Bills Digest no. 92 2008–09
Nation Building and Jobs Plan Bills Interim Bills
Digest
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Date
introduced: 4 February
2009
House: House of Representatives
Portfolios:
Treasury, Finance and Deregulation, and
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs
Commencement:
Various[1]
Links: The relevant links to
the Bills, Explanatory Memorandums and second reading speeches can
be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The bills have three
purposes all relating to National Building and Jobs Plan[2]:
- to appropriate funds for certain programs
- to establish entitlements for certain payments which will be
paid through special appropriations, and
- to provide for the funding of the plan by increasing the
borrowing limit governing the issue of Commonwealth Government
Securities.
On 3 February 2009, the Prime Minister and
Treasurer announced the National Building and Jobs Plan.[4] Details are contained in
the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008 09
also released on 3 February 2009.[5]
The Plan is the Government s response to the
global financial/economic crisis that began in late 2007. Over 2008
and into 2009, what was a financial crisis is now progressing to a
slump in the real economy, both in Australia and overseas.
Olivier Blanchard, chief economist at the IMF
sums up the global position as follows:
One way of summarizing our forecast is that we
expect the global economy to come to a virtual standstill in 2009.
There are important differences across countries. In the advanced
economies, we basically forecast the sharpest contraction in the
postwar period. To give you the basic numbers, we expect real
activity to contract to about minus 1.5 percent for the U.S., 2
percent for the Eurozone, and 2-1/2 percent for Japan. If you look
at the rest of the world, the numbers are better, but indeed the
emerging and the developing economies are going to do better than
in previous downturns, but relative to their underlying growth rate
they are still going to do quite poorly. For example, we now
forecast growth in China to be around 6.5 percent, and we forecast
growth in India to be around 5 percent. You can aggregate these
numbers using weights for national production. When you do this and
you use what we call PPP weights, then you get global growth to
basically be about half a percent in 2009, and this is the lowest
rate since World War II.
In the context of these dire forecasts, many
national governments are implementing fiscal stimulus packages, as
is the Australian Government. There does not appear to be any
standard or normal type of package emerging internationally. Most
countries are opting for a diversified approach, utilising
infrastructure spending, tax cuts and transfer payments to varying
degrees.
An article in the Economist magazine
summarises the dilemma confronting policy makers when making such a
policy choice:
Most economists agree that the red ink is both
unavoidable and appropriate. To prevent a steep recession becoming
a depression, governments must step in to forestall financial
collapse and counter the slump in private demand. Financial markets
seem to agree. Yields on government bonds in most rich countries
are extremely low as shell-shocked investors clamour for the safety
of public debt.
Yet a few signs of skittishness are emerging.
Prices of credit-default swaps on sovereign debt have risen
sharply, suggesting that investors see growing risks of default.
Within the rich world, risk premiums have risen dramatically for
already-indebted governments such as those of Greece and Italy.
Yields on America s 30-year bonds saw their biggest jump in two
decades in mid-January, as investors fretted about Uncle Sam s
demand for cash.
They go on to say:
When firms and consumers are gripped with
uncertainty, government spending is a surer way to boost demand.
Consumers and firms might save the money. The empirical evidence,
however, is less than conclusive. Economists estimates for the
multiplier effect of government spending and tax cuts vary widely,
with equally reputable studies showing opposite results. More
important, the scale of the global slump means that historical
multipliers may not mean very much. That suggests a broad strategy
involving both tax cuts and spending is prudent. [6]
There are a number of issues that will
determine the success or failure of this Plan. There is
considerable debate within the economics profession regarding the
validity of using discretionary fiscal stimulus. Even if the case
for using discretionary fiscal policy is made, there is still
considerable disagreement as to the form fiscal stimulus should
take. There are three broad options for policy makers. They can
engage in tax cuts (either temporary or permanent), increase
transfer payments (either temporarily or permanently) or they can
spend directly on goods and services. Tax cuts are seen as a drop
in revenues, whereas the other methods involve an increase in
expenditure.
There are a couple of economic issues at play
here.
Multiplier effects
The textbook Keynesian macroeconomic model
predicts that the response of national income to an increase in
government spending is greater than that of a comparable decrease
in taxes. In technical terms, the multiplier effect from government
spending is predicted to be greater than the multiplier effect from
tax cuts. The Keynesian model also predicts that fiscal policy
changes can lead to crowding out of private investment through the
impact of fiscal policy on interest rates. On the other hand,
supply‑side economists emphasise that cuts in taxes can
induce other, non-Keynesian effects, namely, increases in
investment and labour supply arising from other channels.
Therefore, they believe that tax cuts could be just as effective at
increasing economic growth (particularly over the medium to long
term), possibly more so than government spending.
So what does recent evidence indicate? The
academic evidence is not particularly clear or precise on this
point, but there are some key conclusions from a number of
different studies.
Alesina et al. (1999) examine the
effects of fiscal policy on profits and investment. They find
evidence of non-Keynesian effects of fiscal policy and
conclude:
This paper shows that in OECD countries changes
in fiscal policy have important effects on private business
investment. Interestingly, the strongest effects arise from changes
in primary government spending and, especially government wages. We
provide evidence consistent with a labor market channel through
which fiscal policy influences labor costs, profits, investment and
as a consequence, growth. Increases in public wages and/or
employment and transfers increase wage pressure in the private
sector, both in unionized and competitive labor markets
The driving channel of our results is the
effect of fiscal policy changes on current and expected
profits.[7]
Blanchard and Perotti (2002) attempt to
characterise the dynamic effects of changes in government spending
and taxes on output. They conclude:
Our main goal in this paper was to characterise
as carefully as possible the response of output to the tax and
spending shocks in the post-war period in the United States. From
the several specifications we have estimated and the different
exercises we have performed, we reach the following
conclusions.
