22-June-2010
Portfolio Media Releases, The Economy
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 2010-2011
Consideration in Detail
June 2010
Finance and Deregulation Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $668,590,000
Mr ANDREW ROBB (Goldstein) (4.33 pm) I am very grateful to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for agreeing to turn up and answer a few questions. I have no doubt that he will be assiduous in giving answers to the very legitimate questions that I would like to put here today. One of the prime responsibilities of a finance minister is to ensure value for money in the spending of taxpayers’ funds and to ensure that there is no waste and no mismanagement.
I refer to the minister’s speech to the Press Club on 8 August 2007 where he seemed to confirm this responsibility. He said: “Every tax dollar the government takes from a family’s bank account is a dollar that can’t be spent on clothes, schoolbooks, groceries or holidays. It’s a dollar that won’t be directly creating jobs in the private sector. When the government takes that dollar, it’s got a responsibility to ensure that it provides value for money in return.”
I have a series of questions that I would like to ask which relate to that statement, one I agree very strongly with.
Minister, it has been reported in a new book by Lenore Taylor and David Uren, which quotes a Labor insider in relation to stimulus spending—the government taking taxpayers’ dollars and spending them: “Tanner argued vigorously against a spending package … The problem for Tanner was that, while he still needed to be convinced, Rudd and Swan had already decided.”
Does the minister still remain opposed to stimulus spending? Is he troubled by the fact that the government is continuing its reckless stimulus spending through until 2011-12 after one quarter of negative growth back in 2008?
Furthermore, in overseeing the potential for waste and mismanagement, why is it that under the minister’s watch, Labor’s promised program of computers in schools for every student in years 9 to 12 has so far delivered only 220,000 of the one million computers and a blow-out of $1 billion?
Why is it that Labor promised to cut spending in 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, in the process wasting $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spending over $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?
Mr Tanner interjecting—
Mr ROBB It is a question.
Mr Tanner interjecting—
Mr ROBB I will very happily do that. Why is it that under the school halls stimulus program that is to cost $16.7 billion—some of these numbers should be fairly fixed in your mind, I would have thought—independent assessment has found in at least two or three instances that these school halls cost four times the amount of similar commercial buildings?
Why are we seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money potentially wasted?
If that were repeated throughout the building phase you would probably be talking about somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion of the $16.7 billion literally wasted when it could have been done for much less.
Also, Minister, why is it that border protection, having seen at least a $1 billion blow-out this year, has an estimate for next year based on an assumption that only 2,000 asylum seekers will arrive over the next 12 months of 2010-11 when 5,500 have arrived to date in this financial year? It is a billion-dollar blow-out in this financial year with 5,500 arrivals, so you can understand the blow-out, but why is it that an assumption of 2,000 arriving next year is then made? (Time expired)
Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4.38 pm) I first give a generic answer to the shadow minister’s question. I will endeavour to go through them item by item. Apologies if I miss any; feel free to remind me of them. First, it is correct to say that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has responsibility that encompasses government waste and use of taxpayers’ money, but that is a responsibility that is shared with other government ministers.
As I am sure the shadow minister, as a former minister, would understand, there are things called the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act which govern the arrangements that apply here with regard to the responsibilities for managing the spending of government money with respect to both the finance minister and individual ministers.
So there is, in effect, a shared responsibility with a specific role for the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, but other ministers also inevitably have responsibilities that are crucial to this overall approach.
First with respect to the question arising from the book that he refers to, obviously I do not make public comments about things I am alleged to have said or not said in cabinet or cabinet committee deliberations, and that remains my position.
I can only refer him to a quote that I did provide the authors of the book, which was along the lines that I brought to these discussions, as you would expect, a traditional finance minister’s responsibility of seeking to test propositions that were put to me. I would say of any spending proposals that I see that as a central part of my responsibility, to undertake that testing or challenging of any proposals, whether inside committee decision- making processes or indeed matters that are put to me bilaterally by ministers. That is essentially my job.
But otherwise I do not comment on the deliberations of cabinet or cabinet committees.
With respect to the specific matters that the shadow minister did raise, there are some matters that are more specifically within the purview of individual ministers rather than me as minister for finance.
