2007-05-29
41
1
9
REPS
0
0
2007-05-29
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT (2007 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2007
1
Bills
R2781
Second Reading
1
Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1
12:31:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House commits to the following goals:
-
to eliminate the 17 year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, so that every Indigenous child has the same educational and life opportunities as any other child;
-
to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within ten years;
-
to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children aged under five within a decade; and
-
to a long-term, bipartisan national commitment to work with Indigenous Australians towards achieving these goals, and overcome generational disadvantage”.
On the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, the Leader of the Opposition announced that Labor would commit to concrete goals and targets to eliminate the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation; to at least halve the rate of Indigenous infant mortality within a decade; to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children aged under five within a decade; and to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within a decade. How positive it would be if the Prime Minister joined with Labor in a bipartisan commitment to overcome Indigenous disadvantage within a generation, because a generation is longer than the political lives of most of us in this chamber.
We want every Indigenous child born today to have the same opportunities as other Australian children. We will not close the gap on life expectancy unless we start with the children who are being born today. Goals and targets are not merely words that we throw around. As the Chief Executive Officer of the ANZ Bank, John McFarlane, said recently in relation to reconciliation:
The setting of targets is the only way to achieve results. It is important to measure where you are and where you want to be, otherwise nobody would be accountable.
That is why we have set these targets.
I was recently on Groote Eylandt, right up in the north of Australia, with the member for Lingiari, who is here today in the chamber. It is a community of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. The people of Groote have really begun to turn their lives around. Only a few years ago it was a community racked with alcohol abuse and terrible violence. Today they recognise that they have to take responsibility to turn around their circumstances. Not only are they working through some exciting economic and employment opportunities with GEMCO, which runs the manganese mine, but also the land council is building a multimillion dollar resort to encourage the tourism industry on the island.
One of the things that struck me about this community was their focus on education. When we met with the general manager of GEMCO, he said to me, ‘It’s all about education, education, education.’ The community recognises that much needs to be done to improve literacy and numeracy at the local schools. The land council is also putting some of its money into sending more and more young people off to good quality boarding schools in Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane, Perth and Darwin. Before a child is sent away to school, the parents or the elders visit the school and discuss with the school how they are going to support their young people.
The people of Groote are making a real effort to make sure that their children remain connected to their community and to the culture that they are growing up in. They recognise that the quality of education matters, and they are coming up with ways to make sure that their children are not estranged from their traditions as they receive an improved education. Sending children away to school is a very difficult choice for any parent in a remote or regional community. The fears of parents and communities about losing their children to the big world are often founded in reality. In most cases, however, the value of education in providing children with choices does tend to triumph.
Another community we visited recently in the Northern Territory had built a homelands school to cater for children both in that community and in surrounding communities. You could see that the school had come about because of the anguish of parents who had already lost children to the bigger towns—to loitering, bad behaviour, alcohol and poor education outcomes. The children of this school do not speak English as their first language. Nevertheless, the school has a good attendance record and some of the young people have continued into their senior years of schooling. However, all of these schools need additional resources to make sure that the education levels of the children who are attending improve.
Across Indigenous education we have a long way to go to close the gap in literacy, numeracy and retention to year 12. The proportion of young Indigenous people living in remote areas who reach year 12 is approximately half that of their metropolitan peers, and only one in 10 actually completes year 12. The initiatives outlined in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, which we are debating today, will help. The government estimates that up to 1,610 students could benefit from additional funding for the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. The increase in the number of scholarships offered under the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program and the places available under the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program will allow more young Indigenous people to access quality education and training. I would like to have seen additional funding for mentoring and support to go with these initiatives and programs because we need to prepare young people who are proposing to leave their communities for adjusting to life in a boarding school. These are important parts of the policy to see that the children who do leave their communities succeed.
In Cape York and the Torres Strait, the Queensland government is introducing transition support officers to prepare students for the move, support them as they travel to and from communities, support them at boarding school and provide mentoring and pastoral care throughout. Over the next four years, they expect to assist around 700 students from Cape York and the Torres Strait to travel to attend secondary school. Practical initiatives developed with local communities always have a greater chance of success.
There is so much more to do, in particular in the early years. Labor is committed to closing the 17-year gap in life expectancy, starting with Indigenous children born today. Just this weekend we announced that we will commit an additional $260 million as a start to meet this goal. This will include additional contributions from the states and territories. We want to make sure that there is comprehensive coverage of child and maternal health, parent support, early development, preschool and intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous children. As a result of Labor’s initiative, Indigenous women and their babies will have access to proper antenatal care, including a visit to a midwife or doctor, an ultrasound and a general health check; practical advice on parenting, breastfeeding and nutrition for their babies; home visit services—we want to extend that to children up to the age of eight and our plan is to do this with the states and territories—and parenting and early development services.
Early education is central to our policy. The Productivity Commission estimates that around half of all Indigenous children do not have access to preschool—that is around 4,500 children every year. It is now recognised almost everywhere in the world how important it is to invest in early childhood education. Certainly all parents know this. The Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman has shown that the return on human capital is very high in the early years of life and diminishes rapidly thereafter. Leading developmental researcher Jack Shonkoff argues that ‘all children are born wired for feelings and ready to learn’ and that it is from birth to age five that ‘children rapidly develop foundational capabilities on which subsequent development builds’. Intensive programs in disadvantaged communities in the United States, such as the Perry Preschool Project, have shown that early intervention can produce large social and economic benefits for individual children and for their communities. When children start school, they must be ready, willing and able to learn so that they can succeed in life.
Labor has committed to a $450 million a year plan to ensure that every Australian four-year-old, including all of our Indigenous four-year-olds, has the right to 15 hours per week of early childhood education, for at least 40 weeks of the year, delivered by a properly qualified teacher. Most Indigenous children start behind the eight ball when they get to school. It is particularly shocking that they slip further behind while they are at school. According to the National Report on Schooling in Australia 2005, the number of Indigenous children who meet the reading benchmarks falls from 78 per cent in year 3 to 63.8 per cent in year 7; and the number of Indigenous children who meet the numeracy benchmarks falls from 80.4 per cent in year 3 to 48.8 per cent in year 7. Indigenous children are falling further and further behind the longer they stay at school. There is also evidence to suggest that the problem has been getting worse over the last few years. In 2005, fewer Indigenous children in years 5 and 7 are meeting basic literacy and numeracy benchmarks, compared to year 5 and year 7 children in 2002. It is almost a truism these days to talk about the importance of literacy and numeracy. Dr Ken Rowe, Research Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research, highlights that:
Literacy competence is foundational, not only for school-based learning, but also for children’s behavioural and psychosocial wellbeing, further education and training, occupational success, as well as for productive and fulfilling participation in social and economic activity.
Labor has committed to a target of halving the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students’ performance in reading, writing and numeracy achievement within a decade. We have recognised that every individual Indigenous child must have help and attention suited to their developmental needs. We have announced that we would roll out the Australian Early Development Index nationally, at a cost of $16.9 million over four years—a rigorous checklist across five developmental areas to determine a child’s needs when they start school.
We will fund the development of a specific AEDI for Indigenous children to take into account the differing cultural and language features of the early childhood rearing environments of Indigenous families. After this, Labor will make sure that every Indigenous child has an individual learning plan to be updated twice a year for every year of schooling up to year 10. These plans will be based on the individual child’s needs as determined by the teacher’s professional judgements, on the results of assessments, including national literacy and numeracy testing in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, and through the new initiatives which we have announced, such as the Australian Early Development Index.
The plans should identify the individual strengths and weaknesses of every child and set out what areas the student and the teacher will target for improvement across the basics of reading, writing and numeracy. We will spend $34½ million over four years providing professional development support to teachers to enable them to complete these learning plans. Through their child’s teachers, parents will be able to access these plans so that they too can be part of their children’s learning improvements. Once children’s learning needs have been identified, funding and intervention programs can be targeted and implemented more precisely.
The Queensland government are implementing individual learning plans and intensive support programs in Cape York and the Torres Strait. They are focusing on heavy mentoring and community involvement. Parents are involved in developing the individual learning plans and coming together to discuss various challenges on a regular basis. With respect and commitment on both sides, I am sure that they will succeed in giving children the opportunities that they have not had before. There are already many remedial and support programs in literacy and numeracy available at the state and federal level, but their coverage is by no means comprehensive. Labor will provide $21.9 million over four years to expand intensive literacy and numeracy programs in our schools where Indigenous children are concentrated. Intensive literacy programs, such as Accelerated Literacy, Making Up Lost Time In Literacy and the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project, provide a heavily-structured approach to teaching literacy. Labor wants to see these very successful programs expanded.
It is remarkable that there is no equivalent major program in numeracy for struggling children. As part of our commitment, Labor will develop a new intensive numeracy program and implement it at a pilot stage to start with. Labor has announced a comprehensive package of initiatives—child and maternal health, parenting advice and support, early development for children, preschool programs, literacy and numeracy in the early years—to make sure that every Indigenous child being born today has the same chance to grow up healthy, happy and well-educated, just as we expect for all other Australian children.
Indigenous and non-Indigenous people know that we must do everything we can to make sure that Indigenous students stay at school and complete their schooling, as we hope for other Australian children. Year 12 completion is very low for Indigenous students. The first major drop in enrolments happens between years 9 and 10, from around 9,000 students to 8,000 students. Next, between years 10 and 11, enrolments drop further, down to around 5,800 students. Finally, between years 11 and 12 the figure gets down to around 3,700 students. So it is critical that we have intervention strategies directed at students in years 9 through to 12 to keep them engaged, interested and learning. That is one of the reasons why the Leader of the Opposition announced in his budget reply earlier this month a 10-year, $2½ billion trades training centres in schools plan—an initiative which will see new trades centres built in Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools. This major initiative will benefit tens of thousands of Indigenous students enrolled in years 9 to 12 each year. The trades training centres in schools plan is the key plank in Labor’s determination to lift year 12 retention rates from 75 per cent to 85 per cent by 2015 and to 90 per cent by 2020. In that time frame we have also committed to closing the retention gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
It is, of course, very difficult to see the purpose of education, to turn up to school, if you do not have any idea of the opportunities that education can open up. If we can engage Indigenous students in their learning, we will succeed in getting more of them to come to school and stay at school. But young people also need to see the adults around them working, to see that, with an education, wider economic opportunities open up.
I previously mentioned the work that GEMCO are doing on Groote Eylandt to improve their relationship with neighbouring Aboriginal communities. Just yesterday here in Canberra we had the minerals industry demonstrating their commitment to Indigenous employment. Argyle Diamonds in the Kimberley in Western Australia are deeply engaged with local Indigenous communities, both in providing employment and also, very importantly, making sure that literacy and numeracy are improved both while children are still at school and once people are employed in the mine. Both the Indigenous communities and the company recognise the importance of investment in education so that Indigenous people can take up the jobs at the mine. Children, young people and adults are all involved in improving their skills. I pay considerable regard to the significant number of mining companies which are now providing not just employment but literacy and numeracy support for very little children as well as young people at school.
Just to reiterate the success that Argyle have shown, 25 per cent of their employment is now taken up by Indigenous people, and they are heading towards a target of 40 per cent Indigenous employment at that mine by 2010. We have also seen leadership provided by the ANZ Bank, which have previously set out their goals for Indigenous employment in their reconciliation action plan announced earlier this year. ANZ have worked with Reconciliation Australia to set clear targets for increasing Indigenous employment, including recruiting three per cent of rural and regional staff from Indigenous communities and recruiting 300 Indigenous trainees by 2009.
There are many other companies that are working with Reconciliation Australia to set out their detailed plans and goals to make sure that we turn around the terrible level of Indigenous unemployment in this country. I strongly support the work that both Reconciliation Australia and these companies are doing to address this very important goal in Australia.
In our view, it is only through reciprocal partnership and respect that we will achieve the goal of overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, closing the gap in life expectancy averages, closing the literacy and numeracy gaps and closing the retention to year 12 gaps.
I support the bill that is before us. I call on the government to recognise the goals and targets that Labor has set and to join with us in making a bipartisan commitment to meet these goals. It will take time, and together we can make a huge difference to the lives of the Indigenous children who are being born today.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the amendment seconded?
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
6
12:54:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—I rise in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 and commend the Minister for Education, Science and Training for bringing this bill forward. I also note, in terms of the shadow minister’s comments, that we are likely to see a bipartisan approach on this significant issue.
This is an extremely significant week, as 27 May marked 40 years since our nation voted ‘yes’ in favour of recognising Indigenous Australians as Australian citizens. Being one of the older members in the House, I can proudly say that I voted ‘yes’. Certainly, there was a sense of excitement as the community came together to recognise the important role that our Indigenous community plays. It is surprising and somewhat shocking to young people to think that 40 years ago this was not the case, but the overwhelming support of the people of Australia was indicative of the enormous goodwill that the general community wishes for the Indigenous community.
We have had some successes and many failures which are well documented. This bill goes to the heart of trying to address one of the significant areas of disadvantage for our Aboriginal community—that is, education. Without education, trying to survive, perform and excel in modern Australia is very difficult, as those school children who are present in the gallery today would know. That is why they concentrate on their education, and it is also important for young Indigenous people. Our track record has not been great but we are certainly working on it.
With the recognition by way of the vote 40 years ago came all of the rights of being an Australian citizen—the right to vote, the right to receive government benefits and financial assistance and, of course, the right of every Australian to receive quality health services and a quality education. The success of the ‘yes’ campaign was symbolic of this nation’s desire to move towards ensuring that Indigenous Australians are given an equal chance in life to benefit from the great opportunities this country has to offer.
I feel it is very appropriate to be speaking in the debate on this bill, considering the significance of the anniversary this week. The bill is about expanding programs which have been put in place to give Indigenous students across our country the best possible access to quality education. No matter where you travel across the world, education remains the key to improving living standards and decreasing poverty amongst communities.
I cannot stand here today and say that I am proud when I read statistics which show Indigenous life expectancy in this country remains at 1922 levels. Forty years after Australia voted ‘yes’ for Indigenous rights, the average Aboriginal person in this country can expect to live 17 years less than non-Indigenous Australians—a fact that we are all concerned about and that we would all, on both sides of the House, like to improve. We work together with the aim of improving that statistic.
Similar statistics show that Indigenous Australians fall behind the rest of the population when it comes to literacy and education standards. Whilst the gap in retention rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students from year 7 to year 12 has closed slightly, it is a very large gap, at 35.8 per cent, and that is also of concern. What hope for an education does any child in this country have if we cannot keep them in our school system? Needless to say, when it comes to Indigenous issues, as a nation we still have a very long way to go.
I agree with the education minister when she stated that education is probably the best way to remove disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in all key areas. In the late eighties I was shadow Aboriginal affairs minister in New South Wales. As you are confronted by all of the issues that exist within the Indigenous community, above all, you see education and employment as key issues. Of course, one leads to the other, and that is why this bill is important.
This bill will provide additional funding of $26.1 million over the 2007 and 2008 calendar years to provide more Indigenous students with the opportunities that come with a quality education. The budget now provides $84.5 million to improve employment, education and training opportunities for a further 1,600 Indigenous Australians living in rural and remote areas. These are practical measures which will allow more scholarships and program places for Indigenous youth, as well as provide maintenance for existing educational infrastructure and encourage more Indigenous people to take up a vocation within the educational sector. The increased funding in this bill is a further investment by the government to strengthen some of the successful programs already in place and ensure that these programs are opened up to as many students as possible.
I am extremely pleased to see that these amendments will allow for the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program from a current level of 250 scholarships to 1,000 scholarships over the next four years. This program was established as part of the government’s Indigenous Australians opportunity and responsibility commitment with the aim of providing Indigenous youth with educational opportunities at high performing government and non-government schools. The program targets young Indigenous people, generally from remote rural areas, to develop and fulfil roles as Indigenous leaders within their communities. They receive mentoring and targeted orientation so that they too can become mentors and role models for young people. This is what we want to see—a transition into that mentoring role.
We all know that the reality is that secondary education and training opportunities are limited for those living in remote communities. This is a $36 million investment by the federal government to say to Indigenous youth: ‘These are the opportunities out there. If you want them, we can help you get there through this program.’ This is a reality for many young Australians wishing to further their education or complete vocational training. Very often they need to relocate from their home towns and their families in order have the best educational opportunities. This is the nature of our country, given the distance between some rural areas and the major centres that often provide these opportunities. For many young Indigenous Australians the situation is no different. The federal government’s Youth Mobility Program, which will be expanded under these amendments, assists young Indigenous Australians in relocating to major centres for employment or training purposes. The investment is significant and symbolises the success of this program since its introduction. Its $33.2 million will provide a further 860 places for this program over the next four years. I think we all support this project of getting the young people down to where the training exists and where the job opportunities exist. I am sure it would be very difficult for parents and families to send their sons and daughters away to these major centres, but I know that most Indigenous parents, the same as other parents, want their children to have the best chance of acquiring qualifications whether it is through study, apprenticeships, employment or post-secondary training.
There are many boarding schools out there that already have a significant cohort of Indigenous students. We must ensure that the existing infrastructure at these boarding schools is well maintained so as to prevent the loss of any boarding places. This bill will see funding of $14.1 million over a two-year period go into the urgent upgrades of accommodation facilities which many of our Indigenous youth rely on for study away from home. This program will target boarding schools that have demonstrated a dedication to accommodating Indigenous students, particularly those students who are at risk of not completing year 12. I understand that waiting lists exist at many of these schools. This funding will provide much-needed capital for the upkeep of existing infrastructure to ensure these schools continue to provide a quality and accessible education for young Indigenous Australians.
When a young Aboriginal person receives an education through one of these institutions the personal benefits are quite obvious through the increased opportunities in the workforce. However, the benefits of an education do not stop with the individuals themselves. These young people become leaders and role models within their home communities. A young Aboriginal person may return to their home town and contribute to their community through their enhanced knowledge, life or job skills. I see the member for Lingiari, who has a significant Aboriginal population in his electorate, in the House. I am sure that he has seen that situation occur many times. Those of us in city seats do not see the real-life examples day by day, but we want to encourage those who are working amongst the communities. Others may never return, but they have still created a pathway for younger members of their community. They are role models who demonstrate that education opens doors and enriches lives.
People who work in the education sector often have the greatest influence on our children when it comes to influencing future careers. This is why it is essential that we encourage as many Indigenous people as possible to become educators. This bill will see around 200 Community Development Employment Project positions converted to actual jobs within the educational sector. These real jobs have been created as part of a broader $97.2 million program announced by Minister Hockey, which will see participants gain the benefits of employment, including wages, leave, super and professional development. It is a win-win situation: 200 CDEP positions will become real jobs for Indigenous Australians—but, perhaps more importantly, it will encourage more Indigenous Australians to go into the education sector. It is important that Indigenous students have these role models as their teachers and educators. Education providers, including state and territory governments, will be expected to at least retain their current commitments to CDEP participants taking advantage of this package. The Australian government, along with state and territory governments, have made a commitment to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education policy to support more Indigenous people to become employed within the education sector. This bill means that 200 Indigenous Australians will be able to do just that.
While acknowledging that we do have a long way to go as a nation to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians when it comes to education, we have certainly been making some progress. Over the past decade incremental progress has occurred across all sectors of Indigenous education. In its 2005 report Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage the Productivity Commission pointed to education as one area demonstrating clear improvements in recent years. In 2006 all education ministers agreed to endorse and implement Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005-08. The Australian government’s funding arrangements for this period will redirect funding towards initiatives that have a proven track record of success. It will also place greater weighting of funding towards Indigenous students at greatest disadvantage.
There have been a number of promising trends across the Indigenous education sector over recent years, and many of these improvements have been in remote areas targeted by the federal government programs I have spoken about today. Between 2001 and 2005, Indigenous primary and secondary school enrolments have increased the most in remote areas. Indigenous participation in the VTE has grown strongly in all locations between 1996 and 2005—and most of these improvements have again come in remote areas, I believe—by approximately 117 per cent. This government is working on closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in the national benchmarking of reading, writing and numeracy at years 3, 5 and 7. There is much further work to be done in that area.
In vocational and technical education a substantial increase in award completions has occurred at the IESIP target group of AQF certificate III or higher, with a 17 per cent increase in completions at certificate III level, and a five per cent increase at the diploma plus level. Indigenous higher education graduates also continue to have higher take-up rates into full-time employment. Over the 2005-08 period this government has directed $214.7 million towards tutorial assistance to help Indigenous students in all sectors improve their literacy and numeracy.
I certainly believe that this is a significant week. We have celebrated the signing 40 years ago of the vote in favour of recognising Indigenous Australians. It was a landmark period. Of course we have much to be proud of in terms of the fact that we have come a long way. But in terms of any benchmark, we still have a long way to go. This bill will do much in assisting further education in our Indigenous community, closing the gap in terms of retention at schools and literacy standards, and bringing young people in and providing better accommodation for them at boarding schools and other institutions.
We certainly support this. We want to continue supporting the work of those who are directly involved in this program. These are the people that we respect very much in our community. They have had in many ways a tragic history since white settlement, but we are moving to redress those issues. We are moving to change our assistance program. There is much to be done in health, much to be done in education and much to be done in terms of the life expectancy amongst the Aboriginal community, but this is a step in the process. I certainly commend the minister, and I commend the bill to the House.
9
13:09:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I thank the member for Cook for his contribution. This is a subject area in which there should be stronger bipartisan support. On this piece of legislation, the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, we do have bipartisan support for the proposals which are inherent in it, although I have to say I do not think they go far enough and they are too late, in a sense. They are things which should have been done a long time ago. Sadly, and this bears observation, when the Howard government came to government in 1996 it axed a whole range of programs which were then operating in the area of Aboriginal education. What we are seeing today is in a sense a reinvention of some of those programs, particularly in the case of providing the opportunities for young people to go away to boarding school.
But I am not going to be churlish about this. I think it is very important that the initiatives which are in this legislation are given support. As we acknowledge, in terms of educational opportunity there are many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who have missed out and are indeed missing out as we speak. It is that group that we need to pay particular attention to. I also want to commend the contribution of the member for Jagajaga and endorse her remarks. I particularly commend to the chamber the amendment which she moved and I have seconded. I hope the government can see merit in what those propositions say.
The objectives are, firstly, to eliminate within a generation the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, so that every Indigenous child has the same education and life opportunities as any other child; secondly, to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within 10 years; thirdly, to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children aged under five within a decade; and, fourthly, a long-term bipartisan national commitment to work with Indigenous Australians towards achieving these goals and overcoming generational disadvantage.
I submit that those proposals are eminently supportable. I would hope that the government, in this week of reconciliation, see it within their hearts to be able to come to the dispatch box one by one—sorry, there is only one other speaker from the government in this debate. I hope that the minister, in her concluding remarks, might say to this chamber that the government will support the opposition’s proposed amendments. That would be a first, I have to say, but nevertheless it would be a most welcome thing for her to do.
There is an opportunity here for the government to show that we in this place, as an example to the Australian community, as leaders in this country and as people who debate legislation across the chamber, should be saying to the Australian community that we have it in our hearts to work together on these issues—that we are prepared to put our hands across the table and say that we will support, in this case, the government’s proposals, which we are glad to support, or, in the case of the amendments which we have put today, for the government to say to us, ‘We’re happy to support them as well,’ so we pass not only the legislation which the government has proposed but pass it with the amendments included. That would be a first, but nevertheless we live in hope.
It is true that National Reconciliation Week is a time for us to renew our commitment to reconciliation and to think about how we can help turn around the continuing disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I think this disadvantage is no clearer than with regard to the state of Indigenous education, a subject about which I have spoken on many different occasions in this chamber. I have mentioned previously—most recently in March this year—that, in my own electorate of Lingiari, in my estimation, between 3,000 and 5,000 young Territorians have no access to any sort of mainstream high school educational opportunities or vocational education and training opportunities. These are students who typically have completed their schooling in years 6 and 7.
Unfortunately, until 2001 in the Northern Territory, as a result of deliberate government policy—in this case by the conservative administration of the Country Liberal Party, who governed the Northern Territory from 1978 to 2001—not one high school was built in any Aboriginal community across the Northern Territory. So the capacity for young Aboriginal Territorians who live in remote communities to access mainstream education services was almost nonexistent. The only opportunity they had to do that was by going away to school, and a number of them did and still do. Since the election of the Labor government in the Northern Territory in 2001, there has been a concerted effort to establish secondary school facilities in Aboriginal communities. Four years ago, in 2003—102 years after Federation—for the first time, three Indigenous students got their year 12 certificates in a bush school in the Northern Territory. That of course is shameful. It is a blight on all of us that this should happen. We in this place have an opportunity to make changes to ensure that that sort of situation is remedied effectively and completely.
We know that there is a backlog. As a result of deliberate policy decisions taken by previous governments there is at least one generation of Aboriginal Territorians, possibly two, who have had no access to educational opportunities beyond primary school. What position does that put them in? We hear much from people—ill-informed and ignorant observers—who say that Aboriginal people are welfare dependent. It is true that welfare dependency is something which Aboriginal Australians by and large want to be rid of. But it is also true that, if you do not equip people with the basic foundation skills to be able to acquire a job or access training opportunities, they are going to end up beholden to the taxpayer for transfers from Treasury. That is what will happen. It is inevitable. It would happen if that situation existed in Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra. If you do not provide young Australians with educational opportunities, if we do not give them a chance to be literate and numerate, if we do not give them the opportunity to complete their high school education—to complete years 10, 11 and 12—then their capacity to enter the workforce in a meaningful way is all but nonexistent.
We in this place have an obligation to make things change. We have to do something special in these communities. I could be critical of many of the initiatives that have been introduced by this government over a period of years, but again it would be churlish of me. Any change which makes a difference to people’s lives, which provides them with an opportunity—regardless of how misguided that opportunity might be—is important. Giving kids an opportunity to get an education, as proposed in this legislation—as meagre as the proposals are—is absolutely important. We welcome the proposals in this legislation to increase the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program this year by $2.6 million, to provide $14.1 million for infrastructure funding to enable boarding schools catering for significant cohorts of Indigenous students to repair and replace aged and deteriorating facilities, and to provide $5.3 million to convert Community Development Employment Project places into ongoing jobs in the education sector. But these measures go nowhere near far enough. If we do an audit of the facilities that exist in many remote communities in my own electorate, we will see that they are entirely deficient. If we look at the staffing in those schools, where they exist, we would say that we need to provide more, because that is how we will make a difference.
I note that the member for Jagajaga referred to the issue of a reciprocal partnership and to the issue of respect. If we have respect for one another, if we respect the right of all Australians to an educational opportunity—no matter who they are and wherever they might live—and if we say also that we believe there should be a reciprocal partnership, then that partnership implies proper reciprocity. When we are evaluating what the reciprocity might be, governments have an obligation to make sure that the people they are providing services for are able to be involved in that reciprocity on an equal basis, not in a position of weakness. The problem we have at the moment is that it is a one-way street. Governments have historically—and I go back to what I said about the CLP government in the Northern Territory—failed to provide the infrastructure or the services. Now we have it on our conscience to provide that infrastructure and those services. Then we can talk about reciprocity, because we can say to those people that the Australian community is, with them, going to develop opportunities for their children, in their communities or elsewhere, to make sure they have proper opportunities in life. Then we can talk about reciprocity, equality and respect. Unfortunately, I do not think we are there yet.
We have heard a lot in this place, from time to time, about educational standards. We have heard that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students—and the member for Jagajaga highlighted this point—are not achieving the minimum literacy that they need to progress through school, let alone to thrive. This is a fact made patently obvious in the benchmarking figures put out annually in the National Report on Schooling in Australia. Benchmarking began in 1998 as a part of the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan. Whilst I am loath to overwhelm the House with endless statistics, I believe the following statistics are telling. These are figures for Indigenous students achieving benchmarks in the Northern Territory. In 2005, 40.1 per cent of Indigenous students in year 3 achieved the reading benchmark, 40.3 per cent achieved the writing benchmark and 68 per cent achieved the numeracy benchmark. As we go to years 5 and 7, we find the position deteriorating. In year 5, 40.7 per cent achieved the reading benchmark, slightly above that of year 3; 36.1 per cent achieved the writing benchmark, substantially less than that of year 3; and 35.1 per cent achieved the numeracy benchmark, significantly less—half the amount and half the percentage performance—than that of year 3. In year 7 we find the situation deteriorating even further: 36.8 per cent for the reading benchmark, 34.6 per cent for the writing benchmark and 24.9 per cent for the numeracy benchmark.
Clearly, there are concerns about this data. I would certainly question some of it. I think the figures do overstate in many respects the level of achievement. But on the face of these figures, we can see that the longer Indigenous kids stay at school, the worse their achievements become—when measured against those of non-Indigenous students.
Looking at the results for Indigenous children as a whole, it is clear that far fewer Indigenous children are achieving the benchmarks and that the difference is particularly marked in year 5. Out of every 10 Indigenous students in year 5, more than seven in Western Australia, six in South Australia and four in the Northern Territory achieve the literacy benchmark. Of course, the situation in remote communities is worse still. Data from the Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training’s 2004-05 annual report shows that only two out of 10 children in remote Territory communities passed the years 3 or 5 literacy benchmarks. In 2005, on the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara lands in South Australia, three in 10 children achieved the literacy benchmark in year 3, more did so in year 5 and four in 10 did so in year 7.
We have to do a great deal more, and programs to do so do exist in schools. Many schools and many dedicated professional teachers are carrying out their tasks in a proper way—consulting with communities, talking to communities and making sure that the service they provide is A1. But problematically a significant proportion of kids come to school with severe otitis media—70 or 80 per cent of school age kids in many of these bush communities have severe hearing loss—and undernourished. They come from homes which are overcrowded. They might come from a community such as Wadeye, for example, which has the highest rate of rheumatic heart disease in the world. You have to say to yourself: how can we get better outcomes?
I think the way has been marked, in part at least, by the initiatives which were announced by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Rudd, on Sunday. The most significant of those initiatives go to the question of providing real opportunity to every child by addressing the fundamental issues of disadvantage concerning young Australian children—in particular, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Those proposals should be supported. I say to government members: find it within your hearts not to look across this chamber and say, ‘It’s come from the opposition and therefore we’re going to oppose it,’ but to look across this chamber and say what you should be saying: ‘This is a bloody good idea. It’s a really good idea. We can see how it would benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia and would also be of substantial benefit to this nation.’
If they were to go away and do that, we would find that bipartisan support is not just a rhetorical flourish. They would say, ‘With that we can achieve something meaningful in this place.’ I believe it is something we can meaningfully achieve if we are prepared to work together. As I have said in this place before—and I know the member for Banks has said it before and the member for Jagajaga, who is the shadow minister, has said it before—we are prepared to walk across the line and talk to the government about how together we can meaningfully make a significant change to the appalling conditions in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people find themselves in this country. We must do it together, and this week, the week of reconciliation, provides us with a supreme opportunity to do that.
It is not about blackguarding one another. It is not about taking cheap political points. It is about saying that we as a nation have an obligation to the whole community and also a principal obligation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to make a meaningful difference to their lives and the way they currently experience government policy. We can do that by working together; we can make meaningful change. But we will not make meaningful change unless we accept as an absolute priority that we have got to give these young Australian kids, these Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, real life opportunities. We will do that not only by passing the proposed act which has been put forward by the government but by supporting the amendment which has been put by the opposition. Then we will be showing to one another not only that we can come to this place and often argue in conflict but also that we can come to this place and demonstrate to the Australian community that we can walk out hand in hand together and say, ‘Together we have concluded an agreement to make life better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.’
14
13:29:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—No-one would want to deny the genuine sentiment expressed by the honourable member for Lingiari a moment ago in his speech on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I am someone who finds it unacceptable in 2007, after a couple of centuries of European settlement in Australia, that we have Indigenous outcomes that are not anywhere near as good as we would like them to be. I think it is important always to depoliticise the argument in the area of Indigenous affairs, because this government and, I suspect, earlier governments have done the best that they can to improve Indigenous outcomes. This government has focused on practical reconciliation—nuts and bolts matters which will improve things such as housing, water and education. History will record this government as achieving probably more than any other government in the area of Indigenous improvement.
A number of years ago, when I was chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I saw a reference from the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, Michael Wooldridge, into Indigenous health. I found it unacceptable that Indigenous men live for close to 20 years less than non-Indigenous men. I found it unacceptable that infant mortality in the Indigenous community was as high as it was. The committee worked in a bipartisan way and, after I ceased to be chairman, brought down a report. No doubt the government has picked up some of the points included in that report but, ultimately, in so many areas, including education, we still have Indigenous disadvantage.
I am a strong believer in the need for a level of accountability with respect to spending on Indigenous programs that is equal with what the community at large expects with respect to spending on non-Indigenous programs or programs affecting the general community. In the past, some of the stories we have heard about the lack of accountability have made it very difficult for governments to get the necessary community support to increase spending on Indigenous affairs to substantially improve Indigenous outcomes.
There has been criticism of the opposition in that, when they have been in office, they seem to have been focused, as far as Indigenous affairs are concerned, too much on process and not on outcomes. They seem to be more determined to ensure that there is Indigenous self-determination rather than looking at the bottom line of what a particular program is achieving. I would hope that, in the future, the Australian Labor Party will become more practical and realise that outcomes are important, and process certainly ought to be looked at, but that one ought not to become focused on process at the expense of positive outcomes concerning Indigenous Australians.
If you walk down the main street of any town in Australia, most people you talk to would agree that Indigenous Australians suffer a wide range of challenges in their everyday lives which other Australians do not face. We all face challenges, but Indigenous Australians seem to face more challenges than most. They range from social challenges through to education, health, employment and crime. These hardships are often unique to Indigenous Australians, and it is pretty clear that the problem cannot be solved solely by government or solely by Indigenous communities. It is important to focus on the need to improve the quality of life and future prospects of Indigenous Australians. That is one of the reasons why I greatly admire Noel Pearson, who has been prepared to break out of the mould. He has been prepared to state some difficult home truths for some Indigenous people and some difficult home truths for those who want to politicise this debate on Indigenous affairs.
All Australians deserve access to quality education. Providing access to quality education and encouraging learning amongst Indigenous Australians are important steps in ensuring the ongoing stability and strengthening of Indigenous opportunities. A quality education, no matter what one’s background happens to be, provides an opportunity for a person to succeed. History will record that there are many Australians who started with nothing, who worked hard, who studied and who have risen to great heights due to their determination and willingness to learn. Importantly, despite the perception that there has been inadequate progress in improving educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians, there have been very many incremental improvements over the past decade, and the current Australian government is determined that this should continue.
This bill will facilitate changes to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, which will add further support to Indigenous Australians determined to make a success of their lives. These initiatives were announced in the budget and include an increase in funding for Indigenous educational programs of some $26.1 million in 2007-08. This government is able to improve spending on Indigenous programs to improve Indigenous outcomes because of our sound economic management since we were entrusted with the keys to office in 1996. We have repaid over $90 billion of Labor debt. Had we not done so, the government of the day would have to spend some $8.5 billion in interest on that federal government debt. If the government is paying $8.5 billion—$8.5 thousand million—in interest payments then it is clear that it does not have the financial wherewithal to improve spending on Indigenous programs and, indeed, on other desirable social outcomes. The initiatives contained in the budget are designed to offer support to Indigenous Australians to help them address the unacceptable issues that are adversely affecting them and preventing them from achieving the success they are capable of.
I believe that we should look outside the square in terms of the way education has been delivered to Indigenous Australians since Australia was discovered by the British. We should consider the Australian government’s responsibility to totally take over the matter of educating Indigenous youth. It is fairly clear that the states and territories of Australia have comprehensively failed. The Australian government provides a lot of the money. They provide the infrastructure, the schools, the teachers, the day-to-day education. Yet, when one looks at the level of educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians, we see they are so much lower than the outcomes for other Australians. Maybe it is time for the Australian government to take over responsibility for Indigenous education.
As I said in a speech recently in parliament, I would extend that to say that the Australian government should become responsible for education generally. We have a difficulty in Australia: we have six states, we have two territories and we have a number of educational systems. These days people are increasingly mobile, and students are often disadvantaged by moving from one state to another state because of different standards, different levels of progress and different curricula. So, while I would support in the first instance the taking over of responsibility for Indigenous education by the federal government, I would extend that to education more generally.
Returning specifically to the bill before the House, the initiatives include increased funding for programs that address the limited secondary and training opportunities in remote Indigenous communities, including an increase of $4 million, to $36 million, for the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. This will increase the number of scholarship places available from some 250 to 1,000 places. There is also an increase of $2.6 million, to $33.2 million, for the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, which increases the scholarship places in this program from 640 to 1,500 over a period of four years. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be interested to be advised that, as a result of these budget initiatives, more Indigenous people from remote and rural areas will have access to opportunities for education and training that will give them a better chance at a good job in the future. These are opportunities that are limited or not currently available to Indigenous people.
This bill also facilitates the allocation of funds for boarding schools to enable them to expand facilities that will help cater for the additional Indigenous students who will come to the schools to extend their education. It does stand to reason that increasing the scholarship places will not help if there are not enough dormitories, beds and facilities for these students to utilise while they are studying. In many cases they will have travelled many hundreds of kilometres away from their families and communities to try to better themselves. They need a place with comfortable surroundings in which to live, as all school boarders do, to ensure that they are able to reach their full potential. We have many good boarding schools in Australia. I think one of the significant changes in Australian education is that more and more boarding schools seem to be closing their boarding houses and becoming day schools. This bill aims to encourage boarding schools and make it possible for these boarding facilities to remain for Indigenous students. Over two years $14.1 million will be spent to help provide this additional infrastructure, while ensuring that those who currently have places are not left out. This type of practical support will have a significant impact on Indigenous students and their families—not only by giving them a place to stay while they improve their education but also by addressing the issue of waiting lists for Indigenous students wanting to access these places.
The bill will also assist in the conversion of a number of Indigenous development employment positions into positions in the education sector. Some $5.3 million will be allocated through this bill in 2007-08 to shift some 200 Community Development Employment Project positions into the education field. Some $15.1 million will be allocated to this issue over four years. It is vital that staff are employed in these developmental positions, and it makes sense that these staff will be used to support Indigenous students to encourage the best possible educational outcomes.
This bill before the House is another step forward. It does not offer a panacea. It will not fix the fact that Indigenous students do not have quite the same opportunities as other Australian students. It will not solve the problem overnight, but it is an important incremental step forward to improve outcomes and opportunities for Indigenous students. I am particularly pleased therefore to commend this bill to the House.
16
13:41:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—I rise to support the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. In doing so, I also rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga and seconded by the member for Lingiari. That amendment is in the following terms:
... the House commits to the following goals:
-
to eliminate the 17 year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, so that every Indigenous child has the same educational and life opportunities as any other child;
-
to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within ten years;
-
to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children aged under five within a decade; and
-
to a long-term, bipartisan national commitment to work with Indigenous Australians towards achieving these goals, and overcome generational disadvantage”.
I think it is appropriate for the House to accept this amendment in the week that we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum. I think it is appropriate that the House act in a bipartisan way in relation to those aspirations and goals that have been outlined in the amendment. It then becomes for both sides an aspiration that we need to work to. In relation to the bill before the House at the moment, the explanatory memorandum says:
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to appropriate additional funding to facilitate the provision of improving opportunities for Indigenous students through the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Mobility Programme, the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Leadership Programme, the provision of infrastructure funding for boarding school facilities and where government and non-government providers agree, the conversion of Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) programme places into ongoing jobs in the education sector.
Looking at the financial impact, the bill will increase appropriations by a net $26.1 million over the 2007-2008 calendar years on additional initial 2005 prices. There is a breakdown of how that figure is achieved.
The second reading speech of the Hon. Julie Bishop, Minister for Education, Science and Training, said:
The proportion of young Indigenous people living in remote areas who reach year 12 is approximately half that of their metropolitan peers, and only one in 10 actually completes year 12. Approximately one in four 15- to 19-year-old Indigenous people lives in a remote area.
Up to 1,610 students will benefit from the expansion of two successful programs, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. The increase in the number of scholarships offered under the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program and the places available under the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program will allow more young Indigenous people to access high-quality education and training to make informed life choices.
They are noble objectives and that is why the bill should be supported, but we should not kid ourselves; we are only scratching the surface in this regard. In the public domain we have evidence that shows how poorly the Indigenous children in remote areas are treated. We have just had a complaint that was lodged on behalf of an Indigenous school in the Northern Territory and it is important to detail aspects of that complaint to the House today to show that we have a long way to go.
My solution is pretty simple. Forty years ago the people of Australia voted in overwhelming numbers—90.77 per cent—to give the Australian parliament responsibility over Indigenous Australians. In my view, that responsibility extends to protecting them from the inadequacies of state and territory governments. It does not involve abrogating our responsibilities to state and territory governments who have a particularly poor history when it comes to Aboriginal people, and the first 67 years of Federation showed that. Today we have mortality rates whereby 24 per cent of Aboriginal men live to the age of 65 and 35 per cent of Aboriginal women live to the age of 65, and we run around this country and say how well-off we are when our fellow citizens cannot get a decent education and their life expectancy is worse than Third World standards.
There is a national responsibility that has been imposed on this parliament and we should act and, in instances where state and territory governments are abrogating their responsibility, we should legislate over the top of them. We have the power to do that under the referendum; there is no doubt about that. I have discussed this with a number of legal friends of mine and it is my considered view that this parliament has that power and we should act.
In the Northern Territory we have the situation where Arnold Bloch Leibler have been engaged on behalf of the community of Wadeye to seek an official apology and compensation for what they say is prolonged underfunding of their children’s education. Wadeye is the largest Indigenous community in the Northern Territory. The claim is that the government has discriminated against the children and denied them access to federal education funds for almost three decades. The head of the firm’s public interest law practice says:
The community is seeking conciliation rather than litigation, but would proceed to the Federal Court if necessary.
The first concern is the vast underfunding of a collection of Northern Territory schools, including Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School at Wadeye, caused by an agreement struck between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government in 1979 that has not been updated since. Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School at Wadeye is the only school servicing Wadeye’s population of about 2½ thousand people. This agreement was recently exposed in a report called The opportunity costs of the status quo in the Thamarrurr region by J Taylor and O Stanley.
The National Indigenous Times reveals that, to his credit, the Prime Minister has written to the Territory government asking them to change the status of the school from a mission school. I understand that the funding formula will be looked at in the near future. But there is the question of the remedies for past conduct. Apparently the attendance rate at the school is now around 460. However, because of the Northern Territory government’s formula, the school is only being funded for around 220 students. I understand the Northern Territory government gets funding for the number of students but they only distribute in relation to attendance and the attendance is taken in the fourth week of the school year. For that reason the Northern Territory government is basically pocketing the money. Also in that study it has been discovered that for every dollar that is spent on the education of non-Indigenous students only 47c is being spent on Indigenous students. Table 26 on page 43 of the report sets that out in relation to the current situation in Wadeye. That is a disgrace.
There is also another element of the complaint to do with the underfunding of 12 profoundly disabled children at the school, each of whom receives little or no funding of the kind that others get in similar circumstances at mainstream schools. It seems to me that Indigenous children are getting less assistance than others. Where an argument could be made for a positive discrimination—and the racial discrimination convention allows for positive discrimination to bring people up to the level of equality that others enjoy—what we are getting is the reverse. We are basically getting a situation where if the complaint is properly made, schools are shown to be underfunded or operating on formulas that are questionable. This is where there needs to be some cooperation, both at a federal and at a state level, in relation to these situations.
In the National Indigenous Times of 3 May there was a narrative on the Wadeye situation. One thing that should be pointed out, and the paper did so, is that the average life expectancy of a Wadeye male is 47 years—30 years less than the national average for a white Australian male. I have to say that I do not take kindly to the current minister’s lecturing and hectoring attitude Indigenous affairs when you have a situation where, on a proper examination, it is clear that it is basically the Territory and federal governments which are at fault in relation to some of these situations where children have not attended school.
It is no good saying that everyone should learn English if you are not going to make adequate provision to house children. The newspaper points out that, in 2003, 420 students enrolled in Wadeye in the first week of the school year. In 2004, the number grew to 467. But in 2005 it exploded to 582—a 25 per cent increase—after a strong push by Wadeye residents to ensure that as many children as possible attended school. And last year the figure climbed to 628. This year, again, the school began with 600-odd students. So the Wadeye community was trying to do the right thing. They were part of a pilot program that the federal government announced under former ministers. But, as the paper points out, in 2007, whilst 600 students are enrolled at Wadeye, the school is built to house just over 300 people. So, on any given day, half the enrolled students do not have access to a classroom. If that is the situation, is it any wonder that kids do not show up in subsequent weeks? And that then impacts on the funding the school gets.
So, on any given day, half the school population does not have access to a classroom, and 60 per cent of them do not have access to a teacher. Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the Indigenous community; it is the fault of the Commonwealth and Territory governments for not providing adequate resources and adequate teachers.
This is a situation that is allowed to continue. Everyone turns a blind eye. It only gets exposed when there is a bit of a kerfuffle and a report is done. The thing that worries me is that people get concerned about it for a little while, while it is in the news, and then the report gathers dust and nothing is done about it.
It is no wonder that the community has taken the drastic action of launching a class action to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging that for three decades the Northern Territory and federal governments have deliberately underfunded their education. So the claim certainly spans generations. I am told by my colleague the member for Lingiari that, under the former CLP government, prior to 2001, 56c in the dollar was being pocketed by the then Territory government in terms of Commonwealth funding.
It seems to me that the Commonwealth should be a bit more discerning in the way they fund state and territory governments when it comes to Indigenous people. I think the Prime Minister said that he is not really into setting targets. I can remember, from when I was on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—when from 1996 to 2000 I was the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs—the former minister, Senator Herron, talking about benchmarking. We should be benchmarking state and territory governments in terms of the funding that they get, and we should be holding them accountable.
I am a fan, in areas such as this, of giving tied funding, conditional funding, to the states and territories. The justification and basis for that is our special responsibility under the Constitution, as a result of the 1967 referendum, to protect and nurture our Indigenous population. This is not just going to happen by mere rhetoric. It is not going to happen because we all feel good about it. No-one believes that we need to do that when we give special funding to the remote communities and the farming communities when there is drought or whatever, because it is regarded as assistance that is necessary to help those communities through their suffering. But, in relation to the Indigenous community, we, as a federal parliament, should not only increase our performance but should make no apologies for standing up to states and territories when it comes to education and a whole range of other matters for which we give them money to improve the lot of our Indigenous brothers and sisters.
This is not a situation where one side is guiltier than the other. Both sides are guilty, because it does not exercise our minds on a daily basis. For most of us in the cities it is out of sight and out of mind. But we would not cop this sort of situation, that of the funding of Wadeye, if it were in our schools—in Double Bay, Killara, Wollstonecraft or any of our electorates in the city. We would not cop a formula that says, ‘We’ll give you the money according to the number of students but you only have to distribute it on the basis of attendance in the fourth week of term.’ This is red hot. And when you have reports from professional people like Mr Taylor and Mr Stanley from the ANU that are now on the government’s desk, it behoves the government to act.
I do commend the Prime Minister for writing a letter to the Northern Territory minister and saying, ‘I want to see an end to this mission situation in relation to Wadeye.’ It was good that the Prime Minister visited Wadeye to see it for himself. But what we want to see are results, down the track, that show improvements. That is our obligation under the Constitution now, as a result of the referendum. We cannot palm it off onto the states or the territories. Aboriginal people are our responsibility. We should not continue to abandon them. We should start looking after them for a change.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
20
Ministerial Arrangements
20
14:00:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time. He is in Sydney addressing the state congress of the New South Wales RSL and, on his behalf today, the Minister for Defence will answer questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
20
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
20
14:00:00
20
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports today from Fueltrac that motorists are paying at least 2c a litre more than they should for every litre of petrol sold in Queensland. Why won’t the Prime Minister instruct his Treasurer to direct the ACCC to formally monitor the price of petrol under part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act—the only way that the ACCC can use its full powers to examine pricing policies behind the scenes and not just at the bowser? Why won’t the Prime Minister finally stand up for working families on petrol prices?
20
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The facts are that the ACCC does very closely monitor petrol prices; it monitors about 55 per cent of sites, which number some thousands. The view of Mr Harris, who is the federal president of the automotive chambers—that is, the combination of the RACV, the RACQ, the NRMA and the like—is that the price being charged at the bowser in Australia accurately reflects the Singapore price. There has been an increase in the Singapore price for a variety of reasons, including some breakdown in refining capacity. It is not possible to divorce the price of petrol in Australia either from the price of crude oil or from the Singapore price. If the views of the chief of the motorist organisations is to be believed, the price at the bowser painfully reflects the very high world price of refined petroleum—and, in those circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition should understand the reality. I know why he asked the question like this but it does not absolve him from a responsibility to pay some regard to the facts of the situation.
Vocational and Further Education
21
21
14:02:00
Henry, Stuart, MP
E0L
Hasluck
LP
1
Mr HENRY
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government’s Skills for the Future policy is helping unskilled Australians? How does this policy help to create jobs and build a stronger economy?
21
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. In answering it I note that, in March 1996, unemployment in the federal division of Hasluck was 7.4 per cent; it is now 3.5 per cent. That is a product of the job-creating policies of the government over the last 11 years. I have some very good news for the member for Hasluck and for people who are interested in skills generation in this country. Last October the government announced the Skills for the Future policy package, which included, amongst other things, a new work skills voucher for unskilled Australians. These vouchers are for up to $3,000 worth of training for an individual. This is, crucially, for more mature-age people who have not completed year 12 or the equivalent qualification or certificate II or higher level qualifications. The original decision was to allocate 10,000 vouchers to cover the period from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007. We thought at the time that the allocation of 10,000 vouchers for the first six months would be adequate. But such has been the popularity of this proposal, such has been the popularity of the scheme, that, to date, in less than six months—indeed, in just under five months—a total of 14,216 vouchers have been issued. That indicates that this program has been an outstanding success. As a result of the success of this program, the government has decided to uncap the number of vouchers for the remainder of this year.
Importantly, of the 14,216 vouchers issued to date, more than 6,000 have gone to unemployed Australians. This helps to strengthen their capacity to get work. When you bear in mind that the level of unemployment in Australia is at a 32-year low and that long-term unemployment—that is, people who have been out of work for more than a year—is at its lowest level since that series began to be compiled, and has fallen by 22½ per cent in the last 12 months, these vouchers represent a very practical contribution towards helping those in the workforce and those wanting to get into the workforce to improve their skills so that they can either get a better job or increase their chances of obtaining a job. This is the kind of practical measure that the nation needs in order to upgrade its skills. It is a recognition that there are still far too many people, particularly middle-aged men, in the workforce who lack skills but who do not lack the motivation to improve themselves. The popularity of these vouchers indicates a sense of hope and optimism amongst those in the workforce and also a sense of hope and optimism amongst that dwindling number of Australians who remain unemployed.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
22
Distinguished Visitors
22
14:06:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade from the New Zealand parliament.
On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
22
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
22
22
14:07:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his answer to my previous question. I refer again to the report that I referred to in the last question Fuel industry consultants, Fueltrac, said:
Queensland motorists are paying at least two cents a litre more for petrol than they should.
Fueltrac managing director Geoff Trotter said this was because major oil companies were adding an extra margin to wholesale fuel prices at refineries.
Mr Trotter said the average price of petrol to motorists used to be nine cents a litre lower than in Sydney and Melbourne because of the Queensland Government’s subsidy.
But for the last six months, the price has been running at only six cents lower.
Mr Trotter said:
We’ve noticed that the wholesale price the oil companies charge in Queensland are in the order of two cents a litre higher than what they are down in Melbourne for instance.
Again I ask the Prime Minister: how can this occur? Why, Prime Minister, won’t you instruct the Treasurer to direct the ACCC to formally monitor the price of petrol and, in particular, the circumstances related to this report as they pertain to fuel prices in Queensland?
22
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I refer, in answer to that question, with even more specificity to a statement made by the chief executive of the Australian Automobile Association, Mr Harris. He was interviewed on ABC radio on Thursday 24 May, 2007. He was asked about the powers of the ACCC. In answer to a question from Ross Solly about the powers being used by the ACCC:
Are they using them enough?
he said, amongst other things:
... more so than they used to.
He went on to say:
Graeme Samuel—
that is, the chairman of the ACCC:
... has made a few public statements in recent times that have had the desired effect. I would have to say, though, that our monitoring of fuel prices at the present time has seen nothing that is out of the ordinary as far as the cycles are concerned. That is not to say that petrol is not expensive. It is expensive. I am not saying it is cheap. The cycles that are going on at the moment are reflective of Singapore prices, they are reflective of the exchange rate prices, and we are not seeing expansion of margins that would suggest that there is any gouging going on.
This is the spokesman for Australian motorists. Normally, these spokesmen tend to give you the worst possible side of the argument. They tend to exaggerate claims. They tend not to understate the concerns of motorists, because it is their job to speak for Australian motorists. I have noted what the Leader of the Opposition has said, and I would say to him that that is not the view of Mr Harris. He is about as credible a representative of the Australian motorist as we could find. Nobody likes high prices—in Queensland or in New South Wales or Victoria or in Western Australia. I have not heard any policy from the opposition that would make petrol prices cheaper. All I have heard is some cheap populism on the subject.
Taxation
22
22
14:10:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, how have the government’s tax and family payment reforms assisted low-income earners? Treasurer, are you aware of any other policies?
23
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. I think it is well known in Australia today that the government’s tax reforms have been of particular benefit to middle-income earners. When the government was elected, about 30 per cent of Australians had a marginal tax rate of 30c or less. Today, about 80 per cent of Australians have a marginal tax rate of 30c or less. Perhaps what is not so well known is that the government’s tax and family payments have also been of particular benefit to low-income earners. Let me give an example. A sole parent family with no additional income, compared to where it was in 1996, has increased its disposable income by 29.8 per cent in 2007-08 dollars. A sole parent family with two kids back in 1996, in constant dollars, would have been taking home a disposable income of $20,518 and today takes home $26,631. That is a sole parent family with two kids, with no additional income and totally reliant, therefore, on the pension and family payments. That has been of enormous benefit for low-income families.
I am asked whether there are any other alternatives to this. Labor has now announced that they are not going to have any more tax policies, and it is pretty easy to see why. Labor last had a tax policy in 2004, the ‘ease the squeeze’ tax policy, signed off by Mark Latham, Simon Crean and Wayne Swan, two of whom are still in this parliament—and two out of three ain’t bad when it comes to tax policies. What did Labor propose doing then with a sole parent family with two children and no additional income? As their own annual tables at the end of their tax policy show, Labor’s proposal was to make a sole parent family with two children $624 a year worse off. It was Labor policy to make a sole parent family worse off. Why was that? It was because Labor had an obsession with abolishing the family tax payment, the $600 per child per annum. When you took that $600 away, the poorest of families were worse off under Labor tax policy.
The member for Lilley does not like to hear it, but the decision to take away the $600 payment per child per family was his and his alone. As the Australian reported on 9 September 2004, Mr Swan said that it was ‘fool’s gold’. He said:
“It’s not real—it disappears.”
When it disappeared, it made you $600 worse off. That is what happened when it disappeared. When it appeared, it made you considerably better off—in fact, under this government, 29 per cent better off. No wonder the Labor Party does not want to come clean on its tax policy for the next election. Look what it tried to do in the last election campaign: make the poor worse off. The important thing in politics is policy. You can scoot by with your focus groups and your advertising agents for only so long. The people of Australia want to know about policy. They know that the policy of the Labor Party is not to make low-income earners better off but to make them worse off.
Drought
23
23
14:15:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do existing exceptional circumstances drought relief arrangements provide sufficient support for farm businesses and families, many of whom are now enduring their fifth year of drought? Prime Minister, what further changes might be possible to assist Australia’s drought-hit farmers?
23
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I do not think the exceptional circumstances support, in the eyes of some, could ever be enough. The Leader of the Opposition asks me what can be done to make it more generous. You could increase the amount of income support, you could increase the generosity of the circumstances in which interest rate subsidies are made available and you could expand the range of businesses that receive support. Of course there are ways in which it could be made more generous. The question you have to ask yourself is whether, in current circumstances, there is a case for a further liberalisation.
There was a very significant liberalisation undertaken by the government, I think earlier this year, following a liberalisation that took place last year. We extended the assistance to small businesses in affected areas. We had significantly liberalised the non-farm income and assets tests. One of my colleagues reminds me that the total amount under exceptional circumstances has now gone well over $1 billion—it is almost $2 billion—so it is very generous. I would be the last person to pretend that you cannot make it even more generous. It is a question of what is fair and balanced in current circumstances.
I might also remind the Leader of the Opposition that one of the things that have really helped farmers through the ravages of the current drought has been the introduction of the farm management deposit certificates. This was a scheme that was authored by the former Deputy Prime Minister and member for Gwydir when he was a senior member of the government. Essentially, this has enabled Australian farmers to put money into these deposits in good years and to take them out in bad years, with a greatly preferred tax treatment. I have been told by many farmers that the use of these deposits has been their saviour and that is the thing that has helped them through the drought.
I think the exceptional circumstances support is very generous, but it can always be more generous. It is a question of balance. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that last Friday, when I was in Bathurst, I announced a further payment of $8 million to be made before 30 June to the Country Women’s Association—a wonderful organisation—to provide coalface assistance to farmers and much-needed small items. Overall this works in a very effective manner. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think exceptional circumstances are now working very well. They are quite generous. If he says to me, ‘Can they be made more generous?’ obviously the answer to that is, ‘Yes.’ Should they be made more generous? It is a question of balance, having in mind our responsibilities to other people within the Australian community. I think we have the balance right, but I am a person who always keeps these things under review.
Employment
24
24
14:19:00
Wood, Jason, MP
E0F
La Trobe
LP
1
Mr WOOD
—My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent business surveys on employment opportunities? Does the survey indicate that recent workplace changes have created more jobs? Is the Prime Minister aware of any policies that could harm this job creation?
24
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In thanking the member for La Trobe for his question, I remind the House that in March 1996 unemployment in the federal division of La Trobe was 6.2 per cent. It is now a very pleasing 3.4 per cent. The member asks me about any further analysis of the job market in Australia. I can inform the House that in the last couple of days the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers released the inaugural edition of its new publication called the Private business barometer. It is an analysis into the health of private businesses that are defined as having a turnover of between $10 million and $100 million a year. It is a very useful addition to the volume of literature on the economic performance of small to medium sized businesses in this country.
