http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/705/Celebrate-Summer-with-this-years-Summer-eCard.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=705http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=705&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/705/Celebrate-Summer-with-this-years-Summer-eCard.aspxThe Federal Member for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull MP today announced the Summer e-Card is now live and awaiting submissions. After the outstanding success of last year’s Summer e-Card, Malcolm once again is collecting artworks from students and budding artists from across Australia to assist in building this year’s e-Card. This year, artworks can include any sort of traditional holiday theme, festive symbol or favourite summer scenes. They can be colourful paintings, drawings, photos or even videos.   “The Summer e-Card is a great way to dynamically showcase Australia’s artistic talent and of course, to celebrate our favourite season. We are hoping to include hundreds of artworks, so if you would like to contribute, all you have to do is simply upload your artwork to www.summerecard.com.au,” Malcolm said.   Once the image is uploaded and approved, the Summer e-Card can also be forwarded on to family and friends.   “This is an exciting and fun way for everyone, especially kids, to celebrate Summer. I strongly encourage everyone to make a contribution to showcase your favourite theme or spot for summer,” Malcolm said.malcolmTue, 08 Dec 2009 05:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:705http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/701/Wentworth-Summer-eLetter.aspx#Comments2http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=701http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=701&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/701/Wentworth-Summer-eLetter.aspxView my Summer eLetter here. Sent out on December 3 2009. If you would like to join the eLetter database, visit my contact page. malcolmThu, 03 Dec 2009 05:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:701http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/687/ETS-Saving-Jobs-and-Reducing-Costs.aspx#Comments7http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=687http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=687&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/687/ETS-Saving-Jobs-and-Reducing-Costs.aspxThe Opposition has today saved tens of thousands of Australian jobs, protected vital industries and secured energy supplies by forcing significant improvements to the Rudd Government’s flawed emissions trading scheme. The Shadow Cabinet and Joint Party Room have agreed to a package of changes to the CPRS that will provide proper support to key Australian export industries, including coal mining, food processing and natural gas. The package will protect farmers by permanently excluding agriculture from the scheme, whilst providing them with significant financial and land management opportunities by including agricultural offsets from 2010. Assistance to electricity generators will be more than doubled, ensuring electricity supply is not threatened. Furthermore, the Opposition has secured $1.1 billion in direct support to small and medium mining and manufacturing businesses to assist in their transition to the CPRS.  An additional $1 billion will be made available to businesses in other, less exposed, sectors. By including voluntary measures, the environment will benefit from households taking early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The key changes that the Opposition has secured are outlined below. Trade Exposed Industries Assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITE) will now continue at a higher rate than previously after 2014-2015. There will be an independent Expert Advisory Committee review in 2014-15 to assess international action on carbon price. Assistance to EITEs will not be lowered further until at least 70 per cent of relevant international industry competitors also face a carbon price. A $610 million package for the Liquid Natural Gas industry will ensure all announced projects in this fast-growing Australian industry receive at least 50 per cent effective assistance.  This will protect investment in this source of cleaner energy. Food processing The Opposition has secured $150 million in targeted assistance for food processors, and in particular abattoirs and the dairy and malt industries. Agriculture Agricultural emissions will be permanently excluded from the CPRS.  The sector will be able to earn offsets for emissions abatement from 2010 via a voluntary scheme and offsets will be included in the CPRS after 2012. The Opposition has also secured $50 million for research and development on green carbon opportunities such as biochar and soil carbon. Coal Assistance to the coal industry has been doubled to $1.5 billion, comprising transitional assistance of $1.23 billion over 5 years to the most gassy coal mines and $270 million of matched funding for coal mine abatement projects.  This will ensure jobs are protected in Australia’s largest export industry. Small and Medium Businesses The Opposition has secured $1.1 billion in transition assistance to reduce the impact of the CPRS on electricity prices paid by potentially trade-exposed manufacturing and mining businesses that do not qualify for other transitional assistance.  There is a separate funding stream of up to $1 billion available to other businesses for investments in more energy-efficient equipment. Support for Electricity Generators The Coalition has secured an increase from $3.3 billion to $7.3 billion in assistance to electricity generators. This will address loss of generator asset value and provide energy security for the community.  Generators will also be able to buy permits in future years and defer 90 per cent of payment during the first 3 years of the scheme, helping their working capital. Given the written advice received from relevant energy market regulators, the Coalition is confident that the substantial changes to generator assistance negotiated with the Government will ensure the continued security of Australia’s electricity supply in the period where the CPRS is introduced. Voluntary Action Voluntary action by households will be taken into account. There will be a voluntary carbon market from 2010. Household Assistance and Budget Impact   The Coalition believes household compensation is at a sustainable level, and is fair, reasonable and sufficient compensation. The net fiscal impact of all of the above changes is to add approximately $0.8 billion over the period 2011-2020. The Opposition set out to save thousands of Australian jobs and limit increases in electricity prices for small businesses and household. These goals have been achieved – significantly improving Kevin Rudd’s flawed CPRS and delivering the same environmental benefits with less severe economic costs.  malcolmTue, 24 Nov 2009 11:15:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:687http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/684/National-School-Chaplaincy-Program.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=684http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=684&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/684/National-School-Chaplaincy-Program.aspxThe Coalition has today committed to continuing support for the great work chaplains are doing in our schools through the National School Chaplaincy Program. The Rudd Government has refused to rule out cancelling funding for this program past 30 June 2010, despite figures released in October’s Estimates showing 97 per cent of school principals who have engaged a chaplain strongly support the program and recognise the benefits for their school communities. Chaplains play a valuable role in schools, supporting students and school communities by offering pastoral care and guidance across religious denominations and beliefs. The Prime Minister has been walking on both sides of the street on this issue.  On the one hand he takes great pains to agree with the Coalition about the valuable role of chaplains in our schools – saying “they actually are providing the glue which keeps school communities rolling”.  On the other he and his Government are threatening to abolish the program that pays their wages.            The National School Chaplaincy Program was introduced by the former Coalition Government and enabled schools to employ a part-time school chaplain, with the purpose of providing pastoral care and non-denominational spiritual guidance in schools. If elected, the Coalition would continue funding for the program at its present levels – $165 million over the forward estimates. Chaplains’ beliefs are representative of the school communities the chaplains work in and do not hinder chaplains from working with those of other beliefs or none.  The program operates in 1,915 schools where the local community has sought to be involved with the program, and enjoys strong support among principals, schools and in the community generally. The chaplaincy program has been particularly successful in helping students with behaviour management issues and those that may have difficulties in their social relationships. If Julia Gillard were to get her way and the program were to cease, this decision would most disadvantage those students that battle with loneliness or bullying at schools and students who have difficulties in their families. Sadly, despite the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, the Labor Party has always been opposed to this very successful initiative and couldn’t wait to kill it off as soon as they could.  If Kevin Rudd wants to prove that he means what he says, he must announce the Government’s continued support for this program past 1 July 2010, at the level that it is currently funded. 20 November 2009  malcolmFri, 20 Nov 2009 03:20:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:684http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/673/National-Apology-Highlights-Local-History.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=673http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=673&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/673/National-Apology-Highlights-Local-History.aspxIn preparation for the National Apology to the 500,000 Forgotten Australians and former child migrants, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP visited the site of the former Randwick Asylum for Destitute Children to recognise the children who grew up in out of home care last century. “The reasons children were taken from their families or were sent to orphanages and institutions varied, but the brutality of life in care for many of these children was far worse than anything they had left behind. And that is a great shame on our nation, and one which we must acknowledge” said Mr Turnbull. “While each child’s experience in out of home care varied greatly across the country and even within institutions and facilities, the National Apology to be delivered on Monday recognises that in many tragic cases children were abused and suffered neglect in a system that was supposed to protect them”, he said. “We must apologise because we cannot restore the one thing to which all people should be entitled as a basic right – a childhood unencumbered by pain, and brutality, and suffering” said Mr Turnbull. “Tragically, 216 children died while they were in the Randwick Asylum, and 174 of those were buried in the grounds. A memorial garden was established to remember these children, which is part of the site of the now Prince of Wales hospital.” “I hope that the National Apology will help care leavers and child migrants to travel further along their journey of healing”, said Mr Turnbull. In 1852 the Relief of Destitute Children opened in Ormond House, Oxford St, Paddington for the reception of needy children.  In 1858 the Randwick Asylum for Destitute Children opened on the site of the current Prince of Wales hospital to accommodate children whose parents were of dissolute character. The treatment of children in the Randwick Asylum for Destitute Children was attacked by the 1874 New South Wales Royal Commission into Public Charities for its factory-like style, where children were isolated from the community and for the lack of care and supervision. A 2004 Senate Inquiry noted that: “The Randwick Asylum’s focus on producing goods for outside markets with the cheap labour of children demonstrates the ready acceptance of child labour and the lack of any real thought about their careers. That families often had to sign over complete control when admitting their children to an orphanage, demonstrates that parents were destined to take a subordinate role regarding their children’s lives”. A formal remembrance ceremony will be held in the Australian Parliament House at 11am Monday the 16th of November.malcolmFri, 13 Nov 2009 06:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:673http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/672/Welcomes-federal-government-contribution-to-Wayside-Chapel-redevelopment.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=672http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=672&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/672/Welcomes-federal-government-contribution-to-Wayside-Chapel-redevelopment.aspxMalcolm Turnbull, Federal Opposition Leader and Member for Wentworth, has welcomed the $3 million in federal funding the Rudd Labor Government has agreed to provide for the redevelopment of Sydney’s Wayside Chapel. “This funding is critical for the future viability of Wayside, and will allow Graham and his team to continue and expand the services they provide to some of our community’s most disadvantaged and vulnerable people. “Lucy and I together with many other Wentworth residents are proud to have been able to support Wayside in its vital work. While the Federal Government's contribution is substantial and timely, I encourage everyone, especially in the coming Christmas season, to consider making a contribution to the Wayside's building appeal and so make their own personal contribution to Wayside's very special mission."malcolmFri, 13 Nov 2009 06:34:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:672http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/669/Coalitions-Strong-Stand-on-Border-Protection.aspx#Comments5http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=669http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=669&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/669/Coalitions-Strong-Stand-on-Border-Protection.aspxThe Coalition takes the national government’s responsibility for border protection very seriously. Australians know that the Coalition has always been prepared to take the tough decisions on national security. We are determined to keep our borders secure, to prevent and discourage asylum seekers from risking their lives in perilous journeys and to protect the integrity of our generous immigration program. Our border protection policy is to stop the boats. We have done this before and we will do it again. We are prepared to take the tough decisions that Kevin Rudd and Labor seek to avoid. The only way to deter people smugglers is to have tougher laws. Only tougher laws send the right signal to these criminals and their prospective customers. By recklessly unpicking the policies of the previous Government that had successfully stopped the people smuggling trade, Mr Rudd has given the people smugglers a powerful marketing tool where they can offer the near certainty of permanent residence in one of the richest societies in the world to those who have the cash and contacts to buy a seat on a boat. Having done this, the Rudd Government has created the reality and the perception that Australia is a soft target. Lives are placed at risk and the integrity of our borders and our immigration program are being compromised. The principles set out below will reduce the ability of the people smugglers to market the certainty of permanent residence in Australia and will therefore deter unauthorised arrivals. The Coalition will not shirk this responsibility the way Labor does. We will announce further details of our border protection policy closer to the election, but today we are restating four core principles: We will once again secure our borders. Our aim is to stamp out people smuggling and effectively deter unauthorised arrivals while at the same time treating refugees compassionately in accordance with our obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees. All processing offshore. We will ensure that unauthorised arrivals seeking asylum are intercepted and processed offshore at Christmas Island, not on the Australian mainland as Mr Rudd is preparing to do.  A non-permanent visa for unauthorised arrivals. We will introduce a non-permanent visa for asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation. Asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation will be granted this safe haven visa rather than Labor’s permanent residency. It will be reassessed after a specific period not longer than three years, and if they are found to be in need of continued protection they will then be eligible for permanent residency. If they are found not to be in need of such protection, they will be returned to their country of origin. A compassionate and fair refugee and humanitarian program.  A Turnbull Government will maintain Australia’s substantial humanitarian program for refugees who come to Australia through legitimate processes. This intake will always favour those most in need. These principles will be the core of our border protection policy at the next election. They represent the tough decisions the Rudd Government is not prepared to make. Labor has weakened our border protection regime and caused a surge of unauthorised boat arrivals. Labor is outsourcing Australia’s humanitarian immigration program to people smugglers. Only a Turnbull Government can stop the boats and secure our borders.  malcolmThu, 12 Nov 2009 23:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:669http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/661/Government-Must-Support-Wayside-Chapel-in-need.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=661http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=661&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/661/Government-Must-Support-Wayside-Chapel-in-need.aspxFederal Opposition Leader and Member for Wentworth, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, called on the Rudd Government today to fund the $2 million shortfall for the redevelopment of Wayside Chapel in Sydney’s Kings Cross.    “It would be an absolute tragedy, not only to the community, but to the entire city, if Wayside is forced to close,” Mr Turnbull said.   “Reverend Graham Long and his team work selflessly and tirelessly with some of the most disadvantaged people in our city. Their work has received broad support from across the community.   “But while private philanthropy is a vital element in raising funds for Wayside, there is a role here for the Federal Government to match the State Government and contribute $2 million to the reconstruction of the Wayside’s crumbling buildings.   “The Rudd Government says it is serious about curbing the rate of homelessness and doing all it can to support those on the streets doing it tough.  This is a prime opportunity for the government to put its money where its mouth is and support Wayside in its hour of need."   In the past year alone, Wayside has provided 7500 meals, clothing for 2688 people and 2924 counselling sessions. Wayside also provides assistance to the homeless in accessing adequate health and welfare services.   "We need a rock solid commitment from Labor to support this vital institution," Mr Turnbull said.  malcolmTue, 10 Nov 2009 05:14:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:661http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/641/Coalition-Plan-to-Save-Jobs-and-Reduce-Costs.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=641http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=641&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/641/Coalition-Plan-to-Save-Jobs-and-Reduce-Costs.aspxThe Coalition has unveiled a plan to save thousands of Australian jobs and limit increases in electricity prices for small business through common sense amendments to Labor’s flawed and rushed emissions trading scheme.malcolmSun, 18 Oct 2009 09:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:641http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/639/Same-old-Labor-spending-waste-and-mismanagement.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=639http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=639&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/639/Same-old-Labor-spending-waste-and-mismanagement.aspxLabor Government waste and mismanagement is now systemic according to a new report released today by Opposition Leader the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and Coalition Scrutiny of Government Spokesperson, Senator Guy Barnett. The Labor Waste Annual Report 2008/09 highlights examples of waste, inefficiency and mismanagement that have occurred under the Rudd Labor Government in the 12 months to 30 September 2009. Among the top examples of waste were: GROCERYchoice website – $10 million wasted Schools stimulus debacle – $1.7 billion blow-out Cash splash waste – $40 million to dead people and Aussie expats Northern Territory indigenous housing program – $45 million and not one completed house  2020 Summit – $2 million wasted “These examples demonstrate the reckless manner in which the Labor government is spending taxpayers’ money,” Mr Turnbull said. “This waste of borrowed money is made worse by the fact that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are leading Australia into record debt.” “Wasting taxpayers’ money now means fewer options for essential services like health and education in the future. Wasting taxpayers’ money also means higher debt and higher taxes.” “Labor just does not understand the concept of value for money – it is a never-ending ‘spendathon’ using borrowed money." When will the waste end? The www.laborwaste.com website has also been re-launched together with the release of the Annual Report. “Thorough scrutiny of Government spending and ensuring that taxpayers get full value for money is a key priority for the Coalition.” “The Coalition is committed to protecting Australia’s future by stopping Labor’s reckless spending and reducing Government waste.” The Labor Waste Annual Report 2008/09 is available electronically at www.laborwaste.com and www.liberal.org.au . To read the full report click here malcolmThu, 15 Oct 2009 05:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:639http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/634/Rudd-Labors-reckless-spending-putting-interest-rate-pressure-on-families.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=634http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=634&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/634/Rudd-Labors-reckless-spending-putting-interest-rate-pressure-on-families.aspxThe Rudd Government’s determination to continue its reckless and wasteful spending threatens to add further pressure to interest rates and mortgage costs for families. Rather than protecting jobs and family homes, the Government’s rush to keep spending at high levels in the face of mounting evidence that the economy is gathering pace, makes interest rate increases above normal cyclical tightening inevitable. The rate increases are coming sooner and will be bigger than the cycle would normally require. These rises will have real, detrimental impact on families. Home buyers will face an increase of around $1,000 a year in extra mortgage payments for each 25 basis point rise in interest rates on a $400,000 loan. The Reserve Bank’s decision this month to lift rates means that the $900 cash splashes sent to many wage earners has already been taken back. Market economists are almost unanimous that there will be a further rate increase on Melbourne Cup day. The only disagreement is the size of the rate rise, whether it be 25 basis points or 50. And this is only the start. This mounting burden on families is the inevitable consequence of Mr Rudd’s reckless spending. Considering that more than half of the suburbs in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth are categorised as being at “high risk” of loan defaults in the event of interest rate rises, according to Dun and Bradstreet, the Government should be doing everything it can to reduce the pressure for rate rises. At particular risk are the more than 150,000 first home buyers who received the increased first home owners grant from October 2008. Every one of these first time home buyers will be feeling the pain of interest rate rises to come in the future unless the Rudd Government cuts back on its reckless spending to take the pressure off rates. Unless we get quick action to rein in spending and move forward on reforms to housing supply, housing affordability will continue to worsen and home buyers will be penalised. As the Reserve Bank has warned, housing affordability is already under pressure because of an undersupply of dwellings Instead, Rudd Labor is only fuelling interest rate rises that add financial pressure on families.  malcolmTue, 13 Oct 2009 04:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:634http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/625/The-Coalitions-plan-to-pay-off-Labors-debt.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=625http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=625&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/625/The-Coalitions-plan-to-pay-off-Labors-debt.aspxSince coming to office the Rudd Government has engaged in a level of borrowing and spending never before seen in the history of our country – projecting a record level of government debt, which can only lead to higher taxes and higher interest rates in the future. Despite signs of strength in the Australian economy, Labor is determined to press ahead with its reckless and wasteful spending. Labor is committed to increasing the relative size of Commonwealth government spending by one fifth: from 24.0% of GDP in 2007-08 to 28.6% in 2009-10. And Labor’s spending will create a far greater debt burden than was left by the previous Labor Government in 1996. This burden will be costly to service and painful to repay. Worse still, the debt will be incurred to fund a continuation of Labor’s ill-considered, wasteful and low-quality spending program. With stronger economic growth than forecast in the Budget, continued high government spending and higher debt will push up interest rates – reducing private investment, undermining economic growth, and placing unnecessary pressure on home buyers. Higher spending and higher debt will always put greater upward pressure on interest rates than would otherwise be the case. This week Australia was the first of the world’s major economies to experience an increase in official interest rates since the global financial crisis, with the Reserve Bank raising the cash rate and clearly signalling that more rises are to come. Government spending over the next four years must be reduced and the slide into record public debt must be prevented. Otherwise, Australians will pay the price of Labor’s debt through higher taxes and higher interest rates. Only the Coalition has the discipline, the track record, and the plan to deal with Labor’s debt. A Coalition Government will deliver on four key principles to reduce Labor’s debt and prevent the further accumulation of irresponsible and unnecessary debt. A Coalition Government will: 1. Reduce the level of waste, mismanagement and duplication in every corner of government spending, establish a Commission for Sustainable Finances, and put an end to Labor’s cash splashes. 2. Increase economic growth and productivity through a vigorous reform, infrastructure and innovation agenda and support for small business. 3. Control the growth of government and commit to a responsible long term objective of returning the government’s share of the economy to the level achieved by the previous Coalition Government – that is, reducing over time the share of government spending to less than 25% of GDP. 4. Ensure independent and accurate scrutiny of Australia’s public finances. History tells us it has been the job of the Coalition to rebuild the damage done by Labor governments. It is only a Coalition Government that can manage our public finances properly and restore the nation to prosperity. To read the full strategy click here malcolmWed, 07 Oct 2009 22:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:625http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/627/Retirement-of-the-Hon-Fran-Bailey.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=627http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=627&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/627/Retirement-of-the-Hon-Fran-Bailey.aspxFran Bailey has announced today that she will not re-contest the seat of McEwen at the next election, bringing to a close a distinguished parliamentary career spanning close to twenty years. Fran has made an enormous contribution to public life and will leave a legacy of accomplishment for the communities of McEwen and the people of Australia. Fran was first elected to represent the people of McEwen in 1990, becoming the first woman from any political party to represent a rural electorate in the House of Representatives and the first Victorian Liberal woman to be elected to the House of Representatives – a great achievement. After regaining McEwen at the 1996 election, Fran served on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade from 1998 to 2002. Between 2001 and 2004 Fran served as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and in 2004 was promoted to Minister for Employment Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and later Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Fran brought her characteristic energy, passion, and effectiveness to all of these roles. Fran has always been an outstanding advocate for her local community, and she has worked extremely hard to retain the marginal seat of McEwen since 1996. Fran’s leadership, compassion and dedication to the people of McEwen was no more prominently on display than in the wake of this year’s devastating Black Saturday bushfires when she provided immense support to her constituents during that tragic period. Fran will be missed by her colleagues in the federal Liberal Party, and on behalf of the Opposition I thank Fran for her years of service.  malcolmWed, 07 Oct 2009 05:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:627http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/624/Congratulations-to-Professor-Blackburn.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=624http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=624&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/624/Congratulations-to-Professor-Blackburn.aspxOn behalf of the Coalition we extend our congratulations to Professor Elizabeth Blackburn on receiving the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Professor Blackburn shares the award with her US colleagues, Dr Carol Greider and Dr Jack Szostak, for their enormously important work on identifying telomeres that protect chromosomes in cells thus opening the way for breakthroughs in addressing ageing and cancer. The awarding of the Nobel Prize to the Tasmanian-born Professor Blackburn is a testament to the initiative and achievement of an Australian scientist whose work has made an enormous contribution to not just medicine, but to our understanding of ageing and health care. Now based in San Francisco, her insights have provided a foundation for our understanding of ageing and disease that has added enormously to medical treatments and health care throughout the world. The substantial contribution of Professor Blackburn’s work has been widely recognised and is well deserving of the Nobel Prize. The award recognises the contributions of Professor Blackburn and is an indication of the important role Australia’s scientists have in developing new knowledge in medicine and health care. Professor Blackburn is also the first Australian woman to be awarded a Nobel Prize and only the 37th woman to receive the award. This in itself is a rightly deserved recognition of the enormous contributions women have made, and continue making, to science. Her work and success stand as a tremendous example for all Australians of the dedication, commitment and innovation that our fellow citizens can produce for their own benefit and for the benefit of countless other people. We congratulate Professor Blackburn on her award of the Nobel Prize and extend our best wishes for her continuing work into ageing and cell regeneration.  malcolmTue, 06 Oct 2009 01:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:624http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/611/Temporary-Shadow-Cabinet-Arrangements.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=611http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=611&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/611/Temporary-Shadow-Cabinet-Arrangements.aspxThe Hon Andrew Rob AO will be taking leave of absence from the Shadow Cabinet for medical reasons. We all wish Andrew a speedy recovery from his illness and look forward to his early return to active duties on our frontbench. Andrew will continue to serve in the Parliament and provide guidance to the Opposition on his portfolio areas, but the front line portfolio responsibilities will be temporarily re-assigned during his leave of absence. Responsibility for assisting me on Emissions Trading Design will be taken up by the Hon Ian Macfarlane, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources. Andrew’s responsibilities for COAG will be handled in his absence by the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Tony Smith, and his responsibilities for Infrastructure will be handled by the Shadow Minister for Local Government and Housing, Mr Scott Morrison.  malcolmSat, 19 Sep 2009 01:30:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:611http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/613/Visit-to-the-United-Kingdom.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=613http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=613&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/613/Visit-to-the-United-Kingdom.aspxI will make a private visit to the United Kingdom early next week where I will meet with senior figures in the Conservative Party including Opposition Leader, the Rt Hon David Cameron. The purpose of the visit is to discuss a range of policy issues including responses to the global financial crisis and the impact of rising levels of government debt on future economic growth and jobs. I will also meet with Shadow Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon William Hague, and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr George Osborne. I also look forward to speaking at the leading London based think tank, Policy Exchange, on the evening of Tuesday 22 September. The Hon Julie Bishop will be acting Leader of the Opposition for the duration of my visit.  malcolmFri, 18 Sep 2009 01:34:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:613http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/612/Senior-Diplomatic-Appointments.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=612http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=612&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/612/Senior-Diplomatic-Appointments.aspxOn behalf of the federal Opposition, I extend my congratulations to Kim Beazley and Brendan Nelson on their appointments today to two of Australia’s most important diplomatic postings. Australia is fortunate to be able to call on the services of two of our most distinguished parliamentary leaders to serve as ambassadors. Both have served previously as Ministers for Defence and as Opposition Leaders. Both will bring great experience, insights and understanding to the responsibility of representing Australia’s interests in major world capitals. Mr Beazley’s long-standing and enthusiastic engagement on the issues at the heart of the relationship with our great friend and ally, the United States, makes him ideally suited to the role as our next Australian Ambassador to Washington DC. He is a man respected across the political divide, both here in Australia and in the United States. Likewise, after six years as a Cabinet minister and a distinguished medical career before entering politics, Dr Nelson is well qualified for the appointment as Australia’s next Ambassador to the European Communities, Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Special Representative to the World Health Organisation, and Ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg. Again, I extend our warm congratulations to both Kim and Brendan. I am confident they will represent the nation with the same dedication and distinction they have brought to their many years in public life.  malcolmThu, 17 Sep 2009 01:32:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:612http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/597/Senate-inquiry-into-waste-and-mismanagement-of-the-schools-stimulus.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=597http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=597&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/597/Senate-inquiry-into-waste-and-mismanagement-of-the-schools-stimulus.aspxThe Coalition will today seek to refer the schools stimulus debacle to a Senate committee to investigate the systemic issues of waste and mismanagement and consider measures to ensure value for money for tax payers. The Primary Schools for the Twenty First Century program has been plagued by examples of waste, mismanagement and lack of value for the billions of borrowed dollars being spent. The program has already blown out by $1.7 billion and has been riddled with problems such as inflated prices, state government skimming and gross inefficiency. Schools around the country have been forced to accept Julia Gillard Memorial Halls when they need other facilities, such as classrooms. Local builders and tradespeople are being overlooked for state government-approved contractors charging inflated prices. And the Rudd Government has been forced to rob needy schools of their opportunity to build science and language facilities to cover the blow out in the primary school spend. This has always been about a political strategy not an economic strategy. The Australian Electoral Commission’s recent advice that the Building the Education Revolution display signs are political advertisements confirms this. Every Australian deserves to know that the Government is not squandering billions of dollars of their money, especially when it is borrowed and will have to be paid back with interest. There is potentially billions of dollars of savings to make in these programs if managed properly. The Coalition will today lodge a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee and seek the support of independent senators and the Australian Greens to establish this important committee inquiry without delay. This inquiry will do what the Rudd Government refuses to do – seek advice on how to address the systematic waste and mismanagement in the school stimulus debacle.  malcolmTue, 08 Sep 2009 04:37:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:597http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/595/AFP-Commissioner-Tony-Negus.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=595http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=595&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/595/AFP-Commissioner-Tony-Negus.aspxOn behalf of the Coalition, I congratulate Tony Negus APM on being sworn in today as the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. Commissioner Negus has had a long and distinguished career in the AFP spanning nearly three decades. He has unrivalled skills in law enforcement and counter terrorism operations and has an impeccable reputation for integrity and leadership. He will now lead an organisation that has changed dramatically over the last 30 years. In 1979, the Commonwealth Police combined with the Australian Capital Territory Police to form the AFP with 2,952 staff and a budget of $73 million. The AFP has now grown into Australia’s national police force with over 6,500 staff and a budget of $1.4 billion. Over those years, the AFP has shown an acute ability to move with the times, expanding its areas of influence and responsibility across the spectrum of law enforcement and counter-terrorism activity. As Australia and the region grapple with new security and technological threats we are fortunate to have Commissioner Negus at the helm of our federal police force. I look forward to working closely with him in the future. I also pay tribute to the significant contribution of former Commissioner Mick Keelty, who led the AFP for over nine years through some of the most challenging years in its history as it responded to the growing threat of global terrorism.  malcolmMon, 07 Sep 2009 09:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:595http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/588/Election-of-a-new-Government-in-Japan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=588http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=588&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/588/Election-of-a-new-Government-in-Japan.aspxWe in the federal Opposition congratulate the Democratic Party of Japan on its election victory and look forward to working with the new government of Prime Minister-elect, Yukio Hatoyama, to strengthen further the valued and vibrant partnership between our two nations. Japan and Australia are fellow democracies, standing up resolutely for the values of freedom. The historic election victory by the DPJ will mark a new chapter in a relationship underpinned by decades of goodwill and common purpose. As a leading parliamentarian of long standing, Mr Hatoyama has demonstrated a deep personal commitment to the bilateral relationship, including hosting a delegation of young Australian leaders in March. The Japan-Australia partnership has proved resilient and reliable in part due to strong cross-party support in both countries. In keeping with that tradition, I would like to pay tribute to outgoing Prime Minister Taro Aso for his distinguished service. He has been a great friend of Australia. The importance of Australia’s relationship with Japan should never be underestimated. Japan has been Australia’s largest export market for 40 years, and Australia is the leading supplier of energy resources, beef and dairy products to the Japanese market. Moreover, more than 64,000 Japanese residents call Australia their home away from home, and almost half a million visitors from Japan make their way to Australia each year. These people-to-people links are vital to a relationship characterised by great warmth and mutual respect. We also share profound strategic interests. As leading allies of the United States, Japan and Australia work closely together on the goal of preserving peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. Our two countries are strong voices in the great global debates. On the twin challenges of climate and energy security, Australia and Japan have worked productively, including through the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, to identify and develop technological solutions that will make a meaningful difference. For more than 30 years, Japan has been a world leader in low-emission energy use, both in the policies it adopts domestically and in the technology it exports. This global leadership role was underlined by the appointment of Mr Nobuo Tanaka to head the International Energy Agency. Our two countries have a strong mutual interest in continuing efforts to find cleaner ways forward, without compromising the fundamental economic strengths so integral to the prolific advances in living standards across our region over the past quarter of a century. In the past decade, Australia’s relations with Japan have also deepened at the strategic level, including co-operation between our forces in Iraq. We in the Liberal and National parties remain proud of our role in instituting the formal Joint Declaration on Security Co-operation in 2007. Across the full spectrum of policy challenges, the relationship between Japan and Australia has become a much-treasured asset. It must never be taken for granted. We in the federal Opposition hope to work with the new Government in Tokyo to ensure the enduring bonds of trust and friendship established across more than 50 years serve as a platform for this relationship to go from strength to strength into the 21st century.malcolmMon, 31 Aug 2009 04:55:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:588http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/586/Good-Samaritans.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=586http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=586&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/586/Good-Samaritans.aspxWe welcome the suggestion by the family of Luke Mitchell to recognise our nation’s Good Samaritans. Luke’s tragic death and that of Melbourne lawyer Brendan Keilar demonstrate the high price that some people pay for the selfless care they show to their fellow human beings. Edmund Burke famously noted all that is needed for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. These two men were not prepared to stand aside and do nothing. The Opposition would support the creation of a Good Samaritan Day where we could recognise the contributions of people such as Luke Mitchell and Brendan Keilar. While the circumstance of their terrible deaths should never be repeated, they should act as an inspiration to all of us to look out for others, strangers or not. Australians have a proud tradition of helping out their mates and neighbours, and we often extend that attitude to strangers. In many ways, it would be ideal for every day to be a Good Samaritan Day, but the idea of being reminded of this common sense of humanity once a year is admirable. Australia is fortunate enough to have around 5.4 million volunteers across the nation who provide resources to some 700,000 not for profit organisations. These volunteers make up the social fabric of our community on an ongoing basis. Good Samaritans assist their fellow citizens for no other reason that it is the right thing to do. As a community, we should celebrate the fact that we are willing to reach out to others and assist them, even if they are extending only the most basic of courtesies such as assisting someone with a disability to cross the street. On behalf of the Opposition we thank all our Good Samaritans and urge us all to learn from their actions.malcolmFri, 28 Aug 2009 04:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:586http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/583/Visit-to-HMAS-Cairns.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=583http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=583&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/583/Visit-to-HMAS-Cairns.aspxToday, I was honoured to visit some of Australia’s Navy personnel who operate at the front line to protect our nation’s borders. At HMAS Cairns LCDR Ted Cummins gave me a comprehensive briefing on the role the base plays in defending our nation. Aboard the Armidale class patrol boat, HMAS Wollongong, its Commanding Officer, LCDR Tony Allen, introduced me to his ship's company and gave us a demonstration of the boarding techniques deployed when unauthorised vessels are encountered in Australian waters. Given the size of our coastline and the waters that need to be patrolled, it is an enormous task to keep our borders secure and I commend the Navy, and our other border protection forces, for the magnificent contribution that they make to this effort. The Navy’s Armidale Class Patrol Boats play an essential role in the interception of unauthorized arrivals and their vessels. I was very impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the ship's company of HMAS Wollongong and the other Navy personnel we met at HMAS Cairns and I thank them all for their hospitality. These young men and women often put their lives at risk defending our borders, as we saw in the tragic events surrounding the explosion on the SIEV 36 in April. Today’s visit was a reminder to me that the Australian public still awaits further information about what happened in the incident. The public has a right to know what lessons should be learned from that tragedy. Since the Rudd Government softened Australia’s polices on border protection in August last year, there has been a large surge in people smuggling activity. The Rudd Government has sent the wrong message to people smugglers and I fear the surge in unauthorized arrivals will continue. It is time for Mr Rudd to launch a full independent inquiry into the relationship between his new policies on border protection and the increase in people smuggling activity.  malcolmThu, 27 Aug 2009 06:34:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:583http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/581/Taking-students-with-disabilities-out-of-the-too-hard-basket.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=581http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=581&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/581/Taking-students-with-disabilities-out-of-the-too-hard-basket.aspxToday, the Opposition held a major stakeholder forum in Melbourne to discuss the significant challenges faced by students with disabilities and their families. This issue has been languishing in the too hard basket for too long and the Coalition wants to work with parents, educators and the providers to find a solution to ensure every child has the opportunity to reach their potential. The Opposition heard that governments at all levels have failed to provide adequately for the hundreds of thousands of young people living with a disability across Australia. Parents of students with disabilities shared their very personal stories of a system that has failed them and their children. We also heard from principals, teachers and representatives of the education and disability sectors about the need for national leadership and reform in this area. Overwhelmingly, participants agreed that the education system is failing to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities. Every sector at the forum indicated their strong support for action. Parents talked about some of the considerable challenges that they face every day. We heard difficult stories of how these families have been discriminated against and denied real choice when it comes to the education of their children. Some of the key deficiencies that were identified included but are not limited to: • Equity and portability of funding – the difference between funding in a government school and non-government school is unfair and unsustainable. Fundamentally, the funding should follow the child. • More training for teachers and teacher’s aides must be undertaken so that these educators can better support these children. • Parents are exhausted and need more support across the board with less red tape. • There are substantial problems with different definitions of disabilities and too many children are falling through the gaps. The views expressed today will provide critical input to our policy development in this important area. The Coalition will continue to consult stakeholder groups across Australia with a clear focus on parent driven solutions. We encourage anyone who would like to share their experiences or offer policy solutions to go to www.educationforaustralia.com. The investment we fail to make today in these young Australians will cost the nation more in the long run.  malcolmTue, 25 Aug 2009 06:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:581http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/579/The-Hon-Dr-Brendan-Nelson.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=579http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=579&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/579/The-Hon-Dr-Brendan-Nelson.aspxI would like to pay tribute to the distinguished career of former Education Minister, Defence Minister and Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, as he announces his retirement from Federal Parliament. Dr Nelson’s retirement will precipitate a by-election later this year in the seat of Bradfield. This by-election will be an important opportunity for voters to express their views on the Rudd Labor Government’s economic management, which has seen unprecedented levels of reckless spending and record debt which will lead to higher taxes and higher interest rates. Labor must take the opportunity at this by-election to explain why they have amassed so much debt and how they will ask Australians to repay that debt. State Labor has taken the Bradfield area for granted, and the by-election will give residents a chance to air their views on vital local issues such as the impact of planning and development changes. The by-election will also be fought over Labor’s attacks on aspiration and self-reliance, and in particular Kevin Rudd’s broken promise not to alter the private health insurance rebate. On behalf of the Coalition I would like thank Brendan for his years of service to the Liberal Party, the electors of Bradfield, and the people of Australia. During the Howard Government, Brendan served with distinction in two very senior ministerial portfolios. As Minister for Defence from January 2006, Brendan oversaw record government investment in the Australian Defence Force, including three per cent annual real increases in Defence spending out to 2015/16. Brendan was also responsible for major defence acquisitions such as the Air Warfare Destroyers, amphibious ships, C-17s and Abrams tanks. These investments in defence will be essential to the protection of Australia’s people, interests and values well into the future. As Defence Minister, Brendan also oversaw deployments of Australian troops to restore stability to the Solomon Islands and East Timor, and he implemented far-reaching reforms to boost recruitment and retention in the ADF. As Australia’s Education Minister from November 2001 to January 2006, Brendan’s achievements included delivering much needed reform of Australia’s higher education sector, putting in place an agenda for higher standards and greater consistency in Australian schools, and lifting the status and profile of vocational education, training and apprenticeships. As Leader of the Opposition, Brendan began the process of rebuilding our party in challenging times and we owe him a debt of gratitude for his service. I wish Brendan, Gillian and their family a very happy and successful future together.  malcolmTue, 25 Aug 2009 05:05:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:579http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/570/Renewable-Energy-Agreement-another-victory-for-common-sense.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=570http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=570&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/570/Renewable-Energy-Agreement-another-victory-for-common-sense.aspxToday’s compromise between the Government and the Coalition on a 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET) for Australia by 2020 is a victory for common sense and the environment. The Government should now adopt the same common sense in negotiating for its proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS). Over the next decade the expanded RET will dramatically increase the share of Australia’s energy needs generated from solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources, and assist the Australian economy in making the transition to a low carbon future. The Coalition welcomes the Government’s flexibility in relation to our key concerns, which included: A full decoupling of the RET from the proposed ETS. Appropriate protection for key energy-intensive trade-exposed industries such as aluminium. Protection of existing investment and jobs in the coal mine waste methane power generation industry. Scope for industries which may be affected by the RET, such as food processing, to refer their treatment to the Productivity Commission. A tightening of regulations relating to RET eligibility for heat pumps. Today’s outcome provides certainty to the renewable energy industry and gives the green light to further investment in this sector. The RET outcome demonstrates the economically and environmentally beneficial outcomes which can result from good faith negotiations between the Government and Coalition. The Government must now adopt a similar approach to negotiation of its ETS legislation.  malcolmWed, 19 Aug 2009 04:48:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:570http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/565/Gillard-again-dismisses-rural-and-regional-students.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=565http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=565&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/565/Gillard-again-dismisses-rural-and-regional-students.aspxDeputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard today again arrogantly dismissed in Question Time the very real concerns of rural and regional students from across the country who have been gutted by the Government’s decision to strip away their entitlement to claim Youth Allowance next year. The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull and the Shadow Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne today met with a delegation of rural and regional students to hear first hand about the effect of the Rudd Government’s changes to the Youth Allowance eligibility criteria. “These students told us that under the new rules, it would be nearly impossible for them to afford to go to university,” said Mr Turnbull. “We know that the Government’s changes to Youth Allowance will hurt thousands of students from farming and small business backgrounds in rural and regional areas – these students will not be eligible for Youth Allowance even if their families can’t afford to send them to the city to attend university. “They do not have the luxury enjoyed by many city students who can stay at home when they study. “The Rudd Government’s changes will also punish all students who are currently on their gap year – having taken the decision to defer their studies in order to meet the workforce participation criteria that were in place and on which they relied when they were at school last year. “To meet the new criteria, they will have to work thirty hours per week for eighteen months. More often than not, there simply aren’t enough full time jobs in these local communities for these potential students. “The Coalition has been arguing since the Budget that Julia Gillard’s changes will suffocate many students’ dreams of a higher education,” said Mr Pyne. “Today in Question Time the Education Minister continued to arrogantly assert that she knows best, and everyone else must be wrong. It is time for Ms Gillard to swallow her pride, admit that she is wrong. “We have a three point plan to reverse this inequity: 1. When the legislation comes before the Parliament, the Coalition will move amendments to delay the start date for the abolition of the gap year provision from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2011 to help those young Australians currently on a gap year. 2. In government, we will look after regional and rural students with a targeted scholarship program that will help thousands of needy students from the country who do not qualify for Youth Allowance assistance. 3. In government, we will fix the ridiculous situation under the Rudd Government’s proposal where these young people will be looking for full time work (30 hours per week) for 18 months so they can qualify as independents. “Students in rural and regional areas deserve better from this part-time Education Minister.” 17 August 2009  malcolmMon, 17 Aug 2009 06:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:565http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/564/Retirement-of-Margaret-May.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=564http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=564&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/564/Retirement-of-Margaret-May.aspxMargaret May has announced that she will not contest the seat of McPherson at the next election. One of the most dedicated members in the Parliament, Margaret has worked tirelessly and assiduously for her local community over the last eleven years. Margaret has served with distinction as Shadow Minister for Ageing since the last election – no member of parliament knows more about the issues affecting senior Australians than Margaret, and no member works harder on their behalf. Just last week I attended the McPherson Seniors’ Expo and Forum with Margaret – an outstanding event which Margaret organises each year, bringing together and providing support to more than 500 senior Australians in her community. Margaret has also served on many parliamentary committees including the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the House of Representatives Standing Committees on Health and Ageing, and Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, and as Chair of the Procedures Committee. Margaret’s decision will mean that she will have more time to spend with her husband David as she supports him through a difficult period. Lucy and I wish Margaret and David, their three children, Dayne, Dimity and Kristin and four grandchildren Jaiden, Emily, Angus and Abby every happiness into the future. I thank Margaret for her years of service to the people of the Gold Coast. 14 August 2009  malcolmFri, 14 Aug 2009 01:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:564http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/561/Another-Rudd-Minister-confirms-the-CPRS-is-a-work-in-progress.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=561http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=561&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/561/Another-Rudd-Minister-confirms-the-CPRS-is-a-work-in-progress.aspxThe answer provided in Parliament today by Resources Minister Ferguson clearly demonstrates the Government’s ETS legislation is still not finished – proving today's Senate vote was a political stunt, and had nothing to do with the national interest. Mr Ferguson said: "I can simply say that in terms of the coal industry there has been engagement and there will continue to be engagement with respect to the final framework of both the CPRS and the renewable energy legislation." (House of Representatives, 13 August 2009). If changes affecting vital export industries such as coal are still pending, why try and ram a flawed scheme through the Senate? If less than a dozen industry activity definitions out of roughly 100 such regulations have been completed, why pretend any delay in legislating an ETS is unthinkable? If the Government still plans to change the ETS treatment of generators, as the recent commissioning of the Morgan Stanley study indicates, why today's grandstanding in Question Time? The answer is that today's vote on a flawed ETS was not about either the environment or the needs of the economy. It was about the political interests of the Prime Minister and the Labor Party. This is far from the right way to handle such a vital national policy with such sweeping economic and jobs implications. Mr Rudd should come clean on the truth, and sit down and negotiate.  malcolmThu, 13 Aug 2009 07:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:561http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/556/A-Greener-Cheaper-Smarter-ETS.aspx#Comments7http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=556http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=556&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/556/A-Greener-Cheaper-Smarter-ETS.aspxIndependent economic research commissioned by the Coalition and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon demonstrates that the Rudd Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will unnecessarily drive up electricity prices, destroy jobs and expand the size of government in Australia. The research, by respected consultants Frontier Economics, is the modelling the Rudd Government refused to ask its own Treasury to undertake. The results make it clear the Rudd Government should immediately withdraw its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation and begin negotiations with the Opposition, minor party Senators and other stakeholders to design a more effective scheme. To persist with the CPRS would be the height of irresponsibility given Frontier’s work shows the scheme can actually be made twice as green at a much lower cost to consumers and the broader economy, and a net improvement of 68,000 in regional jobs. With appropriate amendments the ETS can deliver an unconditional 10 per cent reduction in Australia’s 2000 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared to the Rudd Government’s 5 per cent unconditional target. It shows that by treating the electricity generation sector in a less punitive manner, household power bills need only rise by about 5 per cent in the near term rather than the immediate 25 per cent price hike the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will trigger. Five years into the scheme, average annual household power bills would only be $44 higher, rather than the $280 price hike under the CPRS. The damaging impact of the CPRS on regional Australia and the nation’s key export industries is also greatly reduced by the changes modeled by Frontier. Rather than the loss of 26,000 regional jobs revealed by modelling of the CPRS, Frontier’s proposed changes would lead to net gains of 42,000 in employment in regional Australia. Overall, the cost to the Australian economy over the next 20 years in net present value terms is reduced by $49 billion, or about a third. KEY MODIFICATIONS TO CPRS The key changes to the currently proposed ETS recommended by Frontier are: – Doubling the unconditional emissions abatement target offered to the international community by Australia from a 5 per cent reduction from 2000 levels by 2020 to a 10 per cent reduction. – Allocating permits to electricity generators using a baseline approach, rather than forcing generators to purchase permits for all emissions. This enables a less abrupt increase in retail electricity prices, without diminishing incentives for generators to shift to greener power sources. – Providing 100 per cent shielding without a decay factor to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, including the coal industry. – Auctioning about 30 per cent of the permits required by Australian industry, in line with the ratio auctioned under the proposed Waxman-Markey scheme in the US, rather than the 70 per cent proposed by the CPRS. – Excluding agricultural emissions from the scheme, but allowing the agricultural sector to contribute to abatement and earn new revenue streams by allowing the inclusion of offsets such as carbon sequestration in forests or biochar. KEY ECONOMIC OUTCOMES The key economic consequences of these changes to the proposed ETS are: – A reduction in the net present value of the economic costs of the scheme over the next 20 years from $121 billion to $72 billion – a $49 billion improvement. Under the approach proposed by Frontier, output, real wages, employment and investment would all be higher. – Wholesale electricity prices rise by about 5 per cent in the near-term, and then slowly increase over the next two decades until they are about 25 per cent higher than their anticipated level in the absence of any ETS. This compares to an immediate rise of 40-50 per cent in wholesale prices under the CPRS (which translates into a 25 per cent rise in retail electricity prices). – The impact of the ETS on jobs and output in regions with emissions-intensive economies such as the Hunter Valley, Illawarra, Gippsland and central Queensland is reduced. Rather than tens of thousands of jobs disappearing in these regions, new jobs will be created. “This is the modelling work that the Rudd Government refused to undertake,” said Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Opposition. “It shows that with relatively modest changes, the proposed ETS can be made far less harmful to jobs, investment, regions and the Australian economy.” “This is a strategy for an ETS that is twice as green and compared to the Government’s scheme saves an average household over $200 a year on their power bills,” said Senator Nick Xenophon. “Rather than shutting down important parts of our economy, we can deliver the right mix of incentives and signals to encourage clean growth.” “We have long argued that a flawed ETS is worse than no ETS at all,” said Andrew Robb, Coalition spokesman on Emissions Trading Design. “Frontier’s modelling and analysis provides us with new thinking about how to design a more environmentally and economically effective response to climate change.” FRONTIER’S APPROACH Frontier’s analysis utilizes the MMRF-GREEN model at Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies – the same model used in the Garnaut Review and the Federal Treasury's modelling of the CPRS. MMRF-GREEN is a multi-sector, multi-region dynamic model of the Australian economy. “It is important to note this is the very same model which was used by Treasury,” said Danny Price, Managing Director of Frontier Economics. “These results aren’t some pie-in-the-sky magic pudding. They reflect the application of careful design and real world economics to the policy challenge of implementing an ETS in an energy-intensive economy such as Australia.” TREATMENT OF ELECTRICITY GENERATORS The use of a baseline approach to the electricity generation sector greatly reduces the ‘churn’ involved in the ETS - less money is raised from industry and then redistributed to households to compensate them for higher electricity prices. Rather than an abrupt and large jump in power bills, the changes proposed by Frontier would mean a small and gradual increase – giving households and businesses more time to scale back their electricity use by purchasing more efficient appliances, insulating buildings, and making other adjustments. A much smaller and more gradual increase in power bills also greatly decreases the need for compensation payments to households. This, in turn, means the many billions of dollars of annual fiscal ‘churn’ created by an ETS can be greatly reduced. “Lower electricity prices will also greatly reduce the indirect costs of the Government’s ETS that would be faced by hundreds of thousands of small and mid-sized businesses,” said Mr. Robb. “For example, under the CPRS, a typical dairy farm faced extra costs of $8000-$10000 per year. Under Frontier’s proposals, this would be reduced by 90 per cent.” Separately, the Coalition has also committed itself to a doubling of the compensation proposed for the electricity generators, from $4 billion to $8-10 billion, in order to provide greater fairness and investment certainty for firms in this industry. Securing the balance sheets of existing electricity generators is critical to energy security, and also a key enabler for these firms to invest in cleaner generation technologies. SUMMARY “Overall, these possible alterations to the ETS have the effect of delivering a more transparent, market-driven scheme rather than Labor’s big government CPRS,” said Mr. Turnbull. “We look forward to the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Rudd and Senator Wong to discuss these innovative ideas, and work co-operatively to deliver a response to climate change that best serves the interests of all Australians.” To read the slides click here To read the full report click here        malcolmMon, 10 Aug 2009 01:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:556http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/549/Engaging-with-Senior-Australians.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=549http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=549&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/549/Engaging-with-Senior-Australians.aspxThe Federal Coalition has launched its ‘Engaging with Senior Australians’ initiative to hear from Senior Australians on what’s important. “This is a very important and exciting initiative that will provide senior Australians with a real opportunity to have their voices heard on the issues that matter to them,” Malcolm Turnbull said today. “Tapping into the wisdom, knowledge and experience of senior Australians is the key to ensuring seniors policy best reflects the needs of this important age group. “Senior Australians have made our great nation what it is today and continue to have a range of ideas on how to best move forward. “There are over 20 000 Australians over 65 in the electorate of Wentworth and I want to hear from each one of them. “Soon I will be hosting a Seniors Forum and will be encouraging all senior Australians in Wentworth to attend. “We particularly encourage input from senior Australians on how to best deliver world-class aged care services, aged pensions, social inclusion, health services and retirement incomes. “The Coalition has also launched a webpage inviting senior Australians to submit their ideas on how we can continue to best move forward,” said Malcolm Turnbull. The webpage can be found at www.liberal.org.au/seniors “The Coalition recognises the important contribution senior Australians have made, and continue to make, and we want to hear from all senior Australians,”.  malcolmTue, 04 Aug 2009 02:23:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:549http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/555/Statement-concerning-Mr-Godwin-Grech-and-Ozcar.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=555http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=555&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/555/Statement-concerning-Mr-Godwin-Grech-and-Ozcar.aspxReports today make it clear an email which Mr Grech spoke of in his testimony to the Senate was faked and forged by Mr Grech himself. It is very regrettable that in doing so Mr Grech misled the Opposition, the Parliament and the Australian people. At all times the Opposition acted in good faith. We have remained silent on many of these issues because of the ongoing AFP investigation into the faked email. But Mr Grech’s public admissions and his accusations against the Opposition require a response. We are sympathetic about Mr Grech’s current situation and share concerns about his welfare, but we must now respond to the allegations made by Mr Grech in The Australian today. The Prime Minister and others have attacked us over this issue, to the extent that they have even suggested the Opposition was involved in forging the email. Those allegations are now shown to be totally false, as we have stated all along. The Government is claiming that the Auditor-General’s report released today completely clears them of any wrongdoing. However the report does raise matters of legitimate concern. The report finds it was “inadvisable” and “not prudent” for Treasury officials to raise Mr Grant’s case with Ford Credit in the way that they did and mention at that meeting that Mr Grant was a friend of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. This goes to the heart of our concerns and the detail of the report makes it clear that Mr Swan needs to take responsibility for the failings identified by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). Our response to Mr Grech’s allegations are set out below: 1. Mr Godwin Grech has in a statement to The Australian newspaper, admitted that he personally forged an email purporting to be from Andrew Charlton in the Prime Minister’s Office to himself. Mr Grech is an experienced and Senior Executive Service Band 1 Treasury Official and was responsible for managing the OzCar financing scheme. 2. Given the AFP investigation into Mr Grech’s conduct is still continuing the Opposition has been reluctant to make public statements about the matter. 3. Moreover, Mr Grech’s admissions that he forged an email and showed it to the Opposition relieve the Opposition of the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of communications between him and the Opposition . 4. The Australian says “Mr Grech said he co-operated with the Opposition to save the jobs of 2,000 people by seeking their support to pass the OzCar finance bill in the Senate. “My concern was that the issue of Grant could be used to frustrate the passage of the bill.” 5. That statement by Mr Grech has no basis in fact. The Shadow Cabinet had already resolved to support the OzCar legislation without amendment on 25 May. On 27 May, speaking in the House, the Shadow Minister, the Hon. Chris Pearce, had stated the Opposition supported the bill and on 28 May it was passed without the need for a division. In short, there was never any suggestion that the OzCar bill would be opposed by the Coalition. 6. The first the Opposition knew of Mr Grant and alleged representations to OzCar on his behalf by the Prime Minister and Treasurer’s offices was when Mr Grech contacted the office of Deputy Senate Leader Eric Abetz prior to the 4 June Estimates Committee hearings at which Mr Grech was scheduled to appear. Mr Grech proposed a detailed list of questions be put to him relating to OzCar including questions concerning Mr Grant and representations made on his behalf (attached and marked “A”). 7. In other words, were it not for Mr Grech’s actions the name of Mr Grant would never have been raised by the Opposition. 8. Following the Estimates Committee hearing on 5 June, Mr Grech emailed Mr Turnbull proposing that the OzCar legislation be referred to a Senate Committee Inquiry as “one way of getting me before a Committee to give evidence”. Mr Grech proposed a meeting be held with Mr Turnbull and Senator Abetz to discuss the matter and “to show you the various emails I have” (email attached and marked “B”). 9. The meeting was held on 12 June. Present were Mr Grech, Mr Turnbull, Senator Abetz and Senator Abetz’s Chief of Staff. Mr Grech spoke freely and naturally, and neither Senator Abetz nor Mr Turnbull had any reason to doubt the truth of what this senior and well respected public servant had to say. 10. Mr Grech began by stating that on 19 February 2009 he had received an email from Andrew Charlton in the Prime Minister’s Office seeking assistance from OzCar for John Grant Motors. He showed Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull a copy of the email. It appeared to have been received by Mr Grech at his Treasury account at 2.01 pm on 19 February and there was no reason to suspect that it was not genuine. Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull took an abbreviated note of its contents but did not take a copy of it. 11. At the meeting Mr Grech told Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull about his conversations with Mr Swan’s office, Mr Grant, and Ford Credit, the substance of which is all now on the public record. 12. At that meeting Mr Grech provided Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull with a further list of possible questions to the Prime Minister and Treasurer concerning OzCar (attached and marked “C”). 13. Neither Mr Turnbull nor Senator Abetz had any reason to doubt the truth of what Mr Grech had told them. 14. No accusation was made against the Prime Minister by Senator Abetz or Mr Turnbull until after Mr Grech had given his sworn testimony in the Senate, and in doing so Mr Turnbull stated that he was relying on that sworn testimony. 15. The Australian quotes Mr Grech as saying that it was agreed between himself and Mr Turnbull that he should speak to a journalist off the record about the matter. The facts are that Mr Grech phoned Mr Turnbull and proposed that he (Mr Grech) should speak to the journalist in question. At Mr Grech’s request Mr Turnbull gave him the journalist’s telephone number. Specifically Mr Turnbull did not encourage Mr Grech to disclose the contents of the 19 February email to the journalist and subsequently was most surprised to learn that he had done so. 16. Later, the journalist told Senator Abetz that Mr Grech had read to him the text of the 19th February email, and relayed to Senator Abetz the contents of that email. 17. In summary: a. Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull had never heard of the alleged connection between Mr Grant and OzCar before Mr Grech made contact. b. The Opposition relied in good faith on statements made to them by Mr Grech, a senior and well regarded public servant. c. Mr Grech volunteered the information about OzCar, and sought the meeting with Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull – not the other way around (see above point 8). d. The suggestion that Mr Grech was pressured to make statements concerning Mr Grant is false. On the contrary, Mr Grech voluntarily provided the Opposition with two lists of questions to be asked (see above point 6 and 12). e. The suggestion that the Opposition was considering blocking the OzCar legislation is false – the legislation had the full support of the Opposition and this was publicly known long before Mr Grech drew Mr Grant to the attention of the Opposition. f. Mr Grech urged the Opposition to convene a Senate Committee hearing so that he could provide information about OzCar and John Grant to the public (see above point 8). g. In making public criticism of the Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr Turnbull expressly relied solely on the sworn evidence given by Mr Grech before the Senate. To read the attaching document click here malcolmMon, 03 Aug 2009 20:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:555http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/541/Statement-regarding-an-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments3http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=541http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=541&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/541/Statement-regarding-an-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspxThe Shadow Cabinet has convened today and endorsed this statement concerning the design principles for an Australian emissions trading scheme (ETS). The Coalition supports, and supported when in Government, an environmentally effective and economically responsible ETS being put in place in Australia as part of a co-ordinated global response to climate change. In our view, the design of the Australian ETS should be completed following the passage of the United States ETS legislation (the Waxman Markey Bill) through the US Congress and the conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December. Every party and interested group except the Government agrees that Labor’s ETS legislation is flawed and must be improved if we are to save jobs, protect small business and industry in Australia and prevent production and carbon leakage which frustrates any net global CO2 abatement. Notwithstanding the good sense of waiting until after Copenhagen, if the Prime Minister is determined to force an earlier vote on this legislation for political purposes, the question arises therefore whether and on what terms the Coalition would be prepared to consider supporting the legislation prior to the Copenhagen Summit. So in that practical context, I have set out below the principal issues which must be addressed in Labor’s scheme. Amending the ETS to address these issues will take some time and if the Government ignores these legitimate concerns and insists on a vote on its ETS in its current form on August 13, the Coalition will vote against the Bill. If the Government amends its ETS to put in place these crucial improvements, I will seek, and am confident of obtaining, the support of the Coalition party room for the amended scheme. The ball is now in Mr Rudd’s court. If he genuinely wants to legislate for an ETS which protects both the environment and Australian jobs, then he should be prepared to engage with the Coalition and address the issues set out below. Specific Issues 1. An Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American ETS which is being developed and is presently in the form of the Waxman Markey Bill which has been approved by the House of Representatives but is yet to pass the US Senate. The final form of any legislation may be materially different from Waxman Markey and will not be known until later in the year. 2. To that end there must be an effective mechanism, such as a regular review by the Productivity Commission or a similar expert independent body, to ensure that the Australian ETS does not materially disadvantage Australian industries and workers relative to American industries and workers. The legislation must bind the Government to correct any disadvantage identified by the review process. 3. In order to ensure that an Australian ETS does not simply result in futile carbon and production leakage – exporting the emissions and the jobs – Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries (EITEs) should at least be on a level playing field with the United States and other advanced economies and should therefore receive full compensation for higher energy costs until the bulk of their competitors (measured as in Waxman Markey by global market share) face a similar carbon cost. 4. Fugitive methane emissions from coal mining should be treated in the same way as they are in the United States and Europe. 5. As in the Waxman Markey legislation agricultural emissions should be excluded from the scheme and agricultural offsets (eg. biosequestration or green carbon) should be included. Australia’s greatest near term potential of reducing its CO2 emissions are to be found in the better management of our own landscape. 6. The scheme design must ensure that general increases in electricity prices are no greater than comparable countries to minimise the impact on all trade exposed industries, to reduce the need to compensate for households and to avoid a needlessly high increase in taxation. 7. In order to ensure continuity of electricity supply, electricity generators should be fairly and adequately compensated for loss of asset value to ensure capacity to invest in new abatement technology and to fund maintenance of existing facilities for energy security purposes. 8. Effective incentives and/or credits must be established to capture the substantial abatement opportunities offered by energy efficiency, especially in buildings. 9. There must be adequate incentives for voluntary action which can be added to Australia’s 2020 target.  malcolmFri, 24 Jul 2009 06:25:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:541http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/538/Death-of-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=538http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=538&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/538/Death-of-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspxThe federal Opposition is deeply saddened by today’s news of the death of a young Australian soldier in Afghanistan. The thoughts and prayers of all Australians will be with his family. Our thoughts and wishes are also with a second soldier recovering from serious wounds suffered in the same bombing, along with three Afghan civilians, including a small boy, injured by the blast. This tragedy reminds us all of the enormous dangers our forces face in Afghanistan every day, not least from the ever-present threat of improvised explosive devices. Coming on top of the vicious attacks in Jakarta, it is another horrific reminder that the global fight against violent extremism is far from over; these indiscriminate bombings illustrate why it is vitally important to defeat the scourge of terrorism, in Afghanistan as elsewhere. Earlier this month, I visited Australian troops on the frontline in Afghanistan. I was hugely impressed by the bravery and dedication of our forces. They are doing a magnificent job in our name, under our flag, in very tough conditions. This brave soldier is the eleventh member of the Australian Defence Force to be killed in Afghanistan since 2002. As Australians, we are immensely proud of the men and women of the ADF; of their service, and their sacrifice. They are fighting in defence of liberty and democracy, the values on which our nation was founded. Today, we mourn the loss of a courageous Australian, and we extend our heartfelt sympathies to his family at this extremely difficult time.  malcolmSun, 19 Jul 2009 22:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:538http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/537/Jakarta-Bombings.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=537http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=537&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/537/Jakarta-Bombings.aspxToday’s despicable attacks in the heart of Jakarta represent a vicious assault on all who cherish the values of free societies. Our heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of the victims of these terrible acts. Indonesia is a new and flourishing democracy, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, and one of Australia’s most important neighbours. The recent re-election of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signified an explicit repudiation by the people of Indonesia of those who stand for religious intolerance and violent extremism. Tragically, today’s bombings indicate there are those who remain unwilling to accept the desire of the Indonesian people for a free, open and tolerant society. It is paramount to the mutual interests of Australia and Indonesia that they work effectively together. Nowhere has the co-operation been closer than in efforts to wage the struggle against terrorism in our region. Australia and Indonesia have jointly hosted key regional meetings on counter-terrorism, including through the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Co-operation. Today’s attacks on two hotels in Jakarta are a reminder that much work is still to be done, and that the global struggle against terrorism is far from over. Indonesia, Australia and their friends and allies across the Asia-Pacific must remain vigilant, and united in their resolve to defeat those who would inflict these and other atrocities on innocent people. In Government, the Coalition established close and extensive links with democratic Indonesia to ensure the two countries worked hand-in-hand to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible for terrorist acts. The federal Opposition will support the Australian Government wholeheartedly in providing whatever assistance may be necessary to help Indonesia deal with these latest attacks, including any intelligence co-operation and police support as requested to hunt down and punish the perpetrators. 17 July 2009  malcolmFri, 17 Jul 2009 05:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:537http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/535/State-Funeral-for-Ted-Kenna-VC.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=535http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=535&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/535/State-Funeral-for-Ted-Kenna-VC.aspxIt will be an honour and privilege to represent the federal Opposition at today’s state funeral in Melbourne for Ted Kenna VC – a great bloke, and a great Australian. Today’s service at St Patrick’s Cathedral represents an opportunity for all Australians to honour the memory of one of the bravest of that generation of Australians who fought so resolutely to defend our freedoms in the darkest hours of World War II. Edward Kenna was the last surviving Australian Victoria Cross recipient from that war. His courage in risking his own life to protect the lives of his mates should never be forgotten. The state funeral commemorates not only an extraordinary act of valour, but also Ted Kenna’s extraordinary humility. Through to his death at the age of 90, he insisted he had done no more than his duty, much as any Australian soldier faced with the same choices and circumstances might have done. In this, he embodied the Anzac spirit. Edward (Ted) Kenna was born in Victoria on 6 July 1919. He enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in August 1940 and served in the 23/21st Battalion. In June 1943 his unit was disbanded and he was assigned to the 2/4th Battalion and embarked for New Guinea in October 1944. He was awarded the VC for action in Wewak, on 15 May 1945, where coming under heavy fire he overwhelmed a Japanese machine gun crew. There is no greater act of heroism than to risk your own life to save the lives of your mates : to do so not only when under direct fire from an enemy, but to run directly into that enemy fire, knowing you could face your own death at any moment. The Victoria Cross is awarded only for the most conspicuous bravery, a daring act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. Today’s service offers a final opportunity to salute Ted Kenna’s courage, and to express a nation’s gratitude for his commitment to his fellow soldiers, his fellow Australians. We offer our condolences to his family and friends, especially in his birthplace and hometown of Hamilton, Victoria. Today’s state funeral is an occasion for the nation not only to celebrate the life of a genuine Australian hero – as true-blue as they come – but also to pay our respects to all remaining World War II veterans, and to reflect on the enormous contribution they have all made to safeguarding our freedoms, our democracy, and our way of life.  malcolmThu, 16 Jul 2009 00:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:535http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/528/Ted-Kenna-VC.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=528http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=528&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/528/Ted-Kenna-VC.aspxThe passing overnight of Ted Kenna VC at the age of 90 marks the end of an era in Australia’s military history. His bravery in the face of great personal danger must never be forgotten. Ted Kenna was the last surviving Australian Victoria Cross recipient from World War II. His death will be mourned, and his memory honoured, by all Australians. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for action in Wewak, New Guinea on 15 May 1945, where coming under heavy fire he defeated a Japanese machine gun crew. There is no greater act of courage than to risk your own life to save the lives of your mates. To run directly into enemy fire, knowing you could face your own death at any moment, requires extraordinary valour. Edward (Ted) Kenna was born in Victoria on 6 July 1919. He enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in August 1940 and served in the 23/21st Battalion. In June 1943 his unit was disbanded and he was assigned to the 2/4th Battalion and embarked for New Guinea in October 1944. Ted Kenna’s actions in the New Guinea campaign epitomised the Anzac spirit. He was among the bravest of the brave in that great generation of Australians who fought to defend our freedoms in Europe, in Asia and on our doorstep. The Victoria Cross is only awarded for the most conspicuous bravery, a daring act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. We salute Ted Kenna’s courage and commitment to his fellow soldiers. And we would like to express our heartfelt condolences to his family at this time. Yet as much as we mourn the passing of a great Australian, today is also a time to reflect on the contributions of the surviving WWII veterans who gave their all in the protection of our country. The Coalition remains committed to ensuring that they receive the care and support to which they are entitled, in recognition of the debt owed to them by all Australians. 9 July 2009  malcolmWed, 08 Jul 2009 22:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:528http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/525/Launch-of-the-Debt-Truck.aspx#Comments2http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=525http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=525&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/525/Launch-of-the-Debt-Truck.aspxLabor’s reckless spending and debt binge are putting a handbrake on Australia’s economic recovery. Mr Rudd is fond of doing media stunts while wearing hard hats and unveiling his $3.7 million worth of plaques around the country, but this debt truck will be a constant reminder that Mr Rudd has committed generations of Australians to crippling debts. In less than 18 months the Rudd Labor Government has taken gross debt to over $100 billion. By 2013-14, the Rudd Labor Government will have burdened Australians with an unprecedented gross debt of $315 billion. That’s over $13,000 of debt for every man, every woman and every child in Australia as a direct consequence of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan’s reckless spending. Mr Rudd has confirmed in Parliament that the Government’s budget projections are based on bond rates of six per cent per annum. There are concerns that interest rates could go higher. The interest payments alone on Labor’s debt could reach nearly $19 billion per year – that’s a cost of around $800 each year for every Australian. The consequence of the Rudd Labor Government’s reckless spending and growing debt will be higher taxes and interest rates and more Australians out of work for longer. Only the Coalition has a plan for economic recovery. We must think clearly and make the right decisions now, or the consequences will be paid for many times over by our children. Australia doesn’t need political fixes or excuses, it needs lasting solutions firmly focussed on Australia’s and our children’s future. Central to the Coalition’s plan for economic recovery is to provide small businesses with the incentives and opportunities to grow their business and employ more staff. Only the Coalition values Australians’ ability to adapt and respond to change. Our economic recovery plan also includes investments in sustainable technology, waste reduction and better targeted public spending to help workers, families and small business get through these uncertain times. Over the coming months the debt truck will visit communities around Australia.malcolmTue, 07 Jul 2009 01:33:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:525http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/521/Visiting-the-Troops-in-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=521http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=521&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/521/Visiting-the-Troops-in-Afghanistan.aspxOpposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has praised the bravery and dedication of Australian troops on the frontline in Afghanistan and told them that they have the wholehearted support of all Australians in their important work. During a visit to the Australian headquarters in Kandahar and the forward operating base of Tarin Kowt, Mr Turnbull met with key elements of the Australian Defence Force involved in the difficult and dangerous work of securing and stabilising Afghanistan. "They are doing a magnificent job in our name, under our flag in very tough conditions" Mr Turnbull said. "The restoration of political stability in Afghanistan depends on the work of men and women in the ADF and other allied forces as they suppress insurgent activity, train the growing Afghan National Army and Police and give a breathing space for the new Afghan Government to progressively take complete responsibility for securing its own country from terrorist insurgents." "All of us, no matter, what side of politics, salute their service and their sacrifice." Accompanied by Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop and Shadow Defence Minister, Senator David Johnston, as well as Major General Mark Kelly Commander of Task Force 633, Mr Turnbull stayed overnight on Monday in Kandahar with Task Force 633 and then visited Tarin Kowt on Tuesday sharing a meal with special forces and commandos engaged in hunting down the leaders of the Taliban insurgents. Mr Turnbull also met with the members of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force whose work it is to support and train the Afghan security forces as they take a greater and greater role in securing their own communities. The MRTF is also leading efforts to rebuild key infrastructure including hospitals, bridges and schools. "Afghanistan has a stark beauty of its own, but it is in these picturesque ranges of the Hindu Kush and in the green Baluchi and Mirabad valleys where the dangers of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other insurgent attacks are at their worst." Mr Turnbull met with and praised the work of our forces involved in bomb detection and disposal, air traffic control, unmanned aerial surveillance, helicopter rescue and life, logistics and the provision of critical medical care. The Opposition Leader was impressed with the way the Australian forces are engaging with the local community and inspected a trades school where locals are learning basic building trades under Australian supervision and spoke with Afghan elders at a meeting of community leaders - a shura - in Tarin Kowt. "The young men and women of the ADF bring enormous skill and dedication to the many complex and difficult challenges facing Afghanistan. It has been inspiring to get a first hand appreciation of the fantastic work they do." "With elections in Afghanistan due next month, the next few weeks are likely to be very demanding as insurgents intensify their efforts to deny the people of Afghanistan the rights and freedoms we, in Australia, take as a given." "I promised our troops that we in the Coalition would do everything we can to make sure they have all the support they need to continue doing the vital work, in the cause of freedom, that we have asked them to do."  malcolmWed, 01 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:521http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/513/Treasurer-must-resign-and-inquiry-must-be-expanded.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=513http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=513&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/513/Treasurer-must-resign-and-inquiry-must-be-expanded.aspxTreasurer Wayne Swan's refusal to explain his clear misleading of Parliament, and refusal to explain his endorsement of efforts to induce Ford Credit into offering finance to Mr John Grant, must end with his resignation. Mr Swan has failed to justify the way in which Ford Credit was encouraged to take up Mr Grant's case when it was raised with them at a meeting concerned with their access to $500 million of taxpayers' funds. Mr Swan has failed to detail how many other motor vehicle dealers had their cases raised in this same manner. Mr Swan has failed to explain why he was being kept personally informed on the progress of Mr Grant's case. Mr Swan has failed to explain why the Secretary of Treasury, Mr Ken Henry, was also being kept informed. Mr Swan has failed to detail how many other motor vehicle dealer's cases were the subject of personal updates to himself and Mr Henry. Mr Swan and Mr Rudd have failed to have Mr Swan's actions and those of his office included in the terms of reference of the Auditor General's inquiry. Mr Swan has been caught out misleading the Parliament and must resign. At least just as seriously, he has been exposed for seeking special favours for a mate and benefactor of the Prime Minister. Regarding the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office, the Opposition welcomes the AFP inquiry and expects it will have comprehensive access to all relevant computer equipment in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Treasurer’s office and Treasury. The Opposition will share what it knows of the email with the AFP investigators. We expect the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and their offices to do the same. Mr Rudd must, at the very least, broaden his Auditor General's inquiry to include the actions of the Treasurer and his office. He must also say whether he believes it is appropriate for the case of his friend and benefactor, Mr Grant, to have been raised directly with the CEO of Ford Credit at a meeting in which Ford Credit was attempting to gain access to $500 million of taxpayers' funds.malcolmSun, 28 Jun 2009 06:38:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:513http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/516/Labor-still-hiding-from-scrutiny.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=516http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=516&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/516/Labor-still-hiding-from-scrutiny.aspxThe Prime Minister is trying to run down the parliamentary clock and hide his Treasurer from scrutiny in the House of Representatives. On three separate occasions today, Prime Minister Rudd has used Government numbers to shut down attempts to throw some sunlight on the OzCar affair and the role of Wayne Swan in assisting Mr John Grant. On two separate occasions today the Rudd Labor Government has run away from the opportunity to support a Coalition motion calling for a full, open judicial inquiry into the OzCar affair. In addition, the Rudd Labor Government has refused to debate a censure motion on Treasurer Wayne Swan. If Prime Minister Rudd welcomes full transparency on this issue he should move immediately to support the Coalition and establish a full judicial inquiry into all elements of this affair. The Coalition invites Prime Minister Rudd to join us in supporting a full and open investigation into each and every aspect of this affair, including all communications between Mr Grant and any of his associates with the Government including Members of Parliament, government officials, ministerial and electorate staff; any communications, preparations, discussions in relation to the appearance of Treasury officials before the Senate Committee on Friday 19 June 2009; as well as any involvement by Opposition Members of Parliament and their staff. Prime Minister Rudd is fond of talking about openness and transparency. But when he is given the opportunity of practicing what he preaches, Mr Rudd runs for cover.  malcolmWed, 24 Jun 2009 06:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:516http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/515/Labor-hides-from-OzCar-inquiry.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=515http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=515&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/515/Labor-hides-from-OzCar-inquiry.aspxThe Rudd Labor Government today has moved to shut down a Coalition motion calling for a full, open judicial inquiry into the OzCar affair. Prime Minister Rudd has used Government numbers to gag debate and to prevent full and open transparency on this affair. If Prime Minister Rudd welcomes full transparency on this issue he should move immediately to support the Coalition and establish a full judicial inquiry into all elements of this affair. The Coalition supports a full judicial inquiry that investigates the full extent of the relationship between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Mr Bernie Ripoll and the car dealer, Mr John Grant including but not limited to:   1. All communications between Mr Grant and any of his associates with the Government including members of Parliament, government officials, ministerial and electorate staff including:   • Emails (from government, parliamentary and personal accounts);   • Text/SMS/MMS/Blackberry messages;   • Voicemail;   • Voice to text messages.   2. Any communications, preparations, discussions in relation to the appearance of  Treasury officials before the Senate Committee on Friday 19 June 2009.   3. Any involvement by Opposition Members of Parliament and their staff.   4. The 51 Club.   5. Labor fundraising.   6. Any previous business dealings and transactions between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, Mr Ripoll connected with John Grant, any associates or commercial entities. The Coalition will relentlessly pursue this matter and welcomes a full and open investigation into each and every aspect of this affair. If the Rudd Labor Government has nothing to hide, they will likewise support a full judicial inquiry with the above terms of reference.  malcolmWed, 24 Jun 2009 06:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:515http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/510/Engaging-Women.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=510http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=510&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/510/Engaging-Women.aspxMALCOLM TURNBULL: The Liberal Party has always been reaching out to and engaging with women, and we’re going to do it with even more energy today. Do you know the Liberal Party was founded by 12,000 women? One of the organisations that joined together with Robert Menzies to form the Liberal Party was the Australian National Women’s League. Now today Sophie Mirabella has got a new initiative that will reach out, engage with women and ensure that we work together, men and women, as part of the Liberal Party, as part of the National Party, as part of our Coalition to make Australia an even better place to live in.   SOPHIE MIRRABELLA:   Julie, Malcolm, myself and many others look forward to meeting you at one of our Engaging Women forums around the country. We want to hear your views, your solutions about the workplace, about family life, about some of the challenging issues in our community. We want to use your input to create policy to make Australia an even better place to live in and raise a family.  malcolmTue, 23 Jun 2009 22:21:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:510http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/520/National-Assembly-of-Local-Governments.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=520http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=520&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/520/National-Assembly-of-Local-Governments.aspxMalcolm Turnbull called for a new stronger partnership between Federal and Local Governments in his speech to the National General Assembly of Local Governments on 23 June 2009. Malcolm talked about the community being best served, when it comes to service delivery, by a level of government that is closest to it and can best respond to its needs. He also discussed the need for appropriate recognition and financial certainty. For the full text of the speech click here.  malcolmTue, 23 Jun 2009 00:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:520http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/514/Treasurer-fails-to-answer-questions-in-Question-Time.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=514http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=514&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/514/Treasurer-fails-to-answer-questions-in-Question-Time.aspxE & O E. QUESTION THREE – TURNBULL TO SWAN Malcolm Turnbull: Mr Speaker my question is the Treasurer and I refer the Treasurer to his statement in the House on the 15th of June when he said that Mr John Grant and I quote: “received the same assistance as every other car dealer.” Will the Treasurer advise the House how many other car dealers he spoke with directly on the telephone before referring them to Treasury for assistance? Wayne Swan: Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, it is the case and I made it very clear earlier that I stood by all of the statements that I’ve made to the House 100 per cent. And in the case of Mr Grant, he received no special benefit from OzCar and he received no outcome from Ford Credit whatsoever. It is also the case that I did say that he was treated in the same way as other car dealers were treated. Other car dealers were of course referred on to financiers and I spent some time talking about that in the House today. There was also some criticism that came towards me for having faxes go to my home. I simply couldn’t believe it when we heard the laughter from the other side that a Treasurer of Australia might actually have a fax at 5:14pm on a Friday. I mean it says something about their approach and their work ethic that they would think that that’s hilarious that a Treasurer of Australia would receive a fax at 5:14pm on a Friday. Mr Speaker, I don’t think they’d think at all about busting their gut for the Australian people on a Friday night, a Saturday or a Sunday Mr Speaker, but we’ll do everything that we possibly can to support employment in the Australian community. My fax whirrs through the night because the thing about a global financial crisis is that it doesn’t respect time zones. It doesn’t respect time zones and round that stage when faxes were coming in, we were working very hard and indeed working around the clock. Now there were a variety of car dealers that contacted my office, they contacted other offices, they contacted the Treasury. They worked through the MTAA and made contact with the Treasury. I spoke, and I said this very clearly in my doorstop, to Mr Grant following a representation from Mr Bernie Ripoll. I spoke to him, I spoke to him for a couple of minutes. I referred him to my DLO. I referred him to my DLO and he was then dealt with by that DLO in the way in which the emails indicate. I spoke to him. I don’t apologise for that for one minute. QUESTION FIVE – HOCKEY TO SWAN Joe Hockey: My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement in this House on the 4th of June when he referred to Mr John Grant’s case and said and I quote: “I have no idea what the outcome of that was”. Will the Treasurer advise the House how many other car dealers had updates on their cases faxed directly to his home? Wayne Swan: Well Mr Speaker when I was asked that question in the House I did have no idea of what the outcome of that case was and of course there were no further emails to me about Mr Grant from the department and or updates in my in-tray which I was receiving on a regular basis, because the fact is that this was a very serious matter, I was concerned about what was going on in the industry. I was getting updates from the department. But on this occasion they weren’t going to my home fax because I wasn’t at home. They were actually going to my in-tray. So there were updates coming through from the department on the number of dealers that had experienced difficulties and the progress of all of the issues, including the creation of OzCar, the whole issue of Ford Credit and so on. So there was plenty of information coming to me on the state of the industry and how dealers were affected. QUESTION SEVEN – HOCKEY TO SWAN Joe Hockey: My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement in the House on the 4th of June when he said that Mr John Grant and I quote: “made representations to my office and he was referred on to the SPV just like everybody else.” Can the Treasurer confirm that a meeting between Treasury officials and the Chief Executive of Ford Credit in Melbourne on Monday the 23rd of February this year, which Ford Credit was seeking access to more than half a billion dollars of tax payers funds, Mr Grant’s case was raised and his mobile telephone number handed over by Treasury officials, in the full knowledge of both the Treasurer and his office? Wayne Swan: Well Mr Speaker as I was saying in the debate this morning the Treasury was putting car dealers in contact with financiers simply because, well, they were doing it all the time because OzCar had not been established and as the correspondence makes it abundantly clear the only course for those dealers that were having their finance withdrawn by GE Finance or GMAC was for them to be picked up by those that were in the market at the moment. [point of order] Wayne Swan: Well the Government’s signalled its intention to discuss matters with Ford Credit, back last December. Those discussions proceeded through the early part of the year because a particular problem had emerged in terms of Ford Credit and it was ultimately resolved in a Cabinet decision that was announced after the Budget, and of course there are something like 300 to 400 dealers, particularly in rural and regional Australia involved with Ford Credit and the Government’s decision to involve them in the SPV has been very important in supporting that employment. As the email indicated, those matters were raised at one of those meetings by the responsible Treasury official, but the meeting they were raised at was a meeting that had been organised well before Mr Grant had made his representations to the Treasury, and it was not abnormal for Treasury officials to be talking to those that were providing finance to the industry. And of course this has been made abundantly clear again today by the Motor Trades Association of Australia and I’ll just run through what Mr Delaney had to say about that. “The treatment that Mr Grant, a member of mine got, was no different from the treatment all of my other members got on my intervention on their behalf to Mr Grech. They were all treated in the same way and for good reason. There was no other way to do these things, no other way to do these things and in fact I think Mr Grant has been treated less well because he went to the Treasurer.” Now what was going on here was also I think quite well described this morning by Mr Delaney because he talked about the fact that there was a prospect of $8 billion worth of car financing simply being withdrawn. That was under threat. So Treasury officials I believe were legitimately seeking to assist those dealers that may not have been refinanced by those financiers who were leaving the market and they were putting them in contact with those that were in the market – and of course Ford Credit was one of those. All of that is entirely appropriate but the decisions on that were taken by the Treasury officials. QUESTION NINE – HOCKEY TO SWAN Joe Hockey: My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement in the House on the 4th of June when he said that Mr John Grant and I quote: “was referred on to the SPV just like everybody else”. And I refer again to the meeting on the 23rd of February which Ford Credit was seeking more than half a billion dollars of taxpayer funded assistance. Can the Treasurer confirm that Treasury officials told Ford Credit that Mr Grant was quote: “an acquaintance of the Prime Minister” whom the Prime Minister knew, quote: “from his dealings in Queensland.” Wayne Swan: Well Mr Speaker I don’t know what the Treasury official would have said but I won’t do what those opposite do which is to make it up. QUESTION ELEVEN – TURNBULL TO SWAN Malcolm Turnbull: Mr Speaker my question is addressed to the Treasurer and I refer the Treasurer to his statement in the House on the 15th of June when he said that Mr John Grant and I quote: “ received the same assistance as every other car dealer.” And I refer again to the meeting on the 23rd of February where Ford Credit was seeking more than half a billion dollars of tax payer funded assistance. Can the Treasurer inform the House about how and why Treasury officials came to know that Mr Grant was an acquaintance of the Prime Minister? Wayne Swan: Mr Speaker, he ought to do the decent thing and resign. I mean they’re so desperate….so desperate…. [interjections] Wayne Swan: You ought to do the decent thing and resign. [Turnbull point of order] Wayne Swan: Mr Speaker, I don’t accept the characterisation of that matter, the way in which it was put by the Leader of the Opposition. But the fact is that Treasury officials were meeting on behalf of dealers to try and secure finance for them and that is a very important thing that they were doing because many of those dealers…[interjection]….no, more than one dealer, many dealers, many dealers. And the fact is this has been outlined by Mr Delaney today. The treatment that Mr Grant, a member of mine, got was no different from the treatment all of my other members got on my intervention on their behalf to Mr Grech. They were all treated in the same way and for good reason. There was no other way to do these things. QUESTION THIRTEEN – STONE TO SWAN Sharman Stone: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to a Mitsubishi franchise and RACV service depot – Graham Nelson Motors in Rochester in my Electorate of Murray – a small car dealer business that was and continues to be having great difficulty accessing credit. I refer the Treasurer to my letter to his office on the 31st of March, some three months ago, in which I urgently urged the Treasurer seeking his intervention asking for his assistance on behalf of this car dealer. Why has the Treasurer or his office or anyone else that I can find in this Government, why they’ve failed make any contact, not a fax, a phone call, an email or a letter to this business? Wayne Swan: Well Mr Speaker I will endeavour to find out the facts of the matter and get back to the Member because I do take these representations seriously and I will come back with the relevant information. QUESTION FIFTEEN – BILLSON TO SWAN Bruce Billson: I refer the Treasurer to his statement in this House on the 4th of June when he said that Mr Grant, and I quote: “was referred on to the SPV just like everybody else” and to his citing of case referred by me to back up this claim. When I contacted the Treasurer’s department for assistance about a Dunkley car dealer, Cambur Motors, did the Treasurer have a phone conversation with the dealer from my electorate and was he kept personally informed in a detailed and ongoing way about the progress of this case of my constituent? Wayne Swan: Well Mr Speaker I will ask my office to look into this matter. The process is that these come through in a variety of ways – they come through the office, they go directly to the Treasury, they go through in a variety of ways – and I follow these things up and I’m happy to get back to the Member to establish the facts of the case. But it is the case that there needs to be a demonstration of eligibility in some respects for the dealership, their financial viability and so on. These are all things that impact on the capacity of someone to be recommended because at the end of the day a business does need to be financially viable, financially viable to be taken on by an existing financier or financially viable to be eligible for OzCar once it is fully operational. And of course it is the case that not all dealerships do meet that requirement and there will be some that will not be able to be assisted because they don’t meet those requirements. But I’ll seek further information on that case as well. But of course Mr Delaney has made the point today that he has been very happy as a representative industry organisation with the degree of response that has come from the Treasury to his membership – and I’m not sure whether those organisations are members of the MTAA or not – and it may well be that there are some that have not been catered for properly. I’m happy to look into it and I will. 22 June 2009  malcolmMon, 22 Jun 2009 06:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:514http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/512/Treasurer-must-resign-over-OzCar-dealings.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=512http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=512&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/512/Treasurer-must-resign-over-OzCar-dealings.aspxThe case against Treasurer Wayne Swan is damning. Mr Swan has repeatedly told Parliament that the Prime Minister’s mate and benefactor John Grant was not given any special favours when he sought assistance through the Government’s finance vehicle, OzCar. He also told Parliament that he had no idea what the outcome of that assistance had been. The email records and testimony of the Treasury officials presented yesterday give the lie to those Parliamentary statements. Not only was Mr Grant given extraordinarily favourable treatment by Treasury officials, but Mr Swan was kept closely and personally informed, including through his home fax. Furthermore – and this is perhaps the gravest revelation – in the full knowledge of Mr Swan, Treasury officials were asked to seek finance for Mr Grant at a meeting with the CEO of a major finance company, at the same meeting that finance company was seeking access to $500 million of taxpayers’ funds. Mr Swan has offered no explanation for any of this and today should tender his resignation. He has misled the Parliament and used the enormous influence of the Commonwealth Government to seek to secure an advantage for a mate and benefactor of the Prime Minister. On the face of the evidence, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also misled Parliament. His claim that neither he nor his office made representations to Treasury on behalf of Mr Grant has been directly contradicted by the key Treasury official, Mr Godwin Grech. Mr Grech says he was first made aware of Mr Grant’s issues via communication from the Prime Minister’s Office. He also says he recalls an email from the Prime Minister’s Office relating to this matter. Mr Rudd must explain what communications occurred between his office and Treasury on this matter. Mr Rudd’s decision to establish a behind closed doors inquiry by the Auditor General is limited by its terms of reference. Any inquiry must allow for maximum access to officers and communications, and must examine the conduct of the Treasurer and his office, as well as the Prime Minister and the PMO.  malcolmSat, 20 Jun 2009 06:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:512http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/511/Statement-1906.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=511http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=511&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/511/Statement-1906.aspxWe have seen extraordinary evidence before a Senate Committee today that demonstrates beyond doubt that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has repeatedly misled the Parliament. We have also heard evidence that suggest the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has also misled the Parliament repeatedly. These are grave allegations that reach the highest offices in the government of our nation. The Prime Minister and Treasurer have used their offices and taxpayers’ resources to seek advantage for one of their mates, and then lied about it to the Parliament. Ford Credit, a company desperately seeking a $500 million loan from the Government, was asked, by the Government with the full knowledge of the Treasurer himself, to provide financial assistance to a car dealer simply because he was a mate of the Prime Minister. This is a shocking abuse of power and a betrayal of public trust. We have also seen extraordinary attempts by Labor Senators and a senior Treasury official, to obstruct the giving of evidence and prevent the truth from being revealed to the Australian people. If the Prime Minister and Treasurer cannot immediately justify their actions to the Australian people they have no choice but to resign. 19 June 2009  malcolmFri, 19 Jun 2009 06:34:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:511http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/508/Electorate-Office-Relocation.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=508http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=508&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/508/Electorate-Office-Relocation.aspx Leader of the Opposition and Federal Member for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull has relocated his electorate office from Bondi Junction to Edgecliff. Contact details for new office are: Location: Ground Floor 287-289 New South Head Road EDGECLIFF Postal Address: PO Box 545 EDGECLIFF NSW 2027 Tel: 02 9327 3988 Fax: 02 9327 2533 To send Malcolm a message click here Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}  malcolmTue, 16 Jun 2009 22:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:508http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/497/Chris-OBrien.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=497http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=497&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/497/Chris-OBrien.aspxLucy and I are very sad to learn of our friend Chris O’Brien’s death overnight.   Our deepest sympathy, our thoughts and our prayers are with Gail, Adam, Juliette and James.   Chris O’Brien is an inspiring, great Australian.   We first met Chris through his work at the Sydney Cancer Centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.   Together with Jim Bishop, he founded the Sydney Cancer Centre. He was a head and neck cancer specialist, and in one of life’s bitterest ironies, he became afflicted with a brain tumour himself, which ultimately took his life.   He passionately devoted his life to helping others who suffered from cancer. There is no doubt that his devotion, drive and compassion touched the hearts of all his patients, their families and his many friends and colleagues.   Chris was courageous and dignified in the way he battled the cancer. Knowing that his prognosis was very bad, he used the time left to him to pursue his vision, his dream, for a truly world-class centre of cancer research and treatment in Sydney, in the Sydney Cancer Centre.  He said it would be a place where “as people walk in they can exhale their anxieties and breathe in hope”. Thanks to his advocacy, his charisma, his courage, that dream is being realised as the Sydney Cancer Centre evolves into a revolutionary world-class facility called Lifehouse at RPA. It will be a worthy memorial of one of our greatest Australians.      His message of hope and never giving up will be an inspiration to many others who, like him, have to battle with cancer.   Chris once said that “this cancer is a gift” because it gave him an opportunity to re-evaluate his life. Chris’ gift to us is a beacon of compassion and humanity to which we should all aspire.  malcolmFri, 05 Jun 2009 03:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:497http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/491/Retirement-of-the-Hon-David-Hawker-MP.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=491http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=491&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/491/Retirement-of-the-Hon-David-Hawker-MP.aspxDavid Hawker has announced today that he will retire from politics at the next election. David has made an enormous contribution to public life in Australia over more than 26 years. Elected to parliament following the retirement of Malcolm Fraser, David has been a dedicated and effective representative of the people of western Victoria. David's commitment to and passion for our parliamentary democracy was recognised when he was elected in 2004 as Speaker of the House of Representatives. In over three years as Speaker, David was always measured and impartial, upholding the important traditions of that office and earning the respect of both sides of politics. David has also served on many parliamentary committees, including as Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committees on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. David will continue as Deputy Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade until the next election. One of the true gentlemen of political life, David will be missed by his colleagues. I thank David for his decades of distinguished service to the electorate of Wannon and the people of Australia. Lucy and I wish David and Penny a very happy future together.  malcolmSat, 30 May 2009 21:46:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:491http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/488/Climate-Change-Getting-in-step-with-the-world.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=488http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=488&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/488/Climate-Change-Getting-in-step-with-the-world.aspxThe Coalition will offer bipartisan support to the Government for the carbon abatement targets Australia takes to the Copenhagen climate change conference in December. This means the Government can go to the conference with a united Australian position in seeking a global commitment to addressing climate change. That united position is for an unconditional reduction in emissions of five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020, and a reduction of up to 25 per cent in the event of a comprehensive global agreement. In light of the fact that the Copenhagen conference is only six months away, and the Obama Administration and US Congress are well advanced in finalising US legislation for an ETS, the Coalition believes that it would be premature to lock Australia into an Emissions Trading Scheme that is out of step with the rest of the world. The Coalition therefore will move in the Parliament to defer a final vote on the Government's proposed ETS until after the Copenhagen meeting. In order to enable immediate action on climate change, the Coalition proposes 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. The Government has already chosen to delay the effective start date of its own ETS to 2012. This is an appropriate acknowledgement of the current economic climate, and offers Australia a window to get our scheme right and ensure it does not export jobs, investment or emissions. In particular, it is clear that the emerging Obama plan will offer 100 per cent protection for US export and import-competing industries until 2025. The Government's current plan would therefore leave many of Australia's most successful industries (and largest employers and taxpayers) at a crippling competitive disadvantage. It is critical for Australia's treatment of these industries to align with the treatment received by their competitors. The deferral in start date also offers an opportunity for the Government to allow the Productivity Commission to assess the efficacy of its proposed scheme, and its impact on jobs, regions and agriculture if competing economies adopt comparable measures many years later than expected. The Coalition will augment its support for emissions reduction targets with a significant renewable energy support package in the near future. The Coalition's overall approach will allow Australia to take a unified commitment to emissions reduction to Copenhagen. It also enables an earlier start to emissions abatement and the potential to build on 2020 targets, via voluntary action. In the meantime it allows Australia to get its ETS right – saving tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment by ensuring our scheme is in step with the rest of the world.malcolmTue, 26 May 2009 02:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:488http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/486/Red-Shield-Appeal.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=486http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=486&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/486/Red-Shield-Appeal.aspxMalcolm and Lucy joined hundreds of locals in the Randwick area for the Salvation Army’s Red Shield Appeal which aims to raise $73 million across Australia this year. Malcolm would like to thank all those who donated their time to help collect money, and all those who donated generously. Money raised during the Red Shield Appeal goes towards vital social and community services. “The Salvation Army needs our support to continue to open doors of opportunity to some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our community” said Malcolm. Malcolm thanked Salvation Army Captains Donna Evans and Karen Flemming for their help in organising a very successful collection over the weekend. Malcolm also thanked Randwick Mayor Cr. Bruce Notley-Smith and Randwick Councillor, Cr. Kiel Smith for allowing collectors to use Randwick Council Chambers as a staging point for this year’s collection. For more information about the Red Shield Appeal or to donate please visit www.salvos.org.au/red-shield-appeal  malcolmMon, 25 May 2009 04:20:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:486http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/479/A-Sustainable-Health-System-for-all-Australians.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=479http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=479&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/479/A-Sustainable-Health-System-for-all-Australians.aspxMr Rudd is desperately trying to divert attention from his spiralling debt and his outrageous broken promise to maintain the private health insurance 30 per cent rebate. An addict to spin, Mr Rudd claims that the Coalition doesn’t support Medicare but the facts condemn his latest falsehood. Over the term of the previous Coalition Government, Medicare funding increased by 48 per cent in real terms. As well as supporting Medicare, the Coalition also lifted private health insurance levels from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. 11 million Australians choose to pay their own hard-earned money for private health insurance in order to have a choice in their health care. It doesn’t have to be one at the expense of the other Mr Rudd. Australians deserve a strong and well balanced health system that supports Medicare as a cornerstone but also encourages self-reliance. With Labor’s debt growing at an alarmingly rate, it now falls to the Coalition to ensure we have a sustainable health system for the future. The Prime Minister simply should tell us what he is going to do - withdraw $1.9 billion from private health or raise the excise on tobacco.  malcolmSat, 16 May 2009 23:43:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:479http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/478/Recovery-for-Australia.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=478http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=478&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/478/Recovery-for-Australia.aspxAustralia needs a plan for recovery. The Coalition has a plan for recovery, focused on targeted spending, lower debt, higher employment and support for small business people. Had the Coalition’s strategy been adopted, Australia would already have lower debt, more jobs and greater optimism. This means Australia would be better placed to recover strongly from the global financial crisis. The Coalition’s Plan for Recovery puts forward measures that are practical, pragmatic and job-focused and that would greatly assist the economy in this difficult period. There are four key principles to the Coalition’s Plan for Recovery: • The protection and creation of jobs for all Australians. • Government should not incur one dollar more in debt than necessary. • Spending should be targeted at creating jobs and building economic infrastructure. • Private enterprise and small business must be supported as the drivers of economic growth. Between now and the next election the Coalition will release policies across a wide range of areas which will add to our Plan for Recovery. I encourage Australians to visit  www.recoveryforaustralia.com.au where they can consider our plans carefully and provide comments or ideas that they wish to share.  malcolmWed, 13 May 2009 20:30:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:478http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/470/Labors-NationWrecking-Budget.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=470http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=470&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/470/Labors-NationWrecking-Budget.aspxThis Budget reveals the high price all Australians will pay for Labor’s reckless spending spree over the past 18 months. - One million unemployed by 2010-11, - a record $58 billion deficit, and - record net debt of at least $188 billion by 2012-13 are all key markers of the failure of the Rudd Government’s economic management. Two thirds of the debt owed by taxpayers in 2012-13 will be due to spending decisions taken by the Rudd Government over the past 18 months. Since the November 2007 election, Labor has announced measures which have increased Commonwealth spending by $124 billion. That is an average of $225 million of new spending per day. Labor pretends the destruction of our nation’s balance sheet is an unavoidable consequence of the global recession. But Labor has lost control of the public finances. The 2009-10 Budget delivers a dismal trifecta: record spending (29 per cent of GDP), a record deficit (5 per cent of GDP) and a further severe increase in the jobless rate to 8.5 per cent. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have failed to deliver a credible plan for recovery. The Budget relies on rubbery figures projecting what would be an unprecedented future economic boom to show a path back to surplus. Having blown all the proceeds of the last mining boom, Labor is betting the house on another upswing that hasn’t even begun yet. Buried in the Budget’s detail are unrealistic and unachievable economic projections that rely on six successive years of above-trend economic growth and a further three years of trend growth to return to surplus and pay down Labor’s record debt. All of the Government’s allegedly tough ‘razor gang’ decisions delivered only $15 billion of savings over the forward estimates: less than 1 per cent of $1.7 trillion in expenditure projected over the five years. Labor’s out-of-control and undisciplined fiscal management doesn’t end at spending. Over the same 18 months since the last election, Labor has introduced tax hikes which increase revenue by $26 billion. Taken together, these decisions represent the biggest tax-and-spend binge in Australia’s peacetime history, driving an expansion in the size and scope of the public sector not seen since the Whitlam years. By 2012-13, net public debt will surge to $188 billion, double its previous record peak under Paul Keating. In reality borrowings are likely to be even higher, since this figure excludes debt associated with the National Broadband Network, RuddBank and other off-Budget liabilities. It took the Coalition and the Australian people more than a decade to pay off the previous debt left behind by Labor; how long will it take to pay off Kevin Rudd’s debt? The annual interest bill paid by the Australian people in 2012-13 will be $8 billion, more than the Commonwealth spends each year on infrastructure and housing combined. In summary, the 2009-10 Budget is a classic tax-and-spend Labor exercise, but on a far more reckless scale than ever seen before. The Australian people will pay a high price, in terms of higher future taxes, higher future real interest rates, higher future foreign debt and higher unemployment. The Budget also relies on rubbery figures and dodgy accounting to an extent unprecedented in the modern era. HEALTH: The Coalition believes in the right of all Australians to take charge of their own health care needs and plan for the future. That is why we don’t support Labor’s one size fits all approach. In government we promoted private health insurance to take pressure off Medicare. Labor has always opposed choice when it comes to health care while the Coalition has always believed that individuals should be supported to make their own decisions. The 11.1 million Australians with private health insurance have been dealt a blow by the Rudd Government’s attack on the private health insurance rebate. Australians will now pay more for their health needs. This is a clear breach of an election promise. Changes to the Medicare Safety Net will also have wide ranging effects on Australians trying to access essential services such as obstetrics, reproductive technology and cataract surgery. This is another clear breach of an election promise. SUPER AND PENSIONS: The Rudd Government has cut by one third the superannuation co-contribution scheme, which bolsters the retirement savings of low and middle income earners. Low and middle income earners will now receive $1 instead of $1.50 for every $1 contributed. Over 1.4 million Australians received a co-contribution in 2007-08. This disincentive to contribute to super is accompanied by a halving of the concessional limit on voluntary contributions. Australians will have to work longer because of Labor’s changes. Again, all of these measures are clear breaches of election commitments. Labor has made superannuation less affordable and attractive for millions of Australians, including many on modest incomes, yet is also raising the pension age from 65 to 67. Raising $4.3 billion by attacking superannuation sends a conflicting signal to Australians planning for their retirement. INFRASTRUCTURE: The $12.6 billion infrastructure fund set up in 2008-09 (all funded from Coalition surpluses) has been raided and only $250 million is left. Yet in spite of all Labor’s rhetoric about nation building, total expenditure over the next six years on roads, rail and ports will be less than that committed by the former Coalition Government. The $13.8 billion spent in total from three infrastructure funds - $3.2 billion from Health and Hospitals, $3 billion from Education Investment, and $7.6 billion from Building Australia - is less than two thirds of the $22 billion spent on Labor’s cash splashes. Labor will spend $53.2 million to conduct an implementation study into the National Broadband Network that will examine detailed engineering, commercial and structural issues, even though Mr. Rudd has already announced he will spend $43 billion on this unproven scheme. EDUCATION AND TRAINING: The Education Revolution is a failure. After the massive cost blow-outs of Computers in Schools, and disappointing mismanagement of the school hall program, the Government is offering nothing new for Australian schools at all. Universities have been let down. After promises of significant reform, and the year-long Bradley Review that urged more than $7 billion in new spending, less than a third has been forthcoming. New funding in universities is largely directed towards increasing student numbers to keep down the unemployment rate and obscure the reality of recession. RURAL AUSTRALIA: The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is the only department hit with an efficiency dividend (of $12 million) through “identifying lower priority programs that can cease”. In addition, Land and Water Australia has been axed and $12 million has been taken from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. TAXES: The Rudd Government has attacked the ability of many employees to participate in employee share agreements, by forcing them to pay upfront tax before they can receive equity entitlements. Employees will have to find cash to pay or decline to participate. The modest cost of extending and almost doubling the tax break for small business investment shows that this tax break, despite being increased once before, is not being taken up by cash-constrained businesses - just as the Coalition warned. 12 May 2009  malcolmWed, 13 May 2009 06:46:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:470http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/471/National-Families-Week-1016-May.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=471http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=471&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/471/National-Families-Week-1016-May.aspxSunday the 10th of May is Mother’s Day and also marks the beginning of National Families Week for 2009. 'National Families Week – celebrate how everyone makes a difference' – encourages all Australians to explore ways in which they can recognise, value and support the people who make a difference to the wellbeing of their family. As millions of families celebrate Mother’s Day, some for the first time, I would like to say thank you to the mothers and care givers who nurture our nation’s children and provide the love and care our kids need to ensure they grow up to be strong and resilient members of our community. On Mother’s Day and throughout National Families Week please remember those who provide support to the vulnerable and disadvantaged, and please give generously if you can.  malcolmMon, 11 May 2009 06:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:471http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/474/Salvation-Army-Red-Shield-Appeal-Launch-Parramatta.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=474http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=474&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/474/Salvation-Army-Red-Shield-Appeal-Launch-Parramatta.aspx“Salvation is freedom from the influences that crush the human spirit”. I was pleased to address the launch of the Red Shield Appeal for Western Sydney at the Parramatta Leagues Club. During tough financial times it is even more important to dig deep as the Salvation Army delivers many essential services to those in need –people who are vulnerable during good times, and even more vulnerable in tough times. The Salvation Army needs our support to open doors of opportunity to some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our community. During the annual Red Shield Appeal, the Salvation Army is aiming to raise $73 million this year. In a climate of economic uncertainty, this task can not be achieved unless we all dig deeper so please give generously https://salvos.org.au/donate/secure-online-donations/?appeal=rsatall The National Red Shield Doorknock Appeal will involve around 100,000 volunteer collectors – which provides an opportunity for people to give at the door in support of the Salvation Army's good work. The doorknock will take place on the 23-24th of May, so if you want to help collect, or know someone who wants to be involved, click here www.salvos.org.au as the Salvation Army would welcome your assistance.  malcolmWed, 06 May 2009 20:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:474http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/463/Retirement-of-Mick-Keelty.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=463http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=463&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/463/Retirement-of-Mick-Keelty.aspxThe Coalition places on the record its enormous respect and gratitude for the important work Commissioner Mick Keelty has performed on behalf of the Australian people. Commissioner Keelty has overseen the transformation of the Australian Federal Police into a modern law enforcement and counter-terrorism agency focussed on national security. During an intensely difficult period Commissioner Keelty has ensured his force has been rightly focussed on keeping our nation secure. Plots have been uncovered and important arrests have been made. On his watch, no terrorist attack has occurred on Australian soil. Commissioner Keelty’s leadership in the wake of the terrible Bali and Jakarta bombings has been historically significant. Not only has it helped to ensure the perpetrators of these evil attacks were brought to justice, it has also established a high level of police and security co-operation between Australia and Indonesia. It is this co-operation with Indonesia that is a continuing vital link in underpinning the security of our nation and our region. Commissioner Keelty should be proud of the legacy he leaves behind and we wish him all the best in his future endeavours. 6 May 2009  malcolmWed, 06 May 2009 05:31:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:463http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/459/Time-to-get-it-right-on-Climate-Change.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=459http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=459&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/459/Time-to-get-it-right-on-Climate-Change.aspxThe Rudd Government’s backdown on its proposed Emissions Trading Scheme means that Australia now has time to get this critical area of economic and environmental policy right. While the Government has proposed introducing a temporary fixed carbon price from July 2011, the ETS as originally envisaged will now not commence operation until July 2012. This means there is now time to get design of the ETS right and answer many crucial questions left unexplained by the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – in particular its near-term impact on jobs, investment and Australia’s regions. Introduction of an ETS represents the largest policy-driven change to the Australian economy in history, a fact only belatedly acknowledged by the Prime Minister. Yet the changes proposed today by Mr Rudd and Senator Wong make their already-complex scheme even more complicated and fail to address several of the key objections levelled by business and community groups: • There is still no forecast of the near-term impact of the ETS on jobs and economic growth. • Australia’s trade-exposed industries are still placed at a disadvantage to their competitors, even though the disadvantage is less severe than in the original scheme. • There is still no assurance that overall emissions would be reduced by investment in complementary abatement measures such energy efficiency. The energy efficiency measures that the Government has proposed are largely tokenism. • There is still no scope for abating Australia’s overall emissions by offsetting or crediting biochar, better land management and other green carbon measures advocated by the Coalition. • Australia’s largest export earner, the coal industry, is still treated anomalously. In short, Mr Rudd and Senator Wong have tinkered with a deeply flawed proposal that still looks likely to damage the economy, yet has not so far been demonstrated to be the most cost-efficient or effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Rather than attempting to push the increasingly complex and compromised existing ETS through the Senate in pursuit of political goals, they should refer its design to the Productivity Commission to assess whether it meets the nation’s economic and environmental objectives. “For months the Coalition has raised concerns about the Government’s flawed proposals,” said Andrew Robb, Opposition spokesman on Emissions Trading Design. “Today’s announcement does little to address our fundamental concerns. Australian export and import competing businesses will still pay a hefty tax that our competitors won’t pay.” “There is still no analysis of the effects of this policy on jobs, regions and industries,” said Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull. “There is scant recognition of complementary measures and no evidence this is the best way to reduce emissions. While the Government has delayed the start date, that’s less important than getting the details right so we don’t send jobs and industries offshore.”  malcolmMon, 04 May 2009 07:08:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:459http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/452/Inquiry-needed-into-people-smuggling-surge.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=452http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=452&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/452/Inquiry-needed-into-people-smuggling-surge.aspxThe Federal Opposition is calling for an urgent and independent inquiry into the relationship between the Rudd Government’s softened stance on border protection and the surge in people smuggling into Australia. People smuggling is dangerous and inhumane. The Coalition believes that everything must be done to stop this trade. The Coalition is deeply concerned about the welfare of asylum seekers lured into attempting dangerous voyages by unscrupulous people smugglers. We are also deeply concerned about the safety of Australian defence and customs personnel charged with patrolling our northern waters and making the interceptions. With new boats arriving every week, reports of more unauthorised boat arrivals on their way and thousands more assembling in Indonesia, we believe the situation is critical and demands urgent action. The Coalition has repeatedly warned the Government that softening its stance on border protection in August last year would risk compromising the security of our borders and the integrity of our generous but strictly controlled refugee and humanitarian settler program. We have also warned that it could put more lives at risk by leading to an increase in people smuggling activity. We are not alone with our concerns. In December last year, the International Organisation for Migration’s chief-of-mission in Indonesia, Steve Cook, said that people smugglers had taken note of Australian Government Policy changes and are ‘testing the envelope’. It has been widely reported that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) warned the Government that its softening of border protection laws would encourage people smugglers. The Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, Mr Joelianto, said that people smugglers are using the changes in policy as a marketing tool. Now, asylum seekers in Indonesia have confirmed that they plan to travel to Australia by boat because they have been encouraged by Mr Rudd’s changes to border protection policies. The facts speak for themselves. 15 boats with 541 arrivals since the Rudd Government softened Australia’s stance on border protection in August last year. Mr Rudd’s border protection policies have clearly failed. The Coalition calls on the Prime Minister to immediately launch an inquiry into Australia’s border security. The inquiry should be independent and headed up by someone with extensive experience in policy implementation, intelligence and national security. The report should be made public. In particular, the inquiry should: • Consider all intelligence reports and advice from the AFP or any government agency, which assesses the impact of the Government's changes to the border protection regime. • Assess the impact of Rudd Government’s policy changes to our border security and advise on what adjustments are needed to ensure the current surge of people smuggling does not continue. • Evaluate the impact of severe cuts to immigration, customs and border security resources to the border security regime. • Assess whether current levels of cooperation with relevant countries, in particular Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, are adequate and advise on what more could be done. Finally, I again stress that I am willing and able to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss a united approach to this situation, just as I have offered to work with him on an appropriate economic stimulus and on tackling the jobless crisis. A united and strong message to the region will be the best way to deter the evil trade of people across Australia's borders. malcolmTue, 28 Apr 2009 01:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:452http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/444/Visitng-Dr-Len-Notaras-and-his-team-at-Darwin-Hospital.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=444http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=444&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/444/Visitng-Dr-Len-Notaras-and-his-team-at-Darwin-Hospital.aspxToday Lucy and I visited Royal Darwin Hospital and Dr Len Notaras introduced us to his team who once again showed incredible skill and courage in swiftly and expertly treating the victims of the boat explosion on Ashmore Reef last week.        malcolmThu, 23 Apr 2009 09:12:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:444http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/446/Funeral-for-Hyacinth-Tungutalum.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=446http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=446&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/446/Funeral-for-Hyacinth-Tungutalum.aspxToday Lucy & I began our three-day visit in Darwin. We were honoured to attend the funeral of a great man and great leader of the Tiwi people, Mr Hyacinth Tungutalum. Born in 1946, Hyacinth was the first full-blood aboriginal to be elected to a house of Parliament. Hyacinth, a member of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory, was elected to the NT Parliament, winning the seat of Tiwi in 1974. He was a trail-blazer of immense courage and was also an important ceremonial man on the Tiwi Islands. An influential leader of his people, Hyacinth was an inaugural member of the Tiwi Land Council, served on the Tiwi Health Board and the Tiwi Education Board. He also was an exceptional Aussie Rules Football player and was very proud of his Grandson, Ross Tungutalum, being selected and currently playing for St Kilda in the AFL. My and Lucy’s condolences go to his wife Natalie, his sons Richard and Leslie, his grandson Ross and to all of his family and the Tiwi people.  malcolmThu, 23 Apr 2009 01:00:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:446http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/418/Rudds-Broadband-Gamble.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=418http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=418&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/418/Rudds-Broadband-Gamble.aspxToday's National Broadband Network announcement acknowledges the complete failure of the Rudd Government's broadband strategy.   The Rudd Labor Government has wasted 18 months and $20 million on a failed tender process that has not delivered a single new broadband service to a home and won’t for a long time yet. Mr Rudd has broken his key election commitment to build a fibre to the node broadband network for 98 per cent of the population. He promised to commence building the network by late 2008.  After a failed tender process, we now have an “implementation study” to consider how to build a network that will not be completed until at least 2018. Mr Rudd has now conceded that his election promise was undeliverable. His initial commitment of $4.7 billion has now blown out to a $43 billion exposure for the taxpayer. Labor has also decided to leave rural and regional Australia out of the fibre to the home (FTTH) network. The key questions are: how much will the network cost families to use? When will it be ready? Will there be enough demand? How will competing technology affect the viability of the network?   Wireless broadband in Australia is moving ahead at a rapid rate. Over the last six months, 108,000 new customers signed up to fixed broadband but 650,000 new customers signed up to wireless broadband. The Government has not provided any evidence of the economic viability of this project. What return will be needed for the $43 billion investment? All Mr Rudd has said is that it must be commercial. According to industry analysts, the venture would need to charge households and businesses at least two to three times the current average cost of broadband services. That is, households may need to pay up to $200 per month to get access to the network.   No evidence has been provided that there will be sufficient demand for this service at prices that will deliver a commercial return. This is a case of “build it and (hope) they will come.” No one else in the world has adopted this approach of a majority Government owned common carrier providing broadband services where the taxpayers carry the financial and technological risk. Mr Rudd is building a second Telstra owned by the Government.  With one Telstra having been sold to the public, Labor is now proposing to build a second Telstra to compete with the first. Mr Rudd owes it to the Australian public to explain why the tender failed, what his detailed business plan is, and what risks the taxpayers will bear.  malcolmTue, 07 Apr 2009 04:40:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:418http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/416/Rudd-does-nothing-for-Small-Business.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=416http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=416&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/416/Rudd-does-nothing-for-Small-Business.aspxThe remarkable omission from Kevin Rudd’s jobs announcement today is any measure which will make it easier for small and medium businesses to keep their employees on the payroll.   We believe it is crucial to keep the focus on maintaining and creating jobs.   Mr Rudd has provided nothing to relieve the tax burden on small businesses.   Nothing to relieve small businesses from the crushing burden of regulation and red tape.   Mr Rudd, with all of the enthusiasm of a convert, is now passionately committed to his anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise campaign.   As he has said, he wants government to be at the centre of the economy.   We know that the centre of the economy, the engine that creates and maintains jobs, is free enterprise.   And most importantly, small business – the most flexible and the most enterprising part of our economy.   And so it is natural that nowhere in his proposals are measures which small businesses will find helpful, or supportive to them as they battle a slowing economy.   That is why our small business action plan is focussed on supporting every small business so that they can maintain jobs and create new jobs.   I know, from my own life’s experience, that the prosperity of this country is based on the enterprise of small business.   And that is why we are proposing measures which will lower the cost of employing Australians for small business, which will provide affordable tax relief in these tougher times and improve small businesses’ cash flow.   This is largely a re-announcement of Labor Government spending initiatives and it cannot make up for the Government’s total mismanagement of employment services and its reluctance to support the private businesses which employ most Australians.  malcolmSun, 05 Apr 2009 06:29:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:416http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/409/Small-Business-Action-Plan.aspx#Comments2http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=409http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=409&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/409/Small-Business-Action-Plan.aspxThe Coalition believes small business is the most critical part of our economy - the source of much of Australia's innovation, economic growth and job creation. In these difficult times small firms must be given the appropriate support to equip them to lead the economic recovery. The most important thing for small business is a growing and dynamic economy providing more opportunities. The Rudd Government's inept economic management, which has made a challenging situation worse, is having a particularly damaging impact on our smallest firms. This has been confirmed by community feedback at the 23 Jobs for Australia forums the Coalition has recently held across all six states of Australia (with another 17 forums scheduled). Today, the Coalition announces a six point small business action plan that picks up on many of the ideas and suggestions provided to us at those forums by business owners, individual contractors and Australians who work at small firms. (1) Tax loss carryback To bolster the cash position of firms with a solid operating history but facing large operating losses in 2009 and/or 2010, limited carryback of tax losses should be introduced, capped at $100,000 of refunded tax per firm over the two years. This would allow firms to offset their operating losses and retain staff by claiming back taxes paid over the past three years, up to this limit. The measure would only apply for businesses with at least one employee in each year a refund claim is made, and in each year that tax was previously paid. Carryback would be governed by the same rules that currently apply when companies carry forward losses to reduce tax liabilities in future years. Since carryback refunds would over time be offset by lower losses carried forward, the long-run budgetary cost of this measure largely arise from changed timing of receipts. Similar treatment of current losses to reclaim past tax payments is available to firms in the UK, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the US, where the Obama Administration recently extended the carryback period from two to five years. (2) Superannuation Guarantee relief To reduce on-costs for firms with 20 or fewer staff, the Coalition proposes a temporarily reduction in the cash cost to small employers of the Superannuation Guarantee Contribution. As previously flagged, the Commonwealth should pay for a portion of their superannuation obligations for a period of two years – 3 percentage points this year, and 1.5 percentage points next year. This will make it easier to keep employees on the payroll. (3) OECD-best practice regulatory burden Quantifying the average time it takes to comply with each requirement is a key part of determining the economic costs of regulation. The Coalition commits to applying a comprehensive quantification to the full range of Commonwealth, state and local filings required to start or expand a business, and to ensuring that this overhead burden, as measured in terms of hours and costs, is then reduced to at least match (and preferably improve on) OECD best practice over the next three years. (4) One-stop-shop regulatory portal The Coalition also commits to working with the states and local governments to deliver integrated online access to all forms and filings, regardless of which level of government imposes them, via a one-stop-shop business portal. Cutting red tape and bringing these functions together will require substantial co-operation and depend heavily on the accelerated replacement of traditional reporting methods with internet-based alternatives. To make this one-stop-shop for compliance and regulatory filings a reality, the Coalition will create a small business service delivery agency expressly charged with delivering integrated online access. (5) Support for family businesses The new small business service delivery agency will also operate a program that will provide support and advice for family businesses on succession planning and family business professionalisation. While this is not a large resource outlay, it represents an appropriate response to what is a vital issue for many of Australia’s small firms. (6) Cabinet-level representation It is vital that small business has a seat at the table in Canberra that matches its importance to the national economy. Steve Ciobo, the shadow minister for small business, is already part of the shadow cabinet. The next Coalition government will preserve this high level of representation in Cabinet. “The plan includes both proposals that offer a direct financial lifeline to struggling firms in difficult times, and moves to get government out of the way of the entrepreneurial sector of the economy,” said Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull. "These measures are just the first step on the road to recovery," said Coalition small business spokesman Steve Ciobo. “The Coalition is committed to returning the smaller firms and entrepreneurs who drive our economy and create the bulk of new jobs to centre stage in the policy debate.” Mr Turnbull will launch the plan at a speech tonightmalcolmThu, 02 Apr 2009 03:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:409http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/390/National-action-needed-on-criminal-gangs.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=390http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=390&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/390/National-action-needed-on-criminal-gangs.aspxThe Federal Government should immediately convene a special emergency meeting of the State and Commonwealth Attorneys General and Police Ministers to discuss a national strategy for gang related crime and to consider airport security. Yesterday’s brutal murder at Sydney’s domestic airport is a gruesome wake up call to this national crime problem which shows no regard for state borders.   And the fact it could occur in our busiest airport, where security is paramount, is of major concern. The public are right to be alarmed.   The Rudd Government has undercut airport security and national crime fighting through cuts to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.   The Federal Government must show leadership on this issue and act in close collaboration with the States.   There are a number of serious issues to be considered:   ·         Special legislation to outlaw criminal gangs. The South Australian model allows for specific criminal gangs to be proscribed but that ban, of course, ends at the state borders. We need to consider uniform national laws.   ·         National Anti-Gang Strategy. The Australian Crime Commission and Australian Federal Police must take the lead on a national approach to tackling criminal gangs. The ACC’s Outlaw Motorcycle Gang National Intelligence Task Force must be immediately reinstated (disbanded in June 2008).   ·         Airport Security. The Wheeler Review recommended a co-ordinated approach to airport security, involving state and federal authorities. We need to re-assess how those recommendations are being implemented. Full AFP responsibility is the preferred option, with adequate resources.   ·         AFP, ACC and airport resources. Airport security is understaffed by 35 per cent. As at June 2008 the AFP had 233 State and Territory sworn police officers seconded to work at major airports – short of the 357 committed to by COAG. The Rudd Government has also admitted that 199 AFP staff have been made redundant since November 2007. The ACC has also had staff numbers cut by 104, as well as losing more than 100 officers seconded from state forces. Maritime security also needs to be bolstered to help break the gang’s international links.   It is time for the Rudd Government to act on national crime gangs. Cutting resources and turning a blind eye is no solution. We stand ready to co-operate in any genuine attempt to provide adequate resources to tackle this issue as a national priority.  malcolmMon, 23 Mar 2009 22:18:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:390http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/389/Rudd-must-spell-out-his-strategy-for-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=389http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=389&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/389/Rudd-must-spell-out-his-strategy-for-Afghanistan.aspxAs the Prime Minister prepares for discussions this week with the US President Barack Obama on further military deployments to Afghanistan , there are strong indications the mission of our troops is about to be redefined.  The Australian people must hear explicitly from Mr Rudd what exactly he will be asking of the Australian Defence Force. And our troops serving in Afghanistan deserve a guarantee from the Prime Minister that they will have all the support and resources they need, when they need it, to do whatever job is being asked of them.   The Federal Opposition understands only too well the importance of Afghanistan to the struggle against global terrorism.   As a nation, we are immensely proud of the men and women of the ADF. Our troops in the frontline know they can count on our support.   We in the Coalition will not make partisan politics over Afghanistan as Labor did on Iraq. We will not seek political capital out of a difficult global security challenge.   But the brave Australian forces serving in our uniform, under our flag, and confronting daily one of the world’s most dangerous enemies, are entitled to a full explanation of the strategic reasoning for any expansion of their mission.   How will a shift in strategy by the NATO allies bring about a successful outcome in Afghanistan, and how and where exactly does Australia fit into this framework?   We also need an unambiguous commitment from NATO nations to significantly upgrade their contributions, both in troop numbers and in the rules of engagement under which their forces operate. In particular, we need to know what will happen if the Dutch Government proceeds with plans to withdraw 1600 troops and aerial support from the joint operations with the ADF in Oruzgan, southern Afghanistan.   The Coalition supports as much effort as is required, both in military force and in civil-aid terms, to defeat the extremists in Afghanistan.   But these precious resources must only be deployed with clear objectives in mind.   The Rudd Government has let down our frontline troops appallingly during the SAS pay scandal. It needs to earn the trust of those who serve in its name.   In Opposition, Mr Rudd and his Labor Party were adamant about the need to set out a timetable for retreat and surrender in Iraq.   After meeting President Obama, and before committing any extra troops, Mr Rudd should spell out precisely his strategy for success in Afghanistan.   Our frontline troops deserve nothing less.malcolmMon, 23 Mar 2009 22:13:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:389http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/378/Tragic-loss-in-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=378http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=378&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/378/Tragic-loss-in-Afghanistan.aspx  Australia mourns today the tragic loss of another of our soldiers in Afghanistan.   The soldier was serving with the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force in Afghanistan and was killed when his patrol was attacked by Taliban extremists.   The thoughts and prayers of all Australians are with the soldier’s family.   As a nation, we are reminded of the dangers our forces face in Afghanistan every day.   We are immensely proud of the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force.   In Afghanistan, they are fighting in defence of our values of liberty and democracy, wearing our uniform, serving under our flag, against the world’s most dangerous enemy.   Australians are forever indebted for their service and sacrifice in our name.    malcolmTue, 17 Mar 2009 01:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:378http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/367/Malcolm-meets-City-of-Casey-Australia-Day-Study-Tour.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=367http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=367&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/367/Malcolm-meets-City-of-Casey-Australia-Day-Study-Tour.aspxMalcolm was introduced by Jason Wood MP, Member for La Trobe, to the City of Casey Australia Day Study Tour recipients at Parliament House.   “It was a great privilege to meet with such bright and enthusiastic young people who are interested in the political process in Australia” said Mr Turnbull.   The students asked many questions, including the overall response to the Victorian bushfires.   “I congratulate Jason Wood MP for engaging with the students from his electorate, and being a strong advocate for the people of La Trobe” said Mr Turnbull.   The ten 2009 Australia Day Study Tour recipients met with the Opposition Leader as part of their study tour, where they are observing all levels of Government in Australia. The students are: Adam Boswell Eumemmerring College, Endeavour Hills Campus Stacey Colebrook St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield Ahmed Ibrahim Eumemmerring College, Endeavour Hills Campus  Lauren Johnson Berwick Secondary College Kyesha Keleher Hampton Park Secondary College Eden Lovejoy Hillcrest Christian College James McAllister Eumemmerring College, Fountain Gate Campus Kathryn Morison St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield April Watson Cranbourne Secondary College Hafiza Zahidee Lyndhurst Secondary College        malcolmWed, 11 Mar 2009 00:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:367http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/365/Fair-Work-Bill-2008.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=365http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=365&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/365/Fair-Work-Bill-2008.aspx The Coalition has today decided to move amendments to the Rudd Labor Government’s Fair Work Bill.   We are targeting areas of the legislation which extend union power, provide a disincentive for employment and go beyond what the Labor Party took to the election in 2007.   The key areas of our amendments are as follows:   1.  Union access to non-union member records   All employees have a right to privacy and should have their records protected at work. The Bill weakens this right and allows unions to access these records.   Labor expressly promised that it would not change the existing right of entry laws.   We propose to hold Labor to its election promise and retain the existing law, which provides access only to union member records except where an employee gives consent or by order of the relevant tribunal.   2.  Expanded union right of entry for discussion/recruitment purposes   Unions should have access to a workplace where they have no members, but only with the agreement of employees in that enterprise.   Labor’s proposals are a recipe for endless demarcation and other disputes.   We propose to allow employees to decide democratically if they want a union representative to meet with them in the workplace, and which union that ought to be, before entry can occur. This would apply in a workplace where there is currently no union presence, or where a union (other than a union with members in that workplace) wants to enter.   3. Compulsory Arbitration where enterprise bargaining fails   The Bill allows Fair Work Australia to arbitrate where parties negotiating a collective agreement cannot reach agreement.   Labor ruled out having compulsory arbitration in the legislation.     We propose that the ability to arbitrate if negotiations fail only be available where the parties genuinely consent to arbitration.   There is a comprehensive safety net system of awards which is designed to provide fair terms and conditions of employment in the absence of an alternative agreement.   4. Greenfield Agreements   The proposed bill is complex and opens the gate for unions to veto new projects. Labor’s changes are anti-investment and anti-jobs.   It appears that Labor has recognised there are serious problems with these provisions, which were not referred to in their election policy, and is proposing some unspecified amendments.   We propose to remove the requirement for the maker of a greenfield agreement to notify unions.   5. Transmission of Business   Labor’s proposed changes regarding the transmission of business are also anti-jobs and have been the subject of considerable criticism.   Our view is that the existing law is vastly preferable to Labor’s proposal.   We note that Julia Gillard is flagging amendments to meet, so she says, the concerns business have expressed on this point. We will scrutinise those amendments carefully in the light of our overall objective to promote and preserve jobs.   6. Unfair Dismissal   Unfair dismissal laws are a discouragement for employers to hire new employees.   In particular there is widespread concern that the definition of a small business of a headcount of 15 employees (who may be all part time or casuals working only a few hours a week) is too low and creates many anomalies – leaving out of the definition many small, indeed very small, businesses.   The Coalition will negotiate with the Independent Senators who have flagged their concerns to get the best outcome for small business people and jobs.   malcolmTue, 10 Mar 2009 03:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:365http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/354/Labors-water-infrastructure-failure.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=354http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=354&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/354/Labors-water-infrastructure-failure.aspx  The Rudd Government is letting down Australia by failing to spend available funds on increasing investment in irrigation infrastructure in the Murray-Darling Basin.   Since coming to power Labor has focused solely on water buybacks and has entirely ignored water efficiency measures to reduce waste and enable users and communities to do more with less water.  The problems of the Murray-Darling cannot be solved unless both of these complementary arms of policy work together.   At a time when all public policy should be directed at maximizing employment, it is important to note that spending on water infrastructure invariably creates jobs, whereas spending on buybacks typically destroys jobs.   Labor claims that it still plans to spend all of the $5.8 billion that has long been allocated for water infrastructure across the Murray-Darling.  But late last year, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner admitted that about $60 million had been diverted for a scheme to buy out block irrigators.  How much more infrastructure money will be similarly diverted?   Without a rapid increase in investment in irrigation infrastructure, it will be almost impossible to improve downstream conditions in the Murray-Darling.   As the CEO of the National Farmers’ Federation, Ben Fargher, said earlier this week:  “It is bewildering that the Government would potentially sabotage its own policy intent. Without assisting to build the capacity for on-farm water savings, farmers simply do not have the water to give back to the environment.”   With generous funding in place, necessary legislation passed and all of the relevant states on board, it is up to the Federal Government to make the plan work.  So far Water Minister Penny Wong and her colleagues are failing this test.   Their neglect of water issues is underscored by the plight of the lower Murray lakes, which are in grave environmental danger for the want of a relatively small temporary emergency water purchase of 30 GL.      malcolmWed, 04 Mar 2009 23:15:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:354http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/342/ANAO-must-investigate-SAS-pay-scandal.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=342http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=342&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/342/ANAO-must-investigate-SAS-pay-scandal.aspx  The Federal Opposition today called on the Rudd Government to order an immediate investigation by the Commonwealth Auditor-General into the pay fiasco affecting our frontline troops in Afghanistan.   The incompetent Minister for Defence should not be allowed to squander more taxpayers’ money by appointing private auditors to investigate .   The Rudd Government has already spent more than $500 million in hiring outside consultants to do the work of public servants.   Instead, the Prime Minister should commission the Auditor-General to get to the bottom of the bureaucratic debacle which has seen SAS soldiers have their pay docked, and debts incurred , while they are fighting under our flag in the world’s most dangerous conflict.   The Minister for Defence says he only learned of the SAS pay fiasco when it was raised by the Opposition in Estimates on October 22.   This was less than three weeks after the Minister had boasted that his “strong leadership” on the Defence budget had been endorsed by an unqualified financial audit by the office of the Auditor-General.   What has since become apparent is that the Minister was too busy congratulating himself to be properly informed of the SAS pay scandal occurring under his watch.   Almost five months later, the problem is still not fixed.   Joel Fitzgibbon admitted yesterday he remains clueless. He does not know which SAS personnel have been underpaid. He does not know how much has been claimed back. He does not know how many soldiers are involved.  Nor can he say what the terms of reference or reporting date would be for his audit, or if a report will be made public.   In contrast, the Auditor-General works closely with the Defence Department, is fully independent and reports to Parliament.   Mr Rudd should be demanding the resignation of his bumbling and ineffectual Minister for Defence.   He must also order a proper investigation so that this government’s failings in Defence are exposed to full public scrutiny.    malcolmTue, 03 Mar 2009 05:30:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:342http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/340/Opposition-calls-on-Prime-Minister-to-sack-Defence-Minister.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=340http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=340&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/340/Opposition-calls-on-Prime-Minister-to-sack-Defence-Minister.aspx Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, confessed today that he has no idea about the true extent of the debacle involving the pay of our SAS soldiers in Afghanistan.   His announcement that the Rudd Government has been forced to call in private auditors to sort out this mess is a blatant admission of his own incompetence.   In October last year, Joel Fitzgibbon said he would fix the problem. He did not.   When raised again in Parliament last week, he insisted again it had all been fixed.   Today, Mr Fitzgibbon has thrown up his hands in despair, and acknowledged that he has no idea what the facts are.   These are Australia’s elite fighting men. They are sent into the most dangerous part of the world to fight the most ruthless enemy, the Taliban, and their pay has been in a state of disarray for months.   Mr Fitzgibbon does not know whether the soldiers have been properly paid or not. He does not know how much they have been underpaid. He does not know how much has been claimed back. He does not know how many soldiers are involved.   Mr Fitzgibbon is clueless. That he has been forced to engage auditors to investigate the scandal five months after it was first raised by the Federal Opposition is nothing short of a national disgrace.   