him that, for ‘party political’ reasons, Australia would not be selling uranium to India. The manner, timing and substance of this communication was highly condescending, inept and wrong. The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India’s feelings were trampled on. And all in the interests of an irrational and weak sop to the hard left of the Labor Party. Mr Rudd is putting the internal machinations of the Labor Party ahead of the national interest. Again it goes to poor judgement. If Labor is committed to all it has said about global warming, then refusing to sell uranium to India, while supporting new uranium sales to China and Russia, is totally irrational and hypocritical. How can the Rudd Government claim moral leadership on the global stage in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it ducks the first hard decision which would result in massive reductions in emissions. Furthermore, the decision comes at a time when the sale of our coal to India has grown 300 per cent in six years, with the growth in sales showing no sign of slowing. So much for consistency. This old thinking of Australia’s Labor Government is starkly revealed when compared against the agreement last week of Britain and France to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and export the technology around the world in an effort to combat climate change. To add to the confusion the Rudd Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, while at the same time Mr Rudd has said he has not yet made up his mind on whether to veto sales by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This makes no sense. How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium. Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury. How can the Rudd Government claim that Australia’s relationship with India is a high Government priority when it snubs this direct and heartfelt request from the highly respected Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy. It is stupidity. India’s Reaction: India is understood to be deeply offended by the Rudd Government decisions, and the manner in which it was conveyed. Influential foreign affairs commentators from India have denounced the decision in the strongest terms, labelling the scrapping of the pledge to sell uranium as “retrograde ideology, pathetic hypocrisy, misplaced non-proliferation zealotry” and accusing our Prime Minister of parroting “the same lame excuse, as if he has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty text”. The observation has been pointedly made that far from the NPT forbidding civil exports to a non-signatory, the treaty indeed encourages the peaceful use of nuclear technology among all states. Further comments claim that “Prime Minister Rudd has no qualms about selling uranium to China but will not export to India”. As well, the simultaneous holding of a strong position on greenhouse gases, and a disposition against selling uranium to an energy starved India, is seen in India as showing “a lack of logic”. Conclusion: The bottom line on all this is that reversing Australia’s commitment to sell uranium to India will do substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. It makes absolutely no sense to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology which is greenhouse gas free, and which already provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity needs. The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. In this regard Labor is standing against a critical new engagement in Asia. This issue can make Australia a strategically important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is a big issue. Labor’s position is very bad policy, and disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed. End   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:765 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/763/Address-in-Reply.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=763 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=763&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/763/Address-in-Reply.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (7.24 p.m.)—I appreciate the opportunity this evening to reflect on the last three years and also on the outcome of the election and the contribution of so many people in supporting me in representing the seat of Goldstein. I would like to thank the people of Goldstein for their trust during the election. It is a big thing to represent some 130,000 local people, over 300 community groups, 40-plus aged-care facilities, all of the 50 schools in my electorate, 5,000 businesses and 60,000 households. It is a wonderful thing to be able to come to this place and seek, as best you can, to represent the priorities of that community. I have been in and around the political system for a significant part of my life, but the last three years was the first time as a representative of the people—the first time that I had stood for parliament—and I do not regret a minute of it. It has been a wonderful experience. I will come back to my activities in this House a bit later. The most enjoyable part, I think, has been my association with the local community. I did not know how much I would enjoy the experience of representing them, meeting them, absorbing their views and doing my best to fairly represent their views in this place, no matter how people voted. I must say, it has been a great joy to me to be able to get around and make the acquaintance of so many. I have seen the efforts of significant parts of my community. I think we are privileged as parliamentarians to be able to see the number of people who are involved locally in a voluntary capacity. Most people in the community have one or two extracurricular activities. That is what they do and it is an important part of their life. As a parliamentarian you get to be exposed to everyone’s extracurricular activities and the volunteers that are involved. In my electorate there are 130,000 people, including all the kids. There are somewhere in excess of 20,000 people who volunteer in some capacity and without them our community would not work. My electorate of 17 suburbs has tens of thousands of people who, of their own volition, are providing their own time, effort and skills to make that community work. It is a privilege to know those people and to do what I can in a small way to help their cause. I have taken a particular interest in a lot of the organisations who provide disability services. It has been an eye-opener for me to see the sacrifice. I am in awe of the sacrifices made by the people in those organisations, many of them volunteers. The professionals go the extra mile, endlessly. What they do for so many people in our community, who unfortunately often have some sort of disability, is something which is really hard to come to grips with. You wonder how you would cope and what sacrifice you would make if you were put in their circumstances. I really do live in awe of the sacrifices made by so many of those people. At Marriott House, Lloma Shaw, the chief executive, is just an outstanding woman. There is MOIRA Disability Services, Bailey House and many others, including Family Life services, which works so closely with families who are having difficulties, through mediation and all the rest. There are so many organisations and I really am privileged to be associated with them. I would like to thank my team in my electorate. We have local volunteers. I have the good fortune of having close to 700 Liberal Party members in my seat. They are a very active, very interested, very competent and very experienced group. I had the great benefit of taking over from David Kemp three years ago and inherited a very strong organisation and a strong body of people who really have done most of the work for me. As a party, we lost government at the last election with, in some cases in Victoria, a swing a touch over five per cent. The swing in Goldstein was 1½ per cent less than the national and state swing and I do attribute much of that result, which was a better result than in many other places, to the work of those involved in my re-election to this House. All of my campaign team, headed so competently by Jeannette Rawlinson, should be extremely proud of the result, and I would like to thank them in particular. Jeannette Rawlinson, who has been my campaign director on the two occasions that I have stood for the seat of Goldstein, has done a just outstanding