- The first is consistent with standard wisdom: when government
spending increases, output increases, when taxes increase, output
falls.
- In most cases the multipliers are small, often close to one. In
the case of spending shocks, the proximate explanation is in the
opposite effects they have on the different components of output:
while private consumption increases following spending shocks,
private investment is crowded out to a considerable extent. Both
imports and exports also fall.
- While the response of consumption is difficult to reconcile
with the neoclassical approach to fiscal policy, the response of
investment, which decreases in response to both increases in taxes
and increases in spending, is hard to reconcile with the Keynesian
approach. We believe that this result deserves further
investigation.[8]
Mountford and Uhlig (2008) also examine the
effects of fiscal policy changes. Their approach is considered
agnostic towards both the Keynesian and Neoclassical models.
Previous approaches relied on assumptions about sluggish adjustment
of some economic variables, most commonly wages and prices. As
Blanchard and Perotti state:
the evidence from large-scale econometric
models has been largely dismissed on the grounds that, because of
their Keynesian structure, these models assume rather than document
a positive effect of fiscal expansions on output.[9]
Mountford and Uhlig find that the maximum
expansionary effect of a deficit-financed increase in spending is
much below that of a deficit-financed tax cut and conclude the
following:
An important lesson one can draw from the
results is that while a deficit-financed expenditure stimulus is
possible, the eventual costs are likely to be much higher than the
immediate benefits. For suppose that government spending is
increased by two percent, financed by increasing the deficit: this
results at maximum, in a less than 2 per cent increase in GDP. But
the increased deficit needs to be repaid eventually with a hike in
taxes. Even ignoring compounded interest rates, this would require
a tax hike of over two per cent. This tax hike results in a greater
than seven per cent drop in GDP. Thus, unless the policy maker s
discount rate is very high the costs of the expansion will be much
higher than the initial benefit
Although the best fiscal policy for stimulating
the economy appears to be a deficit‑financed tax cut, we wish
to point out that this should not be read as endorsing them. This
paper only points out that unanticipated deficit financed tax cuts
work as a (short lived) stimulus to the economy, not that they are
sensible. The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term
consequences which are far worse than the increase in GDP, and
surprising the economy may not be good policy in any case.[10]
The main point to take from this is not that
tax cuts are better than spending increases, but rather that
estimates of multipliers are not precise, yet the studies above
clearly provide evidence that fiscal policy does not act precisely
in the way that Keynesian or Neoclassical models would predict.
Definitions of what constitutes a spending shock versus a tax or
revenue shock are not precise or consistent across studies and so
direct comparison between estimates is problematic. This issue
requires further research.
The second issue that arises is the extent to
which the temporary payments component of the package will actually
feed into real GDP growth. It depends on the propensities of each
of the groups that are being targeted with the payments to consume
their present income.
Targeted groups
Individual households all face different
financial circumstances and so the impact on both immediate and
long-term consumption from a temporary increase in income,
as is being proposed here, is ambiguous.
The key factors in determining the marginal
propensities to consume out of current income are:
- whether a household is a net borrower or saver and their
current levels of financial wealth [11]
- access to credit markets
- percentage of income spent on essential items, like food,
shelter, energy and transport, and
- the amount of debt/savings relative to present income.
If households are neither savers nor borrowers
(nor have any significant holdings of assets) and are unable to
borrow money at similar rates to the interest they would receive on
highly liquid assets, such as savings deposits (i.e. they face
liquidity constraints ), then it may be optimal for them to consume
all of the windfall change to their current income and not smooth
their consumption over their lifetime. It is not very likely that a
significant percentage of the groups that are targeted in this
package would be liquidity‑constrained, so to the extent that
the targeted groups are less liquidity‑constrained, these
measures are less likely to induce additional consumption than the
previous round of payments made under the Economic Security
Strategy.
The percentage increase in current income for
households will vary by their existing income levels. The payments
are structured in a progressive manner (they decrease with income).
Low-income households will see a larger percentage change to their
income than high-income households. Given that low-income earners
are more likely to spend the extra income on essentials, rather
than on spend it on luxuries or save it, it is probable that
low-income households will spend the bulk of their additional
payments as a result of the package.
Households with large debts, all else being
equal, are more likely to save, rather than consume their windfall
gain. One would suspect that a significant number of eligible
recipients of the family payments would be likely to be paying a
mortgage and so it is likely that this group would, as a whole,
have a low marginal propensity to consume.
As for the infrastructure component of the
package, this can be viewed as direct government spending in the
economy. As mentioned above, it is by no means certain that direct
government spending will provide the most effective stimulus to the
economy. In addition to these concerns, there is uncertainty
surrounding the extent to which public spending will displace
private spending.
Another key
factor in determining the total effect of the package is the degree
to which increases in consumption and government spending are
directed to Australian-made goods and services, rather than
imports. Whilst there will still be some stimulus to the domestic
economy (for example, from retailers who sell imports), all else
being equal, the greater the proportion spent on imports, the lower
the stimulus to the domestic economy.
On 4 February 2009, the government introduced
six bills to implement the Nation Building and Jobs package. The
following summarises the purpose of each. The bills are:
- Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1)
2008-2009
- Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2)
2008-2009
- Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009
- Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009
- Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments)
Bill 2009, and
- Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009.
The following summarises these bills.
This bill appropriates a total of $89 million
comprising:
- $39 million to the Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts under the Energy Efficient Homes Program,
and
- $50 million to the Australian Taxation Office under the Tax
Bonus for Working Australians component
- of this, $38.5 million is for departmental expenses, that is,
for the operational costs of the Australian Taxation Office to
ensure that the one-off payment for working Australians is
delivered expeditiously (see the section on the tax bonus for
working Australians).[12] The balance of the $50 million is for unspecified
administered expenses.
