2008-03-18
42
1
1
REPS
0
0
2008-03-18
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers.
CONDOLENCES
2051
Condolences
Mr Bill Brown AO
2051
2051
14:01:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—On indulgence, I would like to make a few remarks about the passing of Bill Brown. I think everyone was saddened recently by the passing of Bill Brown, the former test captain of the Australian cricket team, a member of Sir Donald Bradman’s 1948 Invincibles, and Australia’s last surviving prewar test cricketer. At the age of 95 he was Australia’s oldest surviving test cricketer and was, based on our records, the only native-born Queenslander to captain the Australian team. He was an outstanding opening batsman, averaging 46.8 runs playing for Australia and 56.3 runs playing for Queensland, and made a major contribution to the building up of the strength of the game in my home state. He served in the RAAF in the Pacific during the Second World War, briefly resuming his career afterwards and then retiring from test cricket in 1948.
Bill Brown left a lasting impression on all those who encountered him. Around Australia today people have been sharing warm, personal stories about Bill Brown—the time he visited their school to teach aspiring cricketers how to hold a bat, the time they met him at his sports store in Brisbane or the time they saw him at a local community event or game. Steve Waugh said today:
Bill was the man who my generation really looked up to.
For us he was the embodiment of everything great about the baggy green cap.
Bill was also a man of some mischief and humour. Robert Craddock tells a great story in today’s Courier-Mail, reflecting on Bill’s genuine larrikin sense of humour. The story goes along the following lines. Apparently when he was flying with the Royal Australian Air Force in Papua New Guinea an American hostess one day told him she was concerned about the recklessness of Australian pilots. Bill was the pilot at the time. He assured her that he was mature and trustworthy, as were all Australian pilots. But when she returned to the cockpit she discovered that there was nobody in the cockpit flying the plane. She descended to the rear of the aircraft, screaming. Bill had decided to hide in a cupboard just to give her a thrill. An interesting way to give people a thrill!
Bill was awarded the Order of Australia in 2000 for services to cricket as a player, selector, coach and administrator and for his involvement with the cricket charity Lords Taverners, which is a fantastic charity that raises money for disadvantaged young people. I had the great privilege to meet Bill a number of times at games at the Gabba. He was always a bit like Barnabas, the ‘son of encouragement’—always with something positive to say to young players and to people he generally met about what good things they were doing and how they could do better.
We of course extend our sympathy to his wife, Barbara; to his sons, Steve, Geoff and Peter; and to his 10 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. Bill Brown’s life innings of 95 is a significant innings by any person’s standard, but it has been a huge innings for Australia.
2051
14:04:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Dr NELSON
—On indulgence, I too would like to speak about Bill Brown. Bill was the only remaining link to Australia’s pre World War II test era. As the Prime Minister said, Bill died at the age of 95, which was an extraordinary innings. He was regarded as a great character, a great Australian and one of the nation’s great cricketers. He was our oldest living test cricketer and the third oldest in the world. His death will leave, I think, only four surviving members of the 1948 Invincibles squad—Arthur Morris, Sam Loxton, Neil Harvey and Ron Hamence. Bill’s health in recent years steadily declined and he died peacefully—as I suppose we all would like to eventually—at an RSL home in Brisbane’s northern suburbs on Sunday.
Bill Brown was one of those who have really shaped our nation and the way we see ourselves. He was not only a proud Queenslander but also a great cricketer, a great man and a great Australian, and I strongly support the remarks of the Prime Minister.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2052
14:05:00
Questions Without Notice
Housing
2052
14:05:00
2052
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in relation to the NATSEM housing affordability statistics that were released today, where she said the best way to help poor young homebuyers is:
... a tax privileged way ... with our first home saver accounts.
Can the Prime Minister now explain why a person earning $200,000 a year is entitled to a government co-contribution of $1,500 but an apprentice earning $12,000 a year, saving for her first home, is entitled to a government co-contribution of only half that, at $750?