job. My deputy campaign director and chairman of my federal electorate council, Rob de Fegley, has been a source of great advice. I trust his judgement enormously. His feel for the seat and the issues in the party has helped me do my job in here and in other parts of Australia. He provides feedback and brings insight to that job. Others on the committee included Brett Hogan, Ian Mence, Kaye Farrow, Yolande Henderson, Stephen Gage, Bert Moffatt, Leo King, Paul Nettelbeck, Raymon Frederico, Hanife Bushby, Roy Aspinall, John Foley, Peter and Katrina Grove, Trevor Beaumont, Jo Goss, David Feldman, Colin Gourley, Andrew Hudgson, Andrew Tame, Daryl Williams, Stephen Hartney and Stan McConnell. As you can see, there is a huge list of people who were on my campaign committee. All of them were very actively involved in the campaign and there was a good mix of experienced and young people amongst them. It was a great team effort. My team certainly carried the bulk of the load and enabled me to carry out a range of responsibilities in the electorate and beyond. I thank them for their work. I also thank the over 300 volunteers who worked tirelessly, particularly on polling day, across the 37 booths in my electorate, as well as the dozens of others who went from my electorate to assist in areas of the state where we did not have such a strong party membership. I would like to thank my electorate staff: Kathy Foley, Sam Russell, Megan Cox, Nick Troja and Anne Lane. All of them worked above and beyond, not just through the campaign but for many months. They have all been my Rock of Gibraltar and I really do thank them with all my heart for their work, for their sacrifice and for the loyalty that they displayed. Equally, I would like to thank my former ministerial staff. They played such a big part in helping me in the lead-up to the campaign and in helping me do the best job I could last year in my role as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. My chief of staff, Julie Abramson, is an outstanding woman who helped me in my earlier role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and last year in my role as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. I also thank my wonderful personal secretary, Margo Beales, who was with me in business before I entered parliament, as well as Andrew Coombe, Suzi Hewlett, Stuart Eaton, Mary-Anne Mellor, Kathryn Hodges, Ben Davies, Donna Schmeider, Jane Farr and Robyne Head, who helped out locally for me during the campaign. I think we all realise in this place the importance of good, loyal, committed staff. That is something that both sides enjoy. Certainly I, as much as anybody, have been greatly blessed with the quality of staff that have worked with and for me. I would also like to record my pride in some of the achievements, many of which were very significant for the local community, many of them driven by the efforts of local community groups over the last three years. A lot has been achieved in the seat of Goldstein with local community groups. As I said at the outset, it has been a great pleasure not only to be involved with so many of these groups and to get to know them in my first three years as a parliamentarian but also to properly understand my patch and, I hope, get to properly and effectively represent their interests. Aged-care facilities were justifiably rewarded with more than $4½ million of new aged-care places in the Bayside area. Demographically, not only are many young families coming into my part of the world but also we have a large senior community. The aged-care facilities are second to none and provide a great service for the seniors in the seat of Goldstein. Other achievements of which I am particularly proud include the Sandringham Yacht Club, which received a grant of over $400,000 for a really important initiative. It will contribute towards building a training centre at the yacht club. It is the second sporting club in Australia which has become a registered training organisation—after the Bulldogs, which do a great job in the western suburbs in Melbourne with their training programs. This followed meetings I had with it. I discovered it had started to provide for literally thousands of young people. Last year, several thousand young people attended training programs at the club using small yachts. It taught them leadership and teamwork and introduced them to sailing. Many thousands of those are young kids from more disadvantaged parts of the south-east suburbs. The club draws kids not just from my electorate but from far and wide. I think it is a wonderful thing the yacht club is doing and it is a great contribution to the community. It has opened new horizons for literally thousands of young people who may never have thought that they had the opportunity or the wherewithal to be part of the yachting community. It caters for people from all walks of life. It is a great sport and it is a great thing that the Sandringham Yacht Club is doing. I am very proud to have been associated as the patron of the club with this wonderful development that it is involved in. Family Life is an organisation in my electorate that now extends well beyond my electorate in providing mediation services for families in difficulty. In the last three years it has been successful with programs in excess of $2 million that it is providing on behalf of government to local communities. It is a very difficult process, trying to avoid courts in cases where family relationships have broken down et cetera. The Sandringham Bowls Club is a great club and a very progressive club. It was successful in getting $119,000 for an innovative water conservation project. It put together money it had raised, together with money the local Bayside council had put in, to be fully self-sustainable, from a water point of view, in the coming years. It is a great symbol, a great project to the local community. Senior members of the community should take note of this initiative—this very innovative, leading-edge technology. It is currently being introduced, but it will stand as a great symbol and an example to the local community of the need to make the most of the scarce water resources that we have. I am also very proud that, since 2004, the local schools in Goldstein have shared in $5.3 million of funding for over 90 projects at all of the 50 primary, secondary and special schools within my electorate. Investing in Our Schools Program was a very significant program. It enabled the local school communities to decide for themselves what was most needed. There have been some super projects and wonderful infrastructure that have filled lots of gaps that were not being met by the state government, and I am really disappointed that that program has been shelved by the Rudd government as one of its early forays into the education field. One of the many things I am particularly proud of is the Green Vouchers for Schools program, and I am really disappointed that the new government has downgraded it very significantly. Most of the schools in my electorate had started the process of putting in rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems. It has been amazing to watch the enthusiasm and focus that that gave to the whole community in the short space of two or three years. I will also endeavour to keep the new government accountable for all its election commitments in Goldstein over the next three years. Already we have had a watering down of the commitment to provide a laptop to every school student—it has been watered down to providing access to a laptop to students in secondary schools. This is disappointing but, on behalf of the whole community down there, I will seek to ensure that these commitments are met. In the short time that I have left I would like to say that my first three years in parliament has been a great experience. I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities that I have had in the House of Representatives. In the first few months, I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I came to appreciate the significant work of both sides of the House with regard to those committees and, in many respects, I was disappointed not to be able to continue with a couple of the projects that we had embarked upon. I spent six months as chair of the Federal Government Task Force on Workplace Relations, which was a very stimulating time, and 12 months as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Working