This pay debacle does not involve large numbers of men. It does not involve huge amounts of money relative to the Defence Department budget. If an outside audit is necessary, why was this not undertaken last year when the Opposition first brought the issue to his attention?   When we send our troops into the frontline, they have to know that they have a Government and a Minister for Defence who is solidly behind them. They have to know that that minister will move mountains to sort out any problems they have.   Yet, today, whether through incompetence, indifference, or laziness, we have a situation where we have our finest soldiers on the frontline and a Minister leaving their families on the breadline.   What this reveals is a complete collapse in confidence between the Minister and the Defence Department. It also reveals a Minister totally out of his depth.   Mr Rudd should put him out of his misery and appoint somebody competent as Minister for Defence.  If Joel Fitzgibbon is not prepared to do the right thing and resign, then Mr Rudd should sack him.     malcolmMon, 02 Mar 2009 07:07:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:340http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/330/Burke-reveals-ignorance-of-Land-Management-Report.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=330http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=330&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/330/Burke-reveals-ignorance-of-Land-Management-Report.aspxYesterday in Parliament, Agriculture Minister Tony Burke showed he was incapable of understanding an important recent report on forestry produced by leading CSIRO scientists led by Dr Phil Polglase.   In the report Dr Polglase demonstrated the wide range of opportunities for forestry in Australia – including forestry for saw log and other production and for carbon sinks.   As one scenario (out of an infinite possible range of scenarios) he showed how with a carbon price of $20 per tonne of C02e, plantings on 9 million hectares would abate each year about a quarter of Australia’s emissions (143 million tonnes).   I referred to his paper and to this scenario in my recent speech on climate change (24 January) as one of a number of examples of where biocarbon or “green carbon” strategies can be used to materially reduce Australia’s net CO2 emissions.   Mr Burke either wilfully misrepresented the report or was incapable of understanding it.   First, he said that the scenario (referred to on p. 80 of Dr Polglase’s paper) would involve carbon plantings on sugar cane land in North Queensland.   That is false. The scenario screened out all sugar cane land – indeed it screened out all high rainfall land – which is why on the East Coast almost all the land referred to in the scenario is west of the Great Divide. It appears that Mr Burke was referring to the wrong map in the report – but that is for him to explain.   Second, he suggested that the scenario involved removing prime agricultural land from food production.  This is also not correct, because the scenario assumes that the carbon plantings with a $20 per tonne carbon price would be at least $150 per hectare per annum more profitable than the pre-existing agricultural operations. In other words, the land referred to is assumed to be of modest economic productivity.   Third, the Minister seems to be in complete ignorance of what is actually going on in rural Australia. He complains that tree planting could occur “between Launceston and Hobart”. He only needs to drive between those two cities with his eyes open to see that there is thriving forestry industry there now.   Fourth, he complains that the scenario models potential for carbon forestry in the Western Australian wheat belt.  He should know that environmental plantings are occurring there now and that they deliver considerable additional benefits including reducing rising saline water tables.   Finally, and this perhaps is the most disappointing part of Tony Burke’s comic routine, he shows a complete and utter ignorance of land management in rural Australia. Most tree plantings in rural Australia, and most plantings for carbon sinks, will be done as part of an integrated land management strategy by land owners who will plant tree lots in positions where they offer stock and pastures shelter from the wind, add to bio diversity and, in many places, offset rising water tables and salinity.   As I said in my speech on 24 January, a Green Carbon strategy will allow Australia to materially reduce its CO2 emissions at a relatively low cost, deliver significant additional environmental benefits and enhance, not reduce, agricultural productivity and food security.    malcolmFri, 27 Feb 2009 04:34:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:330http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/315/42-Billion-Spending-Package.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=315http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=315&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/315/42-Billion-Spending-Package.aspx Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} The Coalition demands that Rudd Labor does not use its $42 billion spending package as a Labor pork-barrelling fund.   Already Labor has been busy buying public support with cash hand-outs that deliver popularity but little bang for the taxpayer’s borrowed buck.   Now we must ensure that their infrastructure and education spendathons don’t favour Labor and marginal seats at the expense of Australians living in Coalition held seats. The Coalition opposed Rudd Labor's $42 billion spending package because we considered it was not in the national interest.   It contains too much spending, imposes too much debt and contains measures that are not effectively targeted and will not protect jobs.   The massive burden of debt Labor intends to impose on Australia raises the spectre of higher taxes in the future.  And it leaves too little room in the public purse to address an extended economic downturn.   However, the Coalition accepts that the Parliament has passed the initial legislation to give effect to the package.    Our job now is to ensure that the moneys appropriated are spent as wisely as possible and to hold the Government to account over the efficacy and efficiency of the package.   The Australian people expect us to do this and ensure that any future stimulus package is well designed.   They also expect us to fight for the allocation of these funds fairly around Australia. Accordingly, Coalition MPs will be carefully watching to ensure that distributions for construction activities for schools and housing are spent equitably and fairly across Australia and in all electorates.  malcolmMon, 23 Feb 2009 19:55:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:315http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/298/Brendan-Nelson.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=298http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=298&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/298/Brendan-Nelson.aspx Brendan Nelson has announced that he will retire from parliament at the next election. Over six years as a Cabinet minister in the Howard Government, Brendan was responsible for significant reforms in both the education and defence portfolios from which Australia will benefit for many years to come. Brendan worked extremely hard as Leader of the Opposition following the Coalition’s election defeat in November 2007. He began the process of rebuilding our party in challenging times and we owe him a debt of gratitude for his service. As Australia’s Minister for Defence, Brendan secured record government investment in the Australian Defence Force including average three per cent real annual increases in Defence expenditure to 2015/16. Brendan oversaw the deployment of Australian troops in our region which helped to restore stability to the Solomon Islands and East Timor, and implemented far-reaching reforms to boost recruitment and retention in the ADF. Brendan was also responsible for major defence acquisitions such as the Air Warfare Destroyers, amphibious ships, C-17s and Abrams tanks, all of which will be vital in protecting our people, interests and values well into the future. As Australia’s Education Minister, Brendan’s achievements include implementing much needed reform of Australia’s higher education sector, putting in place an agenda for higher standards and greater consistency in Australian schools, and delivering a greater focus on the importance of numeracy and literacy and the teaching of boys. Brendan entered parliament in 1996 following a distinguished career in medicine which culminated in him serving as President of the Australian Medical Association. Throughout his career he has displayed an outstanding commitment to public service, which I am sure will continue in his life after politics. Brendan Nelson has been a tireless worker and passionate advocate for his party, the electors of Bradfield and the Australian people. On behalf of the Coalition I thank Brendan for the last thirteen years of service to the Liberal Party and I wish him and Gillian well for their future. malcolmTue, 17 Feb 2009 03:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:298http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/299/Shadow-Ministerial-Changes.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=299http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=299&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/299/Shadow-Ministerial-Changes.aspxI today announce changes to the Shadow Ministerial line-up. The changes include three movements within the Shadow Cabinet, and an additional responsibility for one Shadow Minister and the Senate Opposition Whip. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, will assume the role of Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs.  I reiterate my great appreciation to Julie for her work as Shadow Treasurer and look forward to continuing to collaborate closely with her as Deputy Liberal Leader. Joe Hockey will take on the responsibility of Shadow Treasurer. Senator Helen Coonan will be Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation. Joe and Helen, both of whom served in Treasury portfolios in the previous Coalition government, will present a formidable team to take on the Rudd Government over its mishandling of the economy and bungled response to the Global Financial Crisis.   Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training, Christopher Pyne, will take on the additional responsibility of the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives. Given the heavy responsibilities of the Shadow Finance Minister in the Senate, Senator Stephen Parry will take over responsibility as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate in addition to his role as Opposition Whip. These changes to the Shadow Ministry strongly position the Coalition to continue to hold the Rudd Government to account for its misguided economic decisions – most recently the poorly targeted $42 billion spending package which will not create jobs, saddles future generations with an enormous debt, and leaves us less secure as a nation.  malcolmMon, 16 Feb 2009 03:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:299http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/307/Victorian-Bushfire-Appeal-and-Queensland-Floods.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=307http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=307&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/307/Victorian-Bushfire-Appeal-and-Queensland-Floods.aspx Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Leader of the Opposition) (3.11 pm)—I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks and in particular thank the members for Gippsland and Indi for their very moving and  compassionate speeches full of compassion and indeed full of common sense reflecting their very great insight into their communities, particularly in these very terrible times of fire. I also thank the members for Kennedy, Dawson and Herbert for their reports on the floods in North Queensland. The Prime Minister and I were able to meet this morning, and I thank the Prime Minister for that opportunity. In these very troubled times Australians look to their leaders to work together in a common purpose. It is vital that wherever we can we aim to collaborate and work in a bipartisan way, because we do have a common purpose of putting these communities back on their feet. I say again, as I have said all week, we will support whatever it takes to put these communities back on their feet after this terrible tragedy. In that spirit there are a number of practical measures that I have raised with the Prime Minister that I will raise now in the House because they are important issues that the House should consider, that the public should consider. We would propose that a special commissioner for disaster insurance should be appointed for a fixed term to oversee the response of insurers to the natural disasters both in Victoria and in North Queensland, to act as an advocate for those making claims and to act speedily on complaints from insured persons. The commissioner would report to the parliament and to the government quarterly. As we know, very often victims of bushfires have had to wait for a very long time to get their claims paid. We should do everything we can to ensure that the insurance industry responds quickly. I commend the Assistant Treasurer for his actions already, but nonetheless we believe a commissioner of this kind would add additional force and authority, and indeed impartiality, in this effort. Equally, it is important to ensure that government contributions are directed to those in need and do not substitute for payments from insurers. In other words, government funds should not be directed in a manner that actually relieves the obligation of insurance companies; they should be directed to those in need. The Prime Minister has established with the Premier of Victoria a joint Commonwealth and Victorian bushfire reconstruction authority, and we certainly commend him on doing that. That is, we understand, to supervise and coordinate reconstruction efforts. That should be a genuinely bipartisan effort, and it should include parliamentary representation. We would propose that the member for McEwen, the Hon. Fran Bailey— whose community, as the Prime Minister has just said, has been most gravely affected—should be appointed to that authority. We also propose that a joint select committee should be established to review these tragic events in the Victorian bushfires, especially taking into account the findings of other recent inquiries into bushfires, including the report of the Nairn committee inquiry into the 2003 Canberra bushfires. We appreciate that the Victorian government has established a royal commission, and we welcome that. There will be great public interest in the identity of the commissioner or commissioners and, indeed, in the terms of reference, but we welcome the principle. But we all understand in this place that royal commissions can take several, often many, years before they reach a conclusion. There has been a great deal of work done on bushfires in the past. That should be reviewed again in the light of these events,  and it should be reviewed by this  parliament. This parliament should take action here. The royal commission should not be a mechanism that puts parliamentary action on hold for years and suspends public debate and parliamentary inquiry. Those are a number of practical matters that I would encourage the Prime Minister and the government to take on board now. The Prime Minister and I discussed a number of other matters, which we will no doubt continue discussing and which will no doubt be the subject of debate or discussion here in this House on another occasion. I say in conclusion that the nation that we are privileged to represent in this parliament is totally united in its commitment to restore these communities and put them back on their feet, and we should resolve to work together in a bipartisan way, as Australians, in ensuring that justice is done to the victims of this dreadful tragedy.  How you can help the victims of the Victorian Bushfires:  Donate to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund - call 1800 811 700 or online blood donations are needed urgently. Government Assistance: Contact Centrelink Victorian Bushfire Information Line  - 1800 240 667 Official Government information and updates Bushfire Family Hotline - 1800 727 077 How you can help the victims of the Queensland Floods: Donate to the  Queensland Floods Disaster Relief Appeal Government Assistance: Contact Centrelink Official Government information and updates  Photo by Freddie Leong malcolmThu, 12 Feb 2009 06:32:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:307http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/306/Victorian-Bushfires-Condolence-Motion-in-Parliament.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=306http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=306&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/306/Victorian-Bushfires-Condolence-Motion-in-Parliament.aspxIt is with a very heavy heart that I rise to support the motion so eloquently moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. We live in a very beautiful country, but surely it has a terrible beauty and we have seen the full terror of that beauty in the last few days. And to see it in such a beautiful part of Australia is so awesome. The towns of the Yarra Valley were carved out of the mountains to service the rush to the goldfields in the middle of the 19th century. These are beautiful towns that have become so loved by generations since, because of their beauty and because of the friendliness and the hospitality of their people. It is a rite of passage for Melbournians to drive from the suburbs of their great city into the Yarra Valley, to drive through those mighty forests. The towering mountain ash, the giant tree ferns and the manna gums and on to the alpine regions. Marysville, Kinglake and Narbethong have served as the base for the Lake Mountain ski resort, where many Victorian children get their first taste of the snowfields, build their first snowman and throw their first carefree snowball. In autumn and spring they have offered the beauty of the Mystic Mountains and the glorious Cathedral Ranges, walks through quiet forest glades, the beauty of spectacular waterfalls and even occasionally the sight of a lyrebird. From the 1920s these towns have become popular tourist resort destinations and loved by people from all over Australia and all over the world. But at the height of the Australian summer, amidst all of this natural beauty, this serenity, there is a looming menace, because on those hot February days, especially when the northerlies come down like a blast from a foundry and the forests begin to wilt, then there is a real menace: truly nature at its most menacing; nature at its most terrible. Last Saturday was such a day. There were freakishly high temperatures and ferocious winds. It was a savage brute of a day, the like of which Victorians have never seen and would hope never to see again. That is the cruel paradox of the land in which we live. Never before have we witnessed fury such as this, such havoc and such devastation inflicted on any of our communities. Never before has there been a tragedy on a scale as great. This is the terrible side of the beauty of Australia. Down in Whittlesea today Phil Edmunds and his wife were relieved that they had escaped with their lives. They lived at Kinglake. They had seen the fire 10 kilometres away. Five minutes later it was upon them. It was travelling at 120 kilometres an hour. When we were at Whittlesea today, survivor after survivor told Fran Bailey and me that the fires have been moving at 120 kilometres an hour. Who, how can you outrun a menace like that? Phil – or ‘Smiley’, as he is known – escaped. His neighbours were one minute behind him. One minute. Later he saw their burnt out car. He does not know for sure whether they escaped alive or not. One minute – was that the difference between life and death, between life and a holocaust of fire and wind of 120 kilometres an hour? Smiley has lost all his possessions but I could see in his eyes, as in those of so many others today, a sense of amazement and wonder: ‘How did I make it? Why did I make it when so many of my friends did not?’ We sat last night with Peter McWilliam, who is the president of Fran’s FEC. And he’s used – as are all FEC presidents, all branch presidents in all political parties are – he is used to ringing up branch members. He was calling last night to see who had lived and who had died. What a tally, what a job, what a terrible few days; the capricious brutality of this fire has swept everything before it. There was another man there, too – a survivor. Immigrants to this country; they were there too, reflecting on their survival. The husband said to me, ‘We think we are so smart, with all our science and our plans, and then Mother Nature comes along and stamps upon us’. And then there too, sitting quietly against the wall, there were two grandparents, their faces racked with a quiet anguish. Their youngest child, their son, lives in Kinglake with his own family. They have not been able to find him. The grandmother was sitting there, her hands in her lap, quietly knitting and unknitting her fingers with an anxiety that spoke more powerfully of her terror than tears or words could ever do. It is impossible to speak too highly of the courage and commitment of the firefighters, the police and the other emergency workers battling this terror. There are no words that are adequate to convey the praise, the admiration and the support that we owe these men and women. The Country Fire Authority’s volunteers have stood up in the face of the fiercest fires any of them have ever seen. One veteran of 45 years’ service as a volunteer fireman – he has seen them all – told us late last night that the intensity, the heat and, above all, the speed of the fires was without any precedent. But they were in good heart. Whether they were the men and women at Diamond Creek CFA brigade last night or at Whittlesea today, they were in good spirits. They were tired, they were exhausted, but they knew they had fought a good fight. They knew that there were hundreds of lives and properties that had survived this terrible fire because of their efforts. Some of the volunteers we met had lost their own homes. They had lost their own homes while they were defending the lives and the homes of other Australians. Truly, these men and women embody the very best of the Australian spirit of self-sacrifice in the service of others. Being country people, many of the survivors are very keen, very acute observers of nature. One man from Humevale noted, and explained at great length, the different speed at which the fire had travelled when it went through ungrazed land at 120 kilometres an hour, like a speeding car, from when it struck land that had been grazed, and moved, he said, at only a walking pace. We are only beginning to understand the nature of this horror. There was a quiet young officer from police forensics there today. He was talking of how people had died, how people had died when the fireball had sucked all the oxygen out of the air and left them with nothing to breathe but fire itself. This truly has been a tragedy that has brought out the most terrifying side of nature –the most terrible side of nature – but it has brought out the best, the best in us, in Australians, because confronting the adversity of nature at its fiercest has been part of our national story: Cyclone Tracy, Black Friday, the Maitland floods, Ash Wednesday. And, of course, today, as Victorians grapple with this firestorm, their fellow Australians in North Queensland face a flood. And these are the extremes. We are the land, indeed, of ‘drought and flooding rains’. And the land that we love so much, in the words of Dorothea Mackellar, we love ‘her beauty and her terror’. We have always known it and we have always feared it and respected it, but we have always fought back. And today we offer our heartfelt prayers for the families who have lost their loved ones, and extend our unstinting admiration to the men and women who have defended the lives of so many Australians in this terrible tragedy. And we cannot hold back anything that is required. The three words that should define our national response to this tragedy must be ‘whatever it takes’: whatever it takes to put these people back on their feet, to enable them to rebuild their homes, to enable them to restock their farms, to enable them to recover their lives and grow again, because they did not deserve this. Nobody deserves a tragedy like this. But they deserve our loyalty and support and they will get it. Soon enough, we will begin the task of recovery and rebuilding. That will demand resilience and resourcefulness. It will demand courage and tenacity and determination. And the communities in Victoria – all of them, all of them right across the state – will require the solidarity and support of their fellow Australians and they will get it. But let there be no doubt about the people we have spoken of today, and the people we have visited today—the people of the Yarra Ranges. They are a very hardy lot. I cannot count the number of times I was told by people who had lost everything they owned that they would pick themselves up and start again. We already know of their will to fight, because we have seen it before. Think of this: you only need to make the trip back down through the Black Spur and across the Dandenong Ranges to the town of Cockatoo. Think of the town of Cockatoo. The people of Kinglake know that trip. When the Lakers play the Brookers as part of the annual fixture on the Yarra Valley Mountain District Football League, they make that trip. So they know that town well. On Ash Wednesday, 16 February 1983, Cockatoo was wiped out by fire: 300 homes destroyed, seven lives lost, a small hillside town. But the people of Cockatoo were not beaten. Passionately, they rebuilt their houses. Out of the ashes, Cockatoo came back. By 1986, the population was over 2,000. By 1991, it was nearly 3,000. And today, more than a quarter of a century after the devastation, Cockatoo has more than doubled in size. With grit and fighting spirit, Cockatoo came back, bigger than ever. So, too, will Marysville, Kinglake and Narbethong, because nothing can wipe these places off the map. They live in the hearts of the brave people we met today, and so many others. And they must live and be rebuilt in our hearts too. The Opposition will give the Government all the support that we can. We must do everything we can together, as a parliament, as a nation, to give these people whatever it takes to restore their communities and to build them stronger and safer in the years ahead. This is a terrible country in its terror and its fire. It is a beautiful country in its wonderful nature and gifts. As we deal with that terror, as we respond to the terror of Australia, so we forge the strength, the resilience, the courage and the determination that is Australian.malcolmMon, 09 Feb 2009 06:29:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:306http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/302/Kevin-Rudds-plan-to-lump-every-Australian-with-9500-in-debt.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=302http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=302&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/302/Kevin-Rudds-plan-to-lump-every-Australian-with-9500-in-debt.aspx  Kevin Rudd is planning to plunge Australia deep into debt with a poorly considered and ineffective  $42 billion "fiscal stimulus" package.   He is proposing to run up $200 billion in debt - $9500 for every man, woman and child in Australia.   It took us ten years to repay Mr Keating's $96 billion of debt. How long will it take to repay Mr Rudd's $200 billion?   Why should we mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren to fund gigantic cash handouts today?   Mr Rudd demanded the Parliament approve his plans within 48 hours and has refused to discuss let alone negotiate the package with the Opposition.   Mr Rudd claimed that unless the package was passed by the Parliament this week, his latest $11 billion cash splash would not be able to be paid in March. And only this morning the CEO of Centrelink has told the Senate Committee inquiring into the package "If the parliament passes this legislation as currently presented, we will be able to implement for 11 March."   So the whole demand for Parliament to approve the package in 48 hours was based on a falsehood.   What else does the Government have to hide?   Now, we believe this stimulus package is too big and it is ineffective.   We have asked Mr Rudd again and again to sit down and discuss the matter with us so we can agree on a package both sides of Parliament can support.   He has refused to do that. As a consequence we have no choice but to vote against it in the House and the Senate.   In a speech in Parliament on Wednesday I set out the reasons for voting against the package and indicated the type of changes to it we would favour. You can also see my opinion pieces in the Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald here and my Message to the Nation and YouTube message here.   We know this decision will not be popular, but it is the right decision.   We consider that the package is poorly targeted, ill-thought through and irresponsible in today’s economic climate.   At this stage we believe a package of between $15-20 billion would be more affordable and appropriate.     The objective of any package must be to protect and create jobs, support small business and strengthen our economy.  This package will not achieve this.   We have said time and again that the most important issue this year is jobs.   We look at this package and we see little evidence that it will underpin the jobs of Australians.   There is no evidence the Government’s $10.4 billion spending package before Christmas created any of the 75,000 jobs Mr Rudd promised.   Almost all economists agree that the downturn has a long way to go.  And yet the Rudd Labor Government is panicking, firing all its bullets at the first engagement.  And even with his reckless cash hand-outs and massive, debt-fuelled spending, the Prime Minister’s package predicts unemployment will top 7% in just over a year – another 300,000 Australians out of work.   Mr Rudd’s plan asks the Parliament’s permission to take the nation $200 billion into deficit – $9,500 debt for every Australian.   In offering to negotiate a revised package with Mr Rudd I have indicated the different approach we would take.   It is an approach which clearly outlines the difference between the Coalition and Labor. It is an approach borne out of a predisposition towards experienced, prudent economic management.   It is an approach which recognises the reality of a Budget deficit but aims to minimise public debt.   We propose that the permanent tax cuts currently scheduled for 1 July 2009 and 1 July 2010 be brought forward, and backdated to 1 January this year.   By the middle of 2010 this would leave a two-income household earning $80,000 approximately $1700 better off.   Perhaps the largest gap in the Government package is the lack of measures that directly and broadly support employment – particularly employment in the small business sector.   While accelerated depreciation has some merit, the Coalition believes measures that more directly, immediately improve the cash flow position of small firms and help them protect and create jobs are preferable.   One proposal the Coalition is seeking to discuss with the Government is the Commonwealth paying a portion of the Superannuation Guarantee Levy on behalf of small employers (those with 20 or fewer staff) for the next two years.  This measure will directly improve the cash position of small firms, directly reduce the costs of employment, and so directly contribute to preserving jobs.   These measures are not only fairer.  They also represent a better targeted and more effective stimulus for the economy.  They better protect jobs.   We support investment in infrastructure if it is well targeted and well managed. We have proposed that $3 billion be committed to school upgrades by reinstating the Coalition's very successful Investing in our Schools Programme.   Unlike Mr Rudd we do not believe we have all or indeed the only answers. That is why we invite the Government to sit down and discuss alternative stimulus measures which would be responsible and allow sufficient capacity in public finances to meet emerging challenges.   The Coalition is committed to sound economic management and to ensuring that Government spending is of high quality and reduces the burden on Australian taxpayers and their children.  malcolmFri, 06 Feb 2009 06:14:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:302http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/317/Coalition-opposes-42-billion-expenditure-package.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=317http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=317&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/317/Coalition-opposes-42-billion-expenditure-package.aspxThe Coalition will oppose the Rudd Government’s latest $42 billion expenditure package because it is not a responsible or sustainable way to run the national economy.   We know this decision will not be popular, but it is the right decision.   The Prime Minister yesterday demanded that the House of Representatives approve $42 billion in expenditure within 48 hours: almost a billion dollars an hour.   We consider that the package is poorly targeted, ill-thought through and irresponsible in today’s economic climate.   At this stage we believe a package of between $15-20 billion would be more affordable and appropriate.     The objective of any package must be to protect and create jobs, support small business and strengthen our economy.  This package will not achieve this.   We have said time and again that the most important issue this year is jobs.   We look at this package and we see little evidence that it will underpin the jobs of Australians.   There is no evidence the Government’s $10.4 billion spending package before Christmas created the 75,000 jobs Mr Rudd promised.   Almost all economists agree that the recession has a long way to go.  And yet the Rudd Labor Government is panicking, firing all its bullets at the first engagement.    And even with his reckless cash hand-outs and massive, debt-fuelled spending, the Prime Minister’s package predicts unemployment will top 7% in just over a year – another 300,000 Australians out of work.   We believe the Senate should sit next week to ensure proper detailed scrutiny of this package, which contains the largest increase in government expenditure in 35 years.   The previous Labor Government left a legacy of $96 billion in government debt and the Budget had been in deficit for six successive years.  It took the Australian people a decade to repay this debt.   Now, another Labor Government is asking us, on behalf of those hard working Australians to agree to plunge headlong back into large deficits and significant debt.      Mr Rudd’s plan asks the Parliament’s permission to take the nation $200 billion into deficit – $9,500 debt for every Australian.   Today I outline an alternate response which will be more effective in protecting Australians from the effects of the financial crisis.   It is an approach which clearly outlines the difference between the Coalition and Labor.   It is an approach borne out of a predisposition towards experienced, prudent economic management.   It is an approach which recognises the reality of a Budget deficit but aims to minimise public debt.   We propose that the permanent tax cuts currently scheduled for 1 July 2009 and 1 July 2010 be brought forward, and backdated to 1 January this year.   By the middle of 2010 this would leave a two-income household earning $80,000 approximately $1700 better off.   Perhaps the largest gap in the Government package is the lack of measures that directly and broadly support employment – particularly employment in the small business sector.   While accelerated depreciation has some merit, the Coalition believes measures that more directly, immediately improve the cash flow position of small firms and help them protect and create jobs are preferable.   One proposal the Coalition is seeking to discuss with the Government is the Commonwealth paying a portion of the Superannuation Guarantee Levy on behalf of small employers (those with 20 or fewer staff) for the next two years.  This measure will directly improve the cash position of small firms, directly reduce the costs of employment, and so directly contribute to preserving jobs.   These measures are not only fairer.  They also represent a better targeted and more effective stimulus for the economy.  They better protect jobs.   The Coalition invites the Government to sit down and discuss alternative stimulus measures which would be responsible and allow sufficient capacity in public finances to meet emerging challenges.   The Coalition is committed to sound economic management and to ensuring that Government spending is of high quality and reduces the burden on Australian taxpayers and their children.      malcolmWed, 04 Feb 2009 00:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:317http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/303/Jobs-for-Australia.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=303http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=303&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/303/Jobs-for-Australia.aspx Ensuring every Australian has the opportunity to work is a fundamental responsibility of Government, and one of the most important objectives of economic management. The Coalition believes well paid, skilled secure jobs depend on innovation and enterprise, along with low taxes and incentives that make it easy for businesses to invest in people. Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull invites the people of Australia to join a conversation about jobs – how to create jobs, preserve jobs, enhance jobs. All Australians can discuss their ideas and share their personal experiences at an online forum at: www.jobsforaustralia.com. “All we hear from the Rudd Government is blame shifting as they tell us jobs are being lost because of the global financial crisis.  But Australia is not powerless. We can shape our own destiny,” said Mr Turnbull. “I look forward to your suggestions and ideas on how to create and preserve good jobs in the current economic climate.” Mr Turnbull and other Coalition members will also conduct a series of community forums around the nation to learn first hand from Australians about their ideas for a stronger future. The first of these forums will be held this morning in Parramatta, western Sydney. “Jobs for Australia is my initiative to make sure we leave no stone unturned in our efforts to protect jobs and create new opportunities for Australians,” said Mr Turnbull. “I believe Australians are innovative with a ‘can do’ attitude. Especially in these difficult times, we must look for new ways to strengthen our economy and build for the future.” malcolmFri, 30 Jan 2009 06:20:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:303http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/Green-Depreciation-for-Energy-Efficient-Buildings.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=297http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=297&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/Green-Depreciation-for-Energy-Efficient-Buildings.aspxA Coalition Government will introduce accelerated depreciation rates for capital spending on green buildings, as a key component of a climate change strategy which dramatically broadens the policy tools used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The introduction of ‘green depreciation’ will offer building owners an incentive to refurbish their existing capital stock and drastically reduce the environmental footprint of the buildings sector, where approximately 23% of Australia’s energy is used. Announcing the policy, the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, said “this is one of the most effective and inexpensive policies available to address climate change from the demand side.” Accelerated depreciation rates (of double the depreciation rates normally applied to investment in plant fixtures and fittings) will be provided to investors in buildings or building improvements which meet specified environmental and energy efficiency standards. Accelerated depreciation involves deferring tax revenues in the short-term, although this is offset by higher tax collections in the longer-term. The initial reduction in taxes allows building owners to overcome the capital constraints which often act as an impediment to improvements with longer-term pay-offs, such as capital expenditures to reduce energy or water usage. Such constraints are particularly relevant to lower-income households and funding-constrained small and mid-sized enterprises. “Only a tiny percentage of Australia’s commercial and services buildings are currently designed and built with energy efficiency in mind,” said Mr Turnbull. “At a time at a time when the Australian construction industry is under pressure and jobs are at risk, there is a clear opportunity here to align economic and climate change policies, to the benefit of both employment and the environment.” As with the other components of the Coalition’s climate change strategy, detailed measures and costings currently under development will be made public at a time of the Coalition’s choosing. As an indicative guide to the likely near-term cost of the policy, however, the Centre for International Economics has estimated green depreciation would lead to a deferral of revenue of approximately $560 million over the first four years of operation of the scheme. BACKGROUND: ENERGY EFFICIENCT BUILDINGS & GREEN JOBS One of the most promising opportunities to inexpensively address climate change and at the same time stimulate job creation is to encourage investment in improving the energy efficiency of Australian buildings. This opportunity has so far largely been ignored by the Rudd Government, even though the Prime Minister in August 2008 said it was ‘the second plank’ of climate change policy. Reductions in energy and water use and resulting greenhouse gas emissions from buildings can be achieved by incorporating varied technologies and design features (such as passive heating/cooling and recycling of grey water) or by adaptive retrofits (such as insulation). The scope for these measures to contribute to the task of addressing climate change and complement other arms of policy has been widely acknowledged: ·         Energy-efficient buildings are cited as a major opportunity for low-cost greenhouse gas emissions abatement by respected climate change authorities and researchers including the United Nations’ IPCC, the Stern Report, the Garnaut Review[1], and McKinsey & Co[2]. ·         According to the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), 97% of existing Australian buildings are too old to have been built with energy efficient features[3]. ·         Commercial and services buildings account for about 10% of final user demand for energy in Australia, while residential buildings account for a further 13%. Experts estimate low-cost or self-funding improvements to increase energy efficiency in buildings can make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which in Australia totalled about 600 million tonnes – or Mt – of CO2e in 2006): ·         Globally, the IPCC found that by 2030 about 29% of worldwide projected emissions from energy use in buildings could be saved at minimal or zero economic cost, while the International Energy Agency estimated the available worldwide savings at 30%. ·         Locally, the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) estimates by 2030 abatement of 60 Mt per year is achievable[4]. ·         McKinsey & Co estimates efficiencies in the Australian building sector can, by 2020, achieve emission cuts of about 50 Mt of CO2e. ·         The Centre for International Economics estimates cuts of 39-45 Mt of CO2e can be achieved at a low cost (or net economic gain)[5]. Demand-side measures to reduce the environmental impact of buildings do not necessarily have to involve burdensome economic costs, and in many cases pay for themselves over the lifecycle of the building as up-front expenditures to enhance energy or water efficiency are offset by reduced operating costs in later years: ·         Estimates for the payoff horizon for retrofitting an average existing building are in the 8-11 year range according to a range of authorities including the GBCA. ·         ABSEC estimates 27-31% of existing emissions from Australian buildings could be abated at zero net economic cost. Many policy options exist to overcome the various market and non-market impediments which currently stand in the way of investment in building efficiency: ·         Education campaigns overcome information gaps and inefficiencies and alert building owners to the net economic savings available from green design or retrofits. ·         Concessions for green capital expenditures address a core problem – the timing gap between initial investments and the point at which these investments generate a return. ·         The selective retrofit of existing government buildings and construction of new government buildings to Green Star standards provide leadership examples and mitigate the environmental impact from these buildings. ·         Ongoing assessments of any regulatory burdens imposed on building owners ensure that measures to encourage energy efficiency are not a drag on the economy. The scope for creation and retention of construction industry employment from investment in green buildings depends on the precise mix and scale of the measures adopted.  But at a time when the construction sector is under pressure, there is a clear opportunity to align economic and environmental policy objectives. [1]The Garnaut Climate Change Review, at http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.htm [2]McKinsey & Co., An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, 2008 at http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Australian_Cost_Curve_for_GHG_Reduction.pdf [3]Green Building Council of Australia, the Dollars and Sense of Green Buildings 2008, at http://www.aela.org.au/publications/Dollars_and_Sense.pdf [4] http://www.asbec.asn.au/files/ASBEC%20CCTG%20Second%20Plank%20Report%202.0_0.pdf [5] “Building Energy Efficiency” CIE February 2008 at http://www.thecie.com.au/content/news/Final%20CIE_TPB_Perth%20(with%20animations).pdf   malcolmWed, 28 Jan 2009 03:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:297http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/280/Appointment-of-Mark-Coulton-as-Shadow-Parliamentary-Secretary-for-Water-Resources-and-Conservation.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=280http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=280&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/280/Appointment-of-Mark-Coulton-as-Shadow-Parliamentary-Secretary-for-Water-Resources-and-Conservation.aspxI am pleased to announce that Mr Mark Coulton, Member for Parkes, will join the Coalition’s frontbench team as the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation. A farmer and grazier for over 30 years, Mark Coulton brings to this portfolio a wealth of experience in land and water management and a strong commitment to regional Australia.  Mark Coulton’s electorate of Parkes contains over 100,000 square kilometres of the Murray Darling Basin, and he knows only too well the many water challenges facing our rural communities. A former mayor of the Gwydir Shire Council, Mark brings to the Coalition frontbench a deep understanding of the issues and a thoughtful approach to policy making. Mark Coulton will be a valuable addition to our frontbench team and I look forward to working closely with him in this very important portfolio.Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:280http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/279/Rudds-Clean-Coal-Sham.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=279http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=279&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/279/Rudds-Clean-Coal-Sham.aspxThe Rudd Labor Government’s promises to support clean coal technology have been exposed as a sham.  Labor has refused to provide ZeroGen, Australia’s only commercial clean coal project, with a level playing field on emissions permits – driving the Central Queensland venture to the brink of collapse. “By refusing to allocate zero-cost permits to critical emerging technologies in its proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS), the Rudd Government has turned its back on ZeroGen’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) project,” Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, said. “This unreasonable approach to what could be a breakthrough technology, combined with staffing cuts imposed by the Queensland Labor Government, prove the ALP is all spin and no action when it comes to clean coal.” “Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and there is therefore no single low emission technology of more importance to Australia than carbon capture and storage. The fastest growing emitters, China and India, are heavily dependent on coal and the world, consequently, has a vital interest in the successful development of carbon capture and storage.” Mr Turnbull said. Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, warned Labor’s lack of commitment to clean coal was endangering thousands of jobs in the coal industry. “ZeroGen is the very project Kevin Rudd has been talking up as his international flagship to reduce coal-related emissions and secure the coal industry’s future.  Yet his Government has not lifted a finger or spent one new dollar on technology to advance CCS in Australia,” Mr Macfarlane said. “Labor forgets that without effective low emission technologies there will simply be no means to dramatically reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.” “As ZeroGen teeters on the edge of collapse and the coal industry reels from the imposition of a $1 billion per year cost under the ETS, the jobs of thousands of Australian coal miners in the thermal coal industry are now at risk.” Mr Rudd visited the project site in Stanwell in March 2007 and publicly stated that he and his party supported the ZeroGen venture.  But he has failed to follow through. “It’s time for the Rudd Government to come clean,” said Mr Turnbull.  “It has no magic wand to reduce carbon emissions.  Until Labor gets serious about clean coal and offers more than platitudes, it will continue to put Australian jobs and industries at risk.”Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:279http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/278/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=278http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=278&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/278/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspxTrooper Donaldson on behalf of the Opposition, I’m honoured to warmly endorse the Prime Minster’s remarks and salute you; Australia salutes you for your outstanding act of valour. You wear that medal with such pride Trooper, but Australia has so much pride in you. You have shown remarkable valour in a theatre, in a land, where armies have marched and battled ever since the Army of Alexander the Great fought its way through those hard hills and rocky valleys of Afghanistan two and a half thousand years ago – and you fought for freedom. You have been in the frontline of the battle for freedom, the battle against terrorism, a battle we cannot lose, and we will not lose, because of brave men like you. But more than 2500 years ago, and before Alexander, another great Greek soldier, Pericles, wrote or spoke; ‘freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.’ Our freedom that we occasionally take for granted, but should never take for granted, depends on the valour of men and women of courage – men like you – and we thank you for it and we salute you for it. And you stand in a great line of courageous men who’ve served our country, who’ve fought under our flag wearing our uniform – as the Prime Minister said; ‘there is no greater honour then wearing the uniform you wear today, serving this nation.’ And that is why we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. You stand in a great line of courageous soldiers who have won the Victoria Cross – Keith Payne is here with us. Nearly 40 years ago, like you, he risked his life for others, like you wearing Australia’s uniform under our flag he stood up for the freedoms we enjoy, his courage made that possible. There is a poem written by another soldier called Tony Blake who served in Vietnam in the Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR). He wrote; ‘here comes the rising sun, another night of duty loyally done. I am awake, so others can sleep.’ Trooper you risked your life so that others can live. You risked your life so that others can live in freedom. We salute you. [ends]Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:19:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:278http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/277/Retirement-of-Senator-Judith-Troeth.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=277http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=277&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/277/Retirement-of-Senator-Judith-Troeth.aspxLiberal Senator for Victoria Judith Troeth today announced she will not re-nominate for Senate preselection and will leave Federal Parliament when her current term expires in June 2011. During a distinguished 16-year career, Senator Troeth was an effective and energetic advocate for the people of Victoria, and made particularly notable contributions in the areas of women’s affairs, human rights and immigration policy. She also vigorously represented the interests of regional Australia, and chaired the Federal Liberal Regional and Rural Committee from 1997 to 2002. First elected in 1993, Senator Troeth’s career included service as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industry (later Minister for Agriculture) during the first three terms of the Howard Government.  She also chaired several important Parliamentary Committees, including the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. I thank Senator Troeth for her years of hard work and record of service to the people of Victoria.Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:13:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:277http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/276/Labor-waste-inefficiency-and-mismanagement-under-scrutiny.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=276http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=276&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/276/Labor-waste-inefficiency-and-mismanagement-under-scrutiny.aspxThe Federal Opposition is stepping up its scrutiny of the Rudd Government's waste, inefficiency and mismanagement, with Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull today formally launching the Coalition 'Labor Waste Committee’ and website. Mr Turnbull was in Launceston with Senator Guy Barnett who will Chair the Committee in his capacity as Coalition Scrutiny of Government spokesperson. "The Labor Waste Committee is an important part of the Coalition’s commitment to holding the Rudd Labor Government to account for the way it spends and manages tax payers' money", Mr. Turnbull said. "Now more than ever, every single dollar of Government spending must be used as effectively and efficiently as possible and directed towards maximising jobs and economic growth.” “Tax payers need and deserve Government spending of the highest quality and every spending decision must provide the biggest economic bang for their buck."  "Mr Rudd has adopted the state Labor approach of government waste and mismanagement, and the Labor Waste Committee will play an important role in scrutinising the efficiency and effectiveness of every element of the Government's spending.” Senator Barnett said the Committee had already identified examples of Labor Waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. "There is no better example than the $13 million GROCERYChoice website, which to date has been a complete waste of tax payers' money", he said. "Wasteful policy initiatives like this really expose the empty hypocrisy of Mr Tanner’s razor gang process – the outcome of which last year was a Budget that actually increased spending." The new website, www.laborwaste.com, will provide further information about examples of Labor waste and inefficiency, and provide an opportunity for members of the community to alert the Committee to examples of Government waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. The other members of the Committee are Senator Michaelia Cash, Senator Mitch Fifield, Mr Alex Hawke MP, Mr. Paul Neville MP and Senator Scott Ryan.Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:08:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:276http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/275/NancyBird-Walton.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=275http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=275&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/275/NancyBird-Walton.aspxToday Australia mourns the passing of a great Australian, Nancy-Bird Walton. Nancy-Bird Walton was a pioneer of aviation and one of the greatest role models for Australian women. In an age when women were denied equality in most work places, she learned to fly with Sir Charles Kingsford Smith in 1933 and then became the first Australian women to hold a commercial pilot's licence.  She flew her own Gipsy Moth aircraft as an air ambulance for the Far West Children’s Health Scheme, landing in open paddocks and on the roughest of dirt strips bringing nursing sisters to remote stations and communities in outback Australia. In the Second World War she was the Commandant of the Australian Women’s Air Training Corps and in 1950 she founded, and became the President of, the Australian Women's Pilots Association. Nancy-Bird Walton received many honours - including an OBE in 1966 and an AO in 1990 as well as being deemed a Living Treasure by the National Trust. She published an autobiography entitled "My God,  It's a woman" the words uttered by a grazier, Charles Russell, in 1935 when he realised that he was being rescued from rising flood waters by a woman pilot. Nancy-Bird Walton was a great Australian, generous and public spirited throughout her long life. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our condolences to her daughter, Anne Marie, her son John, her four grandchildren, and her two great-grandchildren.Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:05:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:275http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/274/Visit-to-drought-affected-Clyde-Valley-community.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=274http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=274&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/274/Visit-to-drought-affected-Clyde-Valley-community.aspxFederal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull today visited Lakes Crescent and Sorell in Tasmania’s southern Central Highlands to meet with Bothwell community members and local farmers who have critically low water supplies. “This drought-affected community is enduring additional hardship because of a decision by Environment Minister Peter Garrett not to allow an emergency water allocation to be drawn from the lakes above the town of Bothwell,’’ Mr Turnbull said. “There is a desperate need for water for stock and domestic use and the Government must act quickly to reverse its decision. “In 2007, as Minister for Environment and Water Resources, I approved the release of 2000 megalitres for stock and domestic purposes. Careful management resulted in only 1500 megalitres being used within the allotted time. “The current appeal is for just 5 megalitres per day.” Mr Turnbull agreed to visit this area at first request, unlike Minister Garrett, Tasmanian Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck said. “Minister Garrett won’t visit this community and when representatives travelled to Canberra for a meeting with him, he didn’t even turn up. “I introduced Malcolm Turnbull to some of the community members who benefited from the previous emergency allocation and have demonstrated that such allocations are managed responsibly and efficiently. “I have appealed directly to Prime Minister Rudd to overturn Minister Garrett’s decision because the Clyde community has stressed to me just how dire their situation has become this summer. “I wrote to Mr Rudd on December 2 but so far have not had so much as an acknowledgement from his office. “Labor MHR Dick Adams has also gone missing in action on this issue since Garrett’s decision – he should be kicking down the Prime Minister’s door and standing up for his constituents,’’ Senator Colbeck said.Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:00:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:274http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/273/United-Nations-Security-Council-Resolution-1860.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=273http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=273&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/273/United-Nations-Security-Council-Resolution-1860.aspxThe federal Opposition welcomes today’s resolution by the United Nations Security Council calling for an “immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire” in Gaza and southern Israel. We welcome also the specific provisions of UNSC Resolution 1860 relating to guarantees to Israel’s security, including the explicit condemnation of terrorist attacks on civilians and the demand that member-states act to stop the smuggling of arms into Gaza. These were always the necessary pre-conditions for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The Opposition hopes the adoption of this compromise resolution will bring an early end to hostilities, and the tragic loss of life on both sides of the border. We also trust the firm message from the Security Council will discourage any who would seek a further escalation of the conflict.Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:273http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/272/Death-of-an-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=272http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=272&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/272/Death-of-an-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspxI was profoundly saddened by the news overnight of the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. The thoughts and prayers of all Australians will be with his family. Their loss will be deeply felt at a time of the year when Australians traditionally gather with their loved ones to celebrate the New Year.   This tragedy is another solemn reminder of the enormous dangers our forces face in Afghanistan every day. This brave soldier died during a rocket attack on a base in Oruzgan province, the eighth member of the Australian Defence Force to be killed in Afghanistan since 2002. As a nation we are immensely proud of the men and women of the ADF; of their service, and their sacrifice.  In Afghanistan they are fighting in defence of the values of liberty and democracy, on which our nation was founded. They are wearing our uniform, serving under our flag. We mourn the loss of a courageous Australian and on behalf of the Federal Opposition I honour and acknowledge his sacrifice and extend our deepest sympathies to his family.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:272http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5/Guantanamo-Bay-Detainees.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=5http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=5&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5/Guantanamo-Bay-Detainees.aspxThe Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, should immediately reverse his decision to accept Guantanamo Bay inmates for resettlement in Australia.  The Australian newspaper today has confirmed that the Australian Government is proposing to agree to an American request to accept detainees, not being Australian citizens, from their military prison in Guantanamo Bay which the incoming United States President, Barack Obama, is expected to close. It is understood that there are around 250 inmates currently detained in the military prison, with 60 considered by the United States authorities suitable for release. It remains unclear if the United States has asked Mr Rudd to accept detainees on a custodial basis, or if Australia is being asked to resettle the detainees into the community. There would not appear to be any legal basis upon which Australia could hold the Guantanamo Bay detainees in custody, since none of them have been detained for crimes under Australian law.  It would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in which any claims on humanitarian grounds should take priority over the many applicants for humanitarian entry currently awaiting approval.   adminSat, 03 Jan 2009 00:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:5http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/New-Years-Message.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=6http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=6&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/New-Years-Message.aspx2008 has been an incredible year. It has been dominated by the global financial crisis and the big challenges that it presents to governments, families and businesses all around the world. Now in Australia we start off with a strong economy, and I have said many times, yes we are in an economic storm, we will get wet but we won’t sink. We have every reason to be optimistic and positive about 2009. The enterprise, the energy, the enthusiasm of Australians is an enormous strength in these challenging times and we as an opposition will continue to hold the Government to account – that’s our job – and to provide constructive proposals for better protecting our economy and, above all, for ensuring that we protect and preserve employment. The three top priorities for 2009 must be jobs, jobs, jobs. It’s going to be a very exciting year around the world. We have a new US president. Who would have ever imagined it was possible that America would elect a black man as president? Who among us would have ever thought that Martin Luther King’s dream, when he said he dreamt of a day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the colour of their skin, would be realised with a black man in the top job in Washington? Incredible stuff! And so, finally, Lucy and I wish you a safe, prosperous and happy 2009. It will be an exciting year, but I know that with all of us working together, committed to a strong Australia, it will be another great year for our great nation. Click here to watchadminThu, 01 Jan 2009 00:31:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:6http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/12/Christmas-Message.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=12http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=12&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/12/Christmas-Message.aspxMALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Happy Christmas. This is a wonderful time of year to get together with family, with friends, with family and friends you haven’t seen for a while. We’re here with Ian Hamilton at the Salvation Army in Surry Hills in Sydney and Lucy and I have been helping pack the Christmas hampers. Ian is getting ready for a big Christmas Day lunch with over 1500 people who will be given a beautiful lunch and also the Christmas hampers that we have been helping Ian and his volunteers pack. So, Ian just tell us a little bit about what you are doing at Christmas, what the Salvation Army is doing for Christmas. IAN HAMILTON: Well certainly here Malcolm in relation to this Christmas dinner, with children, there are 1600, could be 1700 people altogether that we give this Christmas dinner too supported by some 250 volunteers and we even have people at this very moment cutting up ham and the pork that has been donated which we are so grateful for, half a tonne arrived today. So we will have this Christmas dinner, give out toys and give out these hampers that we have been packing together just now. LUCY TURNBULL: I’ll just tell you inside there is a hive of activity, especially in the kitchen. I’ve never seen so much meat being treated and packed up as there is there. It’s an incredible logistic exercise that the Army pulls off every Christmas for those whose Christmases wouldn’t be as happy without them. So thanks to the Salvos and have a great Christmas. MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’s also a time to remember our servicemen and women who are defending Australia’s values in very dangerous places around the world, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and East Timor. They’re not with their families at Christmas time like most of us are and we should remember them in our thoughts and prayers. They’re serving Australia, wearing our uniform, under our flag doing us proud. And finally drive safely. A lot of Australians will be going on holidays. Lucy and I will, we’ll be driving around Tasmania. We’ll be driving safely, we all should be. This is an important time of year. A beautiful time of year that we don’t want to mar with road accidents and injuries.   Click here to watchadminThu, 25 Dec 2008 01:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:12http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4/Rifleman-Stuart-Nash.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=4http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=4&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4/Rifleman-Stuart-Nash.aspxOn behalf of the Opposition, I express our deep sadness on learning of the death of Rifleman Stuart Nash in Afghanistan. A young soldier, he gave his life in the cause of freedom.  A dual citizen of Australia and Great Britain, Rifleman Nash was serving with the British Army in Helmand province when he was killed in battle by Taliban gunfire. Rifleman Nash was providing covering fire for his comrades when he came under direct attack. His death reminds us of the threat faced by all coalition forces in Afghanistan. It reminds us also of the enormous sacrifice of our coalition allies, serving alongside our own troops, in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions. Just 21 years old, Rifleman Nash was a dedicated soldier, serving in defence of the values of free societies.  I extend our deepest sympathies to Rifleman Nash’s parents, Bill and Amanda Nash, of Sydney, and to their family and friends.DatasearchSat, 20 Dec 2008 01:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:4http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8/Devil-in-the-detail-on-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=8http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=8&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8/Devil-in-the-detail-on-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspxThe Coalition will make a considered evaluation of the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme released today. This is one of the biggest structural changes in a generation to our economy. We will not be rushed into endorsing, opposing or suggesting amendments to this proposal. The Coalition and business found with the Government’s Green Paper on emissions trading that the devil was in the detail. As the flood of criticism demonstrated, the Green Paper model was found to be deeply flawed. As well, huge uncertainty is created by the Government’s inexplicable refusal to model the implications for Australian jobs and businesses of Australia establishing an ETS where the world fails to reach a global agreement. The Government has also failed to take into account the implications of the global financial crisis in the context of this ETS.  As a consequence, very little is known or understood about the transition costs to an emissions trading scheme over the next 10 to 15 years. That is why we have commissioned an independent economic analysis of the White Paper. The analysis will be conducted by the Centre for International Economics, led by its Chairman and Executive Director Mr David Pearce, an accomplished economist who has already undertaken a large amount of work on climate change issues, including emissions trading. Mr Pearce’s report, due in February, will significantly inform our response.  The terms of reference are attached. It is important always to bear in mind that an emissions trading scheme is not a goal in itself. It is no more than one of several policy measures used to reduce emissions. The design of an ETS therefore has to be assessed clinically in terms of its cost-effectiveness both with regard to reducing emissions and above all in terms of its impacts on economic growth and jobs. If Government gets this wrong, it will simply mean exporting jobs and emissions offshore while doing nothing to save the Murray-Darling Basin or the Great Barrier Reef. The Coalition, in evaluating the White Paper and other practical proposals, starts from the following position on a number of key factors. Climate change is best tackled from a position of economic strength. The impact of the global financial crisis on the real economy and jobs must be taken into account when assessing the ability of Australian industry to introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2010. Australia must work in concert with the rest of the world (there is no Australian solution to climate change, there is only a global solution). Any emissions trading scheme must not result in the export of emissions and jobs. Excessive haste carries great risk (to the resilience of our economy). adminTue, 16 Dec 2008 01:17:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:8http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9/2018-Soccer-World-Cup.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=9http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=9&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9/2018-Soccer-World-Cup.aspxThe Opposition supports the Football Federation Australia’s bid for Australia to host the 2018 Soccer World Cup.     In recent years, Australia has successfully hosted major international events such as the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the 2003 Rugby World Cup and the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games.   Soccer in Australia has continued to reach new heights since a comprehensive review by David Crawford in 2002/03 and further reforms led by the Australian Sports Commission and former Sports Minister Rod Kemp to put soccer on a more professional footing in Australia.   To even consider placing a bid for the Soccer World Cup is a tremendous achievement for soccer in Australia and an indication of how successful these reforms have been.     The Socceroos qualifying for the 2006 World Cup for the first time since 1974 was a visible sign of the improvement in the standing of soccer.     The growing success of the A League, Adelaide United’s appearance in the Asian Cup final and growing participation at the grassroots level are further indications of the health of soccer in Australia   In 2003 Rod Kemp declared that “Soccer is the sleeping giant of Australian sport”. A successful bid for the World Cup in 2018 would provide an enormous boost to the growth of soccer in Australia.   Shadow Tourism Minister Steven Ciobo said a successful bid for Australia to host the 2018 Soccer World Cup would bring tremendous tourism benefits.   “The Soccer World Cup would be the biggest global marketing campaign for Australia since the 2000 Olympics which has been recognised as the most effective marketing campaign this country has ever experienced,” Mr Ciobo said.   “A global event like the Soccer World Cup would bring unprecedented tourism benefits to Australia, and with tourism bodies firmly committed to supporting the bid, there is a united approach to securing the competition in 2018.   “World Cup fever could revitalise the Australian tourism sector which has been hit with unexpected turbulence this year as a result of global economic instability and almost $1 billion of additional tourism taxes, introduced by the Rudd Labor Government.   “I am pleased the Rudd Labor Government has delivered on its commitment to back Australia’s bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup which, if successful, would bring the biggest single sporting event to our shores.   “However I am disappointed Labor has no plan to address the immediate challenges facing the tourism industry. Labor and Martin Ferguson must outline what they plan to do for the tourism sector now, as opposed to in ten years.”adminThu, 11 Dec 2008 01:18:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:9http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/11/Address-to-the-Millennium-Forum.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=11http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/11/Address-to-the-Millennium-Forum.aspxSource: The Westin Hotel, Sydney E & O E The year is almost over and the big question we have to answer today is; how has the Rudd Government responded to the global financial crisis? And you may also ask; how has the Opposition responded to it? Now the Prime Minister has said that his spiritual life is guided by the teachings of the German theologian Hans Dietrich Bonhoeffer. That is no doubt correct. However I’m afraid his political life is guided by a less saintly crew – Graham Richardson, Joe Tripodi, Eric Roozendaal, Mark Arbib – the same old team that has delivered us here in New South Wales; Bob Carr, Morris Iemma and Nathan Rees. Yes indeed it is Sussex Street at work in Canberra. It is a proven formula for the Labor Party. It’s worked for them for many years around Australia and it’s worked here in New South Wales – if working means staying in office for a long time. And its same formula, it’s based on spin, make the big announcement, grab the big headline and then don’t bother to deliver. Who can count, who can count the initiatives the railway lines, the metros, the hospitals, the education initiatives that have been announced here in New South Wales and never been delivered? It has just become part of the miserable government that we have here in New South Wales and it is because of that spin first, spin above substance, a political strategy for everything but no economic strategy. Now in just one year we’ve seen examples of this political style in action in Canberra. I won’t labour the point about Fuel Watch and Grocery Watch – they were...both of them absurd initiatives – Grocery Watch I think is the most complete waste of $14 million of your taxes that one could ever imagine. There’s literally no benefit from it at all. But it gave the Government a headline and similar comments can be made about Fuel Watch. But in terms of dealing with the global financial crisis I have to say to you that we are worse off now then we would have been had the Rudd Government undertaken an economic strategy rather than simply a political one. We would have been better off if the Government had based its policies on fact, on economics, on careful analysis, if they’d thought them through or indeed if they’d just copied what other governments had done. Instead they undertook a series of measures which have damaged our economy. There are people who are worse off today because of the decisions taken by the Rudd Government. Now Joe Hockey mentioned earlier the extraordinary blunder made at the beginning of the year when the Government decided to talk up inflation. Now we all knew that there had been a sub prime crisis in the US, there was a growing global credit squeeze – that was plainly bad for business in every respect – and most governments around the world were focused on maintaining jobs and maintaining growth – but not ours. Because they wanted to make a political criticism of John Howard and his economic management they chose to talk up inflation; it was out of control, the genie was out of the bottle and so forth. We had two interest rate rises, the Government contributed to them. Why? Because right up until September it was talking up inflation, talking up inflationary expectations. And those rate rises came at a very unfortunate time. You will have seen that in September quarter, that’s the three months ending in September, economic growth in Australia was an anaemic 0.1 per cent, zero point one per cent – now remember that is before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid September and before the global financial crisis reached, if you like, its highest level of intensity. The interest rate rises at the beginning of the year take a time to feed into the economy. And so the decisions that were taken at the beginning of the year, which were contributed to by the inflationary expectations exacerbated by the Government, were starting to bite by the middle of the year. In other words our economy was rapidly slowing down before the global financial crisis in its full intensity hit and the Government has to share responsibility for that. We on the other hand, who were described at the time, as economic populists, said that the Reserve Bank should not put up rates. We pointed to the global problems, the credit squeeze in the US, the sub prime crisis and we said the bank should stay its hand, we acknowledged that inflation was higher than we would have liked, but we said it was reckless to say it was out of control – with the benefit of hindsight I think most people would recognise we made the better call. And that was because we were making our judgements, our decisions, our statements based on economic fact, based on evidence, not seeking to make a political point. We move on now to the decisions that have bee taken recently, since the middle of September. The Government quickly moved, as in tandem with other governments around the world, to guarantee bank deposits – right around the world…where they didn’t exist before and in many countries of course they did, bank deposits were guaranteed. They were guaranteed generally around the level, with a cap around the level of $100,000 to $250,000. Why is that? That was because it was a level that was high enough to capture most household deposits and small business deposits, but not so high as to create unnecessary distortion in the banking system. And we recommended, as the Opposition, we recommended that there be a deposit guarantee with a cap of a $100,000, nothing original, it was simply what was being done elsewhere. The Prime Minister chose on that fateful weekend of the 11th and 12th of October to go for a completely unlimited deposit guarantee. He did so without speaking to the Reserve Bank Governor, without having the Reserve Bank in the room, without talking directly to the Chairman of APRA. It was a decision taken with remarkably little consultation and it has had, and is continuing to have catastrophic consequences. Joe talked about the caryards, the empty car yards, empty of customers that is. The finance companies that use to provide the finance for the floor plans of car dealers, and of course finance people buying cars, have been unable to raise money because the cash management trusts and the super funds and others that bought their…invested with them, bought their short term paper, now only want to invest in bank…in deposits that are guaranteed by the Government with banks. And so the Government has now had to try and step in and set up a new entity which it hopes will do something to arrest that problem in the vehicle industry. Well what are we seeing? Jobs are being lost from suppliers of automobile parts, who are supplying the car makers right down to the people selling cars on Parramatta Road, right through the system, 270,000 Australians have seen their savings in cash management trusts and mortgage funds being frozen. Why? Because they cannot compete with the unlimited bank deposit guarantee. State governments too are being hit. A state government has a lower credit rating in reality than a small credit union which has the benefit of the Commonwealth Government guarantee. And so the states have been saying to Mr Rudd, you’ll have to set up a new bank, a new government bank of some kind to borrow money. We learnt last week that Mr Rudd is planning to go to the Gulf States to raise money there – hence the old jibe of ‘Kevlani’, but the reality is that we have got state governments whose borrowing programmes are being interrupted and affected adversely by this decision. So right through the system this mistaken decision about the unlimited bank deposit guarantee is rippling away and doing its damage. Why did they do it? They did it because it was a big gesture. They went for the big headline. It would have been too easy to do what other countries had done. Notwithstanding we have the best regulated, the best capitalised, many would say the most secure banking system in the developed world, we went for the most comprehensive, the most disruptive bank deposit guarantee. So on that score the Government has responded poorly to the global financial crisis and I would say to you that our proposal was – and I think most people now in the financial world particularly would agree – our proposal would have been a more prudent course of action. Just as our views on inflation were at the beginning of the year. So what about the big stimulus package? This is the $10.4 billion package most of which is hitting bank accounts this week. Now the Government wants everybody to spend it. Mr Rudd has said spend, spend, spend. Many Australians will find that injunction, that direction, pretty jarring given the difficult times and not very appealing. No doubt many families will use much of these payments to reduce debt and in many cases that would be wise, that’s why we’ve been very careful not to say spend, spend, spend but act carefully, think it through, act prudently taking into account your family’s circumstances. But will this stimulus work? Will this big sugar hit do the trick? In May, June and July this year the United States Government undertook a similar stimulus programme which was, like the one we have at the moment, targeted at lower income earners and families. However as Professor John Taylor pointed out on the 19th of November to the United States Senate, “while the various payments did lift disposable personal income considerably they made a relatively modest and temporary impact on personal consumption expenditures.” Now this very recent and very relevant experience from the US must be of real concern to the Government. If it spends $10.4 billion and provides only a modest stimulus that will be a very significant policy failure. So if further stimulus is required what should it be? We believe in the Coalition that tax cuts provide a more effective stimulus than one off temporary grants. Indeed we proposed several months ago that the Government bring forward the tax cuts scheduled for July the first. I was interested to see that Professor Taylor argued that tax cuts were a much more effective stimulus as they are permanent, pervasive and predictable. He contrasted the permanent incentive from a tax cut with the temporary nature of a one off payment and I quote, “more lasting or permanent tax changes will be more effective in helping to turn the economy around in a lasting way. We need to worry about the next few years, not just the next few months.” He argued that a tax cut is more effective too because it is “pervasive”, it does benefit families to be sure but it also benefits people without children and of course it benefits businesses. The across the board benefit, like a rising tide, will lift more if not all boats. It’s also worth remembering that permanent tax cuts are not only more effective as a demand side measure to boost disposable incomes but they also have additional and permanent supply side effects. Lower marginal tax rates improve individual and economy wide incentives in a way that a temporary cash handout cannot. In other words cutting taxes is an investment in the efficiency and the growth of our economy. Predictability and clarity are important too. A one of payment begs the question of when will it be seen again, if ever? Or is it just like winning lotto? Anyway we will see, it’s a very large financial experiment that the Prime Minister has taken with exactly half of the surplus. Now infrastructure investments on the other hand can provide considerable economic stimulus but the lead times are long. Indeed by the time the project is actually being constructed the economic cycle may have turned around, the recession busting project commissioned this year may be contributing to price inflation three years later when it is being built. Now that is an inherent and unavoidable risk in any long term project and it’s why infrastructure investments of this kind should not be justified purely on the grounds of stimulating economic activity. They must be the subject of the most rigorous economic analysis. We are concerned that a great deal of highly political infrastructure investment will be undertaken by the Rudd Government, all justified as part of an effort to stave of recession. We should not forget that when Mr Iemma asked for federal support for the now cancelled North West Metro here in Sydney he was told to forget it, there weren’t enough Labor votes in it. Now the Government has already spent half the surplus this week. We cannot afford to see $26 billion spent on poorly conceived projects which are politically appealing or thought to be, or with modest economic benefits. Sydneysiders like us don’t have to look far for examples of that kind of infrastructure investment. There has been a great deal of ink spilt on the subject of a deficit, or in Mr Rudd’s words, “a temporary deficit.” Now all of us recall that the last Labor temporary deficit went on for six years and it was only interrupted by the arrival of John Howard and Peter Costello. Until only a few weeks ago Mr Rudd was religiously intoning that he was an economic conservative and the proof positive of this great virtue was his commitment to surpluses. So we have two big objections to Mr Rudd’s new found interest in deficit budgeting. Firstly it makes a mockery of the surplus rhetoric on which he was elected. Second and more importantly, by arguing so strongly the merits of a deficit he is sending a message to everyone that he is in effect shouting the bar without a limit. Imagine a chief executive of a business in challenging economic times – well actually I don’t have to imagine them – there’s quite a few of them here today. Imagine if you stood up in front of your managers and said ‘don’t worry, I’ve decided we can go into a loss, no need to cut costs, no need to maximise output.’ In other words, a deficit should be a last resort, not an easy way out. And the same point can be made about the mooted Rudd bank to lend money to the states. Where will the discipline be? Once the Commonwealth has the chequebook out for the states how much discipline will be applied when Nathan Rees says ‘victory is within his grasp’, if only he could lay his hands on a lazy $10 billion or so from Mr Rudd’s new bank. Let me describe now what we are doing and what we propose to do between now and the election. We will hold the Government to account. Weak, lazy or ineffectual oppositions result in complacent, corrupt and incompetent governments. So we make no apologies for being critical. That is our job. We can it is true, with the support of independents, amend or indeed block legislation in the Senate. We have used that power judiciously. On occasions we’ve helped kill off really bad policies, Fuel Watch being a good example. No one was more relieved by its demise I believe than Mr Rudd himself. On other occasions we’ve been able to amend legislation, but if our amendments are rejected we have to consider whether the Government’s bill without our amendments is so unsatisfactory it should be rejected out of hand. We may in that case let the legislation pass and undertake to set it right when we return to Government in less than two years from now. Our opposition must always be constructive and responsible and so it has been and will be. We will from time to time make specific policy proposals which we hope the Government will take up. I’ve mentioned a few relating to the deposit guarantees already. Recently for example I proposed that our business insolvency laws be changed to place a greater emphasis on reconstruction and rehabilitation of businesses, more along the lines of the US Chapter Eleven.  