The key findings of this document are very interesting and they are relevant to the question asked by the member for La Trobe. The first of the key findings is general in its application. It says that mid-sized private businesses overall reported strong growth over the past 12 months, with an 11.2 per cent average increase in profits and a 14.9 per cent average growth in sales. It goes on to say: ‘This is expected to surge over the coming 12 months, with a targeted average sales growth of 17.7 per cent fuelling a targeted average increase in profits of 16.6 per cent.’ It says that, while the three-year outlook is not quite as bullish, it remains solid, with a 14.4 per cent increase in sales expected to drive an 11.8 per cent rise in profit. It makes the very strong and obvious point that these businesses are optimistic, they are enjoying the economic conditions of the day and they remain very positive about the future. Very interestingly, the key findings also include the following:
About half (48.6 percent) of businesses responded positively when asked if the Federal Government’s industrial relations reforms would prompt them to hire additional workers ...
Let me repeat that: almost half said that the federal government’s industrial relations reforms would prompt them to hire additional workers. They went on to say that one of the problems was a shortage of qualified people—and I refer the member back to the answer I gave to the member for Hasluck when speaking about skills vouchers being one of the ways that we are addressing that issue.
This document adds to the volume of analysis and literature which says very strongly that our workplace relations reforms have lowered unemployment and boosted the enthusiasm of small to medium sized businesses to hire more workers, and any reversal of our industrial relations reforms would stop, stone dead, the progress towards lower unemployment in this country.
Any hope that the business community might have had that there would be some softening of the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy, some drawing back from the manic determination of the Labor Party if it wins government to bring back the unfair dismissal laws, was destroyed on the Lateline program last night when, on two or three occasions, with great gusto, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that, if Labor won government, she was going to repeal the industrial relations changes of the coalition ‘lock, stock and barrel’. Notice how much more strident she is, notice that all the olive branches, all the willingness to have transitional arrangements for AWAs, all the indications that ‘we were going to talk to business, we were going to be a bit more warm and cuddly to the business community’ are gone. We know, and she has acknowledged it, that Labor’s policy, which is anti-business and anti jobs growth, would be particularly severe on small business. Labor’s policy is designed by the unions for the unions and not for the good of Australian business or for the Australian economy.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already warned business to stay out of the public debate. She has threatened business with injury if it dares to criticise Labor’s policy. We have seen that punitive attitude at work in relation to Mr and Mrs Doolan, the proprietors of that motel in Goulburn. They are the sort of people who will suffer, and suffer very severely, from the policies of the Labor Party if they are implemented. Of course, Dean Mighell, from the Electrical Trades Union, said the thing that he liked about Labor’s industrial relations policy was how it was ‘going to be fun’, if Labor won, enforcing the new industrial relations policy against the interests of business around Australia.
I say in conclusion to the member for La Trobe that the latest evidence in this Private business barometer by PricewaterhouseCoopers is that almost 50 per cent of small to medium sized businesses in Australia see the government’s industrial relations policy—a policy that will be repealed lock, stock and barrel if Labor wins—as being very much an incentive to hire more people. That has got to be good news for the unemployed; it has got to be good news for small business; and equally it has got to be bad news for the unemployed and bad news for small business if Labor’s job-destroying policy is ever given a chance of being introduced.
Workplace Relations
26
26
14:26:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer’s comments on 6 May when he was asked if he could guarantee that a Costello government would not repeal or water down the fairness test the Prime Minister introduced. To that question, the Treasurer replied: ‘Well, I’m not going to speculate on what might happen after the election.’ Prime Minister, given that your Treasurer and deputy leader would not guarantee this week’s changes to your Work Choices laws, the last until after the election, why should any Australian believe that they will last?
26
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is verballing the Treasurer. I know that I speak for every member of the government in saying to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, more importantly, the Australian people that the fairness test which has been introduced by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, having been denounced for the last three weeks, is now going to be supported by the opposition. We have had three weeks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying it was a fake fairness test. Last night she said, ‘Oh, there might be one person or half a person who gets some benefit out of it,’ but they go along to the caucus meeting today and say, ‘Oh no, we’re going to support it.’ Well, that is good. I am glad they are going to support it. I am glad they recognise that the fairness test will provide a better guarantee—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—How long is it going to last?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The deputy leader has asked her question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—in relation to people trading off their penalty rates than operates under the preferred option of the Australian Labor Party. We all know that, under the preferred contractual arrangement of the Australian Labor Party, people’s penalty rates and holiday payments can in fact be traded off for very modest amounts. I have even heard of figures under 50c being an adequate trade-off. But under our policy, there will be an independent assessment of whether there has been fair compensation. So let me say on behalf of everybody in the government that, if the government is returned, there will be no watering down of the fairness test.
Transport Infrastructure
26
26
14:29:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
Mr NEVILLE
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the coalition government’s investment in infrastructure is building a stronger future for the nation and helping to boost export performance? Are there any risks to the prosperity that this has generated?
26
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. As the chair of the transport committee for a number of years, he has produced a number of reports that have sought increases in government investment in both road and rail infrastructure across Australia. As a response to those we have delivered in spades in recent years, this government, through AusLink 1 and 2, has committed $38 billion to land transport infrastructure in Australia, with the first stage of that, $2.4 billion, going into rail infrastructure in Australia. I think every Australian understands the history of rail in Australia. The networks have been generated and managed by state governments—some better than others, but mostly not very well. We have had to negotiate, for example, in New South Wales to take over a lease on the main interstate freight line, and also the Hunter Valley coal line, so that we could actually have certainty in investing in those pieces of infrastructure. For example, we are investing $389 million into the Hunter Valley coal line to make it more efficient, to get more coal to the port. Unfortunately, the New South Wales government is not matching that investment at the port to get the coal off the dock and onto the ships. But at least we have fixed up one part of it—
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—Who owns the port?
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—Who owns the port? The New South Wales government and one of the authorities. The member for Hunter interjects. He knows the answer. We are investing in rail infrastructure. But when it comes to Queensland, we cannot, because there is a monopoly in Queensland. The Queensland government and Queensland Rail run a monopoly in Queensland on rail operations. So if the coal mining companies in Queensland want to shift their coal to port, they do not have any choice—they have to do it with Queensland Rail.
We have seen reports in the last couple of days of the frustrations of industry with regard to idle coal wagons that are being parked in side tracks and the lack of capacity in getting their coal to the ports. It is going to cost millions of dollars and many jobs, and they are expressing great concern about it. But the Queensland government are still not doing anything about investing in the rail system in Queensland. They will not allow competition into it and they will not improve it by investing in new rolling stock and infrastructure to try to help service the coal industry to get that coal out. You have a look and you wonder why.
I know that the member for Hinkler, representing the city of Gladstone, would like to see more coal going through the port of Gladstone, a very important city on the central coast of Queensland. But the Beattie Labor government will not do it. We have a look and wonder why. I am sure that behind this is the long reach of the arm of the union movement in Queensland Rail and a few of those entities in Queensland. You wonder: why would they have such significant control over the government in Queensland? We all know that, to be a member of the Labor Party, you have to be a member of a union first. We did a bit of research to see what union Premier Beattie belonged to. The first response we got was that he was actually the Queensland secretary of the rail, tram and bus conductors union. He is not conducting the rail operations in Queensland very well at the moment. But we found out, when we googled another site, that he was actually the secretary of the station masters union in Queensland. The point being that Premier Beattie surely ought to be able to get the rail system to deliver coal to the ports much more efficiently than he is.
The Leader of the Opposition, another Queenslander, has been saying a lot about the end of the mining boom. He is forecasting the end of the mining boom. But we know why he knows there is going to be an end to the mining boom: because if he gets into office, if he gets into this seat over here, the unions will be back in control—they will roll back industrial relations, they will take control of the industrial relations system in Australia. That is what will end the mining boom.
The Leader of the Opposition was asked a few weeks ago on Insiders which union he belonged to. He sort of hesitated for a moment when Barry Cassidy asked the question. He said, ‘Oh, it’s probably the Public Sector Union.’ If you have a look at the Leader of the Opposition’s background you will see that he was actually a member of the Queensland Public Sector Union, but also of the BLF—the old BLF, which has morphed into the CFMEU. We read on Saturday what Kevin Reynolds and the CFMEU want—and they know, and they have publicly stated, that a Rudd-led Labor government will deliver it to them.
Telecommunications
28
28
14:35:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the proposed changeover from the CDMA mobile network to the Next G network. Given the problems being experienced by regional users of the Next G network, and even in this building, will the Prime Minister outline to the House what he believes to be ‘equivalence of service’ between the two networks prior to a switch-off of the CDMA network? Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that the CDMA network will not be turned off until all service delivery problems are totally rectified?
28
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject, and I don’t mind admitting that. And I don’t mind saying to the honourable member for New England that I will seek some advice on the content of his question from those who know a bit more about it than I do. But I will indicate this: ‘equivalence’ sounds to me like one of those words that has to have a common-sense definition. I am not going to make the mistake of giving some kind of on-the-run guarantee. I think it is reasonable that people who live in the more remote parts of the country should have a reasonably equivalent service to those who live in the more densely populated areas—that is a very understandable desire of people who live in regional Australia. That is why in a lot of areas, not only with mobile phone services but also with broadband, the government is going to great lengths to make certain that people in the remote areas of Australia are given a fair crack of the whip. As to the more precise elements of the honourable member’s question, I unashamedly say that I will get some advice and I will provide it to him as quickly as I can.
Workplace Relations
28
28
14:37:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
1
Mrs VALE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House what new protections are available to working Australians? Are there any alternative policies that will threaten recent job growth?
28
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr HOCKEY
—I thank the member for Hughes for her question and note that the unemployment rate in Hughes is now 3.1 per cent, an all-time low. The coalition government has introduced a stronger safety net that will protect over 7½ million Australian workers. The fairness test ensures that these employees will receive fair compensation if they trade away penalty rates or other benefits that come with the award. This means that the workers of Australia can be paid more and not less. It means that the criticisms of the fairness test over the last few weeks by people like John Della Bosca, Sharan Burrow and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were completely unfounded. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are so opposed to the fairness test that they are going to vote for it. They are so opposed to the fairness test, they are going to vote for it. This continues the Labor Party hypocrisy on economic policy.
Of course they claim to be fiscal conservatives now—fiscal conservatives, yet they voted against tax reform. They claim today to be fiscal conservatives, yet they voted against getting the budget into surplus. They claim to be fiscal conservatives and yet they have stood in the way of industrial relations reform. They have claimed to be fiscal conservatives, and they opposed the Future Fund. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, and they oppose privatisation. And now they are so opposed to the fairness test that they are going to vote for it.
The fundamental issue about the fairness test is that it ensures that Australian workplace agreements and collective agreements signed under our laws will have a third party check. An independent third party will ensure that AWAs and collective agreements in fact pay the full award entitlements. So under our laws there is a third party check for AWAs and collective agreements. Under the Labor Party’s laws—under the Labor Party’s common law contracts—there is no third party check. It relies on the goodwill of the employer to properly compensate the employee for taking away penalty rates or other entitlements.
I thought to myself: ‘There is an element of hypocrisy about the Labor Party’s comments on individual contracts.’ You would have thought that the Labor Party would have been so outraged about individual contracts which compensate by paying only 45c an hour that they would have hammered those contracts from one end of the country to the other. Last Wednesday it did not hold the Deputy Leader of the Opposition back from criticising the Doolans and the Lilac City Motor Inn. She went after a small business that employs 13 people. But the next day we find out about a business underpaying 58 people, and not a word from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. No-one could put it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition better than, believe it or not, Tony Jones on Lateline last night. He was a little confused, and so am I. In a question to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to WorkDirections, he said:
If you come across another case yourself where a contract had bought out overtime penalties and other entitlements for 45 cents an hour, you’d have made that public happily, wouldn’t you?
JULIA GILLARD: Tony, I have never criticised an employer for making an honest error ...
TONY JONES: Were those contracts fair in your opinion, to buy out all those entitlements for 45 cents an hour? Was that fair?
JULIA GILLARD—
She goes on with babble, babble. Question 3:
TONY JONES: But was the original contract - it’s a simple question. Was the original contract buying out all those entitlements for 45 cents an hour, was that fair?
JULIA GILLARD—
Babble, babble. Question 4:
TONY JONES: So the original contracts weren’t fair in that case? Is that what you’re acknowledging? I’m confused.
Tony Jones was confused. We are confused as well, Mr Speaker. Question 5:
TONY JONES: Were the original contracts fair or not fair?
JULIA GILLARD: Tony, I’ve answered that for you.
Question 6:
TONY JONES: No you haven’t, well you haven’t.
JULIA GILLARD: Well, I think I have ...
Question 7:
TONY JONES: Did they comply with the award?
JULIA GILLARD: Well, clearly here, some back payments have been made, because there were arrangements which when they came to light and were looked at ... an honest error ...
TONY JONES: So they weren’t fair?
JULIA GILLARD: They weren’t complying with the award ...
TONY JONES: But you said if they don’t comply with the award they’re not fair. Is that right?
JULIA GILLARD: Oh no. Yes Tony ...
‘Oh, no. Yes, Tony’!
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister has the call.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Do you want to know why the Labor Party are so prepared to criticise Australian workplace agreements that have a third party check to ensure that fairness is in place but they are not prepared to criticise individual contracts where there is no third party check? You need look no further than the Labor Party and the ACTU ads—‘The new IR law is a shooting gallery’—where it says that employers are shooting workers on individual contracts. The Labor Party are so opposed to our laws that provide third party protection, but their mates in the ACTU are running ads about individual contracts that for 45c an hour take away the entitlements of the workers. Look at what the Labor Party do, not what they say. When it comes to hypocrisy, they get an A-plus!
Advertising Campaigns
30
30
14:44:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now confirm that the theme of his non-existent climate change advertising campaign is currently ‘climate clever’? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the theme to this campaign may now be changed? What would that cost, the ditching of this theme and replacing it with another?
30
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I remind the House that the budget brought down by the Treasurer several weeks ago included $741 million of new measures to address climate change. On the subject of climate change, this week—for those who are genuinely interested in the climate change debate—this nation will receive the most comprehensive and authentic report on the issue of emissions trading and, unlike the Australian Labor Party, we will not be relying on foreign reports in order to frame our climate change policy.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—We do not borrow European solutions. Those who sit opposite find something amusing about my reference to foreign reports. Let me remind them and let me remind those in the Australian public who are interested in this issue that the following figures highlight the folly of any side of politics in this country relying on a Eurocentric version of climate change in order to frame policy. According to an analysis of all of the exports of the OECD, those exports comprise about 62 per cent—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This was a very specific question about his advertising campaign and whether it will change from the theme of ‘climate clever’ to something else.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will come straight to his point of order or resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Standing order 104, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. I have been listening carefully. The Prime Minister was asked a question about climate change. He is in order. I call the Prime Minister.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—What these figures show is that, for the total OECD area—that is, all the developed nations of the world—manufacturing exports comprised 62 per cent of total exports and resource exports comprised only eight per cent. The corresponding figures for Australia are manufacturing exports—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was specifically about an advertising campaign. Ask the Prime Minister to address that—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. I have ruled on that point. The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Let me repeat that, for the total OECD area, manufacturing exports comprised 62 per cent of total exports, resource exports comprised only eight per cent and the corresponding figures for Australia were, for manufacturing exports, 16 per cent and, for resource exports, 37 per cent.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was: will the Prime Minister now confirm that the theme—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to raise a point of order he may raise a point of order, but he will not repeat his question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, under standing order 104 there is not one element of the question—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have already ruled on that point.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, this is plainly deliberate disruption of the parliament orchestrated by the Leader of the Opposition and it should be dealt with.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I have ruled on the point of order. The Prime Minister is in order and the Prime Minister will be heard.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Let me continue talking about climate change, which I thought was one of the—
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms Kate Ellis
—You are not answering the question about advertising.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Adelaide is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—stellar policies of the opposition. The point of those figures is that, whereas the total OECD area—and this is fundamental to how you handle emissions trading in this country—has exports from the resource sector comprising only eight per cent, for Australia it is 37 per cent. It is therefore supreme folly for either side of politics to embrace a policy which is derived from an essentially Eurocentric view of the world. When the report, which I commissioned in December of last year, is released—it will be handed to me on Thursday—I will have in my possession the most comprehensive analysis ever carried out in Australia on the central issue to the whole climate change debate. What this government intends to do is to know the consequences of targets before we set them.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lingiari is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—We do not intend to embrace the Labor Party’s approach—that is, to set a target without knowing what it means and then scramble around to get some advice about the consequence of that target. We do not intend to put the cart before the horse.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 104, the Prime Minister has now spoken for 10 minutes—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have ruled on that. The member will resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I warn the member for Grayndler! That point of order has been responded to. I have ruled on the point of order.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on what basis was I warned?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I made it very clear that the Prime Minister was in order, and after several points of order he will be heard. Members will not continue to interrupt when the Prime Minister is giving an answer.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister continued to talk about exports and—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the member reflects on the chair, I will deal with him.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I am not, Mr Speaker. It is legitimate to move a point of order under standing orders.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business is reflecting on the chair. He will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—One aspect of dealing with climate change—
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean
—An absolute shocker!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Hotham is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—is the behaviour of individuals, households and business enterprises and the way in which they can take practical steps to reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions and, surely, I would say useful information that helps them do so could also make a contribution. When the Leader of the Opposition first asked me a question—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Jagajaga!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—about this issue on 23 May—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Jagajaga is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I said that the government reserves the right to engage in a public information campaign on climate change and associated matters. I said that on 23 May, and I have constantly referred to that answer in subsequent answers. That remains the position. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition—through you, Sir—that if particular material is produced on such an important topic I would expect it would be practical, informative and helpful to the wider community. It remains the case that no material has yet been approved for distribution.
Workplace Relations
32
32
14:52:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
Mr HARDGRAVE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How do employees in my electorate of Moreton benefit from a modern and flexible workplace relations system? Are there any threats to the stronger economy which this is creating?
32
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr HOCKEY
—There is no doubt the member for Moreton’s electorate benefits from economic reform. That is why in 1996 the unemployment rate in his electorate was 6.4 per cent but today it is 3.8 per cent, and in Queensland, obviously, it is around 3.5 per cent, which is a remarkable low in unemployment. Our flexible and modern workplace relations system has helped to create more than two million jobs in Australia since 1996. More than 320,000 of those jobs have been created in the last 13 months; 85 per cent of those jobs are full time and real wage growth has been around 20 per cent since we came to government in 1996.
There is no doubt that one of the areas where we have seen a significant increase in jobs is small business. Small business, without the removal of the Labor Party’s job-destroying unfair dismissal laws, was scared to employ people who had been out of the workplace for a very long period of time. Those most disadvantaged were women and young people who did not have a recent employment history. So when we removed the job-destroying unfair dismissal laws, small business had the confidence to take a risk and employ people who had no immediate employment history.
It is also the case that the Labor Party’s policies represent a threat to the economy. They represent a threat to the economy because the Labor Party seems to be quite hypocritical about what it says and what it does. The Labor Party’s industrial relations policy guaranteed 24 months for a parent to take parental leave and yet the member for Rankin let the cat out of the bag when he said, ‘In fact, it’s 12 months and if an employer says no, well bad luck.’ That is not a guarantee.
This illustrates a pattern of behaviour: what the Labor Party say in their policy and then the backflips they undertake afterwards. Of course, the first reversal in industrial relations was when the Labor Party said they would have a one-stop shop. Then they forgot that they needed judicial powers and it became a two-stop shop. Now we have found that it has to have a building industry commission, so it is a three-stop shop. They forgot the minimum wage—reversal No. 2. They had 10 minimum standards but they forgot the minimum wage. Then when it came to bargaining fees—this is a cracker—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said this on Neil Mitchell’s program. Neil Mitchell said:
... bargaining fees are banned at the moment ... under your system they wouldn’t be banned, they’d be there for negotiation. Is that a fair comment?
And Gillard said yes. Well, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has now put out a press release saying that the Labor Party are going to support us banning bargaining fees—despite their policy having a different view. So they are all over the shop even on AWAs when it came to one day. We had on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald ‘Rudd ready to backflip on AWAs’ and on the same day on the front page of the Financial Review ‘Rudd holds hard line on IR reforms’—the same day but two different views. So we think that the general public is confused about the Labor Party’s industrial relations agenda. We are confused about the Labor Party’s industrial relations agenda. But you know who else is confused about the Labor Party’s industrial relations agenda? Our old friend Kevin Reynolds. We saw Kevin on the front of the Australian on Saturday having a ham and cheese croissant and a cafe latte, looking over the Swan River, longing for the day when the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister and he can go into every workplace and every construction site in Western Australia and let the bosses know that he is their new friend. I have read the transcript of Kevin Reynolds on The World Today, and he says this:
... the way Julia Gillard is backpedalling on a whole number of issues we’ll have to wait and see what the final outcome of the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy will be.
So Kevin Reynolds says Julia Gillard is back-pedalling on a whole number of issues. All the commentary from the newspapers, from radio interviews and from television says the Labor Party policy is confused—and yet they think they are ready to govern the country. Well, you cannot govern the country if you cannot get economic policy right. Good economic policy comes about because of hard decisions that are made not in the interests of the union bosses but in the interests of the workers of Australia.
Advertising Campaigns
34
34
14:58:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister and I refer to his previous answer when he said that no material has yet been approved for distribution for his so far non-existent taxpayer funded advertising campaign. I refer also to comments made in Senate estimates last week by the head of the Government Communications Unit, Mr Robert McMahon, that ‘until a campaign starts in the media it is not a communications campaign’. Is it the Prime Minister’s position to the parliament that his taxpayer funded climate change advertising campaign has not yet commenced despite the fact that taxpayers’ funds have already been spent on the design of a brochure and a letter to go to millions of households, opinion poll testing of that material, the filming of television advertisements, the opinion poll testing of those advertisements and the booking of air time to show those advertisements? Isn’t the Prime Minister’s clever language on his PR campaign just too clever by half?
34
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—What I think is too clever by half in this debate is to set a target without knowing the economic consequences of it. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I can only repeat—
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—that something is approved—
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Holt is warned too!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—when it receives the imprimatur of the minister. As a former public servant, the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that, no matter how powerful the public servant might think he or she is, until something is approved by a minister it does not happen. It remains the case that no material has been approved.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lilley is warned!
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne has been warned but he continues to interject. He will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Melbourne then left the chamber.
Health: Cancer Treatment Services
34
34
15:00:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
Mr TOLLNER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on progress with radiation oncology initiatives that deliver better cancer treatment services to people in rural and regional Australia? Have there been any obstacles to these initiatives, and what is the government’s response?
34
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Solomon for his question, and I love the way he constantly fights for the people of his electorate to give them the health services they deserve. I can inform him that, since 2001, the Howard government has committed over $160 million to improving cancer services for people in country areas. So far, Toowoomba, Traralgon, Bendigo and Ballarat have new radiation oncology services and Geelong and Perth have expanded radiation oncology services, thanks to the policies of the Howard government.
I very much regret to inform the House that the development of radiation oncology services in Darwin, and also Lismore, shows the procrastination and the bureaucratic ineptitude which is all too typical of the state and territory Labor governments. The Northern Territory Labor government first promised to build a radiation oncology unit during the 2001 election campaign. That was a broken promise. They repeated that promise during the 2004 election campaign. That promise has only finally been delivered thanks to the very hard work of the member for Solomon and no less than $30 million from the Howard government. Sometimes you have to feel sorry for the member for Solomon. He has to do the work of the government in the Territory and the work of the Territory government in Darwin. He does not just have to deliver on our promises; he also has to make the promises of the Territory government come true.
The member for Page also has a very difficult job. In June 2004, the Howard government offered the New South Wales Labor government $8 million towards a radiation oncology unit at Lismore Base Hospital—a great promise to help the people of northern New South Wales. The New South Wales government promised faithfully, solemnly and in writing that construction would commence by the middle of this year. I regret to say that, because of the absolutely astonishing neglect by the New South Wales government, the earliest that Lismore can have this vital service is 2010. And that is only because of the Commonwealth government’s ‘use it or lose it’ ultimatum and because of constant pressure by the member for Page on this incompetent state Labor government.
There is a very clear message in this: if you cannot trust state Labor to deliver decent health services, you certainly cannot trust federal Labor, especially given that the Leader of the Opposition has form when it comes to health. He closed 2,200 public hospital beds in Queensland. He cannot decide whether he is an old-fashioned Christian socialist or a fiscal conservative. But I tell you what: the people of Queensland know what this guy is. That is why their name for him was Dr Death. Dr Death was what they called him. I wonder whether, in the absence of his henchmen, he will have the guts to stand up here and complain about his much loved nickname.
Advertising Campaigns
35
35
15:04:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question, again, is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s previous answer on his taxpayer funded advertising campaign on climate change, when he said, ‘Until something is approved by a minister, it hasn’t been approved.’ Based on what the Prime Minister has just said to the parliament, which minister has approved the expenditure of funds on the design of brochures, on the filming of ads and on the opinion poll testing which underpin the television advertising campaign on climate change which, the Prime Minister continues to tell us, does not exist?
35
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—As I have indicated earlier to the House—or as the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources indicated—provision was made in the budget for a public information campaign in this area. I indicated in the answer I gave on 23 May that the government reserved the right to engage in a public information campaign on climate change and associated matters, and we do reserve that right. But we as a government have not made any decision on the nature of the campaign.
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs Irwin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Fowler is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—And until a decision is made to improve the communication of a campaign—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister has been given the call. The Prime Minister will be heard.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I simply repeat that, if particular material is produced for public distribution on this subject, that material will be practical, it will be informative and it will be helpful to the wider community.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 104, the question was ‘Which minister?’ The Prime Minister has not addressed it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—It remains the case that no minister has approved material for distribution.
World Trade: Doha Round
36
36
15:07:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
Mr McARTHUR
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House what measures Australian farmers are taking to assist in the current World Trade Organisation negotiations? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
36
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr TRUSS
—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question. He represents one of the electorates which contribute very significantly to Australia’s rural exports, which were worth $26 billion last year. Yesterday the National Farmers Federation released a trade policy brief in which they committed themselves to an ambitious outcome in the Doha Round of trade talks. They are working constructively with the government to develop a response to the various policy issues and to look at ways in which we can drive an ambitious agenda forward to a successful outcome. The NFF shares our view that a good outcome from the Doha Round of talks can deliver very substantial benefits to Australian farmers. They have outlined the potential for increases in income of up to eight per cent for Australian farmers if in fact we are able to break down some of those barriers which prevent the access of our products to the best markets of the world. They also know that Australian farmers would be amongst the losers if indeed this round were not to come to a successful conclusion.
Clearly the rules based trade system has been of benefit to Australian agriculture, and indeed Australian industry, over the years. The WTO, in a recent report on Australia’s trade policies and practices over the last four or five years, spoke very highly of the way in which Australia has responded to the trade challenges of the era. They particularly complimented Australia on our workplace reforms. They say in the report:
Unemployment has reached its lowest level in 30 years, in great part due to reforms that have rendered the labour market more flexible.
They go on to comment on the rise in productivity and improved competitiveness of Australia’s goods and services in world markets. The report states:
Reform has also made the economy more flexible and resilient to external shocks, like the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s and, more recently, the drought in 2006.
So the reform of the Australian economy has been good news also for our exports, which of course have more than doubled in the term of this government. The agricultural sector has made a very substantial contribution to that performance.
The honourable member also asked about alternative policies. In that regard I was interested to read in the last edition of the Land newspaper comments attributed to Leader of the Opposition. He claimed to have been up and down more wheatfields than he cares to remember. I would have thought a handful of visits to wheatfields in a lifetime would hardly be more than one would care to remember if you had any sympathy for the rural community whatsoever. This is a man who has hardly befriended the wheat industry over the years. As the minister for health said, he has quite a bit of form on dealing with farmers in his previous role as chief adviser to Premier Goss. That was an infamous period for the farmers of Queensland. Amongst other things, the Goss government closed 13 rail branch lines which were essentially associated with taking the farmers’ wheat to the port for export. The Goss Labor government, under the advice of the current Leader of the Opposition, closed 13 of these lines. They slashed hundreds of staff from the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. They were never to be seen whenever there was a need to provide support for farmers. What is particularly hypocritical in light of the Leader of the Opposition’s question today is that they were nowhere to be seen when drought assistance needed to be provided to Queensland farmers. Labor has an appalling record of providing support to the agricultural sector in tough times and a very poor record of supporting them in their trading needs and helping them to find the best markets in the world. You could not expect any change if ever they were to come to office at the federal level.
Advertising Campaigns
37
37
15:12:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question again is to the Prime Minister and refers to his previous answer. Prime Minister, how much taxpayers’ money has already been spent on the TV advertising campaign on climate change that the Prime Minister said in his last answer as of now has not been approved by any minister?
37
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—No TV advertising campaign has commenced, so the answer in relation to that is no taxpayers’ money. Any testing or other work that might have been done preparatory to the approval of a campaign could have involved expenditure. I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition off the top of my head what the cost of that would have been. I have been maintaining persistently—and I will repeat it again—since the Leader of the Opposition first asked me a question on 23 May that no campaign has been approved for distribution or commencement—none whatsoever. Any work that might have been done in relation to testing or market research would clearly have involved some expense. I cannot say how much that would be without getting separate advice, but I can indicate to the House, as the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources—
RH4
Kerr, Duncan, MP
Mr Kerr interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Denison continues to interject. He will remove himself from the House under standing order 94(a).
The member for Denison then left the chamber.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources indicated last week that money had been provided in the budget for a public information campaign. I indicated last week that we reserve the right to conduct such a campaign. We do reserve the right to conduct such a campaign, but no final decision has been made on that campaign or the content of it. Until it is signed off on by a minister or ministers or a group of ministers involving me, it remains the case that no material has been approved for distribution to the public. That has been my position all along. Of course there has been some expense involved in testing. Of course there has. Of that there is no doubt, but how much that is I will try to find out and let the Leader of the Opposition know.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Banks is warned!
Indigenous Education
38
38
15:15:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
1
Mr HAASE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. What is the government doing to increase education and training opportunities for Indigenous Australians in rural and remote areas?
38
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. All Australians want to see the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students closed. All Australians know that education is the key to greater opportunities for Indigenous Australians and for economic independence. There have been some improvements in education and training outcomes—for example, over the last 10 years the attendance rate of Indigenous students at school has increased by some 50 per cent. There have been increases in the number of Indigenous students in training, in trades and in higher education. But we all acknowledge that more must be done, and in this year’s budget the Australian government focused on programs that are proving to work, that are showing that that educational divide can be closed. In particular, there will now be 1,000 scholarships for Indigenous students who have been identified as young leaders within their community and who will have the opportunity to further their education in regional and metropolitan areas. There is an additional $4,000 that will be paid to Indigenous students wanting to undertake higher education. There are improvements to Abstudy, and there is a $65 million investment in boarding schools in rural and remote Australia that accommodate Indigenous students. All told, this year we will invest some $600 million in Indigenous-specific education programs.
We of course welcome any constructive or genuine contribution to this policy debate. So when Labor produced a document this week called New Directions I thought that there would be some new policy ideas, some well thought out policies and some fresh thinking—after all, that is how they marketed it. But there was something eerily familiar about New Directions: Indigenous Children, so I did a little research and of course I found Australian Directions in Indigenous Education. This was a document that was prepared, published and endorsed by federal, state and territory education ministers last July. This policy document is already in place.
What the Labor Party have done with New Directions: Indigenous Children is just take Australian Directions in Indigenous Education and put a Labor wrap on it. This is not the first time that they have done it—just put a new wrap on it and change a couple of words. Let me take you to—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister has the call. The minister will be heard.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Australian Directions calls for and has endorsed personalised learning plans for every Indigenous student. New Directions calls for individualised learning plans for every Indigenous student.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gellibrand is warned!
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Australian Directions has already endorsed the national literacy benchmarks for personalised learning plans.
3J4
Sawford, Rod, MP
Mr Sawford interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—So is the member for Port Adelaide.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—New Directions has called for national literacy and numeracy testing for individualised learning plans. Australian Directions has endorsed universal access for early childhood education for Indigenous Australians. New Directions calls for a universal right to access early childhood education. What we see here is Labor taking other people’s policies, wrapping the ALP banner around them and calling it fresh thinking. Remember the early childhood policy taken straight from the COAG papers? Remember Labor’s national curriculum taken straight from the government’s policy? Remember the new retention rate policy announced in the budget in reply taken straight from noodle nation? Even the name of their so-called education policy—the education revolution—was taken straight from Mark Latham. The Labor Party are policy frauds. There is no fresh thinking and, what is worse, there is no conviction behind their thinking.
Advertising Campaigns
39
39
15:20:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question again is to the Prime Minister. Why is it that on the fourth day of questioning in parliament on the question of this taxpayer funded television advertising campaign, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to answer even the most basic of questions? How does today’s revelation, from the Prime Minister’s mouth, that such a campaign does exist in any way stand consistent with his remarks to the parliament the other day when he said:
I repeat what I said yesterday: the government has not approved this campaign. I have not, my department has not and my office has not’.
Prime Minister, is it not a fact from these events over the last four days that you stand condemned for misleading this parliament?
39
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The answer is no. If you have the courage, you will move a censure.
PRIME MINISTER
39
Miscellaneous
Censure Motion
39
39
15:21:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—by leave—I move:
That this House censures the Prime Minister for his refusal to tell the House and the Australian people how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on the ‘climate clever’ campaign and his cunning answers to questions asked in this House in order to avoid accountability to the Australian people.
The reason this censure motion has been moved goes to the heart of accountability in this parliament. It goes to whether the executive government is accountable to the parliament for moneys expended in general. But also there is a second question at stake here, and it is the whole essence of our democracy depending on, when we contest matters at an election, and in the lead-up to an election, whether we have a government in this country which, rather than arguing its own proposition to the people, instead systematically dips its hand into the pockets of Australian taxpayers, takes that money and expends it on one advertising campaign after the other in order to convince the Australian people that it is suddenly serious about any of the propositions it is putting forward.
We have seen it already on industrial relations. We are seeing it in a range of other areas as well. And we are about to see it on this question of climate change. We may well ask ourselves this question: why are the government now seeking to use taxpayers’ money to advance their case on climate change to the Australian people barely 3½ months before the election? The reason is: they stand condemned, for they have no credibility on climate change.
As a government which have now been in office for 11 years, where is their credibility? Where lie their credentials on the whole question of climate change and the associated challenge of water? Where do they lie? If you go back to the origin of this entire debate, which is the link between human activity on the one hand and climate change on the other, we began proceedings in the parliament at the beginning of this year with the Prime Minister standing opposite, at the dispatch box, and saying to the Australian people that there was no such connection. He said that the jury was still out, and he was reinforced by many of his ministerial colleagues. And they wonder why, in the events which have unfolded since then, the Australian people doubt whether they have any credibility and standing on this matter whatsoever. Out of your mouth, Prime Minister, at this dispatch box, you confessed your own deep and continuing scepticism about the connection between human activity, greenhouse gas emissions and therefore climate change. And the Prime Minister wonders why the Australian people doubt him. Well, do you know something, Prime Minister? The Australian people look people in the eye and they know when they are being fair dinkum. You have spent 11 years not being fair dinkum on this—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not use the word ‘you’.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—and now you are pretending that you are serious about something you have spent your career denying—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not use the word ‘you’.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—and the Australian people can spot that at 100 paces. In this case, Prime Minister, we are not just dealing with an idle matter of politics which is relevant today and gone tomorrow. We are dealing with the fundamental question of the sustainability of life on the planet. We are concerned about the fundamental question of what environment we bequeath to our kids. We are concerned about the impact which climate change, left unaddressed, will have on the economy, on our businesses, on the entire fabric of the Australian way of life. When it comes to our quality of life, our access to beaches, waterfronts et cetera, this is a challenge which goes to the heart and soul of what Australia is all about.
And guess what has happened? We have had in this place a Prime Minister who, for 11 years, has stood in this place and been a rolled-gold climate change denier. Earlier we described him as a ‘climate change sceptic’. There is one place you graduate to from being a climate change sceptic and that is to the status of being a climate change denier. But suddenly what we discover is that there has been a change.
What is the change that has caused our Prime Minister to have his Damascus-road experience on the question of climate change? Could it be something to do with Crosby and Textor? Could it possibly be something to do with opinion polls? Could it possibly be to do with someone having their ear to the electoral ground, 3½ months before this Prime Minister has to call an election, and him saying, ‘Jeez—we’ve got a problem here! And what are we going to do about it? How do we convince the Australian people that I, John Winston Howard, am suddenly convinced about a proposition I have spent the previous 11 years denying?’
He is going to talk later this week about emissions trading. In 2003, Prime Minister, your cabinet considered a submission on this. The Prime Minister knows that. It is a fact. It is an inescapable, proven fact that the Prime Minister, four years ago, had a submission before him on emissions trading which was rejected in toto. You took no action—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks through the chair.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The Prime Minister took no action whatsoever on the question of emissions trading when he had the opportunity to act and the national interest demanded that he act. Instead, what he did was to pander to certain sectional interests in the community and decide instead to sit on his hands and do nothing—to do precisely zero. Prime Minister, that is not leadership. That is not leadership at all. That is just waiting around, kicking the sand and waiting till the next opinion poll comes in. And do you know something? Everyone in the country knows it. And if you, 3½ months before an election, think that it is a clever thing to do—and obviously the Prime Minister believes it is clever—to sink your hand deep into the pockets of Australian taxpayers and pull out a huge bucket of money to fund some clever ads on television, to convince the Australian people that suddenly you take this proposition seriously, the Australian people are not about to be fooled. They want a Prime Minister in this country who will exercise national leadership on a—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Flinders is warned!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—matter of national interest and have consistently done so ever since the evidence has been in.
We can go to the early government reports on climate change. If there were some evidence to be argued, on the opposite side of politics, that they had only just received a report which joins the dots on climate change, you could perhaps accept the proposition. But no—if you look at the earlier risk assessments of the relevant government agencies of the Commonwealth government on the impact of climate change, its existence and its connection with economic impact and environmental impact, you will see the government has had this evidence in its possession for years. Everybody knows that.
So what has changed? The science has not changed. The opinion polls have changed. And when the opinion polls change, the folk over there in the advisers box get to work, and they drum up an advertising campaign, reaching deep into the pockets of taxpayers, happy to spend tens of millions of dollars on it, in order to craft a piece of Crosby-Textor-driven analysis, in order to try and convince people that suddenly the Damascus road conversion has occurred.
Then we go to the specifics of what has been in the debate in the last four days. The question the Prime Minister has been incapable of answering for the last four days is: has the government got a taxpayer funded advertising campaign in the pipeline and how much does it cost? I do not know how many questions we have asked on this subject. It is at least 10, I think, and probably more. But what we have seen in response to each of these questions put to the Prime Minister is a classic exercise in prime ministerial duck-and-weave and obfuscation. The thing about this modus operandi, Prime Minister, is that the Australian people believed it for a while. The Prime Minister of old, the John Howard of old, would not have engaged in this sort of behaviour; he would have been much cleverer than he is being at present. But I have to say that, when I look at the behaviour in the last four days, this is a different John Howard from the one we have seen before. It would have been a much slicker performance. This has only been a half-slick performance.
As a result, people see through it with great transparency. What they see is a Prime Minister saying, ‘I don’t want to admit to the Australian people that I’m using their money to try and prop up my political interests before an election.’ That is the core interest, and the Prime Minister cannot escape from it. That is the core interest driving this Prime Minister’s behaviour—a core interest, a partisan interest, a sectional interest. But guess what, Prime Minister? It is not the national interest. That is the difference. Instead we have a Prime Minister who has used every parliamentary ruse known to man, and some beyond that, to try to escape responsibility at this dispatch box for such basic questions as we have asked. Is it so hard to answer the question: does an ad exist with a lady boiling up a cup of tea? Is that so hard to answer?
I am a reasonable man. I understand that the Prime Minister himself may not have that at his disposal, but the chaps he is speaking to at the moment actually do have it at their disposal. They are the advisers. One of those advisers sits on the government’s communications advisory committee, and that is the unit which provides secretariat services to the Special Minister of State and the Special Minister of State has responsibility for providing ministerial approval for the allocation of budgetary resources for publicly funded advertising campaigns. That is the mechanism. This Prime Minister linked through his chief of staff to that minister—join the dots and what you have got is a whole bunch of people who know what is going on.
But guess what? Once again we have got a kids overboard problem. There seems to be this problem between what they know and what the Prime Minister knows. Once again it seems to be that everyone else out there, everyone else in the bureaucracy, everyone else out in ministerial land knows there is a problem here, as they did in kids overboard. But, blow me down, the Prime Minister doesn’t. I wonder why that is the case! Prime Minister, I return to what I have said several times before. Once upon a time, the Prime Minister could have got away with this, but they have seen it so often, case in, case out—kids overboard, Iraq and the wheat for weapons scandal. ‘Not my responsibility, someone else’s responsibility; not my knowledge, someone else’s knowledge. I’m just the Prime Minister,’ he says, ‘I wouldn’t be expected to know these things.’ But do you know something, Prime Minister? We have this old-fashioned convention in this country, inherited from the United Kingdom, and it is called the Westminster system. I know the Prime Minister finds this uncomfortable, but in this place you are accountable to the parliament. After 11 years in office I believe the Prime Minister no longer accepts that basic fact.
I can understand the Prime Minister not answering one question and a bit of duck-and-weave, but, if the opposition asks 10 questions on a simple proposition and asks for a bit of honesty, do you think it is too hard to give it to the parliament? I have to say that, on this, the Prime Minister has been found out, and found out most badly indeed. Basic questions such as, if we can’t tell the Australian people whether these ads have an elderly lady in them making a cup of tea, how about whether in fact money has been spent on putting together a letter which, we understand, is to go out to eight million or 10 million Australian households from the Prime Minister?’ If it is a letter from a minister I could understand the chaps over there in the advisers box thinking, ‘Well, you know, someone out there in another ministerial office might know.’ But, if it is to be from the Prime Minister, do you think someone in the Prime Minister’s office might know?
What about something as core and as central as this: if this campaign is to be called ‘Climate Clever’—now there’s a clever title if ever I heard one!—do you think that those two words might bring the occasional memory tweak as to whether the campaign is to be called that or is called that already? When it comes to ‘Climate Clever’, this is an extraordinary moment of self-revelation. This politician, this Prime Minister, is a very clever politician, a very cunning politician and, some have said, ‘sometimes a cynical politician’. How could the government hit upon a name for a campaign called ‘Climate Clever’ and think they would get away with it? It is intended to be a clever campaign, because the cleverness is apparently supposed to lie in this proposition: ‘We don’t believe in climate change but the cleverness lies in trying to convince you people out there that we do.’ That is the core proposition here. Going back to the accountability point, you would think the Prime Minister would know whether or not a campaign called ‘Climate Clever’ existed, or at least that those advising him would know that fact. So we have no knowledge of whether we have a television ad out there which has a lady in it boiling up a cup of tea; we have no knowledge of whether letters have been prepared to be sent out by the Prime Minister to Australian households; we have no knowledge of the fact, or the proposition or the question of whether this campaign is in fact to be called ‘Climate Clever’—apparently we know none of these things!
If these propositions, or questions, that I put forward in the last several days were wrong, or fundamentally wrong, I would have thought that at the end of question time yesterday we might have heard about it. I would have thought that the Prime Minister would have been like lightning to the dispatch box, saying, ‘The Leader of the Opposition has just got it wrong.’ If that was not to be the mechanism, the Tony O’Leary memorial device, which is go up to the press gallery and tell everyone that it is wrong, would have been executed as plan B. That was not done either, was it? So under those circumstances, putting the evidence together, guess what we have concluded? We have concluded that all these things are true. If they are not, the Prime Minister has a lot of time at the dispatch box after I conclude my remarks to tell us whether we have any of these elements wrong. Is there a campaign called ‘Climate Clever’? Is the Prime Minister aware of the existence of letters to be sent out by him to Australian households? Is there a TV ad which has a lady boiling up a kettle in it? Do all these things exist, or are they the collective figments of the opposition’s imagination.
When I first asked these questions, I put them in the interrogative. I asked whether he would confirm whether these things were true. When we received the information, as we have done from whistleblowers on this occasion, we wanted to test whether the proposition was accurate. That is why it was put in the way in which it was. But the answers to each of those propositions for the Prime Minister has caused us to conclude that, frankly, there is something which smells a lot here.
Today the duck-and-weave reached new heights when suddenly the Prime Minister was confronted with the following dilemma. How could money be spent on programs, including the preparation of ads, the market testing of those ads through opinion poll research and the filming of those ads, and perhaps even the booking of advertising space for those ads if the campaign itself does not exist? Instead, the dissimulation lay in this—the Prime Minister’s argument to the parliament that the campaign itself does not exist until it actually hits the media. In other words, the expenditure of funds up until this point is some mystical process which exists out there in some other realm, beyond public policy. The core problem is, as the Prime Minister unwittingly said in answer to one of my earlier questions: things don’t get approved in this place for the expenditure of moneys until ministers approve them. He went on to say that I should know that as a former public servant. Prime Minister, I do know that.
That leads to the next question, which was put through the dispatch box to the Prime Minister: who then approved the money for all these things, which the government have refused to deny up until now exist? Who approved the money for the ad with the lady boiling up the cup of tea? Who approved the money for the market research work? Who approved the money for all these things? Remember, the Prime Minister himself said: ‘Things don’t happen until ministers approve them.’ So, who approved them, Prime Minister? How much was approved? How much was this entire campaign about to cost?
This represents, in a nutshell—it is a stark, staring example—this government’s standards of public accountability. We have seen it up hill and down dale throughout the life of this government, but the curve has gone like that. It started off with little things, but it has got much bigger. It started off with dissimulation on things like the ‘kids overboard’ affair. It started off, and got worse, with the misrepresentations of this parliament on key questions concerning our reasons for going to war in Iraq. It continued through the ungodly saga we saw with the wheat for weapons scandal, whereby $300 million worth of bribes was authorised by this government through its approval relationship with the AWB for payment to Saddam Hussein, whose best financial supporter around the world was none other than the HMAS Howard government. No other source of foreign income exceeded that 300 million bucks, Prime Minister. It was a truck load of money—$300 million.
Put all those things together, and what do we have? We have a pattern of behaviour. We have a pattern of behaviour from a Prime Minister and a government who have been in office too long, a pattern of behaviour from a Prime Minister and a government who regard the public purse as something to be raided in order to fund and prop up their election campaigns, a public purse which can be drawn upon in order to convince the Australian people, or attempt to do so, just prior to an election, that suddenly the Prime Minister has got serious about something he has never, ever believed in.
If this were about a marginal question in politics, then it would just come and go as one of those things that happen in this place, and that people do not think about any more. But it is about something really important. It is about climate change. It is about whether we are going to be serious as a country in dealing with this challenge. It is about whether we have a government which has ever been serious about this challenge. It has to do with whether we have a real approach to emissions trading. It has to do with whether we have a real approach to boosting mandatory renewable energy targets. It has to do with whether we have a real approach to how we ensure that proper demand side management occurs across the Australian economy. It has to do very much with whether we have a viable strategy out there for the development of clean coal technologies. It has to do with all these things. But it has ultimately to do with this: whether we have a government which believes that climate change must form the basis of government action now or whether we have a government which believes that the only challenge in politics is to somehow scrimp and trick its way through to the next election and then go back to business as usual.
This Prime Minister stands censured and condemned for misleading this parliament systematically over the last four days on such a basic question of public accountability, but his offence is compounded by the fact that this misleading of the parliament relates to a core challenge which goes not just to the interests of this place today but to the national interest and to the future of climate change on the planet. (Time expired)
Opposition members—Hear, hear!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Before I call for a seconder, I would ask that the motion of censure be tabled.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—I table the motion.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—I need time to read it.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George
—Oh, come on!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—You normally table these things.
Opposition member—You don’t even remember the letters that you send out, apparently.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Before I call the Prime Minister, I would reiterate that it is a matter of common courtesy that a motion like this should be tabled before it is debated. In fairness, the Prime Minister should be allowed to see the motion.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—It wasn’t even signed.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that it is impossible to propose a spontaneous censure, that it can only be done by prior calculation?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser will resume his seat.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—No, but—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. If the member for Fraser wishes to raise questions with the Speaker, there is an appropriate time.
45
15:44:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Let me start by saying that I totally reject all of the charges contained in the censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Having just had an opportunity to read it for the first time, it is about accountability; it is about the government being accountable to this parliament for the expenditure of money. Let me say in immediate answer to that that in Budget Paper No. 2 there is contained on page 147 an entry saying, ‘Climate change—small business and household action initiative’ which speaks of the provision of $52.8 million over five years ‘to increase community understanding of climate change and assist households and small businesses to reduce and offset their greenhouse gas emissions’. So I say immediately to the Leader of the Opposition: don’t you come in here with your humbug and hubris and start accusing me of having breached parliamentary—
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Mr Speaker—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. I call the member for Fraser.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Mr Speaker, I sat down because I assumed you were going to stop the Prime Minister from referring to the Leader of the Opposition as ‘you’.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser will resume his seat and I will do that. I call the Prime Minister and remind him that he should address his remarks through the chair.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Let me say again to the Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr Speaker: don’t you come in here with your puffed up hubris and start lecturing this side of the House about accountability under the Westminster system when the very budget paper itself contained a full disclosure of the intention of this government to spend a sum of $52.8 million over a period of five years. This is meant to be the kernel, the very core, of the censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition—that we are behaving in a cavalier way towards the parliament, that we are unaccountable, that we do not disclose what we are doing. Yet in the budget papers it says:
The Government will provide $52.8 million over five years to increase community understanding of climate change and assist households and small businesses to reduce and offset their greenhouse gas emissions.
That is the first reply that I make to the Leader of the Opposition. Most of his speech was about the politics and the policies of climate change. I will come to that in a moment, but let me deal with one or two things along the way. Let me deal with his fervid attempt to drag into this debate criticism of my conduct in relation to AWB and my conduct in relation to the war in Iraq. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was the Leader of the Opposition who went to the Zionist Council of Victoria and said it was an empirical fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that, despite the fact that he deliberately and calculatedly accused me of being a liar in relation to AWB—
84G
Wilkie, Kim, MP
Mr Wilkie
—Absolutely true.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Swan is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—He did not mince words. He said, ‘And I say this calmly and deliberately: the Prime Minister has lied about AWB.’ I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I was cleared of that charge by none other than Mr Terry Cole. We had the courage and the guts not to hide behind parliamentary privilege in making those sorts of allegations. We had the guts to establish a royal commission—and in my case to go before that royal commission and to have my name cleared from the baseless allegation that had been made against me and against the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: don’t come into this place with your confected moral outrage and start lecturing those who sit on this side of the House about standards of propriety. The Leader of the Opposition is somebody who will resort, under parliamentary privilege, to all sorts of character attacks, but when his character is attacked he has the most fragile glass jaw in Australian politics. Everyone is aware of the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition over the infamous ‘false dawn’ episode. Everyone knows how he harassed on almost an hourly basis the news editors of major newspapers in Australia. Everyone knows how he made the life of many journalists over the Easter weekend a veritable hell, all in the name of trying to extract from them some apology for something that, in the end, was demonstrated to be absolutely correct. The Leader of the Opposition has the most fragile glass jaw in Australian politics. He is the last person to come into this parliament and start lecturing me or any of my colleagues about accountability and propriety.
Of course the government has set aside money for an information campaign in relation to climate change. It was contained in the budget papers. It could not be more transparent than that.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I remind members that warnings still stand.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The form of that campaign has not been settled. No approval has been given for the distribution of that campaign. Everything that I have told the parliament in relation to that is absolutely true and does not represent the sort of behaviour alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition has come into this place feeling very much the cock of the walk. He feels full of himself. He feels very much on top of everything. He thinks everything is going swimmingly his way. He is entitled to behave like that and I understand why he might behave like that, but let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is a long way to go before a decision is made by his master and mine—that is, the Australian people. There is a long way to go before the Australian people make a decision about who is better able to handle the most vital economic decision to be taken in this country’s experience over the next 10 years. The Leader of the Opposition spent most of his speech talking about the politics and the policies of climate change. Let me say to all members of this House that I am not a climate change sceptic; I am a climate change realist. I am somebody who believes that there is mounting evidence that human behaviour is contributing to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions not only in Australia but all around the world. But I am also somebody who believes that if this country gets this decision wrong, we will pay a very heavy price. We will hurt our economy and we will destroy the jobs of Australians, particularly in the coal industry. If we take the advice of Europeans, if we take the advice of foreigners and not of experts here in Australia, we are bound to get this decision wrong.
My charge against the Labor Party in relation to this issue is that they have been driven by extreme ideology and not by common sense. Why do I make that charge and what is the basis of that charge? I make that charge because, amongst other things, the Labor Party have rejected the cleanest and greenest alternative to the current use of fossil fuel available in the Australian community—that is, nuclear power. Only somebody driven by ideology could close their mind to the possibility that nuclear power might be part of the solution. Only somebody who is driven by ideology rather than economic rationality and economic common sense could close their mind to the fact that 80 per cent of France’s electricity is generated by nuclear power, that 27 per cent of California’s electricity is generated by nuclear power, and that nuclear power is staging a comeback in many other parts of the world. In fact, generation for nuclear power stations is cleaner and safer than for coal-fired power stations. They are cleaner and safer than gas-fired power stations. Only an ideologue, therefore, could turn their mind against at least considering nuclear power as being part of the solution.
Worse than that, only somebody who is economically irresponsible could take a decision to commit this country to achieving a greenhouse gas reduction target without knowing the economic consequences of meeting that target. That is what the Australian Labor Party has done. The Australian Labor Party has said, ‘We are committed to a reduction of 60 per cent in our greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050,’ without knowing what the economic implications of that are. To use the basic language of the Australian community, that is putting the cart before the horse. That is making a decision without knowing the full implications of it. That is being recklessly indifferent to the economic future of this country. That is ignoring the costs that that might represent to the coal-miners of Australia. It is ignoring the costs that it might represent to the transport industry of this country.
By contrast, the approach taken by this government has been to find out the consequences of action before committing ourselves to it. That is why, not last week, not last month but in December of last year, I committed this government, in cooperation with Australian industry, to putting together an examination of the shape and form of an emissions trading system suitable for Australia. This week, the government will receive the report. That report will be a joint effort of the five most senior bureaucrats in the federal government and five representatives of the business community, including the resource sector of the Australian economy. This will be the most detailed, economically sustainable and intellectually consistent examination of the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, emissions tradings and related issues concerning climate change that has ever been put together in Australia.
This will be an Australian report for Australian conditions to preserve the strength of the Australian economy and make sure that we protect Australian jobs. It will not be a grab bag of proposals taken holus-bolus from a report written by an Englishman for European conditions and designed to promote the political objectives of the British government. That is what the Stern report is all about. Stern is not the biblical scholar of climate change that is posited by those who sit opposite. Stern has written from the perspective of an Englishman, from the European circumstance and from the European point of view. He does not have in mind the unique circumstances of Australia.
Amongst other things, Stern has suggested—and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this very carefully—that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2020. In other words, Stern says that in 13 years we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent from current levels. Does the Leader of the Opposition have any idea what that means for the Australian economy? Does the Leader of the Opposition have any idea of the impact that would have on electricity prices? Does the Leader of the Opposition have any idea of the impact that would have on jobs in the resource industry? Does he have any idea of the impact that would have on overall economic growth in the Australian community? If he did have that idea then I do not think he would have so enthusiastically embraced the recommendations of Sir Nicholas Stern’s report.
What we want in relation to climate change is a measured, balanced response. We need to address the growth in greenhouse gas emissions but we need to do it in a way that matches the particular characteristics of the Australian economy, recognises the resource base of the Australian economy and, above all, do it in a way that maintains the ongoing strength of the Australian economy.
I finish with this proposition: if greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and associated matters represent a challenge to make the most important economic decisions this country will take in a decade, it is imperative that those who have demonstrated a capacity to make difficult economic decisions remain in charge of the taking of those important decisions.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I remind the member for Grayndler that his warning still stands.
48
15:59:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—Today’s censure motion against the Prime Minister is a defining moment in the life of this parliament—defining because it proves once and for all that, when it comes to climate change and the policies this country needs to have in place to deal with the issue of climate change, this Prime Minister just does not get it. There were 11 denials before today—11 denials when the Prime Minister was asked questions about the taxpayer funded campaigns, and still he was not able to confirm whether or not the campaign, which we know to have been planned, was actually in existence. And the Prime Minister’s comments about Sir Nicholas Stern deserve to be noted immediately. I will be interested to see whether the Treasurer endorses the Prime Minister’s remarks that the task of Sir Nicholas Stern was to promote the political interests of the British parliament.
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
—He didn’t say that!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—To promote the political interests of the British parliament.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The minister for agriculture!
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
—The British parliament?
Government member—The government, mate!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—Well, let it be ‘government’.
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The minister for agriculture is warned!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the House, that it was actually the debate that the Prime Minister had with Sir Nicholas Stern, as Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out quite clearly once he visited Australia, which showed that the Prime Minister’s intransigence and the government’s intransigence in not signing Kyoto was an impediment to us making progress on the issue of challenging global warming.
Let us go back to the parliament last week. On 23 May the Prime Minister was asked about taxpayer funded full-colour brochures on climate change with a personal covering letter. He said, ‘No such decision has been made by me or, to my knowledge, by the government.’ When he was asked whether this pamphlet had been market tested, along with the covering letter, again we got no answer. Then on 24 May he was asked whether $176,000 had been allocated for market testing and research by Blue Moon Pty Ltd. That was already on the public record from Senate estimates. I am happy to tender that particular correspondence right now. It is marked 23 May 2007—’Dear Dr Holland’, ‘from Mark Tucker’:
Blue Moon Research and Planning Pty Ltd were appointed on a single select arrangement to undertake developmental, formative and evaluation research for the Climate Change Community Information and Education Campaign on 16 April 2007 by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications.
I think that is fairly clear. But still, when asked about this particular and specific campaign and undertaking by Blue Moon research, the Prime Minister said:
I simply repeat what I said yesterday: the government has not decided on any campaign.