with the Muslim communities at a very difficult time stretched and motivated me. I came to value the members of that community, and I look forward to continuing to help them with their integration into our community and achieving proper acknowledgement of their contributions. In respect of African refugees, I am disappointed that I am unable to follow on with lots of the ideas and the opportunities I had to help them to become wonderful Australian citizens. Last year was again a most stimulating time as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. In many ways I have had training wheels on, but having lots of different projects and many different opportunities has meant that, firstly, I have not been bored for a second and, secondly, I have been highly motivated and stimulated. I have enjoyed it immensely. It really is what you come to this place for, no matter which side of the House you are on. I am very proud to have been a part of the Howard-Costello government for three years. I do think they have left a wonderful legacy. In years to come, they will be remembered for having provided a golden age of uninterrupted economic growth and for paying dividends to people in social terms—for the jobs, the quality of life and the peace of mind that have been delivered to people for so long. I do think there have been significant changes. In many respects I think the welfare mentality that permeated a lot of our community has progressively been turned into an aspirational mentality, with people increasingly accepting responsibility for their own destiny. (Time expired)   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:763 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/757/Apology-to-Australias-Indigenous-peoples.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=757 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=757&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/757/Apology-to-Australias-Indigenous-peoples.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (6.27 p.m.)—I rise in strong support of this motion to offer a formal apology to our Aboriginal people. I have had a longstanding involvement with members of Indigenous communities in various remote areas of Australia and I feel very strongly about the need to address the totally unacceptable situation which characterises the circumstances of so many of our Indigenous people. This apology is a symbolic gesture which cannot stand alone. Yet symbols are important. Symbols convey a state of mind. Symbols often convey the essence of complex situations. Symbols can soar above the preoccupations of our everyday life, and by doing so often become powerful, immutable statements. The formal apology issued to our Indigenous Australians on 13 February was a powerful symbol, a symbol for good and an immutable and broad acknowledgement of the greatest blemish on our past, namely, the treatment of our Indigenous people. For my part, the apology is a heartfelt acknowledgement not of any one act but, as my friend and colleague Scott Morrison so eloquently implied in his maiden speech last Thursday, we are acknowledging the result of ‘more than 200 years of shared ignorance, failed policies and failed communities’. In many respects government paternalism and welfare has done so much to enfeeble and marginalise our Indigenous people. I have had exposure to that again and again, and it is a situation which is of great urgency and great need. If the apology allows some closure for so many with a disadvantaged and unhappy past, if it allows them to put aside a sense of injustice, to move on, to gain confidence and resolve to improve their own lives, then this is a wonderful thing. However, a true sense of balance will only be fully achieved in Australia when we complete the unfinished business of providing Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australia with a shared destiny. Until we effectively tackle the hopelessness, the substance abuse, the violence and welfare dependency that unfettered welfare or sit-down money has entrenched in so many of our Indigenous communities, then there can be no shared destiny. In the name of compassion and a well-placed sense of guilt we have ironically locked in disadvantage and a state of mind which works against many of our Indigenous people seeing how, or wanting, to take control of their own lives. Hopefully, the apology lays an important psychological foundation to empower and encourage individuals and communities to seek to improve their own lives. Hopefully, the apology raises the expectation and the accountability of our governments to apply a large measure of originality, common sense and resolve. I say originality, because so much of what we have done, despite good intent, has failed. The policy approaches of state and federal governments and successive governments have failed comprehensively. So we need to apply a large measure of originality, common sense and resolve in seeking to address the critical health, education, employment and housing issues confronting so many Indigenous communities. In doing so, the policies and approach of our governments must seek to empower individuals to foster a sense of self-worth, a sense of defiance, in many respects, and self-responsibility. It is only this state of mind among our Indigenous Australians that will be associated with any sustainable achievement of the quality of life and the quality of opportunity that will mark the achievement of a shared destiny with all other Australians. And for that reason, I see the apology as a very important starting point.   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:757 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/732/Questions-Without-Notice-Australian-Technical-Colleges.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=732 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=732&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/732/Questions-Without-Notice-Australian-Technical-Colleges.aspx Mr RICHARDSON (3.10 p.m.)—My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education. Would the minister outline to the House the progress of the government’s Australian technical colleges? Are there any alternative plans and what is the government’s response? Answer Mr ROBB—I thank the member for Kingston for his question. He has been a powerhouse in making the technical college in his area a great success. In raising the status of the trades and technical training, the Australian technical colleges are already an unqualified success. When you go and meet the young people at these colleges, time and again they tell you that for the first time in their lives they feel motivated, they feel understood and they feel valued. We are restoring with these Australian technical colleges a great sense of pride and confidence in these young people. And it is resonating in local communities. Over the last few weeks hundreds of parents and prospective students have attended information nights at individual colleges around the country. Even parents of primary age students are approaching colleges around the country seeking to book their kids into years 11 and 12 at technical colleges some six or eight years hence. Yet the members opposite continue to denigrate these colleges for their own selfish political purposes. To make matters worse, the opposition is promoting a totally inadequate alternative. Labor promised between $500,000 and $1.5 million to all of the 2,650 academic secondary schools around Australia to set up so-called trade centres in all of these Australian secondary colleges. This is a policy that is being ridiculed in education circles—and for good reasons. About four weeks ago I reopened a renovated toilet block in a local primary school in my electorate. It is a small primary school and the renovation of this small toilet block— Opposition members interjecting— Continue Mr ROBB—You might laugh—they were worried about the health of their kids. This was not funded by the Labor Party; this was funded by the Australian government and the parents because the Labor government did not do anything about the health of these young kids. This renovation for a very small primary school cost $200,000. My point is that it highlights the total inadequacy of $500,000—or, for that matter, $1.5 million—to create a trade centre in every secondary school in the country. That sort of money will not touch the sides—it is a total con. It will see no more than an oven or a lathe in a classroom down the back end of every secondary school. More disturbingly, it will serve only to further perpetuate in every secondary college the second-class view of a trade career. Can’t you see it now—every Wednesday afternoon the kids who are not up with it academically will go down the back and do some cooking. That is all you will achieve with this. You will perpetuate what you have been doing for 20 years—talking down the trades. It will do nothing to raise the status of the trades. The Leader of the Opposition, your leader, knows this and he is becoming increasingly embarrassed by it—so much so that he is starting to fudge this policy. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition said to a gathering at Geelong: Here in Corangamite— an electorate very well served by the local member, I might add— there are some 13 secondary schools … That means 13 times $1.5 million to come to this community to make sure that we’ve got these trades training centres. He went on: Corio next door, some 20 secondary schools … That, he said, is 20 times $1.5 million. What the Leader of the Opposition is now saying is that every school across the country will get $1.5 million. But that is not Labor’s policy. Under Labor’s policy, only one-third of all the schools get $1.5 million, one-third get $1 million and one-third get $500,000. So we saw emerge last week just a little matter of a $1.5 billion gap in Labor’s costings. I know that maths is not Labor’s strong point, but this was not a simple mathematical oversight. The Leader of the Opposition has been selling this policy all over the country since the budget. In fact, apart from IR, which has been an absolute debacle for them, this has been the only policy where they have released any detail. And he has been selling it for months. If he does not know the detail, I’ll go he. He knew what he was doing when he misrepresented his own embarrassing policy. He did not want to be ridiculed, so he told his audience what he thought they would prefer to hear. This was deception plain and simple. Mark my words: under pressure, the Leader of the Opposition reverts to type.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:732 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/714/Australian-Technical-Colleges-Flexibility-in-Achieving-Australias-Skills-Needs-Amendment-Bill.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=714 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=714&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/714/Australian-Technical-Colleges-Flexibility-in-Achieving-Australias-Skills-Needs-Amendment-Bill.aspx Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007 Speech 15 August 2007 Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Vocational and Further Education) (5.51 pm)—I take this opportunity to acknowledge the parliamentary career of the member for Port Adelaide. I rise today to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007. It is a very important bill and I acknowledge the contribution of various members on both sides to this debate. The additional funding provided under this bill will ensure that a further three Australian technical colleges can be established in the regions of greater Penrith, north-eastern Perth and southern Brisbane, adding to the existing 25 colleges that have already been announced by the government. The benefit of these colleges to the regions in which they will be established cannot be overstated. They are all areas of skills need, with high youth populations and a strong industry presence. Once fully operational, up to 350 students will graduate from each college every year, and by 2009 we will see some 8,000 to 10,000 students in residence. These young people will not only achieve their year 12 certificate but they will also be up to one-third of their way through an apprenticeship in a trade that is vital for the future of their part of Australia. They will be highly trained, having had the exposure to the latest machinery and equipment—the same state-of-the-art equipment used by industry. They will be highly motivated, having had a high level of tailored support and mentoring that would not be available to them at other schools with a strong academic focus. They will be work-ready, having worked in an industry area for up to two years and having received a specialised education that incorporates enterprise education, small business skills and employability skills. The member for Prospect in this House last week called these colleges a national disgrace. This simply continued Labor’s 20 years practice of talking down the trades—of denigrating those who wish to pursue a technical career. The campaign being waged by the Labor Party, both state and federal, is the national disgrace. They are simply playing politics with the lives of young Australians. The Labor Party knows that we have struck a chord with the community. We have identified a burning need—something that parents all over this country see an urgent need to address. Labor will do anything, say anything, to denigrate this initiative. In the process they are denigrating and putting down the young people and their parents who strive to see those wonderful technical talents developed at a secondary level through these colleges. We also had a disingenuous contribution from the member for Perth, the shadow spokesman for education. Among many other things, the member for Perth claimed that there had been cutbacks to the TAFE sector since 1997. The Howard government has provided record funding of well over $12 billion to the states and territories for TAFE and vocational education since 1996—$12 billion. Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates are you going to have? The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth! Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates are you going to have? The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth will desist! Mr ROBB—In 1995-96 our Labor predecessors allocated $770 million to TAFE. A continuation of that level of funding would have meant an allocation of some $8 billion over the last 11 years, yet the Australian government has contributed over $12 billion to the funding of TAFE. The member for Perth claimed that only two colleges had met their enrolment target. Mr Stephen Smith—How many? The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth will listen! Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates? Mr ROBB—Of course, this is not true. In fact, two of the colleges had to increase their intake to meet the local demand. A further two had more enrolments than originally projected and there are many others that have a difference of five or less between their enrolment and their target. The fact is that, as at 31 March, the timing of the numbers that are being quoted by the member for Perth and others, a mere five weeks after these colleges had opened—a revolution in secondary education brought about in record time; a mere five weeks—we had over 90 per cent of our target for the full year in those colleges. We did not take into account— Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates? Mr ROBB—I will get to your point in a minute. Be patient. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth will desist! Mr ROBB—The member for Perth did not take into account midyear enrolments or the opening of the Pilbara college, which took place in July. The member for Greenway today recounted how, on a daily basis, there are 10 new inquiries for the technical college in Western Sydney. Despite having started in the face of abuse and demonisation by those opposite, they are getting 10 inquiries a day for next year about enrolments in this college. Parents of primary school students are approaching Australian technical colleges around the country seeking to enrol their primary age students in year 11 and 12. And they sit there and say that there is no demand for these colleges! Students are travelling three and four hours. We had one student from Launceston who went to Perth South in the city of the member for Perth to attend this Australian technical college. We are seeing this level of demand around the country. Those opposite are playing at semantics and creating a totally false impression for crass political purposes. We are very much on track with the creation of these colleges. The member for Perth claimed that only 21 of the colleges are open. Again, disingenuous—seeking to create a false impression, a false implication. The Howard government is proud of the fact that we have met our policy promise to open 24 colleges between 2006 and 2008. Twenty-one are already operating and at this stage a further four will be opened next year, making a total of 25. The Audit Office noted that it usually took three or four years for new schools to be established by state governments, yet 20 of the new colleges were open for business within six to 18 months. I congratulate the local communities and my department for the inspired and extraordinary work and effort that has gone into the creation of these colleges. The member for Perth then went on to claim that there has not been one graduate. He is parroting on about it again in the House here this evening—parroting on that this is a shallow, superficial, misleading proposition. Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates? Mr ROBB—He knows only too well that these colleges have only been open for six months and that they have been created in record time. What a stupid statement to make that there has been no graduates when they have only been open for six months. They are there for years 11 and 12. Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth has had a good go. He will desist! Mr ROBB—You have had your turn. You have made all your disingenuous statements. Listen to some answers for a change. Mr Stephen Smith—Tell us how many you have? The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—If the member for Perth does not desist, he might find himself out of the chamber! Mr ROBB - The member for Perth also claimed that there is an average cost per student of $175,000. That is a nonsense and a total misrepresentation of the facts. When it comes to costs per student, Labor’s inability to understand money and the economy are on full display for all to see. Your naiveté is breathtaking on this count. Costs per student cannot be worked out by dividing all costs over the forward estimates, including the capital cost, into the number of students for one solitary year. Capital, as most people know, is allocated over many years and also subject to depreciation. The capital that the Howard government has invested in will be used for many decades to come, and the money that has been set aside for operating costs is in many cases for three calendar years. The capital cost for these colleges is at or below that of comparably sized schools being built by state governments, at around $10 million on average. When it comes to recurrent costs, I have been advised by the colleges that annual recurrent costs will be in the order of $12,000 to $13,000, consistent with the declared costs by the states for other secondary schools in this country. The member for Perth claimed that this is the only initiative of the government to address the skills shortage. Again, that is patently absurd—and, again, he knows it. The Howard government has provided record funding of well over $12 billion to the states and territories for TAFE and vocational education. In addition to that $12 billion, we have provided a further $12 billion on other initiatives to employers and to young people to undertake vocational and technical training—a total of over $24 billion. The year that we took office, the government, our predecessor, spent around $1 billion. In the subsequent 10 years, we have spent $24 billion, a massive increase—a 99 per cent increase in real terms—on spending in vocational and technical education. As a consequence we have seen, over the last four years, 544,000 people having completed apprenticeships. This compares with 30,900 in 1996—30,900 to 544,000. There is much happening, much being achieved, and the technical colleges are on top of this. They are designed not only to invest in the future and encourage further young people to develop their technical and creative talents at an early age, as well as getting their literacy and numeracy skills developed, but also to raise the status of the trades, something that has been in great peril since the Labor Party embarked on this crusade to elevate academic education by denigrating those young people with wonderful technical and creative talents. The member for Perth is also confused when he says that the colleges are duplicative. He also criticises them for working with TAFEs. The fact is that from the outset the model has been one of local consortia. It is the great strength of the model. No two technical colleges around the country are the same. Back in November 2004, we issued the expression of interest document. The expression of interest document provided to the public said: Each Australian technical college will be based on regional industry needs, local infrastructure and current and future economic circumstances. Tenders will be sought from consortia of existing educational institutions, including schools, TAFEs and universities, together with local and national industry. Colleges may be based on new or shared campuses of existing organisations or totally new institutions. Organisations can be expected to include local businesses; industry representatives; schools, government or non-government; TAFEs and other registered training organisations; and universities. The organisation of these consortia will largely be the responsibility of interested individuals and organisations with a commitment to addressing regional skills shortages and local knowledge and links to achieve this in the most effective possible way. As I have said from the outset, the model was intended to include TAFEs, state and non-government schools, and local organisations to give the most effective outcome, yet we have been criticised for including TAFEs. We have been accused of duplicating when in fact we have gone out of our way to ensure that the resources and infrastructure that exist locally are used to maximum effect for these colleges. Let me say again, for the member for Perth, that these colleges are not a duplicate of TAFE. TAFE is for postsecondary students. These colleges are akin to the dedicated technical schools that were closed all around this country 20 or 30 years ago. They allow students to complete year 12, which is not a feature of TAFE; to start an apprenticeship, sometimes with the involvement—encouraged by the federal government—of TAFE; and to gain some real-world experience. The member for Perth also said that the technical colleges have no relationship with state and territory based secondary school systems. What a nonsense—again, a disingenuous statement. Each and every one of these schools is registered by the state and territory, just like the 900 other independent secondary schools in Australia—another example of deliberate misrepresentation. The member for Perth also wants to criticise the government for TAFE— The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the member for Perth, on a point of order. Mr Stephen Smith—He can rant on about misleading all he likes. He can’t say— The DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are addressing a standing order? Mr Stephen Smith—On the point of order: he cannot say ‘deliberate’ misleading of the House. I ask that he withdraw that. He used the word ‘deliberate’. The DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the member did make an allegation of deliberately misleading the House then I would ask him to withdraw that. Mr ROBB—I withdraw the word ‘deliberate’, Madam Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you. Mr ROBB—The member for Perth also wants to criticise the Howard government for TAFE infrastructure. Primary responsibility for TAFE, of course, lies with the states and territories, yet, even taking that into account, the Howard government has invested over $4 billion into VET infrastructure, compared to the $2.5 billion from the states, since 1996. Then the member for Perth talked about Labor’s plans for technical training in Australia, to create so-called trade-training centres in every secondary school across Australia. He talked about the $2.5 billion to be spent in lots of $500,000, $1 million or $1.5 million in every one of Australia’s 2,650 high schools. Five hundred thousand dollars per school will barely touch the sides. I opened the renovation of a toilet block at a local primary school two weeks ago which cost over $200,000. How can Labor suggest that $500,000 spent at a secondary school is going to, in some way, create a trade centre when the cost of a lathe or an oven is around $500,000? How will the purchase of a lathe or an oven stuck in a classroom down the back of a secondary school lead to a resolution of the skills shortage? We have heard nothing of that. We have just heard this tricky politics designed to give the impression of something significant—trade centres in every school around the country—when it will barely touch the sides. Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth will desist interjecting. Mr ROBB—What we have not heard is the detail. Which schools are going to get the $500,000, $1 million or $1.5 million? Which schools will have to wait until 2018 for their piece of the pie? Who decides which schools get what? What is the criteria? Are we going to see Latham’s hit list again by stealth? Will schools miss out because they are private schools or because they raise money through fundraising? Where will all the trained teachers go for these schools? On average it would be about 70 teachers per school. Surely seven or eight teachers would be required for a trade centre of any consequence. That is about 20,000 new teachers with technical and university teaching qualifications. Where are the 20,000 teachers going to come from? Where is the detail? What school funding will cover more than one trade? Are the schools going to cover different trades so that students have to pick and choose? None of this has been thought through. What we have is typical Labor: they tell us what they are going to do but not how they are going to do it. This has not been thought through. This is policy on the run. This is tricky policy designed to give the impression of doing something significant. It allows them to run around the country and make little announcements implying that they are going to create a trade centre in each school for $500000. What a total joke that is. These colleges are going gang busters. They are something we are very proud of. We have nearly 2,000 students enrolled around the country in the first six months of the operation of these colleges. We have enormous demand—for example, in Bendigo we cannot keep up with the demand from local businesses. In the last few weeks hundreds of parents and prospective students have turned up to information nights at colleges all around the country. These are a wonderful investment in the future. This is a visionary initiative of the Howard government. We must reach a situation where a high-quality technical education is as valued as a university degree. One of the biggest mistakes we made as a community 20 to 30 years ago was to close the dedicated technical schools around Australia. The states have failed to meet this critical need because the Australian Education Union will not allow it. They are philosophically and fundamentally opposed to specialisation in schools, and they are tweaking your tail. The unions are spending $30 million on trying to get you back into office and you are doing their bidding. You are stopping any specialisation that might take place in schools—in this instance in regard to technical education. In the meantime tens of thousands of young people born with strong technical and creative talents are condemned to be treated as second-class students in largely academic schools. You know it, and you are doing nothing other than talking down this great initiative. We need an environment which celebrates what these young people are good at a secondary school level. We need to build self-esteem, self-belief and motivation. They need to feel good about themselves. At year 11 and 12 level we need not only the literacy and numeracy skills but also for these young people to feel the self-esteem and the self-belief that comes from these technical colleges. These three additional technical colleges in greater Penrith, north-eastern Perth and southern Brisbane will make an important contribution to the lives of young Australians and to our ongoing skills needs. Hopefully the state governments will follow suit, and hopefully in time those opposite will see the benefit and the great value of providing specialised technical training at a secondary school level. I suspect that the politics behind this initiative will disappear after the next election. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘that’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:714 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/715/Questions-Without-Notice-Skills-Shortages.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=715 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=715&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/715/Questions-Without-Notice-Skills-Shortages.aspx Mr BARTLETT (3.11 p.m.)—My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education: what progress is the government making in dealing with labour and skills shortages, and are there any major impediments to further progress? Answer Mr ROBB—I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. Over recent months, in the absence of any worthwhile policy ideas on the other side of the House, they have resorted to asserting that the government has done nothing on skills—and the Leader of the Opposition was at it again this morning. This is just not true; it is a political lie, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. He knows that apprentices in training in the electorate of Griffith have more than doubled since 1996. In 1996, there were 1,350 young people doing apprenticeships in the seat of Griffith; today there are 2,890 doing apprenticeships. Recent research, released today, also puts a lie to the assertion. It shows a massive increase in the number of trade apprentices since 1995-96—for example, there has been an increase of 67 per cent in the number of apprentices doing construction apprenticeships; there has been a 63 per cent increase in the number of young people doing electrical and electronic apprenticeships. It is the result of the $22 billion worth of initiatives that the Prime Minister detailed earlier. It is why over the last four years in Australia 544,000 young people have completed apprenticeships, compared to 30,000—a lonely 30,000—in 1996 when we took office. This has not happened by accident. It is a response of 10 years of hard work by the Howard government, yet what do we hear from those opposite? On the eve of an election and after eight months as Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith has provided no plan whatsoever to address the labour and skills shortages. There has not been one question in this House to me or anybody else about skills shortages from those opposite in eight months, yet we hear them assert again and again that this is a priority for the country; not one question. And why? It is because they are devoid of suggestions and ideas. The only response to date that Labor have announced is a program all the way through to 2018, an 11-year program of spending, to tack on a technical classroom to every secondary school across Australia. Putting an oven or a lathe in a classroom down the back end of every secondary school is not a solution to the skills challenge and will only continue to reinforce the view that a technical education is a second-class career. In every one of those secondary schools, the academic stream will continue to dominate. This response would only serve to reinforce the view that a technical career is a second-class career. Recent research from Monash University shows that the one-size-fits-all approach is counterproductive. Labor made ‘apprenticeships’ and ‘trade training’ dirty words. If they win office, they will do it again.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:715 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/722/Science-speech.