This bill appropriates a total of about $1727
million comprising:
- $987.2 million in 2008-09 for the Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations under the Building the Education
Revolution program
- $260 million for the Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs for social housing, and
- $480 million to the Department of infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Local Government. The components are:
- $230 million of which $150 million is for repairs to national
highways, $50 million for boom gates for rail crossings, and an
additional $30 million for the Black Spot program, and
- an additional $250 million under the Regional and Local
Community Infrastructure Program: Strategic Projects program.
All of the above amounts will be paid to the
states, territories and local governments as specific purpose
payments.
Unlike Appropriation (Nation Building and
Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and Appropriation (Nation Building and
Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, the Household Stimulus Package Bill
2009 does not appropriate funds. Rather, it amends various Acts to
establish the circumstances under which a person is entitled to
receive a bonus of $950. The bonus payments are made under various
special appropriations acts.
These bills authorise the payment of the Tax
Bonus for Working Australians program to eligible taxpayers.
Eligible taxpayers are those who paid tax in 2007-08 after taking
account of tax offsets and credits and who have a taxable income of
$100,000 or less.
To help finance the Plan, the government will
have to borrow by issuing Commonwealth Government Securities. The
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 provides a standing
borrowing authority to the Treasurer of $75 billion. The
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009 provides for an
increase in the cap on the face value of Commonwealth Government
Securities on issue by $125 billion in special circumstances.
The following examines each of the programs in
the Plan in more detail.
There are three components under the Energy
Efficient Homes Package.[14]
- Free ceiling insulation up to a value of $1600 to all
Australian owner-occupiers of currently uninsulated homes. This
component will operate from 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2011.
Between 3 February and 30 June 2009, eligible owner-occupiers can
have insulation installed and seek reimbursement after the program
commences. The Government estimates that 2.2 million owner-occupied
homes will be insulated under the program, at a total cost of $2.7
billion.
- A rebate for landlords of $1000 on the cost of installing
ceiling insulation in their rental properties. This rebate will be
available from 3 February 2009 to 30 June 2011, and is an increase
on a $500 rebate that was previously available for landlords under
the Low Emissions Plan for Renters. The Government estimates that
500 000 rented homes will be insulated under the new arrangement.
Additional funding provided will amount to $612.5 million.
- A $1600 rebate on the cost of installing a solar hot water
system where the existing system is electric. This component will
operate from 3 February 2009 to 30 June 2012. The rebate is an
increase from the $1000 Solar Hot Water Rebate that was previously
available, and removes the previous means-testing requirement that
limited eligibility to those with household incomes under $100 000.
Additional funding for the rebate amounts to $507 million.
Only one component of the package can be
claimed, i.e. either insulation or solar hot water, but not both.
All state programs can still be accessed.
The Government estimates that the Energy
Efficient Homes Package will:
- make almost all Australian homes reach a minimum two star
energy rating by 2011
- cut greenhouse gas emissions by 49.4 million tonnes by 2020,
equivalent to taking more than one million cars off the road,
and
- reduce household energy bills by $200 per year.
The cash balance impact of the Energy
Efficient Homes Package over the period of the Nation Building and
Jobs Plan is given in the table below.
|
Year
|
2008-2009
|
2009-2010
|
2010-2011
|
2011-2012
|
Total
|
|
Impact $
m
|
-39
|
-1
540
|
-1
544
|
-736
|
-3
859
|
Source: Updated economic and fiscal
outlook.[15]
According to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS), out of a total of 8.2 million homes in Australia
in 2008, 5.1 million or 61 per cent had some form of insulation
installed, 1.6 million were entirely without insulation, and
occupants of the remainder (1.6 million) did not know whether their
home was insulated.
Of the insulated homes, 98 per cent had roof
or ceiling insulation. In households without insulation, the main
reason given for not installing insulation (accounting for 34 per
cent of respondents) was that the occupier was not the owner or not
responsible for the home. A further 17 per cent identified cost as
the main barrier to installation.[16]
The ABS reports that 46 per cent of Australian
households have electric hot water systems, while 37 per cent are
gas and 7 per cent solar (11 per cent were unaware of their hot
water energy source).[17]
Roof and ceiling insulation can save up to 35
per cent on energy consumption for heating of homes, and wall
insulation can save an additional 20 per cent.[18] The energy savings depend on the
climate zone of the dwelling, and may be lower in areas that
experience lower extremes in temperature.
Air conditioning creates high demand at peak
periods on hot summer days across cities presented that can create
severe problems for electricity generation and transmission and
distribution systems. The number of households using air
conditioning more than doubled from 1994 to 2008,[19] and is projected to grow at a
rate of 16 per cent per annum to 2020.[20] The addition of adequate insulation
in uninsulated homes is expected to reduce summer peak electricity
demand by mitigating the need for and use of air conditioners.
Water heating represents about 23 per cent of
household energy consumption. Solar systems provide between 50 per
cent and 90 per cent of hot water through solar energy, with the
remainder requiring use of an electric or gas booster. Greenhouse
gas emissions from electric hot water systems range from about 3 to
6 tonnes per year depending on the climate zone. For solar hot
water systems with gas booster, emissions are much less at 0.1 to
0.5 tonnes per year.[21]
The Government estimates the cost of
installing ceiling insulation in an average-sized house to be
around $1200.[22]
The Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand (ICANZ) agrees
that the $1600 should be sufficient to cover the costs of
installing ceiling insulation in all but the largest of
homes.[23]
Concern has been expressed about the capacity
of the industry to meet the expected increase in demand for
insulation with the package. However, ICANZ President, Dennis D
Arcy, has said that training for installers requires only a six
hour course, and business groups expect that the industry will
expand accordingly. A newly commissioned Bradford Insulation plant
in Brisbane is expected to increase production around the clock,
and Fletcher Insulation expect to reinstate jobs that had been shed
in December, and may consider building another manufacturing
plant.[24]
The insulation and manufacturing industries
are supportive of the plan and believe it could create 4000 new
jobs.[25]
The Clean Energy Council has noted that most
insulation and solar hot water systems sold in Australia are also
manufactured in Australia, which means that the proposed investment
would stay in Australia.[26]
It says the plan
represents a smart energy solution that would help to protect
thousands of Australian manufacturing jobs while saving energy and
benefiting the environment.