We’ve offered, as we have on so many of these issues, to work with the Government in a cooperative, bipartisan way. The silence, as usual, has been deafening. The next round of legislation to come to the Senate will be the Fair Work Australia Bill. We heard the people very clearly in November last year and that is why we have said Work Choices is dead. We did not oppose the Fair Work Bill in the House of Representatives, but we reserved our right to propose amendments to improve the operation of the Bill following the Senate Committee process without seeking to frustrate the Government’s election commitment to implement its Forward with Fairness election policy. And as the Senate reviews this legislation starting this week, it is very important that business in particular consider the Bill carefully and make its views public. I do not want to pre-empt the very detailed review that is going to take place in the Senate Committee but let me give you just one example of a matter that is of great concern to us and many other Australians. In Labor’s August 2007 policy document Forward with Fairness, at page 23 in fact, it states expressly that the existing Howard Government’s right of entry laws will be maintained. The Fair Work Bill however does no such thing. It gives unions considerably enlarged rights to enter workplaces. It gives them for example the right to inspect and copy the employment records of employees who have neither given their consent nor are members of the union. These are among the issues that the Senate Committee and all of us should be focussing on very carefully as this Bill works its way through the Senate process. Now we will not win government simply by waiting for Mr Rudd to stumble or for the public to become tired of him. To return to government in 2010 we must above all demonstrate that we have the capacity to provide the sound economic leadership Australia needs and deserves. We must also offer a vision for the future and a plan for action. Our policies will always be informed by the great philosophical difference between us and Labor. We are a party of freedom, we are a party of choice, we recognise that the prosperity and the strength of this country is not delivered by governments but is the product of the hard work and the enterprise of millions of Australians. In other words we believe that government’s role, government’s duty is to enable each and every one of you to do your best, to enable you to take those risks, to enable you to invest, to enable you to create the prosperity that this country has been so proud to enjoy for so long. That is our role. Our role in government is about you, it’s about enabling the strength of individual initiative and enterprise, it’s enabling you to do your best. Mr Rudd on the other hand believes government’s role is to tell us what is best and therein my friends lies the great philosophical fault line between our side of politics and that of Labor. I’ve mentioned the importance of tax earlier and the critical importance of tax cuts as part of an economic stimulus package going forward. But beyond that Australia needs a tax system that is much more efficient than the one we have today. And that’s why we are reviewing the whole tax system right from the top, federal, state, local government with the assistance of Henry Ergas, with the aim of proposing reforms which will see our taxes, in a nutshell, lower, fairer, simpler. We are committed on another great economic policy front, to climate change policies that are environmentally effective and economically responsible. It is at the moment unclear how the Government will finalise its design of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Certainly, the present indications are that the Government proposes to impose heavy costs on Australian trade-exposed industries such as steel, aluminium, refining, LNG, mining, and a number of others. It is clear that if the countries with which these industries compete do no have a comparable cost of carbon, we run the risk of exporting both the emissions and the jobs. In other words, the world will keep getting warmer and we’ll start getting a lot poorer. The Political Editor of the Daily Telegraph, Malcolm Farr recently wrote that Mark Arbib, the former New South Wales ALP State Secretary and now Labor Senator has developed the reputation in Canberra as Mr Rudd’s gatekeeper. Dennis Atkins, the Courier-Mail’s Political Editor, also recently revealed it was Senator Arbib who Mr Rudd called in to advise him on the economic script ahead of his statement to Parliament seeking permission from the public to take the budget into a temporary deficit. Deficits as I’ve said should be a last resort, not an easy way out. And with Bob Carr’s former Chief of Staff Bruce Hawker as Mr Rudd’s spin man the picture is complete. Sussex Street has come to Canberra. Kevin Rudd might come from Queensland but as we can see his style, his advisers, are one hundred per cent New South Wales Labor. And that my friends is why we must win the next election. We cannot allow New South Wales Labor to do to Australia what they have done to our State and what they have done to this great city. Thank you very much for your support.            adminTue, 09 Dec 2008 01:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/10/Kerryn-McCann.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=10http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/10/Kerryn-McCann.aspxI was deeply saddened to learn today of the death of Kerryn McCann. We have lost a true champion and hero to millions of Australians. Her performances at the Manchester and Melbourne Commonwealth Games were truly inspiring, winning back-to-back gold medals – the second at the age of 38. No one who watched it will forget the thrilling final three kilometres of the Melbourne marathon when the lead changed six times before McCann pulled clear inside the MCG to win. Kerryn McCann was an extraordinary athlete and a proud mother. She took on her illness with strength and grace. Breast cancer is an insidious disease that continues to rob families and our nation of some of our best and brightest Australians. As a community, we must continue to raise awareness of breast cancer and do our utmost to support the research that is so vital to battling this disease. On behalf of the federal Opposition, I extend our deep sympathies to Kerryn’s husband Greg and to their young family.adminTue, 09 Dec 2008 01:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/13/National-Security-Statement.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=13http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=13&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/13/National-Security-Statement.aspx Source: Parliament House Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Leader of the Opposition) (12.14 pm)—One of the fundamental tests for any government of this country is to be able to say to the people of Australia that the policies it has adopted and the actions it has taken have given all Australians every confidence that they and their families will remain safe and secure. It is the primary responsibility of the national government to ensure that our borders are strongly, securely protected; to ensure that our people and live and work freely, untroubled by threats; and to ensure that the lead agencies on which we rely to safeguard Australians and their interests are well run, well managed and properly resourced. On our side of the House, we are proud that the coalition government left Australia stronger and more secure. We invested massively in our armed forces and security resources, which had been neglected by our predecessors in government. We secured and strengthened key alliances. And when we left government last year Australia was stronger, better defended and more respected around the world. It is in the interests therefore of all Australians that this government, like its predecessor, proves itself to be capable, vigilant and sure-footed in its exercise of these heavy responsibilities, and that is why we have in Australia the tradition of a bipartisan approach wherever possible to the vital questions of protecting Australians and their interests from any threats that may emerge. As opposition leader, I am therefore ready and willing to pledge our support whenever and wherever we can to those in our armed forces, police and other agencies of whom we ask service and sacrifice in the performance of their very difficult and dangerous jobs, and to ensure our national security arrangements are in the very best working order so that Australians can continue to go about their lives with confidence and security from threats. The critical underpinning of national security is rigorous analysis and assessment of those threats now and into the future and the setting of clear priorities in determining our policy responses on how best to manage and minimise those threats. It means ensuring that all of our security agencies are aware of the scope of their mission and their responsibilities, each in its own specialised area, working efficiently, in partnership, in the national service. It also means consolidating and strengthening our key international partnerships to ensure that we can work with like-minded nations and governments to reduce the threats to free societies such as our own. Security in a globalised world is indivisible.The most effective means of advancing and protecting Australia’s interests in the world is to leverage off our nation’s strengths and work energetically through international partnerships with our major allies—the United States, Japan, China, Indonesia, India—and of course our kindred allies, our historically closest allies, such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. Whether the threat of terrorism, the proliferation of mass destruction, the challenges of climate change or the need to advance global free trade, Australia can engage best in strong, principled action when, alongside allies and partners, it can build the critical mass for an effective international approach. For Australia’s security, its economic, political, military and security ties with the United States are of fundamental importance. Today we have a new president-elect in the United States and we wish him well. It is a critical time for consolidating this alliance and ensuring the world’s leading democracy remains engaged in the stability and the security of the Asia-Pacific region. On all of this, the Prime Minister and I will heartily concur, as I am sure all members of this House will. I must, however, raise the very critical issue of the Prime Minister’s management of our alliance with the United States. It is deeply troubling and perplexing to all Australians how and why the Prime Minister’s office involved itself directly in the leaking of details of a private conversation with the President of the United States. This false story, both a breach of confidence and a breach of trust, was fed deliberately and cynically into the public domain to make the Prime Minister appear the font of all knowledge, a know-all, a diplomatic encyclopaedia, and to make the President of the most powerful nation in the world look ill-informed or worse. It breached all of the accepted protocols and practices of international diplomacy. It raised serious question marks over the Australian government’s reliability and trustworthiness not only among Americans, whatever their political persuasion, but across the wider diplomatic community. There is a sense of bewilderment around the world that an Australian Prime Minister would undertake this course of action. We have had no explanation for it, no apology. The Australian newspaper, which published the Prime Minister’s self-serving account of his conversation, has never been asked to publish a correction or a retraction. There is no doubt at all that this selfserving story, so demeaning of our strongest ally, our greatest ally, was fed into the Australian newspaper completely heedless of the consequences it would have for our relationship with America. This is simply no way to conduct diplomacy with any nation, let alone our most important ally, and I fear Australian ministers and prime ministers will be reminded of this breach of faith for many years to come when they go to Washington. It was a tragic error. On Japan too, our biggest trading customer, our biggest trading partner and an increasingly significant partner in other fields of endeavour—security, environmental matters and so forth—there has also been serious mismanagement. The Prime Minister neglected to incorporate Tokyo in the first of his many overseas trips. And then he unleashed his environment minister, Mr Garrett, for a series of over-the-top PR stunts against the Japanese government, a number of which he has had to retreat from subsequently. Nonetheless, they were as offensive to Japan as they were ultimately futile and humiliating for Australians. And what of the bundle of absurd contradictions that is Labor’s policy on the mining and sale of uranium which is holding back closer economic and strategic relations with India? Even in China, where the Prime Minister undoubtedly has special experience, our relationship has not been all plain sailing. What possessed the Prime Minister to be so extravagant in his language as to describe China’s investments in its military as ‘part of an arms race in Asia’, a remark that earned a very swift rebuke? Likewise, his grand plan for an Asia-Pacific community has fallen flat in capitals around the region, not least because he sprang it on everybody—including, it would appear, his envoy, Mr Woolcott—by surprise and without consultation. As to his plans to secure a seat for Australia on the United Nations Security Council, I simply make the observation that perceptions often become reality in international politics as they do, indeed, in domestic politics. It would be very troubling indeed if others came to perceive Australia’s recent change—the decision by the Prime Minister to change Australia’s standing position by voting on two resolutions against Israel at the UN General Assembly—as having something to do with our need to garner support for a Security Council seat. I have to say that in many circles that is how it is perceived. The Prime Minister will need to address that at some point. I make these criticisms more in sorrow than in anger—indeed there is no anger at all. I make these criticisms constructively because I believe errors have been made, it is our job to hold the government to account and they need to learn from these errors. It is a fundamental reality of Australia’s role in the world that to have a significant influence we must have a significant voice. That will be determined by the quality of our ideas and the expertise of our diplomatic representatives. Critical to this is that we not come across as presumptuous or too big for our boots. There is a fine line between boxing above your weight, which is what Australia has always sought and almost invariably been able to do, and being seen to be presumptuously or pompously lecturing the world. There is a very careful balance involved in this.One good example in recent times, from last year, where we were able to make a significant difference in matters relating to our neighbours, particularly Indonesia, with a high-quality idea was the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, where we brought together advanced technology, satellites and radar, to help ensure the development of sustainable forestry in the developing tropical rainforest countries both in our neighbourhood and around the world. That was a case where the quality of our ideas was well respected. We did not have the muscle as a middle power to enforce a scheme like this on the world, but it was the quality of the idea and the technology that we were able to offer that saw it taken up. I note that the new Rudd government have continued this initiative, although naturally they rebranded it so that not too many people imagine it had its origins with their predecessors. In the 21st century Australians have every reason to be secure, confident and self-assured about our place in the world. We are one of the top 15 world economies and in the top 10 for average per capita wealth. We are one of the world’s oldest and most successful democracies, proud of our commitment to political and economic freedom. We have a well-educated workforce, thriving cities, an independent judiciary, a robust free press and a society very strengthened and enriched by its diversity. That is one of our greatest strengths, of which we have often spoken in this place—and I know the Prime Minister and I have the same view on that. We are a significant country in science, commerce, medicine, sport and the arts. There is a great deal to celebrate, and we should do so. Very often I think Australians are too hard on Australia. We should often speak more positively about our achievements. There is much to protect—and that, therefore, is the key  responsibility of those we elect to govern us. The government has taken more than a year in office to produce this statement delivered by the Prime Minster in the House today. It has taken the government more than a year of protracted deliberations to identify and articulate its priorities. As an opposition we have been prepared to wait patiently for a well-considered and well-constructed outline of policy. We have been prepared to wait patiently for the Prime Minister to display the command that he reminds us he has of all things international. We have been prepared to wait patiently for him to deliver on his big promises. As I said, these matters should be, wherever possible, bipartisan. But I must say—again in a tone of constructive criticism—that prime ministers who seek bipartisan support for matters of national security should be prepared to be open. Only last week my office contacted the Prime Minister’s office to seek a briefing on the statement that he intended to deliver on these vitally important issues for our nation’s wellbeing. We received no briefing, and I simply note without comment that this 40-page document was handed to my office just after the stroke of 9 am today. As to the statement itself, we note that the Labor Party has abandoned its election pledge to create a  department of homeland security. This is one broken promise for which we can all be very thankful. It was a very poorly conceived idea—a cheap copy of an American experiment. It was crafted more to capture campaign headlines than as a serious public policy reform. But before we give the final last rites to the Prime Minister’s department of homeland security let us recall the critique of our, the coalition government’s, national security apparatus by the then opposition spokesman on homeland security, Mr Arch Bevis. I quote him from 3 October 2007. Mr Bevis said: New threats have emerged that demand a rethink of our nation’s strategic and tactical response. The Federal Government saw the importance of combining critical security agencies under one command in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics, yet it has avoided the difficult decisions in restructuring its own departments to provide a similar single structure for homeland security. The Howard Government’s continuing insistence on splitting these functions over a number of departments invites overlap, wastage, confusion and missed opportunities. The logic of those who argue that civilian security should be administered in separate departments responsible to various ministers is reminiscent of those who argued forty years ago, that Australia should maintain separate Ministers for Army, Navy, Air Force and Supply. No one today would disagree with the decision in the early 1970’s to create a Defence  department with a single Minister for Defence. The same clear sighted vision for non military security agencies is required today. He concludes this trenchant assault on the Howard government’s mismanagement of national security by saying: Interdepartmental committees are not a substitute for a single minister with clear responsibility for a Department of Homeland Security … So that was to be the template for a Rudd revolution to overhaul in its entirety our national security establishment. According to Labor’s critique, the coalition had been putting Australians in harm’s way by allowing each of our security agencies to operate within its own area of specialisation. Labor’s answer was to bring it all into one gigantic superbureaucracy, and today the Prime Minister himself has exposed that proposition as the hoax it always was. The truth of it is that what Labor was proposing was a wasteful and costly exercise in bureaucracy. It would have meant reinventing well established patterns of cooperation and coordination between our key security agencies and confusing and complicating the existing practice of reporting lines within and between those agencies. So it is welcome that the Prime Minister is prepared to jettison one of the key planks—possibly the key plank—of the national security policy he took to the last election. For this we can thank the sound, determined and intelligent advice of our professionals in the field. The Prime Minister was strongly advised as far back as July, in the report by the former Secretary of the Department of Defence Mr Ric Smith, that he should not go ahead with his plans for this Rudd security revolution. It took the Prime Minister a long time to swallow this particular medicine, but the fact that he has now agreed to the unceremonious dumping of this centrepiece of Labor’s national security policy is a victory for common sense. So what is now the centrepiece of this national security policy? What are the policy breakthroughs that will fortify our nation against future threats unknown? First, we have a reannouncement of the defence white paper, which the minister promised would be delivered by the end of this year but which is now not expected until as late as May. Then we have an undertaking by the Prime Minister to commission a white paper on counterterrorism to be delivered at an unspecified date next year. Let me just note that the Howard government released a white paper on terrorism less than four years ago: Transnational terrorism: the threat to Australia— 112 pages of detailed, state-of-the-art analysis of the threat posed by global terrorist groups, an exploration and discussion of what motivates their murderous attacks on free societies like our own and a wealth of rigorously researched policy responses across domestic, regional and international arenas, incorporating all agencies seeking to meet that challenge. So we have to ask whether this announcement of a new white paper on counterterrorism is not simply a response to the inevitable wake-up call from last week’s murderous assault in Mumbai. Was it then that the Prime Minister realised that his own national security statement had been caught rather light on in how it dealt with the central challenges of counterterrorism? So, to disguise the lack of energy and application he has devoted to this, the main contemporary threat to free societies such as our own today, he is asking for another leave pass to have another go at it and make yet another statement. In his statement, the Prime Minister says that Australia’s diplomacy must be the best in the world—and we agree with that, and to achieve that capability it must be properly resourced, but our security agencies are critical to protecting Australians at home and abroad—and that his government is committed to ‘ensuring that our agencies are resourced appropriately to meet the challenges of terrorist threats’. We would all say amen to that, but let us measure the Prime Minister’s rhetoric against the reality. In his first budget, the Rudd government cut $1.3 billion over five years from government departments and agencies involved in national security. Four hundred and twenty-one million dollars has been cut through the application of the  government’s one-off two per cent efficiency dividend. Nine hundred and thirteen million dollars was stripped from departments and agencies by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation’s razor gang—that includes $680 million from the Department of Defence and $232 million from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has lost nearly $120 million over five years from its budget, including 305 jobs from the section of the department ‘whose outcomes reflect the department’s primary responsibility for developing and implementing foreign and trade policy on matters of international security, trade policy and global cooperation that advances Australia’s national interest’. This is despite the Prime Minister saying he wants Australia to be more involved with the Pacific, that he wants to step up  engagement with Asia, that he wants to pursue a seat on the Security Council and that he wants to create a European Union-style Asia-Pacific Union. The Prime Minister has simply not put his money where his mouth is. When we look at the Australian Federal Police, it is much the same story. Labor in opposition promised to fund an increase in Federal Police numbers by 500, yet we find in the Australian Federal Police’s annual report that the AFP had an operating loss for 2007-08 of $43.5 million. How can it be argued that this government is providing sufficient support to Australia’s premier law enforcement agency, which is on the front line of the counterterrorism effort? Then we have the finance minister’s attack in parliament only last week over what he said was an oversupply of computers to public servants. The finance minister was critical of public servants having two computers on their desks. What the finance minister appears not to understand is that those working within our security apparatus often have a legitimate need for two computers or more. If the government begins stripping agencies of computers for their offices, how will this improve our agencies’ security and intelligence operations? We trust that the appointment of Mr Duncan Lewis as the Prime Minister’s national security adviser will see the Minister for Finance and Deregulation quickly disavowed of this superficial analysis of that question. We warmly welcome Mr Lewis into his new role. He is an experienced professional and has long been an outstanding contributor to our national security effort. Indeed, there will be a considerable continuity between the job he has been doing for some years and this new title role that he is being given. We must also note that this appointment appears to signal the centralising of the national security responsibility in the Office of the Prime Minister. We remind the Prime Minister of the onus this places upon him. The buck will certainly stop with him. The opposition will reserve judgement of much of the detail in this document until we have had a chance to fully explore it and, hopefully, had the benefit of the briefings we sought and were denied only last week. I note that there are several instances of rebadging about to happen. That is a common theme with the Rudd government—in particular, the renaming of the Australian Customs and border protection service. What does this mean for the existing agency, known as Border Protection Command, which is currently led by a rear admiral and coordinates defence, Customs and fisheries. Is the Navy about to become an appendage of Customs? One would think not. How is that going to work? The paper says that it will create a capability to task and analyse intelligence and to coordinate surveillance. Border protection command already does this, and very capably, with assets such as Coastwatch, Navy and Customs patrol vessels. In other respects, this statement offers a précis of the widely accepted realities of Australia’s strategic outlook—the rise of China and the emergence of India as the two key dynamics of shifting power balances in our world. But it continues the Rudd government’s tradition of deferring action into the future. There is a foreign policy statement to come, a defence white paper to come—I could have said that it is coming like Christmas; but it is going to come well after Christmas—an energy white paper to come, a counterterrorism white paper, a new one, to come, along with the National Energy Security Assessment. The Prime Minister says officials need ‘greater institutional agility’, and yet his paper adds new layers of management and centralises activities, without stating what problems exist or what benefits centralisation delivers. The Prime Minister has touched in passing on a number of threats to security in our region. He made some remarks about climate change, the consequence of climate change on developing countries and the impact that may have for national security. I would say to the Prime Minister that there are very serious issues associated with drought—and water scarcity, in particular— across the region. The impact of climate change is there. But there has also been massive and unsustainable overexploitation of water resources in the two largest countries in our region, India and China. There is considerable evidence, for example, that the agricultural production capacity of the North China Plain, which feeds 400 million people in China, will be severely diminished by the depletion of the groundwater resources there. What are the implications for China—for its political stability, for its relations with the rest of the region—if there are very significant reductions in its capacity to produce the food to feed its population? Similar comments could be made about overexploitation of water in northern India. And this is why, when we were in government, we went to great pains to ensure that we worked closely with our neighbours—in particular, China—on these issues of water scarcity. Because, while we must collaborate in terms of climate change mitigation and achieving an effective global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must lso recognise that achieving the adaptation to climate change and to problems like water scarcity internationally can be just as important for us. Of course, we delivered a world-leading initiative here in Australia with the previous Prime Minister’s National Plan for Water Security. It may be that, in the decades to come, water scarcity in China and India will be as significant an issue for Australians as water scarcity in our own country is. That is why the cooperation that we initiated has been so important. This underlines an element that I believe was missing from the Prime Minister’s statement on national security and that is this: it is a vital element of our national interest—as well as, I believe, being in our interests to play a constructive role in our region—that Australia maintains, and indeed enhances, its capacity to produce food. We must recognise that food security is going to be a critical issue. It is perfectly plain that a larger global population will need more food. It is equally plain that a wealthier global population will need a bit more food and, in particular, more grain because of the growing inability to afford meat. It is also clear that in many regions, as I have stated, the ability to produce food is diminishing because of water scarcity. We must be clearly focused on ensuring that Australia’s ability to produce food is not diminished. That is why we differ from the government in its approach to the implementation of our National Plan for Water Security. Too much emphasis is being given by this government on buying back water entitlements and not enough is being given to improving the efficient use of water and enabling us to produce more food with less water—in other words, to make every drop count. This is not simply a domestic issue; it has very significant international ramifications. That is why we should be very focused on ensuring that we, prudently and in an environmentally sustainable way, are able to expand agriculture in the north of Australia, where, of course, we have most of our nation’s water resources.  Having said those things, we must reserve our judgement on much of the content of the Prime Minister’s statement. Much of it, of course, is uncontroversial, but there are a number of initiatives, as I have noted, that we will need to look at more carefully and on which we will need to obtain a briefing from his officials. This statement is a lengthy one, but it is not by any means a bold or particularly clear step through the intellectual fog. Not even the Prime Minister would describe this as swift and decisive, although he may well do so—he is very fond of doing so. I can see that the Prime Minister is thinking to himself, ‘Watch me, mate; I’ll do that.’ The statement does not adequately and unequivocally describe what the government intends to do about the main security challenges facing us in the years ahead. So much of it is thrown into the future, into new structures, new reviews and new reports. As yet, it has not offered us—and we would encourage the government to do this—a clear and concise explanation of the strategic doctrine to which the Rudd government is working, if indeed such a doctrine exists.adminFri, 05 Dec 2008 02:07:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:13http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14/Jorn-Utzon.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=14http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=14&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14/Jorn-Utzon.aspxMr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Leader of the Opposition) (2.18 pm)—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: again I associate the opposition with the fine remarks of the Prime Minister. Jorn Utzon came from a nation of sailors and a family of sailing boat builders. He was a sailor himself. And he came to a city on a harbour filled with sails and he created a most remarkable building, a building that 50 years after it was designed still seems as fresh and modern as it was the moment it was conceived in Jorn Utzon’s mind. What a remarkable creation the Sydney Opera House is. It sits there in Sydney—new, fresh, dynamic, the ultimate in modernity, even though most Australians cannot remember a time when it was not there. And we have the other great symbol of our nation, Uluru, as old as time itself. What a remarkable thing it says about Australia that we have those two great magnificent creations, each of them speaking to our timelessness, our history, but also to the fact that we are a young nation, a new nation always striving forward. Jorn Utzon has inspired so many architects around the world. If you go down to the new National Portrait Gallery you will see his inspiration there. Every city around the world that chooses to hire a great architect— many of them nowadays Australian—to build an iconic building is saying to itself: we want to have a Sydney Opera House; we want to do for our city what Jorn Utzon did for Australia. His building is a song in concrete. It speaks of Sydney but it is bigger than that. As the Prime Minister said, it speaks of a whole exciting nation always new, always looking to the future. Jorn Utzon’s son, Jan, said that when his father closes his eyes he sees the Opera House. Mr Speaker, when we see the Opera House we see in our eyes the spirit of Jorn Utzon.adminWed, 03 Dec 2008 02:09:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:14http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15/Death-of-an-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=15http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=15&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/15/Death-of-an-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspxI was deeply saddened to learn of the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan today. The thoughts and prayers of all Australians are with the soldier’s family, his friends and his colleagues. He was there defending Australia's values, wearing our uniform, serving under our flag. This is a tragic reminder of the enormous danger our forces face in Afghanistan every day. It is understood that two other members of the Special Operations Task Group were also wounded in the attack. As a nation we are immensely proud of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, their service and their sacrifice. As today's tragic events in Mumbai remind us, the threat from terrorism is very real and threatens Australians around the world. Our soldiers in Afghanistan are in the front line of the battle against terrorism. Today we mourn a brave man who has given his all in a war against terrorism that Australia and the free nations of the world must win. adminFri, 28 Nov 2008 02:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:15http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/16/Fair-Work-Bill-2008.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=16http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=16&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/16/Fair-Work-Bill-2008.aspxThe Coalition accepts that the Rudd Government has a mandate for workplace relations change as proposed in their election policy last year. The Coalition accepts WorkChoices is dead.  The Australian people have spoken. The Government’s changes to workplace relations come at a very difficult time for the Australian economy.  We take the Government on trust that these changes have been carefully considered and will not cost jobs. The Coalition acknowledges that industry stakeholders support key elements of the Bill. The Coalition believes that within the Government’s new workplace relations framework, union accountability must be maintained and unlawful behaviour penalised. The matter of individual statutory agreements was dealt with earlier this year in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Act 2008. The Coalition has been advised by industry that the Government’s changes in the Fair Work Bill to provide individual flexibility in Awards and Agreements are sufficient. On this basis, we will not oppose these changes. The Coalition will not oppose the Government’s Fair Work Bill 2008 in the House of Representatives but we reserve our right to propose amendments to improve the operation of the Bill following the Senate Committee process without seeking to frustrate the Government’s election commitment to implement its ‘Forward with Fairness’ election policy.adminWed, 26 Nov 2008 02:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:16http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/17/Address-to-the-National-Press-Club.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=17http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=17&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/17/Address-to-the-National-Press-Club.aspx Source: National Press Club of Australia, Canberra **check against delivery** E&OE…………………… Thank you very much Ken, it’s good to be back and with so many of my colleagues; Deputy Leader Julie Bishop, Leader of the Nationals Warren Truss and many other parliamentary colleagues. Now 2008 has been the year the American sub-prime crisis of 2007 became the global financial crisis. A housing bubble in the United States collapsed. It was less the result of extreme capitalism than of inadequate and inappropriate regulation, social engineering. It was largely funded by government sponsored mortgage funds and indeed encouraged by US Government policy. And of course underlying all of it was the complacency that good times would never end. But we are in a global economic storm and while the intensity of the crisis has escalated dramatically since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid September, the sub-prime crisis and the consequent global credit squeeze has been with us all year. So in assessing the performance of the Rudd Government in its first year, the key question is this: did the Rudd Government respond adequately and effectively to the global financial crisis? Now this is not to overlook the importance of many other issues or those issues that Mr Rudd has handled well. For example, he was right to make an apology to the stolen generation and he was right to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but in the circumstances neither of these symbolic decisions was either courageous or difficult. He was right to make the recent payments to pensioners – after ignoring their plight all year. But it must be noted that the payments were made, not out of a sense of fairness or equity, but as part of a $10 billion fiscal stimulus. Indeed it is difficult to identify any hard decisions that he has taken in his first year. And that is why the Government’s efforts to get a leave pass to run the budget into deficit is of so much concern. Australians understand the importance of living within a budget, whether it’s at the household, the business or the national level.  As Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens observed last week, Australia is well positioned to cope with adversity because it has practised disciplined macroeconomic policies over many years. Governor Stevens also warned that the quality of spending decisions must be maintained even in these difficult times – a clear warning to Mr Rudd not to run the Government into deficit with politically appealing but economically reckless spending. Given the strong public finances Mr Rudd has inherited and the growth forecasts we are relying on for next year, Australians rightly regard the prospect of a deficit budget next year as a failure in economic management – an admission that Mr Rudd could not maintain a strong economy and above all could not live within his means.  Mr Rudd has disappointed on many other policy fronts. His empty grandstanding on FuelWatch and GroceryWatch, not to speak of the cynical hypocrisy over the alcopops tax hike, seems more appropriate to the script of “The Hollowmen” than the real world of government. He has also badly mishandled the implementation of the National Plan for Water Security – the federal leadership over interstate waters which we legislated for in 2007 is being replaced by a return to an ineffectual consensus approach to water planning – a proven failure if there ever was one.  His education revolution is as shambolic as the broadband revolution – neither shows any signs of delivering on the heady campaign rhetoric. But now more than ever the focus of the nation is on the economy. Governments are not just elected to implement policies – not that Mr Rudd had many policies – but they are elected to manage the difficult and the unpredictable. Nobody is assured of fair winds and a calm sea and the real test of leadership is dealing with the unexpected. Mr Rudd of course inherited an economy and public finances the envy of the world. Unemployment at an historic low, high economic growth, all Commonwealth debt paid off. The Treasury was a substantial net lender and the previously unfunded obligations to public service and defence pensions had been provided for in the Future Fund. However, it had become very clear from late 2007 that there were storm clouds on the economic horizon. The sub-prime crisis was already threatening economic growth and Governments and central banks around the world were looking to loosen monetary and fiscal policy to ward off an economic slow down. Mr Rudd’s first response to the sub-prime crisis was dead wrong. For the first eight months of this year, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan behaved as though it didn’t exist. Instead they chose to talk up inflation. Mr Swan famously said it was out of control – “the inflation genie is out of the bottle”. Mr Rudd went further and declared a war on inflation – the first of many campaigns he’s launched this year – and then spoke of an “inflation monster” wreaking havoc across the country. Inflation was outside the Reserve Bank’s target range, but that was not unprecedented and the target range of two to three per cent is to be achieved on average over the cycle. Inflation was elevated, it was higher than desirable but it was most certainly not out of control. It was also a global problem. Commodity prices, especially oil and food, had risen dramatically everywhere. But other governments were more concerned about economic growth at this time, more concerned about jobs. So why was Mr Rudd so focussed on inflation? Why was he out of step with other governments? The answer is a very simple one and it reveals a theme that has continued all year. Mr Rudd has never had an economic strategy, only a political strategy. Like the failed Labor politicians in New South Wales who delivered him the leadership, with Mr Rudd politics always trumps economics. Spin always trumps substance. Mr Rudd wanted to tarnish the economic reputation of the Howard Government.  The only economic metric that was not ideal was inflation, and so he chose to declare war on it. Now in truth Australia’s inflation was no more created by John Howard than the G20 was discovered by Kevin Rudd. But the price of this particular war is being paid now. Inflationary expectations were made worse. The Reserve Bank raised rates twice this year. Those rate rises are impacting on our economy now. So the consequence of Mr Rudd putting politics ahead of economics, of putting spin ahead of substance is that the impact of tighter monetary policy is being felt at precisely the time we need it least. And what was the Opposition doing? We urged the Government not to talk up inflation. We pointed to the growing credit crisis internationally and we urged the Reserve Bank not to raise rates because, we said, the impact of that credit crisis was likely to slow economic growth. For the benefit of hindsight it is clear we made the right call. But at the time we were dismissed by Mr Rudd as having abandoned all economic credibility or indeed of having imbibed too much red cordial. The Budget’s impact was fairly neutral – mildly contractionary or mildly inflationary depending on whom you spoke to. The only puzzle was why the Government delivered such a neutral budget after many weeks of threatening savage cuts to put downward pressure on inflation – this line always delivered by Mr Swan with a gesture presumably designed to indicate him pushing a recalcitrant genie back into its bottle. In the lead up to the Budget, the Opposition argued that the Government should not make savage cuts to expenditure. We pointed out that to have an impact on aggregate demand and hence on inflation the cut to expenditure would have to be in the order of half of one per cent of GDP or between $5 and $6 billion and that we argued was inappropriate given the international situation. That again according to Mr Swan was another example of my dwindling stock of economic credibility. Things got much more serious in mid September after Lehman Brothers collapsed.  Governments around the world moved quickly to secure their financial institutions against collapse. In the United States the Government obtained congressional support for a $700 billion bailout. In the UK the Government stepped up and acquired large equity holdings in the major banks to secure their capital base. Everywhere Governments put in place guarantees on retail deposits, almost all with caps in the $100,000 to $200,000 range. The wholesale borrowings of banks were also offered government guarantees. Now we quickly made an offer to work with the Prime Minister on a bi-partisan basis and wrote to him to seek a meeting to discuss appropriate responses to the worsening global financial crisis. This offer was rejected contemptuously. The most revealing advice on how we should proceed was delivered by his deputy, Ms Gillard, who said we should “just get out of the way”. Mr Swan’s assessment of course was that the Opposition is “completely irrelevant”. The Government’s definition of “bi-partisanship” plainly is unquestioning obedience. Mr Rudd quietly abandoned the war on inflation.  It hadn’t been going very well anyway. If inflation was out of control at three per cent, what could he say now it was five per cent? So absent only a cigar and bowler hat, the Prime Minister then struck a Churchillian pose. The global financial crisis was a “rolling national security crisis”. In short he declared another war. The Opposition sought to make some constructive suggestions. We recommended that the Government invest in the residential mortgage backed securities market, which had basically dried up. This was rubbished by Mr Swan and described as a monumental gaffe – well it was monumental government policy a few days later. On the question of bank deposits we recommended the Government guarantee deposits up to at least $100,000. This was not a particularly original figure – it was pretty much the norm around the world.  Mr Rudd’s response to this proposal was probably the greatest and most far reaching mistake of his year in office. Without directly consulting the Reserve Bank, without even telephoning Glenn Stevens, he decided to guarantee all deposits in Australian banks, building societies and credit unions without any limitation as to the amount. Far from being swift and decisive, it is clear now the decision was rushed and bungled. It was over the top – why would Australia with probably the strongest banking system in the world establish an unlimited deposit guarantee when countries with much weaker banking systems did not do so? It signalled to Australians – wrongly – that there was something wrong with our banking system. Once again politics, this time liberally mixed with a big dose of panic, trumped economics.  Mr Rudd said that this decision had been taken on the advice of, and in the closest consultation, with the Reserve Bank. We now know that was not true. It was not taken in close consultation with the Reserve Bank and while we have not seen the advice the Bank gave the Government, if any, we do know that within a few days the Reserve Bank was warning the Government of real distortions in the financial markets arising from this decision and was urging the Government to impose a cap on the guarantee and I quote; “the lower the better.” That advice was ignored for two weeks and one wonders whether any action would have been taken by the Government to wind back the deposit guarantee to a cap of $1 million if the advice from the Reserve Bank had not been published on the front page of The Australian. The unlimited bank deposit guarantee has been a financial blunder of epic proportions. As a direct consequence 270,000 Australians with investments in unguaranteed mortgage funds and cash management trusts have had their savings frozen. Finance companies which support the purchase of motor vehicles in particular have been unable to roll over their short term borrowings – the cash management trusts and the super funds that used to buy their commercial paper are now only investing in guaranteed deposits. Thousands of jobs are at risk in the motor vehicle industry. Even state governments have been up in arms – in practical terms a deposit with Australia’s smallest credit union has a higher credit rating than a bond issued by state government. The leading banks are begging the Government to rollback the guarantee to a cap in the order of that which we originally proposed.  The banks’ representatives are being told by officials that the Prime Minister will never agree to a cap at or approaching that recommended by the Opposition.  Once again politics trumps economics. Even now, more than six weeks later, I find it almost impossible to believe that Mr Rudd did not consult directly, and in person, with the Reserve Bank Governor and his senior officers over the deposit guarantee. It is as bizarre as deciding to declare war without speaking directly to the generals. But not content with bungling the retail deposit guarantee, the Rudd Government has bungled the wholesale term funding guarantee. Now that is designed to enable banks to access the wholesale funding markets, internationally, where traditionally they’ve sourced around half of all their wholesale funding. We supported the wholesale guarantee – after all other countries had done the same and Australian banks should not be disadvantaged. But we urged the Government to legislate for the wholesale guarantee. There were two reasons for that. The first is that while the Government can give a guarantee administratively, it cannot pay out on it without an appropriation law being passed by the Parliament. It is obvious that without that law being passed credit rating agencies, potential investors around the world, will not regard the Government’s guarantee as being unconditional, irrevocable and timely in terms of payment – that is what Standard & Poors have indicated will be required for a AAA rating – it’s self evident, it’s commonsense, it’s belt and braces, law and indeed economics. And the second reason of course is that the wholesale term funding guarantee involves the Government taking on potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of contingent liabilities. This should be the subject of a parliamentary debate. It should be the subject of legislation in the interests of transparency and accountability which sets a sunset date, which requires the fees to be charged to be on commercial terms and requires the extent of the guarantees given to be disclosed to Parliament.  Now the Government’s reaction to our proposal has been characteristically abusive and dismissive. As recently as last Thursday, the Finance Minister was adamant that no legislation would be introduced. He brushed aside the report from Standard & Poors. Since then the Australian banks have been unable to go out into the markets to raise money pursuant to the guarantees offered. The UK banks have been busy raising money. Their government has stated that it will legislate and legislation is before the parliament. Gordon Brown apparently has a better grip of both constitutional law and markets than Mr Rudd, Mr Swan and Mr Tanner. Once again Australian banks have been begging the Government to fix this blunder up too. Mr Rudd’s ineptitude is shutting off the cash flow banks need to lend to their customers. Again officials are telling them the Prime Minister has been reluctant to do anything that may appear to concede a win to the Opposition. Now the bungled guarantee saga demonstrate that far from playing politics with this issue, the Opposition has made constructive and, as it turns out, correct proposals on this important area of economic policy. We were right on the inflation issue at the beginning of the year. We were right on the retail deposit guarantee and we have been right on the wholesale term funding guarantee. Now if I appear too harsh in my criticism, let me observe that I recognise that these are very difficult times and mistakes will be made. A more prudent, less panicked, Prime Minister would not have gone for an unlimited deposit guarantee at the outset but set the level at the global benchmark, around $100,000, and then adjusted it up only if absolutely required. A more commercially astute Prime Minister would have recognised a government guarantee without an appropriation law being passed would not be effective, especially in these anxious times. But recognising Mr Rudd is in unfamiliar territory. Nonetheless when a policy is shown to be mistaken it should be swiftly corrected. And yet we see an extraordinary reluctance to change tack not for fear of demonstrating the Opposition has been right, but rather that the Prime Minister has been wrong. Running through all of these errors is the relentless desire of the Prime Minister to show that he is right and above all much cleverer than anyone else. How else can we explain the appalling incident concerning the G20 conversation? It would be bad enough if he had simply been indiscreet – as many people in this room know, there are many politicians who can be described as the soul of indiscretion. But Mr Rudd gave a version of that conversation to The Australian which he now concedes was false and was designed purely and simply to make him appear clever and the United States President stupid. Every line of the story given to The Australian was designed to aggrandise Mr Rudd – whether it was his superior knowledge of the G20, his special insights into China or the way in which he claims he stood up to Mr Bush. Perhaps that’s why Mr Rudd refuses to answer questions in Parliament, why he appears indignant that the completely irrelevant Opposition dares to challenge any of his policies.  Well, here is the news from the battlefront of Mr Rudd’s latest war. He has acquired a rare and unique international distinction. He is the only national leader whose policies in response to the global financial crisis have actually made the situation in his country worse and as a consequence put at risk the jobs and financial security of all Australians. If he had done no more than other comparable governments had done; if he had imposed a limited deposit guarantee; if he had legislated in a timely way for the wholesale guarantee; if earlier in the year he had not talked up inflation and interest rates, then he could have said that his policy responses had at least moderated the impact of the global financial crisis. But whether it was politics or panic, or more likely a bit of both, Kevin Rudd’s response to the global financial crisis has left us worse off than we otherwise would have been. Today marks not just the first year of the Rudd Government of course, but also the first year of the Coalition in Opposition. Now we will continue to make constructive proposals to deal with what Mr Rudd likes to call the “GFC” and in doing so hope to reduce the impact of what others are coming to call the “KFC”. The three top priorities of the Government in this coming year must be jobs, jobs, jobs. As part of our efforts to preserve high employment, I believe we need urgently to review our laws relating to corporate insolvency. Over the years I have been an advocate of Australia adopting rules which enable and promote corporate reorganisation and rehabilitation having regard to the more successful features, but not slavishly following, the US Chapter 11, which of course has elements that would not be appropriate in an Australian context. Now this approach, this approach towards rehabilitation and reorganisation, rather than liquidation, has been considered and rejected in years past largely because of pressure from the major banks who want to preserve their maximum leverage as secured lenders. Now this is not the place for a lengthy discussion of insolvency law, but I believe that one of the reasons the United States economy has always been so resilient, bouncing back from adversity much faster than other nations, is because its insolvency laws encourage companies to reorganise and restructure in bankruptcy rather than simply heading down the road of liquidation and fire-sale. Now this is not an esoteric issue only involving bankers, lawyers and accountants. In the course of my life I have seen many businesses, and many more jobs, destroyed by heavy handed receiverships and liquidations. All too often senior lenders take the approach of breaking up and selling businesses for whatever they can get, so long as it is enough to cover their debt, with no regard to the interests of unsecured creditors, shareholders and employees. I invite the Government to sit down with us quickly to discuss the changes that could be made to our insolvency laws to ensure that a higher priority is given to continuity and rehabilitation of businesses and above all to the preservation of jobs. Mr Rudd has said a lot about corporate salaries recently. Most of it has been completely ill informed. There are special problems with designing remuneration in financial institutions. In a nutshell the challenge is to ensure that people are not rewarded for writing new business, such as making loans without taking into account the consequences of those loans going bad.  Put another way, you have to ensure that there is indeed a sting in the tail. Now this is a complex area and one every bank is very focussed on, as they should be. Now, far from being an apologist for lavish corporate remuneration, in 1992 Lucy and I took the directors of Fairfax to court, successfully, to stop them issuing themselves options exercisable at $1.00 when the stock price was $1.50. In 2004 the Coalition legislated to allow for the disclosure of senior executives’ and of course directors’ remuneration and for a non-binding resolution by shareholders on those remuneration reports. But if you are going to ask the shareholders, why should their decision be non-binding? It’s like asking someone their opinion and saying, in the same breath, “I won’t take any notice of what you say unless you agree with me”. The fact is that many Australians are appalled by the level of executive salaries and even more astonished that shareholders’ opinions can be ignored. The law should be changed so that the shareholders resolution on the remuneration report, or at least that part relating to the chief executive, as well as directors, is binding. This would clearly place the remuneration of senior executives and directors directly in the hands of shareholders. It is their company, and nobody else’s. Let the executives justify their pay to the shareholders and if the shareholders don’t approve it, then so be it. In this vein of practical measures to respond to the financial crisis, last week the Shadow Minister for Small Business, Steven Ciobo, proposed an important reform to assist small business. At the moment there are heavy penalties if businesses paying their tax in advance in quarterly instalments underestimate their final tax due by more than 15 per cent. Mr Ciobo has called for that margin of error to be doubled to 30 per cent for the 2008-2009 financial year. This would provide significant financial assistance or cash flow assistance to small businesses and, given the economic circumstances, is fiscally prudent in our view. Somewhat overshadowed at present by the global financial crisis is the great challenge of climate change, our response to it and in particular the design of the emissions trading scheme. Now, I am not a climate change sceptic. I believe that we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt and work to secure an effective global agreement to reduce our emissions to a safe level. Australia as a developed and wealthy nation should play a leading role. And in many respects, not least with deforestation and clean coal research, we are already playing a world leading role thanks to programs initiated by the previous Coalition Government. But we must not design an ETS that imposes heavy carbon costs on Australian trade exposed industries and which simply has the effect of reducing their competiveness and over time driving investment and jobs offshore to countries with no price on carbon. Exporting the emissions is as pointless as exporting the jobs is economically destructive. And that is why when we were in Government we proposed an ETS which would have required emissions intensive, trade exposed industries to maintain global best practice in terms of emissions, but would otherwise have exempted them from the scheme until such time as the countries with which they competed had a comparable carbon price. This common sense approach has been abandoned apparently by Mr Rudd and only on Friday he declared he was committed to imposing a heavy carbon price on Australia’s LNG industry, which of course produces the world’s cleanest fossil fuel. Remember every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Australia in making LNG saves eight tonnes of CO2 when it is burned in China instead of coal. Now our ETS must be carefully and responsibly designed. We do not believe the design can be responsibly completed prior to the end of next year by which time we will know what President Obama’s own ETS is likely to look like and above all what the nations of the world are likely to commit to at the Copenhagen Summit. That is why we believe the appropriate start date for an ETS is not before 2011. Our first year of Opposition has been a time for reflection and for renewal. We have heard the lessons of the 2007 election loud and clear. WorkChoices is dead. The people have spoken. We are working hard on new policies. A particular focus is tax. In our view we should aim for tax to be lower, fairer and simpler.  And we are working closely with Henry Ergas and others to achieve those objectives. In that context, as we discuss the possibility of further fiscal stimuluses, our view is that the most effective fiscal stimulus is a cut in taxation. It achieves the same objective of putting money into people’s pockets as grants do, but at the same time it provides real incentives for work, for investment, for employment. While policies will change over time, not least in response to the events of the day, our values are enduring. We stand for freedom in a fair society. We believe that government’s duty is to enable you to do your best.  That is the duty of government. Mr Rudd view of government is that it is there to tell you what is best. We recognise that the prosperity of this country has not been created by governments but by the energy and the enterprise of millions of Australians.  Very few of the men and women who will ensure Australia comes through this economic storm are to be found in government. They are in thousands of businesses, large and small. It is their commitment and above all their confidence that is vital to our continued prosperity. Last time I spoke to the Press Club I described Mr Rudd’s style as “Morris Iemma comes to Canberra”. Residents of New South Wales know what years of Labor spin, political stunts and economic mismanagement deliver.  Mr Rudd has had some good reviews lately – well so did Mr Carr and after eleven years what had he achieved other than an album full of glowing headlines? Australia deserves a government that is capable of making the right decisions in the national interest – based on sound, experienced economic judgement. That is the government we are committed to offer Australian people in 2010. Thank you.adminTue, 25 Nov 2008 02:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:17http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/18/Rudd-must-backflip-on-bungled-bank-guarantees.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=18http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=18&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/18/Rudd-must-backflip-on-bungled-bank-guarantees.aspxThe Prime Minister and Treasurer have now been delivered a clear message from both the major banks and the Opposition that the Government must fix its bungled wholesale term funding and bank deposit guarantees. Australia’s major banks (AFR, 21/11, p1) and the Opposition are jointly calling on the Government to: present legislation to provide for an appropriation to give effect to the wholesale term funding guarantee for Australian deposit-taking institutions; and wind back the unlimited bank deposit guarantee from $1 million to a cap much closer to that proposed by the Coalition. Had the Government taken up the Opposition’s offer of bipartisanship these serious policy mistakes could have been avoided, and the necessity for us and the major banks to pressure the Government publicly averted. As the Opposition has consistently stated over the last month, most recently on Monday, there is an urgent need for appropriation legislation to enable the speedy payout of any guarantee that is called upon – this being essential to properly give force to the guarantee.  Unless the guarantee is backed with an appropriation, the banks will not receive the benefit of the guarantee when raising funds in international money markets and neither will millions of customers through lower interest rates, fees and charges. While not legally necessary to make the guarantee effective, it is desirable for transparency and accountability that the legislation also provide for a sunset date, a commitment for the guarantee to be on commercial terms, and appropriate reference to supervision by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. I also noted on Monday that the Opposition would facilitate the speedy passage of the necessary legislation, but we required early notification and discussion with the Government to ensure the efficacy of the guarantee. To date, I have not received a reply from the Government.adminSat, 22 Nov 2008 02:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:18http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19/HMAS-Sydney-Memorial-Service.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=19http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=19&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/19/HMAS-Sydney-Memorial-Service.aspxE&OE………… The man to whom we have come to pay our respects today once walked among us.  He was one of our sons, and one of our mates. He joined with his shipmates in taking on the tyrants of the world. He did so bravely. He asked for no quarter. He stood up to the greatest enemies freedom had ever faced and above all he stood up as all sailors do to the magnificence, the omnipotence of the ocean. It is said there are no atheists in a foxhole. I don’t believe there are any atheists on the deck of a warship on the mighty ocean when they recognise that their fierce guns and their powerful engines are as nothing compared to that mighty, primeval, often cruel creation – the ocean itself. No doubt he went to sea looking for adventure, patriotism, serving his country, seeing the world. He recognised the brutalities of war; he recognised the risk of death, the risk of defeat. But he went there filled with optimism and courage and looked forward to a life after battle, a life after the victories with his family and his friends, living a life of peaceful contentment. A life that was cut short in that cruel battle. And so many of you today lost fathers and loved ones, shipmates, in that terrible battle. So we remember him and we remember all of the men who sank with the Sydney that day, all 645 of them, and all the other sailors who have served Australia in wars defending our freedom. These were deeply troubling times. We know that, in that threatening world, he loved his country, and saw in Australia freedoms and values he should fight to preserve. So he rose to the challenge history had set for him. He sailed the world, under our flag. He saw war in all of its fury, the ocean in all of its magnificence and cruelty but he did not flinch. He came home a hero, at a time when this nation was in its greatest need of heroes. And then came that awful day of November the 19th, 1941. Keeping watch on our sea approaches, he saw on the horizon a ship that should not have been there and was not what it appeared to be. As a part of that crew of 645 brave Australian seamen, he set off in pursuit; never to return. The man to whom we pay our respects today died in our name. Not only for the Australia he knew, but for the Australia still to come. And that is why we honour him, and all who lie at rest today having served our nation. They were all of them our mates, and they died in our name. And that is why the unknown sailor and all sailors will be forever in our hearts.adminThu, 20 Nov 2008 03:04:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:19http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/20/Assistance-for-the-people-of-South-East-Queensland.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=20http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=20&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/20/Assistance-for-the-people-of-South-East-Queensland.aspxThe federal Opposition strongly supports the measures announced today by the Government to provide financial assistance to the people of South East Queensland affected by Sunday’s devastating storms. The one off payments of $1000 for adults and $400 for each child are appropriate and the Government should stand ready to provide further direct assistance if it is considered necessary. The activation of the Commonwealth Disaster Plan and the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements and the deployment of ADF personnel to the area is also welcomed and supported by the Opposition. The thoughts of all Australians are with those families whose lives have been turned upside down by Sunday’s storm. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Julie Bishop MP will travel to Brisbane tomorrow to visit the affected areas with the Member for Ryan, Mr Michael Johnson MP.adminWed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:20http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/21/Wholesale-Term-Funding-Guarantee.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=21http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=21&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/21/Wholesale-Term-Funding-Guarantee.aspxThe Rudd Government must immediately present legislation to authorise the provision of wholesale term funding guarantees to Australian banks. Without legislation the guarantees will not be effective commercially or practically. The Opposition will facilitate the speedy passage of the necessary legislation. But the Government should circulate the legislation for the consideration of all parties this week and enable the Opposition to discuss it fully with the Government. The legislation should include provisions that deal with a sunset date and a commitment to the guarantee being provided on commercial terms.  It should take into account any further or additional prudential supervision that may be required; the role of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in this process should be explicit.  There should be a provision in the legislation to require the immediate tabling in Parliament of any guarantees given by the Government indicating the amount guaranteed and the institution involved; transparency is paramount given the potential size of the guarantees.  This would have been much easier to resolve had the Government acted in the bipartisan manner we proposed several months ago and sat down with us to discuss these measures collaboratively. They instead urged us, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s words, “to just get out of the way” because we were, as the Treasurer said, “completely irrelevant.”  So much for bipartisanship. Despite this the Opposition is prepared to work cooperatively with the Government and urges it to present any proposed legislation to the Opposition this week. For nearly a month now, the Opposition has urged the Government to make its wholesale term funding guarantee arrangements the subject of legislation. The Government has rejected this suggestion and affirmed, as recently as last Thursday in Question Time, that it proposed to implement the wholesale term funding guarantee without any legislation. Two facts are acknowledged by both the Government and the Opposition. First, the wholesale term funding guarantee involves the Commonwealth taking on very substantial contingent liabilities. Indeed MYEFO describes them as “unquantifiable”.  Second, while the Commonwealth can grant the guarantee administratively (without legislation), it cannot pay any moneys pursuant to such a guarantee without the Parliament passing an appropriation bill; in short, the Government might be able to write a cheque but without the approval of the Parliament, it cannot be cashed. The Government’s position, therefore, seems to be that Parliament should be ignored when the decision to assume “unquantifiably” large liabilities is taken. So much for democracy. But this is very much in the style of a Government that has refused to debate its response to the global financial crisis in the Parliament and is yet to deliver a coherent answer to any question asked of it about its response. But if arguments about democracy and accountability to the Parliament are of no importance to Mr Rudd, there is another reason why legislation is vital – a reason the Government has either wilfully, or incompetently, ignored. For a Government guarantee to be given a AAA credit rating, the Government’s obligation to pay on the guarantee must be, in the words of Standard & Poors, “unconditional, irrevocable and timely”. This is no more than common sense – the beneficiary of a guarantee wants to know that if a default occurs he will get his money quick smart. Without legislation, any payment on the proposed Government guarantee will be conditional on an appropriation bill being passed. It will not be timely – who is to say how long Parliament may take to pass the appropriation bill; for example, the Parliament may be in recess. The consequence of the Government’s bungling of yet another aspect of its response to the global financial crisis is that the wholesale term funding guarantee, which is designed to facilitate Australian banks borrowing in global wholesale markets, will not effectively achieve its purpose. Australian banks will lose out, as will the millions of Australians who depend on them for finance. It is worth noting that other countries are dealing with this matter by legislation, notably the United Kingdom. There are only two sitting weeks left this year. The Government has wasted a lot of time getting this matter wrong, now it must move swiftly to get it right.   It is time for Labor to put party politics aside and work cooperatively with the Coalition in the nation’s interest.adminTue, 18 Nov 2008 03:16:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:21http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/22/Remembrance-Day.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=22http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=22&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/22/Remembrance-Day.aspxI wish to associate the opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister and compliment him on his very eloquent address at the Remembrance Day ceremony at the War Memorial. When we look back on the horror of the First World War—the scale of the casualties—the horror is mind boggling, almost beyond our comprehension. The numbers are staggering in a world, a society, much greater than the country from which those brave fallen men came. We contemplate an Australia a quarter the size of what it is today in terms of population and then the horror of Fromelles, that most cataclysmic of Australian military campaigns, where 5,533 Australians would die between one nightfall and the next. It was possibly the worst 24 hours in our nation’s history. We think of the mighty struggles undertaken and the thousands of men whose lives were lost to gain a few metres ground, only to lose it again. We think of Villers-Bretonneux, the village where Australian and French forces had to fight literally door-to-door to drive their enemy into retreat. And we think of the 1,200 Anzacs who died to rescue that village, to liberate it, three years to the day after the landing at Gallipoli. Over 320,000 Australians volunteered for the First World War, this from a nation of five million. There were 61,000 killed and 155,000 wounded. ‘There were so many of them but we never saw them,’ wrote Les Carlyon in The Great War, his epic study of the Australian deployment to the Western Front. We never really knew them, or perhaps never knew enough about their lives or deaths. What we have are memories: faded photographs, bits and pieces brought back from the war. Perhaps the one war relic that is most evocative for me is a German button brought back by my grandfather. He no doubt found it on the battlefield. I remember it has written on it ‘Gott mit uns’: God with us. I wonder sometimes whether that was a proud boast by the aggressor nation saying, ‘God is on our side and not on the side of our opponents,’ or whether it was perhaps just a prayer—a silent prayer every day as that soldier buttoned up his greatcoat, hoping that God was indeed with him in the horror of the trenches and indeed with the men he was fighting against on the other side. The Prime Minister spoke today about peace, and that of course is what we must never lose sight of. I am reminded too of Psalm 34, where King David wrote ‘seek peace and pursue it’. It is not enough just to look for it or be aware of the virtues of peace, to be in favour of peace; we must pursue it. In that passage, in the original Hebrew, ‘pursue’ means relentlessly, tirelessly chasing, with the passion of the hunter. That is the challenge that comes to leaders in every age: not simply to be vigilant, not simply to stand up for peace, not simply to seek it but to chase after it, to pursue it relentlessly, tirelessly, with all our heart.adminWed, 12 Nov 2008 03:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:22http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/23/What-does-Mr-Rudd-have-to-hide.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=23http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=23&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/23/What-does-Mr-Rudd-have-to-hide.aspxThe Prime Minister today in Parliament twice refused to deny that he or his office were responsible for the damaging leak of false and misleading details of a private and confidential conversation with the US President on October 10. Mr Rudd has had two weeks since the publication on 25 October of an account of the conversation to explain to the Australian people how these details were leaked to the media. It further appears from Mr Rudd’s responses that no investigation has been instigated into this damaging breach of confidence. This contrasts sharply with extensive investigations launched into other recent security breaches: a Defence Department inquiry into the leaking of a hot issues briefing relating to entertainers visiting Afghanistan, including checking of emails of the Minister for Defence; and an Australian Federal Police internal investigation into the disclosure of sensitive files in Kathmandu, requiring the return to Australia of an AFP officer to assist the investigation. Clearly Mr Rudd applies one rule for his own office and another for the rest of the Government. Until Mr Rudd satisfactorily answers questions about how this leak occurred, he leaves in jeopardy the credibility and integrity of Australia’s formal diplomatic exchanges with key international partners. If Mr Rudd cannot be trusted to deal in confidence with sensitive discussions with world leaders, or comes to see it as his prerogative to brief adversely against other heads of government in order to generate publicity for himself, he is acting in a way that can only diminish the respect attached to the office of Prime Minister of Australia. adminTue, 11 Nov 2008 03:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:23http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/25/Gillard-misleads-over-ABC-Learning-funding.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=25http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=25&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/25/Gillard-misleads-over-ABC-Learning-funding.aspxThe Deputy Prime Minister has today sought to claim the Coalition does not support the Government's $22 million funding package for ABC Learning. This is incorrect. As I stated when asked about this issue yesterday, we hope that the $22 million in funding will allow the company the breathing space to be able to sort out their affairs. Ms Gillard's suggestion that the Coalition does not support this measure reveals her determination to play politics even when it involves the concerns of mums and dads about ongoing child care for their kids. Again, as I said yesterday, there won't be one silver bullet to fix this situation, but a viable solution must be found to provide ongoing child care services for the very large number of families who rely on ABC Learning. adminMon, 10 Nov 2008 03:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:25http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/24/Malcolm-Turnbull-Congratulates-John-Key-on-Election-as-New-Zealand-Prime-Minister.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=24http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=24&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/24/Malcolm-Turnbull-Congratulates-John-Key-on-Election-as-New-Zealand-Prime-Minister.aspxOn behalf of the Federal Opposition I congratulate John Key and the National Party of New Zealand on their election win. John Key will bring not just political change to New Zealand, but also his considerable experience in the international financial markets – a background he will put to great use in these current challenging times. New Zealand and Australia are as close as two friends can be – our rivalry on the sporting field notwithstanding! It is vital to Australia that our trans-Tasman neighbour remain strong, energetic and engaged, in our region and the world, and I look forward to Prime Minister Key implementing his policies for reinvigoration and renewal. John Key and his Party is committed, as we are, to the paramount importance of individual freedom, the spirit of enterprise, and the need for responsible economic management by government . Although the challenges ahead will be demanding, I am confident John Key will prove as good as his word in getting the New Zealand economy back onto a strong growth path. I look forward to working closely with him to advance in the interests of both of our nations.  I also pay tribute to the contribution of the Rt Hon Helen Clark to trans-Tasman relations. Throughout  her years as Prime Minister of New Zealand, she has been a stalwart friend of Australia. adminMon, 10 Nov 2008 03:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:24http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/26/Election-of-President-of-the-United-States.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=26http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=26&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/26/Election-of-President-of-the-United-States.aspxOn behalf of the federal Opposition in Australia, I congratulate Senator Barack Obama on his historic election victory and look forward to working closely and productively with the new administration. Senator Obama’s victory is, as he often said during the campaign, a defining moment in history. The idea that an African-American could be President would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago. Consider this: one of the millions of Americans who voted for Senator Obama was herself the daughter of a slave. As President, Barack Obama, will have the opportunity to show the world the strength, resilience and above all the diversity of American democracy. Like Australia, Americans come from every culture, religion and race. Like Australia, America draws its strength from its tolerance, its openness and above all its freedom. Barack Obama’s victory is more than the realisation of Martin Luther King’s dream that one day his little children would be judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character. It is also the opportunity for a stronger America, with a new leader, to take up the call of Dr King to “let freedom ring” around the world. This mighty democracy now has a President who embodies the diversity that is modern America. He can speak to the world not just as an American but as a citizen of the world. Senator Obama’s is a story that transcends, palpably and very powerfully, the everyday discourse of political life. The United States remains Australia’s most important ally, both in its role as the world’s leading democracy and through its crucial contribution to security and stability in our own Asia-Pacific region. Barack Obama is an outstanding American, and a friend of Australia. I am confident he will strive to strengthen still further an alliance which has never been broader, deeper or closer than it is today.    More than ever, in these difficult and testing global conditions, the world will look to the next US president for leadership across a wide spectrum of issues – from stabilising the international financial system, to grappling with the challenges of climate change and energy security; from ensuring the world’s major economies remained committed to open markets and free trade, and to dealing resolutely with the threat to free societies from terrorists and extremists. I firmly believe Senator Obama will provide this leadership with distinction. Australia, too, has a significant role to play in these global debates and for our part we will work to further strengthen and advance the close working relationship between our two countries and in particular with the new President  adminThu, 06 Nov 2008 03:55:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:26http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/27/Rudd-dodging-questions-over-damaging-leak.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=27http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=27&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/27/Rudd-dodging-questions-over-damaging-leak.aspxPrime Minister Kevin Rudd risks further damage to Australia’s international standing by refusing to come clean with an explanation of how his private conversation with the US President leaked to the Australian media. Rather than answer directly important questions on how details of his October 10 phone hook-up to the White House came to be disseminated publicly, Mr Rudd has sought desperately to deflect public scrutiny by demanding of me an apology for comments made by former prime minister, John Howard, more than 18 months ago. For the record, I firmly believe that the next President of the United States, whether it is Senator Obama or Senator McCain, will be resolute and robust in dealing with the threat to free societies posed by terrorism. Plainly, Mr Rudd’s posturing today represents a brazen diversionary tactic. Rather than apologise for the inexcusable leak from his office of confidential exchanges with the US President – an episode which has seriously compromised Australia’s credibility and reputation not only in Washington, but across the international diplomatic community – the Prime Minister prefers to engage in irrelevant partisan game-playing. A week after the US Administration was forced to take the unprecedented step of denying explicitly the published account of the conversation between President Bush and Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister has still to offer an explanation of how, and why, this embarrassing media leak occurred. This is no way to conduct diplomacy with our most important ally. In the United States, Republicans and Democrats alike must be left to wonder whether the Australian Government can be trusted to honour the protocols and practices relating to private and confidential discussions between heads of government. It is incumbent on Mr Rudd to clear the air by ordering an official inquiry, ideally by the Australian Federal Police, in the hope of preventing similar breaches in future. For unless the Prime Minister is prepared to offer a full and frank explanation for this egregious breach of the accepted rules of diplomacy, the danger is he will no longer be taken into the confidence of other world leaders. Such an outcome would be extremely damaging to Australia’s interests.  adminWed, 05 Nov 2008 03:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:27http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/28/Government-must-act-to-end-savings-freeze.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=28http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=28&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/28/Government-must-act-to-end-savings-freeze.aspxThe Government must immediately address the worsening situation in Australia’s financial markets.  This has been caused by the Government’s rushed and flawed unlimited bank deposit guarantee policy and its inexcusable delay in addressing the matter when the unintended but foreseeable consequences quickly became apparent. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan rushed into this unlimited deposit guarantee scheme over one weekend. They did not bother to speak directly to the Reserve Bank to work carefully through the possible consequences of their action. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan could have followed the Reserve Bank’s advice as a matter of urgency and cleared this up more than a week ago. In the meantime, while Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have dithered, billions of dollars of Australians’ savings have been frozen. Last night confronted with this mess, with Australians life savings frozen as a direct consequence of his own mismanagement, Mr Swan’s extraordinarily dismissive response was that they should head to Centrelink. The Government must today announce: A workable cap on the free bank deposit guarantee. Our initial recommendation was that it should be at least $100,000 and if that recommendation had been taken up we would not be in the Rudd/Swan created mess we are today. But given where we are today the cap should be set at the level the Reserve Bank recommends; Mr Swan’s plans to establish a compulsory guarantee fee for deposits over the cap – in other words a tax – should be abandoned. A tax of this kind will only serve to impose additional heavy and unnecessary costs on banks and drive up interest rates as banks will naturally seek to recover the additional costs from their customers; Guarantees on any deposits over the cap should be optional, but subject to a fee.  The fee should be commercial and at a level that does not encourage risky behaviour by banks. The Reserve Bank has recommended a scale of fees in its letter to Dr Henry of last Friday 17 October and the Government would do well to take the RBA’s advice on this point; That the wholesale term funding guarantee will be the subject of legislation. Putting the Commonwealth, and thus the taxpayers, on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of contingent liabilities without any legislation is a disgrace and an affront to our parliamentary democracy. It should be noted that even if the Government believes it has a legal argument to enable it to give the guarantee without legislation, it knows that it could never honour a guarantee without an Appropriation Bill being passed by the Parliament; The legislation should state that the price of the guarantee will be set on a commercial basis and on the advice of the Reserve Bank; The legislation should set out a sunset date after which new guarantees will not be entered into. A sunset date is important to ensure that the guarantee arrangements are genuinely temporary. Parliament could extend the date if circumstances required of course; and, Finally, the Government must announce its strategy for restoring confidence in those sectors not benefiting from the Government guarantee. The Opposition will agree to expedite the legislation as long as we are given time to review it and to have direct briefings with the RBA, APRA and the Treasury. The Opposition took the Government on trust when it announced the measures on Sunday 12 October – we had not been given any advance briefing which would have normally been appropriate for measures of this kind.  We also took the Prime Minister at his word and assumed, as did all Australians, that he and his Ministers had consulted directly with the RBA and APRA over its decision.  That is why we offered immediate support and expedited the passage of the enabling legislation.  We are strongly supportive of our regulatory Institutions.  In fact our criticisms of Mr Swan and Mr Rudd have been because they did not consult directly with the RBA and APRA on that weekend.  adminSat, 25 Oct 2008 04:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:28http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/29/National-Babies-Day.