2052
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I find it remarkable that the opposition asks questions about housing, given that for 12 years there was, firstly, no minister for housing, secondly, no department of housing and, thirdly, no housing policy on the part of those opposite. When it comes to practical measures to assist those who are seeking to buy their first home, the first obstacle they are up against is high interest rates. The party of new-found compassion, those opposite, seem to overlook the fact that interest rates rose 10 times in a row in their period of office. The reason interest rates rose 10 times in a row and have risen twice since then is, in large measure, that the previous government allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle. When we took over office, inflation was running at a 16-year high and we had interest rates that were the second highest in the developed world.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question to the Prime Minister and his social justice truck is: why does a person on $200,000 get twice that of a person on $12,000?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—To further my answer to the question, if you look at the measures, therefore, which deal effectively with the housing challenge facing working families, No. 1 is dealing with the inflation challenge. Let us actually look at the logic here. If you allow inflation to become uncontrolled in the economy, if you allow inflationary pressures to rise without acting on them, what happens is that upwards pressure occurs on interest rates, and then interest rates go up and then you squeeze people out of the housing market. There were 10 interest rate rises in a row—the world’s second highest interest rates, when we assumed office, as far as the developed economies are concerned—and then on top of that inflation was running at 16-year—
00AMN
Ley, Sussan, MP
Ms Ley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister needs to answer a simple question: why does a person on $200,000 receive—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Farrer will resume her seat.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The core of the challenge for working families and those struggling with interest rate pressures now is a result of this: a previous government which did not contain inflation and which put upward pressure on interest rates, and this, as a consequence, flowing through to cost-of-living pressures for working families. This is why inflation remains the core article of our response to the economic challenges which face Australia today. Inflation and interest rates affect working families.
On the substance of housing policy, in response to—
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—If those opposite think that housing policy can be addressed in the absence of inflation and interest rates, I find that a remarkable departure from core economic logic. Why those opposite seem to respond so audibly and with great agitation to the logic I was pointing out before is that they were responsible for inflation getting out of control, beyond the three per cent margin, and they were responsible, as a consequence, for upward pressure on interest rates. Therefore, they are responsible for the extraordinary mortgage rate pressures which are currently being experienced by working families.
Prior to the election, we undertook to implement three core sets of housing policies. One is the first home saver accounts. The second relates to what we do for affordable rental accommodation. The third relates to—
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. If the Prime Minister cannot answer the question, can he just say so.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—It is not a point of order.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—These policies—a total funding commitment of about half a billion dollars and in toto about $1.6 billion—represent one key fact: $1.6 billion more than those opposite provided for public investment in the housing challenges of working families. The housing policy they took to the last election adds up to this figure: one big, fat zero. On the pre-election commitment—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It relates to the last section of the question. Can the Prime Minister explain why a person earning $200,000 per annum is entitled to a government co-contribution—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. Member for Fisher, is this on a further point of order or the same point of order?
0V5
Slipper, Peter, MP
Mr Slipper
—Mr Speaker, a further point of order. Under standing order 86, when a point of order is taken the Speaker has an obligation to give a ruling.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fisher will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney in selectively repeating part of the question did not mention the first part, which was in relation to a NATSEM report. The Prime Minister is in order.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—On the whole question of housing affordability, which the NATSEM report goes to, you have to deal with the inflation-interest rates challenge and you have to deal with the other housing policy settings. We have put forward one such policy. On the question of the pre-election commitment which we made on the first home saver accounts, we stand by everything we put to the Australian people, including the eligibility criteria that we outlined there. We believe this is a good piece of public policy, and the reason is that it is the first time it has been embraced in this country. For 12 years, those opposite sat silently, idly by while so many working families, so many Australians, dealing with the mortgage challenge they faced as a consequence of successive interest rate rises were simply left to languish. The response by those opposite, the party of new-found compassion, was in these words: ‘Working families have never been better off.’
Let me conclude by saying this: our pre-election commitments on housing, which are $1.6 billion more than those opposite—the new-found party of compassion—will actually be honoured. We do not divide them into core promises and non-core promises. One of those commitments was the first home saver accounts. The criteria for the first home saver accounts were articulated clearly before the election. We have a mandate to implement them in the manner in which they were put to the people, and implementing them we are.
HMAS Sydney
2054
2054
14:13:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
Mr MELHAM
—My question is to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Would the minister update the House on arrangements being made to commemorate the loss of the HMAS Sydney?