Green groups welcome the energy efficiency
measures, but say it is insufficient to effectively address climate
change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and there should be
greater investment in public transport and sustainability in the
commercial building sector.[27]
The Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs)
Bill (No. 2) 2008 2009 appropriates funding of $987.2 million in
the 2008 09 financial year as part of the government s $14.7
billion Building the Education Revolution initiative. Subsequent
funding of $8.5 billion for school infrastructure is proposed in
2009-10, and a further $5.26 billion is proposed in
2010-11.[29] The
$987.2 million will be additional to the Commonwealth s expenditure
on schools which was estimated in the May Budget to be $9.6 billion
in 2008 09.[30]
Building the Education Revolution has three
key programs:
- Primary Schools for the 21st
Century
- Provides $12.4 billion over 3 years for government and
non-government primary schools to build or upgrade major
infrastructure, such as multi-purpose halls and libraries
- Facilities must be made available to the community for low or
no cost
- Projects must be completed by June 30 2011
- Priorities will be given to schools applying to build new
facilities, but schools with a recently completed library or hall
are still entitled to apply
- Funding caps apply and will be determined by the school size.
Schools with up to 50 students, for example, can apply for up to
$250,000. Schools with over 400 students can apply for up to $3
million in funding.[31]
- Science and Language Centres for
21st Century Secondary Schools
- Provides $1 billion over 3 years to build approximately 500 new
science laboratories or language learning centres in government and
non-government secondary schools
- Funding will only be made available to schools with a
demonstrated need and the capacity to complete construction by June
30 2010.[32]
- Renewing Australian Schools
- Provides a total of $1.3 billion for all Australian schools to
undertake maintenance and minor building work
- Funding caps apply and will be determined by the school size.
Schools with over 400 students will be able to apply for a maximum
of $200,000.[33]
The government proposes to make funding for
the Building Education Revolution available from February 2009
through state and territory governments for government schools and
through Block Grant Authorities (BGAs) for non-government schools.
It will be a condition of funding, however, that the state and
territory governments and BGAs prioritise projects so they can be
completed on time. Schools receiving funding under any of the three
new programs will be required to report on projects progress using
an online reporting portal.[34]
Of the $987.2 million, $386 million will be
spent on the Renewing Australian Schools program and $600
million on the Primary Schools for the 21st
Century program.[35]
The Renewing Australian Schools
program proposes funding of $1.3 billion over 3 years. The program
is similar to the Investing in Our Schools Programme (ISOP) that
operated under the Coalition Government between 2005 and 2008 in
that it will fund maintenance and minor building work with a cap of
$200,000.[36]
However, unlike ISOP, the government expects that all schools will
receive funding (with 60 per cent of schools receiving funding in
2009 and 40 per cent in 2009 2010), proposal assessments will be
through the states and funding caps are tied to school
size.[37]
As a part of the $42 billion economic stimulus
package, up to $6 billion is to be provided under the Commonwealth
Social Housing Initiative to fund the construction of around 20 000
public and community housing dwellings. It is envisaged that the
new houses should be largely completed by December 2010.[39] The Commonwealth
Social Housing Initiative will also allocate around $400 million to
the states and territories over two years for the repair of around
2 500 public housing dwellings that are currently
uninhabitable.[40]
Until recently, the main vehicle through which
the Australian Government, along with the state and territory
governments, has provided funding for public housing was the
Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA). This joint agreement
helped to provide public and community housing to individuals and
families in need since the late 1940s. The last CSHA commenced in
2003 and was effective until 30 June 2008.
In recent years it has been Australian
Government policy to place a greater emphasis on Commonwealth Rent
Assistance (CRA) a payment to support eligible renters in the
private rental market than on the CSHA. As a result, Australian
Government outlays on the CSHA declined in nominal and real terms
since 1991 92, while CRA funding was increased. For example, in
1994 95, government expenditure for the CSHA was four per cent
higher than for CRA. Between 1994 95 and 2003 04, an increase of
nine per cent in CRA expenditure combined with a 31 per cent
decrease for CSHA resulted in CRA expenditure surpassing CSHA
expenditure.[42] In
2006 07, the Howard Government provided $2.2 billion in CRA
funding, as opposed to $970.6 million in CSHA funding.
In terms of public housing, this shift in
funding emphasis has meant that public housing stock has decreased
as state and territory public housing authorities have been
squeezed for funds. Through the CSHA, in 1996 97 the stock of
public housing was around 375 000 dwellings, which was then
about five per cent of Australia s total housing stock. In
subsequent years, however, there was little or no growth in public
housing stock and, as at 30 June 2008, the total number of public
rental dwellings managed by state and territory housing authorities
had fallen to 337 866.[43]
A reduction in the amount of public housing
stock has resulted in a reduced capacity on the part of governments
to provide affordable housing to those most in need. Waiting lists
for public housing are increasing. As at 30 June 2008, 177 652
households were on waiting lists for public rental housing. Of
these households, 14 638 were classified as being in greatest need
. This number represented eight per cent of all households on
waiting lists.[44]
Increasingly, the public housing that is
available is being used for emergency housing needs to assist those
estimated 100 000 Australians who are homeless on any given
night and those individuals and households that are at risk of
becoming homeless. In effect, public housing is becoming welfare
housing.