I will endeavour to go through them one by one with that caveat. First on the computers in schools program, as you would be aware, there has been a set of negotiations with state governments about the process. That did lead to some modification compared with the original election commitment. We are fulfilling the election commitment but nonetheless in order to reach agreement with the states there was an additional financial commitment involved there.
Second, with respect to consultancies, the statement in the question from the shadow minister is incorrect. In fact, spending on consultancies across the government in calendar year 2008 and again in calendar year 2009 is substantially lower than it was in calendar year 2007 under the Howard government. The fall in expenditure in calendar year 2008 was about $65 million.
All these are on-the-record figures and I would suggest that the shadow minister not be misled by highly distorted material that has been published in the Australian. All these things are a matter of public record, that there has been very clear and substantial reduction in spending on consultancies under the Rudd government.
Third, on the question of the broadband proposals, the shadow minister will probably recall that the then opposition went to the election with a commitment to a fibre-to-the-node proposal for a broadband network which involved optical fibre going to nodes in individual streets rather than all the way to individual households and businesses.
You will be aware that the tender process for that did not produce a successful outcome, partly because it ended up occurring very much at the peak of the global financial crisis and a number of potential bidders were undoubtedly disadvantaged by the fact that the availability of capital for things of this nature was inevitably constrained given the circumstances. The government, confronted with this situation, chose to move in effect to what was always seen as the logical next step, although no previous commitment had been made to do this.
The government chose the logical next step of building a fibre-to-the-premises network. (Extension of time granted)
On the question of the Building the Education Revolution primary school buildings, I am not aware of the two or three specific instances that the shadow minister alleges that buildings that cost four times the equivalent being built in the private sector were constructed.
The shadow minister would be aware that there is currently a taskforce headed by former UBS CEO Brad Orgill examining all of these questions. I am happy to rely on the report that emerges from that taskforce in terms of the issues that have been raised here.
We do accept that in a situation where you have got thousands upon thousands of individual projects all around the country the nature of the construction sector is such that every now and then there will be disputes and there will be problems.
We regard the prospect that there will be individual issues of this kind as something that is an unavoidable aspect of having so many individual construction projects.
We do not necessarily accept some of the assertions that have been published. In my experience, the descriptions that have been published that I have looked at in some detail, almost invariably, have been somewhat at odds with the facts or have been selective in the use of facts. There have been aspects of the picture that have been not been referred to that would clearly modify any reasonable balanced assessment of the claims being made.
Finally, I would suggest that the border protection questions are probably better directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship because the basis for forward estimates and the numbers of prospective claims is something that is very much a matter for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
I would also draw the shadow minister’s attention to instances in the past where there have been much smaller estimates put in place that have been, shall we say, out distanced by the actual number of arrivals, instances from the time that the Howard government was in office. I refer him to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on the question of estimating, for forward estimates purposes, the number of arrivals.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (4.36 pm)—I will follow a couple of those issues and then move on to some more specific questions. I have sought to follow up with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. He has said publicly that he has got no idea how many will come next year. I would like to know the rationale behind it. I presume you and your department take some responsibility for ensuring that the numbers make sense and that you can have reasonable confidence in the assumptions.
Given that this year there were 5,500 arrivals and a billion dollar blow out, I would be interested to know what process you went through to arrive at a figure of 2,000 for next year.
Given that you have had a blow out this year, I would have thought that, conservatively, you would use a higher number or as high a number as this year. If you succeed in reducing the numbers well and good, but the experience to date is there seems to be no evidence of numbers coming back so I would be interested in that process.
Secondly, the Building the Education Revolution, as you say, has thousands of different projects but, whether there is one or thousands, it still remains the responsibility of the government to act in a conscientious and prudent way to avoid waste.
It seems to me you are really putting the proposition that government, with thousands of projects, cannot be expected to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Would that be the case?
I understand the point you were making that there are joint responsibilities between individual ministers and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The point of my question was what specifically have you sought to do to rein in what is clearly some of the biggest wastage perhaps in our country’s history of federal government programs including the massive wastage which will end up, no doubt, in billions of dollars with the Home Insulation Program?