And then asked again whether the ministerial committee, on which Mr Nutt sits as his representative, had approached the market research company and whether a contract had been entered into, Mr Howard said:
I repeat what I said yesterday: the government has not approved this campaign.
And so it went on and on. On Monday this week, when asked about whether the non-existent advertising campaign—because now we have newspaper reports and clear indications that there is such a campaign—had an elderly lady in it, talking about practical responses to climate change, the Prime Minister said again:
I can only repeat what I said: no campaign has been approved.
Why is it that we know so much about a campaign that the Prime Minister knows so little about? That is really the question that lies at the heart of this censure motion: where is the Prime Minister’s capacity to answer a question here, on matters that everybody else seems to know something about but he does not?
There is a very familiar pattern here for Australians listening to this. Because they will be aware of the fact that, when the Prime Minister was first asked a question about this, he specifically said, ‘I am very careful with my answers’. That is the expression that he used: ‘I am very careful with my answers’. When he was asked whether or not Richard Davies had anything to do with sighting the contract for this particular campaign, again he refused to answer. When he was consequently asked questions in this House, up until this point in time today, he refused to answer. Then finally, when he was asked the last question by the Leader of the Opposition, he said, ‘I will come back to the House and provide you with some information.’ What he has come back and provided the House with is an answer that says the information campaign that was noted in the budget papers is actually the campaign that everybody has been talking about. In that case, why did the Prime Minister not say that on Wednesday last week, on Thursday last week, on Monday this week and on Tuesday this week? If that is what the campaign is, why didn’t the Prime Minister come straight out and say that when he was first asked that question? This would have been the worst performance by a Prime Minister in this House since Billy McMahon when it comes to dealing with questions—the least convincing, least credible performance that we have seen in this House. It is a performance that was driven by ideology, not a performance that was driven by conviction or accountability.
The Prime Minister referred in his response to the censure motion and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition to all of the things that his government had done and the approach that it was going to take on climate change. What the Prime Minister did not refer to was the fact that the government is simply responding to the poll-driven research that it has, and it is on that basis that it has set in train a marketing and climate change campaign which it has called the ‘Climate Clever’ campaign. We read that the tone of the campaign would ‘create a sense of urgency about the issue of climate change’. There should be a very good reason that we feel a sense of urgency about the issue of climate change—because, for 11 years this government has denied it, and now we have greenhouse gas emissions due to skyrocket some 27 per cent by 2050 as a consequence of this government’s inaction. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that will cost a lot more than $23 million on a campaign.
The campaign was said to be ‘positioning the government as the primary balanced voice on climate change’. It is certainly the case that this issue could do with some balance, with the Howard government managing to spend some $5.2 million of its Solar Cities campaign, underspent in the budget, and constantly running the line that in actual fact the damage to the Australian economy will come as a consequence of dealing with climate change. Companies in this country, leading business entities in this country, do not happen to agree. In actual fact this is where the Prime Minister has got it wrong. Not only is he trying to cover up the fact that the government was intending to have an expensive, taxpayer funded marketing campaign out there telling Australians what they were doing about climate change, but he also—and this was clear in his answer to us—does not understand that it is businesses and Australians themselves that will do most and benefit most from responsible action on climate change. Action on climate change can help business competitiveness and economic growth. That is the single, straightforward assertion that we make on this side of the House.
What is it that we require in order to see that sustainable economic growth? A national emissions trading scheme—something that the Prime Minister himself has blocked. He blocked a cabinet submission in 2003 to that end. We need national leadership on climate change, yet where is the evidence of the Prime Minister leading on this issue? He has been dragged kicking and screaming into this debate. He says he is not sceptical about climate change. The correct quote is: ‘I am not sceptical about some of the more gloomy predictions.’ Australians listening to this debate and the Labor Party on this side of the House understand that climate change represents the single most important economic and environmental issue that we face—
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
Fran Bailey
—They hear you talking rhetoric and nothing else.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—and that urgent and immediate action to deal with climate change is necessary—not rhetoric, not taxpayer funded public awareness campaigns and not spin-doctoring of an order of magnitude that is going to cost the Australian taxpayer somewhere between $23 million and $50 million.
A censure motion is a serious motion to bring into this House, and in his answer the Prime Minister showed that the motion was appropriately and responsibly moved. We have a situation in which the Prime Minister over a certain period in office has effectively let down the Australian people. He has let down the Australian people in two ways: he has let them down by not taking climate change seriously and he has let them down by coming into the House and giving the level of answers which make clear that he is perfectly prepared to have a public awareness campaign go out into the public domain although he knows nothing whatsoever about it. The Prime Minister is fond of saying:
People can talk theoretically about what might happen to Australia and the planet in 50 years’ time.
Or additionally:
I accept that climate change is a challenge, I accept the broad theory about global warming. I am sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predictions.
But critically, the Prime Minister was asked a series of simple questions in this House—questions on Wednesday and Thursday and again on Monday and Tuesday—
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
Fran Bailey
—You’ve already said that twice.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—and was unable to and refused to answer any of them. Then today we suddenly find that the Prime Minister acknowledges that there may be a campaign of one kind or another, but it is one that only gets approved once we see it on TV. This is a new form of public awareness campaign. It is not a campaign until it turns up on television. That will not be satisfactory to the Australian people and it is not satisfactory to the parliament. When we are in a situation of censuring the Prime Minister on an issue of this seriousness, we censure him—
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
Fran Bailey
—He’s run out of things to say.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The Minister for Small Business and Tourism is warned!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—for these reasons. When the question of whether or not there was a campaign was put to the Prime Minister, he would have been aware that a marketing campaign had been thought about, that the planning had been done and that the expenditures were underway. He also would have been aware at that point that the specific purpose of this campaign was to reposition the Australian government as a positive force for dealing with climate change. Regrettably, the Howard government’s track record speaks for itself. This is the government that blocked emissions trading. This is the government that refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is the government that will not support clean energy. In fact, the Prime Minister is on the record as saying that the contribution clean energy will make to dealing with reducing greenhouse gas emissions is marginal. This is the government that will not take the issue of climate change—which all Australians feel passionately needs to be addressed here and now—seriously at all. All it has done is try and spin its way out of trouble and, in spinning its way out of trouble, begin the process of doing what it has done for the last 11 years and has increased in magnitude in the last 12 months—which is to spend more taxpayers’ money convincing Australians that it is doing the things that people, deep in their hearts, know that it is not. That is the worst thing of all about this government. Not only is it leading the Australian people in a way which does not give them confidence about facing the future, but it is prepared to use a public relations campaign, spin doctors and marketing in order to convince Australians of something otherwise.
When these issues were first raised in Senate estimates, it would have been very simple for the government to come into the parliament and make clear what their response was, and that the campaign that had been identified in Senate estimates was the campaign identified by the Prime Minister in his answer to the House. Why didn’t the Prime Minister do that? Why didn’t he come straight in and say, ‘In fact this relates to the public information campaign that the minister for the environment spoke about before he went away to Alaska.’ The answer is that it was not that campaign at all. This is an additional campaign whose primary task is to deal with the poor opinion polling the Prime Minister is facing and the lack of confidence that the Australian public have in the government’s ability to deal with the issue of climate change on the basis of their record of the past 11 years, their denial, their refusal to ratify Kyoto and their consistent undermining of the issue of climate change per se.
The Prime Minister has now said that he will be providing a responsible, moderated, real answer and a real framework to deal with the issue of climate change. What has taken so long? If he said last night, as was reported, that there is a dark cloud out there—and the Prime Minister is now coming into the chamber—
83R
Edwards, Graham, MP
Mr Edwards
—He’s the dark cloud.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Cowan will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—about the consequences of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, I can tell him that the dark cloud has arrived. If the Prime Minister thinks that the Australian people are going to forgive him for six months of lack of action, they certainly will not forgive him for 11 years of lack of action on climate change. In failing to square up to the parliament and the people and answer the questions that were put to him repeatedly—on occasion after occasion—and only now, in this phantom campaign which the Prime Minister finally acknowledges exists, in bringing himself into the House to deal with those questions, the Prime Minister is well censured.
It is true that my mouth is dry because I feel deeply for the future of this country. I feel that under this Prime Minister we have not been led to deal with climate change and to respond to it and we have not been led in a way which gives confidence. There is a responsible future government here that understands the campaign is underway. The Prime Minister stands condemned.
52
16:14:00
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
0
Mr COSTELLO
—I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not walking out of the chamber on his own censure motion, because, if he were, you might get the idea that this is a political stunt rather than something he feels very deeply about. I think the last speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, said that a censure motion is a very serious motion—and the censure of a Prime Minister is a very, very serious parliamentary tactic. For the Leader of the Opposition to walk out before the censure motion is even fully debated is, I think, almost unprecedented. He spends most of his time here in question time with his back turned, and the moment his censure motion comes up for debate—and, may I say, total repudiation—he leaves the chamber. Let us just record that for the sake of Hansard: so outraged is the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister’s conduct that he moves to censure him and then leaves the chamber—an indication of the bona fides.
Let us come to this censure motion that has been moved. The Leader of the Opposition believes that the House should censure the Prime Minister for his refusal to tell the House and the Australian people how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on the Climate Clever campaign, blah, blah, blah. The essence of the charge is that there is a campaign that the government is going to engage in, that the government refuses to come clean in relation to how much this is going to cost and that, by doing so, the Prime Minister has refused to tell either the House or the Australian people. This falls apart on day one because, far from the government refusing to tell the Australian people about this campaign, when I brought down the budget on 8 May, when I tabled Budget Paper No. 2 in this House, this supposedly secret campaign was described as follows:
The Government will provide $52.8 million over five years to increase community understanding of climate change …
That is how secret it was. It was in black and white in a prepared document tabled in this House as part of the budget and forming part of the appropriation. This will be in the appropriation bills, as disclosed in this document, Budget Paper No. 2. The Labor Party may well have trouble understanding Budget Paper No. 2, the measures document, because when Labor was in government there was no Budget Paper No. 2. Labor never had a measures document. This is something which I introduced. It puts every decision that the government has made since the MYEFO into a measures document so that nobody can be under any misapprehension as to what we are appropriating money for. This is a secret campaign, but there it is, on 8 May, on page 147 of Budget Paper No. 2. But if you know how to read a measures document you would read not only the description of how much is being spent but also the following:
Further information can be found in the press release of 4 March 2007 issued by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.
So we have a secret campaign which has now been disclosed in the budget papers. Then we go back to the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull’s press release of 4 March 2007—and have a listen to this big secret:
The Australian Government will help households and small businesses become more energy efficient and potentially carbon neutral, through a $52.8 million Small Business and Household Climate Change Action initiative.
There it is, in a press release issued on 4 March 2007. By the way, if you had read the press release you would know that it says:
All Australian households will receive information explaining climate change and giving them tips on how to become more energy efficient in their homes and their workplaces.
So there it is, on 4 March 2007—the first big leak on the secret campaign! On 8 May we had the next big leak on the secret campaign. And then in the House of Representatives on 21 May—before the Prime Minister had been asked any questions in relation to this—Mr Georganas, the member for Hindmarsh, said:
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. How much taxpayers’ money will the government spend on a climate change and water advertising campaign between now and the next federal election?
In answer, Mr Turnbull said:
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I do not believe there is any secret about that … there is a $52 million information campaign to promote awareness of energy efficiency.
That was on 21 May 2007—this big, secret campaign. Poor old Malcolm was probably wondering to himself, ‘How do I get this reported?’—and he is being accused of having a secret campaign. His is putting out press releases, he is coming to the dispatch box and he is putting it in the budget—and it has been a secret campaign all along. Give me a break! I say this to the member for Kingsford Smith: if you come to this dispatch box, move a censure motion and allege there is a secret campaign, you need a fact to back it up. The fact that it has been disclosed in a press release, in the budget papers and at this dispatch box means that the whole censure motion collapses. What the Prime Minister was in fact asked in relation to this—have a listen to this—was whether there was a full-colour brochure with a personal covering letter from the Prime Minister. He said:
No such decision has been made—
that is, on the full-colour brochure with personal covering letter—
But I do reserve the right to engage in a public information campaign …. I do reserve that right.
Of course he reserves the right. He had disclosed it in the budget papers, Malcolm had talked about it in his press release and Malcolm had said it to the House. The only question at this stage was whether it was going to be in full colour with a covering letter. That is the only question in relation to which the Prime Minister was reserving his right.
This is a pathetic censure. We could not have been more up-front about this campaign, including appropriating the money for it, than we were in relation to the budget. So not only has the government disclosed it but the Prime Minister has been entirely honest and entirely factual in his answers to these questions. It may well be that the opposition did not like the answers, but they cannot complain that he neither answered the question nor disclosed the campaign or that the appropriation for it would be made.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Jagajaga has already been warned.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—I want to go on to one other thing. Running out of ammunition in relation to the censure, the Leader of the Opposition then engaged in a general slur on the government, on the Prime Minister in particular. I want to make this point. When you attack somebody else’s character in the way that the Leader of the Opposition did, and he attacked it in relation to ‘children overboard’, in relation to the Iraq war and in relation to AWB—so when you want to get up in here and make allegations like that—the public and the parliament are entitled to examine your character. It is a basic principle.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lilley has already been warned.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—I want to say to this House, I want to say to the press gallery, I want to say to the members and the public who are watching this: let us remember this fact that the Leader of the Opposition has engaged in character attack, because when his character is examined let us remember that it was the Leader of the Opposition who began the character attacks. The government is quite entitled, in repudiating those character attacks, to ask this question: how reliable, how honest and how candid has the Leader of the Opposition been when he has been under attack?
When he was asked about his association with Brian Burke, you will recall that he said it was all an accident that he met Brian Burke and that he just happened to be staying with the member for Cowan. That was not the truth, and everybody in Australia knows it. When he was asked the question whether or not his office knew about a proposal to bring forward a remembrance ceremony at Long Tan and he denied it, that was not the truth either. The truth of the matter was that his office knew about it and he went to extraordinary lengths to try to deny it, including some of the most uncouth language that has ever been used against journalists in private—and we all know what it was. We know what he is like when he is speaking in private. He is not the person that he would have you believe he is. The journalists who copped those phone calls know the level of the vitriol and uncouthness and the crudity of the language that he used in trying to deny that obvious truth.
We are entitled to ask how deep he holds his political convictions. For example, one of the things that the Labor Party has repeatedly opposed—and it opposed it when it was introduced in this parliament—is the Job Network. The Labor Party was absolutely opposed to the Job Network: they believed that job placement should be done by a government owned agency, Centrelink. The Leader of the Opposition believed that most certainly, but was his conviction deep? Was his conviction so deep that he would oppose this and not take benefit from it? No, it wasn’t that deep; it wasn’t quite that deep.
He will come into this parliament and will tell you that he is against industrial relations reforms. He will tell you that he is against individual contracts. Does that conviction run deep? Does it run deep—his opposition to individual contracts when it comes to industrial relations? I do not think that runs very deep at all, because he only appears to get outraged about certain employers who use individual contacts, not all employers who use individual contracts. He can get himself worked up about a motel owner at Goulburn but he cannot get himself worked up against all employers who use individual contracts.
He will take out advertisements saying he is an economic conservative. We are entitled to ask: how deep does his conviction run in relation to this? Did it run deep enough to support measures to balance the budget? Did it run deep enough to support the repayment of debt? Did it run deep enough to reform the Australian taxation system? Did it run deep enough to clean up the waterfront? Did it run deep enough to establish a future fund? Does it run deep enough to keep his hands off the Future Fund? It does not run that deep. At the bottom of this it is very hard to find a conviction that the Leader of the Opposition actually believes in and will stand by even when it is not popular.
It is very easy for him to stand up now, take out an advertisement and say in that advertisement: ‘I’m an economic conservative.’ But people are entitled to know where that economic conservative was when the hard decisions had to be taken. That is what they are entitled to know, because he is auditioning for a big job. He is auditioning for the job of Prime Minister of Australia, and we want to know when the heat is on if there is anything to him, if there is any conviction, if there is any ability to stand up and to make a hard decision. I tell you this: if you cannot make a hard decision, you cannot manage the Australian economy and you cannot be trusted with the management of the Australian economy, because people’s lives depend on it, people’s mortgages depend upon it and people’s businesses depend on it. It is much more than a focus group in the advertising agency; it is real hard work. I make this charge: I say that the Leader of the Opposition is not up to the job, he does not have the convictions, he cannot make a hard decision.
As for his censure, this would have to be one of the weakest censures about a ‘secret’ campaign which has been disclosed in this House on at least two occasions—the budget and at the dispatch box, backed up by press releases, backed up by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not deserve to be censured here; the person who ought to be censured is this lacklustre Leader of the Opposition.
Government members—Hear, hear!
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Rudd’s) be agreed to.
16:33:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
55
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
78
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Howard, J.W.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
56
Personal Explanations
56
16:38:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—In question time today I was misrepresented by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. He alleged that I had attacked the Doolan family and their motel. I refer to and repeat the personal explanations I gave yesterday and last Thursday. These allegations, as the minister well knows, are completely untrue.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
57
Personal Explanations
57
16:38:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—During question time the Deputy Prime Minister asserted that the Newcastle coal loader was owned by the—
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr Vaile
—The port.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—If you are only talking about the port and not the coal loader, what is your point? The Deputy Prime Minister asserted that the Newcastle coal loader was owned by the New South Wales government.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member has to show where he has been misrepresented.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I will indeed. Worse, he asserted or implied that I agreed with that point. I did not agree and I know only too well that the coal loader is owned by PWCS, which is jointly owned Xstrata, Rio Tinto and a number of other coal companies. He is attempting to blame the New South Wales—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member has made his point; he will resume his seat.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
57
Questions to the Speaker
Question Time
57
57
16:39:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, today in question time you warned me for moving a point of order and then proceeded to exclude me, under the provisions of standing orders, for one hour from the House. I draw your attention to the Hansard greens from today, which indicate that my first point of order, and I moved two, was on page 1 of turn 19 of today’s Hansard, and then it goes through to page 4—that is, there are three pages in between when I moved my first point of order and my second point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 131. This is about successive divisions and indicates quite clearly that if there is debate in between time then you cannot have a successive division—that is, if there is business in between a call. It is quite clear from the Hansard that there was considerable business undertaken by the Prime Minister in his response in between page 1 and page 4 of the Hansard. Mr Speaker, my question to you is: on what basis was I warned for moving a point of order when standing orders quite clearly indicate the ability of members to rise at any time and draw your attention to the standing orders?
57
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his question. He did take a point of order. I ruled on his point of order. He defied the chair so I took further action.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, I would like to point out that, under standing order 86, any member has the right to take a point of order. In relation to the question that was being answered by the Prime Minister, I am not sure whether the answer took 11 minutes or eight minutes—in other words, it was a very long and extensive answer. Surely it is appropriate for any member to take a point of order, considering the Prime Minister’s answer, in this case going to relevance. Nowhere in House of Representatives Practice is it suggested that members should be warned for taking a point of order—although I must admit that members can be disciplined for taking frivolous points of order. The person who takes the most points of order in this parliament is the honourable member for Mackellar, who has never been warned.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think that last point was a reflection on the chair. I refer the Chief Opposition Whip to the answer I gave the Manager of Opposition Business.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—I apologise. I did not mean to reflect on the chair in any way. It is just that it is difficult for members on this side of the House to know how they may take an effective point of order on relevance during question time.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I refer the member to my previous answer. The Manager of Opposition Business?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I seek clarification of your statement that I was warned somehow for dissent or defying the chair.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I think I have already answered his question. If he would like to discuss the matter further with me later, I am happy to do so.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, standing order 86 is very clear: a member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—And the Speaker has dealt with it.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I am not raising it with you.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will not debate this. He has read the standing orders. I refer him also to the remarks that the Chief Opposition Whip made a few moments ago.
Standing Order 104
58
58
16:44:00
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
0
Mr TANNER
—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I want to ask you about your interpretation of standing order 104 today and to point out that standing order 104 requires that an answer be relevant to the question. Although we have seen many times rulings by you and previous speakers that on a specific question on a particular issue of government policy it is adequate to respond in general terms, in this instance on a question regarding government advertising—which, incidentally, referred to a particular area of government policy—you ruled that it was in order for the Prime Minister to respond purely on that general area of government policy. That seems to me to be a widening of the scope of relevance based on the interpretation that you put forward. It seems to me that the crucial words in that standing order are that it must be relevant to the question. So I would ask you, Mr Speaker, does this mean that in your mind there has been a broadening or loosening of the application of standing order 104—that in effect all we are able to do as opposition members is to ask headings and to allow the government to respond in any way they like?
58
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne has made his point. I refer the member for Melbourne to the House of Representatives Practice, which I think makes quite clear how successive speakers have handled interpretation of standing order 104.
Question Time
58
58
04:44:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
Mr PRICE
—Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, during question time a number of members were warned and the sin-bin rule was effected. Can I ask you why a member of the coalition is allowed to interject whilst you are on your feet without attracting a warning?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Chief Opposition Whip is beginning to reflect on the chair.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr PRICE
—I do not wish to reflect on the chair. May I observe that you sought to warn a member who was departing and was interjecting as she went through the doorway. We had a division and there was no subsequent dealing with that member, who was highly disorderly.
59
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. I do not intend to revisit earlier proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
59
Matters of Public Importance
Climate Change
59
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingsford Smith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The need for the government to develop a coherent strategy that responds to the great economic and environmental challenge of climate change.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
16:46:00
—I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question put.
16:51:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
76
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
56
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL RADIO) BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2761
RADIO LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2758
EDUCATION SERVICES FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2734
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2727
HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2728
MIGRATION AMENDMENT (MARITIME CREW) BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2722
Assent
60
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT (2007 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2007
60
Bills
R2781
Second Reading
60
Debate resumed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
60
16:57:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I support the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 and support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the member for Jagajaga in the following terms:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House commits to the following goals to:
-
eliminate the 17 year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, so that every Indigenous child has the same educational and life opportunities as any other child;
-
at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within ten years;
-
at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children aged under five within a decade; and
-
a long-term, bipartisan national commitment to work with Indigenous Australians towards achieving these goals, and overcome generational disadvantage.”
The bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 by appropriating additional funding of $26.1 million over the 2007 and 2008 calendar years for Indigenous students in the school, vocational education and training and higher education sectors. This funding will be used for the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, the provision of infrastructure funding for boarding school facilities and, where government and non-government education providers agree, the conversion of Community Development Employment Project—CDEP—places into ongoing jobs in the education sector.
The proportion of young Indigenous people living in remote areas who reach year 12 is half that of their metropolitan peers. Only one in 10 actually completes year 12. Approximately one in four 15- to 19-year-old young Indigenous people lives in a remote area. The expansion of the two programs, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, is expected to impact on over 1,500 Indigenous students. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program will be expanded by around 860 places over the next four years, 2007-08 to 2010-11. In the 2008 calendar year, $2.6 million will be used to increase the number of places available in that year.
The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program currently provides assistance to around 600 young Indigenous people from remote areas with access to a broad range of training and employment opportunities on offer in major regional centres in Cairns, Townsville, Toowoomba, Newcastle, Dubbo, Canberra, Shepparton, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin. The program’s focus is on accredited training options, including Australian Apprenticeships across a range of occupations and post-school work, and study opportunities in nursing, teaching, accountancy and business management.
The bill also provides for an increase in the number of scholarships available through the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. The Indigenous Youth Leadership Program currently provides 200 secondary school and 50 university scholarships for young Indigenous Australians. The budget increases these by a further 750 over four years, from 2007-08 to 2010-11. This will bring the total number of scholarships to 1,000. Four million dollars will be used to increase the number of scholarships available in the 2007 and 2008 calendar years.
The increased funding for these two programs will provide support for Indigenous young people to relocate from remote and regional areas to access education, training and employment opportunities not otherwise available to them. Funding of $14.1 million over two years will also be made available under the bill to provide infrastructure funding to existing boarding schools catering for Indigenous students. In addition, funding of $5.3 million will be made available, where government and non-government education providers agree, to convert CDEP program places into ongoing jobs in the education sector, such as teacher assistants and training assistants. This is expected to impact on approximately 200 Indigenous people. The CDEP provides activities for unemployed Indigenous people that meet community needs and give them a stepping stone to employment outside of the CDEP program itself.
Labor support these initiatives. We believe these measures will go some way to lifting the educational attainment levels of Indigenous Australians, in turn lifting the employment rate of Indigenous Australia. But these measures are only a modest, part-recognition of our national responsibility to Indigenous Australia. At all levels, we see Indigenous Australians falling behind the rest of our nation’s educational attainment levels. According to the Higher education report 2005 produced by the Department of Education, Science and Training, the number of Indigenous higher education students at Australian higher education providers decreased by 5.9 per cent in 2005, from 8,895 students in 2004 to 8,370 in 2005. In particular, Indigenous commencements in nursing, initial teacher training and medical practitioner courses also declined. Total commencements in these and related courses declined overall in 2005 by eight per cent. In its Higher education report 2005, the department said:
Continuing declines in Indigenous involvement in higher education will perpetuate disadvantages experienced by Indigenous Australians and hinder their full participation in Australia’s economic and social development.
While the situation in higher education is parlous, it is worse in those areas many Australians today take for granted. Simply put, too many Indigenous children continue to fail to read, write or count at a basic level. Indigenous children fall further and further behind the longer they stay at school. Fewer Indigenous students meet year 5 and year 7 benchmarks for literacy and numeracy than Indigenous children in year 3. According to the National report on schooling in Australia 2005, the proportion of Indigenous children who meet the reading benchmarks falls from 78 per cent in year 3 to 63.8 per cent in year 7, and the proportion of Indigenous children who meet the numeracy benchmarks falls from 80 per cent in year 3 to 48 per cent in year 7. In 2005, fewer Indigenous children in years 5 and 7 met basic literacy and numeracy benchmarks compared to years 5 and 7 children in 2002. Compare this to year 7 non-Indigenous students, 90 per cent of whom meet the reading benchmarks and 73 per cent of whom meet the numeracy benchmarks—nearly twice the rate of their Indigenous counterparts.
Poor educational attainment levels impact directly on employment prospects and on health and wellbeing generally. Poor education levels mean that it remains a tragic fact that, today, Indigenous Australians are the single most disadvantaged group in our nation. This applies across the full range of social and economic indicators. Indigenous Australia is confronted by greater inequality than just about any other single sector in our nation. The impact this has on social and economic behaviour should be unsurprising.
Tellingly, Indigenous unemployment levels are many times higher than the national record lows. In the Elizabeth area of North Adelaide, Indigenous unemployment is as high as 34 per cent. In Macquarie Fields in Sydney, it is 30 per cent for Indigenous residents. In Brisbane, Inala recorded an Indigenous unemployment rate of 35 per cent. In my own state of Western Australia, now subject to historic record low unemployment, Indigenous unemployment is over 15 per cent. In regional and rural Australia, the level of unemployment varies.
Given the proximity of many Indigenous communities to the booming minerals and petroleum resources industries that are helping to sustain our now 16th year of continuous economic growth, we should recognise the good work that has been done to date by that sector in improving the job prospects of Indigenous Australians. The release yesterday of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining’s report into Indigenous employment in the minerals industry highlighted the steps taken to date in this area. The report has been supported by Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Newmont, Zinifex, Roche Mining and Ngarda Civil and Mining. It highlights the benefits for our society, our nation and the industry of taking a long-term view to providing employment opportunities for Indigenous Australians and working with local communities to address the root causes of Indigenous socioeconomic problems—the key issues of education, health and poverty. Like so many other reports, it also stated that much more still needs to be done, concluding that:
Unless the critical issues of education and health are addressed, Indigenous people, especially those living in remote and rural areas are likely to remain a marginal and largely unskilled labour force.
This just draws attention to the fact that as a nation we need to do much more to educate and train Indigenous people and get them work and job ready. More must be done to create jobs and economic development opportunities for Indigenous people. This is the most obvious and the most graphic indicator of neglect and disadvantage.
In an economy experiencing near record low unemployment of 4.4 per cent, Indigenous Australia has been left out in the economic cold. In 2005, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma said:
... what data exists suggests that we have seen only slow improvements in some areas ... and no progress on others over the past decade. The gains have been hard-fought. But they are too few. And the gains made are generally not of the same magnitude of the gains experienced by the non-Indigenous population, with the result that they have had a minimal impact on reducing the inequality gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.
Reinforcing this is the fact that, going into the second decade of the 21st century, Australia today has a 17-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The life expectancy at birth for Indigenous men is 60 years, while for Australian males it is close to 80 years. For Indigenous women, life expectancy at birth is 65 years, while for Australian females it is 82 years. Compare this to the life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people in comparable countries: in the United States and Canada it is approximately seven years and in New Zealand it is 7½ years. In Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, approximately 70 per cent of Indigenous Australians who died between 2000 and 2004 were under the age of 65. This compares to 21 per cent for the non-Indigenous population in those states. Tragically, current rates of Indigenous life expectancy are comparable to the life expectancy for all Australians born in the 1920s.
The demographic characteristics of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population demonstrate that the only way to address the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is to begin with young Indigenous Australians. Indeed, the Indigenous Australian population is proportionately younger compared with non-Indigenous Australia. The percentage of Indigenous Australians under the age of 10 is more than double that of the general Australian population.
Labor recognises the fundamental importance of investing during a child’s early years. This applies to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young Australians. The international evidence shows that the best investment a government can make is in the early years of a child’s development, whether in health, family and community support or education. Through providing greater and better access to education during a child’s early development, we can provide the very best start in life. This does not diminish the importance of providing continuous educational and learning opportunities throughout life. Indeed, lifelong learning has many benefits, and this bill goes some way to acknowledging that, but it falls very far short of where we need to be. We must recognise that more must be done to lift the educational standards of all people, and in particular Indigenous Australians.
In many respects, in relation to Indigenous Australians this means that we have to go back to basics, particularly when it comes to literacy and numeracy. We have to assess the things that we as the Commonwealth have done in the past and where we are at today. When we do that, what do we see? We see that the education outcomes for Indigenous Australians, like the health outcomes for Indigenous Australians, are going downhill.
There are some things on the ground that we know work in practice. These include accelerated learning for literacy and numeracy, getting early intervention and providing early childhood literacy and numeracy activities. But to ensure they are effective we need a long-term, bipartisan approach. It is in this context that the Leader of the Opposition spoke only a few days ago, on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, of the need to set new, national, bipartisan goals to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia—goals that are achievable, measurable and that fulfil the spirit of the referendum.
Labor is committed to the following bipartisan goals, as the second reading amendment reflects: to eliminate the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation; to at least halve the rate of Indigenous infant mortality among babies within a decade; to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children aged under five within a decade; and to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks, within 10 years.
Labor is committed to meeting these goals and, along with a range of health and family initiatives, education is a key plank in achieving this. Under Labor all Indigenous four-year-olds will be eligible to receive 15 hours of government funded early learning programs per week for a minimum of 40 weeks a year. Labor will provide nearly $17 million over four years to support the rollout of the Australian Early Development Index in every Australian primary school. This will be adapted to establish a culturally appropriate and nationally consistent means of addressing key aspects of Indigenous children’s early development which are central to their readiness for learning at school.
Labor will ensure that every Indigenous child has an individual learning plan based on each child’s needs. Labor will ensure that every Indigenous student has an individual learning plan, which will be updated twice a year for every year of schooling up to year 10. These plans will be based on the individual child’s needs, as determined by the teacher’s professional judgements, the results of assessments—including national literacy and numeracy testing in years 3, 5, 7 and 9—and through new initiatives such as the Australian Early Development Index, to which I have just referred.
The plans will identify the individual strengths and weaknesses of every child and set out the areas the student and the teacher will target for improvement across the basics of reading, writing and numeracy. Labor will spend $34.5 million over four years to provide professional development support to teachers to enable them to complete these learning plans. Through their child’s teachers, parents will be able to access these plans so they can be part of their children’s learning improvements. Once children’s learning needs have been identified, clear and precise intervention programs can be better implemented. Data available through teacher assessments will be pooled along with other student achievements and demographic data already available, and an independent analysis will be commissioned annually in collaboration with the states and territories to provide governments with the best quality foundation for policy decisions and resource allocations.
Labor will expand intensive literacy programs and develop a new intensive numeracy program to assist underachieving students to catch up to the rest of their class. Literacy and numeracy are the building blocks upon which every individual builds his or her participation in society and capacity to work and lead a healthy and active life. The underperformance of Indigenous students against the national reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks must be substantially improved. Labor wants to halve the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students’ performance in reading, writing and numeracy achievement within a decade.
Labor will provide $21.9 million over four years to expand intensive literacy and numeracy programs in our schools. Intensive literacy programs, such as Accelerated Literacy, Making Up Lost Time in Literacy and the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project, provide a heavily structured approach to teaching literacy within a nationally consistent framework that assists underachieving students to catch up to the average level of the rest of their class. These programs use a range of learning methods, including phonics and decoding in combination with whole-of-language and textual understanding. What is important is that each student’s level is identified and all relevant methods are used. It is critical that students who are falling behind be given extra help to help them catch up.
As part of this commitment, a new intensive numeracy program will be developed and implemented. The educational gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students is widest in numeracy—up to 33 percentage points in year 7—yet there are regrettably few structured programs in this area. Intensive literacy and numeracy programs will focus on these foundational literacy skills which are essential to success in school. These skills will be part of the English component of the national curriculum and will underpin effective participation in all learning areas.
I was interested in question time that, in response to a dorothy dix question, the minister for education sought to criticise those programs that Labor announced over the weekend by saying that they were based on a document agreed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 2005, that MCEETYA had adopted similar or like-minded proposals in 2006 and how shocking and terrible it was that Labor had made express detailed, funded, costed election commitments in this area. I could not quite understand the point the minister was making. The minister was herself on the ministerial council in 2006. She signed up for these proposals, which she says Labor based its commitments on, but which part is she actually criticising? What did she agree to in 2005-06 that she is not agreeing to now, or is there a more central point? I think the central point is this: the minister signed up in 2006 to these proposals that she outlined at question time but has done nothing about them. Not one Commonwealth appropriation to effect these measures do we find in the budget. That is the reason for the minister’s dorothy dixer in question time today.
Labor supports measures to lift educational retention rates and provide assistance to those most in need to help themselves. Labor strongly believes that more can and must be done. It is insufficient to look at only one aspect of Indigenous Australia when what we need is an overall perspective—a perspective that acknowledges that, after years of neglect, Indigenous Australia has a manifold series of issues that require a comprehensive approach; a perspective that acknowledges that education is crucial and that this begins with a child’s early years to help build the foundation stones for a successful life; and a perspective that acknowledges that health is crucial and that more must be done to bridge the gap at every level between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. On that basis, I commend the bill and the amendment to the House.
65
17:17:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I welcome the opportunity to address what I regard as an important bill. It goes to the fundamental requirement for us as a nation to get serious about Indigenous education and our failings as a nation over many decades on that front. In that context, I also stand in support of the second reading amendment. This amendment, moved by our shadow minister, Jenny Macklin, former deputy leader, goes to something we all have to front up to: how we start getting a bipartisan approach to what is a major national problem. There is a crisis not only in Indigenous education but also in Indigenous health and employment, and we all have to accept that, 40 years on from giving the Indigenous community the right to fully participate in the Australian democratic processes, we have made very little progress on a lot of social indicators.
The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 is a practical endeavour supported by both sides of the House to get some of the fundamentals right. I think those fundamentals are right because the bill is about amending the current legislation by appropriating an additional $26.1 million over the 2007 and 2008 calendar years to do something about education and training. It is pretty fundamental because it goes to what we do with additional funding—to do something about Indigenous students in schools, vocational education and training, and further investment in the higher education sectors. If you get the education fundamentals right, then you have a greater capacity to do something about what is equally important—that is, the issue of jobs. I want to seriously address some of those employment issues today because I note the mining industry is having its annual meeting in Canberra this week and its mining industry dinner is here in Parliament House tomorrow evening.
Some of the issues I have had responsibility for over the last couple of years range from mining and resources to forestry, tourism and now back to transport, the construction of roads and railways, and the issue of ports. All these sectors represent tremendous employment opportunities, especially in Northern Australia, for our Indigenous community. It also requires partnership and better cooperation between state and territory governments, the Commonwealth government and the private sector to make serious progress on that front. I say that because this bill is about assisting the private sector to start to make that progress. We have to do something about education so we can get the Indigenous community job-ready. It also requires the private sector, as they are now realising, to accept that the Indigenous community represents a wonderful opportunity to supply workers with respect to the issue of labour shortages in Australia at the moment. Migration is not the only solution to the shortages that confront Australia on the skilled labour supply front.
The Indigenous community is a valuable resource that we have neglected. I think it is a disgrace that as a nation we have neglected them as a community for so long. Our Indigenous community, like all indigenous communities in the world, is no exception with respect to the problems that it confronts in Australia. If you go around the world, you find that for the vast majority of people, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or age, employment provides a source of income that can facilitate financial security and independence both in the short and long term. For many it is not just a source of personal satisfaction today but a means through which they can define their future. We as a community still define ourselves by our will to work. In electorates, in the suburbs of our capital cities and our regions in rural and remote Australia, you do not have the same sense of pride, the sense of belonging to the community, unless you have a job. To have a job, you have to have the fundamentals which make you job ready, and that is about education.
A lot of research papers clearly suggest there is a strong link between a person’s propensity for employment and other aspects of social wellbeing such as community interaction, the risk of involvement in crime and general health. One flows in to the other. If you have no education, no job, then you tend to get into social difficulties, crime and the associated problems of drugs, alcohol, domestic violence—the lot. We have got a whole jigsaw of difficulties which go back to first base: we need to do something fundamental about housing—how many people live in a house; whether or not there is access to broadband to assist in education; how good the local school is; what the class sizes are; and whether schools are properly resourced with appropriately qualified teachers. If you actually start to do something about that then, in a social sense, you start to make progress in employment. So it is, therefore, a disappointing reflection on all of us that our nation has for so long failed to appropriately engage with and address issues of Indigenous employment, health and social wellbeing.
That is why the member for Jagajaga has appropriately signalled in part (4) of her second reading amendment that we all have to set aside some of the political issues that have come between us over the last couple of decades and decide on a long-term bipartisan approach to a national commitment to actually do something about Indigenous Australians. We need to actually work towards reducing the gap in life expectancy between the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous communities and address the issues of literacy and numeracy, mortality, health and unemployment so that, irrespective of who is in government—and governments come and go because there is a natural life of governments in a modern democracy—these programs will continue. I suppose I mean bipartisan support in the same way in which, in the past, up until the issue of Tampa, there was a fair degree of bipartisan support in the Australian parliament on the issue of migration. We used to go from election to election trying to make sure that it was not a political football. Tampa changed that, and I hope we never go back to the Tampa debate.
On the question of our Indigenous community, we have to get to a point of bipartisan support for programs to be able to debate what the programs are, what they seek to achieve and then make sure that, irrespective of who is in government, those programs are properly financed and resourced. We must also set in place a process of accountability which means that we regularly review our performance and outcomes and seek to improve our performance on the ground.
That is squarely of major importance to all Australians because none of us like an Australia in which there are second-class citizens. We pride ourselves as a nation on the sense of mateship—what is right and wrong; we think ‘I actually like to try to give people a leg-up who are doing it a bit tough from time to time.’ That is why we have always held our heads up high as a nation: we like to do something to assist those in our own families, streets, suburbs and nation at large who are doing it a bit tough or a bit rough.
So investing in education is about trying to come to terms with the fact that, unfortunately, there are difficulties in terms of employment in Australia for our Indigenous communities. This is reflected in the relatively low labour force participation rates for Indigenous people, coupled with a rate of unemployment that was two to three times higher than that for non-Indigenous people in 2001. Further, government employment programs account for a significant proportion of Indigenous employment, with this proportion generally higher in very remote areas—the old CDEP program. The combination of these factors, however, means that the relatively poor employment outcomes among Indigenous people are generally regarded as a major factor contributing to their disadvantaged status in society. I do not think anyone can question that suggestion.
In Queensland, where there is a large Aboriginal community, as the member for Herbert appreciates, particularly in Far North Queensland, recent figures showed the unemployment rate for Indigenous males was 13 per cent higher than the rate for non-Indigenous males. Similar patterns were evident for Indigenous and non-Indigenous females, although the gap between the two groups was only 10.3 per cent. Unfortunately, however, in a national trend, unemployment rates were highest among young people. Joblessness among Indigenous males and females in the 15 to 24 age group in Queensland was roughly twice that of their non-Indigenous counterparts. These rates provide a guide to the level of underutilised labour in the Indigenous population in Queensland and are reflected nationally. However, evidence suggests that these figures may not reflect the true level of underutilised labour. Some Indigenous people are likely to be out of the labour force because they believe there is no work available or they cannot get a job—they do not have the skills required to actually get a good job so they give up.
The irony of this is disappointing because over one-quarter of unemployed Indigenous people in Queensland were classified as labourers or related workers compared with only 10.9 per cent of non-Indigenous workers. I say that it is an irony because so many sectors are crying out for workers as a result of the national skills shortage: from regional areas that need fruit-pickers, farmhands and harvesters, to the forestry industry that needs assistance on its plantations, to tourism businesses that desperately need staff of every kind.
I know through my work as the shadow minister for tourism and my constant consultation with the industry that there are no chefs—they are in short supply—and hotels and motels cannot find people to make the beds, look after the gardens and grounds, attend to reception, clean the rooms and maintain the facilities. There are jobs out there but we do not have people job ready because we have not educated them and given them the confidence to pursue an employment opportunity. It also says to Australian business that they have to invest more themselves, in partnership with the government, in trying to train people to overcome some of the skills gaps that prevent them from gaining proper employment.
On that note I refer to a search of the Australian government’s Job Search website today which revealed that in Northern Queensland there were 872 food, hospitality and tourism jobs available. In the Northern Territory there were 649 jobs in this field, while in regional Western Australia, outside Perth, there were 739 job vacancies. Just think about those job vacancies and the high level of Indigenous unemployment.
Yet, despite the clear need for workers in a range of fields, Indigenous employment remains low. It has become, unfortunately, a vicious cycle that is hard to break, not just in terms of identifying a framework for a viable solution but also on the ground, for the people who live with this lower quality of life. Every day these people must negotiate a way through an existence that is fraught with politics. We must not forget that they yearn for things that we in other sections of Australian society take for granted—to be able to enjoy our children’s and our grandchildren’s laughter, to share the company of others, to be satisfied with our achievements, to go home to a home, to be able to educate our own children and to have food on the table. For a lot of these people that is unknown to them. They struggle from day to day because they have not got a job, because they did not have the educational capacity in years gone by to get the skills required to be gainfully employed and hold down a job over time. The issues I raise today are the normal aspirations of any human being and, in a country as prosperous as Australia, they are aspirations that deserve to be attained by every Australian—Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
All too often the human face of Australia’s Indigenous issues is either forgotten or painted by the brush of history to present our Indigenous people as a community immobile in time. Some groups that claim to act in their interests seemingly forget that these communities cannot stay static, bound in time by political correctness. Let us also break down the debate on political correctness and work on practical solutions to major problems. Indigenous communities need and want to become self-sustaining and embrace and engage in all aspects of the Australian way of life, including our national businesses and industries.
Last year, when I held the portfolio of resources, I was pleased with the developments made in the mining sector. There was a dramatic commitment and a change in attitude to increasing the Indigenous workforce. Research undertaken by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University shows that in Northern Australia, particularly in regions such as the Pilbara, East Arnhem Land, east Kimberley and Cape York where there is significant mining activity, the Indigenous population is growing at a rate of between two and four per cent per year and is conservatively projected to increase by some 100,000 people, or 39 per cent, by 2016.
In fact, late last year, the 500,000th member of the Indigenous population was born, which for the first time took the Indigenous Australian population back to the level they were at when the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters 219 years ago. It is a pleasing trend that means that, by 2016, people in their prime working years, those aged between 15 and 45 years old, will comprise 50 per cent of some Indigenous populations. Some of the communities in the Northern Territory such as Wadeye will be bigger than longstanding towns such as Tennant Creek. If you compared the services available in Tennant Creek with those in Wadeye, you would shake your head. There is no equality of opportunity in towns—especially with formalisation and shires being created in the very near future in the Northern Territory—between that which you see in the Aboriginal shires dominated by Indigenous people and that which you see in council areas such as those in the Tennant Creek area. We have a lot to do.
It also means that companies have to work better with us. In the mid-1990s, less than half of one per cent of Rio Tinto’s Australian workforce was Indigenous, despite the fact that their mining sites are more often than not located in close proximity to local Indigenous communities. Now—and it is terrific to see—approximately seven per cent of the company’s employees, around 850 people, are Indigenous. The retention rate for new Indigenous employees beyond 26 weeks exceeds 80 per cent. What a terrific achievement. In some mines the retention rate is actually higher than that for the non-Indigenous workforce, who usually cannot sustain the fly-in, fly-out lifestyle of many of these positions.
At the Rio Tinto Argyle Diamonds mine in Western Australia, the pink diamonds unearthed from the ground may be exceptionally rare, but, in going against a historical trend, Indigenous employment is not. In fact, the diamond mine plans to increase its Indigenous workforce to 40 per cent by 2010. This target is seen to be achievable thanks to a change in the company’s human resource practices at the remote Kimberley mine. This operational change has lifted the ratio of Indigenous employees from 4.5 per cent of the workforce to 25 per cent in the first three years of the program.
Rio Tinto, which admittedly is the largest mining company in the world, is just one of a growing number of resource companies to adopt this model of greater integration with the local communities that inhabit the area in which they mine. It is a model that provides more equitable distribution of the wealth generated through mining while delivering sustainable economic benefits, such as enhanced local community capacity through education and training. It is a trend that goes some way towards correcting the disparity of much of Australia’s economic wealth being produced in areas populated by its most disadvantaged. While many of us enjoy the benefits of record progress, profits and employment, Indigenous economic and business development languishes sadly.
But the resource sector is just one example. Equally positive examples can be seen within the tourism industry, although, as with the mining sector, there is still a long way to go. The tourism industry has suffered from a significant growth constraint in recent years, primarily due to a skills and labour shortage. The traditional core workforce—that is, young people working in the resorts, hotels and tourism businesses—are tempted by the high-paying jobs offered in the mining sector. Unable to match these wages, the tourism business owners and operators themselves are forced to carry out the necessary day-to-day jobs in the absence of workers. But progress is being made. The industry is also learning about the importance of the Indigenous community. More than ever they are trying to work out culturally and socially how to crash through the stereotypes and overcome the long-defined difficulties of employing Indigenous people in the tourism industry.
By way of example, I want to refer to the Accor Asia Pacific group, which has developed innovative thinking and a commitment to this challenge. This company, as a result of its decisions, has lifted Indigenous employment in the tourism industry. Tourism is a foreign concept in some Indigenous communities because often many of them have never travelled as tourists and they do not appreciate the importance of the industry. That is why, through its Indigenous employment program, the hotel runs a variety of familiarity programs, including inviting Indigenous families to become a tourist for a day. The initiative sees families stay in the hotel for a night, eat in the restaurant, swim in the pools and play golf and tennis—just like other typical tourists.
It is an interesting program which, more importantly, is reaping results. Accor Asia Pacific last year employed about 150 Indigenous people—a huge improvement on five years ago when it commenced its program and only about 10 Indigenous people were employed. They are getting a return on their investment. It is not only smart from a business point of view because it means they are lifting the size of their workforce but also terrific for Australia because Accor and companies such as Rio, BHP and Xstrata are now doing something in partnership with government to overcome the fundamental social problems of Indigenous unemployment and lack of education. As a community we ought to talk up these examples. We ought to give credit where it is due. Many companies in Australia have actually realised the errors of their ways in days gone by.
I say on behalf of the opposition that we welcome the additional funding. It is about trying to do something positive in a very difficult area to improve educational performance in our Indigenous communities and therefore do the right thing by the Australian community at large to help to correct an unjust imbalance and bring about true equality in Australia. But it goes back to the fundamentals: do not dwell on the past and the mistakes but think about positive programs, think about education, literacy and numeracy; get the fundamentals right and take the politics out of it. As the member for Jagajaga stated in part (4) of her second reading amendment—(Time expired)
71
17:37:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—I would like to pick up on what the member for Batman said in his contribution to this debate. I am, and have been for the last two parliaments, a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation. In a previous inquiry, that committee received evidence that detailed some of the activities of Rio Tinto in the Northern Territory in training apprentices to work in their mines and also, after the training had been completed, providing ongoing employment. I think that those types of activities and commitments should be recognised and replicated throughout Australia and that they should be used as role models by other employers.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation is currently doing an inquiry into tourism. The thing that has been most evident there is that there is a resource—our Indigenous Australians—that is being well and truly underutilised. I would like to encourage all of those employers and operators throughout Australia that work in the tourism industry and quite often make a living from the works of Indigenous Australians—and also from the fact that Australia has an Indigenous population—to make a bigger commitment to our Indigenous Australians and provide them with the opportunity to actually obtain employment with them. That is one area that has not been developed nearly enough, even given the comments that the member for Batman made—he highlighted the activities of a very good employer that was making a commitment in this area.
The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 by appropriating additional funding of $26.1 million over the 2007 and 2008 calendar years for Indigenous students in schools and also for the vocational education and training and higher education sectors. This funding will be used for the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, the provision of infrastructure funding for boarding school facilities and, where government and non-government education providers agree, the conversion of Community Development Employment Projects—CDEP—places into ongoing jobs in the education sector.
I do not think that anyone in this parliament would disagree with more money being given to Indigenous education. I think that for a very long time it has been an area where there has not been enough spending and there has not been recognition of the implications of having an Indigenous population that does not have the same educational opportunities as other Australians. I am a firm believer in the idea that education is the key to success in life and that those people who can access and are able to obtain a good education are those people who have the opportunity to succeed and enjoy a fuller life in our society. Unfortunately, many of our Indigenous Australians—most of our Indigenous Australians—actually have not been in this position.
Also, I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs talking last week about forcing all Indigenous Australians to learn English. To me that showed a lack of understanding of the issues. I think that, rather than helping with education, it will create more problems and work as an obstacle or barrier to Indigenous Australians undertaking education.
I would like to refer to the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. The first point that she highlights in that amendment is the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The amendment points to that and highlights that. The Labor Party is committed to eliminating that gap within a generation.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the first inquiry I was involved in in this parliament was an inquiry that produced a report called Health is life. That report detailed the level of disadvantage that Indigenous Australians have and the morbidity or mortality rate that existed back at that time—the report was actually tabled in this House in 2000. At that time all of the members of the committee were overwhelmed by the level of disadvantage and the poor health outcomes that actually existed in those communities. There were a number of recommendations. It was a bipartisan report and it was one that we all felt very strongly about. I look at the issues that were raised there, I look at the issues that are being raised today and I look at the action of the government. I really think it is a disgrace that here, in a country like Australia, we have our Indigenous people living in Third World conditions and at the same time having Third World access to education.
Today in question time the Minister for Education, Science and Training referred to the Labor Party’s new directions statement, An equal start in life for Indigenous children, and sought to ridicule it. As I see it, in adopting that approach she is, to an extent, not taking Indigenous people seriously. The directions statement details the problems that exist for Indigenous Australians: the health gap that currently exists; the high rate of infant mortality; the high rate of low birth weight amongst Indigenous babies; the continued presence of Third World diseases such as rheumatic fever; the high rate of hearing loss; the high rate of chronic diseases such as renal failure, cardiovascular disease and diabetes; the continued high rate of poor health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants; far too frequent occurrence of middle-ear infection; the continued tendency of poor access to primary health care; the high rate of sexually transmitted disease and the high rate of unhealthy and risky behaviour.
I again refer to the Health is life report. The health issues identified in An equal start in life for Indigenous children are exactly the same issues that we looked at in the inquiry. It is so sad that I am standing up in this parliament today referring to figures about diseases that are affecting our Indigenous population which have not changed in seven years. If you look back beyond the Health is life report, a similar report was brought down by a committee chaired by the Attorney-General. It came up with very similar recommendations. And the same issues still exist. An equal start in life for Indigenous children highlights a number of approaches that are needed to address these issues. Of course, one of those issues is education, because we recognise just how important education and access to education are for establishing a healthy lifestyle.
When we looked at the experiences of other countries, we saw that they were very different to that of Australia. New Zealand, Canada and the United States have made significant improvements in the health of their Indigenous populations, whereas that has not occurred in Australia. An equal start in life for Indigenous children also highlights that the life expectancy difference between the Indigenous population and the remainder of the population is seven years in the United States and Canada and 7.5 years in New Zealand. So action has been taken in those countries and it has worked. I encourage the government to look to overseas examples to see ways in which they can change what is happening in Australia. They can actually move forward—not just talk about it—and look to do more than what is outlined in the bill that we have before us today.
The Health is life report refers to a Commonwealth strategy that had been released: the Education Strategy for Indigenous Students. The strategy was to look at a number of the issues that are important for improving education. It focused on the literacy and numeracy skills of Indigenous students and other factors influencing their level of achievement. An equal start in life for Indigenous children highlights the problems that Indigenous Australians have and the difference in the levels of literacy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The document shows that the literacy and numeracy levels of Indigenous students are much lower than those of the rest of the population.
The proportion of Indigenous students in year 3 achieving reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks is much lower than that of non-Indigenous students. Twenty-two per cent of Indigenous students do not meet year 3 benchmarks. In year 5, the percentage of students falling below it is even higher. And by year 7, one in 10 students achieves the benchmark. One in 10 students is below the benchmark for reading, one in 12 students does not meet the benchmark for writing and one in five students does not meet the benchmark for numeracy. If you equate that to students looking for employment, you will see that education has failed Indigenous Australians and, by failing Indigenous Australians, the education system is inhibiting their opportunities in life.
The strategy I spoke of earlier highlighted six key elements, including the lifting of the school attendance rate to national levels and addressing hearing and other health problems. One of the key things to think about when you are looking at literacy and reading is the ability to hear. Unfortunately, the problem that our Indigenous Australians still experience in relation to hearing has not gone away. Seven years after the report, the recommendations it made are still unaddressed and the Commonwealth strategy has not delivered.
The strategy also talks about enhancing preschool opportunities, and I would draw members’ attention to the Labor Party’s plan to give all four-year-olds access to 15 hours a week of preschool. I see this as an opportunity for Indigenous Australians to have that preschool experience. We all know that education in those early years is absolutely vital. Quite often if children miss out in the early years then they miss out all through their lives. I think that both access to preschool education and intervention in cases where a child might have a hearing problem are absolutely vital for Indigenous children.
Whilst the legislation before us does address some issues in relation to Indigenous education, I do not think it addresses the fundamental issues that I have highlighted throughout my speech. We need to ensure that all Indigenous students have real access to education. Instead of paying lip-service to this issue, the government needs to actually get out there and do something about it. The government is very good at coming up with rhetoric but it is not very good at solving problems, and it is not very good at helping Indigenous Australians overcome the health problems that they have had for years and years.
The member for Jagajaga rightly highlighted issues surrounding the mortality rate of Indigenous children and the need for that to be addressed. The report An equal start in life for Indigenous children—which I think is very important—refers to the issue of maternal and child health. I would refer the minister also to the ‘child and maternal health’ section of the Labor Party document that I know she has in her possession. I am currently involved in an inquiry that is looking at breastfeeding and the need for mothers to breastfeed their babies. It has been very interesting during the inquiry to have contact with Indigenous communities and Indigenous mothers living in the Cairns area. I believe that it is fundamental to ensure that Indigenous mothers have the right support, antenatal care, and information about baby care and nutrition. Mothers need to have proper accommodation when they have a baby, and support systems need to be in place, including home visits. These things need to be addressed in the beginning. We need to make sure that the baby is healthy when it is born. Once you have a healthy child, you have a child that will grow, flourish and be able to access and process the educational information that they are given. The same things were identified in the Health is life report—problems with child and maternal life—and nothing has changed. It is time to stop talking. It is time for action and it is time to do more than what is outlined in this legislation.
74
17:56:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—In summing up the debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, I take the opportunity to thank members for their contributions to this debate on a very important policy issue. This year, 2007-08, the Australian government will invest almost $600 million in Indigenous-specific education programs. I can speak on behalf of all members in this House—and I am sure all Australians would agree—and say that we want to see the gap between education outcomes for Indigenous Australians and those for non-Indigenous Australians closed. The Australian government are committed to that goal. That is why the 2007-08 budget focuses on programs and initiatives that are already working to close that gap. We have enhanced those programs.
This bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. We are increasing the appropriations over the 2007-08 calendar year to provide $26.1 million of additional funding. This represents a number of policy initiatives based on programs that we know are working for Indigenous people. In particular, there will be an additional $4 million for the expansion of the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, with an additional 750 scholarships over four years. That will mean a total of 1,000 scholarships for young Indigenous people who have been identified as having leadership potential within their communities. I have met a number of the young people who are taking part in the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, and they provide us with great hope for the future of Indigenous people in this country. They are wonderful young people.
There will be $2.6 million for the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, with an additional 860 places over four years. Again, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program is working. Young people who need to leave the remote or rural areas in which they live to pursue a trade, a qualification or a career have been identified by their communities and, through Australian government funding, are able to take advantage of this opportunity—with the hope that they will then go back to their communities and use the skills that they have acquired for the benefit of the community.
There is also $14.1 million in funding for urgent repairs to boarding school facilities. This is in addition to an allocation of $50 million from this year’s budget surplus for non-government boarding schools, including in rural areas, that accommodate Indigenous students. I make the point that that $50 million has come from a budget surplus. You are not able to allocate that kind of funding from budget deficits. The Australian government has consistently run budget surpluses so that it can make these one-off payments—in this case $50 million in additional funding for boarding schools that accommodate Indigenous students. There is also $5.3 million to support the conversion of the CDEP positions—the Community Development Employment Project positions—into jobs in the education sector. The new funding of $26.1 million to be appropriated through this bill is only one element of the broader package of $214 million over four years announced in this year’s budget for Indigenous education and training. It will support increased choice and mobility in education and training for Indigenous young people. It will support the CDEP participants to move into ongoing employment within the education system. It will build on the successful programs that the government already has in place. Spending on Indigenous specific programs has increased by almost 50 per cent in real terms over the past decade. Education is the key to providing Indigenous people with greater opportunities and the opportunity for economic independence.