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=72&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=722 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=722&PortalID=0&TabID=72 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/GoldsteinMediaReleases/tabid/72/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/722/Science-speech.aspx SCIENCE SPEECH BY THE HON ANDREW ROBB, AO MP 29 JUNE 2007 Thanks very much, John, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I do appreciate this opportunity this morning. I was interested when I got the invitation. I've had a long standing interest, to be honest, in science and engineering and maths. Before I did economics part time I did a Diploma of Agricultural Science at Dookie Agricultural College, and as part of my economics degree, actually, I did two years of maths stats at the maths school at La Trobe University. I was a board member with Sinclair Knight Mertz for several years in between politics when I was in business. I really sought that out, because of my interest in engineering and the sciences, I wanted to build a network as my objective had been, as John said, why is another story, to try and find an opportunity in politics. I sought out Sinclair Knight Mertz to get some network and exposure to what's happening. Of course, they've got 3000 consulting engineers across just about every discipline, and it's a fascinating organisation doing wonderful work. The focus of this symposium, to me, it is a critical one. It's an issue that is facing so many professions, but my assessment of your disciplines is that there's perhaps even a sharper edge to the problem facing so many others. When I look at the trends in vocational and secondary education in science, engineering and technology, the proportion of students completing those areas has declined from 29 per cent in 1996 to 22 per cent in 2004. There's a fairly dramatic decline on what was already a declining trend in any event, I think. Oddly, 38 occupations that are currently deemed to be in serious skills shortage out of literally hundreds of occupations, every one of the 38, on my reckoning, requires at least a good working knowledge of maths, and over half of them require science, engineering or technology skills. So, it's really important, this gathering here today, I think, and yesterday, to workshop the problem, because it is not going to automatically self correct, in my view. You do need to be on the front foot and be taking action, as you are as I see and I'm aware of since I've taken over these responsibilities four or five months ago. There are quite a range of projects and studies being undertaken to see what can be done to track young people into these disciplines and to hold them and to upskill them, in fact, through the line. A lot of that I can see in your program as being reported on, and many people in this room are far more qualified to report on that than me. I'm not going to bore you with listing all of those sorts of projects, many of which governments, state and federal, are, in part, involved with. What I thought I would do is to give you perhaps some context, because my particular responsibilities are in the vocational technical area, Julie Bishop has schools and universities, my comments will be particularly focussed today on the VET area, but it has got wider implications. I do think the shift to sort of multiskilling that has taken place for individuals that have skill sets that sometimes cross the traditional boundaries between trades, the para-professions and the professions. I think it does blur to some extent the distinctions between the three levels, and that's increasingly happening not just in these disciplines but in so many disciplines. You see it, in particular, in electronics and specialised areas of manufacturing, but it's true across so many areas. I recall even my first occupation, too long ago to remember, but I was a stock inspector for three years while I did economics in Victoria. I was doing post mortems on cattle in paddocks and all sorts of things, working with just about every type of livestock disease issues, often trying to identify why things had died. Sometimes there was compensation and all the rest, but having done three years of a Diploma of Agricultural Science and having acquired a certain level of skills and knowledge and then working as a practitioner in the field, every time something significant would come along, such as a major disease scare, the veterinarians would move in and we would become the sort of drivers. I remember it was immensely frustrating to me I hadn't been trained as a veterinarian, but I had a lot of the skill sets and more practical knowledge that I was acquiring, and in many ways it drove me to finish my economics degree and move to other things because I found I hit the ceiling there all the time. Now I'm seeing, I think, there's an important and good development. There is this blurring starting to take place. There is more of a continuum that is now being developed, so I think all of you need to be aware of and take advantage of that, because it gets back to what John was saying in the previous address. He talked about TAFE and universities and the pathway between the two. I agree with John, you know, not a lot has happened in that area. But I think it is more for institutional structural reasons than for the good sense of it happening. I do think, given that the nature of the workforce and all the issues that we're confronting and what a modern economy dictates about current economy, I do think we have to foster this sort of continuum rather than have boxes for trades, paraprofessionals and professionals. You know, I might have still been in science if I hadn't witnessed in a very early stage of my career what I saw as to be a very fixed ceiling on me doing things that extended me and interested me and enabled me to fully utilise what I thought was the skill set I had. I thought I would particularly focus my comments and contribution on the context of federal government policy at least towards skills shortages so that you who are involved in so many wonderful institutions around the country can just see at least the framework that we are trying to work to create. I think that is the role of government, to create a framework. I think individuals and organisations are far better placed to find, often, the solutions, so long as we can clearly create an appropriate framework. Fundamentally, we have got a labour shortage. Ever since I got into these responsibilities in February, I keep hearing about a skills crisis. Well, there is a real skills problem, but it is driven, not wholly, but largely, by a labour shortage. There is a wider dimension to the skills issue, but we have first and foremost got a labour shortage problem. I'll give you a sense of that. I was just looking at the numbers the other day for May, the workplace figures. We've created in this country 66,000 new jobs in May, over 2000 jobs a day on average, both new jobs and in addition to what was already out there. 94 per cent of them were full time. Again, I looked at what's happening in the availability of people in the workplace. In the month of May, on average, every day, 530 more people came into the 15 to 64 year old bracket than left it. So we had an increase every day of 530 people. That's about 16,000. That's 66,000 new jobs, 16,000 new people to do that work. And not all of those 16,000 who came in would be in the workforce. Now, every other month is not quite the same, but there was a prime example of the problem that we've got. You know, if we think it's difficult now, if you look at Peter Costello's intergenerational report, the second one just recently released, it assumes 530 people at the moment coming in, that includes migration, skilled migration, and all the rest, more coming in than leaving, retiring, whatever, 530 on average a day now, 160 in eight years time. Now that is dramatic. That's with high levels of immigration we've got now. Bear in mind, 10 years ago we had 75,000 people coming in and a family skill mix. Now we've got, last year 100,000 came in as permanent skilled migrants, with families, another 35,000 families associated with those 100,000. Then we had 40,000 temporary skilled migrants coming in for four year terms, many of whom will stay on to become permanent residents. And we had 30,000 refugees. So we've gone from 75,000 migrants to last year close to 200,000, and we'll do 200,000 again this year, because temporary skilled migrants are doing 20,000, 40,000 and probably closer to 80,000 this year. So we are dramatically ramping it up, and yet we still have 530 a day compared with 66,000 new jobs. That still assumes that sort of pattern of migration off into the future, and we'll get 160 a day in eight years time. So, what you're planning and considering and all the rest of it, you know, it's going to become a bit large in the years ahead. It is an OECD phenomena. It's not just restricted to our country. It is certainly restricted to the developed world, but not just to our country. The significance of that is that often when we drew lots of skilled migrants in the past from