There have been billions of dollars wasted, on the evidence to date, which seems to me to be a lot more than the occasional problem here and there. What specifically have you done over the last six months when it became patently obvious that there were generic problems in the management of these programs and when those ministers responsible, for whatever reason, were failing to rein in these programs?
I would have thought you have a significant responsibility. How did you exercise that responsibility? I would be very interested to know.
You made a statement about the $4.7 billion that the program was in prospect and that because of the global financial crisis funds were not available for commercial interests, but you went on to say that, as a result, you went to the next logical step of fibre to the house. Was it always intended that the next logical step would be fibre to the house and that it would involve massive government involvement in the creation of that network, the funding of that network, the operation of that network and, hopefully, the financial return on that network?
Was it envisaged that you would in fact renationalise a very big part of telecommunications? Was that the logical next step for the government? As you thought through this program, was that in your head when you went to the last election and promised a broadband network around the country? Is what we are not getting the thing you have always had in mind as the logical next step?
On other specific items: on page 84 in Budget Paper No. 2, nearly $1.3 billion was listed as decisions taken but not yet announced over the forward estimates with $50 million listed between 2009-10 and 2010-11. Can you rule out these funds being announced ahead of the federal election? (Time expired)
Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4.52 pm)—With respect to the supplementary question asked by the member for Goldstein on matters regarding asylum seekers, I will take that question on notice in order to give him a proper response. Secondly, I do not accept the premise on which his further question about the Building the Education Revolution program was unfolded. So I do not accept his claims with respect to waste.
I am afraid that for me to answer the question he asks me about what specifically did I do, that would involve me revealing cabinet discussions and cabinet deliberations, which I am not in a position to do.
Penultimately, on the question of the move from a fibre-to-the-node proposal, as put to the election, with the fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network proposal, when I said that that was seen as a logical next step I did not say that this was seen as a logical next step by a specific party—that is, the federal opposition.
This was generally widely in public debates seen as, in effect, a stepping stone. That does not therefore mean that the opposition at the time had any specific subsequent commitment in mind. We were aware of that possibility but we had made no decision about it and had no preconceptions about it. Once the tender process for the fibre-to-the-node proposal failed, we had to give consideration to that possibility along with various other possibilities, but there was no preconceived proposal flowing in the wake of the original election proposal.
Finally, on the decisions taken but not yet announced, I am not in a position to rule anything in or out about how those matters are dealt with. Apart from anything else, it is not my responsibility.
My responsibility in this regard is simply that these things are accurately recorded in the budget, but I am certainly not in a position to make any statements about when any particular thing will be announced.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (4.54 pm)—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the minister: on the last issue that the minister responded to—decisions taken but not yet announced—I ask a supplementary question.
Could you confirm, Minister, that the $400 million announced by the Prime Minister on 9 June as part of the renamed Regional Infrastructure Fund was taken from this line item in the budget? I was going to ask you more about the disbursement, but I understand from your earlier answer that you claim not to be in a position to do that.
More specifically on some of the other issues: why is it that you and your department are being sidelined regarding the $16.2 billion school halls program after the Deputy Prime Minister established a $14 million task force, which will be led by Mr Brad Orgill, to assess the level of waste under this program?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER Again, through the chair to the minister rather than ‘you’ all the time, if you do not mind. That way we can do this formally.
Mr ROBB Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, why is it that you and your department have been sidelined in relation to the investigation into the level of waste and mismanagement under the Building the Education Revolution program? Shouldn’t this have been the job of the minister and the minister’s department?
Given also that the department of finance is responsible for sustainable government finances, does the minister think that the Building the Education Revolution was value for money and good policy?
Given that Australia recorded one quarter of negative growth in 2008, why is it that $500 million of the stimulus funding under the Building the Education Revolution program will be spent in 2011-12 at a time when real GDP growth is forecast to be four per cent and CPI at 2.5 per cent, and this following six consecutive interest rate rises which have added between $4,000 to $5,000 to the average home mortgage?
Furthermore, what role did the minister perform in relation to developing the Home Insulation Program?
When did the minister first become aware of the problems with this program? What is the total figure that this program will cost the budget?