I listened to some of the debate on this bill and noted that some of the statements made in this debate by opposition members were rather ill-informed. I will take this opportunity to make a number of points, particularly in response to the proposed amendment. The Commonwealth do not own or run any schools. We provide significant funding to schools across Australia. In fact, we are providing a record $33 billion for all schools for the period 2005 to 2008. Australian government funding—that is, our share of schools funding—has increased by about 170 per cent since 1996.
In relation to Indigenous education, as I said, the Australian government’s goal is to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous educational outcomes. That has long been a goal of the Howard government. We already have in place a strengthened Indigenous education performance monitoring and reporting framework. The proposed amendment puts this forward, but we already have it in place for the 2005-08 quadrennium. The framework includes standard performance indicators for vocational and technical education, schools and preschools; a revitalised monitoring and reporting process; and new approaches to target-setting and sanctions for noncompliance with Indigenous education agreements. Those agreements are with the state and territory governments and non-government education providers. So this is already in place and endorsed, and agreements are in place with state Labor governments. Realistic and challenging targets have been negotiated with education providers for significant and measurable progress towards closing the educational divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people through per capita supplementary funding. This is already happening.
In relation to the provision of intensive support to raise the literacy levels of Indigenous young people, the Australian government already has underway in 150 schools a series of accelerated literacy pilots that provide proven methodologies and build teacher capacity. Labor puts this forward as if it is a new idea. It is already in existence. Over $19.3 million has already been invested in taking to the next level successful methodologies and approaches, such as accelerated literacy and MULTILIT. For example, the accelerated literacy program is training 700 teachers in 100 schools in the Northern Territory in the successful methodology which is improving the literacy outcomes of up to 10,000 students, including in remote schools. I have visited schools in the Northern Territory and I have sat in on classes using the accelerated literacy program. I can attest to the fact that it is working. The approach is being replicated in 15 Western Australian Aboriginal independent community schools, six Catholic schools in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, 12 schools in the Aboriginal Lands District in South Australia, and the Shalom Christian College in Queensland. Either the opposition is ignorant of existing, established programs or it is just playing catch-up and trying to dress up existing programs as new initiatives. We have seen federal Labor do this on a number of occasions in relation to education policy—that is, take other people’s ideas, put an ALP repackaging brand on it and call it ‘fresh thinking’ in education. The Australian public will see through that.
The Australian government is also supporting professional development for teachers through the Dare to Lead project. There are 4,300 school leaders already committed to improving educational outcomes through that program. That is already happening; it exists. Through the Australian government What Works project, some 35,000 teachers have already participated in professional development workshops to expand their skills in improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students.
In relation to Labor’s idea of individual learning plans, in July 2006 all education ministers—federal, state and territory ministers for education—endorsed a policy document that had been thoroughly researched called Australian directions in Indigenous education for 2005-2008. All state and territory Labor governments have already committed to delivering personalised learning plans for all Indigenous students that include targets against key learning outcomes and incorporate family involvement strategies and provide professional learning for teachers to enable them to adopt approaches that result in high levels of academic expectation and achievement by Indigenous students. The opposition is just playing catch-up. That is fine, as long as it does not pretend that it has new ideas, fresh thinking or new policies.
One of the many prevention and early intervention initiatives supported by the Australian government is the Australian Early Development Index. This index is a community based measure of the health and development of Indigenous children at the beginning of their first school year. The Australian government announced in the 2007-08 budget that $3.7 million over three years has been made available for the index—the AEDI—in up to 61 current AEDI communities, and a further 14 disadvantaged communities will develop and trial an Indigenous Australian Early Development Index. An Indigenous index will more accurately assess the early development needs of Indigenous children and will take into account cultural and language differences.
In relation to the amendment proposed by the member for Jagajaga, while I am pleased that the opposition supports the measures that we have introduced that are opening up opportunities for young Indigenous people in education and training, the government will not be supporting the amendment as proposed by the opposition. The Australian government is already vigorously pursuing objectives to close the educational divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. Good progress is being made. More must be done. This bill introduces measures that will go some way toward achieving that goal. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
77
Ms JULIE BISHOP
(Curtin
—Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues)
18:08:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE (LEARNING TOGETHER—ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH CHOICE AND OPPORTUNITY) AMENDMENT (2007 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2007
77
Bills
R2802
Second Reading
77
Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop:
That this bill be now read a second time.
77
18:09:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 appropriates additional funds on behalf of the Commonwealth to increase funding for English as a second language programs for humanitarian entrants and introduces a loading in the recurrent schools funding arrangements for regional and remote non-government schools. As a matter of principle, any additional expenditure by the Commonwealth to enhance the facilities of our schools, whether to the government or non-government sector, is to be welcomed. I welcome the additional spending for education in general in the budget and am pleased to see that Labor’s continued calls for an education revolution are being heard. The Howard government is finally attempting to undo the damage of 10 long years of neglect and underinvestment in Australia’s education and training system. It is unfortunate that the Australian public have had to wait until a few months before an election for the government to finally do this, despite having had a decade to invest in our education system. Labor have put education in the spotlight through our continued education revolution policies and I am pleased to see that the government is following our lead, even if they are only doing it to crassly try and win an election.
The first measure in the bill doubles the amount of English as a second language funding available for humanitarian entrants and recognises the extreme disadvantage faced by this group. This is a welcome measure and an overdue recognition of the severe disadvantage faced by humanitarian entrants and the importance of learning English for new entrants in improving their future education and employment opportunities. This measure will assist with the cost of delivering intensive English language tuition to newly arrived migrant primary and secondary school students. Under the current program, the funding per student is set at $5,277, which will be increased to $9,708 for newly arrived migrant schoolchildren who arrive under Australia’s humanitarian migration program. Increasing the amount of intensive English language tuition for a child who arrives in Australia either as refugee or through a humanitarian program is a recognition of the special needs of these students.
The composition of Australia’s humanitarian program has changed dramatically over the years, with around half of those moving to Australia under the program now coming from Africa. Many families have spent long periods in refugee camps with little access to education, making it difficult for children to return to school or indeed to attend school for the first occasion. By increasing the amount of intensive language tuition these children can receive, this measure recognises the greater need of humanitarian entrants, and that is strongly supported by Labor.
The second measure in the bill provides loadings in the school socioeconomic status, or SES, funding formula of five per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent respectively for schools classified as moderately assessable, remote or very remote. These loadings and this measure apply only to non-government schools. Labor welcomes this measure. The reality is that schools in rural, regional and remote Australia have different needs and costs to their metropolitan counterparts. Both government and non-government schools are affected by their rural, regional or remote location. So far as the cost of education is concerned, this is a disadvantage. Indeed, according to the Productivity Commission’s report on government services, nearly 24 per cent of all non-government school students attend schools in regional and remote areas. As a consequence, this budget measure will bring a welcome increase in funding to approximately 400 non-government schools and around 350,000 primary and secondary school students.
The budget papers outlining this measure also refer to a requirement that state and territory governments provide a similar loading for government schools in the next four-year funding agreement, which takes effect from 1 January 2009 and concludes on 31 December 2012. This is despite the fact that until now the Commonwealth has not recognised regional and remote factors in its SES school funding formula, while a number of state and territory governments already include this in different ways. In Victoria, for example, the state government’s funding formula for government schools recognises the special need faced by students in regional and remote areas and includes a rural school size adjustment factor. This measure accounts for the greater costs these schools face outside the metropolitan area and the difficulties rural, regional and remote schools often face in attracting and maintaining staff.
In other jurisdictions where large numbers of students study in remote or very remote areas, funding is provided at a higher rate to account for these factors. In the Northern Territory, for example, the average expenditure per primary school student is around $13,000 compared to the national average of $8,000. Again, for secondary school the average funding per student in the Northern Territory is more than $16,000 compared to the national average of $11,000.
There is, in my view, clearly a need for additional resources for schools in rural, regional and remote Australia. This is one of Labor’s funding priorities for schools. The particular need of students in rural, regional and remote areas is clear. Schools in rural, regional and remote areas have persistent difficulties attracting and retaining teachers. They have limited and restricted access to facilities that their metropolitan counterparts often take for granted. It is often more difficult to get regular access to things such as libraries, museums, galleries and other educational attractions in rural, regional and remote locations than it is for city or town based schools. And with that comes the additional cost and burden of school trips and excursions, whether they be to Sydney to visit the foundation of European settlement, to Melbourne to visit the Scienceworks Museum or indeed to Canberra to visit this parliament and the War Memorial. For many schoolchildren, visiting them is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it is often expensive for both parents and the schools to organise. These are invaluable experiences in a school career no matter where that school may be, but the obvious cost, travel and time burden on those schools and students who come from rural, regional and remote Australia is particularly acute.
In addition, in the absence of having ready access to these sorts of facilities on their doorstep, school excursions are the sorts of things that take on an additional level of importance in schools outside the major population centres. In the area of educational attainment, schools in rural and regional locations also fall behind their metropolitan counterparts in the literacy and numeracy achievements of students. The 2005 National report on schooling in Australia, for example, highlights the need for greater support for students in remote areas.
For year 3 students undertaking the literacy and numeracy benchmarks in 2005, 93.7 per cent of students in metropolitan areas passed the writing benchmark—which fell to 82.5 per cent of students in remote areas and further dropped to only 62 per cent of students passing the benchmarks in very remote areas. The results are even more alarming in numeracy, especially in later years, with 83 per cent of year 7 students in metropolitan areas passing numeracy benchmarks in 2005, while only 72 per cent in remote areas and fewer than 50 per cent of students in very remote areas passed the numeracy benchmarks. The story is much the same for the number of students who stay at school until year 12. In metropolitan Australia, the Productivity Commission estimates that 70 per cent of students in metropolitan areas complete year 12, with this dropping to 63 per cent in remote areas and plummeting to only 37 per cent in very remote areas. Clearly, there is an acute need to address these issues and improve the educational outcomes of students outside our metropolitan areas.
While this measure will bring a welcome increase to needy non-government schools facing difficulty because of their rural, regional or remote locations, it focuses on the need for further government funding to government rural, regional and remote schools in the next four-year funding arrangement. In my view, this is a government responsibility which falls on both the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
A greater proportion of government schools are in rural and regional locations. The Productivity Commission’s Report on government services 2007 found that nearly 29 per cent of all government students are studying in so-called provincial locations—essentially schools located in rural or regional locations—while three per cent of all government students are either in remote or very remote locations. Twenty-nine per cent of government students in so-called provincial locations and three per cent of government students in remote or very remote locations—that is 32 per cent—compares with 24 per cent of students in non-government schools, which I referred to earlier. This makes the point reflected by the second reading amendment, which I will formally move at the conclusion of my remarks:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-Government schools but notes the failure to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote Government schools”.
In addition to those cost and location disadvantages, it is also the case that Indigenous people are much more likely to live and to attend school in remote and very remote Australia than the non-Indigenous population. The vast majority of Indigenous students attend government schools. In 2004, 87 per cent of Indigenous students attended government schools—schools which will not receive any additional funding through this new measure. It is quite clear that as a nation we must make greater investments in Indigenous education and work to close the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.
The Labor leader, Mr Rudd, spoke only a few days ago, on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, of the need to set new national, bipartisan goals to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—goals that are achievable and measurable and which fulfil the spirit of the referendum. Mr Rudd proposed that as a nation we commit to the following goals: to eliminate the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, to at least halve the rate of Indigenous infant mortality among babies within a decade, to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children under the age of five within a decade, and to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within 10 years.
Labor is committed to meeting these goals, and, along with a range of health and family initiatives, education is a key plank in achieving this. Under Labor, all Indigenous four-year-olds will be eligible to receive 15 hours of government funded early-learning programs per week for a minimum of 40 weeks a year. Labor will provide $16.9 million over four years to support the rollout of the Australian Early Development Index in every Australian primary school. This will be adapted to establish a culturally appropriate and nationally consistent means of addressing key aspects of Indigenous children’s early development which are central to their readiness for learning at school. Labor will ensure that every Indigenous child has an individual learning plan based on each child’s needs and Labor will expand intensive literacy programs and develop a new intensive numeracy program to assist underachieving students to catch up with the rest of their class.
Along with the strong commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, our aspiration and our intention is to improve the educational outcomes of all young Australians. While this particular measure deals only with non-government schools in remote and regional Australia, Labor have made a commitment about schools funding along the following lines. We believe that a greater investment should be made at all levels of education, including schools and schooling. Labor will fund all schools on the basis of need and fairness, Labor will not cut funding to any schools and Labor will not disturb the current average government school recurrent costs indexation arrangements for schools funding.
A Rudd Labor government will fund all schools, whether they are government, non-government, religious or secular, based on need and fairness. Labor has made it clear, through its continued education revolution policies, that it will make a greater investment in education at every level. In the context of this bill, that will include schools and schooling in rural, regional and remote Australia.
There are a number of funding priorities for Australian schools. I see a particular need not only for rural, regional and remote education and Indigenous education but also for more funding for primary schools, special education and early childhood education. We have to make a greater investment in schools in rural, regional and remote Australia, in our primary schools, in special education and in early childhood education. It is in these areas that I think the greatest need currently exists so far as our schools and schooling are concerned. I now formally move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-Government schools but notes the failure to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote Government schools”.
10000
Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BK Bishop)—Is the amendment seconded?
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—I second the amendment.
81
18:24:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—Listen to the Labor Party and it would seem as though all purity, all godliness, is on their side. But what is missing from any of the arguments they put forward on anything to do with education is the awkwardness at best, and the downright corruption at worst, that exists in the education system in this country when it comes to the priorities set by state government bureaucracies. I listened to the member for Perth, who represents a very small electorate in the centre of Perth—and there is nothing wrong with that—but the member for Parkes, who I see here, will understand the point I make when I say that the sparse horizons of real Australia, outside of the tree-lined suburbs of central Perth, are a different reality. What is worse, the Western Australian government tell everyone in country Western Australia: ‘Come to Perth.’ They actually defund and denude education opportunities for people in Western Australia and demand that people come to Perth.
I know that the member for Mackellar comes from New South Wales, and there is an equally poor record there in New South Wales. The further away from Sydney you get, the better the education system works, because the priority for the New South Wales government—just as it is for the governments in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and even here in the ACT—is to take the Commonwealth funds and make sure that the people in the bureaucracy are well furnished with all they need, that the quarter-of-a-million-dollar-a-year men and women are paid and that their services are made available before anything actually filters through to the schools.
If there is one fundamental flaw in the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, a bill I support as it stands, it is that it puts more money into the hands of state and territory governments, and that is where the problem is. The member for Perth talks about all the great things that would occur if Labor were in power. Thirty-three billion dollars worth of expenditure over the 2005-08 funding quadrennium represents something in the order of an 80 per cent increase in expenditure by the Australian government on schools and education compared to when Labor were last in power. That is way beyond the inflation rate. So, if there has ever been an education government in Australia’s history, it has to be this government—the Liberal Party government, the National Party government, the coalition government, the Howard government; however you want to describe it, this government has actually gone beyond the rhetoric and delivered real dividends.
This bill is about a vote of further support. It is about recognising vulnerable people in various parts of Australia, and that has an impact on all of us. In those remote, very remote, regional and moderately accessible areas—as the bill defines them—the additional vote of money that will go to non-government schools will address some of the real needs and the parlous circumstances of those schools. This is in the face of a failure by state governments around this country to realise that the most important thing they should do with their education funding is to start in the classroom and work out. They should not start in the big towers in Phillip Street in Sydney or in Mary Street in Brisbane or wherever they happen to be. This is not about wall panelling for those offices, not about flash cars and not about long lunches for people in education head offices; it is about the teachers and the students. I put it very plainly to the House tonight that something in the order of one dollar out of every four that goes from the Australian government to the various state and territory governments is lost in administration of the other three dollars. One dollar out of every four, instead of going straight to the classrooms, goes into the big towers.
If those opposite would join with me and this side of the chamber and demand greater accountability and greater prioritisation by state governments on the business of education, more money would actually be delivered to the classroom. The schools assistance bill that we are debating tonight reflects additional moneys from the Commonwealth government budget delivered a few weeks ago, continuing this government’s track record of trying to target need where it exists the most. The Investing in Our Schools Program has produced a direct investment that has gone into the hands of principals and P&C presidents. It means money can go directly from Canberra to local schools, because we trust those schools to best know what they want.
The first thing state governments have sought is management fees for projects. The New South Wales government is probably the worst, but the Queensland government is not far behind. They demand, ‘If you are going to touch anything in our schools, we want a slice of that money off the top.’ In fact, some states demand that their public works departments do the work—or else! The Department of Public Works in Queensland has a reputation for featherbedding 40 per cent on top of any commercial rate for work that normal contractors do. Whilst I know that the Labor Party are going to pass this bill, I call their amendment for what it is—a stunt. It is an attempt to look pure and godlike in their attitude towards education. But, in practice, state Labor governments have failed the classroom teachers and students in their care for far too long.
We are going to see non-government schools in moderately accessible, remote and very remote regions finding ways to keep the good teachers. One of the problems that exists in a lot of those schools in the very productive areas of rural and regional Australia is that the second a good teacher arrives they are snared and taken away somewhere else. I remember going to Mildura a few years ago, and the problem there was simple: the kids—and these were not even schoolkids—were just being minded in childcare facilities while their parents were off earning money picking fruit. They were losing teachers hand over fist to the fruit-picking industry, because it was paying more than teaching paid. So you can imagine that, as a result of the general recurrent grants—the remoteness per capita loading for non-government schools—we are going to start to see non-government schools in remote, very remote and moderately accessible regions of Australia offering AWAs to teachers. That is going to give teachers an opportunity to earn more and stay in the classroom. They will always earn more. They trade their skills and experience, but they also give some guarantee of tenure—that they will stay there—because the wage rates in various parts of remote, very remote and moderately accessible Australia are competing with the wage rates in industries outside the education sector.
So that is one of the good things that is going to come. I must say that, regardless of which part of Australia any of us happens to represent, that may stem the tide of people leaving those rural and regional areas to come to cities to place their kids in schools in city areas. Those rural and regional areas will be able to get good teachers and keep them there. They will be able to resource the education equation in those regional centres, so parents will not be tempted to send their kids to the cities for better opportunities. So the roll-on effect of what the government is doing here, whilst it does not directly impact upon a seat like mine in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, does actually have a beneficial impact for schools and teachers in my area. It means that schools and students in regional and rural Australia are going to be able to see a vote from the Australian government of additional funds to improve educational opportunities in those areas, attract quality teachers, increase staff retention and improve teacher access to professional development.
The National Catholic Education Commission has raised the issue of the high cost of regional and remote Australian schools in comparison to schools in other areas. We have seen examples where statistically they have not had education outcomes as good as those of some of the city based or large town based schools. This measure will assist 400 regional and remote non-government schools from 1 January next year, with increased funding that is going to make a difference.
I want to turn my attention to something that directly impacts on the electorate of Moreton. We have the most culturally diverse electorate in Queensland. In the southern suburbs of Brisbane we have people who have come to Australia as refugees and humanitarian entrants—people who have come to do better for themselves and their families. They may be the first generation that have come here, and they are willing to sacrifice things so that their kids are given opportunities to grow and have things that they themselves would never have imagined having—and one of the key things, of course, is education. Schools in my district are playing an enormous role—doing the heavy liftng of early investment in people to make a difference. This sort of early investment in people, through the English as a second language new arrivals, ESLNA, program, and the increased funding that the budget has delivered—and the bill is all about the formal delivery of that funding—will reap an enormous dividend for Australia in years to come.
I think Queensland has, by comparison with all other states, the best system for high-school-age students in that it has an intensive delivery of English programs, getting kids geared up at a high-school level through Milperra State High School at Chelmer, in my electorate. I pay tribute to Adele Rice, the principal, and her hardworking, dedicated staff. I was there on Friday night watching the Burundi dancers celebrate students who had been at that school in years past and students who are still at that school. They were celebrating the receipt of $108,000 in Investing in Our Schools funding which went to refurbishing the canteen. The canteen is the centre of the school social activities. The canteen is the place for food and drink and for the good times that seem to revolve around it, as well as for teaching kids about food hygiene and food preparation skills. So that $108,000, which has gone directly from the Australian government to that school where its P&C and principal can be trusted, has made a difference there.
Adele Rice, the principal of Milperra, can be very brave given the way the Queensland Labor government operates. Very bravely for a public servant, she actually came out and said how appreciative she was that we have an Australian government that understands—through the doubling of this increased funding, the doubling of the per capita amount of support, for eligible humanitarian entrants—the difference that it is going to make. I say to Adele Rice: thank you for your courage in applauding this positive effort. I know of the difference that is made at Milperra State High School. I know of the intensive work that is done over, say, six months. The kids often start from nothing and go to something. Then they go on and, particularly at high schools like Yeronga high school and Sunnybank high school, we see the success of those students that passed through Milperra. We see the success of the students who pass through this ESLNA program that we fund. We are doubling the funding through this bill tonight. We see the success of those students exemplified by the fact that school captains of both Sunnybank and Yeronga high schools have passed through Milperra and have come here with no English skills but have gained confidence because they have the skills, which we fund—and a difference is made.
Last Friday the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, was in the electorate of Moreton. I took her to a number of places. I did not take her to Milperra but I was there later in the day representing her and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Pat Farmer, at the opening of that canteen. I took her and sat her down with ESL teachers making a difference at Moorooka Primary School. Moorooka Primary School is just down the road from where the department of immigration’s on-arrival accommodation in that part of Brisbane is located. Milperra does the work for the high school students but Moorooka, amongst other schools, really does the heavy lifting for the primary school age students. I gave the teachers an opportunity to tell Minister Bishop exactly the way forward, from their point of view, on how to further invest in their areas.
Schools like Moorooka make a difference because they have teachers dedicated to the task of English as a second language, the funding for which has been doubled through this budget measure. But schools like Moorooka do not see anything like the $5,277 for eligible students that is provided, on the initial 2006-07 price basis, by the Australian government, which assisted some 13,000 students in 2006, including more than 5,000 who entered Australia as part of the humanitarian program. Schools like Moorooka Primary School, Sunnybank Primary School, Runcorn Heights Primary School, Warrigal Road Primary School and Kuraby Primary School—these state government schools that are doing the heavy lifting work on ESL, as are St Brendan’s Catholic parish school at Moorooka and St Pius X at Salisbury—do not see this $5,277 per student, because it goes to the Queensland government first. The highly paid bureaucrats get paid first and what is left over trickles out to these schools.
I simply say to the House tonight that if there were fairness and focus and if there were decency and honour in the ambitions of the Australian Labor Party members in this place—and indeed where they actually have control and an ability to deliver on a program, that being in the state bureaucracies—they would take that $5,277 per student that is being offered by the Australian government each year—13,000 students in 2006-07—and they would make it available to the schools where the teaching is done. They would actually put a classroom focus first, rather than following the tradition of Yes, Minister and seeing that the most efficient school offering English as a second language programs is the one with no students. They would actually fund the classroom relationship between the teachers and students. Moorooka Primary School, we were told last Friday, has two and a bit ESL teachers allocated with a case load of something equivalent to 27 per cent of the student body. In round figures, that is about 120 students out of 500. Moorooka state school does not need two and a bit teachers; it needs six or eight teachers. It is quite obvious to me that there is a desperate need in a school community like that to have the additional resources.
Here we have the Australian government playing its role, doubling the resources that go to assist English language tuition for new arrivals. But, as I said at the outset of my remarks, the big fundamental mistake in this bill is that the funding actually goes to state government bureaucracies, whom we hope will pass it on. The principals of schools in my electorate would be overwhelmed if they had a budget allocation of $5,277 per eligible student. Not only would they be overwhelmed; they would be able to provide the resources and support that would make a difference in those students’ lives. Taking the Moorooka example alone of 120 to 130 students—and anyone can do the sums—it would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars available to make a difference at the coalface. It would mean that all of the students who have come to the school with English language skills would not feel—and their parents would not feel—as though somehow or other the teachers may have to put extra effort into the ESL students. I think Moorooka has moved on from that, but I know that particularly at the time of the last federal election the Labor Party were promoting that as a whisper campaign around the suburb of Moorooka in my electorate, much to their great shame.
The simple reality is that the resources are coming from Canberra. Why are they not arriving in the classroom? Because the reality is that, no matter how pleasant their talk is, no matter how positive and on the side of God they sound in their utterances here about their aspirations, the Australian Labor Party’s priority is to put union based, union dominated officials and state bureaucracies ahead of the English language lessons being afforded to young people in this country, particularly vulnerable young people who have come from a humanitarian and refugee background. It is a disgrace. I commend this bill to the House.
85
18:45:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not one of those members of the House who always sees actions by governments as the thin edge of the wedge. That tendency is more often found on the other side of the House. Any intervention by government is often seen by government members as a step down the slippery slope to socialism. But, as each year goes by, we see another ideologically driven change by the government in the field of education. I am becoming more and more concerned about where it will end. I think most Australians are like the frog left in the saucepan which is very slowly heated; it only realises when it is too late that it is being boiled alive. It might be a good time to test the temperature of the water to see how far things have gone. Or, to quote the words of Professor Max Angus, of Edith Cowan University, in his paper entitled Commonwealth-state relations and the funding of Australia’s schools:
The negative consequences of the current funding arrangements are a bit like concrete cancer in a large building, or changes to the ozone layer in our atmosphere. The degradation is slow and almost imperceptible. The net effect is a growing differentiation between those government and nongovernment schools that serve the families on high incomes and those who are not well off. The Australian education system, taken as a whole, is evolving into something but we don’t know what.
It is time for us to stop and consider Professor Angus’s question: what is our education system evolving into? Or are we too far down that slippery slope to regain our footing and get back on track for a fair and effective education system in Australia? The measures contained in the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 only lead us further down that slippery slope to where education is, once again, the privilege of an elite few. So it is definitely worth looking back up the hill to see how far we have fallen. If we go back to the beginning, when the Commonwealth delivered the first significant grants for school education, under the Whitlam government in 1974, 70 per cent of funding went to government schools and 27 per cent to private schools. That roughly reflected the fact that two-thirds of students went to public schools. But today we find the figures for funding are reversed.
In this year’s budget, which this bill brings into law, private schools will get 69 per cent of funding, while public schools will get only 31 per cent. There has been some increase in the proportion of students attending private schools, but two-thirds of students in public schools still only get 31 per cent of Commonwealth funding. In recent years we have seen Commonwealth funding for private schools growing at three times the rate for public schools. The Commonwealth’s per student grant for what is defined as the least needy private school is far greater than the per student grant for public schools.
Of course, we hear the government countering the advertisements of the Australian Education Union, saying that the total amount of money spent by state and federal governments is 75 per cent of total funding, while only 67 per cent of students attend public schools. In part, the Minister for Education, Science and Training answers her own question in the measures included in this bill. As the minister knows only too well, public schools must accept all students, wherever they live and whatever their disability or their disadvantage. In this bill, the minister introduces additional funding in the form of a loading linked to recurrent grants for non-government schools in rural and remote regions. These are defined as moderately accessible, remote and very remote. But this funding will only be provided to non-government schools. Public education systems, which have the primary responsibility to provide education for all Australian children, regardless of where they live, get absolutely nothing. The minister even has the hide to demand that state governments provide an equivalent increase in their funding for regional and remote government schools. The minister definitely wants to have her cake and eat it too.
On the one hand, the minister says that students in public schools get more funding in total, if you add together the Commonwealth and state government funding; but, on the other hand, she acknowledges that there are reasons why, because of remoteness, some schools may need extra funding. To balance the equation, she gives extra funding only to non-government schools, but demands that state governments make up for what the Commonwealth government will not provide public schools. The same could be said about the additional cost to the public education system of catering to the needs of new arrivals in Australia, yet in the same bill the minister acknowledges the need to fund both public and non-government schools. On the one hand, the minister sees the need for additional funding for remoteness but only gives additional funding to non-government schools; on the other hand, she sees the need for additional funding under the humanitarian settlement initiative. The minister, in her second reading speech, said:
For humanitarian entrants in Australian primary and secondary schools, intensive support to improve English language skills is one of the best ways to improve the educational outcomes and future employability so that they can participate more broadly in Australian society.
I could not agree more with that statement. The Fowler electorate has, until recent years, had perhaps the greatest funding need in this area. The burden of providing not only English language programs but also other school-based assimilation programs has largely been carried by schools often classified as disadvantaged. This funding is welcome, but it only serves to show how lopsided the whole issue of Commonwealth funding is. The government appreciates the additional cost of meeting the needs of students under the humanitarian settlement initiative funds for both public and non-government schools. The government also appreciates the additional cost involved in providing school education in remote areas but only funds non-government schools. This move makes a mockery of the government’s claim to be a good economic manager. As anyone who has visited schools in remote parts of Australia could tell you, these schools require more resources than city schools for much smaller class numbers.
The challenge for remote secondary schools in recent decades has been to find ways of providing face-to-face teaching while providing some degree of subject choice. This measure by the government will only serve to spread resources even more thinly. Providing greater choice in remote areas will not make for better education outcomes; it just flies in the face of good economic management. Of course, that just serves to highlight the whole issue of what the Commonwealth’s role should be in education.
What we have is a Commonwealth government following its own narrow ideological agenda at the expense of efficiency. The government has so much money to give away to private schools that it looks for ways to justify its assistance. But you cannot justify an agenda of school choice when that same agenda will in fact restrict real choice—that is, how to provide for the wide needs of a small number of students in a remote school. To put it into the reality of remote areas, the public system will be required to maintain its responsibility to provide school education in remote areas but it will only be able to do so less efficiently. This government is running around spending like a drunken sailor, throwing money at the non-government sector. Instead of looking at a cooperative model where a sharing of joint facilities and programs between public and non-government schools could improve both choice and access, this government goes down its ideologically driven path and takes us further down the slippery slope.
It might now be a good time to ask, as Professor Angus suggests: just what is our school system evolving into? Certainly it is nothing like anything you will see in any other developed country. No other national government has as great a bias in favour of non-government schools. No other national government provides a whopping 73 per cent of recurrent funding grants to non-government schools, which have only one-third of all students, while public schools, with the remaining two-thirds of students, get only nine per cent of recurrent funding from the Commonwealth. That distribution is not evenly balanced among non-government schools. According to one study, 27 per cent of students in independent schools attended schools where the fees paid exceeded the average level of resources in public schools. Looking at the total numbers of students attending non-government schools, 55 per cent are better resourced than public schools through the combination of fees and government grants. So that leaves 45 per cent of schools with lower resource levels than public schools. I know only too well what that means for the students in those schools.
In the Fowler electorate that means that the newer independent schools, both Christian and a growing number of Muslim schools, have resource levels below that of the average public school. So, while we have a Commonwealth government which prides itself on contributing the lion’s share of funding for non-government schools, 73 per cent of their recurrent expenditure, and while it wants to boast that it is the best friend that private education ever had, this government leaves 45 per cent of students at non-government schools with less than the per student recurrent funding for public schools. With a funding formula based on the socioeconomic status of the postcodes from which a school draws its students, not based on the level of resources that the school has—and given the overriding requirement that no school will have its grant reduced—we are left with a funding scheme for non-government schools which is not only unfair to students at public schools but also unfair to nearly half of the students in non-government schools.
What must really grate about many of the provisions in this bill is that, in spite of the fact that the Commonwealth only pays nine per cent of the recurrent cost of public schools, this government wants to call the tune when it comes to directing just how the states spend their money. I have already mentioned one of those demands in relation to funding for remote schools. If this government were paying the greater share of the cost of public education then we might see it as legitimate for the Commonwealth to demand that the states comply with certain requirements. But this government only contributes nine per cent. So what it is doing in demanding certain actions by the states, including contributing their own money, is nothing short of blackmail. I was pleased to see recently that the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training called it just that and threatened to refuse to comply with these demands by the Commonwealth. This lack of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states can only lead to an expensive and disastrous failure of school education in Australia.
Let us look at the other parts of this legislation. The National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers program again is an ideologically driven program which fails because there is no built in cooperation between schools and students. I know that in my electorate less than half of the vouchers are taken up because parents fail to understand the program or cannot access this assistance. The program simply does not link with in-school programs, and no funding is made available for teachers to liaise with tutors. At best the program may give some poorly directed assistance, but at worst it is a costly and ineffective measure to improve literacy and numeracy standards. Just to confuse the situation even further, the budget package offers up to $50,000 to schools which improve literacy and numeracy outcomes. The government allocates money to private tutors by way of vouchers, but holds schools responsible for the results. That is not just bad government, it is plain stupid.
The package also aims to develop common core curricula for schools. This government has had 11 long years to follow on from Labor’s progress in common curriculum development but it has not even got to first base. While this minister, the one before her and the one before him complained about the difficulty faced by students moving from one state to another, we still have not begun to address the issue of common school starting ages. Eleven years after Labor did the groundwork, a five-year-old can still start school in New South Wales, move to Queensland and not be accepted into a school. I can remember the shock that a friend of mine had when her family moved to Queensland. Her daughter had started high school in year 7 in New South Wales only to be put back to primary school three quarters of the way through the year. These things need to be fixed before we start thinking about setting standardised curricula.
But when we come to the requirements that this government wants to impose on the states from 2009, we can see its real agenda. If it thinks it can mandate performance based pay and school principal autonomy in teacher employment, it will need a lot more than just its ideological desire to see it through. These are not simple reforms. When put into practice they would overturn a raft of existing conditions and entitlements without any Commonwealth funding to compensate for their removal. Think of what New South Wales teachers have invested in the transfer points system and the incentives this has provided in staffing remote schools. Disadvantaged schools have staff turnover rates averaging 35 per cent a year, but this government thinks it can just click its fingers and its plans will come into effect. In New South Wales there is already a degree of performance based pay in the promotions system, and the selection for promotion positions includes the involvement of school principals. Our state education systems are among the largest employers in the country, yet for some dubious ideological goal this government wants to place the important issue of school staffing in jeopardy.
The Commonwealth has no responsibility whatsoever for the staffing of public schools, yet it wants to interfere in the states’ responsibilities, and it will accept no blame if it leads to staff shortages. This government thinks it can change whatever it likes to the teaching workforce of this country and it will have no consequences. It is very wrong if it assumes that it will have a compliant workforce ready to go along with whatever changes this government wants to see. Teachers possess skills much in demand in other parts of the workforce and any changes which make a teaching career less attractive will only lead to an exodus of highly trained professionals and the early retirement of some of our best and most experienced teachers. It is no wonder the New South Wales minister for education has signalled that he will not go along with many of these proposed changes. This government would be better served if it adopted a much more cooperative approach in dealing with these issues.
To come back to the question posed by Professor Angus: just what is the education system under this government evolving into? It is certainly a far cry from the free, secular and compulsory motto of the founders of public education in this country, and we are already well on our way down the slippery slope from where we were when this government came to power. From the emphasis on funding disadvantaged schools to give every child in our schools the best opportunity, we now have a system which is very heavy on compliance, with everything from flying the flag to prescribing precisely what is taught, how it is taught and who teaches it. While the government talks about improving the quality of our schools it is fast removing the equality from our schools.
89
19:05:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise tonight to speak on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I strongly support this bill, particularly the investment that this government has made over the last 11 years into all education sectors, including early learning, primary, secondary, vocational training and higher education. It has made significant investments over the years, and I think it is important at the outset just to correct some of the assertions made by the Education Union and by the member for Fowler, who has just left the chamber.
Federal funding for state schools has increased by some 70 per cent in real terms since 1996, while enrolments in state schools have increased by a mere 1.2 per cent over that time. The result is that, while some 67 per cent of students are in state government schools, they receive around 75 per cent of total taxpayer funding. What the Labor Party and the Education Union consistently fail to recognise is that taxpayers’ money is funded not only directly from the Commonwealth government but also through the state governments, which, at the end of the day, own the state schools. The funding that schools receive is a combination of money that comes directly from the federal government as well as via state governments.
We have seen federal funding, which goes directly to government schools, increase from $0.9 billion back in 1996 to $1.9 billion in this year’s budget—a substantial increase given that the actual number of enrolments has only increased by 1.2 per cent. The Australian government’s recurrent funding for public schools—and that is only one source of our funding—is actually linked to state government funding, and has been, by the same formula, since 1985. So the more state governments increase funding for their schools, the more the Commonwealth automatically increases its own funding.
In addition, however, the Commonwealth also provides funding for specific purposes, such as the $1.2 billion that has gone through the Investing in Our Schools program, and the $1.8 billion that has gone into the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. So, in the 2006 budget, which is the one with which we can compare at the moment because we have the state figures, the Howard government increased total funding to state government schools by 11 per cent, while state governments only increased their funding by 4.9 per cent on average. If all the states had matched the federal rate of increase in funding to state government schools, there would have been an additional $1.4 billion for state government schools.
The last point is brought out very passionately by the independent and Catholic school sector. They note that the very fact that parents are prepared to contribute a large amount—in fact, generally the majority of funding—to support independent schools saves state and territory governments more than $9 billion each year. I believe it is important that, rather than have people try to recreate a class war in Australia, or spread lies and misinformation about funding to create discontent, we should recognise that parents do have a choice as to where they would like to send their children to school. As taxpayers they are also entitled to government assistance. And, as the figures clearly show, the majority of assistance from taxpayers goes to children who are in state schools. A lesser amount goes to children who are in private schools, where parents also make a considerable contribution to their education.
Over the period 2005 to 2008, a record $33 billion will be provided by the Australian government for schools across Australia. This significant investment has been made because we recognise the value of education. But it is also important to recognise that we have only been able to make this significant contribution because of the good economic management of this government, which has paid down the $96 billion debt which was left by the previous Labor government. That debt absorbed some $8½ billion every year in interest, and that was money which could not be spent on things like health or aged care or education.
In addition, the Howard government is boosting this funding by the Realising Our Potential package, which is some $843 million over four years, as announced in this year’s budget. This package provides a number of measures, but I particularly welcome the $121.1 million for regional and remote non-government schools. This means that students in more than 400 regional and remote schools will be supported to achieve better outcomes.
Some of those schools are in the north of my electorate of Wakefield, and I welcome this additional funding for them. I do note, however, that other schools—government schools—in country areas in South Australia have recently been bemoaning the fact that their funding formula has changed. They face issues because, with smaller student numbers, it is difficult—particularly at the high school level—to provide a range of curriculum areas for students to study. I think it is very poor that the state government has now adopted a unitary funding model that puts country schools on the same basis as city schools. But that probably adds even more value to things like the Country Areas Program that the Commonwealth government provides to these schools, both state and non-government schools. It recognises that these children can be educationally disadvantaged, and so it provides this funding so that there are a wide range of projects and options available—excursions, or support subjects like other languages, or musical or sporting events. Even things like vocational training are supported through the Country Areas Program.
This is an area where, yet again, the Australian government is stepping in to meet a shortfall that has been left because of the poor spending priorities of the South Australian government. Student achievements against the national literacy and numeracy benchmarks show that students in non-metropolitan areas achieve below the level of their peers in the metro areas. So I very much welcome this funding.
The second measure in the bill looks at a humanitarian settlement initiative. Through this measure, an additional $127.8 million will be committed over the next four years to supporting newly-arrived humanitarian entrants. The previous speaker questioned why the federal government was providing this money to state as well as to non-government schools. Well, clearly it is because the whole immigration program, working with refugees and migrants, is something the federal government is heavily involved in, and we believe that the best way to integrate people into our community is for both parents and their children to have every opportunity to learn English. That is why we support the literacy and numeracy program, through the Department of Education, Science and Training, as well as the Adult Migrant English Program, to make sure that people have the opportunity to learn English, to learn the skills to engage in further study, in our community or, importantly, for those who are able to, to work within our community.
The Realising Our Potential budget package also includes a number of other things that particularly affect the schools and families in the seat of Wakefield. The National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers program provides assistance to parents of students who have not achieved minimum literacy and numeracy standards in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. This scheme has received much criticism from the ideologues who oppose the concept of actually identifying how well people are doing. But I have had parents ring up and say how grateful they are that finally there is a benchmark that their child is being assessed against, and that it has validated their individual concerns about where their child is at and has provided the impetus for that child to receive additional support. This is one concrete example of the Howard government’s determination to work with parents to get better early childhood education outcomes.
I am particularly pleased to report to the House that in the city of Playford in the Wakefield electorate a regular meeting is held between the elected members from all three levels of government to come together to discuss ways to work collaboratively for the benefit of the community. At the last meeting, we discussed specifically how we could get local community groups, state schools, the council and the federal government to work together to get clearly identifiable contact paths for parents to use, particularly those from lower socioeconomic areas, to access tutors who could work in the home or the school environment to provide a targeted tutoring program to students who need support.
This package also introduces the Australian government’s summer school for teachers. This program offers teachers more professional development and upskilling in important areas such as literacy and numeracy, maths, science, English and Australian history. This is an opportunity for teachers to actually improve their skills and to receive a payment for doing that.
There has been a lot of criticism about ranking schools and identifying how well they do, but the grants of up to $50,000 for schools to reward them for improving literacy and numeracy outcomes, I think, are important. It does not say, ‘You have to compete against some other school in another part of the city.’ It says: ‘Where are you today? How much improvement have you made over a period of time, given your starting point?’ And it then rewards the school for the effort it put in to achieve that improvement. I think that is a very good incentive for schools to look for better ways—and many of them are currently doing this—and it provides schools with a very tangible reward to put into better resources for the children learning there.
One of the things I have done in my time in this parliament as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training is participate in an inquiry into the quality and scope of teacher training in Australia to identify how we could do it better and to identify why so many teachers train but then leave the profession so quickly. We interviewed a range of schools, training providers, universities as well as student teachers. A number of things came out of that inquiry, and one of the most important was the need to improve the practical component of teacher education. I am pleased to see that in this Realising Our Potential budget package there is a specific initiative to try and ensure that the experience of student teachers in the practicum is of a high quality and of sufficient length to prepare teachers for the classroom. Finally, in terms of this package, I am very pleased to see funding to develop core curricular standards in year 10 for a number of subjects and in years 11 and 12 in subjects including English, Australian history, biology, chemistry and physics, as well as funding for the development of national teacher training, registrations and standards.
Australia has an increasingly mobile population. As I look at families who work in areas such as the Defence Force, I see that they regularly move around the country. It is a real issue for their children as they move from state to state. They come across different standards and different curricula, and sometimes they are forced to drop back a year because of an incompatibility between the state systems. I am pleased to see this funding being made available for core curricular standards, and I call on each of the state and territory governments and the education ministers within those governments to work cooperatively with the federal government to achieve this outcome for the benefit of our children.
All of these initiatives are building on things such as the very successful Investing in Our Schools program, which in the electorate of Wakefield has seen some 62 schools benefit from around 150 projects. Some $7.3 million has been invested in projects in Wakefield—which the schools have certainly welcomed. Angle Vale Primary will receive $34,000 in one project to upgrade their networking and IT. Balaklava Primary will receive $150,000 for similar projects. Blakeview Primary will receive $118,000 for fencing and new flooring. Elizabeth Downs Primary will receive nearly $150,000 for play equipment and other upgrades. That program has been very valuable because it has allowed school principals and parents to identify priorities within their schools to meet the needs of their children.
There is one other area I wish to touch on and it relates to students from regional areas. There are a range of measures the government has in place to support students studying at schools in regional areas, but many families feel that the only option they have for their young people to achieve the educational outcomes they desire is for them to go and study in the city. This government has put some developments in place in this regard which I welcome. For example, rural students in receipt of youth allowance will receive additional assistance by gaining access to a higher away-from-home rate of payment, rent assistance and remote area allowance and a fares allowance for up to two return trips home each year, as well as other benefits such as the low-income healthcare card and the pharmaceutical allowance. Importantly, for farmers, under the family assets test, farm assets are discounted by some 75 per cent.
I consistently hear, though, from families living in country areas that it is still a real struggle for them to afford quality education, particularly if they have been paying boarding-school fees and then move on to support their young people as they go to university. While I welcome the initiatives providing the additional loading for children in country schools, I believe we need to continue to look at ways to support families who live in rural and regional areas and seek a good educational outcome for their children.
In summary, I support this bill because, yet again, it shows that through the good economic management of this government we have been able to make a record investment in education in Australia across a range of areas, particularly in the areas we have been discussing today: the benefits to new arrivals to Australia and regional students, and the development options for young people in terms of literacy and numeracy standards and improving the quality and standards of our teachers—already some of the best in the world, but this will give them the opportunity to reach the standards of excellence they wish to achieve to support the students whom they pour so much of their lives into. I commend the bill to the House.
93
19:22:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. It is part of the budget measures for 2007. I particularly welcome following my colleague the member for Wakefield, who I think has drawn a very important linkage between good economic management by this government and its ability to better fund education, not just quality education but relevant education. Relevance, of course, is very important in this day and age of fast-moving technologies.
The bill gives a legislative basis for a record amount of funding to be provided by the Australian government. The funding amounts to $33 billion to implement budget measures for schools, which includes additional funding for newly arrived humanitarian entrant students under the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program for 2008, and to provide a funding loading, or an additional payment, to recurrent grants for non-government schools in rural and remote regions, according to the degree of remoteness, for 2008.
The English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program provides intensive English language tuition for recently arrived migrant students to improve their educational outcomes. These budget measures actually double the per capita rate of funding paid to government and non-government education authorities for students in primary and secondary schools who enter Australia on a humanitarian visa. This funding is provided to the state and territory governments and non-government education authorities to assist with the provision of intensive teaching of the English language to eligible primary and secondary students—English language competence—and increase their educational opportunities. The money is utilised in a variety of ways, including the employment of specialist staff, the development of an English as a second language curriculum and teaching material.
Some 13,000 students were assisted by English as a second language programs in 2006. This included some 5,000 students who arrived in Australia as part of the humanitarian program. Under these new arrangements the funding for eligible humanitarian students will double in 2008. I understand that this decision has been universally welcomed.
It is a fact that throughout the world there are thousands of people living outside their homelands in refugee camps. Conditions are far from ideal and it has fallen to countries such as Australia to offer places to people living in these dire circumstances. Australia has a very generous humanitarian refugee resettlement program. Australia assists thousands of refugees and others in need of humanitarian assistance. Indeed, since 1996, over 10,000 people have come to Australia under this program and Australia has consistently ranked among the top three resettlement countries, alongside the United States of America and Canada, in numbers resettled each year.
Many people coming to Australia under this program have experienced life events that have left them seriously traumatised and, contrary to popular belief in some quarters, it is not easy for people to uproot themselves from their land of birth, leaving behind whatever wealth they managed to acquire, families, friends, familiar sounds, food and landscapes. Home is home, wherever one puts down one’s roots, and being forced from it must be a life-shattering experience, especially for children. It is therefore important that a high level of assistance is given to new arrivals. The Australian government is committed to the successful settlement of those chosen to come to Australia under the humanitarian program.
The Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy provides intensive settlement support to new arrivals to help them become self-sufficient as soon as possible. These services may include individual case management, referral to other support services, accommodation, orientation, emergency needs for medical attention, clothing and footwear, and basic household goods to allow people to quickly establish their household in their new country. It is especially helpful for young people to learn the language that will ensure that they have an opportunity to fully participate in their new country—to be able to find work, to fully participate in social and community life and to assist parents and possibly grandparents who may not have had the same opportunity.
There is little doubt that English language tuition promotes successful settlement and integration of newly arrived humanitarian students in Australian schools. English proficiency is one of the most effective ways to improve educational outcomes and smooth the pathway for young people for whom life has been tough and where, in some cases, they may have experienced great disruption to their regular schooling. Because of the circumstances in which they come to their new country, students entering Australia under the humanitarian program may need additional assistance to settle into school and additional language tuition in the initial phase of their course.
The English as a second language program has been very successful and this additional funding builds on earlier work. However, teaching English as a second language requires dedicated teachers, a curriculum and textbook writers, all of which need funding. As all levels of government have responsibilities to settle new humanitarian arrivals, the costs are shared, but the Commonwealth makes a significant contribution to the program. This funding adds to other programs funded by the Commonwealth, including the General Recurrent Grants Program and the targeted funding for students with a language background other than English through the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program.
The second part of this amendment bill provides additional funding for non-government regional and remote schools in recognition of the higher cost of delivering education in those regional and remote areas. Non-government school organisations have been concerned about the high cost of delivering schooling in remote and rural areas, including the higher cost of building, building maintenance, recruitment and retaining teachers in remote areas. These schools offer an important choice for many parents and students who may choose to have an education within the context of their religious beliefs. It seems reasonable for the schools prepared to invest in rural and remote schooling to be given funding consideration in line with those higher costs. The funding amounts to $121 million over a four-year period and is part of the government’s budget measures under the Realising Our Potential package of measures to improve education in Australia.
There are over 400 non-government schools throughout Australia, and this will give them considerable support to continue to offer choice to families living in rural and remote areas. These measures have the ultimate aim of improving student achievement levels. Students in rural areas do not have the same advantages as city based students, who are, for the most part, within reach of many facilities in the more populous cities and suburbs.
There is clear evidence that rural and remote students do not achieve as highly as their peers in metropolitan schools and, at least in my electorate of Pearce, there is some evidence, which came about through studies a few years ago, that the retention rate of students in rural schools is not as high as those in the city. This funding can therefore be used to great advantage in improving educational opportunities for the most disadvantaged students, with quality teachers, increased staff retention levels and improved access to ongoing professional development of teachers in rural and remote areas.
Eligibility for the extra payment will be determined under the Australian Bureau of Statistics standard geographical classification and according to the remoteness of the census collection district in which a school campus is located. Funding levels will depend on whether a school is located in moderately remote, remote or very remote areas. Drawing boundaries, of course, is always difficult because there are always those who fall just within and just outside those boundaries but, for the schools and the students who attend those schools which fall within the rural and remote program, this is a very important measure to ensure equity in education for rural and remote students.
The amendment bill addresses two important issues, each affecting relatively small groups of people, but good governance is about ensuring that all communities share in the prosperity and the benefits of living in such a prosperous and blessed country. The Howard government recognises the benefits of investing heavily in schools, including through the Investing in Our Schools progarm. I am pleased to see that the minister has just come back into the House. I would like to put on the record that I think she is doing an outstanding job and that the Investing in Our Schools program has been very well received within the electorate of Pearce. It has been an important way to improve school facilities and amenities, where the decisions about what needs funding are entrusted to school parents and friends groups and school principals. In other words, the federal government is giving school communities the ability to decide their priorities for the expenditure of funds under this program, and it has certainly been welcomed, as I said, in the electorate of Pearce. There have been many gains for education in my electorate of Pearce under the good governance of the Howard government, whether it is investment in facilities, the excellent access classes to encourage young people to continue their education or the investment in improving literacy and numeracy outcomes.
The measures in this bill, again, are part of ensuring that all students have access to the best possible educational opportunities. Once again, as my colleague the member for Wakefield said in his speech—and I think it is an important link that he drew—good economic management allows this government to provide better outcomes in education.
96
19:33:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—In summing up the debate on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 this evening, I thank all members of the House who have participated, particularly the member for Pearce. I know how interested and concerned she is in achieving better educational outcomes for students in her electorate. The Australian government will make a substantial investment in education, providing approximately $33 billion to government and non-government schools over the period 2005 to 2008. In that, we are delivering genuine choice for Australian parents. Our share of schools funding—for we do share responsibility with state and territory governments—has increased by over 160 per cent since 1996. Around 3.4 million students from over 9,600 schools and school communities across Australia will benefit from the more than $1.2 billion in additional funding to be provided over the next four years as part of the Australian government’s 2007-08 budget. This additional funding takes the Australian government’s total level of investment in schooling to $9.7 billion for 2007-08.
This particular bill seeks to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act of 2004 to provide increased per capita funding for newly arrived humanitarian entrant students under the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program from 2008 and provide a funding loading to recurrent grants for non-government schools in rural and remote regions from 2008. This increased funding is an urgent priority designed to assist disadvantaged students living in these areas.
Firstly, I will turn to the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program. This provides funding to assist with the provision of intensive teaching of the English language to eligible students who have recently arrived in Australia. Over 2005-08, $127.8 million is being provided to ensure migrant school students newly arrived in Australia receive appropriate support in learning English. The proposed bill will implement the decision to double the per capita assistance to state and non-government education authorities to assist with the cost of intensive English tuition for humanitarian-entrant-students from 2008.
The program aims to develop migrant students’ English language competence and thereby increase their educational and future employment opportunities. Funding is available to all state and territory government and non-government education authorities to assist them with the delivery of intensive English language tuition to eligible primary and secondary school students. The funds are to be used for a range of purposes, including employing specialist staff and developing an English as a second language curriculum and teaching material. This important initiative is part of a whole-of-government strategy which focuses on promoting successful settlement through learning English, getting a job, committing to Australian values and participating in mainstream activities.
Secondly, in relation to the general recurrent grant loading for rural and remote non-government schools, I confirm that the Howard government does recognise the unique hardships that regional and remote schools face. This amendment will provide funding of $121.1 million over four years for non-government schools in regional and remote areas in recognition of the higher cost of delivering schooling in regional and remote areas of Australia. Through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly schools serving the neediest communities, the government seeks to improve the school outcomes for all Australian students. This measure will allow schools to direct expenditure to those areas which most seriously affect their capacity to offer a quality education. This additional funding could go towards attracting quality teachers or improving school facilities.
The additional funding will come in the form of a loading linked to the general recurrent funding provided by the Australian government. The loading will be determined using a remoteness classification as defined in the remoteness structure for census year 2001 under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Standard Geographical Classification. Non-government schools classified as moderately accessible, remote or very remote will receive an additional five per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent respectively of the funding entitlement associated with their socioeconomic status score.
Howard government funding for state government schools has risen by close to 70 per cent in real terms since 1996, while enrolments at state government schools have risen by just 1.2 per cent. It remains a fact that state government schools enrol 67 per cent of all Australian students and receive 75 per cent of total public funding for schools. I point out to members and to those listening to this parliamentary broadcast that, if state governments increased their investment in their schools, according to a well-established formula, federal government funding increases automatically. So those who turn to the federal government to increase funding for state government schools should also focus on state governments. If they increase their investment, the federal government funding increases automatically.
Of course, state governments have primary responsibility for state government school education. After all, they own, operate and are the major source of funding for state government schools, and they employ the teachers, while the Australian government supplements that funding as a percentage of the state investment. State governments also accredit and regulate non-government schools, while the Australian government provides the majority of public funding. So there is a shared responsibility between the state and the federal governments for funding schools. But, again, I say: 67 per cent of students in Australia attend a state government school, and those schools receive 75 per cent of total public funding.
All governments must recognise that regional communities face unique hardships and need assistance through the provision of funding where it is most needed. Therefore, the Howard government will require, as a condition of the next schools funding agreement, that state and territory governments provide an equivalent increase in funding for regional and remote government schools from 2009. Through this amendment, the Howard government continues its commitment to invest in young Australians in regional and remote areas and to deliver stronger educational outcomes for all students, regardless of where they live in this country.
The Howard government is committed to supporting a quality school education for all Australian children. The programs and initiatives it is putting in place are helping to create an Australian education system of high national standards, greater national consistency and higher quality so that all young people are prepared to meet the future demands of life and work. This bill reinforces the Howard government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that Australian children are given the best opportunity to have a high-quality learning experience in the best possible environment. I commend this bill to the House.
10000
Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Wilkie)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
98
Ms JULIE BISHOP
(Curtin
—Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues)
19:42:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2007
99
Bills
R2792
Second Reading
99
Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Ms Ley:
That this bill be now read a second time.
99
19:42:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. Labor support this bill because Labor are fully supportive of extending the opportunities for research and development across our agricultural industries. We on this side of the House all know that research and development is so important. Labor understand and embrace innovation as a key driver of economic growth. Through creativity and knowledge and value-adding, we enhance our competitive advantage.
Labor strongly supports an effective, well-funded research and development program as it is vital to sustained productivity growth in our key export sectors. This applies to all regions, particularly to my electorate in Central Queensland, which is home to a very large proportion of the important meat industry in Australia. Nationally, the meat industry has a value of $15 billion a year and earns nearly $7 billion in export revenue. The beef industry is a large part of the economic activity in Central Queensland and contributes money and jobs to our towns and rural communities.
This bill will lead to the cessation of the current system, whereby the meat-processing sector funded its marketing and research commitments through a voluntary contribution system. Labor supports this bill, as the industry believes a collective funding arrangement for marketing, research and development is now necessary. Processors were given the opportunity to vote on this issue last year and the ballot returned a large majority in favour of the proposal to move from a voluntary levy to a statutory levy. Consequently, this bill will put in place a statutory levy to enable the sector to continue its whole-of-industry commitment to undertaking marketing and research and development programs. This will provide a basis for sustained productivity in the meat-processing sector.
The move to a statutory levy provides certainty to the Australian Meat Processor Corporation and allows it to undertake long-term initiatives for the benefit of the sector. All sections of the red meat industry have supported directing the funding to the existing services company—that is, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation Pty Ltd. The corporation already conducts marketing and R&D on behalf of the processing sector or it directs these funds, on behalf of the processing sector, to Meat and Livestock Australia, the industry research and development body, to carry out specific projects.
A quick look at the Australian Meat Processor Corporation’s website shows some of the important things that the corporation has been doing with the funds that it currently collects and will continue to collect from the processing sector. It lists things such as market access through supporting the MLA’s activities in the Middle East, Korea, Japan, China and other markets; new meat products, including new uses for waste products and value-adding current cuts; and domestic marketing supporting Australian red meat. The corporation also invests in R&D in processing technology, such as developing new stunning methods and commercialising safe bandsaw technologies. Another example is R&D in new technologies, particularly through the environmental biotechnology CRC, which is developing new and safer cleaning methods and new ways to deal with pipes clogging and manage nitrates in wash water. As someone who represents a city with two large meatworks within sight of the CBD, those sorts of initiatives are of course very important to me.
Another initiative which caught my eye was the meat safety R&D, including the Meat Industry Services Group, which provides technical advice and support in plant crisis situations as well as development of key tools and ongoing technical support and training through regular meat safety updates. Again, those initiatives are very important to not only the health of the industry but also the health of the people working in meat-processing plants and the health of those of us who live nearby. Labor understands that the amendments being debated today will not affect existing arrangements for Commonwealth matched funds because the research activities will continue to be directed to the MLA as the industry research and development body.