At the same time, rents in the private market
are increasing apace. Rents increased by an average of 12 per cent
during 2006 07 and a recent major report has predicted rent rises
of 50 per cent in major cities over the next four years.[45] Because there has been
an upward shift in the distribution of private rental stock towards
higher-rent properties, higher-income households have displaced
lower-income households from more affordable housing in the private
rental market.[46]
While these lower-income households may receive Commonwealth Rent
Assistance, this assistance is capped and, once the maximum rate
(which is indexed twice each year to reflect changes in the
consumer price index) is reached, any rent increases are borne by
CRA recipients. It should also be noted that CRA is paid at a
universal rate across the country. This renders it a blunt
instrument in so far as it cannot take into account variations in
rental prices across jurisdictions.
As a part of the 2008-09 Budget, the
Government signalled that it would be reforming the framework for
federal financial arrangements. This involved a rationalisation of
existing Commonwealth housing and homelessness assistance programs
under the new National Affordable Housing Agreement, which was
introduced from 1 January 2009. This Agreement is to provide
funding of $6.2 billion over five years from 2008-09.
Under the National Affordable Housing
Agreement, the states and territories are to pursue reforms in
three areas of National Partnership, one of which is social
housing. Under the social housing national partnership, $400
million is to be provided over the next two financial years for
capital investment for social housing and homelessness, with
approximately 1 600 to 2 100 additional dwellings to be built by
2009 10. While this investment will along with the National Rental
Affordability Scheme and A Place to Call Home strategy improve
housing affordability to some degree, it will not add substantially
to the public housing supply. And without a significant increase in
Australia s public housing sector, some commentators argue that the
nation will fail to meet future demand for secure, low-cost
housing.[47]
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam recently proposed
that the Government invest an initial $2 billion in public and
not-for-profit housing to enable the construction of more than 6
000 homes for low-income families. Ludlum went on to argue that the
Government needs to pump sufficient funds into public housing, to
bring down waiting lists and provide relief to these families
.[48]
Comment on the Commonwealth Social Housing
Initiative has been almost universally positive, with community
groups, the housing industry and state governments all expressing
their support for the package.
While community groups have noted that there
is still more work to be done in improving housing affordability in
Australia, and thereby assisting the most disadvantaged in the
community, they hailed the package as a significant contribution
towards the realisation of these goals.
Michael Perusco, Chief Executive of the Sacred
Heart Mission, has commended the government for its actions in
assisting the disadvantaged through the public housing stimulus
package. He has argued that the package has returned public housing
to its rightful places as a key part of social policy, sending the
powerful message to policymakers, advocates and the community that
public housing must be a priority .[49]
Executive director of Catholic Social
Services, Frank Quinlan, stated that he was delighted with the
package, and urged state governments to get behind it quickly
.[50]
Julian Disney, chairman of the National
Affordable Housing Summit, has noted that the initiative represents
the biggest expenditure on public housing for at least a quarter of
a century , and a quantum leap in commitment to resources badly
needed and much overdue for many years .[51]
NSW Master Builders Association s executive
director Brian Seidler welcomed the package, and is reported as
having stated that anything that gives the building industry a kick
along is good news.[52] Managing director of the Housing Industry Association,
Ron Silberberg is supportive of the package on the grounds that it
will provide a much needed boost for construction work, with the 20
000 new dwellings creating as many as 35 000 new jobs in the
building and related industries.[53]
The states, too, have welcomed the
package.[54] West
Australian Treasurer Troy Buswell has noted that it complements a
$316 million Western Australian stimulus package to build 1 000 new
homes for low-income families and government workers.[55] NSW Housing Minister
David Borger and Victorian State Housing Minister Richard Wynne
have both expressed their strong support for the package,
indicating that the investment would help create around 9 000 and 5
000 homes, respectively.[56]
Various concerns have
been raised in relation to the Commonwealth Social Housing
Initiative. For one thing, initially it was not clear precisely on
what basis funding for the initiative was to be distributed to the
states. This led NSW Housing Minister David Borger to observe that
if the funding is distributed to the states on a per capita basis
then NSW would be entitled to receive approximately one third of
the $6.4 billion .[57] Victorian Council of Social Service policy spokesman
David Imber is reported as having stated that Victoria should
benefit from at least a quarter of the spending, but gave no
indication as to how this figure was arrived at.[58] The West Australian Government
is reported as viewing the package as good news for Western
Australia, so long as the money is shared between the states on a
per-capita basis.
According to the recently-released Council of
Australian Governments National Partnership Agreement on the Nation
Building and Jobs Plan, funding is to be allocated to the states
generally on a per capital basis, subject to jurisdictions
submitting suitable proposals that meet the requirements of the
initiative .[59]
The success or otherwise of the package should
the Bill be passed is very much dependent upon the cooperation of
the states, and on their capacity to deliver on the package. Some
commentators have argued that the states have a poor record in
delivering on infrastructure development commitments, and are
ill-equipped to promptly execute such commitments.[60] However, it should be noted that
the appointment of national coordinators at Commonwealth and state
levels to maximise the timely and effective delivery of the package
should go some way towards addressing such concerns. The fact that
the Australian Government drew on data from the states including
data on the number of housing projects that were already in their
development pipelines in developing the package, further enhances
the likelihood of its success.[61] That said, it is to be expected that some states
will be in a better position to commence construction projects than
others.
Much will depend on the capacity of the
building and construction industry to cater to the substantial
boost in building activity entailed by the economic stimulus
package as a whole.