Has the minister costed inspecting every one of the million or so homes that have received insulation as part of this program, given the ongoing problem with fires that often occur in homes that have been ruled as not needing any particular attention?
Has the minister assessed the total financial liability of the Commonwealth under this program? Minister, given that the department of finance is responsible for sustainable government finances, do you think the Home Insulation Program was value for money and good policy?
Furthermore, Minister, in the 2010-11 budget papers, you claim $17 billion of new taxes as savings. Can you please clarify these statements and the metrics that the government uses in classifying new taxes as savings?
Finally, do you envisage spending the remaining $700 million left in the Building Australia Fund over the coming months?
Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (4.59 pm) Firstly, I stand by all of the government’s stimulus measures. While the government have acknowledged that there have been specific problems in the Home Insulation Program, we have acted to deal with those problems.
I will take on notice the question about the cost to the budget of the Home Insulation Program. As to the question of Commonwealth liability, it is my responsibility with respect to any prospective legal proceedings that may be issued against the Commonwealth—be they about this or any other matter—to effectively present reporting in the budget about risks, in the statement of risk, and also to oversight those potential liabilities. I am continuing to do that in this and other areas.
The questions relating to my role in developing the program and the points at which I became aware of the problems I referred to are matters that relate to cabinet deliberations, which I am not at liberty to reveal.
As to the question suggesting that my department was sidelined from the process of the examination of problems or alleged problems in the Building the Education Revolution, my answer to that is that my department was not sidelined.
It is a perfectly normal and legitimate thing, where an issue emerges in a particular portfolio, for the minister of that portfolio to initiate some kind of arms-length or independent examination of that—and that is not conducted by the Department of Finance and Administration.
For obvious reasons, the situation of having one arm of government investigating another arm of government would give rise to accusations that this was not a genuine independent or arms-length examination of the problems. It is a perfectly normal situation under governments of both persuasions that, if there is to be some examination of this kind, one option is to have an inquiry or a task force of the kind which has been established.
As to the question of why there would still be $500 million of stimulus budgeted for the 2011-12 financial year, I suspect the answer to that question is that, inevitably, projects occur over an extended period of time.
You obviously do not pay the entire cost of a project upfront. Typically, particularly with more substantial projects, there will be milestone payments and there will be payments at the completion of the project, as well as the payments at various stages along the line. I suspect you will find that that $500 million essentially reflects that pattern.
Of course, it will reflect, retrospectively, private sector activity that has occurred in the preceding period.
The question of the decision regarding $400 million of infrastructure assistance for Western Australia was an item in the category of decisions taken but not yet announced. I can confirm that. I am not in a position to make any statements about when the remaining funds in either the Building Australia Fund or any of the other funds will be disbursed. That is not a decision I take unilaterally, obviously. I am not in a position to respond to that.
Apologies, I am just looking through my scribbled notes to make sure that I have covered—
Mr Robb The Home Insulation Program?
Mr TANNER Yes, I have responded to those questions.
Mr Robb The savings question?
Mr TANNER Sorry, yes. All of this is disclosed. The generic term ‘savings’ is used to describe improvements in the net bottom line to the budget. You will see this broken down into ‘revenue’ and ‘spending’ items in all of the three budgets. There is a table that aggregates all of this where it is broken down into spending and revenue items in all of the three budgets. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (5.45 pm) Just last month in his Razor’s Edge blog the minister wrote: “But I am a bit of a romantic on this, I think elections are largely determined by how well they think the Government is governing, not on how many fistfuls of cash they pump on election eve.”
Minister, given your responsibility for stopping waste and mismanagement, it has been reported that a staggering $220 million of non-road, non-rail stimulus funding has been pumped into your own electorate of Melbourne, with a further $15 million in non-stimulus grants earmarked for the seat.
Mr Tanner You’re even dumber than I thought you were!
Mr ROBB Do we need gratuitous insults across the chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Mr Hockey Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister to withdraw that remark.
Mr Tanner Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin) The remark has been withdrawn. Member for Goldstein, please proceed.