The Australian Meat Processor Corporation is a representative organisation representing all processors active in the red meat processing industry. Its aim is to protect, promote and further the rights and interests of its members, including promotion of free trade of members’ products and improvement in the quality of Australian meat, as we heard with some of those initiatives I read out. As someone who lives in and represents the beef capital of Australia, I know that we have one of the most vibrant meat industries in the world.
The future for Australian agricultural exports must lie in providing the highest quality products. That will be achieved by ensuring a trade and industry strategy is in place that enables our agricultural industries to find new markets but also gives industries more capacity to value-add to their products. We know that is the name of the game in a competitive global environment. It is about ensuring the best investment in research and development exists in our country. We know that we are good at R&D when it is properly supported.
We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction and it is a bill that will open up more opportunities in R&D in the meat-processing sector. But it also opens up a debate about the failure of the government when it comes to the nation’s R&D effort. Innovation is a key driver of the nation’s growth. By becoming clever, innovative and creative, we enhance our growth and opportunities. That applies to all Australian industries. Through innovation, we create more interesting job opportunities. This bill improves opportunities for R&D and we support it. Through creativity and knowledge and through value-adding we enhance our competitive advantage.
Labor has always understood the importance of encouraging R&D innovation at both the macro and micro levels. Labor’s investment in R&D and encouraging business investments through programs such as the CRCs have paid dividends to this country since their early implementation. In the 1980s and 1990s, Labor introduced the 150 per cent tax concession for R&D. It also introduced syndicated R&D for start-up companies. It increased investment in R&D, and we saw an increased expenditure by companies in R&D. There was also increased expenditure by the Labor government in R&D. But we know now that when this government came to office it cut, to the country’s detriment, the research and development tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. We have seen business investment in R&D grow at half the rate of the previous decade.
The government cut syndicated investment in R&D and they cut overall investment in R&D. Government investment as a proportion of GDP has fallen from approximately 0.24 per cent in 1995-96 to 0.18 per cent in 2004-05. The results of this on business investment in R&D are stark. We have seen the average annual growth rate of real business investment in R&D fall from 11.4 per cent in the period 1986-87 to 1995-96 to 5.1 per cent in the period 1995-96 to 2004-05. Throughout the 1980s to 1996 we saw steady growth in business investment in R&D both as a proportion of GDP and in terms of real dollars. But between 1996 and 2000 we saw negative growth in both business and government investments in R&D. This was a wasted opportunity. Years of underinvestment have hampered our industries’ capacity to innovate, to value-add to their products and to better compete in global markets.
The problem is that the government sees expenditure on R&D as a cost rather than as an investment. We know that it is the same in other areas that are so important to our productivity and future prosperity—areas like broadband, which I spoke about at length in the appropriations debate earlier today. We need to have that investment in national infrastructure and high-speed broadband internet so that we have the ability to compete effectively with countries overseas and create the kind of productivity growth that Australia needs to stay on top in a competitive global marketplace.
Broadband is an example of where the government has failed to make the investment that we need in this country to foster and promote innovation and productivity. We have seen that the cuts to investment in research and development have had a similar effect. We are seeing the effects of those in lower productivity. I think in the budget papers this year we see that we have now fallen to a projection of zero per cent growth in productivity in Australia and we just cannot afford a continuation of that. We have seen the government show that they are not prepared to invest in the future. We can only imagine the economic growth and job creation opportunities that we have missed and that would have been created if the trend of Labor government investment in R&D had continued.
Australia’s farm exports are facing increasing competition from developing countries, not only due to those countries’ low costs but also because they are now investing more in productivity-enhancing R&D. Sustained productivity growth in our key export sectors has underpinned Australia’s ability to compete and succeed in global markets. While we acknowledge the impact of drought on matched R&D funding in recent years, we cannot stand still. We cannot afford to waiver in our commitment to agricultural R&D.
I take this opportunity to remind the House that it was Labor, under the stewardship of the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Kerin, which, in the mid-1980s, saw the need for reform of rural R&D. It was the Hawke government’s John Kerin who recognised the need to improve the gap between research and product development and to improve our export performance and productivity by marrying the scientific research with the needs of industry to enable best practice and innovation in product development.
This was significant in greatly improving the competitiveness and profitability of Australia’s agricultural, fish and forestry industries and supporting sustainability of our natural resources base. It drew on the compulsory levies that industry had to pay. The government collected them for the purposes of R&D and/or marketing for their industries. It was all about growing those industries for the benefit of all of us. To expand Australia’s rural R&D efforts, government would match these levies for industry to continue the innovation effort. This is the same principle before us today. I have no doubt it will improve the R&D outcomes of the meat industry.
The act introduced under the Labor government thanks to John Kerin formed 14 rural research and development corporations. All of the corporations, except one focused on land and water, would receive levy funds from the industry which would be matched by the Commonwealth dollar for dollar up to a maximum of 0.5 per cent of the ex-farm-gate value of the industry concerned. The Hawke government recognised that there was a market failure in private sector research because many types of firms and individuals were unable to derive sufficient benefit to make their investment worthwhile. The priority was to get industry more involved in funding and directing research to establish an integrated approach. Researchers would have the incentive to find solutions to the problems identified by their industry.
The corporations were granted a degree of autonomy to borrow money and take out patents. They were also the sole recipients of industry levies for R&D, giving them authority and empowerment to develop their industries through research and innovation. The legislation put in place by the Labor government put important safeguards in place to ensure that, while the rural research and development corporations were autonomous and could meet their industry objectives through research, they were also accountable to industry and developed a strong relationship with the end users. Rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach, this enabled each RDC to develop its own structures and processes to best meet the needs of its industry.
The model which Labor developed and built is still in place today. It is a credible model which has worked. It is a model which has stood the test of time and survived numerous government reviews. There are not many policy initiatives which have lasted with such success despite some of the industries being substantially altered over that time. The cooperative research centres introduced by Labor in 1990 have also stood the test of time. The program linked researchers with industry to focus R&D efforts. Labor made the commitment in 1990 to establish 50 CRCs. Today there are 56 CRCs operating in six sectors and the nation has reaped the benefits.
There are two CRCs that have had a major impact on my electorate. One of them is the railway CRC based at Central Queensland University in Rockhampton. We also have a great deal to do with the beef CRC, not surprisingly. I am really pleased to say that the beef CRC was one of the 14 successful CRCs that were granted continuing funding under the 2004 funding round. I know that Dr Heather Burrow played a great role in achieving that success for the beef CRC. I know that in my electorate we are very pleased to have that connection to the CRC and to be able to use the innovations and research that come out of the work they do.
The beef CRC uses emerging gene discovery and gene expression technologies to focus on precision cattle breeding and management—something that is of vital importance to the beef cattle industry if it is going to maintain its competitive advantages. I also note that the beef CRC actually won the Cooperative Research Centre Association Excellence in Innovation Award last year. That was for the Beef Profit Partnerships program developed by the beef CRC. It is a groundbreaking new approach helping to boost on-farm productivity and profitability and involves beef producers, feedlotters and processors from across Australia. It has been recognised for its achievements in that research.
I note that one of the producers involved in the research effort, Phil Chalmers, anticipates that his involvement in a Beef Profit Partnership will boost his on-farm productivity by 20 per cent and double his farm income. So this sort of research is not just happening in test tubes in laboratories; it is having a direct effect on the productivity of our beef producers. Of course, those are the sorts of results we are seeing right across the board from CRCs.
Since the commencement of the CRC program, all parties have committed more than $1 billion in cash and in kind to CRCs. This includes more than $2.6 billion from the CRC program, $2.8 billion from universities, $2.1 billion from industry and more than $1.1 billion from the CSIRO. While we acknowledge the success of CRCs and congratulate industry and the researchers for what they have achieved, I might just point out that a report last year found that the CRC program has delivered an estimated $2.7 billion to the economy since it started in 1990. That is a pretty remarkable effort, and it shows why it is important for government to make the investment in research and development on behalf of our nation.
On the downside of that, I noticed a report in yesterday’s Fin Review that cast a cloud over the future of the CRC program. Twenty-two of the program’s 56 centres will be seeking the renewal of their seven-year government funding commitments next year, and there is concern within the sector that, unless the government increases its investment in the scheme, there will not be enough money to go around to keep those 22 existing programs continuing with their research into the future. Apparently the CRC Association has been told by the government to expect funding for next year’s round to be similar to the 2006 commitment of $310 million. But yesterday in the Fin Review the CEO of the CRC Association, Michael Hartmann, said:
That is going to have an effect on the number of CRCs that can be funded. Our estimation is that it could force more than 15 CRCs to close operations. It’s just such a competitive funding round.
When we see the outcomes that Australia is getting from the CRC program, I think the government needs to look very carefully at its commitment to CRCs and the funding that is required to keep some of these vital research centres continuing their good work into the future.
Both of the programs that I have talked about—the CRCs and the RDCs—are about creating better linkages between industry and the research effort. That also involves industry being prepared to support the research effort—and that is very important in having that link between industry in research. Labor recognise the importance of R&D in the agricultural sector, and we put rural research corporations in place 18 years ago. These corporations have provided a unique and successful partnership to meet the needs of our crucial agricultural industries, which represent 22 per cent of Australian exports in goods and services. By better connecting research and product development to improve export performance, these corporations have benefited not only these industries but also the nation. The research and development corporations have provided a unique and successful partnership between government and the industry. I understand that in 2004-05 the total spending by the Commonwealth and industry on RDCs was $511 million, and over $230 million of that came from industry. So it is a strong and effective partnership.
Labor has identified the need for better coordination of rural R&D. Labor took to the last election a strong platform for R&D for rural industries, which was endorsed by the National Farmers Federation. We propose to establish a rural research and development advisory council to ensure that our R&D effort is better coordinated. The council’s role would be to develop a national strategic investment plan, to assess the operational plans of individual research organisations against that plan and to advise government on the effectiveness of the overall rural research effort. The council would also work with the rural research sector to develop uniform methods for assessing the benefits derived from investment in research and for the development and reporting of those assessments. The council’s role would also include working to promote more effective and timely commercialisation of research outcomes. Labor will continue to look carefully at research and development issues for rural industries to enable the best outcomes for industry, the community and the economy.
I know that this bill is about investment in research and development in the meat processing industry, but I would like to take the opportunity to remind the meat processing sector that it is also important for them to invest in workforce training and skills development within the sector. In the recent past we have seen too much neglect of skills development and training by the meat processing sector. There are two major meatworks in Rockhampton. There is also a meatworks in Biloela and another in Bakers Creek. We are seeing an increased reliance on the use of 457 visas to fill positions at those meatworks at a time when there are people in Rockhampton and in communities in Central Queensland who are looking for work and could be trained for those positions so that we could have a local workforce learning skills in the meat sector and being employed in our local meatworks. The use of 457 visas is particularly prevalent at the Lakes Creek meatworks in Rockhampton and also at the other Teys Bros meatworks in Biloela. I note that, up until now, the AMH plant in Rockhampton has largely avoided the use of 457 visas. There are some workers from overseas there on those visas, but the AMH plant has a predominantly local workforce.
I note that there is the possibility of a change of hands, a change of ownership, with the AMH meatworks. If that happens, I would urge the new owners to continue the tradition that we have seen of AMH using local workers to fill their positions.
In the context of this bill, which is about investment in research and development in the meat processing sector, I would remind the meat processing sector, in particular those companies operating in that sector, that we expect genuine efforts to be made to train our own local workers before companies resort to the use of 457 visas to fill positions. It is not something that is supported within the communities of Central Queensland. I think companies, certainly those within my electorate, need to be more serious and genuine about employing and training local people for the positions in their meatworks.
Returning to the bill, Labor strongly supports an effective, well-funded research and development program as being vital to sustained productivity growth in our key export sectors. As the National Farmers Federation recently pointed out, Australian farmers are fortunate to have a world-class R&D framework through rural research and development corporations. Labor, in office, has been a driver of research and innovation through the establishment of programs for the RDCs, the CRCs and the R&D tax concession. While we welcome this bill to improve the R&D arrangements for the meat processing industry, we urge the government to consider the range of issues facing rural R&D so as to achieve the best outcomes for the sector and our ability to compete in global markets.
105
20:09:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
1
0
Mr SECKER
—I have to say that I found the last speech quite fascinating. The honourable member for Capricornia might claim to represent the cattle country of Australia, and that might very well be so, but her speech reminded me a lot of the analogy of those big longhorn bulls that you see in those Western Texan movies: there was a point here and a point there and a lot of bull in between. I will come to those matters as I go through my speech. The honourable member for Capricornia referred to 457 visas. I think there is a very serious issue as to how the Labor Party is treating that subject.
I rise in the House today to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. This bill is important not only to me but also to the constituents of my electorate of Barker as it is home to four quite substantial abattoirs. Two of these abattoirs uphold the coveted A-plus category of accreditation that only one other holds in South Australia. These two abattoirs, T&R Pastoral, located in Murray Bridge, and Teys Bros, in Naracoorte, are both export abattoirs. Tatiara Meat, who are located in Bordertown and form part of Tatiara Lamb, are Australia’s largest lamb exporters. Of course, we have in Murray Bridge Big River Pork, which I believe has the largest pork processing factory in Australia.
Abattoirs are not only an important part of the export industry; they also provide local jobs for the constituents of Barker. For example, Teys Bros in Naracoorte alone employs 300 people and is a viable and secure operation. It employs these 300 people at above-award rates. In fact, its employees receive hundreds of dollars per week extra—and guess what? They are on AWAs. This is a very good example of how AWAs work in this industry for the benefit of the constituents of my electorate. T&R Pastoral employs, quite successfully, over a thousand employees in Murray Bridge. I can remember eight years ago when the abattoir company was going through the hoops, was cutting staff members and was certainly not prospering. But the T&R Pastoral company have come in and really grown the business. One of the problems they have actually found is that they cannot find enough locals to work there. They have gone from a workforce of about 400 to one of well over a thousand. It is no wonder that, after advertising for staff—and being prepared to upskill people and train new people—for that abattoir without the results, they had to resort to 457 visas. It would have been a lot cheaper and a lot easier for them to have used local people if they could have got them.
It was the Labor Party who used these two abattoirs: they disgracefully attacked these two abattoirs over their use of 457 visas to fill a labour shortage. With a wink, wink and a nudge, nudge, they referred to these Chinese 457 visa holders with a disgraceful racist undertone.
It was actually the Labor state government that identified the shortage. It was the Labor state government that supported the use of 457 visas. It was the Labor state government that signed off—they have to sign off these—the 457 visas. So the member for Capricornia either does not understand the issues facing the meat industry in getting employees or is playing pure cheap politics on this matter.
I very well remember the Mudginberri abattoir issue in the Northern Territory whereby the union movement and the Hawke Labor government tried to stop its employees earning 2½ times what the award rate was. The abattoir used to be on a tally system, the union system which was not efficient and did not provide productivity. While the Labor Party is very good at talking about productivity and the fact that we have got to increase it, which I agree with, they do not take the actual measures to increase productivity. Back then they were quite prepared to stick with the old tally system so that when employees got their numbers up by one o’clock in the afternoon they could knock off and go home. As a result, we had a very inefficient meat industry in Australia.
The abattoir systems all around Australia were going broke. It was not until we took away that antiquated system, that union system, that Labor system, that we actually got productivity back. That is a perfect example of how the government’s measures work. AWAs work very effectively in the meat industry. Employees are paid much more than the award rate. Why wouldn’t we be happy with that? But the Labor Party want to take away AWAs. They want to rip them up, they want to ruin the beef industry, the sheep industry and the pork industry, along with the manufacturing industry for those three meat industries and go back to the old way. Here is a perfect example of the folly of the Labor Party idea to rip up AWAs.
The meat processing industry is a valuable part of Australia’s beef, sheepmeat and goat meat trade. Of the four abattoirs in my electorate, two of them slaughter all three species of cattle, sheep and goats. Australia wide, the industry employs approximately 25,000 people. It has an annual turnover of around $15 billion and earns $7 billion in exports. Within my electorate the two A-plus accredited abattoirs process 1,200 cattle and 8,000 sheep and lambs per day. The meat processing industry has the capacity to add value to Australia’s economy. This amendment bill will ensure that a legislative framework is in place to allow it to change its structural and funding arrangements for delivering marketing and research and development services. Australia’s economy can be further strengthened by the collective funding of meat processor marketing and R&D services.
The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 was put in place to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997. The amendment bill was introduced to create greater flexibility for the disbursement of funds which are derived from the collection of compulsory levies and charges on the slaughter of cattle, sheep and goats.
In 1997-98 the red meat industry restructure enabled the meat processor industry to fund its marketing and R&D services through a voluntary contributions system. The system, however, made way for free riders, who refused to contribute. So the industry made it clear that, after 30 June 2007, members would no longer participate in the voluntary system. These free riders were able to reap the benefits of collectively funded R&D, whilst operating with a commercial advantage. Until recently, these free riders represented only a small percentage but a significant part of the industry.
During industry discussions regarding the voluntary contributions system—a three-year agreement—a number of large processors indicated that their ongoing support was conditional on the free riders commencing to pay their share of the contributions. If the larger meat processors decided to opt out of the system, the funding would not be sufficient to meet the sector’s whole-of-industry commitments under the red meat industry memorandum of understanding.
In December 2006 a ballot was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission on the future of funding arrangements. It resulted in 73 per cent in favour of moving to a statutory levy system. The vote was also in favour of the funding being directed to the industry’s existing service provider, Australian Meat Processor Corporation. The new levy rate would be recommended by the industry’s peak body, the Australian Meat Industry Council. The government agreed on making the funding changes through an amending bill. The government believes that collectively funded marketing and R&D programs are the key to continued industry growth and productivity. Consequently, the government supports the move to a statutory levy and has no objection to AMPC receiving and administering the funds.
The government’s agreed amendments would allow the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to determine a meat processor industry to receive revenue obtained by the Commonwealth from compulsory levies. These levies would be imposed on the red meat industry by the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999. The amendments also include the capacity for the minister to declare that a body be recognised as the meat processor marketing body and/or the meat processor research body. Controls over who receives disaggregated levy payer information held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry are also in the government’s amendments. Existing legislation does not allow for such information to be passed to the red meat industry. These new conditions are based on those which exist for the dairy industry and have been quite successful.
Key existing elements of the bill include the current arrangements that were established under the 1997-98 restructure to accommodate the red meat industry’s desire to be viewed as one industry. However, provisions were made to accommodate other sectors within the industry to have some self-determination. This arrangement will allow for some sectors to choose to be funded through the voluntary contributions system; otherwise, levies would apply under a statutory scheme and would have their operating rates set at zero and no revenue would be collected against those levies. The proposed arrangement supports the meat processor sector’s collective marketing and R&D activities to now be funded by compulsory levies. This would result in the funds raised by the compulsory levies being channelled into the existing services body, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation Ltd. The existing legislative arrangements see the funds channelled into Meat & Livestock Australia, which then carry out agreed marketing and R&D projects as required under the red meat industry’s memorandum of understanding. The current arrangements provide for the minister to activate the statutory levy provision in the event of a sector failing to meet their whole-of-industry obligations from voluntary contributions. So either way they are covered.
Under the proposed arrangements, the statutory based levies and charges would be paid into the consolidated revenue fund and then approved for payment to a declared marketing body and declared research body. Current arrangements only allow the minister to declare one industry marketing body and one industry research body, which is Meat & Livestock Australia, and one livestock export marketing body and one livestock export industry body, which is the Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd.
Activation of these proposed compulsory levies provisions on the slaughter of cattle, sheep and goats without amendment to the existing bill would result in all funds being directed to Meat and Livestock Australia rather than the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, which is contrary to industry preference. That is the reason why these changes are being made.
In conclusion, this amendment bill provides better arrangements for an industry that is part of most Australians’ daily lifestyle. I am lucky enough to have abattoirs in my electorate that are amongst the country’s largest and best. I appreciate firsthand this incredible industry. I commend this amendment bill that seeks to protect the meat processor industry’s funding arrangements for marketing, research and development services.
108
20:23:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
0
Mr ADAMS
—I rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. I want to point out to the honourable member for Barker, a chap whom I work with on committees and a decent sort of man, a few things about the meat industry. The tally system came from the chain system. The chain system is one of those systems that is used to get workers to work harder and faster. It goes back to Henry Ford and Taylorism. It is a system to get people to work in a continuous process. It is pretty tough stuff. If you want a history of labour and an understanding of work, you should research it. The tally system grew out of that. It grew out of piecework—that is, you get paid for what you do; if you do not do it, you do not get paid. That is the reality. The tally system may have had its day, do not worry about that, but that is up to negotiations between people in the workplace. When you have hide pullers and others then of course things change and they need to be dealt with.
On the issue of over-award payments under common-law agreements operating in your electorate, Labor has no problem with those. If people want to pay over the award and have common-law agreements, there is no problem with that under Labor policy. The unfairness of AWAs is what the Labor Party is totally opposed to. Your government yesterday introduced a bill into this parliament because it admits they are unfair. They admit that their Work Choices legislation, which has been taking peoples’ penalty rates and overtime off them without compensation, is unfair. I just point out to you that you need to get these things in perspective and you need to have an understanding of them, don’t you minister.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—You’re a dinosaur, Dick.
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr ADAMS
—There is nothing dinosaur like about me, mate; I just understand where the labour movement has come from. You have to understand that there is a bit of history behind labour in this country, and in the world. If you do not understand that, you suffer. Just like your government is suffering now and will continue to suffer. You must make things fair.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—You’re an old union hack.
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr ADAMS
—And you are a nasty little man. You have a reputation for being so. I am sad about that, because you will not get anywhere by being like that.
10000
Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Wilkie)—Order! The member for Lyons will refer to honourable members by their seat or title.
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr ADAMS
—This bill relates to the restructuring of the red meat industry, during which the meat processing sector has funded its marketing and research commitments through a voluntary contributions scheme. This will now cease to operate on 1 July 2007. The government are now proposing to support the meat industry’s view that collective funding for marketing, research and development is necessary for the sustained productivity of the meat processing sector, and therefore they are putting into place a statutory levy to enable the sector to continue its whole-of-industry commitment to undertake marketing, research and development programs. While the support for marketing, research and development in this industry is very important—and although I do not in principle disagree with the bill—I am concerned that there is nothing mentioned about keeping the focus of the research on the support of the workers in the industry in Australia. That has been mentioned on my side of the House.
There are many issues confronting the meat industry today, and one of them of course is the effect of drought, which has reduced the amount of stock becoming available. Add to this the focus the industry has in some areas on live export and there is beginning to be a lessor amount of meat processed in this country. Research is important to actually come up with alternatives, whether it be in processing, worker skills or markets. It seems that much of the industry is more intent on de-skilling than reskilling. That may reflect the federal government’s lack of incentives and courses for young people to learn about this industry and the many-faceted skills required. We must ensure that those skills are still being taught, because although we are moving to multiskilled workplaces in many instances the basics are still needed to become an employee in the big works.
I know from my own experience in Longford that the meatworks has been a pivotal point for many young people leaving school and getting work. Many go in unskilled, get injured and cannot continue. Because of the way that employment is set up these days, mostly on a casual basis, these workers do not get rehabilitated and are often put out on the scrap heap and lost to the industry. We must teach the skills they need. People need to learn to work safely so that they are not lost to the meat industry. Potential workers are being put off. We need those workers to be available in country areas where this work needs to be done. We need those core work skills to be taught at TAFE and through VET programs to allow workers to learn the skills to be able to work anywhere in the works—from the slaughter floor through to the boning rooms and the packing, chilling and freezing processes. We must enable the young ones to get experience in supervisory roles so that they can drive the changes rather than allow them to happen without them, putting them out of work.
Drought too has taxed the ability of farmers to have their best stock going to market and it is driving down the quality of our product that is processed here. Some of it is now being directed to overseas live markets where, although the price received does not differ much, the jobs are being exported. For example, 17 abattoirs have closed in Western Australia in the last 20 years and it must be put down to the fact that thousands of head are being exported live. There are no abattoirs north of Carnarvon now, yet there is still a lot of stock coming from that area.
This marketing levy could concentrate on finding out why the Middle East prefers our meat on the hoof, so to speak, rather than it being neatly packaged and sorted ready to go straight into the kitchen. It is not just to do with religion, as in the past we have undertaken halal kills for local consumption here and overseas. Why can we not put together an impartial trade mission with a representative from farmers and representatives of government and others in the meat-processing industry to go the Middle East and see for themselves the markets that exist and what would be required to keep the jobs in Australia. They may even discover new markets for our products, which have to be among some of the best in the world, despite the drought situation which has influenced the way some stock is being marketed.
It is not good enough to have our animals go offshore to somewhat dubious yards and kept in less than ideal conditions in the Middle East. They can still reject them, like the many troubles that we have had in the past where stock was left to roam the high seas looking for a buyer because of local politics in their original destination. I am sure the Minister for Trade remembers those difficult situations.
When talking about marketing, I think we should do more with new products. I still believe that Asia is much underdone with Australian meat products. We need to come up with products the market wants. Somebody once told me that Asian people did not like Australian lamb, that they felt it was too strong and they did not much go for it. With new ways of cooking with herbs and spices and with the right techniques in today’s world we could produce many products that that market would entertain. I am sure that a lot of people in the House have travelled into Asian and would have seen lamb being consumed there. They may not eat a leg of lamb like a roast in Australia, but there are many other ways of dealing with a product. We could do a lot better in Asia and we need to lift our game and maybe this bill could help us.
I remember some years ago I was in Jordan in the Middle East, and the member for Mallee was with me, and I can remember their meat industry saying—I would not say bragging—to get meat on the shelf there it had to come from kill within 72 hours and this prohibited imports coming from outside in a chilled form. There is no reason why you would not try to change that, and it is probably an issue with the WTO situation anyway. I can remember a case with Korea which was won by Australia and improved our opportunities there.
We should be looking to knock over some of these agreements and get meat and meat products into those broader markets. Agents and shippers make a lot of money from having animals sail around the world and, with modern thinking in this country and abroad, it will be hard to maintain live sheep and livestock exports to the degree that this country has. People think very differently and there will be a lot of pressure coming down the pipe over the next 10 years in that regard. I do not think it is a greatly sustainable industry, and we should be doing a lot more to get meat into those markets and allow us to improve what we sell there. Our traditional markets of Japan, America and Europe and of course Korea are highly paying markets and our processors and exporters like to maintain their positions in those markets.
While dealing with this bill I thought back to the person that started the levy system and set up the corporations structures for agriculture, John Kerin, the agriculture minister in the Hawke Labor government, who did such a good job in seeing the need for a structure that was driven by the market and also improved the processes on the farms to improve productivity and get the right products. I give this government credit that it saw that it was a good process and has maintained it in policy terms and probably improved it in some areas as well. I understand that people overseas also look at our system with some glee.
We know that the drought has already caused stand-downs in some of our major plants, and we foresee that this will continue next year until we can sort out new ways of raising stock and keeping them through dry times. There need to be new ideas, new structures and new ways of marketing, so that we can cater for the growers’ needs as well as the needs of those processing the meat, so all can make a good living out of our cattle and sheep industries.
Tasmania could have had another 580 people working in the industry if we had been able to keep the 75,000 cattle and the 280,000 sheep that were shipped out of the state live last year, not so much to overseas as to mainland markets. If the farmers are to be levied, they would really be better served to try and find answers for some of those marketing problems and to investigate ways of improving existing plants and ways of work that would benefit the farmers, the processors and the workers of this great industry.
Life has never been easy on the farm, and that really has not changed—there are still long hours of work, and the heartbreak of drought, stock losses and disease—but there are ways in which people are doing things differently, and now is as good a time as any to start looking at making sure our young people want to go back onto the farm and into the processors. Give them the skills to do more and better while still allowing them a good life. We all seek that. So when these sorts of bills come through the House, while I support the research and the marketing I do hope that those in charge of choosing what is to be done are people of vision and integrity, who want to see the betterment of the whole sector and not just one part of it. I thank the House and have much pleasure in supporting the bill.
111
20:39:00
Forrest, John, MP
NV5
Mallee
NATS
1
0
Mr FORREST
—The member for Lyons challenges me to respond. My recollection of abattoirs in the Middle East is that I simply remember all the flies! But I am grateful that in Australia this is a great industry; it certainly is in my own electorate. That is why I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in support of this legislation, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 to introduce greater flexibility for the disbursement of funds derived from the collection of compulsory levies and charges on the slaughter of cattle, sheep and goats. While the debate this evening has been a fairly wide-ranging one about a whole host of associated matters, my intention is not to be diverted by those but to speak to the features of the bill.
The amendments in the bill will ensure that the legislative framework is in place to allow the meat processing industry to change its structural and funding arrangements for delivering marketing and research and development services. The meat processing industry is a valuable part of Australia’s beef, sheepmeat and goat meat trade. As the member for Barker has said, it is a significant regional employer of about 25,000 people, mostly located in regional Australia. It has an annual turnover of $15 billion and earns $7 billion a year in exports.
Indeed, my part of the world is engaged in some very large investment, and I speak very proudly of the honour of representing the Woodward family at Swan Hill—a small-medium enterprise, a family-owned operation, whose investments are creating employment capacity for Swan Hill. It is actually the last remaining significant abattoir in the whole of my electorate now. It is not quite the size of the abattoirs boasted of by the member for Barker, but it is one of which I am immensely proud anyway.
The capacity of this whole industry to add value to Australia’s economy is strengthened through the collective funding of its marketing and R&D programs. The 1997-98 red meat industry restructure allowed the meat processor industry to fund its marketing and R&D programs through a voluntary contributions system. A strong friendship with the Menegazzo family has made me acutely aware of the complaints of a voluntary contribution system, which I will refer to shortly.
However, the industry made it clear that, after 30 June 2007, members would no longer participate in the voluntary system because of entities which persistently refused to contribute. These so-called ‘free riders’, as they were referred to, reap the benefits of a collectively-funded R&D without cost and therefore operate with an unfair commercial advantage. Up until recently, these free riders had represented only a small percentage of the industry. However, during industry discussions on renewing the voluntary contribution system’s three-year agreement cycle, a number of the large processors indicated—and this was very much the case for the Menegazzo family—that although they were keen to keep this system, their ongoing support was conditional on the free riders beginning to pay their share of the contributions.
By mid-2006, industry negotiations had not been able to encourage the free riders to join the voluntary system in a voluntary way. If the larger processors opted out of the voluntary system, it would have meant funding would not have been sufficient to meet the sector’s whole-of-industry commitments under the red meat industry memorandum of understanding. So a ballot was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission in December 2006 on the future of the funding arrangements. The outcome of the ballot saw an amazing 73 percent in favour of the move to a statutory levy system and for the funding to be directed to the industry’s existing service provider, Australian Meat Processor Corporation. The ballot also supported a new levy rate as recommended by the industry’s peak body, the Australian Meat Industry Council.
The government agreed to bring about the funding changes through an amending bill, resulting in this legislation before the House tonight. The bill will: (a) allow the minister to determine a meat processor industry body, to receive revenue obtained by the Commonwealth from compulsory levies imposed on the red meat industry under another piece of legislation, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999; (b) include the capacity for the minister to declare that a body be recognised as the meat processor marketing body and/or the meat processor research body—two activities badly needed: fundamental research and important marketing activity; and (c) allow for controls over who receives disaggregated levy payer information held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and also for what purposes the information can be provided.
In highlighting the key elements of this bill, it is important to highlight the existing arrangements, which will be superseded once the measures in this bill come into effect. The current arrangements established under the 1997-98 restructure accommodated the red meat industry’s wish to be viewed as one industry. However, provision was also made for sectors within the industry to have some autonomy and self-determination—either growing cattle or processing them, or whatever. This meant that some sectors could choose to be funded through voluntary contributions from its members. Levies that would otherwise apply under a statutory scheme would have their operating rates set at zero and no revenue would be collected against these levies.
In the case of the meat-processing sector, voluntary contributions fund its service company to conduct marketing and R&D on the industry’s behalf. The service company can also direct these funds to Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd to carry out agreed marketing and R&D projects as required under the red meat industry’s memorandum of understanding. The funds provided to Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd for research are included in Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd’s R&D total, and eligible activities attract a matching contribution from the Australian government—about which other members have waxed lyrical and claimed credit for. That is okay. It is a good model, and it is right that the rest of the world follows our orderly levy system, which covers a whole range of commodities.
The maximum level of matching funds committed by the Commonwealth is set at 0.5 per cent of the annual gross value of production for the red meat industry—which led to some management problems, if you like. The current arrangements provided for the minister to activate the statutory levy provisions in the event of a sector failing to meet its whole-of-industry obligations from the voluntary contributions. Commonwealth matching funds for research and development are provided to the industry research body, as envisaged by the government and the industry in the 1997-98 restructure agreement. The voluntary arrangements also enabled the service company to access payer disaggregated financial information. Existing legislation does not allow for such information to be passed to the red meat industry. In the industry’s interests, this is important information. It is disaggregated and de-identified but is important information for both sectors to have.
The proposed arrangements were set up to address these issues. The ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission resulted in a clear majority support for the meat-processing sector’s collective marketing and R&D activities to now be funded by compulsory levies. Together with the other sectors of the red meat industry, it was also agreed that the funds raised by the compulsory levies should be channelled directly to the existing services body, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation Ltd, rather than to Meat and Livestock Australia, as provided for under existing legislative arrangements and the industry memorandum of understanding.
Statutory based levies and charges are generally paid to the consolidated revenue fund and appropriated for payment to a declared marketing body and a declared research body. The current provisions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act allow only one industry marketing body and one industry research body—which the member for Barker has also explained. These separate entities will be declared by the minister. Activation of the compulsory levy provisions on the slaughter of cattle, sheep and goats without amendment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act would result in all funds being directed only to Meat and Livestock Australia rather than to the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, which would have been contrary to the preferences clearly indicated by the industry.
This is an example of the government responding positively to an industry that is growing and one of which we are immensely proud. It is also providing important rural employment and investment in an important part of Australia.
The maximum level of matching by Commonwealth funds for eligible research expenditure will remain unchanged at 0.5 per cent of the annual gross value of production for the red meat industry, but it will be much easier to manage because the voluntary levy uncertainty will be removed. Access to disaggregated levy payer information is being processed separately through amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 which will come before the House shortly. However, these separate amendments will not provide for control over who can access the information and what it can be used for.
The bill provides for the minister to determine a body to be meat processor marketing or meat processor research body. However, reflecting an agreed industry position, the bill requires the payment of matching Commonwealth contributions for R&D expenditure to continue to be paid to Meat and Livestock Australia. It also provides for the control of who receives levy payer information and what it can be used for. These conditions are based on an existing model in the dairy industry—also an important commodity to my constituency of Mallee. We can rely on the provisions there to be protected. The bill will also repeal some provisions of the previous act for technical reasons. Provision to permit the raising of the necessary levies payable to the meat-processing marketing body and the meat processor research body will be undertaken by amendments to subordinate legislation.
I will conclude my remarks, so we might actually wrap up this bill this evening. Continued investment in research and development and innovation is vital for ongoing growth and improvement in the profitability and sustainability of Australia’s agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food industries. The importance of investing in R&D has been recognised through the government’s research and development priorities—policies of which I am immensely proud. The rural sector needs to be well positioned to respond to and manage change in order to maintain and improve its long-term profitability, competitiveness and sustainability. Climate variability, climate change and all the challenges associated with water have been included in these priorities for the first time, reflecting this government’s emphasis on assisting our industries to adjust to significant risk.
I am delighted to support this bill. Unlike the comments made tonight have suggested, it is an industry that acts in its own interest. The reliance on section 457 visas is an unfortunate advent. Around Swan Hill, the Woodward abattoir has to rely on it because the employment level at Swan Hill is at a historically low point. I think it is unfair to criticise the industry for not addressing training. The reality is that the people to do these tasks are not there. I will be looking forward to the growth of this industry so important to my electorate of Mallee. I welcome this bill and commend it to the House.
114
20:53:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
0
Ms LEY
—I thank my colleagues the member for Mallee and the member for Barker for their contributions. In the electorate of Farrer, both are my neighbours geographically. As always, I am amazed by their knowledge and understanding of the red meat industry. I also thank the member for Capricornia and the member for Lyons for their contributions. I welcome their support for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, but I would like to make just a couple of comments about their remarks. Both claimed there is insufficient focus on support for Australian workers by the red meat industry, and that is simply incorrect. AMPC is a major funder of MINTRAC, the industry training and development body. There is a very strong focus on occupational health and safety research and development.
AMPC funds the Australian Q Fever Register and Q fever research. Q fever is an occupational illness for people involved in the livestock industry and it can be very debilitating. I actually have firsthand experience of it from my time working in the shearing sheds of western Queensland. The government recently invested $9 million, announced in November 2006, to build a new Q fever vaccine manufacturing facility. Organisations such as AMPC, MLA, the Cattle Council and the Sheepmeat Council were united in support for this investment in the world’s only production facility for the Q fever vaccine. The meat industry, through AMPC, is also investing in practical initiatives such as safer bandsaw technology, new and safer cleaning methods et cetera. I just wanted to make that point.
As we know, the red meat industry is a significant contributor to the wellbeing of Australia’s economy, with an annual turnover of around $15 billion a year. It earns nearly $7 billion a year in exports. Marketing and research and development, which are collectively funded by industry members, contribute to industry profitability and competitiveness on global markets. It also underpins the high standing the industry enjoys among our trading partners. The meat processor industry understands the importance of collective funding and since 1998 has supported its funding needs through voluntary contributions. For many years the voluntary contribution system was well supported by the majority of the industry. However, by its nature, a voluntary system allows benefits of collective marketing and research and development to accrue to industry members who did not contribute financially.
The amendments proposed in the bill will ensure the meat processor industry continues to have the capacity to meet the requirements of both domestic and international markets. It will also enable the industry services body to continue to meet joint program obligations and whole-of-industry commitments, as envisaged under the red meat industry memorandum of understanding. The new structural arrangements presented in the bill are the result of nearly three years of discussion between meat processors and consultation with the government.
The provisions are straightforward and follow the precedent set by the restructure of the livestock export industry. Under these new arrangements there will be accountability to the levy payers as members of the company and there will be accountability to the government through the funding contract. The bill also makes provision for the Commonwealth to control who can receive the levy payer information and for what purposes that information can be used. The level of control is similar to that already in place for the dairy industry. It is intended to provide assurance to industry members that the information will be used appropriately.
This bill will continue to give the meat processor industry ownership and control over its marketing and research and development programs. The bill will continue to provide the industry with the capacity to respond effectively and efficiently to current and emerging challenges and to ultimately remain viable and profitable. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
115
115
20:57:00
Ms LEY,MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
0
Ms LEY
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
115
Adjournment
Mr TRUSS
(Wide Bay
—Minister for Trade)
20:58:00
—I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Budget 2007-08
115
115
21:00:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—In reading through an overview of the government’s budget, I note with concern that the infamous $500 one-off seniors bonus payment does not apply to recipients of disability pensions. More importantly, those of my constituents on disability pensions have also noticed and they are outraged. My office has received many calls from people expressing their anger at this exclusion. One caller commented, ‘This is the fifth year in a row we have received nothing.’
It appals me that this government, which is drowning in money, does not consider the difficulties faced by many people with disabilities. When handing out its bonus to seniors, there was no mention of disability support pensioners. The recipients of the carer payment will receive a $1,000 bonus payment; the recipients of the carer allowance will receive a $600 bonus payment.
It is important to remember that not all people on disability support pensions have carers. We should bear in mind that doing the shopping, laundry, cooking and housework does not qualify a person for a carer payment or allowance. Many people who care for those on a DSP do not get the carer payment or the carer allowance and therefore do not get the bonus payments in the budget.
While Labor supports the budget measure, it seems paltry that a one-off payment is being made rather than an ongoing adjustment of rates paid to carers. This measure is typical of a government that provides a quick-fix solution and fails to address the broader issue by articulating a vision for Australians with disabilities.
One person who called my office is an older woman with rheumatoid arthritis who is not able to even shop by herself, yet she does not have a carer. Several callers have a mental illness and are unable to work. Yet another caller has restricted mobility of the arms and legs. Another caller has osteoarthritis in their knees and ankles with rotator cuff pathology. These are the forgotten people—this phrase was used by one of the callers to my office—and it is shameful in this day and age that such a phrase is used in relation to those with disabilities; sadly, I must agree.
Instead of investigating people on a disability pension, Labor intend to ensure that these people have the opportunity to get the skills they need to get a job. We will focus on ensuring that people with disabilities have access to training places, matching obligation with opportunity. In December 2006, the then shadow minister Senator Wong issued a discussion paper: Reward for effort: meeting the participation challenge. Chapter 6 of that paper deals with the specific challenges facing people with disabilities in the workplace. These include: access to transport; flexible working arrangements to take account of sporadically occurring illnesses; managing progressive illnesses; managing the costs of disability; and employer and community attitudes. These are complex issues and there are no simple answers, but we cannot ignore them. We must not run the risk of losing the potential contribution of people with disabilities to the community through workforce participation. As Senator Wong’s discussion paper indicates, there is currently no overarching strategy to identify the reasons that people with disabilities are not faring well in the labour market. This is both socially and economically negligent.
In government, Labor will provide a strategy for disability employment and be accountable for its implementation. It is no use insisting on a policy of mutual obligation, as this government does, without ensuring the commensurate opportunities exist. A welfare support system must have integrity. It must ensure that those who are able to work are given the opportunities to do so. At the same time it must recognise that there are some amongst us who are unable to work. That being the case, those people must not be ignored and short-changed when it comes to their support payments. People with disabilities must not remain forgotten.
The reason I wanted to come into this place was to help the vulnerable, the dispossessed—those doing it tough in life. They are the ones that we require a safety net for. They are the ones we should extend a hand of compassion to, not a hand that makes them jump through various hoops before they are assessed in relation to income benefits. This is what a caring, compassionate society does. A caring, compassionate society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, and it needs to treat those citizens with compassion. This government talks a lot but it does not walk the walk in relation to these matters. Recent events have again shown that these one-off payments are a cynical device aimed at ensuring votes prior to the next election. That is not good enough. (Time expired)
Bells Line Expressway
117
117
21:03:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—Yesterday during members’ 90-second statements I made a brief reference to the announcement by the Prime Minister last Friday in Bathurst that the federal government will fund $10 million for some initial planning for a Bells Line expressway to link the central west of the state to Sydney and the Sydney market. I would like this evening to elaborate somewhat on the comments I made yesterday.
This is the biggest single issue that has been brought to my attention in the new part of my electorate in those towns west of the Great Dividing Range. One of the overwhelming issues for people there is the need for safer, speedier and more appropriate access to Sydney. I have got to confess that I have been converted in the last six months, in the time I have been interacting with residents in that new part of my electorate, from perhaps being a sceptic to someone who is strongly convinced of the merits of the case for this expressway link between the west and Sydney—and I am not the only one. I have to convey to the House the comments of the NRMA in response to the Prime Minister’s announcement. The NRMA has come out strongly endorsing the announcement. In a press release from the NRMA’s regional director, Mr Graham Blight, he said:
Research commissioned by the Bells Line Expressway Group found communities along the state’s central west and western Sydney would benefit if the Bells Line Expressway were built.
The Bells Line Expressway will provide a major economic boost for Sydney and western New South Wales, and ease the population pressure on Sydney by making housing west of the mountains more accessible to employment in western Sydney.
The new expressway would save lives because the Bells Line of road is currently one of the most dangerous in Australia.
He goes on:
Group members and the NRMA have been urging the state and federal governments to build the Bells Line Expressway while considering environmental concerns.
The Prime Minister has listened to the concerns of motorists and this is a proactive step towards dealing with some of the long-term population and economic issues western Sydney will face.
We urge the New South Wales government to match his commitment.
Those are the words of the NRMA’s regional director. One of the other directors of the NRMA, former Labor Party federal member Gary Punch, said:
The Bells Line Expressway would be a fantastic resource for towns and suburbs across the Blue Mountains because it would free them from highly dense traffic snarls, especially on weekends.
Western Sydney families will also benefit as the expressway would open up a wealth of recreation activities in the central west for those seeking to get out of Sydney on weekends.
This funding commitment today takes us one step closer to this goal.
The point is this: there are substantial and significant benefits in this proposal. First is the improved access to people and businesses in the west—people living in places such as Lithgow, Bathurst, Orange, Cowra, Dubbo, Parkes et cetera—and speedier and safer access to the west.
Secondly, in respect of greater safety, the Bells Line of Road per vehicle per kilometre has one of the worst traffic records of any major road in the state. As well as improving safety on that route, it would improve safety on the Great Western Highway by getting some of the heavy vehicles off the Great Western Highway and out of the Blue Mountains, part of my electorate. So it would be a boost for people in the Blue Mountains.
Thirdly, it would boost economic development in the west of the state. We hear a lot about decentralisation and we hear a lot about business development. One of the major impediments to that development, to decentralisation, is a lack of transport access to the city—with vehicles having to access multiple changes in speed zones, slowing down to 40 kilometres an hour et cetera. The economic development that would come as a result of this development would boost jobs in the west. The Western Research Institute attached to Charles Sturt University said that there would be a payback within 10 years of the investment in this road. It would be a major boost to development. Fourthly, it would ease population pressures in Western Sydney.
The time for politics has passed. I call on the state government to support this proposal and to match the federal government’s $10 million funding. I call on my federal Labor opponent to stop playing politics and to match this proposal. In conclusion, I congratulate the Bells Line Expressway Group. I particularly congratulate Ian Armstrong for the work that he has done over many years, other members of BLEG including Ian Macintosh, and also CENTROC for their determination to push forward with this proposal. (Time expired)
Volunteer Small Equipment Grants Program
118
118
21:08:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—In October 2005 I wrote to the Auditor-General asking him to investigate the administration of the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants program, based on my concerns about apparent inequities in the distribution of funding. Those concerns were based on the fact that the average Labor Party electorate received funding of $26,737, the average Liberal Party electorate received funding of $49,793 and the average National Party electorate received funding of $95,942.
This week, the Auditor-General released his report. I was concerned that the Auditor-General found that the then relevant minister—
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
—Who was it?
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—the Hon. Larry Anthony—overturned departmental recommendations on 120 separate occasions. That in itself is not such a problem, but the Auditor-General found that the only statistically significant and independent influence on the minister’s decision to increase the number of VSEG 2004 round 1 grants provided to an electorate was whether that electorate was held by the National Party. That was the only significant and independent factor so found by the Auditor-General.
I would be less concerned if the pool was expanded and some organisations received grants for which they were ineligible or not recommended for. The really concerning thing about this is that some organisations missed out to make way for the organisations ticked off by the minister which did not meet the funding program’s criteria. Thirty-eight separate organisations—good voluntary organisations—missed out. We do not know where those organisations are from, but I hazard a guess that they were represented by members on this side of the House. Eighty-two extra organisations received funding and 38 that were not eligible or were not recommended missed out.
The Auditor-General found that there were significant factors, including regional variations and support from MPs, that affected the success or otherwise of funding applications. The relevant minister at this point, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, released a press statement on 24 May pointing this out and said:
The report basically points to VSEG funding results being slightly better—
I question that—
in Coalition electorates due to demographic variations between seats and because Coalition members are working harder for their electorates than ALP members are.
He also said:
More applications for VSEG were received from Government electorates partly because Government MPs were more active than Opposition MPs in encouraging organisations to apply.
An interested observer outside the House might look at that and think, ‘Well, fair enough.’ But what the minister did not point out in his press release and which the Auditor-General did point out, on page 28 of his report, is that only coalition MPs were told that the funding was coming up. Only coalition MPs received a letter from him saying, ‘You had better encourage your community groups to participate; you had better encourage your community groups to apply.’ Nobody on this side of the House received a letter. It makes it a bit hard to encourage groups to apply when you do not know—you have not been told; you have not been spoonfed the information, like members on the other side of the House have—that the funding is coming up.
As somebody in this House—somebody who is quite prominent—once said:
There is no more important role that this House has than to hold ministers to account for their conduct as ministers of the Crown and in their administration of the affairs of the Australian people.
He went on to say, in reference to a particular minister:
The minister took an ineligible application considered it eligible and gave it money.
That is what the member for Higgins, the current Treasurer, said about the then member for Canberra and the then minister for sport, and he argued that she should resign. It just goes to show how much ministerial accountability and ministerial standards have slipped over the last 11 years when this government think they can get away with it. This government think that they can take eligible grants from hardworking volunteer and community groups that have the audacity to vote Labor, that have the audacity to be represented by members on this side of the House, and give the money to their mates to hand out to other community groups. No doubt some of those community groups are very worthy, but it is—(Time expired)
Great Ocean Road International Marathon
119
119
21:13:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
0
Mr McARTHUR
—I am delighted to participate in the adjournment debate and recognise the Great Ocean Road marathon that was held on Sunday, 20 May. As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, the Great Ocean Road becomes part of the Corangamite electorate—that is, the main part—and the secondary part is in the electorate of Wannon. I acknowledge the fantastic work that the organisers of the Great Ocean Road marathon have done.
This is the third event and it now attracts 2,000 competitors. Hopefully it will become an icon of marathon running around the world. The scenery, the atmosphere and the general arrangements surrounding the Great Ocean Road marathon foreshadow the possibilities of it being up with the New York, London and Paris marathons and some of the other well-known marathons here in Australia.
I acknowledge Ross Stephens and his committee from Apollo Bay who thought up the original idea that we run a marathon from Lorne to Apollo Bay and that the weekend be devoted to runners participating in a number of events. They put their money on the line and they have been part of organising the event. I also acknowledge John Craven, who was the event manager.
We had two events, the half marathon of 21 kilometres plus two kilometres to finish in Apollo Bay and the full marathon from Lorne to Apollo Bay. The organisers encouraged world recognised athletes from Kenya to join them. David Mutua won the marathon. He was supported by those well-known Australian marathoners Steve Moneghetti and Lee Troop. Steve Moneghetti has been a great supporter of this event, he has been a participant and he has been prepared to support the organisers, as has Lee Troop. We had, as I said, 2,000 competitors in both those events. I think the hero of the event was Dr Lloyd Morgan. He competed in the half marathon last year, and this year, at the age of 77, he participated in the full marathon. Dr Morgan used to run in the old Dunlop Volleys and I suggested he should get a better pair of shoes but this year he trained up and he finished the full marathon in, I think, about five hours and 20 minutes. That is a magnificent performance and shows the sort of participation that the runners have in this very important event.
I also acknowledge PETstock, who have been a sponsor. Obviously the organisers are looking for other sponsors to support this wonderful event. Barry and Keith Fagg from Mitre 10 also sponsored the event. Mr Barry Fagg competed in the half marathon and his brother Keith completed yet another full marathon, having competed in the Berlin and Paris marathons. I competed in the third event and was able to achieve a finisher’s medal.
I was accompanied by my friend from the other side the minister Tim Holding. He competed in the full marathon, the member opposite would be pleased to know. I do not have his time here but he did a fantastic job and he was supported by the Premier, Steve Bracks, as he went past Steve Bracks’s holiday house. As I say, Tim Holding was delighted that the Premier was supporting him halfway through the marathon. I was lucky enough to complete the half marathon in two hours 14 minutes, seven minutes longer than last year and, of course, you have to do another two kilometres to the centre of Apollo Bay.
I conclude by saying that this Great Ocean Road marathon could become a world event. The organisers are getting ready for next year. They are looking for sponsors. I have put a submission to the federal government to help in this event. It is going to become a world-class event and they are to be commended because of the way in which they have been entrepreneurs. They started the event and it goes from success to success.
Medicare Safety Net
120
120
21:19:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—We often talk about safety nets in this chamber. Earlier in the adjournment debate in talking about disability pensioners getting back into work, the honourable member for Banks quite rightly described the importance of safety nets in giving people a lift up and showing them compassion.
I thought it would be interesting tonight to perhaps have a look at some of the definitions one can find in the online dictionaries that are available on the internet. Infoplease indicates that a safety net is ‘a guarantee of financial security’. Dictionary.com indicates that a safety net is ‘something that provides a margin of protection or security’, and the Encarta World English Dictionary defines safety net as ‘protection for people in difficulty: something intended to help people in the event of hardship or misfortune, especially something providing financial security, for example, insurance or welfare payments’.
Bearing those definitions in mind, I thought it was important to have a look at the Medicare safety net and at some of the statistics that indicate who is actually making use of the Medicare safety net. I think that if honourable members were to sit down and have a look at electorates without going into the politics of envy, they would say that electorates such as North Sydney, Warringah and Bradfield would be at the high end of the scale. The interesting thing about the Medicare safety net is that the electorates of North Sydney, Warringah and Bradfield are the highest beneficiaries from the Medicare safety net. In North Sydney, 14,400 people in 2006 gained total safety net benefits of $6.9 million. In the case of Bradfield, 18,294 people were paid total safety net benefits of $6.4 million and in the case of Warringah, the electorate of the Minister for Health and Ageing, it was 13,600 people for $5.9 million. The Chief Government Whip might be interested to know what the electorate of Macquarie gained out of the Medicare safety net. I think that he would understand the differences in demographics between his electorate and those I have mentioned. In Macquarie, only 4,900 people gained a benefit of $1.3 million. So where is the fairness and the justification for the Medicare safety net when there is such a disparity?
Let us look at Victorian seats. Take my seat of Scullin—2,800 people for a benefit of $1.059 million. Compare this to electorates like Higgins—13,395 people for $4.3 million; Goldstein—13,500 for $4 million; and Kooyong—11,700 for $3.7 million.
VH4
McArthur, Stewart, MP
Mr McArthur interjecting—
0K6
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
Mr Bartlett interjecting—
HH4
Jenkins, Harry, MP
Mr JENKINS
—I hear a bit of babbling in the background by government members. The thing is that this is a scheme that was badly designed from the year dot—from when it was put in place in 2004. It has no upper end for out-of-pocket expenses and that is the flaw in this.
This is a scheme that needs to be investigated and the money should be put to better use. If nothing else, in a health budget that has a whole host of measures that run counterintuitively to each other, this is the scheme that needs to be looked at, because it is absolutely flawed on the basis that it does not help those that it is intended that it help. It has an upper benefit where people get just the percentage of the out-of-pocket expenses without putting a cap on those out-of-pocket expenses. Also, in fact, there is greater access to a whole host of medical and health services that gain these out-of-pocket rebates in these electorates that I have mentioned that are not based on equity but are based on specialists et cetera operating in these types of electorates. If we are really looking at things that give access and equity to proper health services, we should be looking at the Medicare Safety Net scheme—(Time expired)
Internet Filtering
121
121
21:24:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—I thank the government whip for the opportunity to speak on this adjournment tonight. In rising to speak somewhat unexpectedly this evening, I want to make reference to a serious issue that was raised at the National Day of Thanksgiving, which was conducted on Saturday, 26 May. This was a day that was held and auspiced by the Berwick Church of Christ. Its purpose was to acknowledge community leaders and community servants and their contribution to the community. It was a day that was conducted by the Reverend Barry Cutchie, who is the reverend at the Berwick Church of Christ—a person who is passionately committed to social justice and equity and someone who is an enormous contributor in his own right and to the benefit of those who live in my community.
One of the issues that was raised in this discussion on the National Day of Thanksgiving was internet filtering of pornography. It is an issue that I have been raising in this House for some period of time. What I note and what I hear is that families across Australia are concerned about their children seeing pornography and violence on the internet. We would all share that concern. They want governments to do more to protect children from this material.
It is interesting to note that a Newspoll survey commissioned by the Australia Institute in 2003 surveyed parents with children between 12 and 17. It found that 85 per cent were concerned with their children seeing pornography on the internet, 75 per cent said that the federal government should be doing more, and 93 per cent expressed support for mandatory filtering of internet pornography.
The Labor Party policy basically says that mandatory filtering should actually occur at source—that is, at what is called ISP level. It is the strongest action that we can take to protect our children. Even those who believe that adults should have the right to access and view legal content in their homes would not accept taxpayer funded facilities such as public libraries or schools being used for the purpose of accessing pornographic material at those facilities, especially when in a public facility like a library or a school children can be easily exposed to the most horrific sort of material. That situation can occur.
Last year 62 members of the federal coalition signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a ban on access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet. That is certainly something that I support. The senator involved—the Minister for Telecommunications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan—dismissed those views as being not well informed. There is one person who is not well informed with respect to this issue and that is the minister for telecommunications. However, the people whose signatures I collected with respect to internet pornography, who wanted it prohibited from public libraries and actually wanted federal government funding tied to the mandatory installation of internet pornography filters, disagreed with the minister for telecommunications. In fact, I attracted 4,936 people to sign this particular petition.
The government’s response, after pressure from Labor and the coalition backbench, it must be said, was the National Filter Scheme. This scheme offers free filters to families and public libraries. It was announced in June 2006 but has not been implemented, nor has an implementation date been set some 10 months later. The Filter Scheme will be backed, as I understand it, by an $18.3 million national public awareness campaign to educate parents about online dangers. The government said that information would be provided on online and printed advertisements as well as through a telephone helpline.
There are several flaws in this policy. For example, public libraries that I have dealt with have been openly hostile to the concept of mandatory filtering. In fact, they will not take up this offer. This means that children can walk into a public library and access pornographic material. No-one in this place can say that that is acceptable. The capacity to give these people choice in this matter should not occur. There should be mandatory filtering. The problem is that, in offering a voluntary filter, we have seen that libraries will not take this up.
As a parent and as a legislator in this place, I feel that it is our responsibility to protect our most precious resources—our children. Therefore, it is my belief that this House and those in the government should accept the fact that mandatory filtering should occur at source—at ISP level—rather than allowing some librarian to allow persons to access pornography in a library and perhaps in a school as well. This is a policy that does have the support of 62 backbenchers of the government. It is a Labor Party policy. It is a policy whose time has come. I call upon the House to adopt this policy.
Medicare Safety Net
123
123
21:29:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—In the remaining time I would like to respond briefly to the speech by the member for Scullin about the Medicare safety net. The Medicare safety net has significantly reduced medical expenses for people in my electorate. Constituents have relayed to me their appreciation for the existence of the safety net and expressed their fears that a future Labor government might somehow remove that safety net. I have to say that the speech by the member for Scullin substantiates those fears. I call on the Labor Party to categorically state their support for the Medicare safety net, which is reducing medical expenses for people throughout my electorate and indeed throughout the country.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
123
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
2007-05-29
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4 pm.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
124
Statements by Members
Heidelberg Primary School
124
124
16:00:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—It gives me great pleasure today to congratulate Heidelberg primary school, a fantastic primary school in my electorate which I visited at the start of this school year. I was so impressed with the way in which they begin their school year with what they call a start-up learning program. The children in each of the classes, starting with the smallest children through to the grade 6 children, in their classes work out what they are going to be expected to do and how they are expected to behave and contribute to the school over the school year. All of the children participated in presenting to the whole school their start-up learning programs and they also made an excellent presentation of their school values. I seek leave to table this terrific presentation which was done by class 1/2B.