It is generally agreed that supply-side
responses to the current housing affordability crisis are
essential, the reason being that focusing primarily on providing
Commonwealth Rent Assistance to supplement private rental merely
stimulates demand and increases housing rental costs. It has done
nothing to increase the supply of affordable, public housing.
Many commentators argue that without a
sustainable public housing sector, the nation will fail to meet
future demand for secure, low-cost housing.[62] Should the Appropriation (Nation
Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009 be passed, and the
Commonwealth Social Housing Initiative implemented, this would help
to reduce public housing waiting lists and assist in reducing the
number of homeless Australians.
Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill
(No. 2) 2008-2009 appropriates $230 million for land transport.
$150 million is for repairs to national highways, $50 million is
for boom gates for rail crossings, and an additional $30 million is
for the Black Spot program.
The government will provide $150.0 million in
2008-09 to repair regional links on the national highway network.
In addition to preventing the deterioration of national highways,
this initiative will create jobs in regional Australia, including
areas where jobs are being lost due to a contraction of activity in
the mining sector.[64]
The government proposes to provide $150.0
million over two years $50 million in 2008 09 and $100 million in
2009 10 to improve road and rail safety by funding the construction
of boom gates at rail crossings. There are around 9400 rail
crossings. The vast majority do not have active protection.
Projects will be prioritised using the Australian Level Crossing
Assessment Model, a safety risk assessment tool used across
Australia.[65]
The government will provide additional funding
of $90 million over two years $30 million in 2008 09 and $60
million in 2009 10 for the road safety Black
Spot Program. The program reduces the social and economic costs
of road accidents through the identification and cost effective
treatment of dangerous locations on Australian roads. This measure
is in addition to the $60 million increase in funding in 2008-09
for this program announced as part of the Government's Nation
Building Package on 12 December 2008.[66]
The Government will provide an additional $500
million over two years $250 million in each of 2008 09 and 2009 10
to support large strategic projects being undertaken by local
governments including the construction of community infrastructure
such as town halls, community centres and sport and recreation
facilities.
This measure will allow a greater number of
projects to be funded from the current applications for the Local
Community Infrastructure Program. This measure is in addition to
the $300 million in 2008-09 for the Regional
and Local Community Infrastructure Program announced at the
Inaugural meeting Australian Council of Local Governments on the 18
November 2008.[68]
The Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009
provides for a series of one-off cash payments to people who are
receiving a range of payments under the Social Security Act
1991 and the Family Assistance Act 1999 on 3 February
2009.[70] All of
the payments are of $950 and will be paid in most cases in March
2009 at a cost of $4.584 billion. The payments are:
- Training and Learning Bonus - This bonus is for senior
secondary or tertiary students receiving a range of education
assistance payments or Family Tax Benefit part A (aged 21 to 24
years) plus recipients of Sickness Allowance and Special
Benefit.
- Farmers Hardship Bonus - This bonus is for people receiving
Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment, Farm Help Income Support,
Transitional Income Support or Interim Income Support. It will be
paid in the fortnight commencing 24 March 2009
- Education Entry Supplement - This payment will go to people
receiving Education Entry Payment between 1 January 2009 and 30
June 2010. The qualification period for receipt of Education Entry
Payment will be reduced from 12 months to 4 weeks of continuous
receipt of an income support payment during the period 1 January
2009 until 30 June 2010. Eligibility for the Education Entry
Payment will also be extended during this period to Youth Allowance
recipients who are not full time students.
- Back to School Bonus - This Bonus is for each child aged 4 to
18 years who qualifies for Family Tax Benefit part A on 3 February
2009. It will also be paid to recipients of Disability Support
Pension and Carer Payment who are aged under 19 years on 3 February
2009. It will be paid in March.
- Single Income Family Bonus - This Bonus will be paid in the
fortnight commencing 11 March to families qualifying for Family Tax
Benefit part B on 3 February 2009.
Numbers assisted
|
Payment
|
Numbers assisted
|
|
Training and Learning Bonus and the
Education Entry Supplement
|
440,000 students
|
|
Farmers Hardship Bonus
|
21,500 people
|
|
Back to School Bonus
|
2.76 million children
|
|
Single Income Family
Bonus
|
1.5 million families
|
The purpose of the Tax Bonus for Working
Australians Bill 2009 (Bonus Bill) is to enable the payment of
one-off amounts to those who lodged a tax return for the 2007 08
financial year, had an adjusted tax liability greater than nil and
whose taxable income was $100 000 or less in that year.
The purpose of the Tax Bonus for Working
Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 (Consequential
Bill) is to amend the:
- Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936)
- Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)
- Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA 1953)
- Social Security Act 1991(SSA 1991), and
- Veteran s Entitlement Act 1986 (VEA 1986).
These amendments are to be made as a
consequence of the Bonus Bill s provisions to mainly ensure that
the proposed tax bonus payments are not themselves taxable income
and are not income for either social security or veteran s affairs
purposes.
The payments proposed in the package are a one
off bonus payment. For more information regarding the forthcoming
cuts in personal income tax and associated changes from July 2009
see generally, Bernard Pulle, Adrian Makeham-Kirchner and Paige
Darby,
Tax Laws Amendment (Personal income Tax Reduction) Bill 2008,
Bills Digest, no. 60, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,
2007 08.
For additional
information see the Bills Digests for the Tax
Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009 and Tax Bonus for Working
Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009, Bills
Digest, No. 93, 2008-09.
Members,
Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further information
from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2455 or (02) 6277
2464
[1]. This Interim
Bills Digest covers the six bills introduced in support of the
National Building and Jobs Plan. A separate Bills Digest will be
prepared for each of the six bills. The commencement dates vary
across these bills.
[2]. The Hon.