Mr ROBB This is a serious issue. It is not an issue to be laughed at and to abuse other people about. It is a very legitimate question. If nearly a quarter of a billion dollars is being spent in the electorate of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, a minister who has made his reputation on the back of anti-rorting statements
Mr Tanner Yes, yes, I’m going to answer your question.
Mr ROBB Do I need prompting as well, Madam Deputy Speaker?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER We are not so sensitive in here that we cannot take a bit of banter across the table.
Mr ROBB Okay. ‘A bit of banter’. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a very good ruling! Minister, are you cynically giving the nod to the funnelling of taxpayers’ millions into your own electorate with an eye to your own electoral skin?
Furthermore, following the budget the finance minister said ‘the coalition’s debt and deficit campaign is dead’. Minister, can you please justify this statement considering that the budget deficit—not that we heard much about it on the night of the budget—is $57 billion for 2009-10 and, if all of the rosy assumptions come to be, is forecast to be $40.8 billion in 2010-11?
The point of my question is that $57 billion is the largest deficit in our history by a country mile and $40 billion, if it comes to pass, will be the second-biggest deficit in our country’s history.
I would like the minister to explain how he can say that the debate about debt and deficit is dead when the government, with a budget approved by the minister, will have to borrow $700 million a week for the next two years to pay for the continued spending.
As well, can the minister confirm that the interest on net government debt in 2010-11 will be $4.6 billion and that net government debt is forecast to peak at $93.7 billion in 2011-12?
Can the minister confirm that the forecasted interest repayment on this amount is $6.5 billion?
I also refer to the $10 billion super hit for small business. I refer to the proposal to lift the compulsory employer superannuation contribution from nine per cent to 12, which will cost small business $10 billion a year.
Three months ago, when asked by Ross Greenwood whether future compulsory superannuation increases would come at the expense of wage increases, the minister clearly said: … “the fact that your employer is forced to put in an extra three per cent in your super means that money that otherwise could have gone into your wages, is going into your super basically.”
When, subsequent to that announcement, the minister’s own words were read back to him in a radio interview on 4BC, the minister said he had been seriously misrepresented, but he finally conceded: “Yes, it will have an impact on the dollar increase for some workers.”
On multiple occasions the minister has conceded that the compulsory increases in employer superannuation will come at the expense of wage increases. Why then, when pressed in different forums, has the minister claimed not to have said this? (Time expired)
Mr TANNER (Melbourne—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (5.09 pm) First, with respect to matters regarding my own electorate, the amount of stimulus spending in my electorate relative to other nearby electorates varies in one respect only, and that is with respect to social housing.
If you look at all of the items listed in stimulus measures in my electorate, you will see that, whether it is Building the Education Revolution or other areas of stimulus, broadly it is pretty much the same as in the equivalent electorates.
There is only one difference; it is social housing. I wonder why that would be. Guess what—the answer is because that is where the social housing is.
I have in my electorate the largest number of public tenants in Victoria. The number is, I understand, something like 2½ times the number in the next highest electorate.
It is unavoidable that, where you have a stimulus strategy that includes major measures to upgrade social housing, it is not going to be distributed evenly across all electorates, as, for example, the Building the
Education Revolution funding is distributed evenly because the number of primary schools or primary schoolkids is going to be fairly similar across individual electorates.
The key answer to the shadow minister’s question is: were the stimulus to have been about upgrading yacht clubs then there probably would have been a disproportionate investment in his electorate, but, because the government made a decision to upgrade social housing, that meant that a disproportionate amount of that money was inevitably spent in my electorate.
Finally, on this point I might indicate that the actual decisions with respect to the location of spending, the decisions about individual projects, were decisions in which I played no role.
These were matters worked out with the Victorian government by the Minister for Housing, and these were decisions in which I had no role.
As someone representing an electorate that is not quite inner city but is not far there from, I would suggest to the shadow minister that the notion that the construction of additional housing of any kind, particularly higher density housing, in the inner city is the pathway to electoral popularity is a proposition that you will not find many serious political analysts able to support.
Amongst other things, I find it amusing that people think that I regard this as a pathway to winning support in my electorate. In fact, I support it because it is the right thing to do for a large group of people who traditionally have been neglected and ignored by successive Liberal governments who have dramatically cut funding for social housing over the years and who have refused to invest in them.