Leave granted.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member at the table, the member for Hinkler. I will just run through the values of the Heidelberg primary school, presented by some of the little children there. Their first value is about care. Using the children’s own language, they say that they will show care by ‘being nice to new students, asking someone who has no-one to play with if they would like to play, and picking up rubbish’. The children said that ‘integrity’—a very important value to Heidelberg primary school—meant ‘following the rules, handing in anything we find in the playground to a teacher and telling the truth’. Another value on the list is friendship—a very important value. Under that they list: ‘Showing friendship, caring for each other, being friendly to everyone and making friends.’ ‘Respect’ was described by the children as ‘taking care of school property, keeping our hands, feet and objects to ourselves and following the teachers instructions’. Learning was also on the list. The children understand that one of the most important things that they are going to do this year at Heidelberg primary school is to show that they want to learn by: ‘Trying our best, listening to Ms Bowell and getting to school on time.’ Under ‘cooperation’ they say, ‘We will show cooperation by listening carefully, putting our hands up when we want to say something and following the teacher’s instructions.’
I think this really demonstrates the commitment to learning, the commitment to cooperation and the commitment to care that these children have. I commend the teachers and the parents at Heidelberg primary for getting these children so well prepared for the school year and for teaching them the sorts of values that so many people in our community support. (Time expired) .
Wakefield Electorate: Roads
124
124
16:04:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise to draw the attention of the chamber to the community of the mid-north, Adelaide Plains, Clare and Gilbert Valley, and the people who use the Main North Road, which runs between Gawler and Clare, and includes much of the commercial transport that heads off up the Barrier Highway. For a number of years, the condition of that road has been poor, and recently it has deteriorated even further. Back in 2005 the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia commissioned a report called Backwater to Benchmark, which looked at the condition of South Australian regional roads. It highlighted, even back then, the fact that this road was in dire need of upgrades it and it estimated that the cost of these upgrades would be around the $6 million mark.
Since that time, the southern part of the road, between Tarlee and Gawler, has deteriorated further, with considerable undulations in the road. These have got to the point where not only is it uncomfortable to drive on that road in a motor car but also truck drivers are having problems with their backs. Some truck drivers in Riverton to whom I have spoken are off on WorkCover because of problems with their backs. The road has become dangerous. Loads that are satisfactorily secured for normal road conditions have become loose and have moved to the point of trucks rolling over on this stretch of road. It is a dangerous stretch of road which locals, peak bodies—such as the transport agencies and the RAA—and councils have for some time been calling for to be upgraded.
I would particularly like to thank the residents who have contacted me about this road and those who have worked with me, such as Mr Ted Malone, in Clare, and the proprietors of places like the Grasshopper Roadhouse in Tarlee and other roadhouses and shops up that road who have been prepared to have a petition calling on the government to put funding into that road. Some 3,799 signatures were obtained on that petition. Along with the councils, who have come together in their strategic directions for the region and have highlighted the need for investment in this road, the federal government, as a result of the budget this year, have put $6 million into the upgrade of this road.
We are now calling for the Premier, Mr Rann, and the Treasurer, Mr Foley, in their coming state budget to match this funding. The road is a state government road. It is their responsibility. We have responded to the legitimate concerns of the community about safety, access and viability for the tourism, viticulture and agricultural industries. We have put that $6 million in, in response to the community, and we call on the South Australian government to step up to the mark to meet their responsibilities and to match that funding.
Mr Gordon Fetterplace
125
125
16:06:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—Today I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the retirement from public life of a very prominent Campbelltown personality. Gordon Fetterplace, the former Mayor of Campbelltown, and now the former Director of the Western Suburbs Leagues Club board, has decided to hang up his boots, as it were, when it comes to his involvement in the promotion and ongoing administration of sport in the Campbelltown region.
While I cannot say I always agreed with Gordon’s politics, I cannot dismiss the influence he has had on the development of Campbelltown as a city and his influence on sport in my region. Gordon served with distinction on the Campbelltown City Council for 23 years. During that time he served seven terms as mayor. Gordon is known for his dedication to his community, and that dedication is reflected in his record of community service not only in local government but also through his involvement with the local sporting clubs, St Gregory’s College and many other charitable organisations and service groups in the Campbelltown region.
He has been a lifelong supporter of rugby league and took the opportunity to contribute to the development of the sport in the Campbelltown region, serving on the board of the Western Suburbs Leagues Club between 1994 and 1999. He was re-elected in 2002 and served the past five years in the capacity of director. The council and local sports groups were not the only beneficiaries of Gordon’s dedication. Gordon was also the patron of the Campbelltown Show Society. His commitment to the city has not gone unnoticed. In 1994 Gordon was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. In 2000 he was awarded the National Medal.
More important than all of this is that Gordon is a committed and decent bloke. Gordon is well known and well respected in Campbelltown. His contributions to the city and the development of sport are greatly appreciated, and I offer that appreciation on behalf of a grateful community. I congratulate Gordon on his dedication to all aspects of his life in Campbelltown, to his contributions to the city and, importantly, to his contribution to sport. I wish Gordon and Barbara all the very best in his retirement from public life in Campbelltown. No doubt we will see him from time to time at weekend sporting events, particularly in relation to junior league events that occur in and about the Campbelltown region.
Condolences: Mr Trevor Wortley
126
126
16:09:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—I wish to place on record in the House the very recent passing of a dear and loyal friend, Trevor Wortley, who died on 11 May. He is survived by his wife, Cherie, and sons James and Michael and their families. Quite often through life we are called upon to give our thoughts on the lives of those recently lost. Trevor Wortley was a wonderful person, a role model and a mentor for people right throughout the community. The opportunity to speak on his behalf in the Australian parliament today gives me a very great deal of pleasure.
The funeral, at St Mark’s Anglican Church, Buderim, was one of the biggest funerals I have ever attended. Trevor was a larger-than-life person. Trevor—like his wife, Cherie, and their families—was a giver, not a taker. I was overwhelmed by the heartfelt condolences that poured out at the funeral. While all of us knew that Trevor Wortley was a wonderful person, we came away from that funeral, which was a celebration of life, appreciating what an outstanding individual he was. I was honoured to lead some prayers at the ceremony, and there were a wide range of government and community representatives there.
Trevor had a battle with prostate cancer. Although his prognosis was not good, he gave leadership to others with difficult health problems in this area. He put a lot of work into prostate cancer awareness, and he assisted other people. He participated in a trial, and, while ultimately it did not benefit him personally, the experiences that he underwent will no doubt help others facing similar life challenges.
Examples of Trevor’s community involvement are just too innumerable to mention in the time available. He was very much involved with the Anglican Church and sporting and community groups. Wherever he was, he threw himself wholeheartedly into the community. Trevor’s loss is immense to the Sunshine Coast as a whole, to his wife, Cherie, and to his sons, James and Michael, and his grandchildren. He was a role model. The world is genuinely poorer for the passing of Trevor Wortley. I have to say he was one of the finest individuals I have ever met. He was someone who was just so tremendous. He worked tirelessly and never sought recognition. He was a role model for us all.
Global Initiative on Forests and Climate
127
127
16:12:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Just before the budget was released, the Prime Minister announced that Australia would fund the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. The fund would be used to assist developing countries faced with illegal logging and forest clearing. But it struck me that this $200 million program was just another one of those back-of-a-napkin policies that this government is desperately putting together as it faces annihilation at the next election. There is definitely genuine concern at the rate of forest clearing in tropical parts of the world, and illegal logging for timber products is a problem that needs attention, but the Howard government has become so accustomed to throwing money at problems that it thinks this will do the job again. If the government is asked what it is doing about climate change, it can say that it is spending millions to save the tropical forests. But, when it comes to the causes of the greatest deforestation in the tropics, this government cannot see the forest for the trees. The slash-and-burn operations which are devastating large areas of forests in South-East Asia and South America are not only to exploit the timber resource; increasingly the main objective in forest clearing—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs IRWIN
—quite obviously they do not like this speech, because it is the truth—is to plant biofuel crops such as palm oil and sugar cane. The demand for these crops is driven by policies in the United States and Europe which demand higher levels of biofuels, requiring as much as 10 per cent of the volume of fuels from so-called renewable sources. The effect of this is already clear from the diversion of corn crops in the United States. It is estimated that by next year one-third of the US corn crop will be used for the production of ethanol. An immediate effect of the European Union mandating biofuels, and the increase in crude oil prices, is the vastly increased demand for sugar cane and palm oil. The increased production of these crops is coming from the very slash-and-burn practices that the government says it wants to prevent.
Trying to achieve an outcome in the face of the policy driven demands for biofuels in the United States and Europe is just bad policy. Unless the leaders of developed nations rethink their doomed policies, we face a double disaster. We face the environmental consequences of tropical forest clearing on a scale far beyond anything we have seen so far. As well as that, we face an economic and social disaster resulting from massive increases in staple food prices. In the words of economist commentator Max Walsh:
The US sees corn-based ethanol as the answer to its oil and greenhouse problems. The resulting agriculture revision could well fuel global recession.
The government should consider those words when it implements its initiative. (Time expired)
Electorate of Moreton: Traffic
127
127
16:15:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—On a number of occasions I have raised the need for a proper truck and traffic management plan in and around the Sunnybank district in the electorate of Moreton. The failure of the state government and the Brisbane City Council to properly put a plan in place means that large interstate trucks are simply finding their way through suburban roads.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr Windsor
—It is a disgrace.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—It is a disgrace—the member for New England is quite correct. They come up from his electorate and find their way through my electorate at all times of the day and night. I am in debt to Mrs Toohey from Beenleigh Road at Sunnybank Hills who has written to me about the instance on Monday 23 April. She said:
At 4 am ... a large semi with a long container, travelled from the direction of Coopers Plains to Jackson Road round-a-bout, went around the round-a-bout, and back towards Coopers Plains. It travelled slowly, braking all the while. The noise was extremely loud. Because of darkness, I could not see the company.
The problem is that the trucks that are travelling at all hours of day and night in both directions to and from Bradman Street, Gay Street and Jackson Road—areas of light industry in the electorate of Moreton—have to have the direction that a traffic management plan would provide. Truck drivers need to know the way in, the way out, where to go and where not to go. The extra noise, pollution, congestion and distress they are causing to local residents are unreasonable.
I renew my call on behalf of Mrs Toohey and other residents in and around Sunnybank Hills, such as Mr Lawton, Mr Richardson, Mr Woodford, Ms Cahill and Ms Stevens, for some direction. Some of the companies that are offending local residents include Toll, BlueScope Steel, JPH, Linfox and Marr—big companies that should know better. But, in defence of those big companies, without a proper truck and traffic management plan in the Sunnybank district, how can they do anything else but use the road in front of them? It is about a bit of bitumen rather than direction, and we need the Queensland government to do better.
Likewise, Ms Soden from Ipswich Road at Moorooka has written to me, thanking me for my successful efforts to minimise the effects of heavy vehicle traffic on other roads in the electorate of Moreton. But now, after living in the inner city section of Ipswich Road all her life, she has seen in recent weeks an influx of intrusive and constant noise caused by vehicles’ loud engine brakes and rumbling. She has now reached the point where she is not inviting friends to her house on the weekend for fear of disruption from heavy traffic. She has seen this in recent weeks, and it is has happened because the Queensland government have banned trucks above the weight of 4.5 tonnes along the Brisbane urban corridor, Granard Road, Riawena Road, Kessels Road and Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. Despite promising local residents that the government would be sending them on the southern Brisbane bypass to the Logan Motorway and Gateway Motorway, trucks are simply finding their way. Now Ipswich Road at Moorooka is wearing the pain that other parts of my electorate have worn. Again, a proper traffic management plan for the south side of Brisbane would solve the problem—over to the state government to act.
Chaffey Dam
128
128
16:19:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—Most members would be aware of the problem that Chaffey Dam in my electorate is confronted with. Chaffey Dam is a 62 gigalitre dam and has approval to increase its size by 40 gigalitres, which will take it to 102 gigalitres. This is a $29 million project. The state government, the local council and the irrigators in that catchment have put together $23 million of the $29 million. A proposal by Councillor Phil Betts and the reference panel that looked at this issue and has been working with the various governments has recommended that the Commonwealth government put in $6.5 million. The Deputy Prime Minister, during the recent state election campaign, was very keen on the project, but since the government’s candidate did not win the seat of Tamworth the Deputy Prime Minister seems to have got somewhat cooler on the issue.
The $6.5 million equates to $162 a megalitre. This is an incredible investment for this community. Most people would be aware that, even on the irrigation market today, water is selling at about $2,500 to $3,000 a megalitre. In the urban market, water is selling for up to $7,000 a megalitre. The community is asking the Commonwealth for $162 a megalitre for an asset for that community that could be worth anything up to $7,000 per megalitre.
I congratulate Councillor Phil Betts, the Deputy Mayor, on being able to weave a path, particularly in New South Wales, where in the past the New South Wales government has not been too keen to increase storage. Through the capacities of Phil Betts, $23 million has been put together for this very important project. Chaffey Dam is at less than 15 per cent. We are hearing daily the Commonwealth government suggesting that we have to look after our inland communities. We have to look at water supply situations. We are also hearing it, I am pleased to say, from the opposition. So it is a very important issue.
My task today is twofold. I call on the Commonwealth government to make a decision. I know they are looking at this issue as we speak. If the decision is no, we will raise the money elsewhere; but let the people of Tamworth, the community and the irrigators in the Peel system know what the decision is very quickly, because there is at the moment a window of opportunity that is too good to miss for this community with the New South Wales government and environmental approvals that have been put in place. If the Commonwealth does not want to do it we will go ahead with other moneys, but the Commonwealth should let the community know and not let this drag on. (Time expired)
Mornington Peninsula: Policing
129
129
16:22:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr HUNT
—I rise to speak about policing on the Mornington Peninsula along three lines: firstly, in relation to the work of local police; secondly, in relation to a threat which may undermine their capacity to carry on the magnificent job that they do; and, thirdly, in relation to actions we can take as a community going forward to protect the capacity of local police and to enhance local policing.
The first point about respect is very simple. Police on the Mornington Peninsula do a tremendous job. They are great representatives of the community. They work with schools, youth and seniors. The Police Senior Citizens Register is a wonderful institution and a cooperative program. All up there is tremendous respect for their work. However, there is a threat that will undermine the capacity of police on the Mornington Peninsula to adequately represent the public and to do their job.
Today’s Mornington Peninsula Leader has on its front page a story entitled ‘Cop “shopfront” tip’. Very briefly that says that there is a real and tangible chance that the police stations of Dromana and Sorrento will each decrease in size from four active members to one. That would mean that there would be one shopfront police man or woman in place from about 9 am to 5 pm each day. The capacity to do active policing would be destroyed. That is just not my view or the Mornington Peninsula Leader’s view; the sergeant in charge of Dromana Police Station, Sergeant Mick Romeril, who does a fantastic job, has said:
There’s no way they’ll get similar customer service that they get now with us. We need more, not less.
That sums up the position of policing on the peninsula. I say to the state government: do not allow the effective loss of policing in Sorrento and Dromana. Other police do a great job, but these stations are integral to the communities, to the safety and protection and to the confidence of local communities. These stations cannot be closed.
The actions are simple: (1) this expression in parliament; (2) the development of a petition, which I will be working on and circulating in the local community, to protect both the Dromana and the Sorrento police stations; and (3) the writing of a letter to the Premier expressing these strong views. I hope they represent the views of the community—very simply: save Sorrento and Dromana police stations. (Time expired)
National Multidisability Lawn Bowls Championships
130
130
16:25:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I rise this afternoon to bring to the attention of the Committee a fantastic event which was recently held in my electorate of Adelaide—that being the 2007 Australian multidisability lawn bowls championships. I had the good fortune to attend their presentation dinner.
Lawn bowls is on the cutting edge of implementing programs to ensure the inclusion of all people in the sport. Clearview Bowling Club, where this championship was held, in my electorate, has particularly taken an interest in a number of important measures to ensure that people with disabilities can enjoy their sport just as much as any other bowler at the club. Events like the 2007 Multidisability Championships, as well as the International Bowls for the Disabled, are what makes lawn bowls what it is today, which is a challenging, exciting and, importantly, inclusive game. It encourages people of all abilities to play to their best enjoyment and skill.
I have to add that the national lawn bowls coach, Jan Palazzi, took the opportunity to attend the multidisability lawn bowls championships and commented on the amazing standard of bowls which was on display. So anyone who thinks that these bowlers are in any way unable to compete with anybody else on the bowls field would be very surprised when they see them at work. It was a fantastic event. Players attended from South Australia, of course—and they did an exceptional job, I might add—as well as from Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales. For the first time ever, Tasmania sent one lone bowler to compete.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan
—What about WA?
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—WA apparently was not up to the challenge. I can only guess. But they would be more than welcome to come down to the Clearview Bowling Club another time and see the fantastic facilities they have there. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the CEO of the Clearview Bowling Club, Mr Ian Bailey, for the amazing work that he continues to do. I am currently working with Mr Bailey and have approached both the state and federal governments to try and get some more funding so that we can put in place some measures to ensure that bowlers of all abilities are even more comfortable at the Clearview Bowling Club. I would also like to congratulate the organising committee of this fantastic event, which consisted of Sabrina Hannen, David Bailey, Jim Fawcett and Norma Brauer. The Clearview Bowling Club does an absolutely fantastic job for all members of our local community. It is an organisation which adds to the community-building capacity of the Clearview area. I commend them for all of their hard work. I pledge to continue working to try and get more grant money so that they can expand this program and offer even better services in the future.
Crime
131
131
16:28:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise to talk about the very important issue of crime. Like many local residents, I have had enough of local crime, hoons, vandals and graffiti. Tackling this problem is extremely important to me. Earlier this month I started a crime petition. Hundreds of people have since signed this petition, many contacting me personally to say how angry and fed up they are at feeling unsafe in their own homes and unsafe when they are out on local streets.
It is simply not good enough that the state Labor government is failing in its responsibility to ensure our community is adequately protected. I think it is a basic human right to feel safe when you are in your own home or walking around your local neighbourhood. This petition is part of a wide range of projects that I am involved in which are aimed at trying to prevent criminal activity. Since 2004 the Stirling community has secured funding of around $600,000, through the National Community Crime Prevention Program, for local projects that will make our community safer. One of these projects is now underway. We are looking at getting some further funding in conjunction with the City of Stirling and the owners of the Nollamara shopping centre to install a CCTV network at that shopping centre.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 4.29 pm to 4.41 pm
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr KEENAN
—Before we were interrupted I was talking about the Nollamarra shopping centre in my electorate, which is a small group of shops filled with very hardworking small business people. Sadly, they have a very serious problem with security. We have been working with the shop owners and with the City of Stirling to see if it is possible to install a CCTV network there. During my visits to the Nollamarra shopping centre in recent months, I have been greatly disturbed by the first-hand accounts from shop owners, staff and shoppers regarding the incidents of serious crime and antisocial behaviour that have been happening there on a weekly basis.
Apart from the burglaries, vandalism, threats of violence and rubbish dumping that have been reported to me, there was even a recent axe attack on a man who was using one of the ATM machines at the centre at about nine o’clock one evening. It was totally unprovoked; he was just standing there using the machine. Somebody came up behind him and assaulted him with an axe. This attack not only resulted in his serious injury but dramatically increased the fear of crime in the area, especially amongst young families and, of course, amongst the elderly. One of the pharmacies has been repeatedly burgled, and its staff fear to walk to their cars in the evening after the shop has closed.
I congratulate the City of Stirling for joining me in working towards getting funding from the National Community Crime Prevention Program for a CCTV camera network for this small neighbourhood shopping centre. CCTV cameras are well known to be highly successful deterrents to crime, and I will be lobbying very hard for the government to fund this very worthwhile initiative.
10000
Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Quick)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2007-2008
132
Bills
R2770
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2007-2008
132
Bills
R2778
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2007-2008
132
Bills
R2777
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2006-2007
132
Bills
R2772
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2006-2007
132
Bills
R2773
Second Reading
132
Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Costello:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that:
-
despite record high commodity prices from surging demand from India and China and rising levels of taxation, the Government has failed to secure Australia’s long term economic fundamentals and should be condemned for its failure to:
-
address Australia’s flagging productivity growth;
-
stem the widening current account deficit and trade deficits;
-
attend to the long term relative decline in education and training investment undercutting workplace productivity;
-
provide national leadership on infrastructure including a high speed national broadband network for the whole country;
-
expand and encourage research and development to move Australian industry and exports up the value-chain; and
-
reform our health system to equip it for a future focused on prevention, early intervention and an ageing population;
-
the Government’s failure to address the damaging consequences of climate change is endangering Australia’s future economic prosperity;
-
the Government’s extreme industrial relations laws will lower wages and conditions for many workers and do nothing to enhance productivity, participation or economic growth; and
-
the Government’s Budget documents fail the test of transparency and accountability”.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Before debate is resumed, I remind the committee that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering orders of the day Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
132
16:44:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—This is the Howard government’s 11th successive budget and predictably there is virtually no allocation for consumer groups and advocacy on behalf of consumers. Since its inception the Howard government has adopted a virtual scorched earth policy when it comes to consumers and advocacy and assistance for them. The Howard government abolished the consumer affairs portfolio and condemned its residue to the backblocks of the federal Treasury.
Consumer protection falls within the Markets Group of Treasury. In that section its purported ideal is defined as:
Well-functioning markets contribute to the achievement of high sustainable economic and employment growth and the wellbeing of Australians by enabling resources to flow to those parts of the economy where they can be used most productively.
Well-functioning markets [supposedly] operate when investors and consumers have confidence and certainty about the regulatory framework and can make decisions that are well informed and free of market distortions and impediments.
So in fact the concept is that the markets will solve everything; there are no difficulties and everyone will be happy ever after in having that access.
The Markets Group has four outputs. Consumer affairs fall within output 4.1.3, which is ‘Competition and consumer policy advice’. The Treasury portfolio budget statements for 2007-08 indicate that output 4.1.3 has had a budget increase from $13.61 million to $20.86 million. Those same budget figures indicate that for the last period, 2005-06, the output was $13.276 million while expenditure was $11.818 million.
According to the Treasury annual report of October 2006, the Consumer Affairs Unit promotes consumer protection and financial literacy. Activities seem to fall into five categories, including the provision of advice on consumer related matters—for example, the unit provided advice on the review of the Product Safety Framework—undertaking research for the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs; the provision of secretariat services to that Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs and to the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. The unit was the—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 4.47 pm to 4.59 pm
8T4
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—The unit also acted as a secretariat for the Consumer and Financial Literacy Task Force, which was formed to establish the first national strategy for consumer and financial literacy in Australia. Other activities include providing advice to consumers on financial matters through the Financial Literacy Foundation and representing Australia at OECD meetings on consumer affairs and ensuring compliance with OECD guidelines. As pointed out, the Treasury’s most recent report reveals that only $11.82 million of the allocated $13.26 million was spent. However it seems that, whilst not spending its allocated budget, it has again received a budget boost of some $6.5 million to that total of $20.86 million. I understand that the increased funding is principally a one-off payment to the Financial Literacy Foundation.
Labor supports the provision of financial literacy information. We believe that financial literacy is essential in building up long-term financial security and wealth. But, in view of the Howard government’s attack on consumers and its total neglect of any policy development to counter the increasingly contested consumer market, we believe that that $6½ million would be far better spent elsewhere. Federal government funding for financial counselling totals a mere $2.46 million in the current budget. This funding is intended to cover the majority of the Australian continent. The handful of institutions that receive funding from the Commonwealth Financial Counselling Program are expected to provide the following services: negotiation—if someone with a loan, mortgage or credit card is having difficulty maintaining repayments, a financial counsellor can assist in negotiating with creditors to reach an acceptable agreement; advocacy—where a person feels overwhelmed by a personal financial problem and would like help in effectively communicating with government or non-government organisations, a financial counsellor can advocate on their behalf; bills—if someone cannot pay an outstanding bill, a financial counsellor can help them look at their options and explain what they can do; debt recovery—where a person has received a letter of demand, a summons, a warrant of execution or a judgement summons and is not sure what to do next, a financial counsellor can explain the debt recovery process and assist them to take the appropriate course of action; budgeting—if someone is having difficulty making ends meet, a financial counsellor can assist them to develop a budgeting plan to suit their own personal circumstances and gain financial management skills to enable them to take control of their finances; and bankruptcy—a financial counsellor can give information on bankruptcy and assist people to explore alternatives.
Clearly, these are essential services that must be provided. Again I repeat: the entire federal budget for this essential service is $2.45 million. In theory it is supposed to cover, as I said, virtually the total population of Australia. I now contrast this with the efforts of the Victorian government, which annually provides more than $6 million in financial counselling budgeting. Frankly, the Howard government commitment is a disgrace and this merely underpins the fact that this is a government dedicated to the big end of town that has lost contact with Middle Australia. It does not care about battlers and merely relies on the whims of the free market to correct any instances of poor market behaviour.
The 1995 Community Service Industry Training Board (Victoria) financial counselling training needs project, by White and Delaney, defined financial counselling services:
... as being the full range of intake, assessment, research, advocacy, advice, and referral, community education and policy reform, knowledge in bankruptcy, credit and debt recovery law, income maintenance and social security, personal financial management, the financial system, casework and administrative skills and professional ethics.
The current funding base with Consumer Affairs Victoria places financial counselling in a consumer rights-consumer law context, acknowledging the development of the profession towards specialised individual and systemic advocacy on credit and debt issues. The federal government, on the other hand, funds financial counselling through the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and hence places the sector primarily in a welfare context. Labor is not necessarily opposed to this; nevertheless, the highly successful Victorian experience leads us all to believe that financial counselling should be an arm of consumer protection as opposed to being another desperate last-minute welfare provision.
Getting back to the money allocated to the Financial Literacy Foundation, Labor has been on record as seeking to reverse this funding. We anticipate that funding will instead come from the financial services sector, which has the most to benefit from the funding. The ALP has no problems with private sector funding for financial literacy campaigns. We have already seen the ANZ Bank dedicate an enormous effort to their financial literacy campaigns. In fact, in October last, ANZ were actually recognised with the Prime Minister’s award for their work in this sector.
The funding of the Financial Literacy Foundation contrasts sharply with the minimal attention that financial counselling receives from the Howard government. It highlights their twisted priorities. Seemingly, when confronted with a choice of funding to enable people to keep their homes, John Howard has opted for a choice which educates people on how to build a portfolio of houses. As I indicated in a recent speech, the importance of financial counselling was driven home to me when a constituent approached me regarding the imminent loss of her home. She initially purchased it for less than $80,000 in 1987—$80,000. Today she owes lenders a total sum of $470,000. She is a single parent with little prospect of finding employment which could overcome or go close to meeting a fraction of her loan repayments.
This constituent’s debts began to accumulate after the breakdown of her marriage and subsequent numerous attempts to refinance. Her tale indicates a poor comprehension of debt matters and even poorer lending practices by numerous institutions that were only too happy to lend to her at inflated interest rates. Some of these groups actually rush to exploit the vulnerable, vague and naive. My constituent and her son will be evicted from her house within a matter of days.
I refer to this matter as I believe that, had she had access to appropriate financial counselling, many of her problems would simply not exist today—and she would not be on the verge of eviction. Sadly, in all her years of this poor financial management, she simply never came across a financial counsellor nor was directed or referred to one. Her story is not unique. There are literally thousands of Australians suffering from the very same problems. Sadly, my electorate seems to be one of the hardest hit. According to the Daily Telegraph, New South Wales Supreme Court figures for the top 10 suburbs for repossession include the Reid electorate suburbs of Merrylands, Auburn, Guildford and Granville. Also included are the neighbouring suburbs of Bankstown, Greystanes and Fairfield. So quite clearly there is a belt which, because of income levels, because of the period at which they actually financed and because of the collapse of the market in some of those suburbs, particularly Granville, has been impacted by these forced sales.
This makes a mockery of the claim by the Prime Minister that we have never been better off. Whilst the Howard government crows about the success in the economy, which was largely inherited from Labor and fuelled by the raw materials demands of India and China, there is an alternative reality of an out-of-control personal debt spiral. Steve Keen from the University of Western Sydney writes:
Australia’s household debt to GDP ratio has risen from 57 per cent of GDP in 2001 to over 86 per cent in 2005 or five fold from the mid 1970s. With the exception of a dip in 1985-87 period, when the Stock Market was the focus of a speculative frenzy in Australia, the housing debt to GDP ratio has been rising exponentially for at least 25 years. The focus of RBA concern today is therefore on borrowing by households.
Australian household debt was five and a half times higher in 2005 than it was in 1990. The American growth rate of eight per cent translates into 3.2 times as much household debt in 2005 as in 1990. So we see that the situation of Australia has markedly worsened as compared with the United States. Furthermore, whereas in the US debt weighs heavily on households and businesses, in Australia the pressure of debt is being exerted predominantly on households.
A potent indicator of the level of financial stress now being felt by Australian households is a ratio to household disposable after-tax income. This ratio has more than tripled since 1981. The explanation that this is due to falling interest rates ceased being viable about two years ago. The rise in debt has eclipsed the impact of generally lower interest rates since the early 1990s so that payments by households now consume more of household disposable income than they did when standard home loan rates peeked at 17 per cent in 1989, even though the average variable rate is now 7.5 per cent.
Since its election, the Howard government has presided over an almost threefold increase in personal household debt. The total personal debt in Australia has increased from about $46 billion in January 1996 to a staggering $133 billion in November 2006. The Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia reports that the December 2006 quarter saw a blow-out in bankruptcy numbers in all states except Western Australia. This includes a 30 per cent increase on the corresponding 2005-06 period in New South Wales and almost 28 per cent in Victoria.
Steve Keen’s analysis of rising personal household debt is underpinned by AFFCRA’s analysis showing that widespread use of credit cards for household and discretionary spending, driven by aggressive industry selling practices, has led to unhealthy financial thinking where card facilities are considered in the context of available credit rather than actual debt liability. Jan Pentland writes:
In the current consumerist hegemony and the increasing gap between the haves and have nots, where material goods can define self worth, easily available credit has been a trap for many clients of financial counsellors.
This budget clearly fails Australian consumers. The government’s priorities are twisted. The government is pouring millions of dollars into financial literacy campaigns when it is clear industry is already doing so. Where money is scarce it should be directed where it is most urgently needed. Financial counsellors are being increasingly called upon to deliver services to gradually more desperate Australian consumers. These and many millions of other Australian consumers need financial counselling around keeping out of debt. They do not need counselling on how to get rich.
I turn to other aspects of this budget. Obviously, one of the failings was answered by Labor in its proposal for skills training in the secondary system in this country. It is proposed that between half a million dollars and $1½ million be allocated to public and private schools throughout the country to do something about the skills crisis which has led to the plethora of 457 applications for entry to this country, the desperation of employers to obtain skilled workers and the use of 457 visas by some of them to undermine conditions in this country. Behind that, of course, we have the government’s failure on training, research and development in this nation.
I will provide some of the indicators, which unfortunately all go in one direction. Australia’s business expenditure on research and development in 2005 was 0.95 per cent. The average in the OECD was 1.53 per cent, placing Australia at a glorious 14th out of 22. The growth of business research and development shows a singularly poor pattern as well. The growth between 1984 and 1995 was 12 per cent and in the decade since then it has been 6.5 per cent. When we turn to the question of this country’s investment in knowledge, we find that in 2002 Australia’s investment in knowledge to GDP was 4.1 per cent. In a league table of OECD countries, Australia came ninth, which compares particularly miserably with Sweden, the United States and Finland. In high and medium-high technology manufacturers Australia is one of the lowest ranked countries in the OECD. According to OECD research in 2002—and I quote that because it is the latest available—we had 3.2 per cent of total gross value added and were ranked 26th in the OECD. We know, of course, the figures on the take-up of broadband, and that is why the opposition has had issues on that front. In 2002 the proportion of graduates in the science and engineering sectors—so vital for the future, so vital for an alternative to dependence upon raw materials and so vital to finding a solution after China and India have reached a point where they do not need as much from us—was 21.5 per cent of total graduates in this country, less than the OECD average of 23 per cent. In 2003, Australian expenditure on tertiary education as a proportion of GDP was 1.5 per cent and ranked seventh in the OECD. More importantly, the proportion that we are spending on tertiary education has declined over the period since 1995. I talked earlier about the debt burden on Australians because of their dependence on credit cards and their inability to have secure employment and income, and I talked about the way in which education is funded in this country. As I said, we have had a decline in overall expenditure. Similarly, in 2003 19.5 per cent of education expenditure was borne by the household sector, yet back in 1995 it was 13.5 per cent. So we have seen a massive increase in the proportion of education expenditure that is the responsibility of the household sector compared to general taxpayer expenditure.
Another area that causes genuine concern in my electorate is the question of dental assistance in this country. I quote the response of the Australian Dental Association to the initiative in the budget. It said the initiative was:
$377.6 million to be spent over four years to enable chronically ill dental patients to access dental services in the private sector.
As I said, issues have different impacts in different electorates, but in my electorate an issue I constantly hear about is waiting times at public access points at Westmead Hospital in Western Sydney, one of the larger hospitals in this country. It is an issue constantly raised by residents. I note that the response of the Australian Dental Association was that, whilst the initiative is a positive move, it:
... will only have a minimal effect on the waiting lists that exist in the public sector.
The ADA’s report also indicated that there are 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists and that it is disappointing that the budget does not really tackle the problem. We know, of course, that one of the first actions of the government was to abolish the existing Labor government initiative in that field.
I will briefly turn to multicultural affairs. We see an allocation of more money in this budget but, quite frankly, it is an allocation that is understandable and overdue. In recent years the government has reorientated the refugee humanitarian intake to Africa, to people from the Sudan in particular. Many of these people have been living in camps like Kakuma, in Kenya, for the last decade or more. They are families that are illiterate in their own language, let alone in English, and they and their children obviously have particular needs. It is understandable that at last the government has woken up to the reality that there is a need for a greater allocation for refugee humanitarian assistance.
But we do see in this budget a parallel allocation of $123 million to a new citizenship test. One has to question not only the logic of this but the way in which such a serious matter—allegedly in a subterranean way to combat terrorism—was allowed to be not acted upon by this government for a year and a half. After it became urgent they sat around doing nothing about the need for this citizenship test or the other demands in that sector. In the last month or so we have seen a mad rush of people to beat the test anyway, with unparalleled numbers of people applying for citizenship in the last few months. As I say, this allocation of $123 million for a citizenship test is very questionable. There is a chronic need to expend money on migrant English and to help people with orientation information before they arrive in the country. We need to give people an Australian experience for employment. Quite clearly, everyone on both sides of this House knows the problem that we have with people coming to this country, supposedly for employment, who are driving taxis or working in Pizza Huts. As I say, it is commendable that something is happening in respect of this allocation but, in the light of the size of the problem in recent years, it is not enough.
138
17:16:00
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
FK6
Dawson
NATS
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
0
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—I rise to speak on the budget, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. The 2007 budget shares the outcome of the coalition government’s good economic management with all Australians. It invests in families and invests in the future. For families, there are childcare benefit increases such that a low-income family with one child and full-time day care will be up to $20.50 a week better off.
But it is the tax cuts that have certainly received the most attention in my electorate. Tax cuts for those on average wages will be around $16 a week, and for someone on $30,000 a year around $21 a week. The level at which the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent cuts in will be increased from $150,000 to $180,000. If the threshold had remained at 1996 levels, the top marginal rate would have cut in at $68,000. What a difference! Now it is three times the level it would have been had the prevailing tax arrangements in 1996 been there.
But what has happened in previous budgets? Here is one example, and I am referring to the Age, which said that the most important moves in the 1993 budget were the deferral of the second income tax cut, worth $3.55 billion; increased petrol tax, worth $1.54 billion; and increases in wholesale sales tax, worth $1.34 billion. Not a budget anybody would have been excited about. That was the budget in August 1993. So people were not wondering how big their tax cuts were; they were wondering who was going to get hit—and, boy, they were hit, because the tax cuts were deferred. I think they were the notorious l-a-w law tax cuts.
But in the budget for 2007 the government has certainly delivered. Education vouchers worth $700 will be made available to children who need specialised assistance. Teachers who complete a summer school professional development course will receive a $5,000 bonus. It is a great incentive for teachers to update their skills. Eligible apprentices will receive a tax-exempt payment of $1,000 and a voucher of $500 to offset their fees for training. The thing that could never have been done by previous governments, a Higher Education Endowment Fund with an initial investment of $5 billion, will double existing financial investments and endowments for universities. A one-off superannuation co-contribution scheme will ensure that eligible persons who have contributed in the previous years will receive a $3,000 co-contribution from the government for every $1,000 that they contribute. There is a one-off seniors bonus of $500 to eligible seniors. Eligible carers will receive a bonus of between $600 and $1,000, and TPI and disabled veterans will receive pension increases.
There is a climate change initiative, with a rebate of $8,000 available for installing a solar hot-water system. There is a boost to AusLink and our road system. The government is also building and investing in infrastructure. In the next five-year round there will be a total of $22.2 billion available, including the Strategic Regional Program with $300 million, and supplementary funding of $250 million is to be paid direct to local councils before 30 June 2007.
There are so many initiatives that it is really not possible to go through all of them. But I want to draw the comparison between the low expectations—and they had to be pretty low—pre 1996 for budgets and what we have now. I want to draw the comparison between what was delivered then and what has been delivered in one of the most outstanding budgets ever brought down by a federal government. In fact, in 1992, the then Treasurer, according to the Australian newspaper, ‘left the way open yesterday for new or increased taxes to be introduced’. The arguments these days are about how much the tax cuts are going to be. That is the bonus of having good economic management that a government can share with all Australians.
I would like to move now to some specific issues that affect my own electorate. I am immensely proud that in Mackay we have the coal exports from Dalrymple Bay, Hay Point and Abbott Point that make it the largest coal-exporting region on earth. In fact, we have had a 42.5 per cent increase in our gross regional product—the largest growth in the state. We have significant investor confidence in the mining industry within the Mackay region. There was $500 million in capital expenditure on mining projects completed in the last six months. To put this in perspective: there has been $882 million in capital expenditure spent on mining projects completed over the year to April 2006.
Major projects that are forecast are the $1.1 billion expansion of Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. That will increase capacity from 60 million tonnes to 85 million tonnes by 2009. There is mooted construction of a 120 megawatt gas-fired power station in Moranbah and a 300 megawatt gas-fired peaking power station in Nebo, at an estimated cost of $800 million over the period 2006-15.
Mining, for my region, is now worth some $8 billion. The percentage contribution to the Mackay economy is 61 per cent. The annual increase is 77 per cent. That is an extraordinary figure for one region in Australia. The percentage contribution that mining makes to the Queensland economy is only 12.4, but to us it represents 61 per cent of our gross regional product. That is an extraordinary dependence on the mining industry and one that we welcome. It has meant some growing pains for my magnificent city and region, but it has certainly meant great prosperity, jobs growth and opportunity in the region.
Are there any threats to this glowing future? There certainly are. In fact, one of them was on the front of the Courier-Mail newspaper. It said:
Greens Senator Bob Brown is calling for the death of Queensland’s $24 billion coal industry and thousands of jobs, demanding an end to all coal exports within three years.
Senator Brown, in an interview with the Australian, predicted:
Job losses, higher inflation and economic turmoil would come as inevitable part of paying for climate change ...
In an interview with the Australian yesterday, Senator Brown said the first thing that had to be done to ‘stop worsening the problem’ was to place a moratorium on additional coal exports. Senator Brown went on to defend his plans to shut down Australia’s coal industry, saying, ‘There will be bumps.’ I will tell you what those bumps will be soon. They will be most of the people in my region. The article quotes Senator Brown as saying:
... “there will be bumps”, but if plans were put in place to deal with the pollution within three years the country could “minimise the bumps”.
People in my area are not too pleased to know that they are bumps. But that has other implications because, while Bob Brown, the Greens senator, wants all coal exports stopped, he has said this will be achieved in the first term of a Labor government. One might ask how it is that the Greens can set the Labor agenda, but I will move to that shortly. I would like to comment on Peter Garrett, now the Labor shadow minister for the environment. He has cast off his cloak of dedicated environmental campaigner and declared that he is an elected politician who supports Labor policy, no matter how expedient it may be, and he will do what he is told. Garrett has said in relation to the coal industry expansion:
One of the greatest difficulties we face is that we have got to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of urgency, so I think it is completely understandable that there would be, of necessity, a huge amount of scrutiny on the business of expansions.
And then:
The automatic expansion of the coal industry such as we have seen in the Hunter region over the past decade is a thing of the past.
Make no mistake: ‘No automatic expansion’ is code for ‘No expansion, period’. And ‘No expansion’ is code for ‘Eventual phase-down’. All we have to do is add Bowen Basin and Central Queensland and we begin to see the enormity of the damage—or bumps, as Senator Brown puts it—that can and will be inflicted on the industry in my region.
What does this mean for the Mackay economy, which is 61 per cent dependent on coal? While the good Senator Brown is saying on national television that there is no such thing as clean coal and dismissing the whole argument as a mining-company-driven propaganda exercise, the Labor Party is going on about clean coal technology and promising a $500 million fund for research. Mr Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, claims that, when it comes to securing a long-term future for coal, we have got to secure a long-term future for clean coal technology. It is all very well to talk the talk, but you also need to walk the walk. As a government, we have already invested $1.1 billion in clean coal technology.
But the reality is that we have two scenarios: Senator Brown saying that the coal industry will be closed down in the first three years of a Labor government, and muffled assurances from the Labor opposition. Mr Rudd, for instance, flicks Senator Brown off by saying:
I think Senator Brown has got rocks in his head when it comes to that matter.
So there we have it. However, it is interesting to do a little research on some of these things. We have Mr Rudd saying unequivocally ‘Yes’ for coal, Senator Brown saying unequivocally ‘No’ for coal and Mr Garrett saying, ‘Well, sort of, maybe, sort of, yes, no, a bit difficult to sort out.’
So what is going to happen? Let’s have a look at what happened in 2004. In the 2004 election the coalition lost four marginal seats as a direct result of Greens preferences going to Labor. Those seats were Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Parramatta and Richmond. However, more importantly, the Labor Party retained eight marginal seats as a direct result of receiving Greens preferences. These were Ballarat, Banks, Bendigo, Cowan, Isaacs, Lowe, Melbourne Ports and Swan. What that means is that the total Greens preferences were greater than the winning margins. In other words, without Green preferences those seats would presumably go back to the coalition. I pose this proposition to people in my electorate: not only is there a compelling reason in terms of gaining seats but there is a compelling reason in terms of holding seats for the Labor Party to agree to the Greens’ agenda.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Is the member for Dawson willing to give way?
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—At the end of my address.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I am not sure you are aware of the standing order, but it permits you to—
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—In that case, no. I have a lot more to say, thank you. The reality is that inevitably, as a result of Green preferences, we are going to see Senator Brown’s close-down of the coal industry prevail.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Absolute and total rubbish!
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—Even if we were concerned about that, we should remember that the target that the Labor Party has set for greenhouse gas abatement is a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. Thank goodness the Prime Minister has said that he is going to support coal industry jobs, coalmining families.
83A
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
Ms Livermore
—He said he is setting up a nuclear energy industry!
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—I would now like to continue with the argument as to why attacking the coal industry is utterly futile. The only thing that that will achieve is exporting Australian jobs from my region. Senator Brown calls it ‘bumps’. People’s future and jobs are more than just bumps. If greenhouse gas emissions were completely closed down in Australia by closing the economy tomorrow, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions worldwide would be 1.4 per cent. That would have absolutely no effect on world greenhouse gas abatement. But the reality is that it would be economic vandalism on a region like mine and on Central Queensland.
I am glad to see the member for Capricornia is going to follow me, because she has a very big stake in this region as well. The futility of it would be that within a short 10 months China would have made up for the growth in emissions alone. Every 10 months China replicates the entire Australian electricity-generating system. Beijing alone puts 1,000 new cars on the streets every week. So China would have made up for our greenhouse gas abatement, but we would have suffered a mortal blow in our region. The way to go forward is to do what the coalition is doing, not to snuggle up to Senator Brown behind the scenes while refusing him and putting him down publicly. What the government is going to do is continue what it is doing now—
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby interjecting—
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! The shadow duty member should be more courteous.
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—which is investing in clean coal technology. There is the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate—six countries that have got together, accounting for more than 55 per cent of global output and 49 per cent of global emissions, and are forging a partnership to look at a way forward. So action plans are in place, and later this week we will hear from the Prime Minister’s task force on emissions, with a practical plan, one that will not create bumps, as Senator Brown says, in Central Queensland and the Bowen Basin coalfields, destroying the futures and the opportunities of young people in our region.
I want to look very briefly at the unemployment rate in Mackay in 1995 under the previous government. Unemployment peaked in January 1995 at 13.9 per cent, an absolute shame. At the end of the last year it was down to just 3.9 per cent. The Allen Consulting Group report that looked at the question of supporting, signing and ratifying the Kyoto protocol said that one of the areas that would be hardest hit by complying with Kyoto was in fact the Central Queensland coalfields. They predicted high levels of unemployment. We know what it was when the coal industry was much smaller and far less significant in our area. Labor got unemployment up to 13.9 per cent. Frankly, I shudder to think what it would be if they continued to seek Green preferences—and we know they have done a secret deal, only it was not much of a secret because it was in the Courier-Mail, a bit like the secret campaign being run on the government’s climate achievements in that furphy of a suspension of standing orders.
But that is the reality for our area—Senator Brown calls us a bump. We know that the coal industry is in the sights of the Labor Party and the Greens in the future. I am certainly going to make it my task to see that the futures of young people and the prosperity in our region is not signed away in a cheap preference deal by a citicentric government focused on Sydney and Melbourne votes in the latte-set areas.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—I wish to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—If the member is prepared to accept a question, it is still within time.
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—I think Senator Brown has answered them all.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The parliamentary secretary declines to respond to your question, Member for Melbourne Ports. That being the case, I think the standing orders oblige me to proceed.
142
17:35:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—While the member for Dawson is still here, I put some questions to her. The interesting question, while the member for McMillan is also still here, is how the member for McMillan feels about the member for Dawson’s support and John Howard’s strong support for a nuclear energy industry in Australia, because that is certainly the biggest attack on the coal industry that I have seen. When John Howard talks about replacing coal as a source of electricity in this country with nuclear energy, it is a bigger attack than anything I have seen from Bob Brown. I see that the member for Dawson has left the chamber and does not wish to get into that debate, which is the genuine debate about the future of the coal industry under a continuing Howard coalition government.
This is about the budget. This is the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the budget and what it means to my electorate of Capricornia. The thing that really struck me about the budget when the Treasurer was giving his speech earlier this year was that it was really a budget that was about plugging up political holes for the government—political holes that have been left behind after 11 years of the Howard government’s neglect of many essential services in our community and of essential infrastructure.
Of course, we have seen this before. Every election year, the Howard government discover a sudden interest in policy areas and services that they have ignored for years, and this year was no different. One of the obvious examples was in the area of dental health, where we finally saw the government throwing some money at dental health after spending 11 years since they cut the Commonwealth dental program telling us how this was all the states’ problem and the states’ responsibility. Now that it has become a political problem for the government, we see them accepting responsibility and putting money in—but, of course, only in a very narrowly defined way.
Similarly, the Howard government in its first budget made massive cuts to funding for universities, and universities have been struggling to come to terms with those cuts ever since. But all of a sudden, when we see the effects of that through falling productivity and through Australia’s shameful comparison when you look at figures from the OECD on education spending—Australia is falling well behind our competitor nations in the world—the Howard government seems to have realised that it is about time it started undoing some of that damage.
We know that John Howard is a clever and cunning politician and we should not be surprised that he is trying to patch up the holes. But, of course, it gets harder and harder for a government that has been in power for 11 years. If there are holes there—if there are important issues in the community that are not being addressed and problems that are out there—it is a sign that this government is not doing its job and has not been doing its job for the last 11 years. Those political holes are there because the government has neglected important areas of services and infrastructure.
Of course, being a clever politician—and a desperate politician, you might say—John Howard is not going to leave anything to chance. So, just in case throwing money at those political problems in the budget is not going to do the trick, he will give himself the best possible chance of winning people back by spending up big on political advertising. We have seen $850 million spent on political advertising by this government since the last election, bringing the total spending on advertising by this government since 1996 to close to $2 billion. That is just absolutely unprecedented in this country. When you put that up against the areas of neglect that they are trying to fix up in the budget, you can see that that $2 billion could have gone a long way towards fixing some of those problems long before 2007, only a matter of months before the next election.
The budget was all about plugging political holes for the government to get it through to the election, but, from the point of view of my electorate, it still left behind plenty of holes. The first one of those holes that struck me as I listened to the Treasurer’s speech—and it is too bad that the member for Dawson is not here to listen to this—was the failure of the government to put forward any initiatives to encourage and support the development of clean coal technology. For people living in Central Queensland at the heart of the coalmining boom, that is a major oversight, especially since the Treasurer spent so much of his speech doling out money derived from the resources boom that people in my electorate are working hard to create. If the government wants to spend the money coming out of Central Queensland mines, it should get serious about helping to secure the future of the industry, but there was not a cent in the budget for that. So there was the Treasurer spending the proceeds of the mining boom, and yet there was nothing in the budget to help the coal industry to meet the challenges it faces in a world that is looking to reduce its carbon emissions.
If the government wants to support the coal industry and the communities, both big and small, like those in my electorate that are built on the coal industry, then the government has to be part of finding ways to make the industry sustainable. Of course the budget just confirmed what we already know about this government: it has turned its back on the coal industry and on coalmining communities because it has embraced nuclear energy. Instead of working with the coal and electricity industries to develop clean coal technology, the Howard government is busy developing its plans for 25 nuclear reactors to be established around the country—and the member for Dawson has already put her hand up publicly to say that one of those can go near Mackay on the Queensland coast. I am sure her electors are just thrilled about that prospect.
Unlike the government, Labor understand the need for urgent action on climate change, and we recognise that reducing the carbon emissions from burning coal is essential if we are to make serious reductions in greenhouse gases. Right now, the technology is there to achieve that goal, but the political will and leadership has been lacking in a government that has ignored climate change and is now telling Australians we need to adopt dangerous and radical measures like nuclear energy, as a cover for its complacency and neglect. As someone who represents many coalminers, their families and communities right across the electorate of Capricornia, I am pleased to say that Labor is showing real leadership in this important area. Earlier this year Labor announced its national clean coal initiative, and the member for Dawson just endorsed that initiative in her remarks. It is a fund worth half a billion dollars which a Labor government would make available. We would ask industry to come up with proposals for clean coal technology projects and, by putting money in from that $500 million fund on a two-for-one basis with industry, we would be aiming to meet significant greenhouse gas reduction targets in our electricity generation industry. We would also increase Commonwealth funding for the CSIRO by $25 million over four years so that it can drive the national clean coal initiative. This is really forward looking for the coal industry, and it is making sure that that $23 billion a year in exports is able to be sustained into the future. We can continue to develop that technology here in Australia and export the technology along with our coal exports to the rest of the world, to those countries which realistically will be looking for ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the new environment where every country in the world is accepting a responsibility to reduce those carbon emissions and the impact on the environment.
One of the other great failings in this budget is in the area of broadband. I have to ask: when is the Howard government going to take this issue seriously? Once again there was nothing in the budget to improve the access of people in my electorate to high-speed internet. Meanwhile, Australia falls further behind its competitors in access to and the use of information technology. We continue to struggle along with what has now been confirmed in the budget papers this year as zero per cent productivity growth. The failure to invest in broadband is the surest sign of a lazy and complacent government that is happy to coast along on the crest of the resources boom while doing nothing to invest in the measures like education and world-class communications infrastructure that will secure our future prosperity.
This is a matter of equity and productivity. Why should people in Central Queensland be denied the opportunities that high-speed broadband internet makes possible—whether it is for improving their business, their kids’ education, health and financial services or any of the other potential uses of this important technology? I would like to give members two examples of the kinds of frustrations that I am coming across in my electorate from people who cannot access broadband—and that is hardly an unreasonable expectation in this day and age.
The first example is from Janine Bennett, who wrote to me from Eton, which is a gorgeous little town set amongst the cane fields just outside Mackay. Like many of the rural areas to the south and west of Mackay, Eton is experiencing fast population growth with the opening up of estates to cater for people who work in the mines further west or who just want the peace of semirural living. So it is a rural area but it is still only a 20-minute drive from Mackay, which is a major regional city. I received a letter from Janine, which said:
We were recently told that Telstra had updated our exchange and we could now get ADSL Broadband! Yehah! We all got excited, and yes we have been dial up all this time, not by choice but we live 30km out of Mackay ... Anyway we set out to join up and guess what?! We can’t get ADSL here, you know why? We have Pair Gain. What’s that you say? Yes so did we! Pair Gain is sharing a telephone line with your neighbour!
Janine goes on to say:
Even the Telstra staff laughs when they tell us!
I am sure people are thrilled by that response from Telstra! As I have explained to Janine, I have tried everything in the past to help constituents caught up in Telstra’s pair gain scam but to no avail. There is no doubt that Telstra has a lot of explaining to do to customers right around Australia when it comes to its use of this shonky second-rate equipment. But that is letting the government off too lightly for its role in the shameful state of broadband in this country. The fact is that Janine should not be battling with Telstra to get ADSL. In 2007 in a country as prosperous and advanced as Australia, she should be connected up to real broadband, delivering speeds of 12 megabits per second or higher. Of course, that is Labor’s plan.
The second example that I will give to the Committee is even more damning of the government’s record. A month or so ago I visited Swayneville State School. It too is located in an absolutely picturesque setting surrounded by bush and cane fields. Again it is rural but hardly remote, no more than 10 minutes drive from Sarina and 45 minutes from Mackay. The staff and parents of the school were successful in obtaining a grant from the government’s Investing in Our Schools program. During my visit the principal, Mr Ken Nichols, showed me the IT equipment that the school had purchased with the money. It is very impressive stuff and it is quite obvious that this opens up enormous potential for teachers to add value to the work they are doing in the classroom.
But before the government rushes to pat itself on the back for the grant it provided to this school, here is the downside. At Swayneville school there is no access to broadband, so in many respects the IT equipment that is there at the school is almost a tease. It offers possibilities to students and teachers, but so many of those possibilities are out of reach because of the limits of the dial-up internet connection.
After visiting the school, I made inquiries with Telstra and the answer just goes to show how far off the pace the government is on this important infrastructure priority for Australia. Here is part of the email from Telstra:
Shinfield—
which is the relevant exchange—
was one of the exchanges that Telstra identified for broadband enablement using the Federal Governments Broadband Connect program. A project was initiated to broadband enable this exchange however the federal government advised us that as of the 13 March 2007 the subsidy based funding available under Broadband Connect had reached its limit. The Government has since put in place transitional funding guidelines for the period 2 April to 30 June 2007.
And it goes on:
As it is the Government subsidy that enables Telstra to upgrade exchanges to ADSL in rural and remote areas where it otherwise would not be commercial, Telstra has no choice but to put a hold on further exchange upgrades until it can claim subsidies for customers connecting to those exchanges.
The email from Telstra goes on to say that it is now tangled up in negotiations with the government over definitions in the transitional guidelines for the Australian Broadband Guarantee program.
I do not want to go into the detail of all that except to call on the government to get in and sort that out quickly. But the point is that we should not be tinkering around with these piecemeal responses to what is an urgent national infrastructure priority. The technology exists to link 120 students at Swayneville school and all the other students in my electorate to the best educational resources in the world, but the government has failed to ensure that our infrastructure keeps up with those possibilities.
The government is still tinkering around with its latest broadband program—the Australian Broadband Guarantee. This is the latest in a long line of programs aimed at bringing Australia out of the Dark Ages when it comes to broadband speeds and access. But we know from international comparisons and statistics that Australia is still lagging behind most of our competitors when it comes to broadband. The Howard government has to drop its bandaid approach, which has seen it handing out bits and pieces of funding—some might say pork-barrelling—to projects scattered around the country. Equity and our future prosperity demand a nation-building approach to this task of bringing Australia’s infrastructure into line with the rest of the developed world.
Labor’s plan for a national broadband network will deliver high-speed broadband to the entire population of Australia. It will overcome the problems experienced by Janine and her neighbours in Eton and a lot of other constituents of mine throughout Central Queensland—all those people who are currently stuck with pair gain lines. It will give kids at Swayneville school the same connection to the world of the internet as kids in Rockhampton or Sydney.
Labor’s plan for broadband is to deliver a national fibre-to-the-node network that will deliver a minimum of 12 megabits per second to all parts of Australia. That is a speed more than 40 times faster than most current speeds available today. That will result in benefits such as slashed telephone bills for small business; enhanced business services, such as teleconferencing, video conferencing and virtual private networks; and enhanced capacity for services like e-education and e-health. The economic benefits are also enormous. We just cannot understand why the government has been dragging its heels on this important piece of infrastructure for so long. The estimates are for an additional $30 billion of national economic activity a year. It will make Australian small businesses more competitive. Some figures show that in Queensland alone true broadband access will boost the state economy by $4 billion and create 1,200 new jobs.
So it was obvious that the budget was plugging political holes and really not demonstrating that this government has a plan for the future. It has a plan for the future over the next three months, that is for sure—it is all about getting elected at the moment—but is not really serious about lifting Australia’s productivity and maintaining our competitiveness and prosperity.
I said at the start that those people in Central Queensland listening to the budget would have heard all that money going out. All that money can be traced back to the mining boom, a lot of which is happening in my electorate. There is one mining town in my electorate—I am sure in all mining towns we could find communities and projects that could use money—that has a particularly urgent need at the moment, and that is the town of Clermont. Clermont is a mining town, but it is a bit different to other mining towns in the Bowen Basin in that it has a higher proportion of elderly residents living in the town. At the moment there is a large and unmet demand for aged care in the town of Clermont. This is very serious because, while Clermont is about an hour away from Moranbah, it is about three hours from Mackay and four hours from Rockhampton, the other major centres. So when places are not available in Clermont people really are faced with putting their loved ones into facilities quite some distance away from the town, which is quite heartbreaking.