Kevin Rudd (Prime Minister) and the Hon. Wayne Swan MP (Treasurer),
$42 billion nation building and jobs plan , joint media
release, Canberra, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/
2009/008.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[3]. Author: Scott
Kompo-Harms.
[4]. The Hon.
Kevin Rudd (Prime Minister) and the Hon. Wayne Swan MP (Treasurer),
$42 billion nation building and jobs plan , joint media
release, Canberra, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/
2009/008.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0.
[5]. The Hon.
Wayne Swan (Treasurer) and the Hon. Lindsay Tanner (Minister for
Finance and Deregulation), Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook
2008 2009, Canberra, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/uefo/download/Combined_UEFO.pdf.
[6]. Big
Government fights back , The Economist, January
31 2009, accessed here:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13035552
on 6 February 2009.
[7]. Alesina, A.,
Ardagna, S., Perotti, R. and Schiantarelli, F., (July 1999), Fiscal
Policy, Profits and Investment , National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper no.7207 (p. 27).
[8]. Blanchard, O.
and Perotti, R., (November 2002), An Empirical Characterization of
the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on
Output . Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 117, no. 4.
(p. 1364). Olivier Blanchard is currently the chief economist at
the International Monetary Fund.
[9]. ibid., p.
1329.
[10]. Mountford,
A. and Uhlig, H., (December 2008), What are the Effects of Fiscal
Policy Shocks? , National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper no.14551, pp. 20 21.
[11]. Financial
wealth refers to things like bank deposits and other highly liquid
assets/investments.
[12]. Second
reading speech, Appropriation (National Building and Jobs) Bill
(No. 1) 2008-09.
[13]. Author:
Julie Styles
[14]. Hon. Kevin
Rudd (Prime Minister), Energy Efficient Homes Ceiling Insulation in
2.7 Million Homes , media release, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0783.cfm
; Hon. Wayne Swan (Treasurer), The Energy Efficient Homes Program ,
Fact Sheet: 2009 Updated economic and fiscal outlook,
Australian Government, at
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=factsheets/
2009/010.htm&pageID=011&min=wms&Year=&DocType=3.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[15]. Hon. Wayne
Swan (Treasurer) and the Hon. Lindsay Tanner (Minister for Finance
and Deregulation), Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008
2009, Canberra, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/uefo/download/Combined_UEFO.pdf.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[16]. Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Environmental Issues: Energy Use and
Conservation, Catalogue No. 4602.0.55.001, March 2008, at
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/
4602.0.55.001Main+Features1Mar%202008?OpenDocument. Accessed 6
February 2009.
[17]. ibid.,
Table 3.11.
[18]. Department
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Home heating and
cooling , Australian Government, at http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/gwci/heat.html.
Accessed on 5 February 2009.
[19]. Australian
Bureau of Statistics, op. cit., Table 4.11.
[20]. Department
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Energy use in
the Australian residential sector 1986-2020, Australian
Government, 2008, at
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/
buildings/publications/energyuse.html. Accessed 6 February
2009.
[21]. Your
Home: Technical Manual, Fourth edition, Australian Government,
2008, at
http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/index.html. Accessed 6
February 2009.
[22]. Department
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Energy Efficient
Homes Package: Insulating Australian Households , Australian
Government, at http://www.environment.gov.au/energyefficiency/insulation.html.
Accessed on 5 February 2009.
[23]. Free
ceiling insulation for all homes , Trading Room, Fairfax
Digital, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/view_breaking_news_article.ac?page=/
data/news_research/published/2009/2/34/catf_090203_193400_8450.html.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[24]. J.
Stapleton, Insulation industry hopes trade goes through the roof ,
The Australian, 5 February 2009, at
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/0BPS6/
upload_binary/0bps60.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf; J.
Breusch, Factories flat out , Australian Financial Review,
5 February 2009, at
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/TCPS6/
upload_binary/tcps60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22insulation%22.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[25]. H.
Westerman, Stimulus plan: insulation plan to create 4000 jobs ,
My Small Business, theage.com.au, 4 February 2009.
[26]. Clean
Energy Council, Insulation package: finally some green jobs for
Australia , News article, 3 February 2009, at http://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news/showarticle.php?id=176.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[27]. S.
Peatling, Government plans insulation blitz , Sydney Morning
Herald, 4 February 2009, at
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/OVOS6/upload_binary/
ovos60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22insulation%22;
Free ceiling insulation for all homes , Trading Room,
Fairfax Digital, 3 February 2009, at
http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/view_breaking_news_article.ac?page=/data/news_research/
published/2009/2/34/catf_090203_193400_8450.html. Accessed 6
February 2009.
[28]. Authors:
Coral Dow and Anne-marie Boxall.
[29]. Cited in
Building the Education Revolution Facts Sheets, Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/BuildingTheEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx,
accessed on 05 February 2009.
[30]. Budget
Paper No. 1: Budget Strategy and Outlook 2008 09, Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 6 43, at http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/downloads/bp1.pdf.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[31]. Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Building the
education revolution: primary schools,
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/BuildingTheEducationRevolution/
Documents/BERFactSheet_PrimarySchools.pdf, accessed on 5
February 2009.
[32]. Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Building the
education revolution: secondary schools,http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/BuildingTheEducationRevolution/Documents/
BERFactsheet_SecondarySchools.pdf, accessed on 5 February
2009.
[33]. Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Building the
education revolution: K-12 schools,
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/BuildingTheEducationRevolution/
Documents/BERFactSheet_K12_Schools.pdf, accessed on 5 February
2009.
[34]. Hon. W.
Swan (Treasurer), Fact Sheet: 2009 Updated economic and fiscal
outlook ,
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=factsheets/2009/002.htm&pageID=011
&min=wms&Year=&DocType=3, accessed on 5 February
2009.