These are people who are on very low incomes, who are very disadvantaged and who we believe are entitled, along with everybody else, to reasonable living circumstances.
Secondly, I am asked why I made the statement that the opposition’s debt and deficit scare campaign is dead. Notwithstanding the campaign that we have had regarding tax reform from the opposition, there have been numerous questions in the last few weeks in question time about a variety of other subjects and I do not recall any questions about this particular subject.
The evidence that your scare campaign is dead is actually out of your own mouths. The other evidence is that Australia’s debt level is projected to peak at around six per cent of GDP, in a world where other major countries have debt levels that are heading towards 80 per cent or 100 per cent of GDP.
Any serious economist does not regard your campaign seriously and regards it as the complete joke that it is. That is why you have dropped off it completely. I have answered your question. I have answered why you have dropped your debt and deficit campaign—because even you realise it is totally idiotic. That is the answer to your question.
Mr Robb The highest ever is ‘idiotic’!
Mr TANNER Your campaign is idiotic. (Extension of time granted) On the questions with respect to debt interest, I refer the member for Goldstein to the budget papers.
Finally, on the question of statements I have made with respect to the impact of increases in the superannuation guarantee on wages, I will repeat the statements I made on 4BC to try to explain the difference. It is the difference between nominal wages—
Mr Robb That was very embarrassing.
Mr TANNER You whinged before; how about shutting up now? I will repeat my statements, and I will make them slowly and in words of limited syllables so that, hopefully, this time the member for Goldstein might understand them.
Perhaps when you get an opportunity you might stand up and see whether you can explain your version of what the difference between nominal and real wages means. That would be enlightening for all of us.
On the difference between nominal and real wages, the point that I was making in the initial interview, conducted by Ross Greenwood, was about nominal wages and the perception by individual workers that an increase would involve loss of nominal wages. The question I was asked on Q&A, not on radio, referred to real wages. There will not be—
Mr Hockey What?
Mr TANNER That is correct. If you look at the transcript, you will see the term ‘real wages’. If you look at the government’s proposals, what you will see is that, in any given year, the increase in the superannuation guarantee is no higher than 0.5 per cent. In other words, it is expected that real wages will continue to increase, because typically the real wage increases are significantly above that and the historic trend is that and we anticipate that real wages will increase at a higher level than those rates. So real wages will not be cut; real wages will not be reduced.
That is precisely why I did not accept the interpretation being put to me on Q&A about that statement, and I stand by all of that.
Yet again, the people who opposed occupational superannuation in the 1980s are going to be opposing it now and they are going to continue opposing it. Why? I say it is because it benefits ordinary working people.
Why do they oppose occupational superannuation? It is because when we took office in 1983 superannuation was the privilege of the rich, the well-heeled, whom the Liberal Party are interested in supporting. What Labor did in office was extend access to superannuation to ordinary working people. What we are now proposing to do is to strengthen that access to superannuation for ordinary working people. That is why you do not like it and that is why you are opposing it, along with cutting company tax and along with improving the tax provisions for small business.
You are opposing it because, ultimately, you are on about the well-off. You are on about the well-heeled in this society, not ordinary working people. Yet again you will oppose the extension of greater superannuation to the ordinary working people of this country. That is the issue here.
The government is resolutely committed to delivering this improvement in superannuation and retirement incomes for ordinary working people and strengthening the investment pool which, amongst other things, helped save Australia from the global financial crisis and helped protect Australia’s economy during that time.
Any serious player in financial markets will tell you that, because there was a guaranteed automatic pool of billions of dollars coming into the markets, no matter what occurred internationally, from that occupational superannuation arrangement.
That is why the government remains resolutely committed to improving occupational superannuation in this country: because it improves the retirement incomes of working people, for whom the Liberal Party has never done a jot, and because it improves the investment savings pool that will be invested in the long-term economic growth for the future of Australia.
That is why we remain committed to this proposition, and that is why you oppose it—and no amount of sophistry and misrepresentation and verballing about things that I have said will change any of those things. (Time expired)
Ms Hall Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The time for this debate has well and truly expired and I would like to draw your attention to that.