At the moment Monash Lodge, the aged-care hostel which operates in Clermont—a facility that was established in partnership between the community and the Belyando Shire Council—has an application before the government under the Regional Partnerships program to build an additional six units to try to meet some of that demand for aged-care places in the community. The community has been incredibly proactive about this, and I think it is very much a reflection of the respect and affection that the community holds for the elderly people in the town. The community has raised $300,000. This community has had its ups and downs over the last few years, but it has managed to raise $300,000 towards this project. I know that the application has been looked upon very favourably by the relevant area consultative committee and I ask the federal government to take a very close look at this.
This issue has a very human face. I received a letter from Peter Murphy back in April about his mother’s inability to gain an aged-care placement in Clermont. She was waiting for nine months in a hospital to get a place. This is a very real problem in the town of Clermont. The town has been incredibly proactive in dealing with this problem, and I call on the government to use the surplus to meet these urgent needs in communities like Clermont.
147
17:56:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
1
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—I take this opportunity today to discuss a number of issues regarding the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. I would like to begin by congratulating the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, on delivering yet another excellent budget, the reception of which has been remarkably positive. Not only does this budget deliver for every Australian; it also provides for the financial security of our nation in years to come. This year’s budget provides an underlying cash surplus of $10.6 billion as well as personal tax relief and funding for investment in our nation’s future in projects such as education, agriculture and infrastructure.
This year’s budget has been described as ‘the best received on record’, as the ‘something for everyone budget’, and as ‘delivering many pleasant surprises for many Australians’. But budget nights have not always been synonymous with pleasant surprises and positive reactions. There was once a time when budget night meant tax hikes and increased pressure to stretch the family earnings. Indeed, this government inherited a $96 billion debt, compliments of Labor Party incompetence, when it came into government in 1996. But, since then, the responsible economic management of the Howard government has brought this nation out of debt and created the financial security we enjoy today. It is for this reason that the Howard government has been able to produce yet another surplus budget. I would, therefore, also like to compliment the Prime Minister on the excellent management of what is now a $1.1 trillion economy.
As I have already outlined, the response from the Australian public to this year’s budget has been overwhelmingly positive and this has been particularly visible from those in the electorate of Hume, which I have the honour to represent. I was glad to announce this year’s federal budget in my electorate as a bonanza for all Australians. This is a description which the local media ran with because this budget truly delivered for all, no matter what their income, occupation or residence. As a nation we have never been in a more prosperous situation. However, we live in a country with unpredictable weather patterns and in some areas an often ruthless climate. No-one knows this better than the many farmers in my electorate who have been struggling with the worst drought on record for more than 100 years. The prolonged drought continues to place significant pressure on the resilience and strength of farmers and their families in Hume. Like many other farming communities around the country, these battlers are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the physical, mental and financial challenges this drought has created.
Lack of significant heavy rainfall in much of the drought affected areas of the Hume electorate has also placed considerable pressure on many small and large businesses which service the agricultural sector. The government has recognised the severity and devastating effect the current drought has had on farmers as well as businesses. This is why this year’s budget continues to provide a range of support programs and various services to assist farmers and rural businesses to help ease the burden of the drought.
It is a terrible understatement to suggest that these services are anything short of essential for farmers to manage the financial and emotional strains this drought has created. Every day I receive phone calls from farmers in the Hume electorate who report their increasing frustrations with trying to eke out a livelihood so ultimately dependent on rain. It is therefore pleasing for me to be able to reassure these farmers that the government understands the struggle that they face and has acknowledged the difficult circumstances that their families continue to endure. As part of this reassurance, this budget provides an additional $314 million over three years in exceptional circumstances assistance, including $273 million for primary producers and $42 million for small businesses who service primary producers. This will bring the total expected exceptional circumstances spending to $688 million in 2007-08, which is in addition to the $428 million spent in 2005-06 and an expected $740 million in 2006-07.
Countless farmers wake up every morning to face the huge emotional burden inflicted by another daunting day without rain. Depression and anxiety are becoming widespread throughout many of our farming communities. The number of farmers we lose to suicide increases with every month that passes without rain. This is why the Australian government has provided $13 million over two years to expand counselling and support services, to establish a drought assistance hotline and to provide information to farmers in the region. The new Mental Health Support for Drought-Affected Communities measure will provide crisis counselling services for distressed individuals in drought declared areas, and education and training for clinicians and community leaders. It will also increase the capacity of communities to respond to drought related psychological trauma.
In a local newspaper report, New South Wales Farmers Association President Jock Laurie is reported as being heartened by the additional $314 million for the continuation of exceptional circumstances funding. In the same article he is quoted as saying:
Farmers also welcome funding to establish a School of Dentistry and Oral Health at Charles Sturt University, which will help address the chronic shortage of dentists and oral health workers in rural NSW. For some time the association has been calling for access to comprehensive dental facilities for people in rural areas as well as programs to attract and retain dental health workers and appropriate training facilities and incentives for dentists with rural backgrounds.
It is essential that access to services such as dentists and medical practitioners is retained in our rural and regional communities. Currently there are limited rural training opportunities for dental students to undertake clinical training outside major metropolitan areas. However, people with an interest in rural dental practice will now have the opportunity of undertaking and completing their training in regional New South Wales, as funding will be provided to Charles Sturt University to construct dental education facilities, with 240 new training places for dental and oral health students over five years. Rural communities will significantly benefit from more dentists practising and training within their regions. Significant difficulties have also been recognised in recruiting and retaining GPs in rural and remote areas. The Australian government has recognised this and continues to provide funding for incentive grants, such as the Rural Retention Program, to encourage GPs to move to and stay in rural and remote areas.
While farmers throughout the Hume electorate continue to pray for more rain, what little rain we have seen often creates adverse effects on many roads in Hume which are magnified by the inexperience of many drivers in wet conditions. I am also well aware of the increased number of my constituents who now commute long distances to jobs in towns and cities because of the drought. I am deeply concerned that when we do eventually see this drought break we will see an increase in fatalities on our roads. In February this year a report appeared in the Goulburn Post summing up my concerns. I shall read a segment from that report:
The weekend’s rain may have been a blessing to property owners in this area, but it has create havoc on the Hume Highway. Seven separate accidents occurred within the space of three days, and all were within 50 metres of each other on the notorious section of road near the Carrick and Towrang intersection, 10km north of Goulburn.
As many of my parliamentary colleagues are aware, I have been lobbying for improvements in this particular section of road since 2003. I was therefore greatly pleased to announce, a week after this article appeared, that a $7.4 million project to improve the road safety at Towrang and Carrick roads would finally commence. These improvements will make it easier and safer for traffic from Towrang and Carrick roads to turn onto the southbound lanes of the Hume Highway.
The Australian government will also contribute $60 million in 2007-08 to the Coolac bypass in the electorate of Riverina. The government is fully funding the bypass, at a cost of $179 million. The bypass involves new dual carriageways over almost 12 kilometres of the highway. An adjacent four kilometres of the highway will also be realigned. I raise this particular initiative because I have had a significant interest in the Coolac bypass for over a 19-year period during my time as a state member of parliament and more latterly as the member for Hume in the federal parliament. I congratulate the member for Riverina for her persistence in ensuring that this funding was made available.
This Australian government acknowledges that high-quality, efficient transport infrastructure is essential to Australia’s productivity, economic growth and future prosperity. It also acknowledges that increased funding is needed to reduce accidents and make roads safer. The government is, however, continually frustrated by stupid state government legislation which slows down the construction process. The tragic death of three people in the Yass-Murrumbateman area on the weekend is a clear indication of the considerable need for continued investment in improved safety on our roads. While the government has announced the duplication of the Hume Highway in southern New South Wales, it is up to the state government to start implementing the use of this funding to help decrease the number of people who are killed on our country roads. Their inability to expedite the construction phase of major road projects is an indictment of their incompetence in utilising federal funding. To assist in dramatically reducing road fatalities on our major arterial road corridors, it is essential that when money is made available we expedite the lead-up processes for planning prior to the construction of those roads to ensure that the construction phase is carried out without unnecessary obstructions or delays.
The government has announced that, under the AusLink national network project, contributions will be made to reconstruct and seal Main Road 248 West in the Upper Lachlan Shire. I was very pleased to announce that funding, because when I was a state member the Greiner government in its wisdom saw fit to undertake a project called the three by three project, where 3c per litre of fuel was allocated to local government municipalities over a three-year period to help them catch up on the backlog of roads that were 60 years old and needed some reconstruction to make them safe for people to drive on.
The 152 local councils in New South Wales will also receive $85.6 million in 2007-08 from the AusLink Roads to Recovery program. That is a fantastic program because it recognises the significant contribution that local government makes to its road program; it was finding it very difficult, through its rating processes, to keep funding up to ensure that those roads were kept up to standard. The unincorporated areas of the state will receive $600,000 from the program. In addition, councils will receive $156 million in untied local road grants.
New South Wales will receive $14.3 million in 2007-08 under the AusLink black spot program, which will fix about 93 priority crash locations. I am very pleased to see that many local government areas in the electorate that I represent have taken the initiative to identify and put in appropriate evidence to that program to ensure that they receive funding to assist them in fixing up those black spot areas, where accidents occur reasonably regularly and, more importantly, in contributing to safe road environments for young people, who seem to be having an increasing number of accidents in those black spot areas.
The government will also continue its substantial financial assistance to local governments for the maintenance and preservation of local roads by providing $3.2 billion over the five years from 2009-10 in untied local road grants. This increased funding will contribute to the reduction of deaths on our roads by making them safer. Unlike the New South Wales RTA, local government road building is both efficient and expeditious. That is why the federal government is continuing its Roads to Recovery partnership with local government.
It is estimated that by the year 2020 the number of Australians over the age of 65 will have doubled, from two million to four million—undoubtedly, a number of us in this place will fit into that category in the not-too-distant future—and we will have to provide adequate assistance to maintain that ageing population. The continued support of our elderly requires careful economic management and planning now. This budget provides funding of $1.6 billion to secure the future of aged care for Australians. This funding further reforms the aged-care system to increase the availability and fairness of aged care over the next five years.
We also need to be able to support our current older Australians, our retirees, our pensioners and our veterans. We must continue to respect their dignity and the important contribution that they have made to this country. That is why the budget has delivered for older Australians through additional payments for seniors, carers and veterans. This budget will help to improve the standard of living of veterans and war widows.
In Hume we have a number of branches of the organisation Legacy. This organisation provides a uniquely Australian service through its provision of financial, emotional and social support for the loved ones left behind by those who gave their lives to serve our country and defend our freedom. It was therefore with great pleasure that I was able to notify the president of one of our local Legacy branches of the remuneration this budget provides to many of his Legacy ladies. This includes a one-off non-taxable bonus payment of $500 to more than two million senior Australians.
The Howard government has acknowledged the invaluable contributions that carers make to our communities and has recognised the valuable dedication of this generally unpaid work. A payment of $1,000 provided to carers who receive carer payment—an income support payment for people who are unable to participate in the workforce full time as a result of their caring responsibilities—has therefore been delivered. Recipients of the income supplement carer allowance, which provides assistance to people who provide daily care and attention at home to a person who has a disability or severe medical condition, will also receive a lump sum payment of $600.
In addition, recipients of carer allowance receiving the $600 payment who also receive a wife pension or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension will also receive a payment of $1,000. I would like to congratulate and commend the quick implementation of these payments by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough. This has ensured that funding is benefiting our older Australians as soon as possible.
People older than 75 make up approximately 70 per cent of veterans, and as this population continues to age it is vital that they receive a high level of support to ensure they achieve the highest possible quality of life. The Australian government remains committed to providing top-quality, comprehensive health care and appropriate services to help veterans and war widows manage their daily lives. An allocation of $10.4 million to increase fees being paid to veterans home care service providers will ensure that veterans and war widows can continue to receive quality in-home respite care service, helping them to live independently in their own homes for longer. Veterans with a disability receiving the special rate and intermediate rate pensions will also have their fortnightly payments boosted by $50 and $25 respectively, thanks to a $159.6 million budget allocation.
One of the most immediate responses I received in my electorate was from constituents wanting more information on the government’s increases to the Photovoltaic Rebate Program. In fact, it was at 9 am on 9 May that the first of many constituents contacted my office inquiring how they might be eligible for this innovative rebate. The Australian government has invested around $52 million in the Photovoltaic Rebate Program, which is part of the government’s broader commitment of more than $340 million to solar technology. The funding allocated in this budget will increase the rebate for solar panels on homes from $4 per watt up to a maximum of $4,000 to $8 per watt up to a maximum of $8,000. Australians have recognised that as individuals they can make a difference to the sustainability of our environment. This rebate program means that more households, schools and community groups in Hume will have a greater opportunity to take an active role in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as well as reducing their electricity costs. In Hume the doubling of the rebate for solar panels has provided an even greater incentive to many of my constituents to install solar panels on their homes. I have urged all my constituents to take advantage of the Australian government’s new $150 million solar power package and apply immediately for the increased rebate.
I also congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, for ensuring the quick implementation of this program. Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy requires experience and discipline. This government therefore continues to make the necessary and often difficult decisions in Australia’s long-term interests so that it can lock in prosperity and build security and opportunity for all Australians.
152
18:16:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—Life is sometimes full of certain symmetries, and today’s speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills has a symmetry with the very first speech I gave in this parliament nearly 11 years ago. It was an appropriation speech, my first in the House. My wife, Shirley, is with me tonight, as she was then, for the last appropriation speech I will make in this House.
Many people are no doubt aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, as you are aware, that I will not be the ALP candidate for the seat of Blaxland at the next election. When preselection for Blaxland was announced, a good friend wisely advised that I should do what Paul Keating counselled Bob Carr to do at one stage: stand in the middle of the road and dare them to run me over. It is sad to report that I am but political road kill. This is a matter of great sorrow, of course, and regret not just for me but for everyone in Blaxland who has so strongly supported me since I was preselected by popular rank and file ballot in May 1996. My loyal branch members will recall that I won the ballot emphatically with 131 out of 205 votes, 64 per cent of the primary vote. The other 74 votes were pretty evenly split between the other two candidates.
During the last 10 years, despite a truly massive campaign of ethnic branch stacking against me and despite the recent electoral redistribution in the seat of Blaxland being deliberately designed to cut out my power base in Condell Park, I would still have convincingly won a rank and file preselection in Blaxland. I know this because I did the numbers and I can count. I proved that conclusively in 1996 by predicting the exact result of that rank and file ballot.
Most of the other Labor seats in New South Wales have been allowed to have rank and file ballots, but not Blaxland. Taking the decision out of the hands of qualified local branch members and putting it into the hands of the national executive was deliberately done to stop me being preselected again. Despite this process being chosen, I was offered and accepted another three years as the member for Blaxland on condition that Ms Tania Mihailuk would replace me in three years time, that I withdraw the existing two charges against her and not put in the further charges and that, together with the member for Bankstown, I help to rehabilitate her locally.
These were very demanding conditions, given what Ms Mihailuk had done over the past decade and given that I did not believe that she would ever be fit for any public office. But I was not in a position to determine the outcome of a national executive vote, so I very unwillingly agreed to this compromise. This deal was then put to Ms Mihailuk. She flatly refused to wait another three years and demanded that she be made the preselected ALP candidate for Blaxland immediately. Three ALP participants in this process have independently corroborated Ms Mihailuk’s refusal to accept the compromise deal.
Another candidate was then asked to nominate, but Ms Mihailuk was given until the next day to convince me to give up in her favour. Despite a series of stratagems, she could not do so and could not have done so until hell froze over. I made it absolutely clear that I had accepted the compromise under great duress but would honour it even if no-one else would. I made it utterly plain to ALP head office that Ms Mihailuk should not profit from the decade of deceit, illegality and destructiveness she had unleashed in the seat of Blaxland. I was determined that if I were denied the right to continue to represent Blaxland for the ALP then the author and perpetrator of so much disloyalty towards me and towards genuine rank and file members should not become my successor in the seat of Blaxland.
83Q
Schultz, Alby, MP
Mr Schultz
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to interrupt the member because I have sympathy for what he is saying, but we really should get back to what we are here to discuss, which is the appropriation bill.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—I thank the parliamentary secretary and I have some sympathy, although in the presence of the member and his wife, whom I admire, I want to be able to wish them all the best in their future. This debate has always been permitted to range over any matter of public administration or public interest and, whilst I would wish that I could bring it narrowly to a point of definition—plainly this is not a subject that I, as a member of the party myself, wish to have canvassed in this way—nonetheless I do not think that within the standing orders in this debate I can prevent the member from continuing.
LN6
Hatton, Michael, MP
Mr HATTON
—Another candidate, Jason Clare, was then selected and appointed through the national executive mechanism. This is exactly what happened and it is the unvarnished truth. I know just how deep the anger and hurt is for anyone who has supported me for such a long period of time as the member for Blaxland. I have effectively looked after the people in the seat of Blaxland for 22½ years: the first half by managing the office of Paul Keating and the second half in my own right as the member for Blaxland. There is no greater honour I can imagine than being chosen by rank and file ballot to represent the ALP in the seat of Blaxland. I treasure the experience. I have had opportunities to speak strongly and forcefully not only for every ALP member in this seat but for all the people who live in Blaxland.
For me, the political tragedy is that I will no longer be able to do the job that I have done to the very best of my ability in the federal parliament on behalf of the people of the Blaxland electorate. This was a job I aspired to, was apprenticed at and one for which I spent most of my life preparing. I acquitted myself as well as I could and I am proud of the work that I have done. I am also proud of the loyalty and support given to me by so many ALP branch members, despite the disloyalty of some. There have been difficult and demanding circumstances over the last decade when branch members were faced with the destruction of their branches by massive ethnic branch stacking, large-scale rorting of branch attendance books and instances of intimidation, thuggery, standover tactics and hooliganism. Genuine branch members have been rightly outraged that this has gone on unhindered, are very dejected that I will no longer continue to represent them, but are very grateful that the agent of so much destruction will not profit from it in any way. Let the matter rest there.
I said at the outset that my wife is with me, and there is no-one that I have to thank more than Mrs Shirley Hatton for the way in which she has supported me throughout my political career. I was a nice little teacher when she first met me. I think it has been downhill ever since for someone who is also a teacher and a great teacher of mathematics and the social sciences. Shirley and I decided that if we were going to make a go of this then we would do it together, and she came to Canberra with me. She has worked with me for almost all of that time and, in doing so, she gave up a great deal. She gave up the collegiality of the teaching experience. She gave up the warmth and love of her students and the immense respect that they had for her. That is an immense amount to give up, because life here in Parliament House is often very lonely, particularly for people who are staff. She has brought great gifts to this place and, as every member of the spouses group knows, Shirley has been an active member of that across the parties ever since I first came into this parliament. She will be missed for far longer and more deeply than I will be missed from this place because she has been able to straddle the divide between government and opposition and to bring true help and friendship to everyone she has met. The respect in which she is held is very deep and very sincere. I want to thank all of those in the spouses group who have helped to make Shirley’s time here such a pleasurable one. We have got to know very many people from across both of the major parties and the National Party as well.
Secondly, I want to thank my family at large—my mother, my brothers, all my aunties and uncles, the members of my extended family—for not only the faith they put in me but also the work they put into my original by-election. I also thank them for the help they have given me over the years, not only in the branches but also at election time, and for consistently, throughout the entire time, pulling me up, telling me what is right and what is wrong, how to improve my game, and what was wrong with either what the government was doing or what the opposition was doing. No-one can survive in this game without the support of their family, and my family has been a group of utterly true believers, certainly in me, certainly in the cause that I have espoused. For them, this is a matter of some particular hurt that my run will end here.
As I have had loyalty directed towards me from my family and from my wife, my staff have also been utterly loyal. You cannot ask for anything more in this game. Its greatest failing of course is disloyalty, but its greatest joy is loyalty. Mrs Veronica Webb has been on my staff since I started, but I was smart enough to grab her when the seat of Bass Hill was lost after a 22.32 per cent swing against Labor in 1986. I managed to get her to work for Paul Keating, and Veronica has been in the office of the member for Blaxland for the last 20 years after running the seat of Bass Hill for Neville Wran, running his electorate office, for 13 years. Veronica—a fantastic electorate secretary and an immense asset both to Paul and to me, as she was to Neville—has had a triple blow this year. She lost her son from cancer; a few months after that she lost her husband, Ray; and now, with this particular instance, it is a triple blow for her and very difficult. I could have not done the job I did—working for Paul for 11¼ years or in my own right—without Veronica’s immense capacity, great openness towards people and tremendous depth and her capacity as an electorate secretary and as my great friend. Thank you to Veronica.
To Shirley who has also worked on my staff and put up with me over all these years: I thank her greatly. Justin Lee, who was with me for two interesting and tempestuous years, was a fantastic staffer; he is still a tremendous friend. He is doing very well in the New South Wales public service. Ray Webb, Veronica’s husband, also worked for me for a number of years and did a sterling job carrying out many of the great mundane matters that we have to deal with. Mike Bailey worked with me for almost a year. He is now working for Bankstown council. Councillor Ian Stromborg has been with me now for a year or so and done terrific work. John Alam has been with me on a part-time basis, and now full-time. On my relief staff, Ingrid Winter is currently working on that relief staff and, formerly, both Kath Wheatley and Kath Creighton gave tremendous service to me and also to the electors of Blaxland.
I had immense privilege serving on the committees of this parliament, initially the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which I added the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources and then, when it was broken up, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. In this parliament, I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, where I am deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee and I am also on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee. In this parliament, of course, I am the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources and I am on the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library. Throughout a number of years now, I have been on the Presiding Officers Information Technology Advisory Group, of which I am deputy chair at the moment.
In all of those committees and all the work we have done, the strongest part of this parliament has been proven: in working with people across the parties one gets to know that, one, we are all human beings and, two, the essential benefit of the nation is at the core of just about everybody who comes into this place. In working together on common problems we are in a position to try to solve those problems and to put forward reports for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Also it is a test of just how deep this parliament’s resources are, not in cross-party debate but in that immensely useful work that happens in committees. None of it could happen without the committees’ resource staff, who do the lion’s share of the work, as is the case with the clerk and the clerk’s staff in the Department of the House of Representatives. We could not exist and do our work were it not for them and the way in which they facilitate the House and the Main Committee operating. Likewise the Parliamentary Library—if that were not there, we would be all very poorly off.
I want to go to the very broadest of the questions with these appropriation bills and some of the things that are missing. This is a salt and pepper budget. It is a sprinkle here and a sprinkle there—a something for everyone budget, as the member for Hume said. It is almost like Joh when he was feeding the chooks. Take a handful of wheat, throw it out and hope that a bit will sprout up here and there and not only the chooks might be fed but they might be happy and then do the right thing later.
This is a budget that does those sorts of things but it is also a budget that is expressive of the decade or more in terms of what happened before. To go to the core of what this government is about and why it is in trouble at the moment, you only have to go back to the National Commission of Audit, that yellow covered book that told the story of the decade afterwards. The fundamental line in it said that the Commonwealth government’s role was such that it should not deliver a single direct service to anyone in Australia. That was the fundamental philosophy of the National Commission of Audit. The government spent a hell of a lot of time trying to expressly put that into place. They have not been able to run away from it fully, but they have run as hard as they could over a long period of time.
You get the end product of that over a decade where people see what is really missing. The two fundamental areas were picked up in the deputy leader’s speech. One was the whole question of skills and skilling Australia. You cannot do it on an ad hoc basis. At the moment we have an adhocery where we are pulling in people under the 457 visa. We have hundreds of thousands of people who have been filling the gaps that are there in Australia. The initiative announced by the member for Griffith of the insertion of trade schools and trade training facilities into every school in Australia is directed towards the fact that we need to train young Australians, as I have said many times in the past. We need to put our minds to it. We need to realise that it is the most significant thing we can do, not only for all those young Australians who otherwise will not have a trade in the future but also to regenerate Australia’s trade and professional base. We mightily need to do that because the crisis is here—and it is grave—and it is still growing. But we need to tackle that with a greater intensity.
The second thing that the government has attempted to address is the area of broadband. Countries like Korea and the Netherlands are way in front of Australia in terms of putting in effective broadband big pipes to enable information to be pushed from one end of the country to the other. Labor’s proposal is for fibre to the node. The Netherlands has already got fibre to the node, and it is now going beyond that to the next major step of taking fibre to every household in the Netherlands. Every household will have the capacity not only to receive services and information and so on but also to be a potential small business. Australia has a long way to go to catch up, but I think the Labor plan will do that. What we have not seen from the government over 10 years is a concerted program to address the problems in relation to broadband. Everyone has seen lots of sporadic and ad hoc attempts to deal with this, but nothing has got to the core of what needs to be done to make us competitive and to keep us competitive.
George Hegel in his book entitled
The Philosophy of Right, which was written in the 19th century, said: ‘So ist die Philosophie ihre Zeit in Gedanken erfasst,’ which means, ‘Philosophy is its own age apprehended in thought.’ For a government, its philosophy is expressed in its budget. This is a pepper and salt budget, spraying bits all over the place to try to get this government re-elected. It does not have the fundamental vision that we need for tackling the skills crisis or the crisis in broadband provision. The federal opposition does have that vision. I wish them well at the next election, and I wish the member for Griffith well in his—(Time expired)
157
18:36:00
Entsch, Warren, MP
7K6
Leichhardt
LP
1
0
Mr ENTSCH
—Before I comment on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills, I would like to commend the previous speaker, the member for Blaxland, on his contribution. He has been an outstanding representative of his electorate, and it is a tragedy that very strong, capable, grassroots members lose their preselection through underhanded tactics. I believe, like the member for Blaxland, that when we come into this place we do so to represent our constituency. We do not come in here to represent our factions. We should be focusing, as he has done very effectively, on our own constituency. Unfortunately, he has paid the price, because of those who have been scheming in the back rooms. We need to look very closely at that. It is a warning to those on his side—as, I am sure, it would be to anyone in politics—not to lose sight of what we are here for. I am pleased to say that I do not believe that the member for Blaxland has ever lost sight of the fact that he is here for his constituency.
I think the place is richer for your contribution, and it is a sad and sorry day to see you leaving in the way that you have to. I am pleased to see that your fine wife is here to witness your contribution—your last on the appropriation bills. I will certainly miss you, and I wish you well. I just hope to goodness that people will see the errors of their ways and, at the end of the day, get back to what we are here for—representing our constituencies, not so much the party and certainly not the factions. You have paid a big price for it, and you will be missed in this place.
LN6
Hatton, Michael, MP
Mr Hatton
—Thank you.
7K6
Entsch, Warren, MP
Mr ENTSCH
—Getting back to the budget, I say again that it is one that we can be very proud of. In the final comments by the member for Blaxland, he said that we are spreading little bits all over the place so that everybody will receive a benefit. That is true: we are distributing it. The overwhelming majority of people across the broad spectrum will receive a benefit out of this budget. When I think back to pre 1996, I can recall that each time we had a budget we would sit in great apprehension, wondering who was going to get whacked this time. Whether it was going to be the smokes, or the drink or the fuel, we knew that one of those excises was going to get hit. We also knew that wholesale sales tax was going to go up somewhere. Taxes were also likely to go up. They kept lifting the marginal rates of tax to try to cover some of the deficit.
How different it is now. For five consecutive years we have seen tax cuts coming back to the people. We are now in a situation where we have to be earning $70,000 to $80,000 before we are out of the 30 cents in the dollar—30 per cent—tax rate. It increases to $180,000 before we see the highest level, which of course is 45 cents. Some years ago, it was 47 or 48 cents in the dollar. So there have been significant changes and they are ones that we can be very proud of. This is all about economic management.
We have paid back that massive debt that we inherited when we came into this place in 1996. That is the reason we have been able to do some of the things we are doing now. It is not rocket science. Any suggestion that this is a budget where, because it is an election year, we are suddenly starting to give tax cuts to hand money back to our taxpayers is an absolute nonsense. As I said, we have been giving tax cuts for the last five years. I suppose the suggestion could have been made last year and the year before and the year before that. The same goes when we talk about giving additional money back to people like pensioners and carers. It is becoming an expected norm now that we do that. It is because we do not have that interest component of something like $8½ billion a year that we would have to draw out before we could look at returning one single dollar back to the benefit of the Australian taxpayer. When you look at it in that perspective, I think it has been an outstanding achievement.
There are some areas of the budget that I was particularly pleased to see and one of those is road funding. We have continued to maintain that with another $22½ billion going into AusLink. It is money that is certainly needed and it will go a long way towards rebuilding our national highways and national railways, which have been well and truly neglected for a lot of years. In my own area, work has already started on the flood proofing of the Bruce Highway. With the Tully sector, it has taken a lot of work to drag the state government in and to get them to focus on that area. It is an area that stops traffic completely almost every year—it is an annual event. It is not a matter of if it is going to happen; it is a matter of for how long it will impact on our region. At times we can have our main highway shut for six to eight days. That has a huge impact on our business community. We have set money aside for it. We are still, unfortunately, dependent on the state government and the Queensland main roads department to set priorities. The state government is setting priorities which I would love to see changed. We are also dependent very much on them building the roads, which they do quite slowly at times. If they are not able to deliver, it would be great if we could look at other ways of doing it. Possibly we could tender it out to other companies that could probably do it a lot more cost effectively and a lot quicker. But we have continued to put money in there; we have got money in the bank for those projects. There will be more needed but, with $22½ billion of AusLink money, I have got no doubt at all that further money will be quarantined as it is needed to ensure that that project is completed.
While I am on the subject of roads, a further $10 million has been allocated for the Peninsula Development Road to provide us with another section between Lily Creek and Crocodile Gap—another much needed measure. But we have to look further than just doing small sections like this. In recent years, the government also contributed a $5 million component into upgrading the road from Kennedy Creek to Laura River. This government contributed funds to support people in Cape York who were impacted by Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Monica. Money was also put into a scoping study for the entire Peninsula Development Road—which is some 450 kilometres long—to identify how long it would take and how much it would cost to weatherproof the road so that we do not have problems every year. That information has been slowly dribbling in from the state government. It should have been here in December. We are still waiting on a final word. We have some work in now, but it again highlights the concerns. You wonder whether or not they are being deliberately slow in providing this information. But, once that information is available, given the amount of investment we have in AusLink, I would certainly like to see an amount set aside for the full weatherproofing of the Peninsula Development Road.
I was also pleased to see the additional funding going into the black spots program, which has been an outstanding success in my electorate, along with the Roads to Recovery funding which will continue. On top of that, $250 million will be made available in this financial year for strategic regional programs. I think that is great to see. Some $83 million of that is being made available in Queensland. I guess that just highlights the need that we have in that area for these programs.
Moving away from roads, another measure which I was very pleased to see was the Higher Education Endowment Fund. This is something that is really visionary and is really looking towards building for the future. The plan is to invest some $5 billion into the fund with the intention to continue to grow it into the future and also have it available for private contributions for those who would like to do so. That will certainly ensure an ongoing stream of significant funding that will help to keep our universities right up there at the cutting edge.
Speaking of the cutting edge of universities, James Cook University, which has campuses in both Townsville and Cairns, has benefited immensely from this government over the years. Some years ago we allocated funding for a medical school which is now turning out its first doctors. What is particularly special about this is that the overwhelming majority of young people who are training as doctors are actually staying in our region; they are not moving into the metropolitan areas. Something like 70 per cent of those being trained at and graduating from our university in Townsville and Cairns are actually staying in the area. The other thing in which I take a tremendous amount of pride is that we are seeing our first Indigenous doctors graduating from these courses. On top of that we have a satellite program in the Torres Strait and students are also graduating in nursing, which I think is very special to see. Again, these people are staying in the communities and helping to build on that local base that is needed to provide the health services in our region.
After the medical school, we were then successful in funding a veterinary school in Cairns—again, funded by this government. I was particularly excited to see in this budget a $65 million commitment over a four-year period to establish the new regional dental school at Charles Sturt University. I think that this is money very well spent in regional New South Wales. The reason I am excited about this is that James Cook University in Cairns have only very recently submitted a proposal for a dental school in Cairns. They have put up an outstanding submission, one that I believe is very credible and certainly deserves serious consideration. I believe that it will get that consideration because what is unique about our region—this is something that I was made aware of—is that tropical dental health is very different to dental health in other areas, as is dental health in remote communities and in the Torres Strait. There is a whole different gamut of issues that need to be dealt with and there is a speciality there in itself.
Given that we have such a chronic shortage of dentists in Northern Australia, I think this will provide a great opportunity for us to be able, as we have with our doctors, to train local dentists, get them into our community and retain them in the community. I would hope that in the process, as we are working through this proposal to get this dental school established, we will get a commitment from Queensland Health that all of the training places that are necessary will be provided by Queensland Health in our northern hospitals to allow these students to be able to complete their courses.
The other thing when we are looking at the initiatives on dental health is that it is good to see that, for those chronic cases of need, you will be able to access dental care through Medicare. It is certainly a start. We have been criticised over the years for withdrawing from the program, but of course we never ever withdrew from dental health. There was an agreement for a short-term program to try to catch up and allow the state governments to catch up. That program was fully funded and at the end of that program the states were expected to continue, as they should, and provide that service. But we see that that has not occurred and we have some horrific waiting lists out there, particularly in Far North Queensland. To provide the $2,125 for an individual to be able to get that emergency care through a private dentist and through Medicare I think is very important. I am pleased to see that that has happened.
There is also $1 million being spent helping individuals particularly with their lifestyle issues in relation to diabetes. As you may be aware, diabetes is a major issue up in my electorate, again particularly in the communities. We have invested money there in the past in educating people in relation to lifestyle and identifying early indicators of diabetes. We have a wonderful doctor up there who travels around the Torres Strait. I could not begin to count the number of limbs of individuals that he has saved because he has been able to deal with their diabetes much earlier. We are seeing a lot fewer people in the area losing limbs to diabetes than we saw, say, 10 years ago. This $100 million initiative is going to go a long way towards continuing the good work that has been done by Dr Singer over these years.
Another program that is very important up in the Torres Strait is a $2.1 million program over three years for mosquito control. Japanese encephalitis is a problem that we have up there. It can be fatal. We also have issues with dengue fever, which is another mosquito-borne virus. So it is important that we have these initiatives to help minimise the risk. Generally, the budget has been welcomed in my electorate—very much so. The $500 for pensioners certainly helps them to meet annual costs in particular. They can now come up with the money without having to draw on their pensions. The carers allowance is also important. We have recognised the value of carers. It becomes, again, an annual event. I know for those carers it is not just a matter of the money but the recognition that they get for it. Looking at greenhouse issues, another great initiative is the doubling of the solar panels rebate to $8,000. It really makes solar energy a serious and an affordable option. If you have a rebate of $8,000 on a $14,000 investment, it is a serious option. With the rebate from your solar hot-water system et cetera, you can actually look at having solar as your main source of power and having your mains power as a backup. That has certainly been welcomed in my area, as has the continued commitment and additional money that is going into the NHT. In an area where we are sandwiched between two World Heritage areas, it has been of great benefit. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)
160
18:56:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the cognate bills. These budget bills seek $59 billion for the ordinary annual operating services of government, $10.1 billion for tied grants and other funds to the states and $170.7 million for the three parliamentary departments. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2006-2007 also seek $554.9 million and $259.2 million respectively in additional appropriations. I support Labor’s amendment, which condemns the Howard government for failing to secure Australia’s long-term economic fundamentals, despite record high commodity prices and rising levels of taxation. Perhaps most disappointing is the way in which the Howard government has let this nation’s productivity levels flag so alarmingly. The 2007 federal budget papers indicate that Australia’s productivity growth will decline from the end of the next financial year. Australia’s productivity actually went backwards for the first six months following the commencement of Work Choices and is presently at just 1.5 per cent compared to a historical average of 2.3 per cent. Amazingly, we have a boom economy where productivity has stalled. What a mockery that makes of the assumptions underlying Work Choices. One of those assumptions was detailed in former Minister Andrews’s second reading speech on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, when he said:
A central objective of this bill is to encourage the further spread of workplace agreements in order to lift productivity and hence the living standards of working Australians.
Work Choices has done nothing to lift productivity and, while that may be a surprise to the government, it is not a surprise to us. That is why our amendment condemns these extreme industrial relations laws, which lower wages and conditions for many workers and do nothing to enhance productivity, participation or economic growth.
A real approach to lifting economic growth and productivity would be to invest in infrastructure—not only hard infrastructure but also knowledge and social infrastructure. In terms of hard infrastructure, though, Newcastle provides a striking example just off its coastline in the form of a coal ship queue of some 60 ships. The coal chain from the Hunter Valley mines to the port of Newcastle is incredibly complex. Over 300 jobs were lost in the region recently when coal companies scaled back production in preparation for the reintroduction of the capacity-balancing system. The real problem in the Hunter is that demand exceeds infrastructure capacity, but the political problem has been the failure of this government to take sufficient responsibility for infrastructure audits, planning or funding. For the Hunter Valley coal chain there is no simple solution. Investment is needed at the mine heads, in the rail assets that move the coal to Newcastle, in the rail lines themselves, in coal loader terminals and deepening of the port. Every one of the managers and owners of the coal chain infrastructure, government and private, needs to continue to improve their contribution and commitment. It is not simple, but it is vital for our nation’s productivity that we get it right.
Similarly, with the fastest growing regional airport in the nation, Newcastle has a growing need for investment in road and rail infrastructure to link our region to the nation and to the world. Again, several players could do more, but without federal government leadership the outcomes will be less than desired. In the areas of social and knowledge infrastructure, Labor condemns the Howard government for failing to attend to the long-term relative decline in education and training investment, thereby undercutting further workplace productivity. Funding for education as a proportion of GDP is expected to decline to 1.6 per cent next year, down from two per cent in 1995-96. Our overall investment in education puts this country in 18th position on the OECD tables. This is simply not good enough from a government that has had 11 years of economic good times in which to invest in productivity gains through education.
After Labor launched our education revolution this year, the Howard government has finally decided to play catch-up in this budget, and we welcome that. But we are not the only ones who are suspicious of the Howard government’s sudden so-called commitment to education. Ross Gittins wrote last week:
... I’d have said the one thing Howard wasn’t on about was education. Not at any level—school, vocational education and training, or university.
Gittins goes on to remind us that under Whitlam in 1974 about 27 per cent of Commonwealth schools grants went to private schools and about 70 per cent to government schools. This was roughly in proportion to each sector’s share of students. Now, under the Howard government, public schools get 31 per cent of the money while private schools get 69 per cent. This is despite the fact that public schools still have two-thirds of students. I have no problem with Commonwealth funding to private schools and I am committed to Labor’s policies of maintaining that funding. But I do think we can do better in our commitment to government school funding, the choice for two-thirds of our students.
One of the big budget headlines was the government’s plan to put $5 billion into a Higher Education Endowment Fund, the interest on which will be used each year to fund university capital works. Again we welcome that commitment, but it will certainly not fully repair the damage to universities after 11 years of neglect. Distributed across Australia’s 38 universities, the fund might provide an average of $8 million a year per university. To put this into perspective, the University of Newcastle identifies that it needs to invest about $140 million in infrastructure over the next five years, and $40 million is perhaps all the endowment fund can provide. A key proposal is for a joint clinical research centre with the Hunter Medical Research Institute. This proposal is costed at $90 million, and we were disappointed to see nothing for it on budget night, especially given that half a billion dollars was shared around 14 other medical research institutes. However, I am pleased to note that the government went a small way to rectifying this with a $3.5 million grant under the Capital Development Pool program a few weeks later. But we are still $34.5 million short and we will be seeking those funds so that our researchers can keep punching above their weight, as they have been doing for some time. I also have concerns about the ability of smaller regional universities like ours to attract funding under the endowment fund. With universities required to provide matching funds to increase their chances of getting a grant, I am concerned that it will be those richer universities and those with already established alumni and philanthropic networks that will benefit the most. I hope that will not be the case and I will strongly support the right of regional campuses like the University of Newcastle to compete on an equal basis with the sandstone universities.
I spoke in the House the day after the budget and gave an indication of my disappointment with other aspects of the education budget and of the benefits of Labor’s education revolution. Since then, Labor has announced further planks in that revolution: firstly, the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program to work with the states and territories to promote the study of languages such as Japanese, Indonesian, Mandarin and Korean in high schools; and, secondly, the 10-year $2.5 billion Trades Training Centres in Schools Plan, which will see new trades centres built in Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools—not a replacement for TAFE and not a competitor for TAFE, but preparing young people very early with the best facilities in their very own schools. These two programs are part of Labor’s comprehensive approach to fixing the Howard government’s skills crisis by training our people to compete not only in the towns and cities of our nation but also in our increasingly globalised world.
There is no more potent symbol of globalisation than the internet. It has become indispensable for students, for businesspeople and for families. Unfortunately, the Howard government’s failure to provide national leadership on a high-speed national broadband network symbolises just how out of touch it is with the way Australians work, play and communicate. Since 2000 in the Hunter, the number of businesses with their own website has almost doubled and the number which place and receive orders over the internet has more than doubled. Eighty-one per cent of households now have a computer and 63 per cent of them use it daily. Household internet access in the Hunter has almost doubled to 71 per cent since 2000. However, only 48 per cent are connected via broadband. Sadly, there are people in my electorate, in suburbs like Shortland and Thornton, who still cannot access ADSL broadband. The government is not interested in dealing with this issue, only in applying bandaids like its metropolitan broadband black spots program, which spent $1.3 million on administration and only $200,000 on providing broadband services. That is keeping us very busy in our electorate offices.
Labor believes that government should be in the business of nation building and that is why we are committed to establishing a national broadband network in partnership with the private sector that will be up to 40 per cent faster than most current speeds. Labor is committed to bringing high-speed broadband to every household in this nation. Australians need a national high-speed broadband network to boost productivity growth and build long-term economic prosperity once the mining boom has subsided. But the Howard government has squandered the mining boom, as evidenced in this nation’s persistently large current account deficit and booming foreign debt. At a time of record high commodity prices, the budget’s prediction that the current account deficit is set to blow out to a record $65 billion, or six per cent of GDP, is a sure sign of missed opportunities. We are living through the greatest resource boom in living memory, yet every year for the past five years we have been importing more than we export. We have had 60 monthly trade deficits in a row.
Part of the way in which we can foster export success is by expanding and encouraging research and development to move Australian industry up the value chain. Unfortunately, this government is spending less on public research as a proportion of GDP, down from 0.4 per cent of GDP in 1996 to 0.29 per cent now. Growth in business investment in research and development has also slowed under the Howard government, growing at less than half the rate it enjoyed under Labor. Our vision to correct this slide includes 10 Enterprise Connect innovation centres to connect businesspeople with ideas people. These centres will be supported by innovation councils for key sectors to develop long-term strategic approaches to improving productivity. Labor will restore the Chief Scientist to a full-time position and we will bring responsibility for innovation, industry, science and research within the one department.
The government’s package, while containing some worthy initiatives, does not actually offer a coherent vision. Its Australian industry productivity centres appear to be a copy of Labor’s Enterprise Connect centres, but with less money. Its extension of eligibility for the premium R&D tax concessions is welcome, but it does nothing about red tape or the issues around the tax offsets $1 million spending cap. Similarly, while there is $32 million over four years for small one-off commercialisation grants with a streamlined application process, applicants for the other $200 million a year in commercial-ready funding are stuck with the existing red-tape burden, a burden that actually turns many people away from applying. The Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business program has been extended, I see, but for only one year, until the end of 2008-09. So I am not convinced by the government’s global integration statement and I am not sure the innovative businesses and manufacturers in my region, that are looking for real support to compete globally, will be convinced either.
As in the area of innovation, we see in this budget no real reform of our health system to equip it for a future focused on prevention, early intervention, and an ageing population. Despite some welcome initiatives like the new funding for medical research, a new dental school and the Royal Flying Doctor Service grant, the government’s health budget is little more than a grab bag of assorted programs with no consistent message or policy direction. Australia’s healthcare system is being damaged by this government’s ongoing neglect. All the government has to offer the Australian people are short-term political fixes. But these are the same so-called fixes which have created spending blow-outs in key program areas while all the time failing to address any of the critical structural weaknesses around preventative health, medical workforce shortages and rising health costs. This budget falls well short of resolving our most pressing health problems.
The government’s proposed budget scheme for dental care is a good example. The decision of the government to rip out about $100 million from the public dental sector when it abandoned the Commonwealth dental program in 1996 now sees 650,000 Australians waiting for much needed dental care. Having spent the last 11 years steadfastly denying that it has any responsibility for dental care, the Howard government has now finally decided to put some money back into dental care. Unfortunately, its idea of a Commonwealth dental health program is extremely limited, reaching only those with a chronic disease, provided it can be demonstrated that their chronic disease will be made worse by their dental condition. Although the program will be welcomed by those who qualify, the point is that very few Australians, fewer than 6,500 people, will actually qualify. Moreover, this is the same program that the government said would cost $15 million but that has only been able to spend $1.6 million in the last three years. Why spend another $370 million on a program that, for the last three years, has failed to spend the money already allocated to it? Why not use this money to help people who have been on the dental waiting list for years?
Regrettably, the health budget was silent on many of the pressing needs for people in Newcastle and the Hunter region. There was no Medicare licence for the PET scanner at the Mater Hospital. This situation makes people turn to Sydney when they certainly need immediate local treatment. There was no good news for the refurbishment of our dementia resource centre either.
Another issue we feel very strongly about in Newcastle is climate change. As a coalmining and export centre, our region is at the pointy end of climate change. We know we are a part of the problem but, as a recent Hunter Valley Research Foundation survey found, our people also want to take steps to contribute to climate change solutions. Unfortunately, there are no large scale practical measures in this budget to help our nation or my region to effectively deal with climate change. In contrast, Labor has already announced that we will ratify the Kyoto protocol, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, give households low-interest loans to help install energy efficient measures and help the states fix leaky water mains and pipes.
Of great interest and benefit to my region is another visionary Labor program: the national carbon capture mapping and infrastructure plan. This is one of the first three projects to be funded through the $500 million national clean coal fund. Labor is committed through this fund to protecting jobs and industry in our region while also acting to combat climate change. It is a delicate balance but it is a vital one that the Howard government is failing to even attempt to achieve.
Speaking of failures, the government’s budget stands condemned for failing the test of transparency and accountability. The government squandered $66 billion of taxpayers’ money to get itself re-elected in 2004 and it has continued to spend the nation’s prosperity like there is no tomorrow. The budget papers show that the government received an extra $53 billion over four years over and above what was estimated six months ago and is spending almost all of it. Total government policy commitments in this budget amount to $72 billion over the next five years, $6 billion more than their 2004 election spending spree. I think those figures would horrify the Australian public.
Even more worrying, however, is the lack of transparency in budget documents, with loose outcomes and outputs, a deficient Charter of Budget Honesty and insufficient attention to intergenerational costing issues. Labor is committed to reform in this area, ensuring the full transparency and full reporting of financial transactions to the parliament so that all Australians can see where their money is going. I think the Australian people deserve nothing less, but I know every member of parliament here finds it very difficult on budget night to find the information easily, readily or reliably when they first look at those budget documents.
To conclude, there are some projects that the Newcastle community has been sweating on for some time. I was pleased to see $220,000 in the budget papers allocated for a study on the accommodation needs of our Family Court. This is a start, and the community will keep advocating for improved facilities for families who come from all around the region to use this vital service. But, of course, we have been asking for a Federal Court and that is what we would like to see.
The budget confirmed the extra $4 million for the refurbishment of Fort Scratchley, one of Newcastle’s iconic historical sites and one that has sadly been in a state of decay. The community, the Fort Scratchley Historical Society and our civic and political leaders have finally shamed the government into action on this, six years after it was promised. We are also still waiting for a commitment to upgrading Energy Australia Stadium, and I urge the government to match the commitments that have been made by federal and state Labor to this important project.
Although we in Newcastle are still waiting for important projects, the nation as a whole is still waiting for a budget with a vision for future prosperity beyond the mining boom: a budget that invests in our people through education and invests in our nation through infrastructure, a budget that does not shift blame and cost to states, a budget that acknowledges that Australia is part of a rapidly changing and developing global environment. This certainly does require a change in government to one that is proactive, takes responsibility and shows leadership in the economic fortunes of this country.
165
19:15:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Parkes
NATS
Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—I rise to speak to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills and to congratulate the Treasurer on the 2007 budget, his 11th budget. There is one thing that cannot be denied by anyone: you can only deliver a budget like the 2007 budget when you provide for the families of Australia by giving them certainty and allowing them to do the production and make the money that our country needs. Obviously a budget like that can be delivered only when the economy is in particularly good health. This is a budget that will not only maintain the nation’s economy in good health; it will also make a particular contribution to health outcomes for people right across Australia, including western New South Wales. I note in passing that measures to improve the health of the nation—in fact, health policy in general—were noticeably absent from the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply.
I have to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, as somebody who is certainly welded to the heartland of country Australia in the central west and the far west of New South Wales, I am particularly pleased that $65.1 million is being put towards establishing the Charles Sturt University School of Dentistry and Oral Health in Orange and in Wagga Wagga, with dental education clinics at Albury, Bathurst and Dubbo. This new school will be a focal point for students wanting to train in and practise dentistry in country areas. For the first time, kids who are interested in rural dental health will be able to study dentistry out in the country regions. A dental school in Orange has been talked about in the region for probably the best part of five years, so how is it that we are able to get it now? I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the member for Macquarie, Mr Kerry Bartlett, and I—two members of the government who were both looking at having Bathurst and Orange in their electorates at the next election—put our heads together when we were approached, and we said, ‘Yes, this is something that has to happen. This is something that is necessary for country New South Wales and dentistry.’ We went and spoke to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Minister for Education, Science and Training and other members of cabinet, and I am very proud of the fact that our efforts have borne fruit and a dental school is going to be a fact of life next year in the central west. I think I have to make the point that this sort of thing—proposals that are not just talked about but actually come to fruition—can only happen when members of the government are involved. I also note that backing up this initiative is $12.5 million of funding that will support up to 30 annual clinical places for dentistry students in established rural training settings.
I also welcome the commitment in this budget of an extra $156.6 million to help the Royal Flying Doctor Service to continue to deliver vital services for people in western New South Wales and in Australia generally. The flying doctor is very precious to country people, particularly isolated people. In my region, in places like Menindee, Wilcannia, White Cliffs and Tibooburra, where there are enormous distances to travel and where there might be only two stations in 100 kilometres, it is a lifeline. I am very proud to be part of a government that is continuing to fund outback health. As a representative of the people who actually live out there, I can assure members that there is nothing romantic about falling sick or suffering a major injury if you do not have a service such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which we are funding. This government’s solid and continuing support for the Royal Flying Doctor Service will be noted right around Australia. I can assure you that our own Flying Doctor Service, based at Broken Hill, which looks after western New South Wales, south-western Queensland and north-western South Australia, is noted and appreciated by everybody.
The people of western New South Wales also welcome the additional start-up grant for the new MRI facility that we established last year in Dubbo. It will now be funded by the government. So far this facility has not been a profitable one, but our government is making sure that it has plenty of time to establish itself in the region. We will be funding it for over two more years until it can establish itself in the region. This is part of a program that, since 1998, has expanded access to Medicare eligible MRIs from 18 units to 115 units. I think I should repeat that: during the term of this government—in fact, since 1998—we have gone from 18 MRI units around the country to 115 units.
While talking about health in regional Australia, I should mention other issues such as a new rural clinical school to be operated by the University of Melbourne. This will be a school with a difference. It is going to put graduates into regional practices spread around New South Wales to do their training. So they will learn and actually do their training while at practices in selected areas, where the practice can provide the sort of supervision and training necessary, so that those doctors will learn the rewards of practising out in the bush and will want to stay there after they have graduated. There is also $8.5 million to boost the visiting optometrist scheme in very remote communities, increasing both the number of optometrists providing services and the number of communities covered; almost $10 million to provide grants for another 400 new doctors to practise in rural and remote areas under the Rural Retention Program; an additional $4.3 million to expand to another 32 locations around Australia the rural women’s GP services—which gives women the opportunity, when they need it or desire it, to be attended to by a female GP; and, very importantly at this time, a $30 million commitment to provide mental health support and crisis counselling specifically targeted at drought hit areas around Australia. Unfortunately, we still have many areas, especially in my electorate, that come under that umbrella.
But health is not the only area that the budget has addressed. AusLink has been a big winner in this budget. AusLink is important to Australia generally, but is particularly important to export industries and to rural Australia. The AusLink program is Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure program. It deals with rail links and roads—not only main roads but also local roads, because our government recognises that everything we export starts its journey on a local road.
I congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Deputy Prime Minister, on the budget’s immediate injection of $250 million to the strategic section of the Roads to Recovery program. Roads to Recovery is probably one of the best road or transport programs that we have ever had, funding not via state governments which are going to hive off 15 or 20 per cent, as they always do, but going directly to the councils to spend as they wish on their local situations. I think that when Labor discovered that Roads to Recovery was so popular they said they were not going to scrap it—because they certainly were going to scrap it in previous elections. But suddenly they have realised that it is a bit hard to face up to one of the outback councils like Carrathool or Condobolin and say, ‘Yes, we know that has been wonderful money for you but we are going to take it away.’ Suddenly Labor have realised that this is one of the most popular programs for transport ever done and they have backed off.
I think the point about Roads to Recovery is that it provides funds directly to local government, going around the state government and the RTA which love to tell councils what they must do rather than accept what they want. The strategic program, which is part of Roads to Recovery, allows councils to get together and make a decision that they want to have a strategic road which might move tourism by putting in a bypass, and I am very happy to say that, as a result of that $250 million which is coming into this financial year, there are councils in my part of the country that can start work immediately on sorely needed programs. I guess the councils I first think of are Narromine, Parkes, Lachlan and Carrathool which have roads that have been totally neglected by the state Labor government in New South Wales. For example, there is the road from Lake Cargelligo to Hillston, which is a regional road and therefore a state responsibility, and the road from Narromine to Tullamore, which is also in a bad way. I am very happy to say that, out of a project cost of $10 million, under the strategic roads program, we are offering those four councils $6.6 million to put with their $3.4 to improve their roads. There is the upgrading of Main Road 354, replacing a timber bridge on the Bogan River between Tullamore and Narromine. This will not only provide a different route for tourism and for people going from the south-west to the north-east, it will also eventually mean that trucks will be able to travel without going through all the towns they have had to in the past and without loading up the major routes. The Cowra shire also will be able to get on with sealing part of the Billimari Road just north of the town to improve access for heavy vehicles to the Blaney and Parkes freight hubs, and the Cabonne shire can replace an old timber bridge on the Renshaw-McGirr Way between Parkes and Wellington to provide access from the Cabonne and Wellington shires to the Parkes road and rail hub.
There are three things I know about these projects. Firstly, the Labor Party will probably get around to saying something about pork-barrelling and that the money should not be spent. Secondly, and despite Labor’s taunts, it remains a fact that these works are sorely needed in this part of New South Wales, the central west and the further west, and will contribute very much to the efficiency and the safety of all residents and people using roads in the region. These projects will very much help the movement of export industries or simply of goods travelling to Dubbo or to Sydney. Labor’s roads or regional affairs shadows will never be game enough, as I said earlier, to front up to any of our towns and say, ‘You should not get this money,’ because it is sorely needed. People in these towns have stood in line for a long time and they were not getting any assistance from the state. I am happy to say that we were able to help them out.
I would like to close with a few observations about reactions to this budget. There was one comment from a young man of 45 in particular that caught my attention.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Very young.
00AN1
Cobb, John, MP
Mr JOHN COBB
—No, sorry, he was younger than that. He was only 25, because he had only been out of school for something like seven years. He was asked by one of the local media what he thought about the Treasurer’s 11th budget and he said, ‘Oh yeah, it’s okay I suppose.’ He was asked who he would vote for in the election and what he had done in the past. He said, ‘In the elections that I have been involved with I have always been a coalition voter.’ He was then asked, ‘What are you going to do this time?’ He replied, ‘Oh well, I don’t know. I’m getting a bit bored with them. I don’t know whether I mightn’t think about Labor.’ I thought: ‘That is very interesting. It is fascinating.’
This young man of 25 has been pretty fortunate, I must admit. Since he left school he has not really had much of a problem getting a job. In fact, certainly in recent years, he has never had to worry about getting a job. This young man may have borrowed money to buy a car and, perhaps, even at 25 he may have—and I hope he has—made an investment in a house. Whether he is paying interest on a car or a house or whatever it might be, interest rates have always been well down in single digit figures. In his education and health, life has been pretty good to him, really. In our part of the world the Commonwealth has done everything you could expect it to to try and prop up state responsibilities as well as to keep interest rates totally under control and to ensure that this young man could get a job—and he can get a good job and has never been better paid for it. Probably never has a man of 25 had more disposable income. I guess he is finding that a bit boring.
If he wants life to be a bit more exciting then I do not doubt it will get more exciting if there is a change of government, but I am not quite sure about the excitement that he will get out of it. We only have to look at history to know that what I say is 100 per cent true. The chances are that two or three years after a change in government it will get very exciting because he will then almost inevitably be looking at higher, double-digit interest rates to pay for that car and house—that will be a bit more exciting. If he then decides that he wants to get a second job, or even hang on to the one he has, to help pay for his car and house, it will be even more exciting because there is nothing surer than that it will be one heck of a lot harder to get a job—a primary job let alone a second job—with a change of government. When interest rates go up and businesses start going to the wall again, it is going to be exciting, but I think the stress and the strain that go with it might get rid of some of that excitement.
It is a fantastic budget, but you can only have budgets like that when the economy is under control, when inflation is under control, when people have jobs, when you have record low unemployment and when you have record wages and record amounts of disposable income. I think we have to take our hats off to the Treasurer and to a government that has produced a budget like this.
169
19:34:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008. I do so having listened to the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, who is a good bloke, but I disagree with him on a number of matters. It was interesting that the assistant minister chose not to make any reference to either the environment or water resources, but I do accept that this bill provides the opportunity for members to speak on broad matters. Nonetheless, it was instructive to see the assistant minister not refer to his portfolio for 20 minutes.