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=29http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=29&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/29/National-Babies-Day.aspxThank you very much Marie and congratulations to everybody for organising this event today. And in particular for the Bonnie Babes Foundation, the organisers of the National Babies Day. This is a great, this is a great event and it’s a great cause. Children are our future, children are a social good. There was a time not so long ago when many people thought that children were a private indulgence of their own parents. And there was some resentment about the community, about governments, about society making commitments to support and promote families and children. Now we’re proud that in the Coalition’s time in government we increased that support significantly and I don’t think that that view, that old fashioned view that children were just a personal indulgence of the parents any longer exists in Australia. You have only got to look at how our streets are full of prams and strollers to know that there is a baby boom and I think really the statement that was made by the policies of the previous government and I hope will be continued by this government have really underlined the importance of children and babies to our nation. They are a social good and all of us have a bested interest in each other’s children. Now the other wonderful thing that we’re here today to support is the Bonnie Babes Foundation. Now as you know they do outstanding work, outstanding counselling work dealing with the tragic, the tragic events of still birth, of miscarriage and of course premature birth which sometimes can end tragically but more often nowadays ends wonderfully. And I’m here with my darling wife Lucy and she is standing there next to Sophie Mirabella the Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare, Women and Youth. And with Sophie’s baby Alexandra. And Sophie’s baby Alexandra is a big healthy girl, she’s a wonderful baby. But you know not all children start of life like that. And many of us have had the experience, you Marie have spoken about it, of children that are born prematurely and very, very small. Our own daughter Daisy Turnbull who is a beautiful bouncing, healthy woman of 23 started off only a skerrick above 3 pounds in weight. And Lucy and I remember very well the anxiety and stress, just the fear, the terrible fear that we had that something terrible would happen to Daisy. And of course thanks to great medicine, wonderful medicine at King George V Hospital in Sydney she has turned out to be the great girl that she is. So bonnie Babes does wonderful work but they need resources to do that work. And that was why before the last election we promised $800,000 towards the Bonnie Babes Foundation. It’s a significant amount of money but it’s vital, vital for Bonnie babes to do its work. And this year Brendan Nelson, then the Leader of the Opposition, raised with a passion and a compassion the cause of Bonnie Babes in speeches that were unforgettable and moved all of us that heard him. And I just want to acknowledge among all my other colleagues that Brendan Nelson is here today. Brendan’s advocacy was powerful and moving but sadly it has not yet moved the Prime Minister. And I hope without any rancour or partisanship, I hope that National Babies Day is celebrated by the Australian Government, by Mr Rudd, by making that contribution to the Bonnie Babes Foundation. It would be a wonderful gesture and it would just underline the importance of children, the importance of babies, the miracle of life, and our commitment to our children as our future. Thank you very much and have a wonderful day.adminFri, 17 Oct 2008 04:03:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:29http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/30/Address-to-the-Nation-Financial-Crisis.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=30http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=30&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/30/Address-to-the-Nation-Financial-Crisis.aspx In these difficult and uncertain times, many Australians have been asking how a booming global economy suddenly found itself in very stormy waters. We all want to know what this means for our country, our families, our jobs. The financial crisis started when banks in America made trillions of dollars of housing loans to people far too many of whom could not afford to repay them. This reckless lending fuelled a housing bubble and of course, so long as house prices kept going up, everyone was happy. But when the bubble burst, these sub-prime loans went bad too. But by then, they had contaminated hundreds of banks around the world, many of which went broke. Our own banks were much less affected than most – thanks to good regulation our lending practices have been far more prudent. But nobody is immune and money has become more expensive and harder to obtain for banks and for their customers. With the benefit of hindsight, Governments should have acted a lot earlier. Regrettably, Mr Rudd’s Government missed the warning signs at the beginning of the year and talked up inflation, and consequently interest rates, at precisely the wrong time. Nonetheless, we have offered to work in a bipartisan way with the Government in responding to this crisis. I am disappointed that Mr Rudd has rejected our offer. But that does not lessen our resolve to support what is in Australia’s best interests and build on the Coalition’s record of making long term, and often tough, decisions to protect our economic security. We have advocated increased guarantees for bank deposits, additional payments to pensioners and further investment in the mortgage market. We were pleased to see Mr Rudd take this action. When it comes to economic management in Government or Opposition, the Coalition’s values are the same - taxpayers’ money is your money, it must be managed responsibly and in the national interest.   We recognise that our economy is slowing and we have given support to the Government’s $10 billion stimulus package. But just as Australian families are careful in the way they manage their budget, so the Australian Government must take great care not to squander the savings from a decade of responsible financial management. That is why we have asked Mr Rudd to share with the Australian people the economic advice he has received which convinced him that the $10 billion package was not larger than was needed and will not reduce the ability of the Reserve Bank to keep cutting interest rates. That is why we are concerned to ensure that safeguards are put in place so that Government guarantees offered to banks do not result in taxpayers picking up the tab for bank losses. We will continue to make constructive proposals to protect and strengthen our economy to help all of us through this crisis. And above all, we believe that the energy, the enterprise and the optimism of 21 million Australians will ensure that while we are in the midst of this storm and will get wet, we will not sink. adminThu, 16 Oct 2008 04:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:30http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/31/Stimulus-Package.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=31http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=31&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/31/Stimulus-Package.aspx Well we welcome the Government’s announcement today, especially for Australia’s age pensioners who have been denied justice for too long. This is a significant improvement in their position and we welcome it. Now this is also a very significant economic stimulus; a significant fiscal stimulus. And we trust that the government has taken into account the advice from Treasury and considered the impact that this stimulus may have on the Reserve Bank’s ability to reduce, to continue reducing interest rates, for example. But nonetheless we are not going to argue about the composition of the package or quibble about it. It has our support. It will provide a stimulus to the economy, that’s for certain. And above all it gives justice to Australia’s age pensioners in particular, who have been doing it especially tough. QUESTION: What do you think about the housing measures? They’re quite a significant boost to first home owners. Have you got any concerns about how… whether that could blow out at all? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we support it. As I said, we’re not going to argue about the composition of the package. We will get a full briefing from Treasury; we’ve certainly sought one. And the impact of the increased subsidy is obviously something that we assume that the Government has taken carefully into account. When we say we are committed to a bipartisan approach to responding to the economic crisis we are very serious in that. And we have had a meeting today, Julie and I have had a meeting today with officials from the Treasury and Prime Minister and Cabinet, talked very frankly about aspects of the Government’s policy and I think made very constructive suggestions and had a very constructive discussion there. So we want to help provide support to Australia overall making the most effective response to this crisis. QUESTION: I glean from your opening comment that you’re concerned that this may take the impetus away from the Reserve to lower rates any further? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well this is a significant stimulus. Now there was a lot of speculation in the media this morning that the stimulus would be in the order of $5 billion, which is about half a per cent of GDP. This is twice that, so it’s a much larger stimulus and the impact on the Reserve Bank’s ability to continue cutting interest rates is obviously one factor that the Government, no doubt, has taken into account. And we’ll look forward to discussing that with them when we have the briefing. But, again, we’re not arguing about the size of the stimulus. We support these measures and we are particularly pleased about the measure, the payments to pensioners. QUESTION: Do you believe that your highlighting the pension issue over some weeks now contributed to that decision? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Michelle that’s for others to judge. We have been very committed, very resolute in standing up for pensioners. As you know the Senate passed a bill to give pensioners $30 a week and we brought that bill down to the House not so long ago. And all the Prime Minister had to do was say ‘yes’ to provide support for pensioners. It’s not something to lament unduly but it is a fact I think that the only reason the pensioners have got what they deserved is because the Prime Minister concluded there was a need for a fiscal stimulus. What was really needed was not just an injection of additional liquidity into the economy but an injection of compassion. QUESTION: Just following on from your comments to Mr Coorey and your opening comments, did you raise concerns in your briefings this morning with Treasury about the inflationary impact that this might have… MALCOLM TURNBULL: No we were discussing the guarantee, we weren’t discussing this… QUESTION: Is there a danger that some of these measures might overheat the housing market which I think has dropped by about seven per cent? Is there a danger do you think that this might actually overheat the housing market? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well if I could just hand over to Julie to comment on this also. But the housing part of the package while significant is a small part of it. It’s $1.5 billion out of $10.4 billion. The bulk of the money of course has gone to pensioners and to families. So that’s where the bulk of the commitment has gone. And you’re right, the housing market is softening, I think it’s very unlikely that these increased first home owners grants would overheat the housing market. The housing market is slowing, not to the same extent that it has done in the United States but it has been slowing and in some parts of Australia, south west Sydney being a good example that you’ve heard me talk about before, the slowdown has been quite significant. JULIE BISHOP: The point I was going to make is that this package is obviously highly stimulatory, it’s about one per cent of GDP. We have assumed and trust that the Government has received advice, updated forecasts on the slowing of the economy and growth and also unemployment. And that’s why we’re looking forward to a Treasury briefing this afternoon on this package. We’ve not had the Treasury briefing on this package yet. The briefing was in relation to yesterday’s announcement about the bank guarantees. QUESTION: You’ll be asking them questions along this line about whether they feel confident that this isn’t going to over-stimulatory? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Absolutely and we’ll be asking those questions, but these are decisions that the Government… the Government has taken these decisions, it will have received advice about the impact of this stimulus on the overall economy and in particular on the ability of the Reserve Bank to continue reducing interest rates. And the Reserve Bank has made it very clear that it wants to continue, plans to continue loosening monetary policy, reducing rates and that’s certainly what the market expects. So that is a factor and it’s something that the Government should have taken into account and we’ll learn more about that as we all may if the Government is prepared to discuss it publicly. QUESTION: You mentioned earlier about your, you would have liked to have seen the increase in the pension being actually an injection of compassion rather than a response to… as it’s been characterised by Mr Rudd. Why did not your proposal to inject compassion extend beyond single age pensioners? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we were targeting, Matt, a group within the universe of pensioners that were particularly disadvantaged, this is single pensioners. And you’ll recall that one of the problems has been that the ratio between the single pension and the couple pension is very low in Australia relative to other countries and this is… QUESTION: [inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, no we welcome the whole package. It has our support. We’re not going to, you know, go through it line by line and say if we were in government we would have done this rather than that. It has our support, it has our bipartisan support, but we are particularly pleased that the pensioner issue has been addressed and that pensioners, now the fact of the matter is the pensioners will get this extra money. The fact that it’s been given to them for fiscal stimulatory reasons as opposed to social justice reasons is perhaps a source for a small amount of regret on the part of pensioners but the money will be there and they’ll be able to spend it. QUESTION: Would you have… would you have preferred a fortnightly increase to the pension or are you satisfied that you needed a rather large one-head stimulatory measure? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we believe the base rate needs to be increased and that of course was precisely what we had proposed. The Prime Minister has made it fairly clear today, I believe, that he is at least open to following the conclusion of the review, or reviews that are underway, open to increasing the base rate and clearly that’s desirable and that’s why we advocated it. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, this equates to an increase in the base rate of about $35 a week for those single aged pensioners that you’ve been talking about. Do you think that now provides a starting position for what the Government’s got to do after the Harmer Review? Can it now offer pensioners anything less than what they’re getting? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think it certainly provides a benchmark, Mark. And, you know, we felt $30 a week was a minimum – that was what we were proposing as a down payment. That’s what we were proposing as a down payment. The Government’s $35 a week, well that’s good – that’s $5 more. But I think overall, ideally, we would see an increase in the base rate and that’s a substantial one. So we would certainly support that. QUESTION: It seemed bipartisanship evaporated yesterday after Question Time. What did you have to say to…? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, I know there’s been speculation about this so I’ll just tell you exactly what transpired. I had written to the Prime Minister earlier in the day proposing that there be a bipartisan motion about the economic crisis and Australia’s response to it, that he could move and I would second, and the Australian people would see the whole of the House of Representatives united in taking responsible action to deal with the crisis. And then we could have a debate about that. And it wouldn’t be a rancorous debate, it would be a debate that enabled us to talk through the issues and discuss them. I haven’t received any response to that any more than I’ve received a response to my previous letter and all I did was ask the Prime Minister whether he had received the letter and he said it hadn’t, so apparently the hand delivery didn’t work so he didn’t get to read it apparently. QUESTION: Can I just ask a question? Do you think in this new era of bipartisanship that there is a case to be made for you now to stop your resistance of the other Budget measures in the Senate? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well no, Annabel, and let me just make this point. The Government uses a lot of really, you know, exaggerated rhetoric about these measures in the Senate. Let’s be quite clear. The Government has just announced they’re spending $10.4 billion this year. Now, the only revenue measures that are still being opposed by us that haven’t already been passed in the Senate are the alcopops tax and the Medicare levy surcharge threshold changes. Our best, well based on the Budget papers, our estimate is that they would, if they were opposed and were defeated finally, that would deprive the Commonwealth this year of about a little bit under $700 million. Now that is less than seven per cent of the package announced today. So I’m not suggesting that the revenue is unimportant but in the scheme of things it is a relatively small amount of money. So in the scheme of the whole Commonwealth Budget you’re basically talking about the alcopops tax, which is estimated to net the Government $3 billion over four years, which would be a very small percentage of overall Commonwealth revenues. And you’ve got to remember these taxes were supported by the Government in their battle against inflation, remember. They wanted to slow down the economy and provide, if you like, the opposite of a stimulus – to actually take money out. Now that they want to put a lot of money into the economy they are still advocating a tax which takes money out. So the fact is if you want to stimulate the economy you are not going to be putting up taxes. JULIE BISHOP: It’s still bad policy. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah. If they were serious about the alcopops tax, if they hadn’t already painted themselves into a corner on it, what they would do is say, ‘well, given that we’re spending money to stimulate the economy the last thing we ought to be doing is raising taxes’. So they would abandon it as well. And as you know, in the nature of things, they’ve painted themselves into that corner and so something that earlier in the year was a key weapon in their fight against inflation and designed to slow down the economy, they will now try to say is a key weapon in their fight to stimulate the economy. Wel, I think all of us can see through the contradiction in that. QUESTION: Can I just ask you about the bank deposits discussions? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay, just two more and then we’ve got to get to Question Time. QUESTION: Can I just ask you about the bank deposits discussions this morning? Were you able to be reassured by Treasury about the concerns you obviously had about the scheme? And you mentioned you had some constructive suggestions and I just wondered if [inaudible] on those. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the conversations, these briefings are confidential, as you know. There are some issues associated with it. Look, I think – let’s be clear – I think the Government has clearly not had time to think it all through. As you saw yesterday in Question Time we asked some perfectly reasonable questions about how the interests of taxpayers was going to be protected because clearly taxpayers are going to be being put at risk with the guarantees, particularly those for wholesale term funding. And I think it’s pretty clear the Government has not finely thought all that through. Now, we’ve provided them with some input and I think we’ll no doubt have some more to say about that publicly but it is a developing issue. The fact is they made a decision and they’re filling in the blanks as they go along. We’re happy to assist with that but it’s nonetheless, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, he would have served the public interest better if he had actually answered the questions, addressed the questions yesterday rather than being indignant that the Opposition would be so impertinent to ask about how taxpayers’ interests could be protected. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, is your support for this package conditional on you being satisfied in your briefings later today that the stimulus won’t tie the hands of the RBA? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, we will support the package Dennis. I don’t think there is any point us quibbling about it, about the composition of it. I mean, no doubt if, you know, if we were in government we would have designed a package that would look somewhat different but there’s no point getting into that. It has our support, nonetheless the Government has to recognise and I’m sure it does recognise that a stimulus of this size – it’s about one per cent of GDP – will have an impact, they want it to have an impact. Let’s face it, they want it to have an impact on demand and on the overall economy. And they have got to make the right judgment based on the best advice that that stimulus is not going to be more than is required. And that’s the judgement that they’ve had to take and we’ll certainly be, you know, looking at that in the briefing and I’m sure we’ll all be examining the impact of the stimulus as time goes on. Thank you very much.  adminWed, 15 Oct 2008 04:29:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:31http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/32/Responding-to-the-International-Financial-Crisis.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=32http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=32&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/32/Responding-to-the-International-Financial-Crisis.aspx The Coalition today calls on the Rudd Government to take three immediate decisions to further strengthen the Australian economy in response to the international financial crisis.        Increase the proposed Government backed deposit guarantee scheme to cover deposits up to a minimum of $100,000 In the light of the current global economic crisis, the Coalition considers that the proposed $20,000 cap per person is less than adequate and, moreover, out of line with similar schemes in the rest of the world.  Accordingly, the Coalition proposes that the cap be increased to allow Australians, including small businesses, additional assurance in these difficult times. The coverage of the enhanced assurance would be the same as that recently announced with bi-partisan support and includes chequing, savings, and term deposits in authorised deposit taking institutions such as banks, credit unions and building societies. Increase the investment into AAA rated Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) through the AOFM Given the continuing demand for liquidity in the mortgage finance area, and having consulted widely with the industry and other experts our view is that this level of investment should be raised to at least $10 billion. This compares to an RMBS issuance of around $18 billion per quarter prior to the sub-prime crisis, but nonetheless it will make a more meaningful contribution to supporting competition and do so without compromising in any way the prudent investment standards of the AOFM under its Act. Announce it will not implement the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) prior to 2011 Responding to climate change is urgent but given any ETS would start with a low trajectory and low carbon price, and given we are set to meet our Kyoto Target in 2012, delaying the introduction of a scheme by one or two years will make no difference, on any objective appraisal, to the effectiveness of our ultimate response.  The time has come for the Prime Minister to admit that his promise of a 2010 start date was no more than an election year flourish and return to a timetable that enables Australia to make decisions when we are fully informed of the global response at the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009 and the policies of the new US President. The Coalition believes these three decisions will help to rebuild confidence among Australian households and businesses at this very necessary time. The Coalition will work co-operatively with the Government to expedite the passage through Parliament of any legislation to implement the deposit guarantee. adminSat, 11 Oct 2008 04:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:32http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/33/Waste-Watch.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=33http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=33&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/33/Waste-Watch.aspxI am pleased to announce the appointment of Senator Guy Barnett as the Coalition’s Scrutiny of Government spokesman. Senator Barnett will highlight to the Parliament and the community acts of waste, inefficiency and mismanagement by the Rudd Labor Government and its agencies. Senator Barnett will chair the Coalition’s Waste Watch Committee and soon launch a Waste Watch website which will record and display examples of Rudd Government waste. He takes over the role from the Hon Chris Pearce MP, who is now Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law.  I thank Chris Pearce for his hard work to date. Thorough scrutiny of Government spending and ensuring that taxpayers get full value for money is a key priority for the Coalition. adminThu, 09 Oct 2008 04:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:33http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/34/Appointment-of-Shadow-Ministry.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=34http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=34&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/34/Appointment-of-Shadow-Ministry.aspx I am announcing today the new Shadow Ministry. This team will provide the leadership demanded by the great challenges facing our nation. More than ever, the great challenge of today is economic management. And economic management is about a lot more than banks and stock markets and big companies. Economic management is about Australians’ jobs. It is about their homes and the mortgages they have taken out to buy them. It is about the savings that represent a life time of work and sacrifice. At the same time, linked to economic management is our response to the great environmental challenges of our times including water scarcity, climate change and in that context of course the design of an emissions trading scheme. A growing nation needs greater investment in infrastructure. But just as there are opportunities for new investment, so there is the risk that an irresponsible and highly political Rudd Government will squander its multi billion dollar infrastructure funds to prop up floundering Labor State Governments. Equally, it is clear to me that Federal Governments need to do more to provide leadership in sustainable development and infrastructure in both regional communities and in our cities. My vision is for an Australia where economic growth and a clean environment go hand in hand – where by being smarter we can have more energy with less emissions and where our farmers will produce more food and fibre but in support, rather than at the expense, of the environment. I will now turn to the particular appointments. I am delighted that our economic team will be led by my Deputy, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, as Shadow Treasurer. Julie comes to this office with an ideal combination of ministerial and commercial experience. She will be assisted in the outer ministry by the Hon Chris Pearce MP, Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, and the Hon Tony Smith MP, Shadow Assistant Treasurer. The Hon Warren Truss MP, Leader of the Nationals, will be responsible for Trade, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. He will be assisted by three Shadow Parliamentary Secretaries: Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald covering Northern Australia, Mr Barry Haase MP covering Roads and Transport and Mr John Forrest MP covering Regional Development. Senator the HonNickMinchin, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, will take responsibility for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Senator the Hon Eric Abetz will continue in his current role as Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The Hon Andrew Robb MP is filling a new shadow portfolio which will be at the cutting edge of some of the most complex and contentious economic issues. They include infrastructure and COAG which is short hand for the Federal-State relationship so central to good government in Australia. Andrew will also assist me on the Emissions Trading Scheme and in doing so, we will both work closely with the Shadow Environment Minister, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, whose expanded responsibilities I describe below. Working closely with both Andrew Robb and Greg Hunt will be, in the outer ministry, the new Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities, the Hon Bruce Billson MP. Senator the Hon Helen Coonan will be responsible for Foreign Affairs and also serve as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. Helen will be assisted by Senator Marise Payne who will be Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance. The Hon Joe Hockey MP will be responsible for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation and continue to serve as Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And working closely with him will be, in the outer ministry, Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP, the Shadow Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House. The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP will be responsible for Resources and Energy, a portfolio area for which he was responsible in Government and he will be assisted by Mr Don Randall MP as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary. The Hon Tony Abbott MP will continue as Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Working with closely with Tony will be, in the outer ministry, Mr Scott Morrison MP, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government and two Shadow Parliamentary Secretaries: Senator Marise Payne who in addition to the role previously mentioned will also be responsible for Indigenous Affairs, and Senator Cory Bernardi who will be responsible for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector. Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson will continue to serve as Shadow Special Minister of State and take on a new role as Shadow Cabinet Secretary. Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion, Deputy Leader of the Nationals, will take up responsibility for Human Services. The Hon Greg Hunt MP will continue to serve as Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. His water responsibilities will not be limited as they were previously to urban water. He will be assisted by Senator Fiona Nash who will serve as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation. The Hon Peter Dutton MP will take responsibility for the vital area of Health and Ageing and working with him will be, in the outer ministry, Mrs Margaret May MP, Shadow Minister for Ageing as well as Senator Matthias Cormann appointed Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration. Senator the Hon David Johnston will take responsibility for Defence. In the outer ministry, the Hon Bob Baldwin MP will continue as Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Mrs Louise Markus MP will serve as Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. The Hon Peter Lindsay MP will continue as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence. The Hon Christopher Pyne MP will be the Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training. Working closely with him in the outer ministry will be the Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth, Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP as well as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education Senator the Hon Brett Mason. Senator the Hon George Brandis SC will continue as Shadow Attorney General. In the outer ministry, the Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs will be the Hon Sussan Ley MP and Mr Jason Wood MP will serve as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security. The Hon John Cobb MP will serve as Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and he will be assisted by Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for that portfolio. Mr Michael Keenan MP will serve as Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. And in the outer ministry Dr Andrew Southcott MP will continue to serve as Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport. The Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP will serve as Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and she will be assisted by Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration, who will also assist the Leader in the Senate. Mr Steven Ciobo MP will serve as Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts. I express my great thanks to former members of the Shadow Ministry who are not listed above. Our former leader, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, Senator the Hon Chris Ellison, the Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP, Mrs Joanna Gash MP, the Hon Pat Farmer MP and Mr Mark Coulton MP.adminTue, 23 Sep 2008 04:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:34http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/36/Leader-of-the-Opposition.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=36http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=36&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/36/Leader-of-the-Opposition.aspxWell, it’s a great honour and privilege, humbling, to be elected today to lead the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party of Australia. Ours is a great party, a party whose values are as important to the prosperity and security of Australia in the years to come as they have been in years gone by because they are values that are based on freedom of choice, on respect for the individual, on fairness, on ensuring that Australia remains a land of opportunity. I do not come to the position of leader of the Liberal Party from a lifetime of privilege. I know what it is like to be very short of money. I know what it is like to live in rented flats. I know what it is like to grow up with a single parent, with no support other than a devoted and loyal father. I know Australians are doing it tough and some Australians, even in the years of greatest prosperity, will always do it tough. We know that this is a tough world. And our job as Liberals is to ensure that our society is a fair one; a society of opportunity; a society where people can, like my father and I, be able to take advantage of those opportunities, to seize those opportunities and with enterprise and energy, and good luck and hard work, do well. We are a party of opportunity and this, my friends, is a land of opportunity. Australians and Australia can do anything. We can do anything, but we need to have confidence, we need to have leadership. We need, above all, to have the opportunities to do well. And that is the great difference between our side of politics and Labor, because we believe that government’s role is to enable each and every Australian to do their best, to exercise their freedom of choice to do their best. Labor believes government knows best.  We are not so vain as MrRudd. We know our job is to empower and enable the enterprise, the dreams, the ambitions of Australians- of all Australians. And that is what I commit myself to doing today as the leader of the Liberal Party, as the leader of the Opposition. I want to say thank you to all of my colleagues for their support. I want to say a particular thank you to our leader Brendan Nelson, who stood down today. Brendan has led the Party through very difficult times- they have been very challenging times. He’s done that very well, and we all owe him a great debt of gratitude. And I honour him today. I want to say also how delighted I am to be working with our deputy, Julie Bishop. Julie Bishop is a very dear friend of mine. We have worked together over many years. We  know and trust each other very, very well indeed. And I know that together with the rest of our colleagues, we will be a united, a cohesive team- one that draws on the abilities and the intellect, the ideas and the energy of each and every member of our parliamentary party and reaches out beyond that. Because truly, we need to network out into the community as we develop the policies and the programs that will take us forward. But they must, above all, be policies that reflect the values upon which our party is founded, and they are values of freedom and fairness. A free society, a fair society; it cannot be free if it is not fair. That is the society Liberal governments have created. That is the environment that we have enabled to develop. And we will do so again when we are re-elected in 2010. So I thank you all, my parliamentary colleagues, for your support, I thank you Julie as our deputy and I invite you to say a few words. adminThu, 18 Sep 2008 05:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:36http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/35/Senator-Chris-Ellison.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=35http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=35&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/35/Senator-Chris-Ellison.aspx Senator Ellison today informed me that he will be retiring from the Senate to spend more time with his young family. Senator Ellison has made a major contribution to the Liberal Party and the Australian people in a variety of roles, including his appointment as Minister for Justice and Customs in the Howard Government. Since the election, Senator Ellison has been the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate and, as Leader, I was looking forward to continuing our work together in the Shadow Cabinet. Throughout his service, Senator Ellison has worked assiduously in the interests of Western Australians and Australians in general.  He will be missed by his colleagues in the Federal Liberal Party. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish Chris, his wife Caroline and his family all the best for the future. adminThu, 18 Sep 2008 05:02:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:35http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/37/Consumer-confidence-second-lowest-in-OECD.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=37http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=37&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/37/Consumer-confidence-second-lowest-in-OECD.aspxThe latest OECD Standardised Consumer Confidence Indicator shows Australia has experienced the largest drop in consumer confidence in the OECD since November. The Index reveals Australia also has the second lowest level of consumer confidence in the OECD after Spain.  Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan by talking up inflation as a "monster" that is "out of control" for the last nine months have contributed to this shattering of consumer confidence in Australia. If Mr Rudd and Mr Swan had shown economic leadership, this collapse in confidence need not have been so severe. Australia still has solid economic growth, low unemployment, a near record high terms of trade boom, negative net public debt, and a strong fiscal position left to Labor by the Coalition.      Incredibly, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan now attempt to dismiss this collapse in confidence by comparing Australia to other countries such UK, Italy, Japan, France and Germany, all of which have lower growth rates than Australia. Australian households are now paying a heavy price for Mr Rudd and Mr Swan's reckless political strategy to talk down the economy in an effort to trash the economic reputation of the Coalition Government. adminFri, 05 Sep 2008 05:34:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:37http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/38/June-Quarter-2008-National-Accounts.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=38http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=38&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/38/June-Quarter-2008-National-Accounts.aspxToday’s National Accounts shows the resilience of the Australian economy thanks to the extensive economic reforms undertaken by the Coalition Government.  The Labor Government inherited a strong, dynamic and flexible economy.  Labor’s politically-motivated and irresponsible commentary has fuelled inflationary pressures and undermined business and consumer confidence.  Today’s accounts, however, show that GDP growth has slowed. GDP increased by 0.3 per cent in the June quarter to be 2.7 per cent higher over the year.  The terms of trade rose sharply by 13.1 per cent to be near-record levels. And company profits have grown strongly, thanks to the strength of our mining sector. But today’s National Accounts offer a warning to the Rudd Government.  The fruits of the Coalition’s economic reform agenda and its prudent fiscal stewardship will be unwound rapidly if Labor starts wasting the accumulated surpluses from years of Coalition Government on poorly managed projects – all for the purpose of propping up incompetent State Labor Governments. The Coalition succeeded in repaying $96 billion of Labor debt and adding a further $45 billion to the Commonwealth’s net assets. Those achievements are at real risk if, true to Labor form, their “nation building” infrastructure funds are shown to be nothing more than political pork barrelling. The Governor of the Reserve Bank yesterday provided a stark warning to Labor – that the outlook for inflation will decline in line with a slowing economy “provided wages growth remains contained”.  Labor’s policies and rhetoric risk fuelling inflationary expectations while deepening and lengthening the slowdown in the economy. adminThu, 04 Sep 2008 05:36:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:38http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/39/Rudd-and-Swan-split-over-rate-cut.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=39http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=39&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/39/Rudd-and-Swan-split-over-rate-cut.aspxToday in Question Time Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan were divided in their response to the RBA’s official interest rate cut. Mr Rudd told the House:“it is not a day for celebration”. Just ten minutes later, Mr Swan said:"it is good news that should be celebrated by all”. It is astounding that the Prime Minister and Treasurer can't even agree on whether or not the decision is cause for celebration. The Coalition welcomes today's cut in interest rates as timely relief for Australian mortgage holders.adminWed, 03 Sep 2008 05:37:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:39http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/40/Rudd-fails-economics-101.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=40http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=40&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/40/Rudd-fails-economics-101.aspxToday Kevin Rudd has revealed his ignorance about the basic measurement of wages in Australia.  In Question Time Mr Rudd was asked: “Why have real wages dropped by 1 per cent since the election of the Rudd Government?” Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1":*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }st2":*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} Mr Rudd could not answer the question, but after taking the opportunity to review his briefing, he replied in an answer to a subsequent question: “Wages and salaries grew by 2.3 per cent in the June quarter…” The figure Mr Rudd referred to is the increase in total nominal wages and salaries (seasonally adjusted) paid by private sector businesses in the June quarter (Australian Bureau of Statistics Business Indicators, Catalogue No. 5676.0).  As a measure of real wage changes this figure is meaningless because it fails to take account of the number of employees and changes in inflation – both of which are of course changing. For the record, Mr Rudd: The change in average weekly ordinary time earnings (1.81 per cent), less the change in the CPI (2.81 per cent) since the December quarter last year shows that average real wages have declined by 1 per cent.  The change in average compensation per employee (0.75 per cent), less the change in the Household Final Consumption Expenditure Chain Price Index (1.63 per cent) since the September quarter last year shows that average real wages have declined by nearly 0.9 per cent.  Media Contact: Brad Burke 02 6277 4208  adminTue, 02 Sep 2008 05:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:40http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/41/Small-business-confidence-in-Rudd-collapses.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=41http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=41&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/41/Small-business-confidence-in-Rudd-collapses.aspxThe Rudd Government has received the worst rating of any Government in Australia in the latest Sensis Business Index for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).  The report shows business confidence has fallen 8 percentage points to reach 25 points, the lowest level since the survey began 15 years ago and less than half the level recorded at the same time last year. Significantly, support among SMEs for the Rudd Government recorded a further fall, with its net rating declining by 57 points since the election.  And after only nine months in office, the Rudd Government recorded the lowest support of any government in Australia, with a net rating of minus 28 points.  The report shows businesses think the policies of Kevin Rudd are worse than those of Morris Iemma, John Brumby, Anna Bligh, Mike Rann, Alan Carpenter, David Bartlett, Paul Henderson and Jon Stanhope.  Mr Rudd must take responsibility for this dramatic collapse in confidence, without blaming someone else in the next breath.  http://www.smallbusiness.sensis.com.au/ Media Contact: Brad Burke 02 6277 4208  adminFri, 29 Aug 2008 05:43:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:41http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/44/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Economy.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=44http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=44&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/44/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Economy.aspx  The collapse of confidence in the Australian economy and the fact that Australians are worse off since the election of the Government Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (4.57 pm)—The Assistant Treasurer has treated us to a classic tirade of irrelevance. He reminds us of his great performance with Fuelwatch, which is, I think, an emblem of the hopelessness of this government and part of the cause of this incredible collapse in confidence. Whether you look at business confidence or consumer confidence, the measures today are at all-time lows unless you go back to the ‘recession we had to have’ in the late 1980s. Times are not as tough now as they were in 1991. We hope they will not get that tough. But what we have with this government is a crisis of confidence. This is a government that has been in office for eight months, and yet there is only one government in Australia that the Sensis survey tells us business has less confidence in. Do you know which government that is? That is Morris Iemma’s government. Morris Iemma and his colleagues have been working on hopelessness in government for 13 years. They are practised exponents of hopelessness. The Rudd government has got there in eight months. Consumer confidence and business confidence, by the other measures, are as low now as they were when business interest rates were 21 per cent. Why is that? The answer is a collapse in leadership. All during 2007 we had an outpouring of empathy from the Labor Party. There was not a shopping centre aisle or petrol station forecourt in this country in which you could not find the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, draping himself around, filled with sympathy and empathy. He was concerned about rising prices and he was going to fix them. Well, the empathy of Kevin 07 has been replaced by the impotence of Kevin 08. He has thrown up his hands. He cannot deliver; he cannot perform. That is why confidence has crashed. The Assistant Treasurer said: ‘It’s all international factors. It’s got nothing to do with the Australian situation. There’s a global credit crisis. Confidence is down in many countries and we are no better or worse off than them.’ That is not true either. ACNeilsen, as it happens, conducts a global survey which gauges consumer sentiment across 51 countries consistently. It is true that consumer confidence has fallen around the world. The survey shows that it has fallen by six points in the last six months. That is the largest single drop recorded in the last three years. But the drop in Australia was 11 points—nearly twice the average—and of the 51 countries surveyed only nine had a more negative shift in sentiment than Australia. And yet our economy is stronger than almost every one of those countries surveyed. We are not heading into recession. Economic growth is still positive. Unemployment is still at very low levels. Yes, the economy is slowing, but we are a strong economy nonetheless. Why has confidence collapsed? At the beginning of this year the government made a very political decision. They decided they would not have any economic strategy; they would simply have a political strategy. They could see, as we all could, the looming problems of the global credit crisis. It was obvious that the collapse of the mortgage market in the United States, the lack of confidence between banks, between financial institutions, was going to put up interest rates and was going to cause lenders to have less confidence in their counterparts. It was going to mean money would be more expensive and harder to obtain—in other words, a credit squeeze. Australia did not deserve to be hard hit by that credit squeeze. We did not create the subprime crisis. Subprime mortgages are 16 per cent of the US mortgage market. Here they are less than one per cent. Our banks are well capitalised. They are profitable. Our prudential regulation is first class. Our level of mortgage defaults is plainly higher than we would like it to be but it remains low by international standards and even low by historic standards. So we had a strong story to tell. We had a story to tell that should have enabled our markets to get the benefit of the superior economic management this economy had enjoyed over a long period of time. A strong government, a government of leaders, a government that believes that leadership carries responsibility would have called from the rooftops that Australia was different, that it was better and that we did not deserve to be tarred with the subprime brush. But instead we had a Treasurer who made headlines around the world when he said, the day before the Reserve Bank board met, ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle.’ Then he said it again and again and again. He talked up inflation. He said inflation was out of control. That was the message from the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Assistant Treasurer says the Reserve Bank board would be stupid to take any notice of the Treasurer. That may well be right. I think the real stupidity was on the part of the Prime Minister in making him the Treasurer in the first place, because words have consequences. The Treasurer is the man in charge of the economic management of the Commonwealth of Australia. His representatives, his secretary, sit on the Reserve Bank board. The idea that his remarks about inflation are just inconsequential political rhetoric, which is what the Assistant Treasurer was suggesting, is wrong. I think the Assistant Treasurer might want to review his remarks when he sits down with his boss a little later today. They are not just rhetoric. They matter and they made headlines around the world. The Reserve Bank has to cope with inflationary expectations. If you have the Treasurer saying that inflation is out of control, believe me, it will become a selffulfilling prophecy. That is the great difference. Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, is unique in the whole world. He is the only Treasurer in the world who has been talking up inflation. He was hysterically saying that inflation was out of control and egging on the Reserve Bank to put up rates. I might say that this is the same Treasurer who, now that inflation is, according to the Reserve Bank, heading to five per cent, is nervously begging the commercial banks to lower interest rates. He was egging on the Reserve Bank to put them up at the beginning of the year. At the time that he was displaying no leadership and pursuing a shabby political strategy to blacken the economic reputation of the Howard government, in the United States, a country facing much graver economic challenges, much higher inflation, higher unemployment and much graver concerns about the stability of its financial system, the Treasurer, Henry Paulson, was doing his job. On the same day that Wayne Swan was saying, ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle,’ HenryPaulson was saying: The U.S. economy is diverse and resilient, and our long-term fundamentals are healthy.… … … While we are in a difficult transition period as markets reassess and re-price risk, I have great confidence in our markets. They have recovered from similar stressful periods in the past, and they will again. That is real leadership. What we have seen is just political spin. Look at the nonsense we have been treated to today about tax. What about the Treasurer pretending that the budget cuts taxes? His own budget papers reveal that the budget increases taxes by over $19 billion over the forward estimates. How can he seriously suggest that putting up the prices of alcohol, cars, private health insurance and so on is doing anything other than fuelling inflation? This is an old-fashioned Labor government, just like its state colleagues—all spin, no substance, tax and spend, no leadership, politics first and national interest last.  adminThu, 28 Aug 2008 06:11:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:44http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/43/Rudd-must-take-responsibility-for-confidence-collapse.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=43http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=43&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/43/Rudd-must-take-responsibility-for-confidence-collapse.aspx Kevin Rudd must take responsibility for the dramatic decline in consumer confidence rather than blame it entirely on overseas events.  The latest ACNielsen Global Consumer Index - which gauges consumer sentiment across 51 countries - shows that in the first half of 2008, the collapse in consumer confidence in Australia has been almost twice as severe as that of the rest of the world. The 11 point fall in Australia over the last six months was far worse that the average global change of 5.6 points.    Of the 51 countries surveyed, only 9 had a more negative shift in sentiment than Australia.  The fall in confidence here was worse than in France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland - to name just a handful of countries.  The Rudd Government’s unwillingness to take any responsibility for the dramatic decline in consumer confidence is a failure of economic leadership. adminThu, 28 Aug 2008 06:09:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:43http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/Swan-clueless-on-consumer-confidence.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=42http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=42&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/Swan-clueless-on-consumer-confidence.aspxIn Question Time today Wayne Swan attempted to dismiss the collapse in consumer confidence in Australia by comparing the situation to that in other economies. But in each of the countries he identified - Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada – the economy is weaker but the decline in consumer confidence less than in Australia. In the first half of 2008 the collapse in consumer confidence in Australia exceeded the fall in confidence in every one of these countries cited by MrSwan. With a growth rate of 0.6 per cent in the 2008 March quarter and an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent, Australia is in a far stronger overall economic position than these economies.  This is why Mr Swan must explain why consumer confidence has fallen so severely in Australia, even though underlying economic conditions are stronger than many other economies around the world.  It is simply not good enough to continue blame the dramatic decline in consumer confidence in Australia on overseas events.  Country Most Recent Quarterly Growth Rate Change in Confidence Australia +0.6 -11 Japan -0.6 -10 Germany -0.5 0 France -0.3 -10 Italy -0.3 -4 Canada -0.1 -9 Sources: Growth rates – The Economist Consumer confidence - Nielsen Global Consumer Confidence Index Media Contact : Brad Burke 02 6277 4208  adminThu, 28 Aug 2008 05:46:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:42http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/46/Gloomy-words-to-take-a-nation-down.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=46http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=46&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/46/Gloomy-words-to-take-a-nation-down.aspx Back in January it was obvious the global credit crisis posed real threats to our economy. A credit crisis is a crisis of confidence. Interest rates are higher because investors are less certain about the prospects and security of those to whom they are lending. In response, our Government should have pursued at least two clear economic objectives. First, we had to be careful to ensure that economic policy reacted prudently to higher levels of inflation. It was almost inevitable that the United States credit crisis would result in a global credit squeeze. In other words, higher interest rates and tighter credit were coming our way, anyhow. Second, we had to do everything we could to differentiate our financial system, our banks and our mortgage markets from the wreckage in the US. Australia had a much more prudent lending culture than the US. Subprime loans amount to less than 1 per cent of mortgages outstanding. In the US, the number of foreclosures was rocketing but in Australia they remained at historically low levels. Banks were well capitalised and profitable. We did not deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the US mortgage markets. The securitisation markets, closed to US mortgages, should not, by rights, be closed to ours. That closure has made our mortgage market less competitive and raised the cost of finance for all Australians. We had a vital national interest in differentiating our market from that of the US. That is why in January I spoke about the underlying strength of the Australian financial system and encouraged the Reserve Bank not to raise interest rates but to stay its hand and watch international developments. There was likely to be, I said at the time, more than enough monetary tightening coming through the global system. To my horror, the federal Treasurer, WayneSwan, took the opposite approach. Again and again, and most notoriously on February 4 - the day before the Reserve Bank met - Swan repeated what became his own Swan song: "The inflation genie is out of the bottle." This was not just egging the Reserve Bank to put up rates; it was begging the bank to do so. Swan and KevinRudd then continued all year to talk up inflation and talk down the economy which, despite evidence to the contrary, they contended had been left in a smoking wreck by 11½ years of mismanagement by JohnHoward. Rudd developed his own theme. Not content with an "inflation genie," he talked of an "inflation monster". So intent were Swan and Rudd on their political strategy of fingering the Howard government for economic mismanagement, they forgot that every time they undermined confidence in our economy they increased inflationary expectations and added to the cost of money for Australian households and businesses. Swan is the only Treasurer in the world who has spent this year talking down his own economy. The US Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, with a much worse economy and graver challenges, consistently showed leadership and confidence. While Swan was shrieking about genies escaping from bottles, Paulson said on February 5: "The US economy is diverse and resilient, and our long-term fundamentals are healthy … While we are in a difficult transition period as markets reassess and reprice risk, I have great confidence in our markets. They have recovered from similar stressful periods in the past, and they will again." When Australia desperately needed leaders who would proclaim that we were different, that our economy was stronger, our mortgages more secure, our banks better capitalised - that we should not be tarred with the subprime brush - they instead made headlines with their repeated claim that inflation was out of control. Instead of trying to blacken the reputation of the Howard government, they should have been burnishing Australia's financial and economic reputation. They should have been using the bully pulpit of high office to pry open the securitisation window for Australian mortgages and restore international confidence in our financial markets. Australia is a much safer place to invest than many other countries and markets. But we need leaders who will shout that from the rooftops, who will look beyond the confines of party politics and recognise that the heavy price of trashing the economic reputation of JohnHoward in 2007 is undermining confidence in Australia's economy in 2008. adminThu, 21 Aug 2008 06:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:46http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/45/Speech-to-the-Association-of-Financial-Advisers.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=45http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=45&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/45/Speech-to-the-Association-of-Financial-Advisers.aspx **check against delivery** Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a delight to be with you at today’s AFA luncheon. Today I would like to speak to you about a number of themes, especially those affecting your industry. Tax Reform One of Mr Rudd’s favourite authors is George Orwell. A great example of Mr Rudd’s Orwellian Newspeak was when he said that for eleven and a half years the Coalition Government “did not put forward a strategic vision for the tax system”. The tax reforms of the Coalition Government, in particular the GST, were the most sweeping in any of our lifetimes.  Mr Rudd described these reforms as a “fundamental injustice”.   MrSwan went further and called the GST a “bastard tax”.   Since the defeat of the Keating Government, Labor has vehemently opposed tax reform, just as it has opposed economic reform generally. I welcome the Rudd Government copying the Coalition by commissioning a tax review under Ken Henry. Treasury’s initial discussion paper, makes a useful contribution to the tax reform debate.   I think this would be a useful publication to be released each year with the Budget. If we are to reform the tax system, the first step is to know from where we are starting. But is it not amazing that the Rudd Government explicitly excluded Dr Henry from inquiring into the GST?   Surely a thorough inquiry should include analysis of the third largest tax in Australia? We will support genuine tax reform.  But I’ll remain sceptical about the prospects of Labor Tax Reform until I see the details of any proposals. The tax system should be designed and maintained to collect no more money than the Government needs, and it should do so fairly and efficiently.  Tax compliance and administration should be easy and above all designed to minimise economic waste. Our tax system is both fairer and more efficient than it was in 1996, but there is much more to be done.  The Coalition wants to reduce the burden of taxation, and replace inefficient taxes with efficient taxes. That is why we commissioned Professor Henry Ergas to undertake a study of Australia’s taxes at all levels of Government. I would encourage the AFA to make a submission to this review.  The Coalition will be developing its tax policy – and other policies – over time and naturally we will release these policies at a time of our choosing closer to the election.  But we will be consulting widely in developing these policies. The Coalition is committed to good government, sound policies and a strong, dynamic and efficient economy. At the meeting with Shadow Treasurers I hosted recently, we issued a communiqué that agreed, among other things, to pursue policies to reduce or eliminate inefficient Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes. There are over 125 taxes paid by Australians each year. As noted in the Treasury paper, 90 per cent of revenue was derived from ten taxes.  In 2006-07, the Australian government collected $262.5 billion (including the GST) while the States and Territories collected $48.9 billion and the local governments collected $9.4 billion. Taxes vary in their inefficiency. But all taxes tend to cost the economy more than the revenue they raise. In principle taxes could be ranked in order of their efficiency. More efficient taxes cost the economy less for given revenue raised.   It would be useful for Treasury to publish estimates of the average and marginal efficiency costs of each of Australia’s 125 taxes. Inefficiency arises from distorting the economy. Resources – capital and labour – flow to their most valued use. But taxation distorts this flow. The greater the distortion that a tax causes, the less efficient is the tax. Professor John Freebairn has estimated that the efficiency cost of all taxation in Australia – the total deadweight loss of our tax system – is around 6 per cent of GDP. That is, to raise $320.8 billion in tax revenue at all levels of Government imposes an additional cost to the economy of $66 billion.  Of State and Territory taxes, 24 per cent are collected through stamp duties and 6 per cent through insurance taxes.  Nearly 60 per cent of your members write risk insurance. Insurance taxes – which you will all no doubt be familiar with – raised just over $3.7 billion in 2006-07.  All States and Territories levy duty on general insurance, and all except Western Australia levy duty on life insurance.  The rates of duty on general insurance vary across the States, from a low 7.5 per cent of the premium in Queensland, to a high of 11 per cent in South Australia.   In most States the relevant tax base is the insurance premium plus the GST.   But Victoria and New South Wales also impose fire levies, and those too are included in the base for the insurance duty.  These taxes are notoriously inefficient. Like many inefficient taxes they have tended to be the least visible, and therefore among the least controversial.  When it comes to reallocating risk throughout the economy, it makes little sense for governments to actively discourage the choice of one particular alternative, and to artificially induce individuals to substitute into more costly, and ultimately more risky, options.   But that is exactly what State governments around Australia are doing today by imposing duties on insurance.  These insurance taxes hinder the efficient allocation of risk, and deter many individuals from taking out market insurance. For many of our biggest economic challenges – such as climate change policy, which is a massive risk management exercise – they make no sense.   These taxes create a burden for those who pay them, but that is only half the story. What about the economic costs that are incurred by those who choose not to insure?  Access Economics has found that the demand for market insurance is relatively responsive to changes in price. That means that if the price of market insurance rises, individuals respond by reducing their insurance cover.  This substitution leads Access Economics to rank insurance taxes as being among the least efficient in terms of the deadweight loss that they create.  Perhaps the most economically irrational aspect of insurance taxes is that in the long run, well-functioning private insurance markets save taxpayers money. They allow individuals to become resilient without government assistance. This means that when catastrophic events occur there is no undue strain placed on government resources. This, in turn, means that other taxes can be lower than they would otherwise be.  The Role of Financial Advisers in Australia Financial advisers bring buyers and sellers of financial products together and play at least three key roles in Australia’s economy.  First, saving and the accumulation of capital are key drivers of future economic growth and increases in living standards.  By helping to match the supply of savings by households to the demand for investment by firms, financial advisers help to allocate funds to their most valued use over time, improving the dynamic efficiency of our economy.  Second, by writing insurance, financial advisers play a key role in helping to allocate risk throughout the economy. In a competitive insurance market, individuals who are unwilling to bear particular risks can purchase insurance from firms that are more willing and better placed to bear those risks. Financial advisers help bridge the gap between these two sides of the market.  Third, there is the planning and informational role played by your members.  I strongly believe that markets function more efficiently when the participants have accurate information and can plan for the future. Accurate information and good advice are valuable commodities.  And many economic studies have found that financial awareness or literacy is an important influence on risky asset holdings. This is why the Coalition established the Financial Literacy Foundation.  The crucial question for economic policy is who should produce and supply information. Who should undertake economic and financial planning, and who should be in the business of raising financial awareness in our community?  The Coalition recognises that for many Australians dealing with financial matters can be a daunting task.  That’s where your members come in. The right financial adviser can help individuals set their financial goals, devise strategies to meet those goals, choose investments that suit individual needs, and make informed financial decisions.  And being able to make those decisions is one of the keys to individual economic freedom. Having access to an affordable and qualified financial adviser allows Australians to take responsibility for their own financial affairs and maintain their own financial freedom and independence, without the need for Mr Rudd peering over their shoulder telling them where to invest.  In other words, in a world of imperfect or incomplete information, a robust, competitive and flourishing market for professional financial advisers is critical.  Thanks to your members, Australians are better able to manage their financial future, without having to be an expert in superannuation, equity markets, insurance products, or other financial matters.  The Australian Economy AFA members provide advice to over 3 million Australians per year, employ over 300,000 people and offer over $40 billion worth of services.  Many of your members write superannuation, which has become a key vehicle for household savings in Australia.  The Coalition’s time in office was a period of significant growth in superannuation assets – from around $200 billion in 1995-96 to more than $1 trillion in 2006-07.  In the 2006 Budget, the Coalition Government introduced Better Super – the biggest reform to superannuation ever. This reform swept away the raft of complexity faced by retirees, increased retirement incomes, gave greater flexibility as to how and when superannuation could be drawn down and provided more incentives for older Australians to stay in the workforce. Conventional measures of savings – such as the net saving rate that is published in the national accounts – do not take into account capital gains on equities, which have been a key driver of increases in household financial wealth (and therefore a key source of savings) over the last decade.  According to figures published by the Reserve Bank of Australia, between March 1996 and December 2007 the real value of financial assets held by households and unincorporated enterprises increased by more than 140 per cent.  And Treasury estimates that total Australian household wealth – which includes the value of dwelling assets - increased from $1.74 trillion in 1996 to $5.05 trillion in 2007, an increase of 118 per cent in real terms.  A strong and dynamic economic environment has been a key determinant of this increase in wealth.  The Australian economy remains robust and resilient, but it is showing clear signs of weakening since Mr Rudd took office.  In particular, we have witnessed a stunning reversal of the growth in household wealth.   Earlier this month, ABNAmro published research showing that household wealth has fallen sharply, dropping by about 5 per cent in real terms over the first half of this year due to falls in equity and house prices.  Their research also noted that “in the post-WW2 period, the decline so far this year has only been surpassed by the decline seen in the early 1980s recession.” In its August Statement on Monetary Policy, the Reserve Bank noted that since last November equities have fallen 27 per cent, the largest fall in the past 20 years and one of the largest since the beginning of the 20th century.  The Bank also noted that the local market has underperformed in 2008, falling by more than other markets after rising by more in 2007.  As a result of these falls in share prices, Australian superannuation funds had a median return (net of taxes and ongoing fees) of minus 8½ per cent over the 2007-08 financial year.  That is the lowest annual return in at least two decades.  An interesting trend in superannuation has been the relative growth of defined contribution rather than defined benefit funds. This is understandable, particularly as Australians – like elsewhere in the world – move more frequently between jobs. With these negative returns over the past six months, some people argue that defined benefit funds provide more protection to employees. Yet these funds substitute the risk of final salary for market risk: no fund is truly “risk free”. It is certainly important to view superannuation as a long-term investment where returns on a year-to-year basis can be volatile. While the Coalition was focussed on the choice of super fund and portability to boost competition in the provision of superannuation, Labor has embarked on policies that aim to restrict choice and reduce competition. Senator Sherry has 14 reviews outstanding across his portfolio of superannuation and corporate governance. There is a real risk of the financial services industry being strangled by regulation arising from these reviews. The Coalition will be following these reviews closely. We will be looking in particular for any sense that the Government might be trying to restrict choice or reduce competition in both the provision of financial advice and the range of superannuation funds. But a key thing missing from this plethora of reviews is the big picture in superannuation: the adequacy of retirement incomes.  The Better Super reforms significantly boosted the incentives for many people to contribute to superannuation. It increased choice. Sadly it appears that the Rudd Government is intent on reducing choice and reducing competition. In part this is because Mr Rudd is patronising. He thinks that too much choice is bad. That Australians are not intelligent enough to make their own minds up on where to invest. That the Government knows better on investment strategies. By June 2007 there was $1143.2 billion invested in superannuation – more than 100 per cent of GDP. This is a remarkable amount of money. But it is also a remarkable temptation for Government. And this is another area of concern – the noises from the Government about directing or encouraging superannuation funds to invest in this or that project. To finance infrastructure for example. One of the great strengths of our superannuation rules is that trustees must act in the interests of their members. When Governments get into the act of directing investments it is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for lower superannuation returns. If an infrastructure project is sufficiently worthwhile, it will attract funds – without the need for Government intervention. Swan, Rudd and Paulson By every measure, the Australian financial sector is strong and resilient compared with its peers overseas. It is less exposed to the sub-prime crisis, has higher capital adequacy, better profits and much lower levels of impaired assets. Yet it too has been marked down dramatically over 2008. Foreign investors, it seems, could not distinguish between the strength of our financial institutions and those in Europe and the US.  Why should this be so? More importantly, where was the Government in informing foreign investors about the strength of our financial sector? Unfortunately part of the answer may be found in the way the Rudd Government has been talking down the Australian economy and talking up inflation for political purposes rather than speaking positively about our economy and the strength of our institutions. The contrast between Labor’s rhetoric and the language used by some of their counterparts overseas is quite stunning.  Take the United States, for example. In February in the US, inflation was running at 4.1 per cent, the unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent, and industrial production declined by 0.4 per cent in the month. And yet although the US was experiencing serious difficulties, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to talk down his economy. On February 5 he said that: “The U.S. economy is diverse and resilient, and our long-term fundamentals are healthy.” He also said that: "While we are in a difficult transition period as markets reassess and re-price risk, I have great confidence in our markets. They have recovered from similar stressful periods in the past, and they will again." Mr Paulson was doing what any good Treasury Secretary would do: maintaining confidence in the economy.  But what was our Treasurer Wayne Swan doing in February, when Australia’s most recent official headline inflation rate was 3 per cent, the underlying rate was 3.6 per cent, and the January TD Securities inflation measure had just been reported to be 3.9 per cent?  It is a matter of public record that he was going around the country, talking up inflation for political purposes.  Three times in four day, including 4 February - the day before the Reserve Bank met to consider its stance on monetary policy - MrSwan said that “the inflation genie is out of the bottle.” The plain meaning of that phrase is that inflation is out of control. What kind of a Treasurer repeatedly says that inflation is out of control - not once, but three times – in the leadup to a meeting of the board of the central bank?  The Prime Minister’s record is no better.  In the United States in June, inflation was running at 4.9 per cent, unemployment was 5.5 per cent, and annual industrial production growing at a rate of only 0.4 per cent, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that: “Overall, I believe that the United States is on the right path to resolving market disruptions and building a stronger financial system. Our long term prospects remain strong. One thing is very clear to me – whatever our current difficulties, I wouldn't bet against the U.S. worker or the U.S. economy.” Australia has a much better performing economy – we have lower inflation, lower unemployment, and a healthier annual economic growth rate of 3.6 per cent.  And yet, just a day after Mr Paulson’s remarks, the Prime Minister was undermining confidence in our economy, telling the Parliament that the “inflation monster” could “wreak havoc” on Australian living standards. And take the case of Britain, where annual economic growth is currently only 1.6 per cent, where unemployment is currently at 5.2 per cent, and which has an inflation rate of 3.8 per cent.  On June 18th the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, said that “Our macroeconomic framework is facing its toughest test in a decade. But we will come through it with renewed confidence.” Again, here is an example of a finance minister not talking down the economy, trying to maintain confidence.  And what does Kevin Rudd, have to say about Australia’s economy? He shrugs his shoulders and says “We've done as much as we physically can.”  Conclusion Ladies and Gentlemen we live in challenging times. Australia desperately needs leaders who proclaim to the world that we are different, that our economy is stronger, that our mortgages are more secure, our banks better capitalised. That our financial sector is stronger than its overseas peers. Instead of trying to blacken the reputation of the Howard Government, Messrs Rudd and Swan should have been burnishing the financial and economic reputation of Australia. They should have been using the bully pulpit of high office to confirm and restore international confidence in our financial markets. Building Australia’s Economic Future, Address to the Lord Mayor’s Business Breakfast Perth at http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0032.cfm House Hansard, 30 June 1999, A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1999, Consideration of Senate Message. House Hansard, 8 June 1999, Matter of Public Importance, Goods and Services Tax: Low and Middle Income Earners. Architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system, August 2008 at www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au Freebairn, J, 1998, “Efficiency Issues”, Tax Reform Debate, ed. P. Abelson, Allen and Unwin, Sydney Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Future Tax System, August 2008. NSW Treasury (2007) Interstate Comparison of Taxes 2007-08, TRP 07-2. http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/10171/trp07-2.pdf Access Economics (2008) Analysis of State Tax Reform Including Taxes on General Insurance,  Report prepared for the Insurance Council of Australia.  Cardak, B. and Wilkins, R. “The Determinants of Household Risky Asset Holdings: Background Risk and Other Factors” Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper Series No. 2/08. http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp2008n02.pdf APRA March 2008 Quarterly Superannuation Performance. http://www.apra.gov.au/Statistics/upload/March-2008-Quarterly-Superannuation-Performance-final.pdf RBA Bulletin, Table B. 20. http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/04_Household_net_worth.pdf ABN Amro, Australian Economics Weekly, Friday 1 August 2008. adminThu, 21 Aug 2008 06:14:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:45http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/47/Speech-to-The-Property-Council-of-Australia.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=47http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=47&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/47/Speech-to-The-Property-Council-of-Australia.aspx **check against delivery** Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a delight to be with you at today's Property Council luncheon. Today I would like to speak to you about a number of themes, principally tax reform, but also I wish to touch on some other important issues affecting your industry. Tax Reform The Prime Minister’s MySpace website lists his favourite authors: Robert Ludlum, Manning Clark and, most ominously, George Orwell. A great example of Mr Rudd’s Orwellian Newspeak was when he said that for eleven and a half years the Coalition Government “did not put forward a strategic vision for the tax system”. (Building Australia’s Economic Future, Address to the Lord Mayor’s Business Breakfast Perth at www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0032.cfm) The tax reforms of the Coalition Government, in particular the GST, were the most sweeping in any of our lifetimes. Mr Rudd described these reforms as a “fundamental injustice” (House Hansard, 30 June 1999, A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1999, Consideration of Senate Message). Mr Swan went further and called the GST a “bastard tax” (House Hansard, 8 June 1999, Matter of Public Importance, Goods and Services Tax: Low and Middle Income Earners). Since the defeat of the Keating Government, Labor has vehemently opposed tax reform, just as it has opposed economic reform generally. I welcome the Rudd Government copying the Coalition by commissioning a tax review under Ken Henry. Treasury’s initial discussion paper (Architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system, August 2008 at www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au), released last week, makes a useful contribution to the tax reform debate. I think this would be a useful publication to be released each year with the Budget. If we are to reform the tax system, the first step is to know from where we are starting. But is it not amazing that the Rudd Government explicitly excluded Dr Henry from inquiring into the GST? Surely a thorough inquiry should include analysis of the third largest tax in Australia? It seems that Mr Rudd once again announced an inquiry to meet the news cycle and deflect criticism of a lack of vision on tax that followed my announcement of the Coalition’s tax review under Henry Ergas. We will support genuine tax reform. But I’ll remain sceptical about the prospects of Labor Tax Reform until I see the details of any proposals. The tax system should be designed and maintained to collect no more money than the Government needs, and it should do so fairly and efficiently. Tax compliance and administration should be easy and above all designed to minimise economic waste. Our tax system is both fairer and more efficient than it was in 1996, but there is much more to be done. The Coalition wants to reduce the burden of taxation, and replace inefficient taxes with efficient taxes. That is why we commissioned Professor Henry Ergas to undertake a study of Australia’s taxes at all levels of Government. I welcome the Property Council’s recent submission to the Ergas Review. The Coalition will be developing its tax policy – and other policies – over time and naturally we will release these policies at a time of our choosing closer to the election. But we will be consulting widely in developing these policies. The Coalition is committed to good government, sound policies and a strong, dynamic and efficient economy. At the meeting with Shadow Treasurers I hosted last Friday, we issued a communiqué that agreed, among other things, to pursue policies to reduce or eliminate inefficient Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes. There are over 125 taxes paid by Australians each year. As noted in the Treasury paper, 90 per cent of revenue was derived from ten taxes: personal tax, company tax, GST, fuel excises, payroll taxes, conveyance stamp duties, local government rates, superannuation funds, tobacco excise and land taxes. As a result of the Coalition’s GST tax reforms, accommodation tax, financial institutions duty, marketable securities duty and debits tax were abolished. In addition, agreement was reached on a timetable for the abolition of mortgage duty, rental duty, lease duty, stamp duty on unquoted marketable securities, cheque duty and stamp duty on conveyances of non-real non-residential property. Progress has been slow, though, on the abolition of stamp duty on non-residential conveyances of real property. In 2006-07, the Australian government collected $262.5 billion (including the GST) while the States and Territories collected $48.9 billion and the local governments collected $9.4 billion. Of State and Territory taxes, 24 per cent are collected through stamp duties and 6 per cent through insurance taxes. Conveyancing stamp duty and other stamp duties raised close to $15 billion in revenue. These transactions taxes are notoriously inefficient. And until recently, like most inefficient taxes they have tended to be the least visible, and therefore among the least controversial. Professor John Freebairn (Freebairn, J, 1998, “Efficiency Issues”, Tax Reform Debate, ed. P. Abelson, Allen and Unwin, Sydney) has estimated that the efficiency cost of all taxation in Australia – the total deadweight loss of our tax system – is around 6 per cent of GDP. That is, to raise $320.8 billion in tax revenue at all levels of Government imposes an additional cost to the economy of $66 billion. Taxes vary in their inefficiency. But all taxes tend to cost the economy more than the revenue they raise. In principle taxes could be ranked in order of their efficiency. More efficient taxes cost the economy less for given revenue raised. It would be useful for Treasury to publish estimates of the average and marginal efficiency costs of each of Australia’s 125 taxes. Inefficiency arises from distorting the economy. Resources – capital and labour – flow to their most valued use. But taxation distorts this flow. The greater the distortion that a tax causes, the less efficient is the tax. Transactions taxes – such as stamp duty – distort trade. They drive a wedge between the price received by the seller and the price paid by the buyer. That wedge reduces the quantity of transactions, reduces the gains from trade, and imposes a real cost on individuals, families and businesses. One big area that is ripe for tax reform is stamp duty on conveyancing, particularly on residential property. Stamp Duty on Conveyancing All States and Territories levy duty on residential property transfers. Stamp duties of various kinds have been levied in Australia since before Federation. Of course, they were around before that; for example in 1694 they were levied in the United Kingdom to help pay for the war with France. They subsequently became very popular in Europe, and were applied to newspapers, legal documents, business licences, diplomas – almost anything written on paper. In March 1765 Britain was again at war with France in North America, and following riots in Britain against the cider excise that was levied under the Sugar Act, the British attempted to levy stamp duties on the American colonists. This attempt failed, of course. The Stamp Act started a rebellion in the American colonies, united them against a common British enemy, popularised the phrase “taxation without representation is tyranny”, and eventually led to a tax revolt: the American War of Independence. In Australia we learned that taxation with representation is not so great either. Initially our stamp duties were very similar to user charges. Many consisted of fees that were charged by government clerks to cover the administrative costs of validating contracts. The States also levied probate fees, which were designed to cover the costs of issuing probates and letters of legal administration. These were very similar to stamp duties, in the sense that they were taxes on written documents. Because property transfers from deceased estates were relatively inexpensive to monitor, the rates of duty gradually increased, and they eventually evolved into death duties. These were first introduced in New South Wales in 1851 and existed until the early 1980s. In New South Wales in 1875, customs and excise duties comprised over 90 per cent of revenues, with probate and stamp duties comprising only 0.4 per cent. By 1896 that had increased to 15 per cent of NSW government revenues. The share of revenue has grown over time. In 2008-09, for example, the New South Wales government estimates that transfer duties and other stamp duties will account for 28.3 per cent of total own-source revenue. Despite their attractiveness as sources of revenue, however, there are several problems associated with conveyancing stamp duties. Consider the case of New South Wales, where the standard, non-concessional rates of stamp duty on conveyances range from 1.25 per cent to 5.5 per cent. Under the state’s First Home Plus Scheme (www.osr.nsw.gov.au/lib/doc/factsheets/fs_fhb1.pdf), eligible purchasers – first home buyers and first home builders – are exempt from paying duty on homes valued up to $500,000. Duty concessions are also available for homes valued between $500,000 and $600,000. However, what is interesting is that the concession is withdrawn at a rate of 22.49 cents in the dollar. Thus, the average concessional rate of stamp duty is lower than the standard rate, but each extra dollar between $500,000 and $600,000 effectively attracts a tax rate of 22.49 cents. The most recently available March quarter data from the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) shows that the median house price in Sydney is $554,000. In other words, a first homeowner buying a median house in Sydney pays $11,470 in stamp duty, and those who pay $600,000 or more pay over $22,290 in stamp duty and receive no concession at all. But most importantly, on that median Sydney house, the effective marginal rate of transfer duty facing a first homebuyer is 22.49 per cent. For first homebuyers the average rate of stamp duty is obviously lower than the standard rate, so the recipients of the concession are obviously better off with it than without it. But the economic costs of a tax depend on marginal disincentives, and those can be quite high in the case of the stamp duty concession because of the high effective tax rate. I wonder how many first home buyers realise that when they bid an extra $1 on that median priced home, they effectively pay Mr Iemma an extra 22.49 cents! Another point which seems to be underemphasised in the debate is that stamp duty – being a transactions tax ­ is not really a tax on housing or property at all. It is a tax on moving. In reality, the underlying economic activity that is being taxed is migration from one suburb to another, or from one city to another. Seen in this light, the tax rate that the States and Territories are levying on that base is very high indeed. For example if the economic activity of moving house costs you $10,000, then stamp duty in NSW could easily end up being more than double that. This means that the effective rate of tax on the underlying economic activity - moving - could easily be more than 200 per cent. The distortions that this tax on moving creates reveal themselves in many different ways. Young families might decide to buy a larger house than they initially require. Older individuals and families might decide to stay put, in houses that are too big for their existing needs. Alternatively, families might decide to renovate instead of moving. Individuals may decide not take a new job in a different suburb or city. So stamp duty discourages labour mobility and encourages frictional unemployment. And what about the equity effects of stamp duty? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 census, the median weekly individual income (age 15 and over) in Sydney is $518, or $27,000 per year. That means that stamp duty on the median Sydney home is 42 per cent of the median individual income and 16 per cent of median family income, even with a first homebuyer concession. It hardly seems equitable that people who have to move house ­ for whatever reason ­ have to pay so much more tax than anyone else. In short, stamp duty punishes ordinary Australians just for getting on with their lives. Some people move homes because they want to get married, start a family or are having more kids and need a bigger house. Some people move house because the kids grown up and have left home. Others move for health reasons or because they are getting older. Other people want to change jobs. Others want to be closer to family and friends. Some people just want to live in a more desirable area. Stamp duty is a tax on all of these activities. Green Buildings I also welcome the Council’s work in improving the energy efficiency of Australian new and existing residential and commercial buildings. Increased energy efficiency in our buildings can make a substantial contribution to the overall reduction in Australia’s greenhouse emissions. The Centre for International Economics (Centre for International Economics 2007, Capitalising on the Building Sector’s Potential to Lessen the Costs of a Broad Based GHG Emission Cut, Canberra) estimated that residential and commercial buildings account for 23 per cent of Australia’s emissions from electricity consumption alone, with rapidly growing emissions. Some of the technologies that could reduce emissions from the stock of our seven million private dwellings, with 150 000 new dwellings a year, include better insulation, double glazing, and more efficient appliances. Research cited in the Garnaut Climate Change Review Draft Report by the International Energy Agency (IEA 2006, Energy Technology Perspectives 2006 – scenarios and strategies to 2050, Paris) estimates that increased energy efficiency could account for 45 to 53 per cent of global emissions reductions to 2050. I commend the Property Council on its efforts in this field, especially in encouraging cost-effective technologies to reduce Australian greenhouse emissions. The Australian Economy While an open foreign investment regime and competitive tax system are important to Australia and to the Property Council’s members, a strong and dynamic economy is the crucial foundation. By any measure, the Rudd Labor government inherited a much stronger, more resilient and flexible economy than the Coalition inherited in 1996. It was especially important that our fiscal house be put in order, which the Coalition achieved by paying off Labor’s $96 billion debt and ensuring strong fiscal surpluses. The Australian economy remains robust and resilient, but it is showing clear signs of weakening since Mr Rudd took office. The S&P 200 index for the Australian stock market has fallen from 6330.2 to 4981.1 – a fall of 21.3 per cent compared with a fall of only 12.6 per cent on the US S&P 500. The Reserve Bank has increased official rates by 0.5 percentage points, while banks have increased by more – the Commonwealth Bank, for example, increasing its standard variable rate from 8.57 per cent to 9.58 per cent over the same period: an increase of 1.01 percentage points, or 0.51 percentage points than the official rate increases. Under the Rudd Government, mortgage interest rates have risen to levels not seen since Labor was last in office. Small business overdraft rates, now at around 12 per cent, are at levels not seen since 1992. They have increased 1.15 percentage points since the election. Inflation has increased to 4.5 per cent – a rate not seen since the last Labor Government, if you exclude the one-off GST effect. Underlying inflation, with the RBA’s trimmed mean at 4.3 per cent, is also at its highest level since Labor was last in office. The Melbourne Institute’s most recent survey results show that consumer inflationary expectations are high, with the median expected inflation rate at 4.9 per cent. And the proportion of survey respondents expecting annual inflation to fall within the Reserve Bank’s target band of 2-3 per cent is only 8.8 per cent, lower than the average over the last year of 12 per cent. During the Coalition’s term in office, median inflationary expectations averaged 3.1 per cent – the best average performance of any government since the survey began. In contrast, since Rudd has taken office, median inflationary expectations have averaged 4.9 per cent. That is the highest 9 month average since 1991 ­when Labor was last in office. The RBA also conducts a survey of inflationary expectations and publishes the results in its Statement on Monetary Policy. Its latest August Statement tells a very interesting story of what has been happening with their survey since Labor has taken office. The RBA’s data shows that between August 2007 and November 2007, expectations of 2008/09 inflation actually fell among market economists, and remained steady among union officials. But since Mr Swan started talking up inflation back at the beginning of February, expectations of inflation among market economists have increased in every RBA survey. And union officials have revised up their expectations of the inflation that they believe will occur in 2008/09 by a full percentage point, from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. That is why, in its most recent August Statement, the RBA notes that “inflation expectations are at high levels, and an upward trend is evident across measures.” At the same time that inflationary expectations have been rising, a slew of economic indicators now suggest that the economy is slowing. Retail turnover figures for the month of June showed a fall of 1 per cent, well below market expectations. The ABS housing finance release found that the value of housing commitments fell by 0.9 per cent in the month of June. The number of housing commitments for owner occupiers fell by 3.7 per cent. ABN Amro has recently found that household wealth suffered its biggest decline over the past six months since the 1982-83 recession. And consumer confidence has plummeted. The Roy Morgan consumer confidence rating index at 90.1, the lowest level since December 1991. The Sensis consumer index has fallen 16 percentage points since the election, with record numbers of Australians worried about their financial future. The latest Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index shows that consumer confidence is very low at 86.2, lower than it was in February 1992 ­ right in the middle of Labor’s “recession we had to have” According to this measure, consumer confidence has fallen 26.3 percentage points since the election. To top it all off, business confidence has completely collapsed. The National Australia Bank quarterly survey shows that in the June quarter, business confidence fell to its lowest level since early 1991. The Dunn & Bradstreet business expectations survey showed that for the June quarter 2008, the growth in sales was the lowest since the March 1991 quarter. And the Commonwealth Bank-ACCI Business confidence index, as measured their Expected Economic Performance indicator, fell to its lowest level since the survey began in 1994. Finally, as if all that was not bad enough, let me give you one more piece of data. This is the crowning glory of Mr Rudd’s incompetence. As you know, Morris Iemma and his colleagues have been mismanaging New South Wales for well over a decade. They have been working on hopelessness for a very long time. Kevin Rudd has only been in office for eight months, and yet in the recent May Sensis survey on the attitudes of small and medium enterprises, the only Australian government in which those businesses had less confidence in than Kevin Rudd’s Federal Government was Mr Iemma’s motley crew! In other words, according to the Sensis business confidence survey – which has fallen 53 percentage points since the election ­ Kevin Rudd is currently the silver medallist in governmental hopelessness, only being pipped at the post by Morris lemma. Of all the other Labor governments around the country, Mr Rudd has done that in only eight months. His biggest ambition seems to be to ensure that his political epitaph reads: “I was not as bad as Morris Iemma.” Swan, Rudd and Paulson In the Reserve Bank’s August Statement on Monetary Policy, the Bank revised down its economic growth forecast for the year to December 2008 from 2¼ per cent to 2 per cent. It revised up its forecast for inflation to 5 per cent over the same period. The very next day, in a report in Tuesday’s Australian, David Uren and Brad Norington wrote: “the Reserve Bank is predicting an economic slowdown so severe that 100,000 people will be thrown out of work in the next 12 months, pushing the unemployment rate to 5 per cent and possibly higher if the financial crisis worsens”. None of this should come as a surprise to Mr Rudd and Mr Swan, because since coming to office they have been talking up inflation and talking down the economy on a regular basis. The contrast between Labor’s rhetoric and the language used by some of their counterparts overseas is quite stunning. Take the United States, for example. In February in the US, inflation was running at 4.1 per cent, the unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent, and industrial production declined by 0.4 per cent in the month. And yet although the US was experiencing serious difficulties, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to talk down his economy. On February 5 he said that: “The U.S. economy is diverse and resilient, and our long-term fundamentals are healthy.” He also said that: "While we are in a difficult transition period as markets reassess and re-price risk, I have great confidence in our markets. They have recovered from similar stressful periods in the past, and they will again." Mr Paulson was doing what any good Treasury Secretary would do: maintaining confidence in the economy. But what was our Treasurer Wayne Swan doing in February, when Australia’s most recent official headline inflation rate was 3 per cent, the underlying rate was 3.6 per cent, and the January TD Securities inflation measure had just been reported to be 3.9 per cent? It is a matter of public record that he was going around the country, talking up inflation for political purposes. On February 1st, he said that “the Howard Government let the inflation genie out of the bottle.” Two days later on February 3rd, Mr Swan again talked up inflation, saying that “the former Treasurer, the former Government, let the inflation genie out of the bottle.” And just in case nobody got the message, on February 4th ­the day before the Reserve Bank met to consider its stance on monetary policy ­ Mr Swan again said that “the inflation genie is out of the bottle.” The plain meaning of that phrase is that inflation is out of control. What kind of a Treasurer repeatedly says that inflation is out of control ­ not once, but three times – in the lead up to a meeting of the board of the central bank? The Prime Minister’s record is no better. In the United States in June, inflation was running at 4.9 per cent, unemployment was 5.5 per cent, and annual industrial production growing at a rate of only 0.4 per cent, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that: “Overall, I believe that the United States is on the right path to resolving market disruptions and building a stronger financial system. Our long term prospects remain strong. One thing is very clear to me – whatever our current difficulties, I wouldn't bet against the U.S. worker or the U.S. economy.” Australia has a much better performing economy – we have lower inflation, lower unemployment, and a healthier annual economic growth rate of 3.6 per cent. And yet, just a day after Mr Paulson’s remarks, the Prime Minister was undermining confidence in our economy, telling the Parliament that the “inflation monster” could “wreak havoc” on Australian living standards. And take the case of Britain, where annual economic growth is currently only 1.6 per cent, where industrial production actually declined by 1.6 per cent in May, where unemployment is currently at 5.2 per cent, and which has an inflation rate of 3.8 per cent. On June 18th the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, said that “Our macroeconomic framework is facing its toughest test in a decade. But we will come through it with renewed confidence.” Again, here is an example of a finance minister not talking down the economy, trying to maintain confidence. And what does the Hollowman-in-Chief, Kevin Rudd, have to say about Australia’s economy? He shrugs his shoulders, and famously declared in the Adelaide declaration “We've done as much as we physically can.” Labor’s New Protectionism Despite all of the talk about being ‘economic conservatives committed to an independent central bank’, the Rudd Government has an inbuilt distrust of the market and a sloppiness of process. It lacks analytical rigour and displays no sign of strategic thinking. Labor is a policy free zone committed to style over substance. And Labor’s protectionist psychology has emerged spectacularly. Addressing the ALP National Conference on 28 April 2007, Kevin Rudd said that: "I don't want to be prime minister of a country which doesn't make things any more.” No statement could better capture the underlying psychology of protectionism. And Labor has backed up its protectionist words with protectionist deeds. Mr Rudd recently announced that his Government will spend $35 million of taxpayer funds to subsidise Toyota to build hybrid cars in Australia. The Victorian Labor government will match this subsidy. This was on top of his appointment of Steve Bracks to head a review of the automotive sector and Roy Green to head a review of the textiles, clothing and footwear sector. Both of these reviews should properly have been conducted by the independent Productivity Commission which has the expertise and skills to undertake these inquiries. The Coalition certainly would have used the PC. The Commonwealth and Victorian governments have also pledged to provide further assistance, with Victoria to buy 2000 vehicles for its government fleet and Mr Rudd promising to buy up to 4000 Australian-made hybrid vehicles by 2020. Toyota plans to produce about 10,000 hybrid Camrys per year, starting in 2010. It will apply its existing petrol-electric Prius technology, but all of the engine components will be imported from Japan, where the hybrid Camry is already being produced. Toyota already sells the Camry Hybrid in the United States at a price of $US 25,650. It also plans on producing the hybrid Camry in Thailand. The worst part of this entire episode is that it appears that the decision to make petrol­electric hybrid Camrys in Australia had already been made and was due to be announced “within months”. That is Mr Rudd basically paid $35 million of taxpayer funds just to secure bragging rights. Ford has already announced plans to build an Australian clean-diesel version of the Ford Focus, and GM Holden is planning to produce hybrid and diesel versions of the Commodore within two years. There is a very good reason why Toyota, Ford and GM Holden are producing these hybrid cars. And it is the same reason why Toyota did not need this subsidy, and why Ford and GM Holden do not need it: unleaded petrol prices have almost doubled since 2001. If that increase is not enough to induce consumers to demand greater fuel efficiency and switch to hybrid cars, not to mention improve profitability for hybrid producers, then what is? Mr Rudd is a mercantilist at heart. He believes exports are good, imports are bad. His recent criticisms of Noble Laureate Friedrich Hayek show he does not understand the market economy. He does not understand the benefits of free trade. He does not understand opportunity cost. That should be of great concern to all Australians, and should particularly concern the Property Council. After all, the benefits of free trade apply just as much to capital flows as they do to trade in goods and services. Free trade in goods, services and capital has improved our standards of living. It has provided competition to drive innovation and productivity. It has increased real wages. Free trade has given more choice to Australians, more freedom to Australians and more job opportunities to Australians. And allowing financial capital to flow freely across borders is just free trade by another name. It is a matter of record that the Great Depression was extended by the ‘beggar thy neighbour’ protectionist policies that followed. Sadly, there are protectionist tendencies re-emerging in the world, some under the guise of environmental policies. For Australia to continue to be strong, dynamic, flexible and resilient, it will require a Government willing to prosecute the case for free trade. adminSat, 16 Aug 2008 06:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:47http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/48/Shadow-Treasurers-Meeting.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=48http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=48&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/48/Shadow-Treasurers-Meeting.aspxCOMMUNIQUÉ Commonwealth Shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull MP, hosted a meeting of his fellow Shadow Treasurers today.  Attending the meeting were Martin Hamilton-Smith (Shadow Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition, South Australia), Will Hodgman (Leader of the Opposition, Tasmania), Greg Pearce (Shadow Treasurer, New South Wales), Bruce Flegg (Shadow Treasurer, Queensland), Brendan Smyth (Shadow Treasurer, Australian Capital Territory), and Neale Burgess (representing Kim Wells, Shadow Treasurer Victoria). Apologies were received from Terry Mills (Shadow Treasurer Northern Territory) and Steve Thomas (Shadow Treasurer, Western Australia). Shadow Treasurers reaffirmed their commitment to a strong Australian market economy, with a reduced burden of regulation, low taxes and enhanced freedom. Shadow Treasurers agreed to pursue policies to reduce or eliminate inefficient Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes.  These taxes disproportionately cost Australians and raise limited revenue for the regulatory and other burdens they impose upon Australian businesses and citizens. State and Territory Shadow Treasurers agreed to support the Ergas Review of Taxation to assist in the development of good taxation policy at the Federal level and guide the development of good taxation policy at the State and Territory level. Noting that the Rudd Labor Government has established $40 billion slush funds, Shadow Treasurers agreed to carefully monitor the management of the Fund and the allocations from the Fund to provide some constraint to the Rudd Government from wasting taxpayers’ money on frivolous, poor quality and politically motivated projects. Shadow Treasurers noted with concern that Labor State and Territory Governments are again plunging into a $111 billion debt binge – a repetition of the mismanagement of past Labor Governments and in stark contrast to the responsible economic management of the Commonwealth during the Howard Government. Shadow Treasurers expressed their concern about the inability of Labor Treasurers to control spending and the risks this poses for the future fiscal stability of the States and Territories. Shadow Treasurers agreed to meet regularly to further coordinate Coalition economic policies and to provide a coherent economic framework across Australia to increase the prosperity and wellbeing of Australians.adminSat, 09 Aug 2008 06:30:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:48http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/49/The-Australian-Economy-and-the-Political-Landscape.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=49http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=49&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/49/The-Australian-Economy-and-the-Political-Landscape.aspx The Australian Economy and the Political Landscape Menzies Research Centre ****Check against delivery**** Introduction By any measure, the Rudd Labor government inherited a much stronger, more resilient and flexible economy than the Coalition inherited in 1996.  In 1995 – Labor’s last full year in office - the consumer price index grew by 5.1 per cent through the year to December.  And in 1996 the Coalition inherited an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent and a participation rate of 63.5 per cent.  We also inherited a $10 billion budget deficit – Mr Beazley’s famous “black hole” (which he of course repeatedly insisted was a surplus) -  and $96 billion in net government debt.  In its first Budget – the 1996-97 Budget –  the Coalition took policy decisions to reduce Government spending by $2.9 billion in 1996-97 (0.6 per cent of GDP), $5.2 billion in 1997-98 (1 per cent of GDP) and $4.8 billion in 1998-99 (0.8 per cent of GDP).  In other words, the Coalition’s policy decisions to reduce Government spending in its first Budget totalled $12.97 billion over three years – and our economy was much smaller than it is today.  Fast forward to 2007: Labor inherited an inflation rate of 3 per cent, an unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent and a participation rate 65.2 per cent. And what about the fiscal situation that Mr Rudd inherited? In the Coalition’s last full year of office – 2006-07 - the budget surplus was 1.6 per cent of GDP and net debt was negative. Since 2001-02 the budget surplus never fell as a proportion of GDP.  In making these comparisons, my point is simply this: with inflation now running at 4.5 per cent at the same time the economy is starting to show signs of slowing, can you imagine the dire economic straits we would be in, but for the Coalition’s exemplary economic management of the last 12 years?  What would have been the economic consequences of not paying off Labor’s $96 billion debt? There can be little doubt that we would now be entering what appears to be a period of slower growth with much higher interest rates.  What would the economic landscape look like today if the labour market had not been made more flexible? There can be little doubt that we would now be entering what appears to be a period of slower economic growth with lower real wages and many more people out of work.  And imagine, if you can stomach it, the economic carnage that Mr Swan could have caused if the Coalition had not made the Reserve Bank independent.  From day one, Wayne Swan has been egging on the RBA to raise interest rates. He even went so far as to say that inflation was out of control the day before the Reserve Bank Board met.  That reckless rhetoric simply exacerbated inflationary expectations and made the Reserve Bank’s job more difficult.  But imagine the damage Mr Swan could have caused if he believed that inflation was out of control as well as thinking that he had the Reserve Bank in his back pocket.  We would have had Paul Keating on steroids!  In short, but for the Coalition’s economic management, we would now be entering a period in which Labor would now be creating much more economic damage than it has been seeking to cause.  The Economy under Labor The Australian economy remains robust and resilient, but it is showing clear signs of weakening.  Since the election of the Rudd Government, most economic indicators have weakened – some significantly.  The S&P 200 index for the Australian stock market has fallen from 6330.2 to 4972.5 – a fall of 21.5 per cent compared with a fall of only 10.5 per cent on the US S&P 500. The Reserve Bank has increased official rates by 0.5 percentage points, while banks have increased by more – the Commonwealth Bank, for example, increasing its standard variable rate from 8.57 per cent to 9.58 per cent over the same period: an increase of 1.01 percentage points, or 0.51 percentage points than the official rate increases.   Under the Rudd Government, mortgage interest rates have risen to levels not seen since Labor was last in office.  Small business overdraft rates, now at around 12 per cent, are at levels not seen since 1992.  They have increased 1.15 percentage points since the election. Inflation has increased to 4.5 per cent – a rate not seen since the last Labor Government, if you exclude the one-off GST effect. Underlying inflation, with the RBA’s trimmed mean at 4.3 per cent, is at its highest level since Labor was last in office.  The Melbourne Institute’s most recent survey results show that consumer inflationary expectations are on the rise, with the the median expected inflation rate currently at 5.9 per cent, up from 5.2 per cent in May.  And the proportion of survey respondents expecting annual inflation to fall within the Reserve Bank’s target band of 2-3 per cent decreased to 8 per cent in June, down from 9.5 per cent in April.  At the same time that inflationary expectations have been rising, a slew of economic indicators now suggest that the economy is slowing.  Only last week retail turnover figures for the month of June showed a fall of 1 per cent, which was a far lower result than market analysts expected. Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Housing Finance release found that the value of housing commitments fell by 0.9 per cent in the month of June.   The number of housing commitments for owner occupiers fell by 3.7 per cent.     ABN Amro has recently found that household wealth suffered its biggest decline over the past six months since the 1982-83 recession. And consumer confidence has plummeted. The Roy Morgan consumer confidence rating index at 90.7, the lowest level since December 1991. The Sensis consumer index has fallen 16 percentage points since the election, with record numbers of Australians worried about their financial future. Tellingly, nearly 80 per cent of Australians believe they are no better off than they were a year ago.  The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index has fallen to 79, the lowest level since January 1992. It has fallen 31.5 percentage points since the election. To top it all off, business confidence has completely collapsed. The National Australia Bank quarterly survey shows that in the June quarter, business confidence fell to its lowest level since early 1991 – during Labor’s “recession we had to have”. The Dunn & Bradstreet business expectations survey just released this week showed that for the June quarter 2008, the growth in sales was the lowest since the March 1991 quarter.  And this week the Commonwealth Bank-ACCI Business confidence index, as measured their Expected Economic Performance indicator, fell to its lowest level since the survey began in 1994. Finally, as if all that was not bad enough, let me give you one more piece of data. This is the crowning glory of Mr Rudd’s incompetence.  As you know, Morris lemma and his colleagues have been mismanaging New South Wales for well over a decade.   They have been working on hopelessness for a very long time. Kevin Rudd has only been in office for eight months, and yet in the recent May Sensis survey on the attitudes of small and medium enterprises, the only Australian government in which those businesses had less confidence in than Kevin Rudd’s Federal Government was Mr Iemma’s motley crew! In other words, according to the Sensis business confidence survey – which has fallen 53 percentage points since the election - Kevin Rudd is currently the silver medallist in governmental hopelessness, only being pipped at the post by Morris lemma. Think about how extraordinary that is. Since Mr Rudd has come to office, small and medium enterprises have less confidence in his government then they have in Anna Bligh’s, than Alan Carpenter’s and John Brumby’s. Of all the other Labor governments around the country, Mr Rudd has done that in only eight months.   His biggest ambition seems to be to ensure that his political epitaph reads: “I was not as bad as Morris Iemma.”  Labor’s Failure on Economic Leadership And all of this has taken place in an environment where our terms of trade – the ratio of our export prices to our import prices – is rising rapidly, due to rising commodity prices.  The latest Reserve Bank Commodity Price Index showed an increase of 3 per cent in the month of July, or 36 per cent in the year to July 2008. The March quarter national accounts showed that Australia’s terms of trade increased by 1.1 per cent over the year, to be the highest level since the Korean war.  The Budget forecasts the terms of trade to rise further, by 3¼ per cent in the four quarters to June 2009. Australian-Japanese contract prices for most hard coking coals have tripled for Japanese Financial Year 2008, rising to around US$300 a tonne for premium hard coking coal. In April 2008, Australian coal suppliers and Japanese power utilities settled thermal coal contract prices at US$125 a tonne for 2008, an increase of around 125 per cent on last year.  2008 is the sixth consecutive year in which we seen contract prices increase for iron ore, with recent demand being driven by steel production in China.  This is an economic environment where Mr Rudd inherited the strongest fiscal situation in Australia’s history, with a run of strong surpluses and negative net debt of $44.9 billion or minus 3.7 per cent of GDP.  An environment where our financial sector is strong and resilient. Where Australians were enjoying strong economic growth, low unemployment, rapid employment growth and rising living standards. After inheriting such a favourable set of economic circumstances, what went wrong?  The Coalition recognises that there have been enormous ructions in the financial markets around the world. Managing the economy is never plain sailing. When we were in government we navigated many storms - successfully.  But what Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd have done is make those problems worse. So keen were they to capture the economic high ground, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan played a blame game from day one, trying to sheet home responsibility for inflationary pressures to the previous Government.  But that plan has badly backfired. Instead of moderating, instead of managing, instead of leading, they have had a political agenda to talk down the economy, talk up inflation and lay the blame at John Howard's door.  As a result, inflation has increased, inflationary expectations have blown out, but at the same time consumer confidence has plummeted and indicators of economic activity are showing weak growth.  There is no other way to put this: we are suffering lack of economic leadership in this country and we are paying a very heavy price for it. There is a failure to recognise that leadership requires men and women who will inspire confidence in our economy and give people the confidence to invest, to hire, to make plans for the future.  Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have undermined that for a very shabby political purpose from the moment they got into office. Through 2007 Mr Rudd and Mr Swan made as their key narrative the failure by the Howard Government to do something on fuel prices and grocery prices. They then copied the Coalition’s tax cuts and tried to market them as their own.  But Mr Rudd is the most economically illiterate Prime Minister since Gough Whitlam.  And Mr Swan is as competent as Jim Cairns and as confident as Norman Gunston.  Now with the keys to the Lodge, Mr Rudd doesn’t know what to do.  Like rabbits in the glare of the headlights, the Labor Party apparatchiks stand still, not knowing which way to go. First they trumpeted their ‘five point plan’ to fight inflation.  They soon dropped that and promised a horror budget “to put maximum downward pressure of inflation and maximum downward pressure on interest rates”. Then they delivered a budget which loosened fiscal policy in 2007-08 and that was mildly inflationary. Then to fix fuel prices, they come up with FuelWatch – a policy discredited by economists. Mr Rudd now proposes GroceryChoices, where Australians will be able to consult a website to see what local supermarket prices looked like – for a small set of products – a month ago. Here’s a newsflash, Mr Rudd: If you want to get a better handle on what grocery prices will look like next week – not what they looked like last month - just do what the rest of us do. Pick up a newspaper, or walk to the letterbox and take a look at the dozens of catalogues distributed by local retail outlets.   Like Chauncey Gardiner in the film Being There, Mr Rudd is the Prime Minister who likes to watch.  Indeed, it is all about being there, and Peter Sellers is an inspiration for the Prime Minister,  just sitting there, waiting, watching talking about problems. When these great challenges of living standards and prices and battles with ever-rising prices and pressures are brought to bear, what does the Prime Minister do?   He talks about the problem and sets up a website.  In truth, Mr Rudd and his colleagues have no ideas.   They are full of symbolism but empty of solutions.  Mr Rudd’s symbolism reached its apogee at the 2020 summit.  His neglect of the here and now is palpable.   The clear message of the 2020 summit and the first eight months of the Labor government is that Mr Rudd will start governing in 2020  - in 4165 days time.   What is supposed to happen in the meantime?  Three weeks after the Budget, we had the spectacle of Mr Rudd raising the white flag, shrugging his shoulders and saying that his Government had “done as much as it physically could.”   Harry S. Truman had a sign on his desk which read “the buck stops here”. Mr Rudd simply hides under his desk. Labor has been caught out by its own rhetoric. The economy does not run on autopilot – it needs a competent and confident driver who can drive economic reform. It needs a government willing to take responsibility - not one which seeks to blame the previous government, overseas events, or “big oil.”  So much for Mr Rudd’s vision of “New Leadership”, which he used as a slogan at the last election. We now know that the slogan should have read “No Leadership”.  In 2007 we heard Mr Rudd and Mr Swan accuse the Coalition of “11 years of neglect”. Now it is “12 years of neglect”. In 2010 can we expect it to be 14 years of neglect? Mr Rudd and Mr Swan are now reaping the fruits of their reckless rhetoric and politically motivated blame game. Inflation and inflationary expectations have increased, and the economy is showing signs of slowing. It didn’t have to be this way.   Mr Rudd inherited an economy that was strong. It is resilient. It is dynamic.  With a strong economic team in Government, Australia could be expected to pass through the global downturn in good order. After all, it did so on numerous occasions under the Coalition Government, for example the Asian Financial crisis, SARS, the tech wreck, September 11 and so forth. But Australians have been poorly served by this Government.  Just recall – the Australian stock market has declined more than in the US. Australian confidence indicators have collapsed.  Yet we have rising terms of trade, a strong and robust financial sector, relatively strong economic growth, low unemployment, and a strong fiscal position. Why should confidence here be more affected than in the United States, where the sub-prime crisis started, where the fiscal position is worrisome and where house prices have collapsed? There is only one explanation: we have an incompetent and inexperienced Government with no coherent economic strategy.  Swan Rudd and Paulson In February in the United States, inflation was running at 4.1 per cent, the unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent, and industrial production declined by 0.4 per cent in the month. [1] And yet although the US was experiencing serious difficulties, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to talk down his economy.  On February 5 he said that: "The U.S. economy is diverse and resilient, and our long-term fundamentals are healthy." He also said that: "While we are in a difficult transition period as markets reassess and re-price risk, I have great confidence in our markets. They have recovered from similar stressful periods in the past, and they will again."[1] Mr Paulson was doing what any good Treasury Secretary would do: maintaining confidence in the economy.  But what was our Treasurer Wayne Swan doing in February, when Australia’s most recent official headline inflation rate was 3 per cent, the underlying rate was 3.6 per cent, and the January TD Securities inflation measure had just been reported to be 3.9 per cent ?  It is a matter of public record that he was going around the country, talking up inflation for political purposes.  On February 1st, he said that “the Howard Government let the inflation genie out of the bottle.”  Two days later on February 3rd , Mr Swan again talked up inflation, saying that “the former Treasurer, the former Government, let the inflation genie out of the bottle.” And on February 4th, the day before the Reserve Bank met to consider its stance on monetary policy, Mr Swan again said that “the inflation genie is out of the bottle.” The plain meaning of that phrase is that inflation is out of control.  What kind of a Treasurer repeatedly says that inflation is out of control - not once, but three times – in the leadup to a meeting of the board of the central bank?  The Prime Minister’s record is no better.  In the United States in June, inflation was running at 4.9 per cent, unemployment was 5.5 per cent, and annual industrial production growing at a rate of only 0.4 per cent, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that: Overall, I believe that the United States is on the right path to resolving market disruptions and building a stronger financial system. Our long term prospects remain strong. One thing is very clear to me – whatever our current difficulties, I wouldn't bet against the U.S. worker or the U.S. economy."[2] Australia has a much better performing economy – we have lower inflation, lower unemployment, and a healthier annual economic growth rate of 3.6 per cent.  And yet, just a day after Mr Paulson’s remarks, the Prime Minister was undermining confidence in our economy, telling the Parliament that the "inflation monster" could "wreak havoc" on Australian living standards. And take the case of Britain, where annual economic growth is currently only 1.6 per cent, where industrial production actually declined by 1.6 per cent in May, where unemployment is currently at 5.2 per cent, and which has an inflation rate of 3.8 per cent.  [2] On June 18th  the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, said that "Our macroeconomic framework is facing its toughest test in a decade. But we will come through it with renewed confidence." [3] Again, here is an example of a finance minister not talking down the economy, trying to maintain confidence.  And what does Kevin Rudd have to say about the economy?  "We've done as much as we physically can".  State Finances and Concluding Remarks Looking to the future, what can we expect from the Rudd government’s Labornomics over the next two years?  With the economy showing signs of slowing, we have already started to see some of the results.  In this year’s budget Mr Swan implemented a six point plan: Tax, tax, tax; and spend, spend, spend.  He took policy decisions that will increase revenue by $19.5 billion over the forward estimates.  Much of this increase in revenue comprises tax increases (none of which were mentioned during the election campaign) that will put upward pressure on prices. The only tax cuts were those copied from the Coalition Government. And then Mr Swan took policy decisions to increase spending by a total of $14.9 billion over the forward estimates.  Of course, this is just the start of the spending blowout. Remember that most of the reviews commissioned by Mr Rudd and his colleagues have yet to report. Make no mistake, very few, if any of these reviews will recommend lower government spending.  And on top of all that we have to add Labor’s deferred spending – the Building Australia Fund – which will conveniently be deployed before the next election.  But truth be told, as bad as the Federal budget was, it could have been a lot worse: Mr Swan could have used the record of the State Labor governments as a guide.  All of the State and Territory Labor Governments have now brought down their 2008-09 Budgets.  The aggregate results show that in underlying cash terms, Labor’s economic wizards in the States expect government finances to deteriorate significantly over the forward estimates, to 2011-12.  In 2008-09, the aggregate underlying cash deficit in the Labor States and Territories is expected to be $2.9 billion.  But the States’ own Budget figures suggest that these deficits will deteriorate by a further 41 per cent over the forward estimates, with the aggregate deficit reaching $4.2 billion in 2011-12.  The situation with respect to Non-Financial Public Sector (NFPS) Net Debt in the Labor States and Territories is even worse.  In 2008-09, aggregate State and Territory non-financial public sector net debt is expected to be $61.6 billion.  Labor’s own Budget figures suggest that this net debt will grow by more than 80 per cent over the forward estimates, with aggregate NFPS net debt projected to blow out to $111.5 billion in 2011-12.  To put those figures in perspective, remember that the Coalition officially paid off $96 billion of Labor’s debt on April 21, 2006. And yet the Labor States will be racking up almost exactly the same amount in real terms over the next few years.  How such a large public debt will help Australia achieve lower interest rates is beyond me. There is a significant risk that the State and Territory Labor governments will turn to their Labor mates in Canberra – Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd – to bail them out. When Federal Labor announced in the Budget on 13 May that it would spend both the capital and earnings from its slush funds, it was obvious to all what they were really doing: deferring government spending into future years in order to make the 2008-09 Budget bottom line look better.  The only remaining question is whether this honey pot will be spent directly by Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd in the leadup to the next election, or whether it will be used to subsidise the financial mismanagement of their State Labor mates. The Coalition must never forget that every dollar of government spending must ultimately be financed by taxation, which has economic costs above and beyond the amount of revenue that is raised.  That is why I am always in favour of reducing wasteful government spending: taxation is costly, so we need to make sure taxpayers get value for money and that the benefits of spending outweigh the costs of raising revenue.  We should continually review programmes for their efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness.  There is no virtue, none whatsoever, just in spending taxpayers’ money. There is virtue in spending taxpayers’ money and achieving real results as long as the benefits exceed the costs. The real benchmarks for political achievement are not how much money can be spent on any given good cause, but how much can be done, how much reform can be effected and how efficiently taxpayers’ money can be deployed. That benchmark should apply to every level of government. After all, a dollar of government spending is still a dollar of government spending, whether it is at the local, state or territory or federal level.  Unfortunately, as the recent State Budgets show, that test doesn’t seem to apply in Mr Rudd’s brave new world of Labornomics.  [1]http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp805.htm [2]http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1001.htm [1]http://www.treas.gov/offices/economic-policy/macroecon/monthly_economic_data.pdf [2] http://www.economist.co.uk/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11849060&CFID=16012908&CFTOKEN=15677397 [3] http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/speeches/chancellorexchequer/speech_chx_180608.cfmadminFri, 08 Aug 2008 06:33:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:49http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/50/Address-to-the-Investment-and-Financial-Services-Association-IFSA-Conference-Opening-Cocktails.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=50http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=50&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/50/Address-to-the-Investment-and-Financial-Services-Association-IFSA-Conference-Opening-Cocktails.aspxWelcome to the IFSA annual conference – Innovate 08.  Innovation is essential to the future growth and prosperity of the Australian economy. Innovation leads to higher productivity which drives higher real wages for Australians. It is what leads to higher living standards for Australians.  The financial services industry employs 1.25 million Australians.  It provides advice, products and tools to enhance the wealth of Australians. An interesting trend in superannuation has been the relative growth of defined contribution rather than defined benefit funds. This is understandable, particularly as Australians – like elsewhere in the world – move more frequently between jobs. With the negative returns we are seeing in the market over the past six months, some people argue that defined benefit funds provide more protection to employees. Yet these funds substitute the risk of final salary for market risk: no fund is truly “risk free”. It is certainly important to view superannuation as a long-term investment where returns on a year-to-year basis can be volatile. The Liberal Party is the party of enterprise and individual freedom. We are the Party of the market economy and competition. In the 2006 Budget, the Coalition Government introduced Better Super – the biggest reform to superannuation ever.  This reform swept away the raft of complexity faced by retirees, increased retirement incomes, gave greater flexibility as to how and when superannuation could be drawn down and provided more incentives for older Australians to stay in the workforce. By allowing tax free payments from a taxed superannuation fund to people over 60 years of age, IFSA members have been able to deliver innovative superannuation pensions which look and feel like bank accounts to pensioners. The Howard Government also introduced choice of super fund and portability to boost competition in the provision of superannuation. Labor, by contrast, despite claiming to have invented superannuation, seems to have dropped the ball. It is embarked on policies that will restrict choice and reduce competition. Senator Sherry has 14 reviews outstanding across his portfolio of superannuation and corporate governance. There is a real risk of the financial services industry being strangled by regulation arising from these reviews. The 15th review – the only one to report to date – has been the financial services working group’s model product disclosure statement for the Government’s First Home Saver Accounts. The results of this review were described in the Australian Financial Review editorial as ‘micro-management’ and the ‘black letter law tick the box disclosure duck which got financial services in such a mess in the 1980s’.  The Coalition will be watching these reviews closely. We will be watching in particular for any sense that the Government might be trying to restrict choice or reduce competition in both the provision of financial advice and the range of superannuation funds. But a key thing missing from this plethora of reviews is the big picture in superannuation: the adequacy of retirement incomes. Something on which the previous Government was focussed upon. The Better Super reforms significantly boosted the incentives for many people to contribute to superannuation. Just as importantly, it simplified super and therefore helped improve Australians’ confidence in superannuation as a savings vehicle. The Super co-contribution scheme has been enormously popular, delivering over $1 billion per year into the super accounts of Australians. Competition is the key to better choice for Australians and better returns for Australians. Australia has a balance between various types of superannuation fund: retail funds, employer funds, public sector funds, industry funds and self-managed super funds. All have their advantages and all have their role. Sadly it appears that the Rudd Government is intent on reducing choice and reducing competition. In part this is because the Rudd Government is patronising. It thinks that too much choice is bad. That Australians are not intelligent enough to make their own minds up on where to invest their superannuation. That the Government knows better on investment strategies.  There are also indications that the Government’s policies – as expounded by Minister Sherry – lack neutrality. For example, the reinstatement of superannuation as an allowable matter in industrial awards gives a strong advantage to industry funds and is anti-competitive. That means that when a new employee joins a company with an award, there is a default super fund. This undermines choice. Even the regulator – the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) – is wading into this, with a recent paper by APRA’s Wilson Sy suggesting a default National Super Fund. Minister Sherry has not repudiated this view. In so many areas, the Rudd Government is assaulting competition. In the markets for petrol, groceries and hospitals – competition is under threat. Now it is the turn of super funds. Which are so important for reducing the pressure off the public pension. And which helps position Australia for our ageing population, as noted in the 2006 Intergenerational Report. The growth in superannuation over the past 12 years has been remarkable. In June 1996, there was $245.3 billion invested in superannuation, around 37.9 per cent of GDP.  By June 2007 this had grown to $1143.2 billion, more than 100 per cent of GDP. As of June 2007, there were 289 corporate funds with $69.2 billion invested, 74 industry funds with $197.3 billion invested, 40 public sector funds with $177.6 billion invested, 172 retail funds with $369.7 billion invested, 365 992 small funds with $286.6 billion and 101 pooled funds with $83.7 billion invested. That is a remarkable amount of money. But it is also a remarkable temptation for Government.  And this is another area of concern – the noises from the Government about directing or encouraging superannuation funds to invest in this or that project. To finance infrastructure, for example. One of the great strengths of our superannuation rules is that trustees must act in the interests of their members.  If there is one “free good” in economics, it is that a diversified portfolio of assets can achieve a given rate of return for less risk than an undiversified portfolio. When Governments get in the act of directing investments it is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for lower superannuation returns. If an infrastructure project is sufficiently worthwhile, it will attract funds – including from superannuation funds – without the need for Government intervention.  The Coalition is strongly committed to allowing freedom of choice in superannuation. We are strongly committed to competition and we are opposed to Governments directing the investment behaviour of superannuation funds. Thank you for inviting me to address your Conference. I hope that the Conference will be entertaining, enjoyable and informative. adminThu, 07 Aug 2008 06:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:50http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/51/RTD-Tax-fuels-pressure-on-CPI.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=51http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=51&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/51/RTD-Tax-fuels-pressure-on-CPI.aspxToday’s inflation figures show the Government’s $3 billion tax binge on RTDs in the Budget is adding to inflationary pressures in the Consumer Price Index. Far from fighting inflation, the Budget has failed to assist the Reserve Bank in keeping inflationary pressures in check. The June quarter CPI release notes the increase in the price of spirits – 6.1 per cent in the quarter – was “the largest quarterly increase in the price of spirits since the series began in [the] September quarter 1980 and was predominantly due to the introduction of an increased tax on all pre-mixed spirits from 27 April 2008”. Upcoming increases in the Luxury Car Tax and changes to the Medicare Levy Surcharge will further increase pressure on the CPI. The Coalition has every confidence that the Reserve Bank will manage the inflation problem we confront, much of which is generated by external factors such as increases in the price of fuel. But today’s CPI confirms our description of the Budget as one which far from placing downwards pressure on inflation, as Mr Swan claimed, has in fact by increasing prices added to inflationary pressure. Mr Swan is unable to manage the Budget, and he is unable to manage inflationary expectations. And now, into this mix, the Government wants to rush through a poorly designed and implemented ETS which will put further pressure on inflation. Now is not the time for Mr Rudd and Mr Swan to play political games. Now is the time for them to manage the economy in the national interest and to take the proper time and consultation to design an efficient and effective Emissions Trading Scheme.  adminThu, 24 Jul 2008 06:37:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:51http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Visit-to-Newcastle.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=52http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=52&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Visit-to-Newcastle.aspx  Malcolm Turnbull, Federal Member for Wentworth and Shadow Treasurer was delighted to visit Newcastle today to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme and its possible impact on the region. Malcolm stopped in at McM Manufacturing in Cardiff. McM specialises in industrial maintenance, manual machining and the production and repair of heat exchangers. “It was very informative to see first hand some of the technological developments that will play a key factor in mitigating against climate change in the short and long term” Malcolm said. Malcolm was honoured to be the special guest at the Newcastle Business Club Lunch. The Club is proudly celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Special thanks to Martin Matthews and his team for organising such a wonderful event. Media Contact: Thomas Tudehope 0438 614 373  adminWed, 23 Jul 2008 06:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:52http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Malcolm-writes-for-Sydney-Morning-Herald-on-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=54http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=54&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Malcolm-writes-for-Sydney-Morning-Herald-on-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspxLast year the Howard government committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme not later than 2012. It was to be the world's most comprehensive to date, including more than 70 per cent of all emissions. Its introduction was not conditional on a post-Kyoto global climate change framework being agreed to; in that sense it was unilateral action. We also recognised that while an ambitious long-term emissions reduction target could be set for 2050, the most important targets were those in the near and mid term. They would need to be carefully set in the light of many factors, not least of which would be the state of international negotiations. If the world quickly committed to substantial reductions, with all major economies playing a part, then we could be more ambitious. If progress was slow, then our emissions reduction targets would need to be moderated. The truth is that the most heroic emission reductions in Australia will be futile if there is no effective global action, especially from the largest and fastest-growing emitters such as China, the United States, India, Japan and Europe. In our policy we recognised that "It may take some time for an effective global framework for emissions reductions to emerge". We also recognised that "our first-hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system" would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global climate change agreement. Following the announcement of our policy and other measures, John Howard achieved a breakthrough in climate change diplomacy at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Sydney last September. For the first time China agreed to contribute to a global goal of emission reductions. Previously, China's position had been that emission reduction was the responsibility of the developed world. This unbalanced and ineffective approach was reflected in the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period expiring in 2012. We recognised that a poorly designed emissions trading scheme could harm Australia's economy. If we imposed a heavy carbon price on our trade-exposed industries such as aluminium, steel, gas and coal mining, we could make them uncompetitive with rivals in developing countries without any carbon price. We would end up exporting the jobs and the emissions - a loss for our economy with no environmental gain to the planet. We have to strike the balance between being a leader on climate change and being left out on a limb. The most important leadership role for Australia is where we were most focused last year: the development of clean coal technology and new strategies to stop deforestation in tropical countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Coal is the most abundant and cheap source of stationary energy, and carbon capture and storage is the key to effective global emission reductions, especially in China and India. Our clean coal partnership with China and global forest project with Indonesia are initiatives the world needs and the Rudd Government should continue. None of this is easy and principles readily expressed can be difficult to apply in particular cases. Our officials, and indeed business, advised last year that a start date of 2011 was possible, but that only 2012 was confidently achievable. Last year Kevin Rudd promised his emissions trading scheme would start in 2010. He had no basis for knowing whether that was feasible. He simply wanted to make a political point. Rudd should try an unaccustomed dish, humble pie, admit he was wrong and go back to the original start date that we were advised last year. It's more important to get this emissions trading scheme right than to start it a year or two earlier. The earliest we will know the shape of the post-Kyoto climate agreement is in December next year. Common sense says we should give ourselves time to fine tune our scheme in light of that agreement. A 2010 start date gives us no opportunity to do so. Rudd likes to talk about climate change in theological terms - you are either with St Kevin in all things or damned as a climate sceptic. The debate has moved on and he has to move on too. The challenge is to design an emissions trading scheme that efficiently delivers the least cost abatement, which protects industries and jobs and which is administratively straightforward.  adminThu, 10 Jul 2008 06:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:54http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/53/Consumer-Confidence.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=53http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=53&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/53/Consumer-Confidence.aspxThe continued sharp decline in consumer sentiment is of serious concern. The level of the Westpac Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment fell by a further 6.7% in July to 79.0, down from 84.7 in June. There is no escaping the fact that consumer sentiment has tumbled since the election of the Rudd Government. Recently in Parliament Kevin Rudd used the excuse that consumer confidence was at similarly low levels in the United States. But the fact is that the Australian economy is in much stronger position than the United States - it simply is not a sensible or credible comparison to make. Since January Mr Rudd and Wayne Swan, for base political reasons, have talked down the economy, and talked up inflation, variously describing the situation as an “inflation monster”, “a genie out of the bottle” and “out of control”. This has been utterly irresponsible. And again today economic analysts have pointed to the rise in petrol prices as a key factor. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan last year built an expectation they would be able to keep prices lower.  The Australian public now know this was a fraudulent claim. This continuing decline in consumer sentiment must also ultimately reflect a lack of confidence in the Government. Confidence can hold up in tough economic times if the public believe the Government has the capacity to manage those tough times. That is why, in stark contrast, consumer confidence held up well throughout the Howard years which included the Asian financial crisis, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the tech bubble, SARS, and the worst drought in 100 years. Australia has a strong and resilient economy, and consumers should be confident that we will again weather these turbulent conditions.adminThu, 10 Jul 2008 06:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:53http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/55/Implementation-of-Coalition-tax-cuts.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=55http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=55&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/55/Implementation-of-Coalition-tax-cuts.aspx The Shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull MP, welcomed the commencement of the final tranche of the Howard Government's tax cuts from 1 July 2008. The enactment of the Coalition’s tax cut bill – the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Reduction) Act 2008 – is the last in a long series of tax cuts pursued by the former Coalition Government. For a family with the principal earner on average weekly earnings and the second income earner in part-time work (earning 40 per cent of average earnings) the income tax cut will be around $30 per week, rising to $50 per week in 2010. These tax cuts will deliver around $20 per week to a person currently on average weekly earnings from 1 July 2008 rising to around $35 per week from 1 July 2010. The Coalition tax cuts will boost family income and help families deal with cost of living pressures. Unfortunately for Australians, there appears little prospect of further tax cuts under the Rudd Government.   Instead the Government wants to hoard the surpluses into various infrastructure funds to be deployed politically as various State and Territory elections approach.  The Coalition will be developing further tax policies which we will take to the next election.  These will be developed once Henry Ergas has completed his review of Australia’s tax system across all levels of Government. These tax cuts build on the significant reductions in personal income tax for low and average income earners that have resulted from tax cuts delivered by the Coalition over half a decade.  For all years including the GST tax cuts, in percentage terms, the greatest tax cuts have been provided to low and average income earners. The Coalition believes in lower and fairer taxes.   Only the Coalition can run a strong economy and consistently deliver tax cuts. adminTue, 01 Jul 2008 06:46:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:55http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Rudd-exposed-on-inflation.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=58http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=58&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Rudd-exposed-on-inflation.aspx It was like pulling teeth, but after 24 hours and four questions the Prime Minister finally confirmed that he stood by the five week old inflation forecasts in his own Budget. Yesterday Mr Rudd stated in Parliament that the inflation forecast for 2008-09 was 3.75 per cent. This represented an upward revision from the 3¼ percent stated in the Budget Papers. While many observers would have felt he had made a mistake, his failure to correct it gave rise to the concern that the Government was revising upwards its inflation forecast for 2008-2009. Finally today, Mr Rudd said, almost under his breath, that he stood by the Budget forecasts. He did not say that yesterday's statement was an error. He left open the suspicion that the Government was planning to revise upwards its inflation forecast, but had not made it public. Mr Rudd should understand that inflationary expectations are as significant as the actual inflation rate. As Prime Minister he is expected to be on top of this brief on such an important issue.  Clearly he is not. adminSat, 21 Jun 2008 06:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:58http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/57/Swan-allows-Treasury-to-be-ignored.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=57http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=57&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/57/Swan-allows-Treasury-to-be-ignored.aspx Wayne Swan must answer questions today about why Treasury advice has again been ignored by Government. The report in The Australian (20/6/08) concerning Treasury’s ignored advice regarding the issue of subsidies for the automotive industry is just the latest example of this occurring in the first six months of the Rudd Government. This is despite Kevin Rudd’s statement following the election that Treasury advice would be “brought to the centre stage” of policy development by Government. (29/11/07, Press Conference, Parliament House) If the Prime Minister’s charter to his Treasurer was to bring this Departmental advice to “centre stage”, why then is it being repeatedly ignored by the Government? Is it because of the weakness of the advocacy of the Minister that represents Treasury at the Cabinet table? Or does Mr Swan fundamentally disagree with the advice his Department provides, and accordingly, declines to support it in Cabinet? This latest example of Mr Swan and Treasury being rolled in Cabinet follows the Government’s decision to ignore Treasury advice on FuelWatch, reviews into the automotive and textile industries, and workplace reform. adminSat, 21 Jun 2008 06:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:57http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/56/Speech-at-the-launch-of-Anne-Hendersons-biography-of-Dame-Enid-Lyons.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=56http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=56&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/56/Speech-at-the-launch-of-Anne-Hendersons-biography-of-Dame-Enid-Lyons.aspx  Anne Henderson’s biography of Enid Lyons is a revelation of a world that has passed into history and a woman whose place in history has been neglected. Dame Enid Lyons was not just the first woman to sit in the House of Representatives or the first to hold Cabinet rank. She was a mother of twelve children, the teenage bride of a Tasmanian Treasurer and as the wife of Prime Minister Joe Lyons one half of a powerful and charismatic political partnership that captured the affection and attention of this nation like no other. Reading Anne’s book I constantly regretted that Enid Lyons agreed to become a Dame! Dame Enid Lyons sounds so formal, so stuffy, so conventional. And yet she was anything but that. She was the ultimate home maker – as she said in her maiden speech in 1943, when the subject of population was discussed she had not pondered it “with my feet upon the mantle-piece,” in other words, like all the blokes in the House of Representatives, “but knee-deep in shawls and feeding bottles.” And in reminding her audiences and her colleagues of her domestic credentials she never failed to puncture the self assurance, some would say pomposity, of public men who speak with such authority about family issues. Enid Lyons was also the ultimate super-woman - talk about work life balance! From the very beginning of her marriage as a child, 17, to Joe Lyons she combined relentless fertility in the home with constant political action and advocacy on the public platform. She was living in northern Tasmania, without a telephone for many years; she travelled with Joe and separately to serve their combined political mission. And while ambitious and determined she was not a cold political operative. She was wickedly funny, with a gentle mocking wit which was only occasionally cruel as when she described the wife of British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and I quote, “looks like a public building and behaves like a steamroller.” I should say a little about her husband, Joe Lyons, because while Enid achieved several firsts in her own right, her main contribution was as the equal partner of Joe Lyons. She married Joe, while she was a teenager, and when he was an up and coming Tasmanian Labor politician and Minister, the Treasurer and Minister for Education. But at 18 she was the wife of the Opposition Leader and for seven years thereafter.  He was Premier then for five years, lost an election, moved into Federal politics where he distinguished himself, as he had in Tasmania, for sound economic management. Now the context of the Labor Government in that day, led by Scullin was all about economic issues. It was the Great Depression and you had those advocating expansionary policies like Ted Theodore, the former Queensland Premier who was the Treasurer in the Scullin Government and was constantly mired in one political scandal after another. And of course you had here in Sydney Jack Lang, John Thomas Lang,  whose recklessness and charisma combined to create a formidable threat to the Labor Government, indeed to government itself. He was a remarkable man, I got to know him in his late 90’s when I was a young student and journalist and when I wrote his obituary I was struggling with a headline, and I could only sum it up with “Jack Lang: the man who knew how to hate” He was a formidable, powerful politician. Joe Lyons took him on; as he took Ted Theodore on and he made his reputation - perhaps this is a lesson for all politicians to remember - as a leader who was prepared to do things which were not always popular, but which were always prudent. He was a genuine economic conservative. His campaign for a bond issue, the “All for Australia” bond issue put the Australian nation in a position where it was able to refinance its loan obligations to British creditors. He enabled Australians to liberate themselves from foreign creditors. He resigned from the Scullin Government in January 1931 in protest at the return of his other archenemies, Ted Theodore to the cabinet and he moved over to the United Australian Party which was the main predecessor to the Liberal Party and he became Prime Minister in 1932. He took on Jack Lang in the following year and that was the year that Lang was sacked and if you look at the handsome red granite building in Martin Place which is the headquarters for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, remember that was the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales and that was part of the price, the financial price that taxpayers and citizens on New South Wales paid for the financial collapse of this state during that struggle. In 1939 Joe Lyons died in office and he left Enid a widow and a single mother with 11 children. She was, within four years and MP in her own right. She won the seat of Darwin, which is now called Braddon in Tasmania in the 1943 election, which was the bleakest year for the conservative side of politics in Australia. The primary vote for the conservatives, for the UAP and the Country Party was a mere 33 per cent. It was a devastating election. She was the one bright hope and she gave enormous cheer to the non-Labor forces in the Federal Parliament. She was then one of the first members of the newly formed Liberal Party. She was, if you like, a founding mother of the Liberal Party, just the same way that Robert Menzies was a founding father. I have to say that one of the great traditions and features of the Liberal Party is the way in which equal representation of men and women is part of the organisational structure. For those of you who are members of the Liberal Party, or familiar with it will know that we have Male Vice- Presidents and Female Vice-Presidents right through the system. And that is owed to the leading role that Enid Lyons and many other women and women’s political organisations played in its foundation. She was a political super star. She had an enormous fan club, she was a very popular newspaper and magazine columnist and she wrote right through her life, not out of a desire for self promotion, but as much as anything out of a desire, not just to promote her political values and ideals but in order to keep the household together. It was a considerable financial struggle, this was a family that had enormous obligations with so many children, but very little in way of income beyond, initially Joe’s parliamentary salary, then Enid’s, and of course what she could generate from journalism. She also struck a great blow, as did Joe Lyons, in the defeat of sectarianism in Australia. They were both Catholics and of course leading Catholics on the conservative side of politics. Then there was to a large degree a sectarian divide in politics in Australia and there were few Catholics on the conservative side of politics. That is well and truly a thing of the past and it is interesting to note that when Lucy’s father Tom Hughes was Attorney General in the Gorton Government people remarked on this prominent Catholic moving into the cabinet. So it was something of note in 1968, but of course it is a non-issue today and that is very good. * * * * * Enid Lyons was a profoundly practical politician.  She spoke in the here and now, of the problems of the day and the policies they demanded. So without departing unduly from my task today, and in the spirit of Dame Enid, let me make a few points about the Liberal Party of 2008 and the challenges it faces in the years ahead. These are tough times for our Party – but we have had tough times before as Enid Lyons knew well. Our Party exists to provide good Government based on our Liberal principles. And yet we are in Government nowhere. Our supporters are entitled to feel let down – incompetent Labor Governments remain in office and unqualified Labor Oppositions win office. My certain belief is that our best chance to return to Federal Government is in 2010. Kevin Rudd did not deserve one term – we must not allow him to win another by default. But to win in 2010, we have to be leaders with policies that are consistent with our political philosophy. And I tell you my friends our political values are the values for our time. Because at the very core of our reason for existence is a commitment to freedom, to individual enterprise, to creating an environment where every person is best able to purse their own ambitions – their own pursuit of happiness. Labor believes that government knows best – we believe that Governments role is to enable us to do our best. Our vision for Government is to enable, to empower. Labor’s is to direct and to command. Now that political touchstone of freedom is easy for Governments to overlook – Liberal Governments are not exempt from that temptation. So while we should be proud of our achievements in the past, we must not be captured by them. We must challenge every policy, every programme, every regulation, every tax with this test: does this make Australia more free? Does it enable greater choice? Does it impose a burden or a restriction on freedom which is more than is absolutely necessary? That is a Liberal’s key performance indicator: it is freedom above all else. Now some people will say that pursuing freedom is not consistent with social justice.  That is as wrong today as it was when Lenin said cynically but most revealingly, “freedom is so precious it must be rationed.” A free society must be a fair society. We cannot as individuals have the freedom to pursue our ambitions if there is no safety net, if poverty or illness deprives an individual of every dignity, every opportunity. Our goal must be as Liberals then to strive for an Australia of which people can say: there is no country in the world where a man or woman is more free to pursue their dreams, no country more receptive to new ideas, no country more welcoming to enterprise and initiative. And it must also be to strive for an Australia of which people can say: there is no country in the world where a person who is set back by disability or illness or poverty has more support and encouragement to enjoy the opportunities of a free society. Those values of freedom, of equal opportunity are profound and they are enduring because they are human. And it was to human values that Enid Lyons always returned. She was fundamentally a woman in touch with human values, with the real world and I tell you that deep in our human DNA is the desire for freedom, to be ourselves, to be different, to make our own mark. If you doubt me, consider how technology has dramatically expanded choice and individual freedom and how universally that has been embraced. Freedom is in the spirit of the times and that is why our values are in the spirit of these times. The Labor Government, the new Rudd Government is the emptiest we have ever seen. There is a yawning gap, a vacuum, between the rhetoric and the reality,  between the empathy and the action. Where is the thread of principle that connects a Prime Minister who spent a year loitering around petrol station forecourts dripping with empathy for rising prices and then today, like ChaunceyGardiner, says “I like to watch.” Where is the substance in a Government that came to office as fiscal conservatives dead against protectionism and then gave $35 million to Toyota to build a car they were going to build anyway - $35 million Toyota said it did not know how to spend? Or which ignores the advice of Treasury and instead of inquiring into the motor industry via the expert and impartial Productivity Commission puts together a committee of trade unionists and industry lobbyists headed by a former Victorian Labor Premier. Where is the evidence based policy in a Government which seeking $3 billion of extra tax revenues, disguises it as a health measure based, so we are told, on the remarkable assumption that if one type of alcohol is made more expensive drinkers will not move to a cheaper alternative? What can we say of the hubris of a Government that underestimates that enterprising ingenuity of the Australian drinker? Our opportunity, our responsibility, is faced with a Government of spin and little  substance, faced with a Government that like Chauncey Gardiner is content with simply “Being There”  to be an Opposition of substance which clearly sets out those values for which we stand, which presents policies consistent with those values and which every hour of every day reminds itself that our duty to this nation is to enhance the freedom and the enterprise that has made it great and will make it greater still. All of us in public life stand on the shoulders of those who went before us and Dame Enid Lyons is in the forefront of those who made Australia the great nation it is. This is a worthy biography, it’s overdue, it’s been beautifully written by a woman who has a keen insight into the character, the qualities, the determination, the courage, and the essential humanity of Enid Lyons. I am deeply honoured Anne that you have asked me to launch this book. Thank you.  adminSat, 21 Jun 2008 06:48:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:56http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Consumer-confidence-collapse.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=59http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=59&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Consumer-confidence-collapse.aspx Today’s Westpac-Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment survey results are of great concern.  The level of the index fell by 5.6 per cent in June to 84.7, down from 89.8 in May.  Consumer confidence held up well throughout the Howard years, through the Asian financial crisis, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the tech bubble, SARS, and the worst drought in 100 years.  Yet since the Rudd Government came to office in November last year, the index has dropped 23.3 per cent and is now at its lowest level since December 1992 – when Labor was last in office.  The latest figures also show that the index has dropped 30.3 per cent below its level a year ago.  That is the second largest annual drop in the 34 year history of the index.  The largest fall on record occurred in July 1989, right before Labor’s “recession we had to have.” Economic analysts have today pointed to the rise in petrol prices as a key factor. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer spent much of last year promising they would be able to keep petrol prices lower. This continuing decline in consumer sentiment ultimately reflects a lack of confidence in the Rudd Government’s handling of the economy. adminThu, 12 Jun 2008 06:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:59http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/60/Address-to-the-National-Press-Club.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=60&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/60/Address-to-the-National-Press-Club.aspx Speech by Malcolm Turnbull, Shadow Treasurer, to the National Press Club, replying to the Budget Mr Rudd has promised us new leadership with new ideas. Courage, vision and a readiness to take on the great challenges of our times.  And as the Federal Budget is “the embodiment of the total program of the Federal Government”[1] , then we would expect this new Government coming into power after 12 years of Opposition to reveal its vision for Australia’s future. But instead this was a Budget of indecision, missed opportunities, and challenges that have not been faced. We were told our greatest immediate economic challenge was the inflation genie: out of the bottle and out of control. A horror Budget with savage cuts in expenditure would fix all that. An anxious nation flinched last Tuesday night bracing for the axe to fall. And then nothing happened. The Budget was as mild as its authors’ rhetoric was fierce. No bang, all whimper. And so we see the most consistent theme of this Government and this Budget – spin and hype. There has never been a Government more hypocritical or less sincere. Ready to talk the talk – too weak to walk the walk. This is a Government that says climate change is the greatest long term economic challenge of our times, but presents a Budget with nothing to say about the likely impact and costs of an emissions trading scheme due to start in less than two years. A government that kills off the solar energy industry in one blow. This is a Government that says it wants to stop young people drinking RTDs, but has $3 billion of new tax revenue banking on the RTD binge continuing to grow. A Government which promises to bring down petrol and grocery prices, but can do nothing but pay people to watch them go up. This is a Government that feels our pain about the crumbling public hospital system, and then manages to drive half a million people or more out of private health insurance. A ghastly trifecta of more pressure on public hospitals, higher premiums for those remaining in private health insurance and a revenue windfall for the Federal Government. This is a Government that preaches accountability – but then establishes a $40 billion Labor Party slush fund, advised by its mates and without any rules, any limits, any investment benchmarks. Nothing to stand in the way of buying the next Federal election or bailing out incompetent State Labor Governments, their mismanaged utilities and great infrastructure disasters. This is a Government fond of symbols – but delivers a Budget whose symbolic measures speak of meanness, division and the politics of envy. And this is a Government that speaks endlessly of reform, but whose Budget offers no reform of its own – just a six month old tax package designed by Peter Costello. Macroeconomy Kevin Rudd likes to ask his own questions and in that spirit, Wayne Swan set his own test for his first Budget. It was to be an inflation fighter – big cuts putting maximum downward pressure on inflation and maximum downward pressure on interest rates. And what did we get? A Budget result that was roughly neutral. A Budget that far from cutting spending, actually increased it and by about $15 billion over the next four years. A Budget that imposed new tax measures that put up the price of alcohol, cars and private health insurance. And a Budget full of fiddles designed to boost the 2008-09 surplus at the expense of other years. In his defence, MrSwan has argued that spending will grow next year at a lower rate than it had in the last few Costello budgets. But in 2009-10 spending is projected to grow at a faster rate than in all but one of the the coalition’s budgets years, the 2000-01 Budget when the GST was introduced. But why should I complain that Wayne Swan’s Budget failed to meet the test he set for it himself? Consider what last Tuesday’s backflip tells us about our Treasurer. Did Mr Swan simply lose his nerve and fail to take the tough decisions he believed were necessary? Or can we assume that he never really believed his claim that inflation was out of control and that only a brutal Budget could put the genie back behind the stopper? So is he gutless or disingenuous? Take your pick. What is certain is this: that effective macroeconomic policy depends on having a credible, consistent economic narrative, translated into durable policy settings – policy settings that can guide markets in their decisions. This is the crucial weakness in Wayne Swan’s “say one thing, do another” approach: all it does is muddy the waters. Either way, from Budget Night on Wayne Swan owns every interest rate rise. Budget measures Economists and central bankers like to focus on the Budget outcomes – the surplus, growth in spending – the effect the Budget will have on overall demand. But important though the aggregate quantity of the Budget outcomes may be, it is the quality of the individual budget decisions that really show us the character of the Government that presented it and a sign of things to come. What do you say about the cynicism of a Government which justifies its largest single new tax measure – the increased excise on RTDs – on the basis that it is a health measure? $3 billion over the next four years, rising from $640 million next year to $893 million three years later. An alcohol prevention programme which makes $3 billion from people drinking more and more? Under pressure in the House the Minister for Health produced an odd little paper, written that very day – after the Budget – which showed that Treasury was assuming this high impact health measure would reduce the rate of consumption of RTDs by, wait for it, 4 per cent. It also assumed that the tiny handful who were deterred from drinking RTDs would not drink anything else.  Labor didn’t market this as a tax grab from young girls. Unsurprisingly, the real world is confounding Treasury’s assumptions and around Australia liquor stores are reporting a drop in sales of RTDs and a pick up in sales of spirits and soft drinks.  That’s economics 101. One should never underestimate the enterprising ingenuity of the Australian drinker. Medicare Levy Surcharge What about raising the Medicare Levy Surcharge threshold?  The Treasury expects that this will cause 486,000 taxpayers to drop out of private health insurance. The industry says it will be double that number. This is good news for the Tax Office because the amount of revenue lost by reason of the increased surcharge threshold is less than the amount of tax expenditure saved by fewer people claiming the private health insurance rebate – a windfall gain for the new Government of $300 million! There was no calculation of the cost to those remaining in the private health insurance pool – 27 per cent of whom earn less than $48,000 (or less than half the new threshold) per annum.  There was no calculation of the cost to an already overstrained public hospital system. And the Australian Health Insurance Association estimates the additional cost to the public hospital system to be $1.76 billion over four years. An Access Economics report to the Australian Medical Association says that: “The sharp increases in the thresholds for the Medicare levy rebate sends a very confused message.  The Government has adopted a policy that harms the insurers and the private hospitals while adding further burdens to an over-stressed public hospital system and the long term fiscal position” The Access Economics report also says that the estimated net saving in 2008-09, and the pattern of savings over the four years is “highly implausible”. This again shows that Labor has no vision for the future.  The two Intergenerational Reports published by the Coalition show the pressures on the health system from an ageing population demanding ever better medical treatment.  Yet this decision damages the Government’s long-term fiscal position. As Liberals we believe in promoting self reliance and independence – taking responsibility for your own life. Practical people of any political stripe recognise that the cost of providing health services is rising all the time and that we all have an interest in encouraging a viable, competitive private health sector. This was possibly the most ideological, most misguided but most revealing element in the Budget. An assault on self reliance with the aim of undermining competition and choice in the health industry. Vouchers It was not the only assault on choice. In Government we funded vouchers to enable parents to obtain extra tuition in literacy and numeracy. We empowered parents to make their own choices, to find the best tutors they could. That and other similar programs have been shut down. Instead of tackling literacy and numeracy from the grass roots, the Labor Government will be investing in a top-down, bureaucratic programme of the State Education Departments. Means Testing The least revenue but the biggest headlines were acquired by imposing the means test on the Baby Bonus. Now, I am not opposed to, or unfamiliar with means testing. Payments or benefits designed to remedy low or no incomes should be means tested. I am opposed to means testing the baby bonus because I do not regard it as a welfare payment designed to improve the position of someone on a relatively low income. Rather, the baby bonus was designed to send a message that children are a social good, that childbearing and motherhood should be recognised and respected and that all of us have an interest in each other’s children. That message was more powerful by being universal. Was it effective? Well, all we know is that during a time when the Howard Government focussed several policies on promoting families, we saw an almost unprecedented reversal in a declining birth rate.  It is too early to say for sure that the baby bonus was a catalyst for this reversal, but it must be a strong candidate. The baby bonus means test will mean that a household that earns $75,000 in the six months after the birth of their child will receive the $5000 bonus – a pre tax equivalent of $83,333. A couple who earned $76,000 would not receive the bonus. They would be $7,333 dollars worse off. That is, I believe, an effective marginal tax rate of 733 per cent – surely close to a record. This clumsily designed measure will save about $70 million a year – out of a $1.5 billion programme. If a taper rate is introduced commencing at $75,000, and that must be done to avoid the absurd circumstance I just described, then the saving will be even less. Luxury Car Tax The same comment can be made about other measures in that vein.  An increased tax on “luxury cars”?  It should be called a Tarago tax. The vast bulk of the cars sold in that $57,000 and more category are not regarded as particularly luxurious. It is not a tax on people of high incomes. It is a tax on those people who for whatever reason – perhaps because they are ferrying several kids around, or maybe out of a desire to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle – choose to buy a car worth more than $57,000. Surely an environmental Government would have given some credit to highly fuel efficient vehicles. No way, the Hummer and the Hybrid are equally caught by the new tax. What is the explanation for this tax? Is the $100 million a year really the objective? Or is it that almost all of the cars in this category are imported? It does fit in nicely with the protectionist inclinations of the new Government. Climate Change Climate change is the greatest long term economic challenge facing Australia. The Emissions Trading Scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise our economy. It will put a price on carbon and affect the price of everything. It is likely to raise $10 billion a year at the outset and more over time. It will commence in 2010 – that’s two years away and the forward estimates are for four years. But apart from providing for a few consultants fees there is nothing in the Budget about the ETS’ likely effects on the cost of living, economic growth, unemployment, productivity, interest rates and our trade accounts. Throughout last year it was hard to find Kevin Rudd unaccompanied by a solar panel.  In fact I assumed that Peter Garrett was following him with several panels strapped to his back ready to set them up as a backdrop for another speech about our clean, green future. The Coalition’s $8,000 rebate for solar panels was not a social welfare measure! It was designed to drive further demand for solar panels in order in turn to drive greater efficiencies in production installation and of course research. Now the reality is that given our low electricity prices even with the subsidy solar panels are an expensive investment and far from being an economic proposition. The rebate was designed not as a social welfare measure but to correct that “externality”: to reduce the private cost of opting for solar, thus more fully reflecting the resulting social benefit.   