[35]. Personal
communication DEEWR official, 5 February 2009
[36]. ISOP
provided initial funding of $1 billion over 4 years for small scale
capital projects costing no more than $175,000. ISOP ceased
operating in 2008. For more information see the IOSP website,
http://www.investinginourschools.dest.gov.au/,
accessed on 5 February 2009.
[37]. Council of
Australian Governments Meeting, Communiqu , 5 February 2009, at
http://www.coag.gov.au/.
Accessed 6 February 2009.
[38]. Author:
Matthew Thomas.
[39]. According
to the COAG National Partnership Agreement, 75 per cent of the new
dwellings should be completed by December 2010. Council of
Australian Governments, National Partnership Agreement on the
Nation Building and Jobs Plan: Building Prosperity for the Future
and Supporting Jobs Now,
http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-02-05/docs/
20090205_nation_building_jobs.pdf, accessed 6 February
2009.
[40]. Australian
Government, Budget 2008-09 Appendix B: Nation Building and Jobs
Plan,
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/uefo/html/appendix_b.htm,
accessed 5 February 2009.
[41]. This
section is largely based on the Public housing and rental
assistance chapter of the Parliamentary Library Budget Review 2008
09, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/2007-08/08rp31.pdf.
[42]. The
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) does, however,
caution that the shift in expenditure should be interpreted with
caution due to the differing nature of the programs. For further
detail see Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
Australia s Welfare 2007, AIHW, Canberra, 2007,
p. 222, http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10527,
accessed on 16 May 2008.
[43]. Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, Public rental housing 2007-08:
Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report,
AIHW, Canberra, January 2009, http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/hou/prh07-08/prh07-08.pdf,
accessed on 6 February 2009.
[44]. ibid.
[45]. Australian
Property Monitors, Quarterly APM Domain Rental Series
March, media release, APM, 3 April 2008.
[46]. J. Yates
et al., Housing Affordability: a 21st century
problem. National Research Venture 3: Housing affordability for
lower income Australians, Final Report no. 105, Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), September 2007,
http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/NRV3/AHURI_Final_Report_
No105_Housing_affordability_a_21st_century_problem.pdf,
accessed on 16 May 2008.
[47]. See, for
example, S. Schrapel, Boost public housing to halt homes crisis ,
Sunday Mail Adelaide, 13 April 2008, p. 75,
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?
Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:YQ5Q6%3B, accessed on
16 May 2008; and Australian Council of Social Service, Towards
a Fairer Australia, ACOSS 2007 Election Statement, Paper 151,
October 2007,
http://www.acoss.org.au/upload/news/
3391__Paper%20151%20Towards%20a%20fairer%20Australia.pdf,
accessed on 16 May 2008.
[48]. S. Ludlum,
Boost public housing and jobs: Greens , Media Release, 28
January 2009.
[49]. M.
Perusco, Help on the home front , The Age, 5 February
2009.
[50]. J Massola,
Building support: halfway to housing the homeless , Canberra
Times, 4 February 2009.
[51]. T.
Colebatch and D. Cooke, Surprise $6.6bn to create 20,000 houses ,
The Age, 4 February 2009.
[52]. J. Dillon,
Builders, tradies harder to nail down , The Daily
Telegraph, 4 February 2009.
[53]. J.
Massola, op cit.
[54]. Council of
Australian Governments, Special Council of Australian Governments
Meeting, Nation Building and Jobs Plan Communique, Canberra, 5
February 2009.
[55]. I.
Salusinszki and M. Denholm, Thumbs up from all the premiers Rudd s
$42 billion rescue , The Australian, 4 February 2009.
[56]. M. Farr,
Rudd chalks up survival plan , Daily Telegraph, 4 February
2009 and T. Colebatch and D. Cooke, Surprise $6.6bn to create
20,000 houses , The Age, 4 February 2009.
[57]. M. Farr,
op cit.
[58]. T.
Colebatch and D. Cooke, op cit.
[59]. Council of
Australian Governments, National Partnership Agreement on the
Nation Building and Jobs Plan: Building Prosperity for the Future
and Supporting Jobs Now, p. 13,
http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-02-05/docs/
20090205_nation_building_jobs.pdf, accessed 6 February
2009.
[60]. See, for
example, Editorial, Perhaps the politics are right , The
Canberra Times, 4 February 2009.
[61]. See L.
Taylor, PM warns states on funding rules Rudd s $42 billion rescue
, The Australian, 4 February 2009.
[62]. See, for
example, S. Schrapel, Boost public housing to halt homes crisis ,
Sunday Mail Adelaide, 13 April 2008, p. 75,
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:YQ5Q6%3B,
accessed on 16 May 2008; and Australian Council of Social Service,
Towards a Fairer Australia, ACOSS 2007 Election Statement,
Paper 151, October 2007,
http://www.acoss.org.au/upload/news/3391__Paper%20151%20Towards%20a%20fairer%20Australia.pdf,
accessed on 16 May 2008.
[63]. Author:
Richard Webb.
[64].
Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook, February 2009, p. 70,
at
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/uefo/download/UEFO_06_Appendix_B.pdf,
accessed on 6 February 2009.
[65]. ibid.
[66]. ibid.
[67]. Author:
Richard Webb.
[68]. Updated
Economic and Fiscal Outlook, op. cit.
[69]. Author:
Dale Daniels.
[70]. This
summary draws on the bill, its Explanatory Memorandum, and Hon.
Wayne Swan (Treasurer), $950 One-off Cash bonus to Support Jobs ,
media release, 3 February 2009 at
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/
2009/010.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0.
[71]. Author:
Les Nielson.
Scott Kompo-Harms, Les Nielson, Richard Webb, Julie
Styles, Anne-marie Boxall, Dale Daniels, Coral Dow, and Matthew
Thomas.
6 February 2009
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top