We are of course in the middle of a very significant debate in this country. We are in the midst of a critical debate about where we want the country to go and what sort of society we would like to live in. I think the industrial relations debate, at least, is certainly a significant topic, a significant area of public policy that provides voters with a choice as to what sort of society they wish to live in, the way in which they would like to treat citizens and the way in which they would like to be treated in return. On any reckoning, the government has, by its introduction and enactment of Work Choices legislation at the beginning of this term, really explained to working Australians that it has very little regard for them at all. There is no doubt that the government has sought only this week to mitigate the adverse reaction to Work Choices by introducing amendments to the legislation, but Labor contends that that is not going to fundamentally alter the problems inherent in the Work Choices legislation.
The fact is that the Work Choices legislation was introduced after the election without any notice to the electorate before the election. In September 2004 the Prime Minister announced the industrial relations policies of the government, and there were no references to the major provisions of Work Choices legislation that was then introduced subsequent to the election. So the Prime Minister, having discovered that he was a beneficiary of an election result which provided him with a majority in both houses of parliament, chose then to introduce legislation in the area of industrial relations that did not resemble in any way the policies that were put to the electorate in September during the election campaign. The Australian public, as they will from time to time, chose to respond in kind by making it very clear to this government that these laws are unfair, extreme and, indeed, unacceptable to this country.
As I say, there has been a political stunt by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations this week to pretend that the fundamentals of the legislation introduced into the parliament in December 2005 have altered and that all of the nasty bits, all of the pointy parts of the legislation that would adversely affect working Australians, have disappeared. That is not the case. The efforts to amend the Work Choices legislation will not alter the fact that the prime reason for the introduction of such legislation was to ensure that the balance was shifted radically towards one group in society and against the other group, if you like—that is, shifted in favour entirely towards employers and against and away from employees. Any tinkering that may occur from this point on—and the tinkering that has occurred this week—will not, in any way, mitigate in any fundamental sense the adverse effects of the legislation.
I think the Australian public understand that. I think that they are aware that the Prime Minister, for more than 30 years, has had an obsession about critically weakening employee organisations that are registered pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act. These are unions that have been representing working people in this country for more than a century. I think it is common knowledge that the Prime Minister has had an obsession with and an enmity towards those organisations. It is almost an initiation test for anyone who wants to succeed in the Howard government to show how much they hate unions if they want to be promoted into the executive or into the cabinet—and this is not going to change. I think the Australian people understand his views, which have been well known for more than 30 years. It is a little late now to attempt to convince the voting public that the Prime Minister has had an epiphany and has woken up recently and thought: ‘Hold on a second, I think I have been a little unfair here. I reckon those unions deserve to be at least recognised as representatives of some working people—if employees choose to belong to them. I think it is only fair that employees have a right to bargain collectively in good faith with their employer.’
What is interesting about the whole notion of collective bargaining is that, if 50 per cent of the workforce in the United States wish to bargain collectively, they do so. The same is the case in Canada, in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom. The right to collectively bargain is enshrined in probably all of those countries that we see as being comparable to our own in economic development and cultural association. We are the odd one out in having legislation dictated that prevents employees bargaining collectively with their employer, even if a majority wish to do so. I accept—and Labor’s policy dictates—that if a majority of employees do not wish to bargain collectively, they will not have to do so. An employer would not have to bargain collectively if it were not determined by a majority of the workforce to do so. I think that is only fair. I think there has got to be a critical mass of employees that wishes to do so.
We have said that there should be a set of decent awards to underpin people’s employment conditions. We cannot always rely upon the market to hold up people’s wages sufficiently. There are occasions on which, and certain sectors in which, that will occur more often than not, and that is a good thing. But there are occasions also in economic downturns or in certain sectors where there has to be some floor. The floor of employment conditions is not only so that employees will be treated decently but also so that employers will know what the minimum is.
Having listened to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations talk about his fake fairness test, I think it would strike fear into the hearts of many small businesses. The amount of regulation that has now been placed on top of already existing industrial relations legislation and small business regulation is going to frighten small businesses. This notion that you can set up an army of industrial policemen across the country to scrutinise every individual statutory contract in this manner is unheard of. It never occurred before Work Choices. For 10 years AWAs were permissible under the Workplace Relations Act 1996—with a ‘no disadvantage’ test I might add—but that was stripped away by the Howard government as soon as they had a majority in the Senate. But there was not the massive bureaucratic overlay that is now being introduced by the government. Small businesses should be concerned because it is overregulation. It will make it more difficult for many businesses—particularly those of a small and medium size—to enter into agreements in that area. Labor is opposed to Australian workplace agreements. We do not support them.
That is not to say that there are not some AWAs out of which people are doing okay or doing well. There are some industries where the demand for employment is so great that employees could spit on their hands and shake the hand of their employer and that would be a strong enough contract. They will not need written contracts because the demand for them is so great. No-one can undermine an employee’s employment conditions if the demand for their labour is so great. In the mining industry you will see that demand for fly-in fly-out engineers, but that is not as a result of AWAs. That is as a result of a particular set of high skills that are scarce and of people finding themselves, for example, in remote areas of the country and undertaking work with that set of skills.
I understand that there are certain AWAs that pay above the market rate—of course there will be some. Certainly managers who are on AWAs are treated reasonably well more often than not. But the thing that the government seems not to have understood, at least until the polling got really bad—whether it should be believed or not is another question—is that AWAs have been used to subvert minimum conditions in the last 18 months. Statutory individual contracts are being used to hurt the lowest paid in our community: cleaners, labourers in certain industries and many childcare workers. We are finding that low-paid workers are going below what was a minimum industry standard and those instruments are being used to strip away penalty rates for people doing shift work, weekend work and excessive overtime.
We have heard a lot from the government about this notion of the common law contract and of a company that provided 45c compensation per hour, but you really have to look at the nature of a business, whatever it is, and if the business employs people on night shifts or across the weekends or excessively works people beyond their ordinary hours then those people should be compensated so they are not worse off. Clearly, if there was any removal of conditions of employment, there would be less compensation required if those particular conditions were not being used because of the nature of their work.
But what has been happening with AWAs since Work Choices was introduced is that low-paid workers have been stripped of penalty rates, overtime conditions, public holidays and other conditions, making fundamentally worse not only their pay but their conditions of employment, their quality of life and their control at their workplace. These things happened. They happened under the watch of the Howard government and they happened because of the deliberate enactment of legislation that was designed to do exactly that, to cut those conditions. For the last 18 months the Prime Minister has been defending the consequences of that particular piece of legislation. He got up in question time and said that nothing was going on, that nothing adverse was happening to people or that it was something that had to happen. It was a case of, ‘If you want to have a strong economy, you have to have some losers as well as some winners and, so long as there are more winners than losers, who cares?’ That was the sort of attitude that was being displayed by the Prime Minister.
Of course, that is not the case. You do not have to choose between fairness and flexibility. You do not have to choose between having a productive economy and fair employment conditions for Australian workers. You can have both. The government believed that you could not and now they have found themselves in the position this week where they have chosen to introduce a piece of legislation to mitigate the effects of Work Choices. We will support that legislation because, in certain circumstances, it will help some people. I believe that. I think this change has occurred because of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the government by the opposition and certainly by the public’s concerns for working Australian families. But we should support the legislation because any improvement, however negligible, should be supported. It would be playing politics if we were to oppose it.
The fact is, though, it is not a sufficient remedy to fix the problem. To do that you have to repeal the legislation for Work Choices as a whole. It is not enough to repeal the name. It is not enough to banish the title from the lexicon of the government. You have to repeal the legislation fundamentally. What has happened here is that we have again had the typical Orwellian approach by the Prime Minister, who tends to say one thing and do another, who tends to call things one thing and mean another. We have had the Prime Minister and the government choose to say, ‘Well, let’s make sure we banish the words “Work Choices” from all of the advertising’—and this is after spending $55 million of taxpayers’ money on government propaganda to promote the legislation. That is what we have witnessed over the last 15 months—$55 million of taxpayers’ money telling us how great Work Choices is. And now the government are going to spend millions more saying this time they really mean it. But it was instructive that, in continuing to spend the money, the government had to intrude and effectively say to its call centres assisting people with their industrial relations inquiries that they were not to use the words ‘Work Choices’, although the Prime Minister used to cry ‘Work Choices’ from the rooftops. Call centre employees are now forced not only not to say ‘Work Choices’ but also to deny that they ‘do not know’, when they are asked a question, even if they ‘do not know’ about the legislation. Incrementally, these sorts of things begin to weigh heavily upon the public. I think the public are amazingly tolerant and quite patient, but they will not accept a government that treats them so shabbily and with contempt. I think the government have shown their capacity in that regard, and particularly in the area of industrial relations because of their ideological blind spot.
If you had listened to the government and even if you had read some of the media reports, you would have thought that AWAs covered 95 per cent of employment contracts in Australia, not five per cent. Seriously, if you had listened to or read some of the media commentators’ comments on Labor’s IR policy, and certainly if you had listened to the rhetoric of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister, you would have thought that 95 per cent of employment arrangements were made under the instrument of an AWA. But five per cent is the total; 95 per cent is the remainder. Ninety-five per cent, which I would say is an overwhelming majority, are under either collective agreements, union agreements or non-union agreements, which is Labor’s policy, or common law contracts, either intersecting with an award or being above an award. Those are the bulk of the conditions of employment; they are wrapped up in those conditions, not in AWAs. I think the failure of this government is to not understand that in the end the Australian people expect fairness in their workplace. They expect the government to of course run an economy and make sure it is productive, but also to make sure that we all share in that and that our citizens are not treated badly, either in the workplace or beyond the workplace. I think the government has failed at that. I will talk more specifically tomorrow on the bill that has been introduced in the House, but in the end this particular fake fairness test will not convince any member of the Australian public.
173
19:54:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—In speaking on these appropriation and budget bills, I would like to address some issues of national economic policy, some of the measures within the recently brought down budget and some of the programs that are now possible and are operating at a national level. Of course, I also want to draw on how those programs are operating in and benefiting my local electorate of Casey, in outer suburban Melbourne—covering the outer suburbs from Croydon through the Yarra Valley and into the Dandenong Ranges.
The budget provides a window into the government’s level of financial responsibility, its economic management and the opportunities that that provides. It is useful in a budget debate such as this to look at where the nation’s finances have come from and where they are today and also to look at the opportunities that are provided today and where the opportunities will be in the future. I think it is instructive to look back on where the federal budget has come from because it is of enormous relevance. At the end of the day, a budget provides opportunities on the ground in each and every one of our electorates. It is not a remote thing spoken about here in Canberra; it affects people’s lives, families, small businesses and the job opportunities on the ground in the electorates we represent. When you look back on the budgets of 11, 12 and 13 years ago, it is a vastly different financial story. The budgets that are handed down today, and this budget was no exception, have surpluses. Net government debt has been paid off.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall interjecting—
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—The member for Shortland is difficult to identify in a line-up but, if she will interject, let me remind her of the havoc her party caused. In 1996, this country had net government debt of $96 billion.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the member.
10000
Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Haase)—Does the member for Casey wish to take an intervention?
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—Yes.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My question is: would you like to explain to the Australian people how they benefited when the Prime Minister was Treasurer and interest rates were 22 per cent—and, at the same time, acknowledge how the Labor Party brought those interest rates down?
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I will happily explain to the member for Shortland how interest rates rose to 17 per cent for mortgage holders under the Labor government and how—
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—You have had your intervention, Member for Shortland.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I am not sure what is wrong with the member for Shortland. She obviously has something quite wrong with her tonight. But let me just—
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member withdraw that. I can assure him that I am in perfect health. I really find the aspersions he is casting upon me to be very insulting.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I was merely pointing out—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Is the member for Shortland calling for an apology because she is offended by those remarks?
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—I am calling for a withdrawal.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister consider withdrawing that statement?
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I am happy to withdraw, but I make the point that, in a debate on the budget bills in the Main Committee, it is quite extraordinary to find, in the first minute or two, the member for Shortland incessantly interjecting and disrupting a speech I am trying to give on behalf of my electorate. In this debate, we are all trying to make a speech on behalf of our electorates. I find it quite extraordinary behaviour from the member for Shortland. But, clearly, she is quite sensitive about the previous Labor government’s economic record. I have no hesitation in outlining that economic record to this chamber. And as I was saying before I was hysterically interrupted, the previous government left Australia with a $96 billion—
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—I ask him to withdraw ‘hysterically interrupted’ because he was not hysterically interrupted. I ask for a withdrawal.
10000
Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Haase)—I have heard your point of order. If the member for Shortland finds that statement also offensive, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to withdraw.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I happily withdraw it, and I again make the point that it is passing strange that she who interjects regularly to disrupt a speech is so sensitive and requires a withdrawl. But as I was saying, I have no hesitation in reminding all members of this House of the economic circumstances Australia faced in 1996. Government debt had grown from $30 billion to $96 billion. This had real consequences. It arose because of successive Labor budget deficits. In the last five years of Labor government, net government debt rose from $30 billion to $96 billion and the real consequence of this was that the interest bill on that debt was $8½ billion each and every year. That was $8½ billion each and every budget that could not be spent on the priorities that members opposite particularly say they care so much about—priorities like health and education. As this government went about paying off that debt, taking the budget measures necessary to pay off net government debt through budget surpluses, we were opposed every single step of the way. That is an important point. The past conduct by Labor administrations is a window into what their future conduct would be if ever they had the chance to run the nation’s economy. Back in those days taxes were higher; now we have had successive tax cuts that back in 1996 would not have been imaginable. This budget again cuts tax, it again increases higher education spending, it again increases healthcare funding, it increases childcare funding, family assistance, environment funding, road funding—the list goes on. When we each look at our local electorates and the citizens we represent, we can see the real benefits of that on the ground in our local communities.
I had the pleasure of being able to announce $400,000 of AusLink funding for a major road upgrade in Seville in the Yarra Valley. This is a road upgrade that the local community have been wanting for 20 years. It is part of the $250 million contributed to the AusLink strategic regional program. In Seville that is something that has been on the plans for a long period of time but is only possible as a result of strong economic management and a budget that provides the funds for these resources. In a similar way, Casey recently received $525,000 to fix four critical accident black spots, the biggest of which is at Walmsley Friendship Village, where $266,000 will be spent creating a traffic diversion and a roundabout on an intersection of Colchester Road and Greeves Drive in Kilsyth. This comes on top of the $739,000 for seven other projects which have been completed.
There is another area where the budget is providing funds and programs that simply did not exist under the Labor government. I refer specifically to the Community Crime Prevention Program, which all members of this House would be quite familiar with. The federal government announced this policy in the last election to fund local community groups to combat and deter crime through important locally based community programs. I know members opposite have had these grants in their electorates, and they were welcomed. But they were not possible and they did not operate in the past simply because they could never get the budget right.
If we had Labor’s economic management of a decade ago, you would not see the $150,000 that has been provided to Lilydale to introduce security cameras, which has seen a 70 per cent reduction in crime in the Lilydale township, or the recently announced $150,000 for the Croydon main street traders, which will see cameras installed on a similar basis to deal with some significant local crime problems in Croydon. While I mention that, I pay tribute to the Croydon Main Street Traders Association President, Monika Myers, and Senior Constable Julie Simpson of Croydon police, who worked so hard to put that program together. Additionally, a little over $80,000 has been provided to Mount Evelyn to do a similar thing.
In 1996 the unemployment rate in Casey was a little over 6.5 per cent. Today it is 3.5 per cent. We know that at a national level there are two million more jobs than previously existed. The unemployment rate is in the fours—something that, again, would have unthinkable at the height of the Keating Labor recession of the early 1990s, when unemployment hit 11 per cent. On top of that, the strong economic management has seen unemployment come down and job opportunities increase. Work for the Dole programs are working very successfully in the Casey electorate. I particularly make mention of the Chapel Cafe in Lilydale and the Grace Community Nursery, also in Lilydale.
One of the most successful education programs that has been introduced at a local level in all of our electorates has of course been the Investing in Our Schools Program. This, like the Community Crime Prevention Program, was pledged at the last election and has been introduced. We have had three rounds of funding already that have enabled school communities to determine individual projects themselves, to determine priorities for their local schools and to put in applications and receive funding for them. All in all, as a result of strong economic management in Casey, 101 projects have been funded in 49 schools, to a total of $5.7 million.
I will just briefly, in the time available, mention two of those schools. The first is Rolling Hills Primary School. I had the pleasure of meeting the leadership group and the principal, Terry Spottiswood, out at Rolling Hills Primary School recently. They have received some important funding and they have used it for a weather channel and some environmental programs, which are working very well in the school. The second school is Birmingham Primary School, in a different part of my electorate, in Lilydale. They were successful in receiving $96,000 for the construction of shade structures and playgrounds. I was also recently at that school.
Croydon Secondary College received $150,000 for a band room, which shows the diversity of these projects. Croydon Secondary College has a specialised music department and a well-renowned band that plays on Anzac Day and performs in the Anzac Day march. The funding for this band room was the fulfilment of a 10-year ambition of the school. It was instrumentally coordinated by Mrs Vivienne Doolan, who manages the various bands and the marching band at the school. They, as I said, were able to fulfil this ambition through the Investing in Our Schools Program. For me, to go and perform the official opening and see that dream that they have and those new facilities that will stand the school in good stead was indeed a great pleasure. As I mentioned just a minute or two ago, the band members from Croydon Secondary College marched in the Anzac Day parade of 2007. It is the 17th year that the band from Croydon Secondary College has marched on Anzac Day.
In concluding, I want to mention each of the band members, whom I had the pleasure of meeting just recently at the school. They are: Tiffany Pickthall, Catherine Lushey, Jessica Morrison, Danielle Cornwell, Sarah Sly, Naomi Rushford, Ben Gray, Christine Morrison, Bianca Meacham, Hayden Wintle, Michael Horner, Matt Seabrook, Duane Dinham, James Venville, Brent Dinham, Carly Bronson, Ellen Anderson, Alison McCallum, Rachael Berka, Alex Birch, Philip Why, Bevan Emmett, Jessica Gravenor, Benjamin Horner, Maddi Dundon, Harley Bradbury, Joanne Houldey, Keith Houldey, Grant Rushford, Tim Bradbury, Keiran Lightfoot, Mallory Wintle, Shannen May, Chris Lightfoot, Dylan Breed, Glen Pickthall, Jaron Why, Jack Shields, Tyler Hayward, Aisha Francis, Logan Lillis and Paul Healey. I congratulate each of them for the wonderful contribution they made on Anzac Day. I know the local RSL was particularly proud that the secondary college just up the road performed such a critical role on Anzac Day.
The Howard government’s financial responsibility and economic management have allowed these programs to be funded, and they are providing real and genuine opportunities in our local community—opportunities which exist as a result of the measures that have been put in place over the last 10 years and which will be available in the future only with continued financial responsibility and economic management.
176
20:11:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—Tonight I rise with pleasure in this chamber to talk about the appropriation bills before us—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2006-2007. In talking about the budget that has been brought down by this government and on the comments recently made by the Prime Minister when he said, ‘Australian families have never been better off’, I want to reflect on the response of people in my electorate to the budget. One would expect that, given the amount of funding that is in the budget and the tax cuts, it would have been universally approved. Whilst polling by the media indicates that there has been some approval by the public, I have found in my electorate that the tax cuts do not really offset the interest rate increases that my electorate has been subjected to since the 2004 election. There have been four successive interest rate rises since 2004 and eight successive increases in official interest rates since May 2002. Why does that interest me?
According to the 2001 census, Holt has the highest rate of mortgages of any electorate in this country. They are good people in my electorate. A lot of young families have shifted to my electorate with the hope of building their families and building their lives. What they are seeing currently, and what they have been subjected to for some period of time, is an increased cost of living and the burdens that it is putting on them. These are quite substantial and should not be underestimated. When I talk with them about how they respond to the increased cost of living—which is something that is repeatedly raised with me—they reflect on things like health costs. New data released by the Department of Health and Ageing shows that health costs have continued to rise dramatically under this government. The average out-of-pocket amount of a visit to a GP has increased 12 per cent since the December quarter last year, from $16.98 to $18.99. The cost of visiting a doctor has more than doubled during the life of this government. That may not sound like very much to some people, but it is for families with young children that need to go to the doctor on a frequent basis. The average cost of a visit to a specialist has increased 20 per cent, from $33.56 to $40.10; and the average cost of obstetrics services has increased a massive 27.5 per cent, from $62.34 to $79.51. That again has particular relevance to my electorate, because in the city of Casey there are over 3,000 births each year. It is sometimes referred to as Nappy Valley, but it is the proud location of a large number of young families.
In reflecting on the implications of the increase in the cost of living, I refer to local community based organisations as third-party references. One is the Casey North Community Information and Support Service, which is very ably directed by Susan Magee. She refers to the impact of the increased costs of living, particularly health costs, and says that often clients do not access medical assistance as they are not able to pay the associated costs. Emergency relief that is distributed to assist with the costs of chemist products and scripts, for example, has increased from $2,346 in the 2004-05 financial year to $3,413 in the 2005-06 financial year, which is an increase of 45 per cent. That is a substantial increase. For this financial year to date the figures are approximately the same as for the whole of the 2005-06 financial year, so the level of assistance will increase again this year, obviously. The Cranbourne Information and Support Service, which is directed by Leanne Petrides, reports that they budget $250 per month for chemist accounts. In April this year they spent $401. This was primarily for prescriptions, but, worryingly, also included occasional assistance with baby formula.
According to ABS data, education costs rose by 4.2 per cent throughout the year to the March quarter. Let us look at the impact this has had on organisations like the Casey North Community Information and Support Service and the Cranbourne Information and Support Service. Susan Magee states that 52 families were assisted with school costs as a consequence of the increase in the costs of education in the 2005-06 year. In the financial year to date, 56 families have already been assisted with costs associated with education. Compare this to 2003-04, when 22 families were assisted. The Cranbourne organisation, in addition, spent $11,000 for its back to school program. It provided just over 100 local families with money to go towards the cost of textbooks, school uniforms, stationery and shoes. It is only the second year that this organisation has run the program, and it has had to spend $2,000 more this year. Unfortunately, it has had to turn 20 families away due to lack of funding. So there is something very serious happening as a consequence of the increase in the cost of living.
According to ABS data, over the last 12 months to the March quarter 2007 the cost of food rose by 4.6 per cent and the price of fruit rose by 14.9 per cent. According to Casey North director Susan Magee, more than $81,000 has been distributed this financial year through food vouchers and food parcels. In the month of April alone 186 people were assisted with food vouchers. According to Leanne Petrides in Cranbourne, in March 2007 they provided a total of 327 adults and 336 children with emergency relief—support with food, petrol, Met tickets and pharmaceuticals. Just over 19 per cent were first time clients, a 19 per cent increase in the number of people given emergency relief during the same month last year. There is something substantially bad happening in this electorate as a consequence of the increased cost of living.
Petrol is particularly pertinent to an outer suburban electorate like mine. The average price for unleaded petrol in Narre Warren this morning was apparently 129.9c per litre. The average price for unleaded petrol in Endeavour Hills this morning was 129.6c per litre. The average price for unleaded petrol in Cranbourne this morning was 130.3c per litre. According to the Australian Automobile Association, the average price of unleaded petrol in metropolitan Melbourne in January this year was 113.1c per litre. Local families have faced price increases of the order of 19 per cent since the start of the year. This has had a substantial impact in electorates like mine which are very car dependent.
Again the consequences of this price rise can be seen through the Casey North Community Information and Support Service. In April 2007, 275 people were assisted with the cost of travel, through petrol vouchers or assistance with the cost of public transport. In Cranbourne, the vast majority of Leanne Petrides’ clients are receiving Safeway vouchers which can be used for food and petrol. Thirty dollars is the maximum amount that she can give out in order to work within the budget. Anecdotally, Leanne understands that many of the clients are using some, if not all, of their voucher allocation on petrol and often have to toss up purchasing food, purchasing petrol, paying bills or buying clothes. There is something bad happening out there.
Look at rent, for example, and the substantial increases in the price of rent. Susan Magee from Casey North says that there is a dearth of rental stock in the region. Real estate agents have confirmed that rents are increasing as local landlords take the opportunity to benefit from the lack of rental accommodation in the area. Auctioning of rental properties has happened. This has not happened before in this area. She believes that landlords are now accepting offers of rent greater than what is being asked for. Leanne Petrides from Cranbourne sees many people who are struggling with rental costs. The rents have risen slowly but surely and there are many more people applying for each property. One client told her that there were about 60 people viewing every average property in Cranbourne recently—so many that they had to be taken through in stages. Another client recently moved into the area from interstate. Her family told her that she could not really afford it. They offered $20 above the advertised price for a rental property and became the successful applicants. Many more said they could not compete in a market where they had to vie with so many other people and where they cannot afford the advertised rent, let alone offer more. More people are now paying more than 45 per cent of their income in housing costs, either through rental costs or mortgage payments.
There are some further financial pressures that have been experienced. Susan Magee has seen family breakdown occur due to a range of issues. However, financial pressure appears to be a huge contributor at present. This is often followed by severe financial hardship as income is split across two households. This often results in health issues and, in particular, mental health issues due to stress. In Cranbourne, Leanne Petrides thinks that it is important to emphasise the fact that the vast majority of clients who come to her are ordinary everyday people who only come to her agency when in crisis. These are families who struggle with rent or mortgage payments, school costs, utility costs, food and petrol. The costs of these items rise insidiously and regularly, and people in our communities ‘are expected to just bear the brunt of this price shock’—her words.
On top of the financial pressure on families in my electorate is the issue of broadband. It is a real and substantial issue. It is an issue that is literally costing business opportunities in my electorate. What we hear and see is that there is basically no plan, no leadership and clearly no vision for this essential area—an area which will power the next wave of economic reform. In recent years, the Howard government have had a National Broadband Strategy, an Australian government action plan, a National Broadband Strategy Implementation Group, a Higher Bandwidth Incentive Scheme, a Coordinated Communications Infrastructure Fund, a Demand Aggregation Brokers Program, a metropolitan broadband black spots program, an Australian Research and Education Network, a Broadband for Health initiative, a broadband pharmacy program, a telecommunications action plan, Broadband Connect and the Broadband Guarantee. However, notwithstanding the myriad of programs that I have just detailed to this chamber, there are still significant numbers of families in my electorate that cannot access broadband. That is significant.
What Labor discovered through the Senate estimates process was that the metropolitan broadband black spots program has been an abject failure. For example, more than two years after this $50 million program was announced by the Prime Minister during the 2004 election campaign, government bungling has resulted in $1.3 million being spent on administration costs while only $200,000 has been spent on providing broadband services. It is interesting to see what The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, has said with respect to this. On Tuesday, 8 August 2006, Senator Coonan stated, ‘No-one is complaining about broadband speeds in metropolitan areas.’ She must not have come down to my electorate, I can assure you.
Just to assure Senator Coonan that a lot of people are complaining about the broadband speeds in metropolitan areas, I would like to detail—at their request—some difficulties that some of my constituents are having with broadband access. I will give you their names and their details. Elvis Bernard is a father of three in Narre Warren South. He applied for ADSL 16 months ago. In that time, he has made applications with all the major internet service providers. Sixteen months later, he is still not connected to ADSL. He was advised that he is too far from the exchange—around 4.3 kilometres and he had to be within four kilometres. He is 300 metres too far away to access ADSL. His three kids are of primary school age and they need access to this service for their school assignments. Instead, they have to contend with slow dial-up speeds on the internet. Elvis is a licensed custom broker and he could bring a laptop home and work on weekends and after hours by logging on to the company server remotely. However, this is not an option for him. It just cannot happen, because it is too slow to work effectively. Telstra have given him the option of a wireless service but this is not appropriate as he could end up paying hundreds of dollars a month, which he cannot and should not need to afford. He should be connected to ADSL.
Another constituent of mine is Elwyn Hutchings, a husband and father living in Narre Warren South. He applied in February 2007 for ADSL when he moved into his house. This may not seem like a significant delay but the house he moved into was five years old. So for five years that house has not been able to access ADSL. Telstra advised that he quite simply could not be connected. His 14-year-old daughter needs broadband to research her school assignments. Elwyn owns a small commercial cleaning business and dial-up is too slow and too frequently loses connection for him to do quotes, look for machinery and find government contractors and tenders on the internet. He advises me that all 13 houses in his street cannot access ADSL.
Brett Fox, lives in Hampton Park and has been endeavouring for the past 20 months to get ADSL connected to his home.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Tell Telstra to get on with it.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr BYRNE
—I am going to ignore the rather condescending remark from the Minister for Ageing with respect to the problems of the constituents in my electorate. I hope it is recorded in the Hansard because it reflects his attitude and the government’s attitude to the problems of constituents in my electorate. I hope the Hansard records your very warm support for the difficulties that my constituents experience.
10000
Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Haase)—Member for Holt, you will address your remarks through the chair, and there will be no further interjections.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr BYRNE
—I will talk about Mr Brett Fox who lives in Hampton Park. He has been endeavouring for the past 20 months to get ADSL connected to his home. He works full time from home as a project manager for an electricity distribution company. He is responsible for people in the local area getting new or increased power supply. He remotely connects to various company servers to do his job. Faster internet connection through ADSL is critical to his work productivity.
There are a substantial number of other examples with which I could enlighten the Minister for Ageing and, if I have time, one of them that I will come back to is the issue of the high-tech company that may have to relocate out of Hallam as a consequence of the lack of broadband speed. But there may be one issue on which the Minister for Ageing, the member for Sturt, might agree with me, and that is the issue of internet filtering. Families across Australia are concerned about children seeing pornography and violence on the internet. They want governments to do more to protect children from this material. I presume I have the support of the member for Sturt on this particular issue.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—I could not agree with you more.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr BYRNE
—A news poll commissioned by the Australia Institute in 2003 surveyed parents with children aged 12 to 17. It found that 85 per cent were concerned about their children seeing pornography on the internet, 75 per cent said the federal government should be doing more and 93 per cent expressed support for mandatory filtering of internet pornography. Labor Party policy for mandatory filtering at ISP level is the strongest action we could and should take in this country to protect our kids. Even those who believe that adults have the right to view legal content in their homes would not accept taxpayer funded facilities such as public libraries being used for that purpose, especially when in a public facility children could be easily exposed to this material. In a particular library in my electorate, children are being exposed to this material because of the lack of a cohesive policy in this area.
Last year 62 members of the federal coalition signed a letter to the Prime Minister—and the member for Sturt may have been one of those who signed this petition—calling for a ban on the access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet. Senator Helen Coonan, dismissed these views as being ‘not well informed’. I hope, Minister Pyne that you were one of those people who signed the petition. The signatories believe the internet should be regulated in a similar way to other media. If adults wished to ‘opt in’ to access the material then of course that would be their right, but they would have to apply for their right of access.
We started a petition that requested that federal government funding to state and local government be tied to mandatory internet pornography filters being installed in public libraries and that federal government funding of childcare centres be tied to mandatory internet pornography filters being installed. We had nearly 5,000 people sign this particular petition. The government’s response after pressure from Labor and the coalition backbench was the national filter scheme. The scheme offered free filters to families and public libraries. It was announced in June 2006 but has not been implemented and nor, 10 months later, has an implementation date been set. The filter scheme will be backed by, we think, a very large public awareness campaign to educate parents about online dangers. The government has said information will be provided in online and printed advisements as well as through a telephone help line.
We believe genuinely—and I think we have cross-party support for this—that there are several flaws in the existing policy. I will tell you one reason in particular. The Australian Library and Information Association has been openly hostile to mandatory filtering. Therefore, the majority of libraries are unable to take up the offer of a free filter. Only one-third of households have internet filters on their family computers, which suggests that a reliance on end user filtering will be unlikely to protect children from harmful internet content.
Our policy of clean feed at ISP level is far more effective and deals with the problem directly. Even the member for Sturt would acknowledge that this is the Holy Grail of policy with respect to internet filtering. We need to filter it at the source. People in public libraries are basically coming to me and saying, ‘Well, it’s our choice.’ It should not be their choice. It is our choice, as the people who set standards in the community, to dictate what they should show in libraries. I think we should be nationally consistent with this. Therefore, in the time remaining, I urge Senator Coonan in particular to revisit her opposition to a proper policy on internet filtering and give children and families in my electorate the internet protection that they need.
181
20:31:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
Minister for Ageing
1
0
Mr PYNE
—The 2007-08 budget continues to demonstrate the strength of this government’s sound economic management. After such an unprecedented period of growth and stability, I think it is all too easy to believe that the good times will keep on rolling, that the economy is a self-righting ship that will keep sailing through the night no matter who is at the helm. The truth is very different. The Australian economy is now worth more than $1.1 trillion, and this year’s budget is worth some $231 billion.
Australia has outperformed almost every other industrialised economy. The results of this are far more significant than just having a decent balance sheet, being an attractive place for foreign companies to invest in or having a AAA rating from Moody’s. Having a secure and stable economy means that the government can invest back into the community through tax cuts that benefit all Australians, through investment in skills, trades and higher education and through road funding and other infrastructure projects. It means that we can look after our senior Australians with increases to the senior Australians tax offset and with a continuation of the utilities payment, which recognises the needs of self-funded retirees when state governments are ignoring them.
It means that the government can continue to make up the shortfall of funding in our hospitals and schools—areas that are the responsibility of state governments. It means that the government can put money towards environmental projects that will actually help fight the challenge of climate change rather than produce empty promises like ratifying a UN agreement that has already been shown to be failing and promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in two generations time, as the opposition has suggested.
It also means that we can fund programs like the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants program. This grants scheme has been a great success in the electorate of Sturt. In the last financial year 46 local clubs and community groups have received over $91,000 in funding from the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants scheme for a range of equipment. The equipment ranges from something as simple as a collection of storage containers for the Glenunga Croquet Club to a vacuum cleaner for the Hectorville Sports Club or a PA system for the Florey Reconciliation Task Force. It ranges from a set of GPS units for the Athelstone Country Fire Service brigade—and I note that the Campbelltown Rotary Club very generously matched the amount of money put in by the federal government—to a barbecue and gardening equipment for the Payneham Cricket Club or a printer and telephone for Grandparents for Grandchildren. These are essential items that make the running of these organisations that little bit easier. While the individual dollar amounts for these grants might be small, as a member of many community groups I know how hard it is to find the money to purchase that item that the club often really needs.
I was also pleased to see additional funding for skills training, apprenticeships and universities. The $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund for capital works and research means that, for the first time, our universities can be sure of an income specifically for those two areas. I note that the Treasurer has already said that he would like to add a similar amount to the fund next year, and I applaud this investment.
It is worth remembering, though, that only about 30 per cent of school leavers will go on to university. The government recognises that the large number of apprentices also deserve help. So I welcome the new Skills for the Future package that targets apprentices. The tax exempt payment of $1,000 to those apprentices in areas of skills shortages, the $500 voucher to help cover the cost of course fees and the continuation of the successful Tools For Your Trade Program are all examples of where the government is getting on with the job.
Of course, we all know that before a young person can consider their career after school they need the right foundation at school. Last year, schools in the electorate of Sturt received over $3.4 million for 43 projects under the Investing in Our Schools Program. There has been a $2.75 million investment in the Lynden Park Primary School—a school practically forgotten by the South Australian state Labor government. There has been $287,334 invested in whole-of-school intervention strategies at the Open Access College in Marden, the Magill Youth Training Facility and the Gilles Plains Primary School to help with school based projects such as developing a homework centre for Indigenous students, developing an e-learning homework centre and helping students learn effective studying techniques. In addition, three schools in my electorate have shared in $33,500 of funding from the Success for Boys Program, which ensures that boys have their education needs met. These are real programs that are producing real results in our schools. I recently opened the new shadecloth shelter at the Windsor Gardens Vocational College, which had been funded through an Investing in Our Schools grant. This improvement had been driven by the students. They had approached the school’s governing council for an enhancement that they wanted. On the same day, I also opened the new veranda at St Joseph’s School at Payneham.
These are the sorts of grassroots projects that the government is funding. But we can always do better, and that is why in this budget there is funding for tuition vouchers of $700 for children who do not achieve national literacy benchmarks in years 3, 5 and 7. There are bonuses for teachers who undertake additional training in Australian history, science, maths or literacy and numeracy. There will be $50,000 bonuses for schools that improve their literacy and numeracy standards, and additional funding for students who are training to be teachers to receive more practical experience in teaching.
I, like many of the constituents of Sturt, am concerned about the state of our roads. I know that it can come as a surprise to many people to learn that different roads are funded by the three different levels of government: some are council roads, some are state roads and some are federal roads. But it is also worth remembering that a lot of the money that the local councils use to fix up their roads comes from the Australian government. In Sturt, the local councils have received more than $7.6 billion this financial year in general and specific road grants, as well as an additional $1.7 million funded under the AusLink Roads to Recovery program.
The announcement in the budget of $22.3 billion for the land transport system is good news for all Australians, not just those who directly use the roads. If our transport system is safer and more efficient, it leads to lower costs for transport companies. In turn, this leads to lower costs for the items being transported, whether they are food, petrol or other goods.
There is no denying that one of the greatest challenges facing us today is the spectre of climate change. The opposition promises that it will make the world a better place in two generations time—a promise that no-one will remember then, as all opposition members well know. Telling the public that it will ratify the Kyoto protocol is another ruse of the opposition. Current figures show that Australia is one of the best performing countries under the Kyoto protocol, while countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Spain and Japan are all well above their 2012 targets.
The simple fact is this: the Australian government did sign but did not ratify Kyoto because we were confident that the agreement would not work. By signing Kyoto we remained part of the process for the next agreement on climate change. However, unlike many other countries, we have continued to get on with the job of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We have reduced the rate of land clearing and we have invested in our road system so trucks are more efficient and emissions are lower. We are investigating carbon sequestration and are funding a cooperative research centre specifically into that—the CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies. I congratulate this CRC on its recent announcement that a new power station in Western Australia will most likely be able to use geosequestration to trap all of the CO2 produced from this power station. None will be released into the atmosphere.
This budget included an extra $741 million over five years to help address climate change. We are doubling the rebate on solar panels to $8,000. This means that for an average home more than half the cost of installing solar panels will be covered by the Australian government. Community buildings and schools will be eligible for up to $12,000; $59.6 million will be invested in developing alternative transport fuels; and $126 million will be available to establish a new Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation. This will be the central focus point for all the different areas of knowledge and research on climate change and there will be $103 million for the CSIRO’s climate change adaptation and energy research flagships.
But we are also funding projects closer to home. There was $25,000 from the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program given to the City of Campbelltown in Sturt for the construction of gabion walls on Fourth Creek, just behind the Stradbroke Primary School. These walls will help reduce erosion at this location and will help protect the nearby houses. And $70,000 was provided to the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Natural Resources Management Board for a study into flood mitigation requirements on the First to Fifth creeks. Those people in my electorate who will remember the devastating floods of a couple of winters ago will know how important this study is. Through the community water grant, more than 7.8 million litres of water will be saved this year at institutions like the City of Campbelltown, St Pius X College, Mary MacKillop College and Marryatville High School.
My first priority is always to be the voice in this place for the people of Sturt. In addition to this, I have recently been appointed the Minister for Ageing. The Howard government established the ageing ministry recognising that our population is growing older and needs dedicated ministry to ensure that we are preparing to face the challenges of the future. The Howard government has revolutionised the ageing sector since forming government 11 years ago. We have made significant reforms in how the sector is funded and established one of the most rigorous and thorough accreditation and standards requirements in the world. In 1995-96 the Australian government expenditure on aged care was $3 billion. Annual government outlays on aged care will increase to around $10 billion by 2010-11, a more than three-fold increase.
In February the Prime Minister announced the Securing the Future of Aged Care for Australians package, which provides $1.6 billion over the next five years. The budget handed down in May contained new announcements totalling $161.4 million. They included $41.2 million over four years to establish 20 respite demonstration centres in both metropolitan and rural areas. This is in keeping with the government’s commitment to encouraging innovative respite care options so as to assist frail, older people to remain in their homes. The demonstration sites will serve a dual purpose by offering respite to local carers and by providing the lead to the aged-care industry as a whole. There is $998.5 million over four years so that an additional 54,000 Australians with permanent incontinence will have access to subsidised incontinence products from 1 July 2007. This new funding brings total funding for the Continence Aids Assistance scheme to $148.7 million over the next four years.
There is $13.2 million over five years to help older people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds access the full range of aged-care services for which they are eligible. Around 70 projects will be funded under the Community Partners Program to provide activities such as information sessions, community visits to aged-care facilities and translated materials about the availability of appropriate aged-care services. There will also be $8½ million over four years to provide 120 Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to gain real jobs, working in community care, in place of positions previously subsidised for community development employment projects under the CDEP program. The positions will be in the National Respite for Carers Program and in urban and regional areas in the Home and Community Care program.
The Australian government supports choice in aged care and recognises that older Australians prefer to stay in their own homes rather than move into an aged-care facility. We spend $1.7 billion per year on community care services. This is more than a threefold growth in the expenditure on community care since 1996. Community aged-care packages have grown from around 4½ thousand places in 1996 to almost 40,000 places in June 2006. In 1996 there was no program to provide high-care support in the home. To date, there are around 2,575 such places in the form of Extended Aged Care at Home packages. It is no wonder that the member for Shortland hangs her head in shame as I announce these figures to the chamber.
All up we are working to take Australia’s aged-care target from 108 places per 1,000 people aged 70 or over to 113 places in 2011, compared with around 93 places in 1996. By June 2011 there will be around a quarter of a million operational aged-care places and over 100,000 of these will have been added by the Australian government since 1996—an almost 48 per cent increase. But there is no point in pouring money into the sector without the checks and balances in place to ensure the quality of the care provided. In 1996 there was no independent oversight of the quality of aged-care homes. Now there is an independent agency, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, which accredits every aged-care home. All aged-care homes in Australia will receive at least one unannounced visit every year. It is no surprise that confidence in the aged-care sector is high, and that can be judged by the $5.7 billion of private investment from the sector into the building and upgrading of aged-care homes over the last eight years.
It is an easy headline and a cheap shot for detractors to claim that the aged-care sector is in crisis. The reality is far different. It is a reformed sector, and aged-care homes are different places than they were 10 years ago. I, the accreditation agency and the Department of Health and Ageing are all working with the aged-care sector to consolidate the changes we have made and ensure that we continue to address the teething problems that arise within what is a complex but vital sector. This budget continues that commitment to the aged. It also continues the sound economic management of this government that allows so many of the projects and programs in Sturt that I have spoken about in this speech tonight to continue. I commend the budget to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
185
20:49:00
Main Committee adjourned at 8.49 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
186
Questions in Writing
Media Monitoring and Clipping Services
186
186
4163
186
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 7 September 2006:
-
What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in 2005-06;
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio order newspaper clippings, television appearance transcripts or videos, radio transcripts or tapes on behalf of the Minister’s office in 2005-06; if so, what sum was spent by the department or agency on providing this service.
186
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms Julie Bishop
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Department manages the media monitoring service centrally. The total amount spent on this function in 2005-06 was $297,245.39 (includes Questacon). This amount includes those reported in Parliamentary Questions 4133 and 4138 (cost of media monitoring services engaged by Ministers’ offices). Figures are GST exclusive and include the cost of transcription services.
The sums spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by agencies in the Minister’s portfolio were:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
$9,788
Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS)
$8,612.72
Australian Research Council (ARC)
$22,862
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
$33,216
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
$123,000
-
In 2005-06 the Minister’s office accessed the Department’s newspaper clipping service and paid a share of that cost. The Minister’s office orders its own television appearance transcripts and videos, radio transcripts and tapes.
Richmond Electorate: Programs
186
186
4308 and 4319
186
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
Mrs Elliot
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, in writing, on 12 September 2006:
-
What programs have been administered by the Minister’s department in the federal electorate of Richmond since October 2004.
-
In respect of each project or program referred to in Part (1), (a) what is its name, (b) by whom is it operated and (c) what are its aims and objectives.
-
What grants have been provided to individuals, businesses and organisations by the Ministers’ department in the federal electorate of Richmond since October 2004.
187
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
-
and (2) Information about the programmes administered by the department and their aims and objectives are contained in Portfolio Budget Statements and other publicly available documents.
-
Program
Funding Recipient
Funding
Australian Tourism Development Program (ATDP)
Beachfarm Pty Ltd
$90,000
Small Business Assistance Program – Answers (SBAP)
Northern Rivers Area Consultative Committee
$171,000
Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET)
Tilta Industries Pty Ltd
Two grants $41,000
$10,000
Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET)
Ultra Aquatic Technology Pty Ltd
$15,000
Ballarat Electorate: Programs
187
187
4792
187
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
Ms King
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 16 October 2006:
-
In respect of the federal electorate of Ballarat, does the Minister’s department, or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio, administer any Commonwealth-funded programs under which community organisations, schools, businesses or individuals can apply for funding; if so what are the details of those programs.
-
In respect of each Commonwealth-funded program identified in Part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) schools, (c) businesses or (d) individuals received funding in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2003, (iv) 2004, (v) 2005 and (vi) 2006.
-
In respect of each Commonwealth-funded program identified in Part (1), (a) what is the name and address of the funding recipient and (b) what sum was allocated in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2003, (iv) 2004, (v) 2005 and (vi) 2006.
187
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Information about the programs administered by the department and their aims and objectives are contained in Portfolio Budget Statements and other publicly available documents.
-
The Department does not record the information required to identify the classification of each funding recipient and therefore cannot provide a response to this question.
-
Name
Address
Year
Sum Allocated
Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers
13-15 Lydiard St North Ballarat VIC 3350
2003/04
2004
2005
$39,000
$45,100
$141,900
Ballarat Adult & Further Education Centre (BRACE) Inc.
602 Urquhart St Ballarat VIC 3350
2003/04
$20,000
Ballarat Regional Incubators Ltd
Dawson House, 15 Dawson St South Ballarat VIC 3350
2002/03
$180,000
Brace Education Training & Employment Ltd
602 Urquhart St Ballarat VIC 3350
2002/03
2004/05
$35,000
$113,000
Central Highlands Area Consultative Committee
15 Dawson St South Ballarat VIC 3350
2002
$60,000
Colour Vision Systems Pty Ltd
11 Park St Bacchus Marsh VIC 3340
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
$437,000
$924,000
$932,000
$121,000
Fallsafe Technology Pty Ltd
46 Caroline St Yarra VIC 3141
2005/06
2006/07
$52,000
$4,000
Gekko Systems Pty Ltd
321 Learmonth Rd Ballarat VIC 3350
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
$86,000
$349,000
$210,000
Goldfields Tourism Inc.
Level 1, 39 Sturt St Ballarat VIC 3350
2004/05
2005/06
$250,000
$200,000
Green Lands Holdings Pty Ltd
Midlands Highway Ballarat VIC 3350
2000/01
$12,000
Hepburn Shire Council
Town Hall, 76 Vincent St Daylesford VIC 3460
2004/05
$25,000
Horizon Broadband Communications Pty Ltd
28 University Drive Mt Helen VIC 3350
2004/05
2005/06
$54,000
$10,000
Oztrak Group Pty Ltd
Greenhill Enterprise Centre, University Drive Ballarat VIC 3350
2000/01
$136,000
The Sovereign Hill Museums Association
39 Maggie St Ballarat VIC 3350
2004/05
2005/06
$90,000
$10,000
TMR Technology Pty Ltd
Not available
2000/01
$77,000
University of Ballarat
University Drive Ballarat VIC 3353
2000/01
2002/03
$1,000
$119,000
Vortex Kilns Pty Ltd
Not available
2000/01
2001/02
$28,000
$228,000
Wiltronics Scientific Pty Ltd
Unit 4, Cnr Ring Road & Sturt St Ballarat VIC 3350
2003/04
$42,000
Wizard Books Pty Ltd
Not available
2000/01
2002/03
$10,000
$29,000
Finance and Administration: Graduate Program
188
188
5018
188
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
For 2006, what was the estimated cost to the Minister’s department and agencies of the Graduate Programme, including (a) recruitment, (b) programme, (c) travel, (d) external training and (e) internal administrative costs.
-
At 6 December 2006, what was the retention rate for the department’s 2005 Graduate Programme intake.
-
In 2006, how many Departmental Liaison Officers did the Minister’s department and agencies provide to the offices of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.
188
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Department of Finance and Administration (Finance)
-
The estimated cost of the 2006 Graduate programme was $996,600.00.
-
As at 6 December 2006, Finance’s retention rate for the 2005 graduate intake was 64.28 per cent.
-
The Prime Minister will respond to this part of the question.
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)
-
The estimated cost of the 2006 Graduate programme is $130,575.00.
-
The AEC did not recruit any Graduates in 2005.
-
The Prime Minister will respond to this part of the question.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA)
Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC)
ComSuper
Future Fund Management Agency (FFMA)
-
ARIA, CGC, ComSuper and the FFMA do not have Graduate Programmes.
-
Not applicable.
-
The Prime Minister will respond to this part of the question.
Defence Capability Assessment Branch
189
189
5478
189
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
0
Mr Tanner
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 26 February 2007:
Since the establishment by the Department of Finance and Administration of the Defence Capability Assessment Branch, which works with the Department of Defence to implement the new ‘two pass’ system for Government consideration of proposals to improve the Defence Force’s capability: (a) for which projects has the Defence Capability Assessment Branch provided advice on cost estimates and financial risks relating to new equipment acquisitions; (b) what benchmarking analysis has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the Defence Capability Assessment Branch on the (i) estimated and (i) final costs and timelines of approved projects, and what were those results; and (c) what benchmarking analysis has been undertaken to assess the Defence Capability Assessment Branch’s effectiveness through comparison of the costs and timelines of programs not reviewed by the Branch with those reviewed by the Branch, and what were those results.
189
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable Member’s question:
-
Defence Capability Assessment Branch (the Branch) was established in March 2004. The Branch scrutinises and provides advice on all Defence equipment projects with a value greater than $8 million. The vast majority of these, by number and value, are Defence Capability Plan projects. The Defence Annual Reports list the projects approved with the exception of a small number that are highly classified and not publicly disclosed. The list for financial year 2005-06 is at page 178 of the Defence Annual Report 2005-06.
-
Given that the Branch has only been in existence for three years, and Defence capital projects typically run for a very extended period, there has been no benchmarking undertaken to date to assess the effectiveness of the Branch on the estimated and final costs and timelines of approved projects. In any case, the Branch is only one element of the post-Kinnaird system and it may be difficult to fully assess the effectiveness of the Branch in isolation.
-
As the Branch scrutinises all projects with a value greater than the Defence Minister’s delegation, it is not clear how a meaningful comparative evaluation of projects reviewed and not reviewed could be undertaken. Once the Kinnaird reforms have been in place for a sufficient period, it will be possible to evaluate the full suite of reforms relative to earlier experience.
Sea Cargo
190
190
5643
190
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr Bevis
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs in writing, on 29 March 2007:
For each month since May 2005, what was the (a) number and (b) percentage of ships reporting cargo under each of the following categories: (i) over or equal to 96 hours before vessel arrival; (ii) over or equal to 48 and less than 96 hours before vessel arrival; (iii) over or equal to 24 and less than 48 hours before vessel arrival; (iv) over or equal to zero and less than 24 hours before vessel arrival, (v) after vessel arrival and (vi) the total of the aforementioned categories.
190
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
From May to October 2005, sea cargo was reported to Customs via the Sea Cargo Automation System (SCA). Under the SCA system cargo was reported at ‘manifest line’ level.
There may be many hundreds of manifest lines reported for a single vessel.
In the period May to October 2005, 71.4% of manifest lines were reported ‘On-Time’ and 13.8% of manifest lines were reported after vessel arrival.
SCA data for October 2005 only applies to vessel arrivals prior to cutover to the Integrated Cargo System (ICS) on 12 October 2005.
Table 1 sets out the requested cargo reporting timeliness statistics using manifest line data sourced from SCA.
TABLE 1
Month/Yr
Cargo Reports
> or = to 96 hrs before vessel arrival
> or = to 48 and less than 96 hrs before vessel arrival
> or = to 24 and less than 48 hrs before vessel arrival
> or = to zero and less than 24 hrs before vessel arrival
After vessel arrival
% On Time
Total
May-05
Manifest Lines
37.2%
52015
32.9%
46068
9.3%
13012
5.9%
8206
14.7%
20525
70.1%
98083
139826
Jun-05
Manifest Lines
40.8%
59196
28.0%
40690
10.3%
14935
6.6%
9654
14.3%
20764
68.8%
99886
145239
Jul-05
Manifest Lines
42.6%
67150
26.8%
42190
10.8%
16940
5.4%
8484
14.5%
22763
69.4%
109340
157527
Aug-05
Manifest Lines
41.5%
67898
31.8%
52111
7.7%
12647
5.2%
8436
13.9%
22686
73.3%
120009
163778
Sep-05
Manifest Lines
39.6%
66744
33.2%
55844
9.0%
15092
5.5%
9182
12.8%
21571
72.8%
122588
168433
Oct-05
Manifest Lines
47.0%
30850
28.8%
18900
8.1%
5285
4.2%
2781
11.9%
7801
75.8%
49750
65617
TOTAL
Manifest Lines
40.9%
343853
30.4%
255803
9.3%
77911
5.6%
46743
13.8%
116110
71.4%
599656
840,420
The imports component of the ICS was implemented in October 2005.
From October 2005 onwards sea cargo has been reported to Customs via the ICS. Cargo is reported at ‘bill of lading’ level in the ICS.
There may be many hundreds of bills of lading for a single vessel.
In the nineteen month period (October 2005 to April 2007), 77.8% of all bills of lading were reported ‘On-Time’ and 11.6% of were reported after vessel arrival.
ICS data for October 2005 only applies to vessel arrivals after cutover to the ICS on 12 October 2005.
The 11.6% ‘After Vessel Arrival’ figure does not indicate that 11.6% of all vessels have not reported their entire cargo until after arriving at their first port Australia. Rather, it indicates the proportion (377,091) of all bills of lading (3,262,377) reported to Customs after vessel arrival.
Table 2 sets out the requested cargo reporting timeliness statistics using bills of lading data sourced from the ICS.
TABLE 2
Month/Yr
Bill
> or = to 96 hrs before vessel arrival
> or = to 48 and less than 96 hrs before vessel arrival
> or = to 24 and less than 48 hrs before vessel arrival
> or = to zero and less than 24 hrs before vessel arrival
After vessel arrival
% On Time
Total
Oct-05
All Bills
15.7%
17081
32.5%
35307
11.1%
12069
11.3%
12288
37.8%
41071
48.2%
52388
108777
Nov-05
All Bills
28.8%
52304
32.9%
59676
12.4%
22537
9.2%
16656
19.9%
36088
61.7%
111980
181458
Dec-05
All Bills
37.0%
62210
33.9%
56986
10.2%
17229
6.2%
10487
15.4%
25912
70.8%
119196
168331
Jan-06
All Bills
36.9%
64408
33.3%
58109
8.4%
14649
7.2%
12523
16.9%
29466
70.2%
122517
174646
Feb-06
All Bills
37.6%
52639
34.4%
48130
9.3%
13051
6.9%
9721
14.3%
19991
72.0%
100769
139967
Mar-06
All Bills
35.8%
59989
36.1%
60534
9.0%
15045
5.9%
9960
15.8%
26497
72.0%
120523
167494
Apr-06
All Bills
38.8%
62543
35.7%
57458
8.0%
12940
6.4%
10331
13.4%
21536
74.5%
120001
161039
May-06
All Bills
44.4%
71903
35.3%
57206
7.4%
12002
4.8%
7832
10.3%
16625
79.7%
129109
162082
Jun-06
All Bills
43.4%
75984
41.3%
72228
5.4%
9500
3.4%
5965
8.4%
14742
84.7%
148212
175027
Jul-06
All Bills
43.0%
75665
39.9%
70098
4.5%
7864
3.1%
5373
9.6%
16876
82.9%
145763
175876
Aug-06
All Bills
42.2%
87060
38.8%
80038
6.9%
14191
3.7%
7655
8.3%
17171
81.1%
167098
206115
Sep-06
All Bills
41.9%
80024
40.3%
76912
6.0%
11423
4.3%
8150
7.6%
14469
82.2%
156936
190978
Oct-06
All Bills
41.6%
83415
38.4%
77070
5.9%
11885
5.0%
10077
9.0%
18013
80.1%
160485
200460
Nov-06
All Bills
48.1%
74800
38.0%
59080
5.8%
8984
2.7%
4187
5.5%
8601
86.0%
133880
155652
Dec-06
All Bills
49.9%
97753
34.1%
66716
6.3%
12407
3.4%
6625
6.2%
12215
84.0%
164469
195716
Jan-07
All Bills
45.6%
84384
34.0%
62940
6.3%
11672
4.8%
8971
11.3%
20942
79.6%
147324
185019
Feb-07
All Bills
45.4%
77725
39.1%
66909
5.5%
9404
3.9%
6699
7.8%
13266
84.5%
144634
171174
Mar-07
All Bills
48.8%
82567
36.3%
61385
6.3%
10694
3.6%
6028
6.5%
11050
85.1%
143952
169123
Apr-07
All Bills
50.0%
86726
36.2%
62871
5.0%
8688
2.9%
5087
7.2%
12560
86.3%
149597
173443
TOTAL
All Bills
41.4%
1,349,180
36.5%
1,189,653
7.2%
236,234
5.0%
164,615
11.6%
377,091
77.8%
2,538,833
3,262,377
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
192
192
5717
192
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 May 2007:
-
Is Australia a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
-
Can he confirm that individuals may complain about the alleged violation of their rights under ICERD to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; if not, why not.
-
Can he confirm that Article 14 of ICERD states that (a) the committee will “bring any communication referred to it to the attention of the State Party alleged to be violating any provision of this Convention” and (b) “within three months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter”; if not, why not.
-
Is he, or his department, aware of complaint No. 39/2006, which was transmitted by the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights on 8 November 2006; if not, why not.
-
Did the Government respond to the matters raised in complaint No. 39/2006 within three months in accordance with Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will the Government furnish observations relevant to the merits of the complaint.
192
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Australia is a party to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
-
Individuals may complain about the alleged violation of their rights under ICERD by States Party who have declared that they recognise the competence of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and consider such complaints. Australia has made such a declaration.
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
The Government has responded to the matters raised in the complaint. The Government response was lodged on 3 May 2007 with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as Secretariat for the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.