By imposing a $100,000 means test, Labor has ensured the vast majority of people who can afford to buy solar panels are deprived of the subsidy. Needless to say, demand has collapsed and the Australian solar industry fears it will collapse as well. It is though Labor’s interest in climate change subsided as quickly as the applause the Prime Minister received in Bali after ratifying Kyoto. Infrastructure Nowhere in the Budget is Labor’s spin more dangerous than with the so-called “nation building” Infrastructure Funds. These are Labor slush funds. No rules, no investment benchmarks, no prudential limits, not even a clear description of what they will invest in. The product disclosure statement is a blank sheet of paper. This is not a surplus prudently saved for the long term – it is in truth just deferred expenditure, literally a Labor election war chest. Cynically, Labor has tried to trade off the deserved high reputation of the Future Fund, the $60 billion investment fund set up by the Coalition to relieve future generations of the cost of unfunded public service pensions. The Future Fund has a clear investment mandate to deliver a long term return of CPI plus 4.5 per cent – 5.5 per cent. The capital and income are all committed to the one purpose – it is locked up by statute in order to stop sticky fingered politicians prying open the till. Wayne Swan has said he will ask the Future Fund board to manage the new infrastructure funds pending decisions to invest the money into infrastructure. Of course you couldn’t allow anyone as hard headed or numerate as David Murray, Future Fund Chairman, to have any say in what infrastructure projects should be funded. But how is the Future Fund to invest Mr Swan’s $40 billion of infrastructure funds if it does not know when they will be drawn down, or for what purpose? What financial or economic returns will be sought from these funds? How can we be sure they will not simply be used, at an electorally convenient moment, to subsidise inefficient State Government infrastructure ventures, or for “strategic” projects in marginal seats? If we believe that we are short of investment in infrastructure, we have to ask: Why? Labor says it was John Howard’s fault. But if our cities have underinvested in water infrastructure was it because of a lack of money? Of course not, all of our cities can afford to have all the water they need. The State Government owners of the water utilities chose to under-invest and strip surplus earnings out those businesses.  Or consider the lack of investment in east coast coal loading facilities. Compare it to the rapid, privately-funded, and successful investment in the Pilbara. In the midst of a coal boom, it is hardly credible that increased capacity cannot be funded.  Again the failure has been inappropriate regulation and an unwillingness to reform – not a lack of money. Labor’s infrastructure funds offer the prospect of more spending without reform – billions of dollars to bail out incompetent Labor State Governments, their inefficient utilities and their white elephant infrastructure programs. And the more the money piles up, the more difficult to resist will be the claims upon it. Pensioners Australia has over 2½  million pensioners and self funded retirees.  Many of them are doing it very tough. Like others on low incomes they spend a higher proportion of their income on food, fuel and housing – all items whose prices have been rising strongly. In Government, the Coalition worked hard to deliver successive Budgets that prepared for the ageing of our population, increased pensions by linking them to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE), encouraged retirement savings, improved aged care services, helped older Australians receive flexible care in their own homes, greatly increased spending on aged care and importantly delivered our on commitment to share Australia's prosperity with older Australians with the payment of the lump sum Seniors Bonus. By contrast, the Rudd Government’s Budget has failed to offer older Australians relief from rising costs of fuel and groceries, and instead confirmed they will scrap the Seniors Bonus after this year. Older Australians deserve better than Labor's Budget. We are reviewing all our policies that impact on our seniors and along with carers and those with a disability, with our first priority being to secure their financial future with greater assistance and genuine support. Going forward This is a Budget that does not do what it claims to do. It does not help those in need. Rather, as is clear from its treatment of pensioners, it ignores them. It does not reward enterprise and achievement: rather, it punishes them: often in ways that are all the more telling for being so trivial, small minded and poorly conceived. It does not set out a program of reform that could increase efficiency in areas such as health and education. Rather, it undermines choice, weakens competition and entrenches inefficient, State Government suppliers – all of which may benefit the public sector unions, but only at the expense of ordinary Australians. It does not ensure the huge gains we are reaping from the minerals boom will be used for the long term benefit of all Australians. Rather, by putting that windfall into Funds that have little accountability  and are unencumbered by restrictions against spending their capital, it ensures we will see repeated at a Commonwealth level the infrastructure disaster story that is the Labor States. And last but not least, it does not set out a coherent vision of macroeconomic policy, that could give individuals, firms and markets the confidence and predictability they need in uncertain times. Rather, it talks tough but looks, feels and smells weak. It  betrays an indecision, an underlying lack of character, a gormlessness in substance and delivery, that is in striking contrast to the successive Budgets of the Howard Government. In short, Morris Iemma comes to Canberra. It would be easy for us, as the Opposition, to stand back at this point and simply compare Labor’s first Budget with ours, and our subsequent record of achievement. And a monumental achievement it is. Eleven and a half years of Coalition Government saw all Commonwealth debt repaid. Future unfunded public service pension obligations are provided for.  Thirty-five year lows in unemployment, record highs in participation rates and the longest continuous economic expansion in our history.  Real wages increased by over 20 per cent. More Australians than ever have the means to realise their ambitions. But all that was the result of hard work, a preparedness to take tough decisions and above all a preparedness to embrace reform, to recognise that changing times demand new approaches. And it is in exactly the spirit of that hard work and preparedness to take tough decisions that we must recognise that, although we are only five months into Opposition, we must move on with new ideas and new policies. Our review of all Coalition policies is underway and being ably led by Julie Bishop. Our principal alternative proposal last week was a 5 cent reduction in petrol excise.  As the Labor Government talks endlessly about rising petrol prices, but does nothing, it is a concrete proposal which will reduce the price of petrol.  This is an important and meaningful proposal.  The Coalition proposal is in stark contrast to Labor’s Fuelwatch scheme, costing over $20 million, that has already proven itself to be a failure in Western Australia where fuel prices are regularly higher in Perth than elsewhere in the country.. And on this question of the petrol excise, let me just remind everyone that in 2005 Mr Swan, as Shadow Treasurer, was asked if he were Treasurer would he remove the fuel excise. His response was to say that removing the excise was: “…not a promise I would be making at the moment but it would be something, if I was in Government, I would be reviewing as the Treasurer ought to be doing.”[2] A second important announcement by Dr Nelson last week was the Coalition’s proposal to reduce capital gains tax for small businesses.  Small businesses are the heart and soul of the Australian economy. Indeed, it is one of the pillars of Liberal belief — men and women taking a risk, borrowing money to create or buy a small business and employing other Australians. The current 15-year rule with respect to waiving capital gains tax on the sale of a small business entity on retirement from age 55 was an incentive to small business introduced by the Coalition in government. To further encourage small business men and women to invest in establishing or taking over a small business, the Coalition will introduce a five-year rule for capital gains tax on sale of the business for retirement. After owning and operating a small business for five years, the Coalition believes you should be entitled to capital gains tax relief should you sell your business for retirement. We will always honour the achievements in our past, but we cannot be captured by them. We must ensure those achievements are not wasted by a Government that seems committed to turning back the clock. It is here that the underlying differences in philosophy between us and Labor become clear. Our premise is that Australia’s prosperity rests first and foremost on the initiative, enterprise and energy of its people – not on the efforts of its governments. We believe that government should enable choice, rather than take the choices on our behalf. Under the Howard Government, we moved steadily to expand access to choice: to create alternatives to the services so inefficiently provided by the State Labor governments. We enabled the growth low fee independent schools, offering a wider range of choice for parents and greater competition in education. Equally, in health, we moved to reverse the catastrophic decline in private health insurance, and to encourage the growth of a private hospital sector that could set clear benchmarks of efficiency for and take some of the burden off the already stretched public hospital system. Now, without having the guts to say so, everything the Rudd Government is doing points the other way. The poorly conceived, half baked changes to the Medicare levy are only the most visible example of that trend at work – a trend to undermine the private sector alternatives which the Howard Government’s reforms helped develop. It is also for this reason that I have taken the lead in promoting comprehensive tax reform, commissioning Henry Ergas to undertake a wide-ranging review of our current tax system.  The introduction of the GST, and the changes that came with it, were landmark reforms. But our tax system is still too complex, still imposes too great a burden on taxpayers and the economy, is often unfair, and if left unchanged, will, in the longer run, erode our productivity and competitiveness. It needs to be changed so as to more clearly encourage enterprise and achievement, remove distortions, cut the burden of compliance and promote efficient investment. Finally, it is again on the basis of our fundamental premise – that governments should empower choice, rather than take it for us – that we must approach the management of our Budget surplus. Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd say time and again that their approach ensures that our surpluses will not be “squandered”: but who is more likely to “squander” those surpluses – ordinary Australians or the men and women who managed the infrastructure programs of Bob Carr, Morris Iemma and Peter Beattie? Ordinary Australians or the men and women who between them share responsibility for infrastructure fiascos as ineptly managed as Sydney’s Cross-City tunnel, South East Queensland’s water grid, the pipeline to drain water from an already near empty Goulburn Murray system to Melbourne and the debacle at Dalrymple Bay. These are the people Wayne Swan has asked to help him ensure our savings our not squandered. We don’t believe him – and who would?  Rather, for our part, we put our faith in ordinary Australians –  we know they have every incentive to carefully husband their savings, and are therefore convinced that taxpayers’ money those savings should, whenever possible, be returned to them to manage. Deep in its political DNA, the Labor Party mistrusts freedom and small business. It believes that Government knows best. When it deals with business, it prefers the big end of town. Labor’s budget has cut a series of programmes designed to assist small business and entrepreneurship notably axing the Commercial Ready program which supported research and innovation by small and medium businesses. I am familiar with businesses large and small –  chief executives of vast multi-nationals and entrepreneurs chasing a dream with little more than an overdraft. And I know from my own life’s experience that the prosperity of this country, the prosperity that enables so much of our freedom, that underpins our living standards is built more than anything else on the enterprise and initiative of millions of Australians, having a go, taking risks. This Budget has left Australia less free. And as the pensioners are reminding Mr Rudd, it has left us no fairer either. But it has served one purpose. It has meant that Mr Rudd has to nail his colours to the mast. And they are true Labor colours. The politics of envy instead of aspiration. A Government which knows best rather than one that enables each of us to do our best. For our part, we will put our faith and our political future on the side of freedom and choice. Our Liberal vision is for a Government that works for you. That enables you to have the freedom  to realise your vision, your aspirations and plans for a better future for yourself, your children and grandchildren. [1]FrankPace “ The Federal Budget” 1949 American Academy of Political and Social Science [2] Today Show 14 September 2005adminThu, 22 May 2008 06:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/62/Speech-in-the-House-Reserve-Bank-Amendment.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=62http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=62&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/62/Speech-in-the-House-Reserve-Bank-Amendment.aspxRESERVE BANK AMENDMENT (ENHANCED INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2008 Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (6.54 pm) This Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 is one of the most sloppy and misconceived pieces of legislation I have ever seen. It was the result of a statement by the Treasurer in December 2007 when he said: To enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank, the positions of Governor and Deputy Governor will be raised to the same level of statutory independence as the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician. What this bill seeks to do is effectively create a bizarre parliamentary farce associated with circumstances for the termination of the Reserve Bank governor’s or deputy governor’s role which, at the moment, are automatic grounds for termination. Section 25 of the Reserve Bank Act at present states: If the Governor or the Deputy Governor: (a) becomes permanently incapable of performing his or her duties; or (b) engages in any paid employment outside the duties of his or her office; or (c) becomes bankrupt the Treasurer shall terminate his appointment. It is mandatory. There are positions where a statute states that a condition like that results in the automatic vacation of the office. But one can readily understand when the Reserve Bank Act was drafted in 1959 it was obvious that it was important to know the precise time at which a governor, faced with those unpleasant circumstances, ceased to be the governor and so it was better from a drafting point of view to state that the termination was mandatory, but because the Treasurer would be obliged to do it, we would know at what day and what hour the governor, whether he or she was incapable or bankrupt or had an outside job, had actually ceased to hold that office. The 1959 Reserve Bank Act also states in section 24: (1) The Governor and the Deputy Governor: (a) are to be appointed by the Treasurer; and (b) shall be appointed for such period, not exceeding 7 years ... and (c) hold office subject to good behaviour. Although that is a term that is not used with respect to any other public office under the Commonwealth, so I understand, that gives the Treasurer under the existing legislation the ability, almost a reserve power you could say, to remove the governor or the deputy governor if they cease to conduct themselves with what could be called ‘good behaviour’, in other words, if they misbehave. What the government is seeking to do in the amendment bill is quite extraordinary. It takes in a new section 25 the three circumstances which currently give rise to automatic termination and makes them the only grounds upon which a governor or deputy governor may be dismissed. Furthermore, it requires that for that dismissal or termination to take place, both houses of parliament must meet, each of them resolve that the governor should be dismissed because of incapacity, perhaps, or bankruptcy, and then request the Governor- General to effect that dismissal. We can imagine the completely absurd situation where a governor or a deputy governor is, perhaps due to an unfortunate accident, physically incapable of doing their job or has become bankrupt or has an outside job. In any of those three cases there would be no question that the appointment should be terminated, and the sooner the better for the sake of the institution and the country. What the Treasurer, this very inexperienced Treasurer, is presenting to us is a bill that would then take those three facts—which are not contentious facts: somebody is either incapable or they are not, or they are bankrupt or they are not, or they have got an outside job or they have not—and make them the subject of what could be a highly contentious and political debate before both houses of parliament, which could take some considerable time. And in the event of one house of parliament not voting to support the removal of the governor, a bankrupt governor or a governor with an outside job or a governor who is mentally or physically incapable would remain in office. It is an absurd amendment, and it is being presented as an effort to improve the independence of the Reserve Bank. That is an unfortunate, misconceived, sloppy piece of drafting. But it actually gets worse—much worse. Where the Treasurer has a discretion in the appointment of the governor or the deputy governor, the amending bill replaces the term ‘Treasurer’ with ‘Governor- General’. That in itself is just a reversion to what the law had been some time before, and of course the Governor-General would act on the advice of the government of the day, which would no doubt be guided by the opinions of the Treasurer. So one could say it is a distinction without a very great difference. But because of the way in which the amending section 25 has been introduced, it is very arguable that the only grounds for terminating the governor or the deputy governor are those three I have mentioned—incapacity, bankruptcy, outside employment; all of which are unarguable automatic grounds for termination—and that in fact the consequence of this amending bill is that the Treasurer or, indeed, the government—the Governor-General acting on the advice of the government—has lost the right to terminate a governor or a deputy governor for bad behaviour. I refer the House to the library’s Bills Digest on the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 and I will read the relevant section: New subsection 25(9) provides that the termination of the Governor or the Deputy Governor can only be terminated on a specified ground and by the means specified by new section 25. This limits termination to the grounds specified and in a manner specified by the section. As noted earlier, the Governor and Deputy Governor hold office ‘subject of good behaviour’, which is an on-going requirement and a prerequisite for holding office. The Reserve Bank Act is the only Commonwealth Act which has this particular expression. Under the changes proposed by the Bill, in the event the position holder is not of good behaviour there is no mechanism for termination as this requirement is not specified as a ground under new subsection 25(8). So if this piece of drafting by the Treasurer were to be adopted as an act of parliament, what scenario would have been created in the event of the governor engaging in dishonest or corrupt conduct or acting in a way which undermined public confidence in the securities markets or acting in a disgraceful way? Sure, that is only a theoretical situation, but there have been incidents of this kind in other countries where central bank governors have acted in an improper way, and I can come to that in a moment. But what we would have, courtesy of this amendment bill, would be the appalling scenario that there would be no power to sack the governor. There would be no accountability. The parliament could not act, the Treasurer could not act, the Governor-General could not act—all courtesy of this shocking drafting. The government may well take on board these observations and the observations of the library in the Bills Digest and make some appropriate amendments of its own. But, pointing to the incompetence that has been shown by the Treasury here, honourable members will recall that I noted that back in December the Treasurer had said that he wanted to put the governor in the same position as the Commissioner of Taxation or the Australian Statistician. Well, did he know what he was talking about? The Australian Commissioner of Taxation falls under the Treasury portfolio, so one would assume that he did. Indeed, the Commissioner of Taxation and a Second Commissioner of Taxation may be removed by the Governor-General under the Taxation Administration Act 1953, section 6C, if there has been a vote of each house of parliament calling for the removal of either the commissioner or the second commissioner ‘on the ground of proved misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity’. Of course, honourable members will be familiar with that language because it has a counterpart, in relation to federal judges, in the Constitution itself, where section 72 states that they: Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses on Parliament in the same session, praying to such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity ... The Taxation Administration Act section 6C provides that if the commissioner or a second commissioner of taxation becomes bankrupt or engages in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office or is absent from duty, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or 28 days in any 12 months then the Governor-General shall remove the commissioner or second commissioner. So those circumstances— dereliction of office, outside paid employment, bankruptcy— are automatic grounds for termination. Where a discretion is given to the parliament to sack the Commissioner of Taxation it is limited to physical or mental incapacity and, most importantly, proved misbehaviour. The provisions for the Australian Statistician are very similar. The Treasurer was not able to do that which he said he would do in December—in other words, to change the Reserve Bank Act so that the ability to remove the governor or deputy governor was vested in the parliament. We have the authority of the Library’s analysis that, if these amendments are carried into law, we will have a situation where we have a Reserve Bank governor that is effectively unsackable. The governor would be unsackable on any ground other than incapacity— comatose after a car accident or some unfortunate medical incident—bankruptcy or having an outside job. All three are factual conditions which are either right or wrong, which either exist or not. They would not be contentious—it is hard to imagine them being contentious—and they would in many other circumstances be in and of themselves a ground for automatic vacation of the office. In the event of the Reserve Bank governor acting in a way which is corrupt, dishonest or reckless or which brings the bank into disrepute or which brings our whole financial system into disrepute, there is no power under the amendments proposed to remove that governor or deputy governor, and there is certainly no power for the parliament to do so. One could well imagine that the Treasurer might have replicated substantially the provisions with respect to the Commissioner of Taxation and said, ‘We will give the parliament the power to remove the governor or the deputy governor on the grounds of misbehaviour, but the other three grounds’—the factual qualifications, if you like—’will remain where they are as mandatory grounds for termination.’ That would have been perfectly reasonable and a change that would have been consistent with other legislation and consistent with his public remarks. There is a very pertinent international example of a difficulty with removing a governor and the resultant damage to reputation. Antonio Fazio was the Governor of the Bank of Italy when a scandal broke in July 2005 over the sale of Banca Antonveneta, which involved allegations of corruption, nepotism and very poor policy by the Bank of Italy. He was called upon to resign, but no-one could sack him except his hand-picked board. He was called on to resign by the Prime Minister, by the press and by most market economists. He ignored them and held onto his position. The affair dominated the media in Europe for months. Finally, in December 2005, he resigned after six months of highly publicised damage to the reputation of the Bank of Italy. There was at least a means of removing Governor Fazio by his board, but he had the numbers on his own board to stop that. We would never expect that to happen, but if we were to have a governor who was in a similar situation and these amendments were passed into law there would be no means of removing that governor, not by the parliament, the board, the Treasurer or the Governor- General. I cannot believe that the Treasurer seriously intended this outcome. I can only believe that this is sloppiness and I ask him to come into the House and explain how on earth this extraordinary set of amendments could be justified. If parliament is to have a role, then it should have a role to determine whether the governor has engaged in misbehaviour. That is the precedent with High Court judges, with the Australian Statistician and with the Commissioner of Taxation. That is the model that the Treasurer said he was going to undertake, but he has done nothing of the sort. On the other hand, if he feels that, contrary to the interpretation that the Library has proffered and other lawyers have suggested and notwithstanding the changes to section 25, there remains a discretion on the part of the Governor-General to remove the governor or the deputy governor of the bank for misbehaviour, what possible justification is there in leaving that very subjective issue in the hands of the executive government but then giving to the parliament the ability to terminate the governor or the deputy governor only in circumstances where three non-contentious factual binary circumstances have arisen? Is the governor bankrupt? Look at the order of the court. Is the governor physically incapable? Look to the medical certificate. Does the governor have an outside job? Look to the contract of employment. These are matters which quite properly in the legislation are extant at the moment and are grounds for automatic dismissal. To put them into the hands of the parliament is, frankly, absurd. This bill is just an exercise in Labor spin. Back in 1996 when Peter Costello made the Reserve Bank truly independent, he was threatened with legal action from the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. Mr Beazley thought it was appalling and harked back to those days when Paul Keating as Treasurer could say, ‘I’ve got the Reserve Bank in my pocket.’ Keating was proud of it. To his great credit, Peter Costello said, ‘No, we should have an independent Reserve Bank, an independent central bank.’ He set that up and the Reserve Bank is thoroughly independent. This bill adds nothing to the independence of the Reserve Bank but creates an extraordinary situation where, in the extreme circumstances in which one may want to be able to consider the termination of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, he is completely immune from termination. I will foreshadow an amendment that I will move to the Reserve Bank Act 1959 in due course which speaks to what is really at the heart of independence. What we will move is an amendment that requires the Governor of the Reserve Bank to present himself or herself up to four times a year before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. In other words, instead of attending twice a year, which is the current arrangement, they will be required to attend four times a year, which would doubtless be after the publication of the quarterly statements on monetary policy. The most important element in the independence of public office holders is accountability. The greatest protection for the independence of the judiciary is the fact that they have to be accountable for all of their decisions. They have to publish their decisions. They are accountable for them. It is all out there in the public domain. All of the rest of the protections that we have for the judiciary are vitally important, too. But accountability and transparency are the keys to this. The Reserve Bank publishes a great deal of material. Many people would say that it is the finest—or at least one of the finest—central banks in the world. We are very fortunate to have such a strong central bank here in Australia. But when the Governor of the Reserve Bank and his deputy governor and the rest of his senior team come before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, they are being accountable to the people of Australia. The important economic and financial issues of the day are discussed and debated and the governor and his colleagues have to take questions from the House economics committee, which is composed of members of this House, each and every one of them directly elected by the people of Australia. We would seek to enhance the accountability of the Reserve Bank. That will genuinely improve its independence. That will enhance its already considerable independence in a way that is transparent and accountable to the people. It is not spin; it is not this sloppy, misconceived nonsense proposed by the Treasurer. It will mean that the people and the parliament of Australia will see more of the Reserve Bank and understand more about their work. The Reserve Bank will know that it is accountable four times a year. That increase in frequency will underline and emphasise the independence of that institution. We all have to suffer from the spin of the Labor Party. It is a constant outpouring from the government benches nowadays. We heard today about this budget, which the Treasurer thinks cuts spending but which in fact increases spending. The spin is endless. But what we have here is not only the spin of Labor claiming to be interested in or seeking to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank but a level of incompetence which is frankly breathtaking. I do not know whether the Treasurer in this context is a fool or a knave. To put this up seriously is a truly misguided, malign exercise. To seriously believe that those three factual disqualifying circumstances should be the subject of lengthy parliamentary debate but, in the event of the governor engaging in conduct such as that by Governor Fazio in the— Mr Combet—I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, under standing order 90. The member for Wentworth, I believe, imputed an improper motive to the Treasurer when he used the term ‘knave’. ‘Knave’ has a very clear meaning in the English language. I would seek your guidance, because I do not think that personal reflections are appropriate. While I understand that the member for Wentworth has been in this place longer than I have, I expect a better standard of argument from him. Mr TURNBULL—A knave is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘an unprincipled or dishonest fellow’. What I am saying is that the Treasurer has behaved in an unprincipled fashion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Wentworth has probably taken his point too far. I probably would have allowed ‘knave’ to stand, because it has on previous occasions. But, if you are going to impute that meaning, then you must withdraw. Mr TURNBULL—Madam Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw ‘knave’. Thank you for that instruction. Restating it, the question then is: is the Treasurer a fool or—in line with the dictionary—an unprincipled or misguided fellow? If he intended the consequences of this amendment, he is seeking to put this country in a position in which if the Governor of the Reserve Bank engaged in corrupt or dishonest conduct he or she would be immune from dismissal. It is difficult to believe that any responsible or competent Treasurer would seriously suggest that was an appropriate outcome. On the other hand, if that is not the case—if the Treasurer is not behaving in a deliberately unprincipled fashion—then one can only say that this is incompetence of a very high order. What it does is add nothing to the independence of the Reserve Bank. What it does is discredit the integrity of the Reserve Bank and demonstrate the extraordinary ineptitude of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia.  adminFri, 16 May 2008 01:50:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:62http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/63/Budget-Fails-Australian-Families.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=63http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=63&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/63/Budget-Fails-Australian-Families.aspx This is a high taxing, high spending old fashioned Labor Budget. The Rudd Government’s first Budget is not an inflation fighting budget. It is not a Budget that lifts a finger to help Australians battling with rising costs of living – petrol, groceries, private health insurance and home interest rates. The only bright light in which we can all take comfort is the strength of the Australian economy and the cuts in personal taxation all courtesy of the previous Coalition Government. Comparing the Treasurer’s rhetoric this year to the Budget papers, we have to ask whether Mr Swan knew what was in the Budget?  It is one thing to manage expectations, but it is quite another to have the Budget contradict almost everything the Treasurer has been saying all year. What was Mr Swan thinking when he said the Budget would slash spending to put downwards pressure on inflation? Spending has gone up by $3 billion in this current financial year and by $14.9 billion over the forward estimates (see attached table). Over the forward estimates, Labor has cut $15.2 billion off Coalition spending programmes, but it has more than matched that with $30.1 billion of new Labor spending programmes. Why didn’t someone tell Mr Swan that inflation is caused by rising prices? After years of Coalition tax cutting budgets, Mr Swan is introducing new taxes to raise the cost of alcohol, motor cars, health insurance and energy all of which contribute to inflationary pressures. All up Labor’s high tax policies are adding $19.5 billion in increased revenue over the forward estimates. Preliminary economic modelling estimates that Mr Swan’s new taxes and charges could add up to 0.4 percentage points to the CPI. We call on the Treasury to provide a detailed estimate of the inflationary impact of these tax hikes. Mr Swan has been running around saying it would be an heroic effort to achieve a surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP. The Budget reveals the surplus this year will be $16.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP and would have been 1.7% of GDP without Mr Swan’s decisions. Next year 2008-09, the surplus is estimated to be 1.8% of GDP.  Mr Swan has been awash with money but apparently completely unaware. The Rudd Government is always talking about the threat of climate change and the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme, however the Budget Papers make no provision whatsoever for the revenues from the Emissions Trading Scheme due to commence in 2010 – well within the period of the forward estimates. How can the Rudd Government seriously propose to put $20 billion of Australians’ savings into an infrastructure fund without any indication of what kind of economic return the fund will be expected to deliver? Australian taxpayers are entitled to question whether this will just be a Labor slush fund to subsidise the inefficient water, transport and energy infrastructure of State Governments? Mr Swan has written himself a blank cheque with the savings of a nation. And when it comes to the massive, and worsening challenge of water scarcity, the best the Labor Government can do is spend a net additional $1 billion over seven years over and above the commitments made by the Coalition in the National Plan for Water Security. The Budget Papers discuss Australia’s capacity to weather the international financial crisis. But can our economy survive Mr Swan? Far from being a new excursion into economic conservatism, Mr Swan’s first budget is an economic con. Contact:  Brad Burke – 0447 463 161 2008 BUDGET KEY POINTS This Budget lets Australian families down. It is a typical Labor budget – it increases taxes, massively increases spending, plays the politics of envy and it shows that they don’t know what they are doing in running the economy. This is a Budget of confusion – a budget that confirms Labor has no real idea how to deal with the economic challenges facing Australia. The Treasurer is out of his depth.  Mr Swan claimed this Budget would ease the pressure on inflation and honour Labor’s election commitments to families.  But he’s failed his first test.   This Budget will do nothing to meet Labor’s promises to keep down grocery prices, petrol prices and home interest rates. In fact there are multiple decisions that will actually increase inflationary pressures on Australian families. This is a typical Labor Budget.  It is not ‘new leadership’ but ‘old Labor’.  It is the first Budget in years to introduce new taxes. Australians should take no comfort from the decision taken by an inexperienced Treasurer to raise taxes on cars, alcohol, energy, computer software, fringe benefits, passenger movements, passports, visa applications and increase the costs of private health insurance.   Mr Swan’s first Budget will be remembered as a taxing Budget.  It confirms Labor stands for higher taxes. Since the Treasury forecasts at election time last year Mr Swan is expected to collect an additional $8.3 billion in revenue for 2008-09 over and above the estimates made then. Even with the implementation of the Coalition’s tax cuts, income tax revenue will increase from $203 billion to $245.8 billion over the next four years, an increase of $42.8 billion or 21.1%.   Labor has failed to incorporate any revenue collection figures for its Emissions Trading Scheme which starts in 2010, even though the forward estimates go up to 2012.  This is a major fudge in the Budget that cannot go unanswered. Higher taxes will put upwards pressure on inflation. Expenditure has increased by $11.9 billion in this Budget.  Treasury figures show that the real growth in Budget payments in the financial year 2009-10 will be 5.5%, the highest since 1991-92 (leaving aside the introduction of the GST).  Rather than a ‘meat axe’ being taken to the public service the numbers will drop by only 0.5% - virtually a statistical blip. The Treasury numbers show that new expenditure resulting from Labor’s policy changes over the next four years amounts to $30.1 billion.  Despite the rhetoric about spending cuts, this increased expenditure is matched by $15.2 billion in decreased expenditure.  The balancing item is a whopping $19.5 billion in increased revenue due to Labor’s policy changes. In fact, according to Treasury figures, the Budget surplus would have been larger in 2007-08 (ie 1.7% of GDP instead of 1.5%) if Mr Swan had done nothing, rather than increasing expenditure. Labor was left the strongest fiscal position in the history of Australia. Labor promised to ease the pressure on working families, but they have failed the very people they promised to help.  They project fewer ‘working families’ and more welfare families. Unemployment will increase following this Budget - with Treasury forecasts showing 134,000 fewer people in jobs. In fact, despite all the rhetoric about ‘education revolutions’ and lifting productivity, the participation rate in the workforce is forecast by Treasury to fall. Labor cannot be trusted to keep its promises.  It confirms what Peter Garrett said before the election: “Once we get in, we’ll just change it all”. With respect to the various Investment Funds on infrastructure, education and health, there is an appalling lack of detail with no clear explanation of what criteria will be used for the administration and expenditure of billions of dollars in taxpayers.  Indeed Budget paper No 1 says that “both capital and earnings of the [Building Australia] Fund will be drawn down over time” (page 1-27). Labor is addicted to spin, while Australians wait for Labor to deliver on its election promise to ease the pressure on household budgets. Labor has chosen to play politics with the Federal Budget. Australians deserve better than that. Labor can’t be trusted to keep its promises.  It promised to not touch private health insurance. It is gutting it.  It promised to leave the baby bonus alone, it is slashing it. Labor was left a strong economy by the Coalition Government, which had a clear strategy to keep the economy growing so all Australians could plan their future with confidence. In contrast Wayne Swan’s Budget is a political grab bag.  It is not an economic strategy. Decoding Labor’s 2008-09 Budget Policy Decisions     2007-08 $ million 2008-09 $ million 2009-10 $ million 2010-11 $ million 2011-12 $ million 4 year total from 2008-09 $ million 5 year total $ million Labor’s Revenue Decisions 238.6 2352.3 4097.5 6369.7 6646.2 19 465.7 19 704.3 Labor’s Expense Decisions 3119.5 1324.2 4204.4 4532.9 4843.3 14 904.8 18 024.3 Net Revenue less Expenses -2880.9 1028.1 -106.9 1836.8 1802.9 4 560.9 1 680.0                 Labor’s dropped spending -998.2 -4170.9 -3529.9 -3813.7 -3710.4 -15 224.9 -16 223.1 Labor’s added spending 4117.7 5495.1 7734.3 8346.6 8553.7 30 129.7 34 247.4 adminWed, 14 May 2008 02:11:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:63http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/The-ETS-and-the-Insurance-Industry.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=64http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=64&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/The-ETS-and-the-Insurance-Industry.aspxSpeech to the Insurance Council of Australia Addressing Climate Change: The Importance of Getting the Policy Settings Right EEO Introduction Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to be here at the Insurance Council of Australia to speak to you about the policy challenges of climate change.  The insurance industry provides a fundamental service to Australians, accepting risk from our citizens and businesses in exchange for premiums. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority considers that our insurance industry is well capitalised and resilient. Your industry employs 60 000 people and pays $70 million in claims to policyholders each working day. You have chosen a very timely and relevant theme for your conference: how the Australian community can become more resilient in the face of climate change.  If Australia’s economic performance over the last decade and a half could be summarised in one word, it would be resilience. This is the fruit of 12 years of economic reform and strong economic management. We are currently enjoying our 17th year of uninterrupted economic growth. Over the last 12 years growth has averaged 3.6 per cent a year – higher than most other developed countries, including the USA and Europe.   That means that the Australian economy is, in real terms, 50 per cent larger than when the Coalition took office in 1996. Without that sustained growth, we would not have halved the unemployment rate over the last 12 years: from over 8 per cent to just over 4 per cent.  Without that sustained growth, we would not have had an increase in real wages of 21.5 per cent from March 1996 to June 2007. Without that sustained growth, Australians would have less ability and interest to devote themselves to improving their environment.  And without that sustained growth, those in the lowest decile of incomes would not have been able to enjoy estimated income growth of nearly 30 per cent since 2001. Those kinds of economic outcomes, and the accompanying genuine improvements in the living standards of ordinary Australians, do not happen unless economic growth is sustained.  The astonishing thing about this performance is that it was not all plain sailing. During the Coalition’s term in office, Australia experienced many external and internal shocks – the Asian financial and economic crises, major droughts, the global slowdown of 2001, the uncertainty after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, SARS,  natural disasters, and significant increases in oil prices. Any of these shocks could have triggered an economic slow-down. But our economy weathered these storms.  This is in stark contrast with many other developed economies which suffer from high fiscal deficits, high levels of Government debt and high unemployment.  In short, Australia’s economy has been remarkably resilient. Indeed, according to the International Institute for Management Development’s (IMD) 2007 World Competitiveness Yearbook, Australia has the 7th most resilient economy in the world.  Addressing Climate Change So how can we make our economy even more resilient, particularly when there are huge long-term challenges looming on the horizon, like climate change?   What should we do to ensure that our children inherit a strong and resilient economy?  I have long held the view that climate change is one of the greatest economic challenges of our time.  During my time as Environment Minister three points about climate change became very clear to me. The first is obvious: climate change is a fact, not a theory. The second point is less obvious. Given that so much of our emissions are from sources that are likely to be very hard to abate either at all or at realistic cost, the emission reduction goals we are setting ourselves for 2050 will mean in practical terms that we will need in 42 years to have a world where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero emission sources and where deforestation, currently the source of 20 per cent of global emissions, is replaced by a global programme of reforestation. The third point is that there is no prospect of achieving the massive global reductions in emissions that science demands unless all of the major emitting nations both in the developed and developing world play a part. Even if the developed world cut its emissions by 100 per cent by 2050, it would be insufficient to reduce global emissions by 50 per cent. We know that future historians will record that some nations met the climate change challenge with great efficiency. Others will no doubt make poor decisions, informed by deep green ideology rather than economics, and will achieve less abatement at greater cost. A rational, business-like approach to climate change in Australia would have the following objectives: first, achieve the greatest abatement at the lowest cost; second, ensure an early and effective agreement on global action. The most heroic efforts in Australia will be of no effect if they are not matched by similar action everywhere including the rapidly industrialising developing economies such as China and India; third, safeguard trade-exposed, energy-intensive Australian industries until such time as there is a global climate agreement which ensures that carbon is priced at comparable levels everywhere. Otherwise we will export our industries, our jobs and our prosperity together with the emissions. This is happening already – much of Europe’s slow growth in emissions is because carbon intensive industries have moved to Asia; and fourth, do everything we can to ensure that carbon capture and storage works. The Coalition Government invested a huge amount into this effort and no doubt more needs to be done. Unless the world is prepared to move to a massive ramp up of nuclear energy globally, there is simply no presently conceived alternative for additional large scale baseload power than clean coal (or gas). Put another way, we have a gigantic bet on the viability of clean coal. Harnessing market forces is essential to achieving abatement at the lowest possible cost. If we require industries to acquire permits to emit CO2 and we limit the availability of those permits so that over time our emissions dwindle it will follow that those permits will become more valuable until such time as they hit the cost of abatement. Put another way if the cost of emission-free electricity is equivalent to a cost of $50 a tonne of CO2 (that is, an additional $50 per MWh) then the price of a permit should never, at least on average over time, exceed $50. Of course the cost of abatement is different altogether to the cost of generating zero emission electricity. There are many opportunities for reducing carbon intensity through energy efficiency some of which will pay for themselves in that the cost of abatement (putting insulation in the roof, or better design to allow natural ventilation) may be less than the energy saving. But it is important not to be seduced by the “easy being green” mantra that the transition to a low emission economy is a simple one. Yes there is plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency. But in a rapidly growing economy such as our own, let alone China or India, the improvements in energy efficiency will be overtaken rapidly by growing demand for energy and the inescapable reality of over time having to generate all of our stationary energy from zero emission sources remains. The role of insurance in assisting adaptation to Climate Change Climate change also presents a great challenge and opportunity for your industry in the future. There are two major categories of new demands that will be placed on the insurance industry, brought about by climate change.  The first is the demand that potentially significant and unpredictable changes in weather patterns will place on existing insurance products.  The second is the demand that will flow from our society’s need for rapid adaptation: that is, the demand that the construction and operation of new infrastructure – sometimes based on new technologies with which we have little experience – will create for new risk management products. How then should we as an economic community respond? It does not take a degree in meteorological science to tell you that a healthy, innovative and competitive insurance industry offering efficiently priced, accessible insurance products can bring great stability and efficient mitigation of this risk. And we have already seen that this is possible.  Thanks to experience both at home and abroad, there exists a wide-range of new insurance products emerging to assist in our transition to a carbon constrained future and to help us as a nation, as an economy and as individuals to deal with the local and global challenges brought about by climate change.  The insurance industry is to be congratulated for its response and innovation so far. But I am confident that this is just the tip of a very big iceberg. There is far more work to be done owing in part to the need for essential infrastructure in Australia that will underpin our response and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Financial risk management is a complex and critical element of any investment in large, capital-intensive infrastructure projects.  Over the past few years, Australia has witnessed a surge in infrastructure investment that will see the installation of new pipelines, treatment facilities and desalination plants. We are currently faced with the enormous task of developing electricity supply infrastructure that must one day produce emissions-neutral power across not just Australia.  The rest of the world faces the same challenges, with the rapid industrialization of major emerging economies, and the consequent additional demands on urban water and energy supplies.  This growing demand for infrastructure will only be met by mobilizing billions of dollars of sensible investment. And it is vital for appropriate pricing arrangements to be put in place so that private financing will flow its highest valued uses. In this context, it is likely that the insurance industry will need to provide a new range of insurance products.  Fortunately Australia’s competitive and dynamic insurance industry is well placed to meet this challenge and provide products that industry and citizens seek. Among the new products to already emerge are ones that insure against annual wind levels that deviate from standard probability model (P50) estimates; products to insure against project registration risk under the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism; furthermore, there are weather derivatives and all manner of other innovative financial products.  But once again, I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt that climate change, while an incredible challenge will simultaneously create a dynamic future for the insurance industry. The Emissions Trading Scheme: Risks and Opportunities The Rudd Government committed to introduce its emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2010 – a year earlier than that proposed by the Coalition in its ETS plan. And in March Professor Ross Garnaut released a discussion paper which proposed auctioning off all of these permits. This would impose a price on carbon, as would a carbon tax. The key difference is that under an ETS the Government sets the amount of emissions permissible and the permit price is set by the market and can fluctuate freely, whereas under a carbon tax the price is set by government and the amount of emissions is the result of market behaviour. An ETS is to be preferred not simply because it allows the market to find the least cost abatement but it will be able to interact with similar schemes elsewhere in the world. But it is important to realise that the introduction of the ETS will involve its own risks.  Businesses and individuals have yet to see any detail of what exactly the Rudd Government is planning, how it will be implemented, and what the compliance costs will be.  I am not aware of any insurance policies yet on offer to account for Australian Government risk.  And there is a significant risk that the Rudd Government will not be able to meet its 2010 deadline.  For example, natural gas resource companies remain unsure about the level of detail that will be required for CO2 metering. To install hundreds of meters in each gas plant takes significant time and there is a risk of plant shutdown and disruption if the standards are not agreed in the near future. Under a market based ETS, individuals and businesses will also face risks from a fluctuating market price for carbon. Hedging against these price fluctuations will be a significant challenge.  Australia’s financial industry will need to develop new risk management products, and as a result, new markets will be created.  Fortunately, we have a strong financial system and I am confident that our markets are sufficiently well developed to deal with these challenges.  Apart from these risks on the mitigation side, adaptation to climate change is also an inherently risky activity.   The costs and benefits of adapting to climate change vary across the population.  Australia is a vast country with a diverse range of extreme weather events including droughts, floods, cyclones and bushfires.   There is no “one size fits all” adaptation response to such events.  The frequency of extreme weather events will be matched by the frequency and magnitude of the economic losses associated with these events. To develop appropriate adaptation policy responses, it is therefore important to understand the alternatives that individuals face in risky situations.  As Nobel Laureate Gary Becker and his University of Chicago colleague Isaac Ehrlich noted in 1972 , there are three ways in which individuals can respond to risk: they can purchase market insurance; they can reduce consumption, increase their savings and engage in what is known as self insurance; or they can take costly actions which reduce the probability or the size of a loss. This is known as self protection.  Every day, each of us weigh up the risks, costs and benefits of various courses of action and engage in all three kinds of activity.  Australia has well developed insurance markets for allocating risk. These markets allow risk-averse individuals to shift risk onto others, who may be better placed to deal with it.  But there is nothing to say that market insurance is uniformly better for an individual than self-insurance or self-protection.  The appropriate decision depends on the nature of the risk involved and the costs and benefits of various alternatives, and must be evaluated by individuals on a case by case basis.  The Costs of Insurance Taxes What is clear, however, is that it makes little sense for governments to actively discourage the choice of one particular alternative and to artificially induce individuals to substitute into more costly, and ultimately more risky, options.   But that is exactly what State governments around Australia are doing today by imposing duties on insurance.  According to the New South Wales Treasury, the rates of duty on general insurance vary across the States, from a low 7.5 per cent of the premium in Queensland, to a high of 11 per cent in South Australia.   In most States the relevant tax base is the insurance premium plus the GST.   But Victoria and New South Wales also impose fire levies, and those too are included in the base for the insurance duty.  So in the two most heavily populated Australian States, there are effectively three taxes on insurance.  Your august organisation has estimated that in Victoria in 2006, the combined effect of these taxes added more than $47 to every $100 spent on home insurance, and more than $81 for every $100 spent on business insurance.  The States also impose smaller duties on life insurance, which, except for South Australia, are levied on the sum insured.  These insurance taxes hinder the efficient allocation of risk, and deter many individuals from taking out market insurance. In the context of a rational, cost-minimising approach to climate change – a massive risk management exercise – they make no sense.   These taxes create a burden for those who pay them, but that is only half the story. What about the economic costs that are incurred by those who choose not to insure?  Access Economics has found that the demand for market insurance is relatively responsive to changes in price. That means that if the price of market insurance rises, individuals respond by substituting into the alternatives that I mentioned earlier – self-insurance and self-protection.  Those alternatives are typically very resource intensive. The substitution into costly alternatives leads Access Economics to rank insurance taxes as being among the least efficient in terms of the deadweight loss that they create.  Perhaps the most economically irrational aspect of insurance taxes is that in the long run, well-functioning private insurance markets save taxpayers money. They allow individuals to become resilient without government assistance. This means that when catastrophic events occur there is no undue strain placed on government resources. This, in turn, means that other taxes can be lower than they would otherwise be.  Conclusion: The Ergas Review Given the benefits of insurance, you might think that any government that was serious about minimising the costs of climate change would be taking a serious look at insurance taxes.  Surely a coherent climate change policy should examine ways of reducing these taxes, with the ultimate goal of completely eliminating them.  This is one of the reasons why I have asked distinguished economist Professor Henry Ergas to assist the Coalition in a full review of Australia's system of taxation: federal, state and local. Professor Ergas will certainly be examining insurance taxes. The review’s website – www.ergasreview.com.au – is now accepting submissions and I invite the insurance industry to make a submission to the inquiry. One of the key objectives of the Ergas Review will be to explore options for reducing the burden of taxation generally. Going forward, the big question is whether there will be bipartisan support for further economic reform – in particular, tax reform – in Australia.  Reducing inefficient taxes is always a good idea. But as I have said before, the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme will no doubt raise a great deal of revenue and this revenue could be used to reduce some inefficient taxes.  So the question is: will the Rudd Government seriously embrace tax reform before the next election? We will see.    The challenge for the insurance industry will be to keep the pressure on the Rudd Government and the Labor States for insurance tax reform and to provide new products to assist Australians in managing the adaptation to climate change.  Thanks very much for inviting me to address your conference. 3.2 per cent for the USA, 2.8 per cent for the UK, 2.2 per cent for Europe and 1.2 per cent for Japan.  Wooden, M. and Wilkins, R. (2008) “Advance Australia Fair: What Does Hilda Say?” presented at the Melbourne Institute 2008 Economic and Social Outlook Conference, 27 March. http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/conf2008/Presentations/Session%203/Wooden,%20Mark.pdf Becker, G, and Ehrlich, I (1972) “Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection” Journal of Political Economy, 80(4): 623-648.  NSW Treasury (2007) Interstate Comparison of Taxes 2007-08, TRP 07-2. http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/10171/trp07-2.pdf Insurance Council of Australia (2006), Current Issues Brief: Tax on Insurance, http://www.insurancecouncil.com.au/Issue-Tax-on-insurance/default.aspx Access Economics (2008) Analysis of State Tax Reform Including Taxes on General Insurance,  Report prepared for the Insurance Council of Australia. adminFri, 02 May 2008 02:36:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:64http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/65/Malcolms-OpEd-from-The-Australian-about-tax-reform.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=65http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=65&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/65/Malcolms-OpEd-from-The-Australian-about-tax-reform.aspx AS a result of reforms implemented by the Coalition in July 2000 (which Labor opposed), dozens of inefficient taxes have been or soon will be eliminated, as long as the Labor states honour their commitments. The list includes wholesale sales tax, financial institutions duty, debits tax, stamp duty on marketable securities, conveyancing duties on business, stamp duties on leases, stamp duties on mortgages, bonds and debentures, and the bed tax. But tax reform is like painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge: the task is never complete. The Australian people deserve a tax system that is efficient, fair, internationally competitive and guarantees a low overall burden oftaxation. That is why on March 26, in a speech to the Sydney Institute, I announced that distinguished economist Henry Ergas would assist the Coalition in a full review of Australia's system of taxation: federal, state and local. One of the key objectives will be to explore options for reducing the burden of taxation generally. In the same speech I predicted that, having driven the tax-reform agenda while in government, the Coalition would do so again from Opposition. It did not take very long for that prediction to come true. Less than four weeks after I announced the creation of the Ergas review, the Rudd Government released its initial report on the 2020 Summit. The report encouraged the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of state and federal taxes. Mr Rudd then followed that up with an announcement on the ABC's The 7.30 Report that he thought it was time to look at a root-and-branch reform of the Australian taxation system. So, after having shown little interest in (and indeed a great deal of hostility towards) tax reform for more than a decade, Labor has been forced into looking as though it is doing something about tax. If the lofty standards that the process-obsessed Rudd Government has set itself are any guide, then looking as though one is doing something on tax must be considered progress. One may even paraphrase one of Rudd's most oft-cited philosophers - chairman Mao Zedong - and describe it as a great leap forward for Labor. But the real question is whether Rudd will follow the Coalition's lead and investigate ways of reducing the overall burden of taxation. Evidently not. The initial report from the summit makes no mention of reducing the overall tax burden. Instead, many of the big new ideas from the summit involve increasing existing taxes (such as those on cigarettes and alcohol) or levying new taxes (the fat tax). If Labor adopts these proposals, which taxes will it cut to fulfil its commitment not to increase tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product? The Prime Minister's summit ended with a recommendation for more than 20 new agencies and substantial funding programs, but with no proposals to cut existing government programs. Since government spending is ultimately financed by taxation, that can mean only one thing: the overall tax burden will rise under Labor. Given Labor's record on tax, none of this is surprising. It opposed the income tax cuts associated with the GST and the income tax cuts of 2005, which reduced the 17 per cent marginal tax rate to 15 per cent. In 2005 it also rejected measures that provided tax relief for seniors and improved the international competitiveness of our tax system. And at the 2007 election Labor had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the polls on tax cuts. It proposed to cut taxes only after the Coalition announced its intention to do so, and Labor's election tax cuts for low and middle-income earners were an exact replica of the Coalition's. Shamelessly, Labor claims these cuts were its idea all along. And, to top it all off, it appears to have backed away from its campaign promise to eventually reduce the top income tax rate, flatten the income tax system and reduce the number of rates from four to three. There is every indication that these aspirational tax cuts were really a politically expedient pledge that could be discarded at will. Let's hope Rudd's commitment to undertake root-and-branch tax reform does not suffer the same fate and become a great leap backwards for the Australian economy. adminFri, 25 Apr 2008 02:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:65http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/66/Australias-Inflation-Challenge.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=66http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=66&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/66/Australias-Inflation-Challenge.aspx  As I have said many times, inflation is a serious economic issue especially in an economy like ours with high growth and low unemployment. In fact inflation is too serious and too complex an issue to be mismanaged and misrepresented by Wayne Swan. Mr Swan has stated again and again that inflation is out of control; that "the inflation genie is out of the bottle". The Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens, has been obliged to contradict the Treasurer's reckless talk and he did so because he knows, and Mr Swan should know, that if you talk up inflation you exacerbate inflationary expectations. Mr Swan's inexperience leads him into acting in a way no other Treasurer has ever acted - actually seeking to worsen economic conditions to make a partisan political point. I have always emphasised the gravity of the inflation challenge. However, unlike Mr Swan, I am concerned about Australians' living standards, jobs and their ability to service their mortgages. Now, we know that the world's largest economy, the United States, is sliding into recession. Central Banks around the world are cutting interest rates to stave off economic slowdowns. In the US where I am now, housing prices have declined by 11% over the last year and many economists expect them to decline further - a full 30% from their high of a year or so ago. This collapse in the housing market coupled with a tightening in credit around the world has already impacted Australian families. Banks have raised interest rates to home buyers, businesses are paying more for the debt they need to run their businesses and less credit is being made available. These are very challenging times - the International Monetary Fund has described the present crisis as the worst since the Great Depression of 1929. Now in those circumstances, we need to respond with great care and responsibility and recognise that while there are inflationary pressures evident in our economy many of them are beyond our control, such as higher oil and commodity prices. Contrary to Mr Swan's claim again today, inflation has not been on the march for more than two years: the RBA forecast inflation was going downwards in June 2007; and Treasury forecast inflation was falling in October 2007. Similarly, contrary to Mr Swan's claim, the RBA did not issue 20 warnings to the Government that capacity constraints were causing inflation. The RBA has indicated that it doesn't issue warnings to the Government. The global credit crisis is going to put more upward pressure on rates and slow economic growth. That is why I encouraged the Reserve Bank not to raise official rates earlier this year and to wait to see how the international situation developed. --ENDS-- adminThu, 24 Apr 2008 02:40:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:66http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67/Consumer-Confidence.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=67http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=67&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67/Consumer-Confidence.aspxThe drastic decline in consumer confidence should come as a final warning to the Rudd Government to stop talking down the economy. According to the Westpac-Melbourne Institute index of consumer sentiment, released today, confidence is at its lowest level since June 1993, 24.2 per cent below where it was just 12 months ago.  This is the latest in a series of surveys which show consumer confidence has collapsed since the election of the Rudd Government. Since taking office Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan have all been claiming inflation is running out of control. We know the purpose of using this exaggerated and overblown rhetoric is to trash the Howard government’s economic record. But the use of such language by the new Government comes at a cost.  It affects consumer sentiment, business confidence, and inflationary expectations. And in economics these are crucial to the future performance of the economy. All of this is taking place against an uncertain international economic background. The position of the global economy is quite delicately poised.  The IMF has cut its forecast for global growth this year and says that world economy will expand 3.7 percent in 2008, the slowest pace since 2002. The United States is currently experiencing considerable economic difficulties. Overnight, for example, the IMF released a report that estimates that falling U.S. housing prices and rising delinquencies on mortgage payments could lead to aggregate losses of close to $1 trillion. The Australian economy is resilient and well placed to ride out the global turmoil. But it is vital that public figures not use immoderate language on our domestic economic conditions, lest they risk exacerbating any potential economic fallout that may flow on to Australia from the US and global economic situation. The RBA Governor, Glenn Stevens, last Friday said very clearly that inflation is under control and will be dealt with. After months of talking down the economy and talking up inflation, it is time that Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and Mr Swan finally get the message. adminThu, 10 Apr 2008 02:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:67http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Review-of-Australias-Commonwealth-State-Territory-and-Local-Tax-System.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=68http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=68&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Review-of-Australias-Commonwealth-State-Territory-and-Local-Tax-System.aspx  I have asked distinguished economist Henry Ergas to conduct an examination of the many taxes in Australia at various levels of Government and to report to the Opposition on options for reforming the tax system. Today I release the terms of reference for the Ergas Review (see below). The last major reform of Australia’s tax system was undertaken by the Coalition almost 10 years ago with the move to A New Tax System (the GST reform).   While those changes have worked well – and indeed, are now endorsed by the ALP which previously strenuously opposed them – it is important to periodically examine on a holistic basis the nature of our tax system.   This is all the more important as the world economy becomes ever more globally integrated, making it vital that our tax system be consistent with Australia’s international competitiveness. The need to encompass, within our tax arrangements, the revenue and cost consequences of climate change policies is an additional significant factor making a review of the tax system timely. In undertaking this study, Professor Ergas will consult widely, and host a Conference to advance our understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for reform of the tax system. Professor Ergas has a distinguished career as an economist both within Australia and overseas and will bring a great deal of economic expertise and experience to this important project.  (His biography appears below.) I have asked Professor Ergas to submit a final report of the Review later in the year.   Contact: Brad Burke – 0447 463 161 HENRY ERGAS Henry Ergas is the Chairman of Concept Economics, an economics consultancy firm with offices in Canberra and Sydney. He is also an external Professor in the Faculty of Economics at Monash University, Melbourne and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Economics at the National University of Singapore. Henry worked as an economist at the OECD from the late 1970’s to the early 1990’s. At the OECD, he was responsible for a wide range of reports, including a major study on Structural Adjustment and Economic Performance (1987), which presented a comprehensive approach to microeconomic reform. During his time at the OECD, he taught economics at the Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l’Administration Economique in Paris and was a Fellow of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. After leaving the OECD, he taught at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and at the University of Auckland, served as a consultant to the World Bank and the RAND Corporation, and was Visiting Economic Advisor to the Trade Practices Commission before establishing his own economic consultancy in 1997. Terms of Reference Ergas Review of Australia’s taxation system Outcomes: The Ergas Review will report on the state of taxation in Australia at all levels of Government.  It will also outline the scope for reform, including practical approaches to tax reform to enable a fairer and more efficient tax system that enhances the prosperity and living standards of Australians. The objectives to be pursued are: To improve the efficiency and efficacy of the tax system as a whole; To reduce the burden of taxation generally; and To promote productivity growth and the international competitiveness of the Australian economy, so as to improve the living standards of all Australians.   The Review will involve all aspects of the tax system that are amenable to reform in the national interest. This will involve an examination of taxation: At the Commonwealth level, including but not limited to: income tax, company tax, dividend imputation, the goods and services tax, international tax, excises and customs duties, fringe benefits tax, revenue from any emissions trading scheme, capital gains tax, superannuation taxes, and resource rent tax; and At the State and Local level, including but not limited to: transactions taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, and gambling taxes. In conducting the Review, Professor Ergas will consult widely, including through the release of public discussion papers and a tax reform conference.  The Review will be completed by the end of 2008.   adminTue, 08 Apr 2008 02:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:68http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/Labor-leads-in-Chutzpah-Copies-Coalition-tax-cuts-and-claims-credit.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=69http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=69&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/Labor-leads-in-Chutzpah-Copies-Coalition-tax-cuts-and-claims-credit.aspx Wayne Swan has been claiming credit for this year's tax cuts as a great example of Labor's concern for the battlers. Yet in truth not only are the tax cuts this year a photocopy of the Coalition's election tax policy, but over the last three years the amount of net income tax paid by an Australian earning $30,000 has fallen by nearly 45 per cent.  And the amount of net tax paid by a person earning $15,000 has decreased by nearly 54 per cent.  Recent figures from the Australian Tax Office show that the top 25 per cent of taxpayers pay 65 per cent of the income tax revenue, whereas the bottom 25 per cent of taxpayers account for just 2.7 per cent of the revenue – down from 3.5 per cent of total revenue in 1996.  The fact is that the Coalition’s tax cuts of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 provided significant tax relief, particularly for low and middle income earners.  Labor opposed the tax cuts associated with the GST and also the tax cuts of 2005, which cut the 17 per cent marginal tax rate to 15 per cent. In 2005 they also rejected measures that provided tax relief for seniors and improved the international competitiveness of our tax system.  Low income earners and seniors have not only benefited from these tax cuts. They have also enjoyed substantial gains as a result of Australia’s recent high rates of economic growth. Research by Roger Wilkins and Mark Wooden at the University of Melbourne shows that between 2001 and 2006, median real incomes of the lowest 40 per cent increased by more than 10 per cent. Over the same period, incomes of the lowest ten per cent increased by nearly 30 per cent – the biggest relative improvement of any group. The Coalition has always believed that the best way to help an unemployed person is to give them a job. The same research shows that employment rates among persistently poor households roughly doubled over this period.    More Australians are in work than ever before, and the current unemployment rate of 4 per is close to a 35 year low. Average real wages have increased by more than 21 per cent since 1996, whereas they fell the last time Labor was in office.  And yet on Saturday, knowing all of this, the Treasurer had the gall to claim that “for too long under the Liberal Party, low and middle income earners missed out on genuine relief.” Really? Does Mr Swan think that taxpayers have not genuinely welcomed the last five years’ worth of tax cuts? Does he think that almost halving the amount of net tax paid by a person on $25,000 over the last five years does not constitute genuine relief?  Of course, more can always be done. The Coalition has always recognised that good economic management, providing income tax relief and improving our tax system is like painting the Harbour Bridge – the task is never complete. That is why we cut income taxes in each of the last five years and announced further income tax cuts during the 2007 election campaign.  That plan, which was announced by John Howard and Peter Costello on October 15 last year, provided tax relief for all Australian taxpayers. It specifically targeted low income earners and seniors, just as many of our earlier tax cuts had.  Under the Coalition’s policy, Australians earning $15,000 or less will not pay any net tax by 2009, and those earning $30,000 will pay $2,100 in net tax by 2010, down from $5,172 in 2004.  You would think that if Labor really believed that the Coalition had neglected low and middle income earners and was serious about providing “new leadership”, they would have developed their own tax policy. Right?  Wrong. When it comes to income tax cuts, Labor is a policy free zone. After 4284 days in opposition, they could not come up with a single new idea on income tax policy.  Instead, Mr Rudd and Mr Swan copied the Coalition’s campaign tax policy for seniors and low and middle income earners. When they introduced the policy into Parliament on 14 February, they claimed that the tax cuts were their idea all along.  Less than a week earlier Mr Swan ruled out further income tax cuts for low and middle income earners, saying that Labor would instead be “banking any upward revisions to revenue, if they occur.”  Most disturbingly, Labor has yet to unequivocally rule out introducing new taxes or increasing existing taxes in the upcoming Budget.  In a nutshell, the Rudd government’s grand plan for genuine tax relief for low and middle income earners is that there will be no further income tax cuts, other than those proposed by the Coalition.  So much for “new leadership”. adminWed, 02 Apr 2008 02:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:69http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/Speech-to-the-Melbourne-Institute.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=70http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=70&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/Speech-to-the-Melbourne-Institute.aspx**check against delivery** On Wednesday I had the opportunity to speak to the Sydney Institute on the challenges of climate change and tax reform. It is great to be here speaking at the Melbourne Institute at the Economic and Social Outlook Conference to discuss the importance of tax reform and the opportunity presented by the introduction of an Emissions Trading System.  I have long advocated tax reform, lowering the burden of taxation generally, replacing inefficient taxes with efficient taxes, but also in flattening the structure of our income tax system.  In each year from 2003 to 2007 the Coalition provided substantial income tax relief.  And we are now rapidly moving towards the brave new world of emissions permit trading.  Labor did not oppose our 2006 tax cuts and at the last election - after 11 ½ years in opposition - it did not have any ideas of its own on tax. So it copied 92 per cent of the Coalition’s election tax plan.  A vital difference between our Party and Labor is our approach to taxation. So it was no wonder, that one of MrRudd’s most breathtaking excursions into Orwellian doublespeak was when he said in Perth recently that for its eleven and a half years the Howard Government did not put forward a strategic vision for the tax system.” The tax reforms of the Howard Government, in particular the GST, were the most sweeping in any of our lifetimes. MrRudd described these reforms as a “fundamental injustice”.? MrSwan went further and called the GST a “bastard tax” on at least three occasions.?  Tax reform is like painting the HarbourBridge – the task is never complete. And much more always needs to be done.   Labor’s tradition of opposing significant tax reform while in Opposition does not bode well for its future in Government.  The tax system should be designed and maintained to collect no more money than the Government needs, and it should do so fairly and efficiently.  As AdamSmith observed in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: “Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.” Tax compliance and administration should be easy and above all designed to minimise economic waste. Again, AdamSmith understood this in 1776 when he wrote: “While [the tax] ... obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so.” Our tax system today is a fairer and more efficient one than JohnHoward found it in 1996, but there is much more to be done.  We have many taxes which are highly inefficient, many at the State and Territory level.  Our income tax system, while much improved by the Coalition, remains complex. The Business Council of Australia’s recent Tax Nation report, for example, found that there were 56 separate business taxes levied in Australia, including 21 federal, 33 state and territory and 2 local taxes. The BCA identified 182 separate taxing points.  Right at the very centre of our economy is the roughly 40 per cent of our GDP that is represented by Federal, State and Local public sector revenues. The manner in which that money is collected and then disbursed is vital to the strength and competitiveness of our economy. On Wednesday I announced that HenryErgas had agreed to assist us in a full review of our system of taxation – federal, state and local. We intend to consult widely and invite public submissions. This brings me to the topic of climate change.  Let us restate the challenge. The world’s governments have now accepted that our growing emissions of CO2 and similar greenhouse gases has caused the earth’s climate to warm and that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change we must dramatically reduce our emissions of those gases. This global objective which is both consistent with the science and growing in acceptance is a reduction of emissions by 2050 to a level equal to 50 per cent of global emissions in 1990. Note that this is much, much larger than cutting 2050 emissions to half their business as usual level. The Stern Review estimated this would amount to a reduction to 23 per cent of the business as usual level. This will be a costly exercise. We will all be faced with consequences of climate change whatever reduced levels of emissions are achieved. That can be described as the cost of adaptation, some of it certainly unavoidable. In addition we will be faced with the costs of reducing emissions. That can be described as the costs of mitigation. For Australia, an example of the cost of adaptation is the many desalination plants being built around our coast line, or the National Plan for Water Security – $10 billion to secure the future of irrigated agriculture in a hotter, drier future. An example of the cost of mitigation will be the extra we will all pay for low emission energy. Gas is dearer than coal. Wind, solar, geothermal, even nuclear are dearer than gas. As the source of only 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions whatever we do domestically will make little or no difference to the global result. If we reduced our emissions dramatically, but the rest of the world did not, we would find ourselves paying a high cost for mitigation by reason of our own action, and a high price for adaptation by reason of the inaction of others. During my time as Environment Minister three points about climate change became very clear to me and you will have heard me making them often. They bear repeating today. The first is obvious: climate change is a fact, not a theory. By that I mean that whatever reservations people might have about the science, policymakers must, as RupertMurdoch once observed, “give the planet the benefit of the doubt.” The second point is less obvious. Given that so much of our emissions are from sources that are likely to be very hard to abate either at all or at realistic cost, the emission reduction goals we are setting ourselves for 2050 will mean in practical terms that we will need in 42 years to have a world where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero emission sources and where deforestation, currently the source of 20 per cent of global emissions, is replaced by a global programme of reforestation. This would mean that there would be no coal fired power stations unless the CO2 was captured and stored safely under the ground. Automobiles would be electric – a whole energy hungry world would have to undergo an industrial and technological transformation of a kind never seen before in its global scope and scale. The third point is that there is no prospect of achieving the massive global reductions in emissions that science demands unless all of the major emitting nations both in the developed and developing world played a part. Until a few years ago that was a controversial statement, but as always the relentless logic of arithmetic has won the day. Indeed, as we saw at the US President’s first Major Economies Meeting on climate last September even if the developed world cut its emissions by 100 per cent by 2050, to achieve a global reduction to 50 per cent of 2005 levels, the developing world would need to cut its emissions by 47 per cent. It is important to remember that apart from the essentially symbolic issue of ratifying Kyoto there was precious little difference between the climate change policies of the Coalition and the Labor Party were not great at the time of the last election. And that was in large measure because in so many respects the Coalition was the agenda setter in climate change responses which the Labor Party then endorsed. The National Plan for Water Security and the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate being two obvious and recent examples. Given the Coalition’s failure to ratify Kyoto it was inevitable that the political debate in Australia would be a fairly arid affair between the “believers” against the supposed non-believers or sceptics. That political debate is over. The question now is how are we going to respond?   We should never forget that the last time Australia managed to significantly reduce its greenhouse emissions was during PaulKeating’s “recession we had to have.” We know that future historians will record that some nations met the climate change challenge with great efficiency. Others will no doubt make poor decisions, informed by deep green ideology rather than economics, and will achieve less abatement at greater cost. Harnessing market forces is essential to achieving abatement at the lowest possible cost.   If we require industries to acquire permits to emit CO2 and we limit the availability of those permits so that over time our emissions dwindle it will follow that those permits will become more valuable until such time as they hit the cost of abatement. Of course the cost of abatement is different altogether to the cost of generating zero emission electricity. There are many opportunities for reducing carbon intensity through energy efficiency some of which will pay for themselves in that the cost of abatement (putting insulation in the roof, or better design to allow natural ventilation) may be less than the energy saving. But it is important not to be seduced by the “easy being green” mantra that the transition to a low emission economy is a simple one. Yes there is plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency. But in a rapidly growing economy such as our own, let alone China or India, the improvements in energy efficiency will be overtaken rapidly by growing demand for energy and the inescapable reality of over time having to generate all of our stationary energy from zero emission sources remains. The Rudd Government is set to introduce its emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2010 a year earlier than that proposed by the Coalition in its ETS plan. Last week ProfessorRossGarnaut released a thoughtful discussion paper which proposed auctioning off all of these permits.  This will impose a price on carbon, as would a carbon tax. The key difference is that under an ETS the Government sets the amount of emissions permissible and the permit price is set by the market and can fluctuate freely, whereas under a carbon tax the price is set by government and the amount of emissions is the result of market behaviour. An ETS will see the Federal Government collecting substantial amounts of additional revenue. The Department of Climate Change projects that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be about 600 million tonnes in 2010. So even if Labor’s ETS only covers two thirds of all emissions, an auction price of $25 per tonne would raise $10 billion per annum in the early years.   In 2010 this would almost offset the revenue that will be foregone as a result of the income tax cuts.   What should be done with this revenue?   While an ETS is, strictly speaking, distinctly different from a tax on carbon it will, like a tax, result in the transfer of many billions of dollars from business and households to Government. The Rudd Government has committed not to allow tax revenue to increase as a percentage of GDP and the revenues from the ETS should, for that purpose, be classed as a tax. We will be holding the Rudd Government to account on this vital point. This means that the ETS revenues must be matched by a reduction in other taxes. There are other claims on the ETS revenues apart from tax cuts of course. Clearly we should continue to invest, but effectively, in research and development on low emission technologies. The Coalition showed great leadership in that regard and the new Government should aim to do better still. But the sums flowing from the ETS are going to be much greater than any of these items are likely to absorb. We should take the opportunity with the revenues from the ETS to address both inefficient taxes as well as inefficiencies and inequities in our income tax system. A lot has been said about assisting low income households who will be hard hit by higher energy and fuel costs. Reducing tax, including high Effective Marginal Tax Rates, on low income households should be a key priority. But the objective should be this: compensating tax and welfare measures must ensure that no low income or pensioner household is worse off by reason of the introduction of the ETS. The ETS also offers an opportunity to phase out a number of very inefficient State government taxes.  There is always a strong case for replacing relatively inefficient taxes, such as stamp duties on conveyances, insurance and motor vehicle registrations, with relatively efficient taxes. And with Government raising new carbon revenues the total tax take should be kept constant, or reduced. But it is not only an issue of compensating the most vulnerable An emissions trading scheme in which permits are auctioned and traded will interact with existing taxes in a complex way. As a result, the deadweight costs of many existing taxes could rise.   