a lot of cultures not that dissimilar to ours, a lot of European cultures. They might have had different languages, but culturally, they were not that far apart. There's a new dimension to that. A lot of the people we're bringing in now are great people but they come from cultures far wider and far further apart. It brings a whole set of other issues into this whole equation. But, you know, it just means a whole new dimension, again, which I think many of you need to accommodate because many of the skilled workers that are coming in gravitate and are well placed to be part of the teaching force out there and to also be part of the professions that we're talking about here today. I think the three things that are really driving this labour shortage and, in turn, contributing to the skills shortage, is now over 14 years of uninterrupted economic growth, which is a phenomena not true to Europe, but it is true to here. It is not even true to the US. They were in recession in 2000. That is a major factor which is putting a lot of pressure on the ageing population, which we were now was coming, but it only really started to manifest itself this century as the bubble of the baby boomers worked its way through and has now emerged. I think also the profound and unexpected emergence of China and India. Put those three things together, it has created a skills demand but also a competitive demand in our economy which we have to be mindful of both those factors as we move forward. The China and India thing can't be underestimated in terms of its impact especially on a lot of the engineering demands and the rest. I did a lot of work in 2000 and 2001 with a lot of big mining companies, North West Shelf project, a lot of gas projects in particular with other things in Thailand and elsewhere with BHP, Rio, Chevron and Shell, different projects with these different companies, and I was doing strategic work with them. And I had access to often buildings full of boffins with Shell and Chevron, and I visited these, and they had literally floors of people whose job it was to estimate what was the demand and likely supply of energy, total energy in the next two years, five years, 10 years, 50 years. Very sophisticated work with companies that are in every part of the world. I can tell you, in 2000 2001, there was no sense within all of that work with all of those people of what we have subsequently seen with China and India, the profound emergence. There was no sense of that. The oil companies and the resource companies had no sense of it, you know, we shouldn't all be lipping ourselves too much. We've got a problem, we've got to deal with it, we've got to be aware of it, but it has emerged, and if there's any comfort, there are a lot of people confronting the same sort of issues that you're confronting, not just in Australia but elsewhere. We have got a new set of problems, so the more aggressive you are in trying to deal with it, the chances are you'll get an edge on how to deal with it. Often if you're realistic about the problem, you're halfway to solving it and not just doing some incremental and marginal sort of responses. To me, and the government, for that matter, there is no real silver bullet. Often we will look for a silver bullet when you have a problem, and invariably, whether it is business, politics or family, for that matter, usually there's a whole lot of issues that have to be done when you've got an issue to solve. It is the government's conclusion that dealing with the labour shortage and internal skills shortage requires action on a whole bunch of policy fronts across a lot of different portfolios. I think, you know, particularly since Peter Costello's intergenerational report about five years ago, a lot of what we've done in a policy sense since then, actually most of the big initiatives have really been directed at getting this labour shortage issue and the competitive issue thrown up by India and China. There are great opportunities in India and China, but there are enormous threats also. I was in Shanghai 18 months ago and went out to see a car plant they had just finished building just on the edge of Shanghai. It was a car plant that could turn out a million cars a year. I'm talking to the people who manage the show and said, "What's your next big challenge now you've done this magnificent thing and all the rest?", and they said, "Well, this has gone so well and we've still got everybody here and put it together, we thought we might go to 2 million cars a year while we're at it". I got back to the hotel that night and thought there's probably three or four other car companies, Chinese car companies in China at that time deciding whether they go from 1 million a year to 2 million cars a year. You know, the potential to swamp us and I had a bit to do with the Mitsubishi expansion over many years. It took about eight years to go for an extra 220,000 cars a year in South Australia. All of a sudden, the potential to swamp us is enormous. I got back to my patch in Victoria and I'm looking at the export statistics out of Victoria, the second biggest manufacture of car components, so the potential to swamp us with finished products is there, but huge opportunities. So, what I'm saying is, you know, we've got a whole new environment. It's not just cheap labour up there. It's very sophisticated stuff happening, as you know probably much better than I do, many of you. So it's got this environment, not just the labour shortage but also what skill sets we've got and how to respond and be very quick on our feet and fast on our feet. I think a lot of what you do in terms of encouraging these disciplines, it's also how you encourage them and what skill sets and how they can be responsive and how there can be a little operation in Victoria, a little manufacturing plant that has previously sent plastic moulding for cars for a finished product which is now getting that done in China but adding value back here and sending the product back again. How do we keep ramping up that skill set to deal with the technology needs of this new modern 21st century environment? The sort of work we've done, the welfare to work legislation, this is highly critical. I'll come back to it in a second. The tax changes over the years, the superannuation changes, the interaction between tax and welfare payments. The workforce reform, the independent contractor legislation, the skilled migration program and a raft of initiatives, particularly in education and training. All these things intercept. I'm finding often the workplace relations reforms are as central to delivering new training opportunities and all the rest as some of the more specific, you know, dollars on training. They all intercept in this new environment. I think you've got to look more broadly, because, again, the point the John raised about, you know, TAFEs and universities, there's plenty of will and there's plenty of people who see the commonsense of it, but there are really structural issues stopping progress, and I'll come back to that again. To meet these labour and skills shortages, the government has been working really on three broad fronts, and I'll talk about it as it relates to more my area, but we really have been working on three broad fronts to deal with the labour shortage and skills shortage. The first one is we're seeking to get anyone who can work into work or to stay in work. It sounds like a pretty simple proposition, but it is a pretty important objective. To get anyone who can work into work or to stay in work. The fact of the matter is we have got 700,000 people on disability pensions. Many of those can't work, but hundreds of thousand, I put to you, could work, would love to work, can't do full days, have got a capacity, there own self esteem, everything else, would be enormously advantaged by them getting into the workforce, but they don't work at the moment 700,000. We've got 750,000 on parenting payments, many of them want to work, could work, many can't, they've got little kids. Many have got kids up to 16, can't get back into the workforce because they can't work full time, and there aren't opportunities, and there's a cultural sort of block, in many cases. A lot of these things are cultural more than anything else. We've got 490,000 people still on unemployment benefits, despite having, you know, very low levels of unemployment. This just proves to me again the interaction of policy across all sorts of areas.