In other words, when viewed through the lens of climate change policy, tax reform in other areas - cutting other taxes - actually makes very good economic sense.  Conclusion The Government’s response to climate change – an emissions trading system – provides a unique opportunity to reform Australia’s tax system. The emissions trading system will open up a major new source of Government revenue. Reviewing the efficacy of our tax system is always a good idea, but the pending arrival of the ETS makes it essential. If we were to invest much of the revenue earned from the ETS into removing inefficient and inequitable taxes we would not simply keep the tax share of GDP neutral, we would also be reinvesting those revenues into a more efficient and productive Australia. “Building Australia's Economic Future” Address to the Lord Mayor's Business Breakfast Perth http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0032.cfm House Hansard, 30 June 1999, A New tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1999 New tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999, Consideration of Senate Message. House Hansard, 8 June 1999, 29 June 1999 and 7 December 1999.  Tax Nation: Business Taxes and the Federal-State Divide, BCA, 2007. See http://www.bca.com.au/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=136 See, for example, the 2007/08 Budget, Paper No. 1,  Statement 12: Trends in Public Sector Finances. http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/html/bp1_bst12-02.htm See http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports-and-papers    adminSat, 29 Mar 2008 02:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:70http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/135/Speech-to-The-Sydney-Institute.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=135http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=135&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/135/Speech-to-The-Sydney-Institute.aspx  **check against delivery** The Liberal Party is a party of enterprise and individual freedom. It is a party whose mission is to create the economic environment in which Australians can have the greatest range of opportunities in which to fulfil their ambitions – for themselves and for their children. We recognise the great social and moral challenges of our time among them global poverty, social and especially indigenous disadvantage, climate change and environmental degradation. We recognise that the resources of Government must be deployed to address them. But deep in the DNA of true Liberals we know that every dollar the Government spends was earned by someone else and that this money – “other people’s money” – must be spent as prudently and effectively as possible. There is no virtue, none whatsoever, just in spending taxpayers’ money. There is virtue in spending taxpayers’ money and achieving real results as long as the benefits exceed the costs. The real benchmarks for political achievement are not how much money can be spent on any given good cause, but how much can be done, how much reform can be effected and how efficiently taxpayers’ money can be deployed. Put another way: we need more bang for less buck It is this spirit, this core value, of individual enterprise that led me to join the Liberal Party more than thirty years ago. All my life I have believed in, and in many fields practised, what I would describe as resilient individualism, the enterprising spirit that leads a person to push themselves to achieve their goals and if they do not succeed, enables them to dust themselves off and get started again. Our society as a whole is strongest when individuals are able to take responsibility for their own lives and when Governments create the environment – the level playing field – in which they can do so. Our Party has always recognised that it is only a strong free enterprise economy that will generate the means to care for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Compassion without capacity assists no one.  A vital difference between our Party and Labor is our approach to taxation. So it was no wonder, that one of Mr Rudd’s most breathtaking excursions into Orwellian doublespeak was when he said in Perth recently that for its eleven and a half years the Howard Government did not put forward a strategic vision for the tax system.” The tax reforms of the Howard Government, in particular the GST, were the most sweeping in any of our lifetimes.  Mr Rudd described these reforms as a “fundamental injustice”. Mr Swan went further and called the GST a “bastard tax”.  The truth is that it is the Labor Party which has no strategic vision for tax reform – this year’s tax cuts are just a photocopy of 92 per cent of the Coalition’s 2007 election tax policy. Tax reform is like painting the Harbour Bridge – the task is never complete. And much more always needs to be done.   Labor’s tradition of opposing significant tax reform while in Opposition does not bode well for its future in Government.  The tax system should be designed and maintained to collect no more money than the Government needs, and it should do so fairly and efficiently.  As Adam Smith observed in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: “Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.” Tax compliance and administration should be easy and above all designed to minimise economic waste. Again, Adam Smith understood this in 1776 when he wrote: “While [the tax] ... obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so.” Our tax system today is a fairer and more efficient one than John Howard found it in 1996, but there is much more to be done.  We have many taxes which are highly inefficient, many at the State and Territory level.   Our income tax system, while much improved by the Coalition, remains complex. The Business Council of Australia’s recent Tax Nation report, for example, found that there were 56 separate business taxes levied in Australia, including 21 federal, 33 state and territory and 2 local taxes. The BCA identified 182 separate taxing points.  So let us now from the ground zero of Opposition, rebound and recommit ourselves as the Party of Enterprise to a fair tax system that is the most efficient we can make it, a tax system that raises no more money than is needed by a Government which spends no more than it must to achieve the goals to which it is committed. There will be no Liberal return to Government if, in the ashes of electoral defeat, we try to sound more and more like Labor or, like a conquered nation ape the manners and the rhetoric of the victors. There is nothing in that for the Liberal Party and less for Australia. The health of our party and the health of our democracy require the Liberal Party to be different, to be bold, to be prepared to tackle the great challenges of our time with the enterprise and the efficiency that is at the core of its political values. We need to offer a clear choice, a distinct alternative. We must stand up for our principles.    Right at the very centre of our economy is the roughly 40 per cent of our GDP that is represented by Federal, State and Local public sector revenues. The manner in which that money is collected and then disbursed is vital to the strength and competitiveness of our economy. I have accordingly asked Mr Henry Ergas to assist us in a full review of our system of taxation – federal, state and local. We intend to consult widely and invite public submissions. We drove the tax reform agenda while in Government and we will drive it again in Opposition. This brings me to the topic of climate change.  Let us restate the challenge. The world’s governments have now accepted that our growing emissions of CO2 and similar greenhouse gases has caused the earth’s climate to warm and that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change we must dramatically reduce our emissions of those gases. This global objective which is both consistent with the science and growing in acceptance is a reduction of emissions by 2050 to a level equal to 50 per cent of global emissions in 1990. Note that this is much, much larger than cutting 2050 emissions to half their business as usual level. The Stern Review estimated this would amount to a reduction to 23 per cent of the business as usual level. This will be a costly exercise. We will all be faced with consequences of climate change whatever reduced levels of emissions are achieved. That can be described as the cost of adaptation, some of it certainly unavoidable. In addition we will be faced with the costs of reducing emissions. That can be described as the costs of mitigation. For Australia, an example of the cost of adaptation is the many desalination plants being built around our coast line, or the National Plan for Water Security – $10 billion to secure the future of irrigated agriculture in a hotter, drier future. An example of the cost of mitigation will be the extra we will all pay for low emission energy. Gas is dearer than coal. Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear are presently dearer than gas. As the source of only 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions whatever we do domestically will make little or no difference to the global result. If we reduced our emissions dramatically, but the rest of the world did not, we would find ourselves paying a high cost for mitigation by reason of our own action, and a high price for adaptation by reason of the inaction of others. Many economists have rightly argued that we need to trade off the cost of adaptation to climate change in a presumably far wealthier future time against costs of mitigation today. British economist Sir Nicholas Stern used a controversially low discount rate in assessing the future costs of adaptation and while I understand the economic criticism of his approach to discounting, it is important to remember that the estimates of future costs which are the subject of the discount rate are themselves inevitably very uncertain. In the climate change arena, policy makers are beset with imponderables. However, it is important to remember that the dollars of mitigation today versus dollars of adaptation fifty years from now is not a calculation Australia can make alone. Our cost of adaptation in the future will depend on the global response which we can only influence to a small degree. Our cost of mitigation will depend entirely on our own policy decisions. During my time as Environment Minister three points about climate change became very clear to me and you will have heard me making them often. They bear repeating today. The first is obvious: climate change is a fact, not a theory. By that I mean that whatever reservations people might have about the science, policymakers must, as Rupert Murdoch once observed, “give the planet the benefit of the doubt.” The second point is less obvious. Given that so much of our emissions are from sources that are likely to be very hard to abate either at all or at realistic cost, the emission reduction goals we are setting ourselves for 2050 will mean in practical terms that we will need in 42 years to have a world where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero emission sources and where deforestation, currently the source of 20 per cent of global emissions, is replaced by a global programme of reforestation – an initiative I was proud to have pioneered while Environment Minister in the Howard Government last year. This would mean that there would be no coal fired power stations unless the CO2 was captured and stored safely under the ground. Automobiles would be electric – a whole energy hungry world would have to undergo an industrial and technological transformation of a kind never seen before in its global scope and scale. The third point is that there is no prospect of achieving the massive global reductions in emissions that science demands unless all of the major emitting nations both in the developed and developing world play a part. Until a few years ago that was a controversial statement, but as always the relentless logic of arithmetic has won the day. Indeed, as we saw at the US President’s first Major Economies Meeting on climate last September even if the developed world cut its emissions by 100 per cent by 2050, to achieve a global reduction to 50 per cent of 2005 levels, the developing world would need to cut its emissions by 47 per cent. So what does this mean for Australia? We are a nation which has built its prosperity not only on cheap coal fired energy – our electricity is among the cheapest in the world and more than 80 per cent of it comes from coal. But we are also the largest exporter of coal in the world. In other words both our domestic and our export economies are heavily dependent on the most carbon intensive energy source in the world today. Direct emissions from the export oriented industries of coal mining, other energy commodities and mining activities and production of metals and minerals are responsible for over 30 per cent of our total emissions – all before accounting for the emissions associated with their electricity usage. Resources – all energy intensive – are 37 per cent of our exports versus an OECD average of 8 per cent That’s the bad news. The good news, on the other hand, is that we are also a leading exporter of uranium and nuclear power will be a key part in the global low emissions solution. In addition we have outstanding solar, wind and geothermal resources. Further, while carbon capture and storage is yet to be shown to be commercially feasible at scale, we have plenty of promising geology. Even more importantly we have some of the world’s leading scientists in all these fields. Finally, while it is true that some of our dirtiest power is our cheapest (Victoria’s brown coal for example), it is also true that the additional cost of CCS while substantial will still be building off a relatively low base. In a carbon constrained world, the countries with respect to which we will be disadvantaged will be those who do not impose a cost on carbon at all, or, like France (nuclear) or Brazil (hydro and biomass) have substantial sources of low emission energy. It is important to remember that apart from the essentially symbolic issue of ratifying Kyoto the differences between the climate change policies of the Coalition and the Labor Party were not great at the time of the last election.  And that was in large measure because in so many respects the Coalition was the agenda setter in climate change responses which the Labor Party then endorsed. The National Plan for Water Security, the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate being two obvious and recent examples. Given the Coalition’s failure to ratify Kyoto it was inevitable that the political debate in Australia would be a fairly arid affair between the “believers” against the supposed non-believers or sceptics. That political debate is over. The question now is how are we going to respond? We know that future historians will record that some nations met the climate change challenge with great efficiency. Others will no doubt make poor decisions, informed by deep green ideology rather than economics, and will achieve less abatement at greater cost. A rational, business-like approach to climate change in Australia would have the following objectives: We must achieve the greatest abatement at the lowest cost. We must ensure an early and effective agreement on global action. The most heroic efforts in Australia will be of no effect if they are not matched by similar action everywhere including the rapidly industrialising developing economies such as China and India. We must safeguard trade-exposed, energy-intensive Australian industries until such time as there is a global climate agreement which ensures that carbon is taxed at comparable levels everywhere. Otherwise we will export our industries, our jobs and our prosperity together with the emissions. This is happening already – much of Europe’s slow growth in emissions is because carbon intensive industries have moved to Asia. In one spectacular example the steel mill of Dortmund, Germany was cut up and moved to Handan, China. Dortmund has cleaner skies and the Germans feel that much greener. But they still use just as much steel as they did before and the emissions are still going up the same smokestack into the same sky, warming the same planet – just from a different city. Transferring industry and emissions from one country to another purely because of differing carbon prices is both economically inefficient and environmentally pointless. We must do everything we can to ensure that carbon capture and storage works. The Coalition Government invested a huge amount into this effort and no doubt more needs to be done. Unless the world is prepared to move to a massive ramp up of nuclear energy globally, there is simply no presently conceived alternative for additional large scale baseload power than clean coal (or gas). Put another way, we have a gigantic bet on the viability of clean coal. Harnessing market forces is essential to achieving abatement at the lowest possible cost.  If we require industries to acquire permits to emit CO2 and we limit the availability of those permits so that over time our emissions dwindle it will follow that those permits will become more valuable until such time as they hit the cost of abatement. Put another way if the cost of emission-free electricity is equivalent to a cost of $50 a tonne of CO2 (that is, an additional $50 per MWh) then the price of a permit should never, at least on average over time, exceed $50. Of course the cost of abatement is different altogether to the cost of generating zero emission electricity. There are many opportunities for reducing carbon intensity through energy efficiency some of which will pay for themselves in that the cost of abatement (putting insulation in the roof, or better design to allow natural ventilation) may be less than the energy saving. But it is important not to be seduced by the “easy being green” mantra that the transition to a low emission economy is a simple one. Yes there is plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency. But in a rapidly growing economy such as our own, let alone China or India, the improvements in energy efficiency will be overtaken rapidly by growing demand for energy and the inescapable reality of over time having to generate all of our stationary energy from zero emission sources remains. The Rudd Government is set to introduce its emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2010 a year earlier than that proposed by the Coalition in its ETS plan. Last week Professor Ross Garnaut released a thoughtful discussion paper which proposed auctioning off all of these permits.  This will impose a price on carbon, as would a carbon tax. The key difference is that under an ETS the Government sets the amount of emissions permissible and the permit price is set by the market and can fluctuate freely, whereas under a carbon tax the price is set by government and the amount of emissions is the result of market behaviour. An ETS is to be preferred not simply because it allows the market to find the least cost abatement but it will be able to interact with similar schemes elsewhere in the world.  An ETS will see the Federal Government collecting substantial amounts of additional revenue. The Department of Climate Change projects that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be about 600 million tonnes in 2010. So even if Labor’s ETS only covers two thirds of all emissions, an auction price of $25 per tonne would raise $10 billion per annum in the early years.   In 2010 this would almost offset the revenue that will be foregone as a result of the income tax cuts.   What should be done with this revenue?   While an ETS is, strictly speaking, distinctly different from a tax on carbon it will, like a tax, result in the transfer of many billions of dollars from business and households to Government. The Rudd Government has committed not to allow tax revenue to increase as a percentage of GDP and the revenues from the ETS should, for that purpose, be classed as a tax. We will be holding the Rudd Government to account on this vital point. This means that the ETS revenues must be matched by a reduction in other taxes. There are other claims on the ETS revenues apart from tax cuts of course. Clearly we should continue to invest, but effectively, in research and development on low emission technologies. The Coalition showed great leadership in that regard and the new Government should aim to do better still. We should also consider providing additional incentives to households and businesses to invest in energy efficiency. The solar hot water heater rebate I announced last year is a good example. A similar rebate to encourage insulation would be a good initiative and consideration should be given to accelerated depreciation for energy efficiency measures for businesses. But the sums flowing from the ETS are going to be much greater than any of these items are likely to absorb. We should take the opportunity with the revenues from the ETS to address both inefficient taxes as well as inefficiencies and inequities in our income tax system. A lot has been said about assisting low income households who will be hard hit by higher energy and fuel costs. Reducing tax, including high Effective Marginal Tax Rates, on low income households should be a key priority. But the objective should be this: compensating tax and welfare measures must ensure that low income or pensioner households are not overall worse off by reason of the introduction of the ETS. The ETS also offers an opportunity to phase out a number of very inefficient State government taxes.  There is always a strong case for replacing relatively inefficient taxes with relatively efficient taxes. And with Government raising new carbon revenues the total tax take should be kept constant, or reduced. But it is not only an issue of compensating the most vulnerable. An emissions trading scheme in which permits are auctioned and traded will interact with existing taxes in a complex way. As a result, the deadweight costs of many existing taxes could rise.   In other words, when viewed through the lens of climate change policy, tax reform in other areas - cutting other taxes - actually makes very good economic sense.  Let me illustrate this point with a few examples.  Quite apart from the issue of reducing emissions, allocating risk in an efficient way is a key issue for adapting to the possible adverse and beneficial effects of climate change.  Australia has well developed insurance markets for allocating risk. These markets allow risk-averse individuals to shift risk onto others, who may be better placed to deal with it.  In the long run, well-functioning private insurance markets save taxpayers money. They are an integral part of our response to climate change. When catastrophic events occur, they allow us to avoid placing an undue strain on government resources.  Private insurance premiums also help with dealing with the moral hazard problem of government assistance – individuals must think more carefully about the consequences of their actions. Those that take action to reduce the risks of their behaviour are rewarded with lower insurance premiums. But insurance taxes hinder the efficient allocation of risk, and deter many individuals from taking out insurance. In the context of climate change policy they make no sense.  The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that in 2005-06, state stamp duties on general insurance raise around $2.8 billion in revenue.  Access Economics rates these taxes as being among some of the least efficient in terms of the deadweight loss that they create.   By raising the price of taking out insurance, they are a significant deterrent against individuals reallocating risk. In short, they reduce the quantity of insurance. Surely a coherent climate change policy should examine ways of reducing these taxes, with the ultimate goal of completely eliminating them.  Consider stamp duties on property transfers.  As a general rule we want markets to work efficiently and we therefore want to eliminate barriers to trade. Right? Well not exactly. We eliminated stamp duty on stock market traded shares many years ago for precisely that reason, but stamp duties still remain in other areas notably on transfers of real estate. Is that a property tax? Not at all. Stamp duty is a tax on changing locations. The more you buy and sell, the more you are taxed. And yet at a time when housing affordability is so much debated wouldn’t we want a property market that was as unfettered as possible, where there are as few barriers as possible to trade? Well we would, but every year States raise around $11 billion in stamp duties on property transfers. These, of course, are only two examples of inefficient taxes. There are many others and we will be looking closely at all of them in the course of our work with Henry Ergas. Conclusion Climate change is the greatest economic challenge of our times. But the most sincere passion for saving the planet will be no consolation if the power of Government is not used shrewdly and efficiently. An exponential global growth in energy has helped lift millions out of poverty around the world. The challenge is to combine a continued acceleration in energy availability with a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions. Free trade too has contributed to the reduction of poverty – a failure to agree on an effective global climate agreement could see carbon taxes at the frontier and a chauvinistic assault on free trade under a green banner. Australia has much at risk in this epic transition to a low emission future – the decarbonisation of global industry. And there will be a price to pay – being green is far from easy. The design of our ETS, its response to international developments and the way in which it interacts with the rest of our economy will determine how high that price will be. The emissions trading system will open up a major new source of Government revenue. Reviewing the efficacy of our tax system is always a good idea, but the pending arrival of the ETS makes it essential. If we were to invest much of the revenue earned from the ETS into removing inefficient and inequitable taxes we would not simply keep the tax share of GDP neutral, we would also be reinvesting those revenues into a more efficient and productive Australia. Let us ensure the challenge of climate change is not simply met by the ingenuity of a free society finding unimagined technological solutions tomorrow to the intractable problems of today.  Our capacity to respond to climate change is founded in the strength of our economy. We must use this transition to a low carbon future as an opportunity to make our economy stronger still, so that the costs we impose on carbon will be more than matched by the dividends from a more productive and prosperous future for all Australians. “Building Australia's Economic Future” Address to the Lord Mayor's Business Breakfast Perth http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0032.cfm House Hansard, 30 June 1999, A New tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1999 New tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999, Consideration of Senate Message. House Hansard, 8 June 1999, Matter of Public Importance, Goods and Services Tax: Low and Middle Income Earners.  Tax Nation: Business Taxes and the Federal-State Divide, BCA, 2007. See http://www.bca.com.au/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=136 See, for example, the 2007/08 Budget, Paper No. 1,  Statement 12: Trends in Public Sector Finances. http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/html/bp1_bst12-02.htm “China Grabs West’s Smoke Spewing Factories” New York Times 21 December 2007 See http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports-and-papers ICA 2008 Federal Budget Submission, http://www.insurancecouncil.com.au/  adminThu, 27 Mar 2008 07:15:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:135http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/71/Climate-Change-Economics-and-Tax-Reform-Speech-to-Sydney-Institute.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=71http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=71&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/71/Climate-Change-Economics-and-Tax-Reform-Speech-to-Sydney-Institute.aspx The Liberal Party is a party of enterprise and individual freedom. It is a party whose mission is to create the economic environment in which Australians can have the greatest range of opportunities in which to fulfil their ambitions – for themselves and for their children. We recognise the great social and moral challenges of our time among them global poverty, social and especially indigenous disadvantage, climate change and environmental degradation. We recognise that the resources of Government must be deployed to address them. But deep in the DNA of true Liberals we know that every dollar the Government spends was earned by someone else and that this money – “other people’s money” – must be spent as prudently and effectively as possible. There is no virtue, none whatsoever, just in spending taxpayers’ money. There is virtue in spending taxpayers’ money and achieving real results as long as the benefits exceed the costs. The real benchmarks for political achievement are not how much money can be spent on any given good cause, but how much can be done, how much reform can be effected and how efficiently taxpayers’ money can be deployed. Put another way: we need more bang for less buck It is this spirit, this core value, of individual enterprise that led me to join the Liberal Party more than thirty years ago. All my life I have believed in, and in many fields practised, what I would describe as resilient individualism, the enterprising spirit that leads a person to push themselves to achieve their goals and if they do not succeed, enables them to dust themselves off and get started again. Our society as a whole is strongest when individuals are able to take responsibility for their own lives and when Governments create the environment – the level playing field – in which they can do so. Our Party has always recognised that it is only a strong free enterprise economy that will generate the means to care for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Compassion without capacity assists no one.  A vital difference between our Party and Labor is our approach to taxation. So it was no wonder, that one of Mr Rudd’s most breathtaking excursions into Orwellian doublespeak was when he said in Perth recently that for its eleven and a half years the Howard Government did not put forward a strategic vision for the tax system.” The tax reforms of the Howard Government, in particular the GST, were the most sweeping in any of our lifetimes.  Mr Rudd described these reforms as a “fundamental injustice”. Mr Swan went further and called the GST a “bastard tax”.  The truth is that it is the Labor Party which has no strategic vision for tax reform – this year’s tax cuts are just a photocopy of 92 per cent of the Coalition’s 2007 election tax policy. Tax reform is like painting the Harbour Bridge – the task is never complete. And much more always needs to be done.   Labor’s tradition of opposing significant tax reform while in Opposition does not bode well for its future in Government.  The tax system should be designed and maintained to collect no more money than the Government needs, and it should do so fairly and efficiently.  As Adam Smith observed in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: “Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.” Tax compliance and administration should be easy and above all designed to minimise economic waste. Again, Adam Smith understood this in 1776 when he wrote: “While [the tax] ... obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so.” Our tax system today is a fairer and more efficient one than John Howard found it in 1996, but there is much more to be done.  We have many taxes which are highly inefficient, many at the State and Territory level.   Our income tax system, while much improved by the Coalition, remains complex. The Business Council of Australia’s recent Tax Nation report, for example, found that there were 56 separate business taxes levied in Australia, including 21 federal, 33 state and territory and 2 local taxes. The BCA identified 182 separate taxing points.  So let us now from the ground zero of Opposition, rebound and recommit ourselves as the Party of Enterprise to a fair tax system that is the most efficient we can make it, a tax system that raises no more money than is needed by a Government which spends no more than it must to achieve the goals to which it is committed. There will be no Liberal return to Government if, in the ashes of electoral defeat, we try to sound more and more like Labor or, like a conquered nation ape the manners and the rhetoric of the victors. There is nothing in that for the Liberal Party and less for Australia. The health of our party and the health of our democracy require the Liberal Party to be different, to be bold, to be prepared to tackle the great challenges of our time with the enterprise and the efficiency that is at the core of its political values. We need to offer a clear choice, a distinct alternative. We must stand up for our principles.    Right at the very centre of our economy is the roughly 40 per cent of our GDP that is represented by Federal, State and Local public sector revenues. The manner in which that money is collected and then disbursed is vital to the strength and competitiveness of our economy. I have accordingly asked Mr Henry Ergas to assist us in a full review of our system of taxation – federal, state and local. We intend to consult widely and invite public submissions. We drove the tax reform agenda while in Government and we will drive it again in Opposition. This brings me to the topic of climate change.  Let us restate the challenge. The world’s governments have now accepted that our growing emissions of CO2 and similar greenhouse gases has caused the earth’s climate to warm and that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change we must dramatically reduce our emissions of those gases. This global objective which is both consistent with the science and growing in acceptance is a reduction of emissions by 2050 to a level equal to 50 per cent of global emissions in 1990. Note that this is much, much larger than cutting 2050 emissions to half their business as usual level. The Stern Review estimated this would amount to a reduction to 23 per cent of the business as usual level. This will be a costly exercise. We will all be faced with consequences of climate change whatever reduced levels of emissions are achieved. That can be described as the cost of adaptation, some of it certainly unavoidable. In addition we will be faced with the costs of reducing emissions. That can be described as the costs of mitigation. For Australia, an example of the cost of adaptation is the many desalination plants being built around our coast line, or the National Plan for Water Security – $10 billion to secure the future of irrigated agriculture in a hotter, drier future. An example of the cost of mitigation will be the extra we will all pay for low emission energy. Gas is dearer than coal. Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear are presently dearer than gas. As the source of only 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions whatever we do domestically will make little or no difference to the global result. If we reduced our emissions dramatically, but the rest of the world did not, we would find ourselves paying a high cost for mitigation by reason of our own action, and a high price for adaptation by reason of the inaction of others. Many economists have rightly argued that we need to trade off the cost of adaptation to climate change in a presumably far wealthier future time against costs of mitigation today. British economist Sir Nicholas Stern used a controversially low discount rate in assessing the future costs of adaptation and while I understand the economic criticism of his approach to discounting, it is important to remember that the estimates of future costs which are the subject of the discount rate are themselves inevitably very uncertain. In the climate change arena, policy makers are beset with imponderables. However, it is important to remember that the dollars of mitigation today versus dollars of adaptation fifty years from now is not a calculation Australia can make alone. Our cost of adaptation in the future will depend on the global response which we can only influence to a small degree. Our cost of mitigation will depend entirely on our own policy decisions. During my time as Environment Minister three points about climate change became very clear to me and you will have heard me making them often. They bear repeating today. The first is obvious: climate change is a fact, not a theory. By that I mean that whatever reservations people might have about the science, policymakers must, as Rupert Murdoch once observed, “give the planet the benefit of the doubt.” The second point is less obvious. Given that so much of our emissions are from sources that are likely to be very hard to abate either at all or at realistic cost, the emission reduction goals we are setting ourselves for 2050 will mean in practical terms that we will need in 42 years to have a world where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero emission sources and where deforestation, currently the source of 20 per cent of global emissions, is replaced by a global programme of reforestation – an initiative I was proud to have pioneered while Environment Minister in the Howard Government last year. This would mean that there would be no coal fired power stations unless the CO2 was captured and stored safely under the ground. Automobiles would be electric – a whole energy hungry world would have to undergo an industrial and technological transformation of a kind never seen before in its global scope and scale. The third point is that there is no prospect of achieving the massive global reductions in emissions that science demands unless all of the major emitting nations both in the developed and developing world play a part. Until a few years ago that was a controversial statement, but as always the relentless logic of arithmetic has won the day. Indeed, as we saw at the US President’s first Major Economies Meeting on climate last September even if the developed world cut its emissions by 100 per cent by 2050, to achieve a global reduction to 50 per cent of 2005 levels, the developing world would need to cut its emissions by 47 per cent. So what does this mean for Australia? We are a nation which has built its prosperity not only on cheap coal fired energy – our electricity is among the cheapest in the world and more than 80 per cent of it comes from coal. But we are also the largest exporter of coal in the world. In other words both our domestic and our export economies are heavily dependent on the most carbon intensive energy source in the world today. Direct emissions from the export oriented industries of coal mining, other energy commodities and mining activities and production of metals and minerals are responsible for over 30 per cent of our total emissions – all before accounting for the emissions associated with their electricity usage. Resources – all energy intensive – are 37 per cent of our exports versus an OECD average of 8 per cent That’s the bad news. The good news, on the other hand, is that we are also a leading exporter of uranium and nuclear power will be a key part in the global low emissions solution. In addition we have outstanding solar, wind and geothermal resources. Further, while carbon capture and storage is yet to be shown to be commercially feasible at scale, we have plenty of promising geology. Even more importantly we have some of the world’s leading scientists in all these fields. Finally, while it is true that some of our dirtiest power is our cheapest (Victoria’s brown coal for example), it is also true that the additional cost of CCS while substantial will still be building off a relatively low base. In a carbon constrained world, the countries with respect to which we will be disadvantaged will be those who do not impose a cost on carbon at all, or, like France (nuclear) or Brazil (hydro and biomass) have substantial sources of low emission energy. It is important to remember that apart from the essentially symbolic issue of ratifying Kyoto the differences between the climate change policies of the Coalition and the Labor Party were not great at the time of the last election.  And that was in large measure because in so many respects the Coalition was the agenda setter in climate change responses which the Labor Party then endorsed. The National Plan for Water Security, the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate being two obvious and recent examples. Given the Coalition’s failure to ratify Kyoto it was inevitable that the political debate in Australia would be a fairly arid affair between the “believers” against the supposed non-believers or sceptics. That political debate is over. The question now is how are we going to respond? We know that future historians will record that some nations met the climate change challenge with great efficiency. Others will no doubt make poor decisions, informed by deep green ideology rather than economics, and will achieve less abatement at greater cost. A rational, business-like approach to climate change in Australia would have the following objectives: We must achieve the greatest abatement at the lowest cost. We must ensure an early and effective agreement on global action. The most heroic efforts in Australia will be of no effect if they are not matched by similar action everywhere including the rapidly industrialising developing economies such as China and India. We must safeguard trade-exposed, energy-intensive Australian industries until such time as there is a global climate agreement which ensures that carbon is taxed at comparable levels everywhere. Otherwise we will export our industries, our jobs and our prosperity together with the emissions. This is happening already – much of Europe’s slow growth in emissions is because carbon intensive industries have moved to Asia. In one spectacular example the steel mill of Dortmund, Germany was cut up and moved to Handan, China. Dortmund has cleaner skies and the Germans feel that much greener. But they still use just as much steel as they did before and the emissions are still going up the same smokestack into the same sky, warming the same planet – just from a different city. Transferring industry and emissions from one country to another purely because of differing carbon prices is both economically inefficient and environmentally pointless. We must do everything we can to ensure that carbon capture and storage works. The Coalition Government invested a huge amount into this effort and no doubt more needs to be done. Unless the world is prepared to move to a massive ramp up of nuclear energy globally, there is simply no presently conceived alternative for additional large scale baseload power than clean coal (or gas). Put another way, we have a gigantic bet on the viability of clean coal. Harnessing market forces is essential to achieving abatement at the lowest possible cost.  If we require industries to acquire permits to emit CO2 and we limit the availability of those permits so that over time our emissions dwindle it will follow that those permits will become more valuable until such time as they hit the cost of abatement. Put another way if the cost of emission-free electricity is equivalent to a cost of $50 a tonne of CO2 (that is, an additional $50 per MWh) then the price of a permit should never, at least on average over time, exceed $50. Of course the cost of abatement is different altogether to the cost of generating zero emission electricity. There are many opportunities for reducing carbon intensity through energy efficiency some of which will pay for themselves in that the cost of abatement (putting insulation in the roof, or better design to allow natural ventilation) may be less than the energy saving. But it is important not to be seduced by the “easy being green” mantra that the transition to a low emission economy is a simple one. Yes there is plenty of low hanging fruit in terms of energy efficiency. But in a rapidly growing economy such as our own, let alone China or India, the improvements in energy efficiency will be overtaken rapidly by growing demand for energy and the inescapable reality of over time having to generate all of our stationary energy from zero emission sources remains. The Rudd Government is set to introduce its emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2010 a year earlier than that proposed by the Coalition in its ETS plan. Last week Professor Ross Garnaut released a thoughtful discussion paper which proposed auctioning off all of these permits.  This will impose a price on carbon, as would a carbon tax. The key difference is that under an ETS the Government sets the amount of emissions permissible and the permit price is set by the market and can fluctuate freely, whereas under a carbon tax the price is set by government and the amount of emissions is the result of market behaviour. An ETS is to be preferred not simply because it allows the market to find the least cost abatement but it will be able to interact with similar schemes elsewhere in the world.  An ETS will see the Federal Government collecting substantial amounts of additional revenue. The Department of Climate Change projects that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be about 600 million tonnes in 2010. So even if Labor’s ETS only covers two thirds of all emissions, an auction price of $25 per tonne would raise $10 billion per annum in the early years.   In 2010 this would almost offset the revenue that will be foregone as a result of the income tax cuts.   What should be done with this revenue?   While an ETS is, strictly speaking, distinctly different from a tax on carbon it will, like a tax, result in the transfer of many billions of dollars from business and households to Government. The Rudd Government has committed not to allow tax revenue to increase as a percentage of GDP and the revenues from the ETS should, for that purpose, be classed as a tax. We will be holding the Rudd Government to account on this vital point. This means that the ETS revenues must be matched by a reduction in other taxes. There are other claims on the ETS revenues apart from tax cuts of course. Clearly we should continue to invest, but effectively, in research and development on low emission technologies. The Coalition showed great leadership in that regard and the new Government should aim to do better still. We should also consider providing additional incentives to households and businesses to invest in energy efficiency. The solar hot water heater rebate I announced last year is a good example. A similar rebate to encourage insulation would be a good initiative and consideration should be given to accelerated depreciation for energy efficiency measures for businesses. But the sums flowing from the ETS are going to be much greater than any of these items are likely to absorb. We should take the opportunity with the revenues from the ETS to address both inefficient taxes as well as inefficiencies and inequities in our income tax system. A lot has been said about assisting low income households who will be hard hit by higher energy and fuel costs. Reducing tax, including high Effective Marginal Tax Rates, on low income households should be a key priority. But the objective should be this: compensating tax and welfare measures must ensure that low income or pensioner households are not overall worse off by reason of the introduction of the ETS. The ETS also offers an opportunity to phase out a number of very inefficient State government taxes.  There is always a strong case for replacing relatively inefficient taxes with relatively efficient taxes. And with Government raising new carbon revenues the total tax take should be kept constant, or reduced. But it is not only an issue of compensating the most vulnerable. An emissions trading scheme in which permits are auctioned and traded will interact with existing taxes in a complex way. As a result, the deadweight costs of many existing taxes could rise.   In other words, when viewed through the lens of climate change policy, tax reform in other areas - cutting other taxes - actually makes very good economic sense.  Let me illustrate this point with a few examples.  Quite apart from the issue of reducing emissions, allocating risk in an efficient way is a key issue for adapting to the possible adverse and beneficial effects of climate change.  Australia has well developed insurance markets for allocating risk. These markets allow risk-averse individuals to shift risk onto others, who may be better placed to deal with it.  In the long run, well-functioning private insurance markets save taxpayers money. They are an integral part of our response to climate change. When catastrophic events occur, they allow us to avoid placing an undue strain on government resources.  Private insurance premiums also help with dealing with the moral hazard problem of government assistance – individuals must think more carefully about the consequences of their actions. Those that take action to reduce the risks of their behaviour are rewarded with lower insurance premiums. But insurance taxes hinder the efficient allocation of risk, and deter many individuals from taking out insurance. In the context of climate change policy they make no sense.  The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that in 2005-06, state stamp duties on general insurance raise around $2.8 billion in revenue.  Access Economics rates these taxes as being among some of the least efficient in terms of the deadweight loss that they create.   By raising the price of taking out insurance, they are a significant deterrent against individuals reallocating risk. In short, they reduce the quantity of insurance. Surely a coherent climate change policy should examine ways of reducing these taxes, with the ultimate goal of completely eliminating them.  Consider stamp duties on property transfers.  As a general rule we want markets to work efficiently and we therefore want to eliminate barriers to trade. Right? Well not exactly. We eliminated stamp duty on stock market traded shares many years ago for precisely that reason, but stamp duties still remain in other areas notably on transfers of real estate. Is that a property tax? Not at all. Stamp duty is a tax on changing locations. The more you buy and sell, the more you are taxed. And yet at a time when housing affordability is so much debated wouldn’t we want a property market that was as unfettered as possible, where there are as few barriers as possible to trade? Well we would, but every year States raise around $11 billion in stamp duties on property transfers. These, of course, are only two examples of inefficient taxes. There are many others and we will be looking closely at all of them in the course of our work with Henry Ergas. Conclusion Climate change is the greatest economic challenge of our times. But the most sincere passion for saving the planet will be no consolation if the power of Government is not used shrewdly and efficiently. An exponential global growth in energy has helped lift millions out of poverty around the world. The challenge is to combine a continued acceleration in energy availability with a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions. Free trade too has contributed to the reduction of poverty – a failure to agree on an effective global climate agreement could see carbon taxes at the frontier and a chauvinistic assault on free trade under a green banner. Australia has much at risk in this epic transition to a low emission future – the decarbonisation of global industry. And there will be a price to pay – being green is far from easy. The design of our ETS, its response to international developments and the way in which it interacts with the rest of our economy will determine how high that price will be. The emissions trading system will open up a major new source of Government revenue. Reviewing the efficacy of our tax system is always a good idea, but the pending arrival of the ETS makes it essential. If we were to invest much of the revenue earned from the ETS into removing inefficient and inequitable taxes we would not simply keep the tax share of GDP neutral, we would also be reinvesting those revenues into a more efficient and productive Australia. Let us ensure the challenge of climate change is not simply met by the ingenuity of a free society finding unimagined technological solutions tomorrow to the intractable problems of today.  Our capacity to respond to climate change is founded in the strength of our economy. We must use this transition to a low carbon future as an opportunity to make our economy stronger still, so that the costs we impose on carbon will be more than matched by the dividends from a more productive and prosperous future for all Australians. “Building Australia's Economic Future” Address to the Lord Mayor's Business Breakfast Perth http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0032.cfm House Hansard, 30 June 1999, A New tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1999 New tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999, Consideration of Senate Message. House Hansard, 8 June 1999, Matter of Public Importance, Goods and Services Tax: Low and Middle Income Earners.  Tax Nation: Business Taxes and the Federal-State Divide, BCA, 2007. See http://www.bca.com.au/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=136 See, for example, the 2007/08 Budget, Paper No. 1,  Statement 12: Trends in Public Sector Finances. http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/html/bp1_bst12-02.htm “China Grabs West’s Smoke Spewing Factories” New York Times 21 December 2007 See http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports-and-papers ICA 2008 Federal Budget Submission, http://www.insurancecouncil.com.au/ adminThu, 27 Mar 2008 02:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:71http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/72/Malcolm-Turnbull-Address-in-Reply.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=72http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=72&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/72/Malcolm-Turnbull-Address-in-Reply.aspx Source: Parliament House Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (5.15 p.m.)—When the February unemployment figure of four per cent was released last Thursday, we did not hear much about it from the government. All we hear from the Treasurer is how he wants to modernise the economy, whatever that is supposed to mean. He provides very few particulars. He was asked last week a dorothy dixer about unemployment and he gave what is fast becoming his stump speech—an explosion of complete incoherence and utter confusion. His first quarter headline CPI, which in this context is the ‘competence performance indicator’, is not good; and his underlying measure of CPI, his ability to answer questions coherently, is even worse. Late last year the member for Higgins said that the now Treasurer reminded him of ‘a political cyborg who runs a line over and over again in the hope that journalists will pick it up’. Well, the cyborg is malfunctioning. It needs reprogramming; it needs help. It is the cyborg, not the Australian economy, that is in desperate need of modernisation! The Treasurer thinks he can get away with commenting on the Australian economy in a way that persistently misrepresents our economic circumstances and our economic history. And it is not just our history that he misrepresents; he misrepresents all the members of the opposition who speak about the economy. Only today he said again in question time, as did the Prime Minister, that I have described inflation as a fairytale. So once again I wearily rose to my feet on a point of personal explanation and corrected it. The Treasurer knows full well that I have never said inflation is a fairytale. Inflation is a very significant economic challenge, particularly in these times where we have high economic growth and historically very low unemployment—and I have said that again and again. What I have criticised the Treasurer for doing is telling falsehoods and fairytales about our economic history and, in particular, the history of inflation. There is a transcript of my remarks in that context from 23 January—a public document that is on my website—but he misrepresents them every time he has the opportunity. But the person whom the Treasurer, the cyborg, misrepresents the most is surely the Governor of the Reserve Bank. There is nobody in Australia at present who is more misleadingly cited than the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Last week the governor gave a very comprehensive speech about inflation, its causes, its remedies and its context in modern Australia—it was a speech in the Australian Treasury seminar series—and today we had the Treasurer claiming that this supported his views about inflation. The Treasurer wants to set up a straw man to the effect that the opposition does not believe inflation exists. Of course, the Reserve Bank supports his views that inflation exists. But nobody has denied that and nobody has denied that it is a challenge. Where we take issue with the Treasurer is not in the form of the straw man, the bogus proposition that he puts up as our case; our criticism of the Treasurer is that he is misrepresenting a very serious challenge and that, in doing so, he is talking down the strength of our economy and exacerbating inflationary expectations. Every time he opens his mouth on this subject, the Treasurer says that inflation has been caused by the ‘reckless spending’ of the Howard government, by a chronic skills crisis—that is his phrase—and by a failure to invest in remedying what he describes as infrastructure bottlenecks, the ones we are most familiar with, being the problems at ports that export raw materials, particularly coal. There are certainly infrastructure bottlenecks in our society. There are certainly skills shortages in a number of industries—we would say many sectors now—where there is strong demand. But it is untrue to say that there is a chronic skills crisis, because, by saying that, it suggests that there is a shortage of skills right across the economy, that it is pervasive, that it is chronic, that is of long endurance and that it is not being addressed. Yet we know from the many speeches and papers given by the Reserve Bank—you only have to look at the speech last week by the Reserve Bank Governor—that our inflation has not come from wages. It is obvious that a chronic skills crisis would cause wage inflation right across the economy. That is why you would not want to have a chronic skills crisis. The Reserve Bank Governor said he is not saying that wage earners have been responsible for inflation. He said: This episode -this episode- of elevated inflation through which we are living at the moment— has not been caused by some exogenous ‘break out’ in wages. Until recently, it was, in fact, possible to say that wages growth had been remarkably steady at an aggregate level in the face of a very tight labour market, with relative wages across industries and regions doing what one would expect given the shocks hitting the economy. At one stage, I described this as a textbook case of adjustment, in a labour market made much more flexible by a long sequence of reforms. That statement, which is in the same terms as many remarks from the Reserve Bank, underlines the nonsense that is being spread by the Treasurer. Yes, we have skills shortages, particularly in those areas with the strongest demand, the mining sector being the classic case. But, because we have a flexible labour market and because we have an efficient labour market, workers have been able to move to the areas of greatest demand and, remarkably, we have not seen the type of wage inflation that we had in the past. If you go to the conclusion of the governor’s speech, and this is a speech by the governor that the Treasurer calls in aid for himself, it rejects the notion of a chronic skills crisis—it does not even mention the term—but it makes it clear that it is not skills shortages that are driving inflation. He compares our economy today with the circumstances of the 1950s and the mid-seventies, when in the early fifties CPI inflation reached 25 per cent and in the mid-seventies it reached about 18 per cent. He went on to say: This time, we are grappling with a peak CPI inflation rate that looks like it will be around 4 per cent in CPI terms, and trying to assess how soon it can reasonably return to 2-3 per cent. I should add that the average headline CPI throughout all of the 47 quarters of the Howard government—including the December quarter of last year which was, of course, only partly under the Howard government—is exactly 2½ per cent, right in the midpoint of the RBA’s range, so mission accomplished in terms of inflation targeting. But the governor went on to say: This is a far cry from the problems of yesteryear. He then said: The reason we are doing better this time around is not hard to fathom ... a flexible exchange rate, a reformed and flexible industrial environment, better private-sector management ... stronger fiscal and monetary policy frameworks have made a lot of difference. The fruits of those decades of effort of reform are an economy that, for all its strains, is doing well under the circumstances. And further: Our challenge is to keep those improved structures in place and to develop them further, in the period in which we have the privilege of having some influence. That is a balanced description of our economic circumstances. Yes, inflation is an issue; it is a challenge; it is consequent upon, as the governor says, the extraordinary improvement—a good, positive shock—in our terms of trade. We have been able nonetheless to manage our economy, thanks to the sound economic management during the Howard and Costello years, with low unemployment, high economic growth and inflation managed within the range. Why does it matter that the Treasurer misrepresents our economic history? Well, the fact is that inflation is a function of expectation. He chose to misrepresent our economic history and, for purely politically partisan purposes, to try to paint a picture of a new government that had been handed an economic mess. That was the picture he tried to create, presumably so he and the Prime Minister could be given the credit for resolving it. The fact is that we have a very strong economy. We have very considerable international pressures and threats. We are strong and we are resilient, but we are not immune to the rest of the world, and everything that senior officials say in this country is taken seriously in the rest of the world. When our Treasurer said in early February, just before the bank board met, ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle,’ and, ‘Inflation has been on the march for two years,’ the headlines around the world described a country where inflation was out of control. He has the effrontery to call the Reserve Bank Governor in aid in support of this nonsense. The Reserve Bank Governor is there saying, ‘Yes, it is an issue. Yes, we are going to tackle it. That is why we’ve put up rates.’ That, of course, is what central banks do: they put up rates when the economy is growing and they want to moderate growth, and they pull them off—as Governor Bernanke is doing in the United States—if the economy is heading in the other direction and they want to avoid slowdown or, as in the United States, a recession. What the Treasurer has done, instead of talking about our economy in a measured, objective and informed way, in a way that assists the markets to understand and deal with the complex challenges we face, is create his own Wayne’s world parallel universe in the hope that if, cyborg like, he continues to repeat one falsehood after another often enough, it will be picked up. This ‘cyborgitis’ is infectious, because the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has been infected by it. Only last week he said that on 20 occasions the Reserve Bank has called for the national coordination of infrastructure. The national coordination of infrastructure may or may not be a good thing. There are advocates for it, there are sceptics about it, but we would all like to see better and more timely investment in infrastructure. I particularly committed to that when I was the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we undertook the National Plan for Water Security, which was a $10 billion investment, almost all of it in water infrastructure—and what could be more important than that? The Howard government committed the $2 billion Australian Government Water Fund—again, almost all of that went into water infrastructure—not to speak of the investment in transport infrastructure through AusLink. So, yes, investing in infrastructure where there is a real net benefit is a good thing—we all agree with that. But the Reserve Bank has not called for the national coordination of infrastructure on 20 occasions. It is absurd. It is a falsehood. It is made up. It is no different from the approach that the Treasurer takes: find a falsehood that serves a political purpose and just repeat it and repeat it in the hope that it will be accepted. The former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and his predecessor, Mr Keating, both said that when you change the government you change the country. Well, we have certainly seen a lot in our country change since the election of the Rudd government. Since the election, business confidence has declined and consumer confidence has plummeted. Since the change of government, inflationary expectations have risen particularly, as is plain, among trade union officials. That is precisely why the Reserve Bank is not as confident as it was six or nine months ago that wage pressures will continue to be ‘a textbook case of adjustment’. Is this all just an unhappy coincidence? When the coalition took office on 11 March 1996, the Reserve Bank’s cash rate was 7½ per cent. The coalition’s goal was to eliminate Labor’s $96 billion worth of debt and take pressure off interest rates. It is a matter of public record that this was achieved. Labor’s debt was paid off and interest rates came down, no thanks to the Labor Party, which opposed that form of fiscal prudence. Australians found the coalition’s commitment to fiscal consolidation and good economic management highly credible. They had confidence in the coalition. How do we know that? For a start we can look at the measures of confidence. In 1996 there was not a 15-point drop in the Westpac-Melbourne Institute measure of consumer confidence in two months, which is what has happened under this government. In fact, the index jumped seven points in the month of March 1996, when the coalition took office. On average the Westpac index was 11 points higher during the coalition years than it was under Labor, and the National Australia Bank’s quarterly business confidence index jumped by almost 12 points in the March quarter of 1996, the fourth largest in the history of that index. When the coalition took office, inflationary expectations fell; they did not rise. What has happened with bank interest rates under the Rudd government? The US subprime crisis has started to affect banks’ wholesale borrowing costs. That started in last August, long before the election. The cost of some of our banks’ funding base rose and now, I think it would be fair to say, all of the banks have significantly increased wholesale borrowing costs. They chose to wait until after the election to pass on those increased wholesale costs, and some people have suggested this was due to the Treasurer. I would not make that claim. Those costs inevitably had to be passed on at some point in time, and I imagine many banks balancing, on the one hand, their commitment to their customers and their desire to maintain the loyalty of their customers and, on the other hand, the speculation—and it genuinely is speculation—as to how long this disruption in global credit markets will continue. There is a key issue here. It is one of confidence. Confidence is absolutely essential to financial markets; it is everything. Once the participants in financial markets lose confidence in each other, they will not lend to each other. You can see the consequences of that now in the credit crunch. Bear Stearns, the fifth largest investment bank in America, nearly collapsed and was taken over by JP Morgan at a tiny fraction of its value a few months ago with the support of the US Federal Reserve. That was decisive action by the US Federal Reserve to stop a bank collapse that would have had shocking global ramifications. What caused that lack of confidence? If people do not have confidence in other institutions they will not lend; if investors do not have confidence in markets they will not invest. These elements of confidence are fundamental to the security of our economy. That is why the Treasurer is so reckless in his constant refrain of running down our economy and talking up a skills shortage across a number of sectors of the economy into a chronic skills crisis. Instead of speaking about inflation in measured and objective terms, he talks about it as though it is another crisis. (Time expired)adminWed, 19 Mar 2008 02:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:72http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/73/Govenor-Stevens-Speech.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=73http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=73&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/73/Govenor-Stevens-Speech.aspxReserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens' speech to the Treasury this week is a rebuke to Treasurer Wayne Swan, who has been exaggerating the inflation challenge. The Governor describes in a careful and objective way the inflation challenge we are facing today and the measures that are available to meet it.  He rejects Mr Swan's contention that inflation has been driven by a "chronic skills crisis". Indeed the Governor expressly states that inflation is not being driven by the kind of wage inflation that one would expect were there a chronic skills crisis across the economy - as opposed to skills shortages in high growth sectors. The Governor today said: “This episode has not been caused by some exogenous ‘break out’ in wages. Until recently, it was, in fact, possible to say that wages growth had been remarkably steady at an aggregate level in the face of a very tight labour market, with relative wages across industries and regions doing what one would expect given the shocks hitting the economy. At one stage, I described this as a textbook case of adjustment, in a labour market made much more flexible by a long sequence of reforms.  Private-sector wages growth may be picking up a little now, and businesses we talk to say that they are having to find ways to raise compensation, and in ways that may not immediately be evident in the official data.  But we have certainly not claimed that labour costs are leading the way. It seems to me that if labour costs are starting to accelerate, this is mainly a symptom of inflation pressure in a very strong economy.” The Governor instead points out that the reason wages growth has been contained across the economy overall is because of reforms to the labour market - many of which were opposed by Labor. While Mr Swan claims inflation is being caused by “infrastructure bottlenecks”, the Governor makes no mention of them at all, other than obliquely to make the point that “supply side” measures are long term and thus not able to influence near term inflationary pressures. Further, the Governor said: “Secondly, to say monetary policy is a blunt instrument begs the question:  where are the sharp instruments?  It is not obvious that there are all that many. People mention supply-side reforms of various kinds and unquestionably these have been extremely important over the years. To the extent that more can be done, that is all to the good for Australians’ standard of living.  But they are long term. It is hard to deploy them in a hurry. And many of them are very general – ‘blunt’ even – rather than specific.” But most importantly he expressly rejects Swan's claim that economic policy has been mismanaged and that inflation is due to poor policy either at the monetary (Reserve Bank) or fiscal (Government) levels of responsibility. The Governor said: “The reason we are doing better this time around is not hard to fathom, either. As work in the Treasury has argued persuasively, a flexible exchange rate, a reformed and flexible industrial environment, better private-sector management and much stronger fiscal and monetary policy frameworks have made a lot of difference. The fruits of those decades of effort of reform are an economy that, for all its strains, is doing well under the circumstances. The officers of the Treasury, past and present, have played a key role in achieving that. That legacy has been handed to you, and to all of us. Our challenge is to keep those improved structures in place and to develop them further, in the period in which we have the privilege of having some influence.”  The Governor's speech today highlights the urgent need for Mr Swan to stop talking down the economy. adminTue, 18 Mar 2008 02:56:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:73http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/74/December-Quarter-National-Accounts.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=74http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=74&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/74/December-Quarter-National-Accounts.aspx The Shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, said today’s National Accounts for the December quarter 2007 were a final report card for the Howard Government, which confirmed the Rudd Government  inherited a strong, resilient, dynamic and flexible economy. GDP grew by a more modest 0.6 per cent in the December quarter 2007 to be 3.9 per cent higher over the year and the broader inflation measure represented by the household consumption chain price index also grew modestly – 0.4% for the quarter and 2.6% higher for the year. Mr Turnbull said these indications of moderated growth in the economy highlighted the great risk to jobs in the Rudd Government’s undiscriminating approach to economic management and inflation policy. Australia is now in its 17th year of uninterrupted economic growth, continuing its longest economic expansion since Federation.  The unemployment rate is around 35 year lows, participation rates are at record highs and real net national disposable income – a broader measure of change in national economic well-being – continues to grow strongly.  Australia continues to be in the midst of an investment boom, building capacity for future productivity growth.  New private business investment grew by 0.6 per cent in the December quarter to be 11 per cent higher through the year.  Notably strong growth was seen in new machinery and equipment, growing 3.9 per cent in the December quarter.  Strong business investment was underpinned by strong business profits.  In seasonally adjusted terms, the gross operating surplus of corporations increased by 3.3 per cent and remains at historically high levels of 26.9 per cent of total factor income. Strong investment growth is expanding the economy’s capacity and will sustain growth in the period ahead.  The orderly adjustment to the strong terms of trade demonstrates the increased flexibility and resilience of the Australian economy. Wages pressure continued to be relatively constrained.  Average non-farm compensation per employee increased by a modest 0.1 per cent to be 4.6 per cent higher through the year.  This is the lowest quarterly growth of this series in five years.  This is comparable to the Wage Price Index, the ABS’ preferred measure of wage growth, which rose by 4.2 per cent through the year to the December quarter 2007. Labour productivity in the market sector increased by 0.2 per cent in the quarter to be 0.7 per cent higher through the year in trend terms.  In part slower productivity growth is due to the surge in employment, drawing new, less productive employees into the workforce.  Yet, as the skills for these new employees improve in employment, it is reasonable to expect that their productivity will increase.  Similarly, six years of strong investment growth, building capacity in the economy, can be expected to begin to flow through to productivity growth.  As Treasury noted in its Winter 2007 Economic Roundup, “because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the economy, changes in productivity have been difficult to interpret.  This also suggests that it is too early to read much into the slowdown in productivity over recent years”.  What these figures tell us is that the Australian economy is well placed to withstand the pressures coming from the turbulence in global financial markets and a possible recession in the United States.  The Accounts today highlighted the urgent need for the Prime Minister and Treasurer to stop talking down the economy and to reconsider how many jobs they intend to sacrifice in their fight against inflation. [Ends] Contact: Brad Burke – 0447 463 161 adminThu, 06 Mar 2008 02:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:74http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/75/Malcolm-Turnbull-exposes-Swans-economic-falsehoods.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=75http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=75&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/75/Malcolm-Turnbull-exposes-Swans-economic-falsehoods.aspx Speaking to the Monash Club in Melbourne tonight, Malcolm Turnbull carefully demolished Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd's efforts to misrepresent the economic achievements of the Howard Government.    "If new Governments have a honeymoon period when they are given the benefit of every doubt, then it must be true that old Governments, or should I say former Governments, go through a period of purgatory in which nothing good will be said of them, least of all by their erstwhile friends, and anything bad which is said is unquestioningly accepted as correct. And even though it is presently fashionable to run down the Howard Government, tonight I propose to set out the facts about the Coalition’s economic record and correct the falsehoods being peddled by the new Treasurer. And while it is too early to give a reliable three year forecast for Mr Swan’s own CPI (Competence Performance Index), his first quarter’s headline CPI is not good and his underlying measures of CPI, such as telling the truth or answering questions are even worse. "   To read the entire speech click here: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=97485 or go to the speeches in the Media Centre section of this website adminFri, 29 Feb 2008 02:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:75http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/76/Memo-to-Treasurer-what-about-jobs.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=76http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=76&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/76/Memo-to-Treasurer-what-about-jobs.aspxThe Treasurer in Question Time today showed himself to be ignorant of a basic economic concept relating to inflation and unemployment. There are no matters of greater importance to Australian families than the cost of living and jobs. Yet when asked simply, "Given the RBA's stated intention to tighten monetary policy to slow economic activity in order to lower inflationary pressures, what does the Treasurer regard as Australia’s current Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, expressed as a percentage?" the Treasurer was clueless. The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is the rate of unemployment which is consistent with a stable inflation rate. It was clear that Mr Swan not only had no view as to what the rate of NAIRU was, but he was completely unfamiliar with the concept itself. And yet he claims to be vitally concerned about inflation and unemployment! To seek to reduce inflation in ignorance of this concept runs the risk of needlessly sacrificing the jobs of ordinary Australians. This is why the second part of the question was so important: "If the Treasurer regards that rate to be higher than 4.1 per cent, how many Australian jobs does he believe should be sacrificed to achieve it?" The Treasurer could not answer this question either. The rate of NAIRU is widely debated in the economic community, but one thing is clear. Going back to the mid 90s most economists would have said it was around 7% - that means if unemployment got below 7% you would certainly see inflation taking off. As a consequence of the labour market reforms of the Howard Government, economists agree that the NAIRU has come down significantly - over the last twelve years we have managed to keep inflation on average between 2 and 3% with unemployment falling to 35 year lows. The big question now, given the recent rise in inflation and the RBA's stated intention to tighten monetary policy, is whether the NAIRU is significantly higher than 4.1% and if so by how much. This is something on which Australians should expect a knowledgeable Treasurer to have an opinion. Microeconomic reform - in particular, policy measures that lead to more flexible labour markets - can reduce the NAIRU. On the other hand rolling back labour market reforms may increase the NAIRU with ominous implications for both jobs and inflation. Contact: Brad Burke – 0447 463 161adminTue, 19 Feb 2008 02:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:76http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/77/Reserve-Bank-statement-on-monetary-policy.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=77http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=77&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/77/Reserve-Bank-statement-on-monetary-policy.aspx Today's Reserve Bank Statement on Monetary policy underlines the urgent need for the Rudd Government to guarantee that its new industrial relations regime will not fuel inflationary pressures. The Statement notes "....labour market conditions are tight, and there is some evidence of higher growth in aggregate wages in the most recent period. In particular, while the wage price index has continued to show a relatively stable rate of wage inflation, the average earnings measure, which captures a broader range of labour costs, has picked up appreciably over the latest year. " [p.3] The Rudd Government should offer this guarantee to send a strong signal that it has no intention of reducing labour market flexibility, which would put more pressure on wage inflation. Given the Treasurer today acknowledged that wages growth and skilled labour shortages are adding to inflationary pressures, this should be a priority for the Government. It is a glaring omission that the Government's five point plan to fight inflation fails to mention labour market flexibility. Furthermore, the RBA's warning about rising inflationary expectations [p. 51] highlights how reckless the new Treasurer's use of immoderate language to discuss Australia's inflationary position has been. The Treasurer continues his misrepresentation of the economy today where he says: "The RBA Statement is a sobering assessment of how ill-prepared the economy has been to absorb the demand surge flowing from the terms of trade boom." In fact, the Reserve Bank Statement says the reverse. The first sentence states: "The Australian economy has remained robust in the recent period, notwithstanding a more difficult international environment." [p.1] The RBA recognises that with full employment and a strong economy, there have been productive capacity constraints, but the RBA notes that thanks to strong growth in investment spending over the past five years "As a consequence the capital stock is now growing at its fastest pace since the early 1970s, thereby adding to the economy's productive capacity." [p.34] Australia's strong economy is running up against a global economic slowdown.   The Statement makes clear inflationary pressures are evident but they should not be exaggerated. The RBA is well positioned to maintain inflation in its target band over the cycle, as it did under the previous Government. It is time for Wayne Swan to stop blaming the previous government and offer a guarantee that his planned IR changes won't fuel inflationary pressures.  Contact: Brad Burke - 0447 463 161 adminTue, 12 Feb 2008 03:00:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:77http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/78/Australian-OpEd-Well-all-pay-for-the-ALP-not-getting-a-full-reckoning.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=78http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=78&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/78/Australian-OpEd-Well-all-pay-for-the-ALP-not-getting-a-full-reckoning.aspx KEVIN Rudd and Wayne Swan have inherited an Australian economy that has never been stronger. The federal Government is free of (Labor's) debt and is running strong budget surpluses. Unemployment is at a 35-year low, and at the same time the trend participation rate is at its highest level. In short, more Australians are able to find work now than at an point in our history. Our economy is growing at 4.3 per cent and will grow faster over the next few years than the economies of Europe, the US, Japan or New Zealand. Yet already we are seeing disturbing evidence of Labor's naivety and inexperience. Wayne Swan's performance over the recent interest rate rise has been embarrassing to watch. Ever since the sub-prime crisis started to affect wholesale borrowing costs last August, it was obvious that the cost of some of the Australian banks' funding base had risen and that they would seek to recover that cost through increasing interest rates on their loans. But by how much and when? Whereas a change in the official cash rate set by the Reserve Bank affects all the banks in the same way - like a rising tide lifts all boats - the impact of the sub-prime crisis was not uniform. The larger retail banks - Westpac, ANZ, NAB, Commonwealth, St George - had big domestic, retail deposit bases and were less affected by the events in the US. But the smaller banks and the non-bank mortgage originators were much more at risk. They had much smaller deposit bases but had been able to compete with the big banks by packaging up the mortgages they sold and selling them off to investors, including US investors: in other words, by securitising them. This enabled companies such as Aussie Home Loans, RAMS, Wizard and others to drive down the cost of mortgages. If they could outsource their balance sheet requirements to the market through securitisation, they could make money on mortgages with a lower margin because they did not have the huge cost structures of the big trading banks. The financial sector reforms introduced by the Howard government significantly increased competition in the market, driving down bank margins. So not only did the Howard government reduce pressure on interest rates by sound economic management, but its micro-economic reform of the financial services sector reduced rates further still. So it was obvious, and widely reported in the financial press, that for the big banks, the sub-prime crisis was not all bad news. In immediate terms, that part of their funding base which was dependent on the wholesale market (something less than 50 per cent) was becoming more expensive to fund as the lack of liquidity and risk aversion caused by the global credit crunch increased investors' required rates of return. At the same time, however, the capacity of their smaller rivals to compete was dramatically reduced in the short term and in all probability would remain impaired longer term. Indeed, the big five banks have seen a dramatic increase in their home loan market share ever since the sub-prime crisis materialised. Citigroup commented in September that the crisis "should ease price competition for the majors" and ABN AMRO wrote at the same time that "the recent credit crunch will develop into a structural benefit for the major banks in 2008-09". So financial analysts were predicting the credit crunch would work to the advantage of the larger banks. So, in the midst of this disruption the big banks had an opportunity to improve their competitive position and formidable profitability: in aggregate, $17.9 billion last financial year, up 10.7 per cent. A more experienced treasurer would have said to the banks: If you wish to put up your mortgage rates and claim that it is not an increase in your profit margin but, rather, a response to the sub-prime crisis, and if you want people to believe it, then you will need to demonstrate how it has affected your cost of funds. In other words, prove that the rise reflects the increase in your costs. Swan couldn't oblige the banks to do that, but if the Treasurer asks for more accountability and transparency, it is hard to resist. As soon as a bank were to say: "Over the past year or so we have funded X per cent of our loan book from the wholesale market and the cost of financing there has increased by Y per cent", it would become obvious that if those costs in the wholesale market declined, then so too should the rise in mortgage interest rates be reversed. In other words, simply asking for accountability and transparency would have set a benchmark of sorts against which interest rates could be judged in the future, and which would make it much more obvious if the increase in rates became a permanent increase in the bank's profit margin. Swan did nothing of the sort. Instead, when NAB announced a rise in its variable mortgage rate of 0.12percentage points on January 3, Swan endorsed it as reasonable and gave it his blessing without asking for any explanation. So soothing was his commendation that he appeared to be impersonating a public relations spokesman from the Australian Bankers Association. The ANZ then lifted its variable mortgage rate by 0.20 percentage points. In the meantime, Swan's unquestioning acquiescence over NAB had earned him a flaying in the media and so he did a complete backflip and denounced the ANZ's rise as "excessive". Yet he had no more reason to condemn the ANZ rate rise than he did to warmly commend the NAB's. The two banks have different businesses and different funding bases, so it may be that ANZ's was no more reasonable or unreasonable than that of NAB. Too bad Swan has no idea. Some of the Treasurer's defenders have sought to accuse me of challenging the banks' freedom to vary their interest rates or even proposing some form of new regulation. But banks are free to price their products as they wish. After all, they are in the business of making profits and, all things being equal, they will charge as much for every product they have on offer as the market will allow them. But if a bank increases its rates and the Treasurer then assures us it is a reasonable measure to recover increased costs, we are entitled to ask Swan to justify his opinion. Transparent and accountable information is essential to effective competition. Before he gave the banks his imprimatur to raise mortgage rates, Swan had a chance to promote greater transparency. But he failed to take it. And we may all end up paying more interest as a result. adminTue, 22 Jan 2008 03:02:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:78http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/79/Wayne-Swan-must-take-a-stand-on-full-disclosure-by-Banks.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=79http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=79&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/79/Wayne-Swan-must-take-a-stand-on-full-disclosure-by-Banks.aspxThe Shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, today called on Treasurer Wayne Swan to state whether he agreed with the Australian Bankers Association that no further information should be provided by the Australian Banks to the public concerning the recent rate rise. "The statement by the Australian Bankers Association cites as the main reason for the rate rises "that funding costs have increased as a result of the US sub prime lending crisis."" Mr Turnbull said "The ABA goes on to say that detailed information has been provided to "a range of interested stakeholders including the Government" but that it would be inappropriate to make that information public." "The fact is that our financial market depends on regular disclosure of commercial, price sensitive information so that the market remains informed. We now have a situation where all Banks have raised their rates, by different amounts. Each Bank has cited the sub-prime crisis as the cause, but plainly each Bank has been differently impacted; otherwise the rate rises would be, as they are after a change in the official cash rate, of the same amount." "The ABA on behalf of the Banks is now apparently saying that they feel it is appropriate to make disclosure of this information to "a range of interested stakeholders including the Government" but that such disclosure is not appropriate for either their shareholders or their borrowers - in other words the stakeholders most keenly affected, the Australian public, are the ones to be kept in the dark!" "Wayne Swan has stated that the NAB rate rise of 0.12% was reasonable and defensible but that the ANZ rate rise of 0.20% was excessive. What information did he receive from those two Banks to make those judgements?" "Mr Swan has to decide whether he is on the side of full disclosure and informed markets - if he is, then he should insist that a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the rate rise be made public." Mr Turnbull added that the ABA's reference to disclosure of product pricing methodologies was a red herring. “At this point the Banks' explanation for the rate rises has been three words: "sub prime crisis". I know, and the Banks know, that there is a great deal of non-competitive information about their costs of funds, the impact of the sub-prime crisis on wholesale borrowing costs, the reliance of Australian Banks on wholesale borrowings (as opposed to retail deposits) to support their loan books which could and should usefully be made public.” "Most importantly the more information which is made public, the better able the public will be to assess when and whether the rate rises should be reversed." [ENDS] Contact: Brad Burke - 0447 463 161adminThu, 17 Jan 2008 03:03:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:79