2054
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
1
Mr SNOWDON
—I thank the member for Banks for his question. The national interest in and response to the discovery of the final resting place of the HMAS Sydney and her crew of 645 have been overwhelming. This discovery and the tragic loss of life need to be marked in a manner befitting the significance and importance to this nation. The Navy is planning a commemorative ceremony in the near future, possibly in the next two weeks. The ceremony, while low-key, will include the laying of a suitably worded plaque and a wreath over the Sydney site. We are also planning a national memorial service to be held in Sydney on 24 April, the day before Anzac Day. This will provide an opportunity for families and other members of the public to commemorate the tragic loss of Sydney and its crew. We will be releasing further details about a venue and timing shortly.
In addition, a national commemoration will be held on 19 November, on the 67th anniversary of the loss of Sydney. Options being considered include a memorial service at the HMAS Sydney memorial site at Geraldton and a commemorative onboard service on the current HMAS Sydney over the wreck of the Sydney. Of course, family members will be invited. Simultaneously on 19 November, we are planning a memorial service at the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra.
We are liaising with the German government regarding appropriate recognition of the loss of their sailors at the HSK Kormoran site. As I announced yesterday, Defence is setting up a 1800 number for families to call to make sure that they are being kept informed. The number will be released as soon as the hotline is operational. In addition, the Department of Defence is developing a website to keep the public up to date about developments. We are also looking at other ways, including fact sheets, to provide appropriate information to family and friends.
The SV Geosounder will be returning to Geraldton late this week and is scheduled to arrive on the evening of Thursday, 20 March. The SV Geosounder is expected to return to Sydney’s site to carry out video and photographic examination of the wreckage from this Sunday. Similar examination of the Kormoran site will also be carried out once protocols to dive over the wreck have been established between the Australian and German governments. Specialist add-on remote operating vehicle camera and video equipment is being airfreighted in from Norway. This will provide enhanced capability for taking high-definition photographs. Specialist lighting equipment that can be attached to the ROVs is already on standby on the SV Geosounder.
Five specialist ROV operators are currently being mobilised from within Australia and will join the Geosounder once she has returned to port. The remotely operated vehicles will not interfere with the vessels in any way or retrieve any objects or artefacts from the seabed. Once we have gathered the data, the Chief of the Defence Force will convene a commission of inquiry to determine what facts can be established about the loss of the Sydney.
2055
14:17:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Dr NELSON
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to commend and support the government on the way in which it is handling this matter and ask that the opposition be briefed and have the opportunity to participate in the development of the arrangements. I think the government is handling this particular matter sensitively and appropriately.
Taxation
2055
2055
14:18:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his commitment that, under a Labor government, the average rate of taxation as a share of GDP will not be increased above the level projected for the next three years in the 2007 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook?
2055
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Consistent with what I have said in answer to earlier questions, we stand by all of our pre-election commitments.
Economy
2055
2055
14:18:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
Ms NEAL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the state of the global economy and the government’s response?
2055
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Members will be aware that US monetary authorities have recently been acting in relation to the challenges which now present themselves on global and US financial markets. This presents real challenges for US monetary authorities and for monetary authorities around the world as financial institutions are encountering various ranges of liquidity shortfalls. In the last week, the US Federal Reserve has taken a series of important actions to reassure financial markets. First, over the weekend the Fed approved a $30 billion loan to assist JP Morgan to help finance the acquisition of Bear Stearns; second, it has expanded its role as an emergency lender to include investment banks as well as commercial banks; and, third, it has cut the discount rate—the rate at which banks borrow money from the Fed—to 3.25 per cent from 3.5 per cent. In the six months since September last year, the Federal Reserve’s key interest rate has been reduced from 5.25 per cent to three per cent, and today the Federal Open Market Committee will meet in Washington to consider further monetary policy adjustments.
The Australian government welcome the Fed’s efforts to stabilise markets and, through our own monetary authorities and other authorities, we are closely monitoring the situation as it unfolds. Australia must, as a consequence of developments in the global economy, continue to pursue a prudent economic strategy in the face of these challenges abroad but also in the face of the domestic economic challenges we face at home. That includes, of course, the inflation challenge.
The Reserve Bank has repeatedly warned that Australia faces inflationary challenges. Inflation is elevated because Australia’s productive capacity has not kept pace with growing demand. The lessons for all of us on these questions are very clear. First, it is impossible for any responsible government dealing with responsible economic management to ignore the inflation challenge. You need to deal with the inflation challenge. Second, it is impossible for any responsible government dealing with the challenges which now present themselves across the economy to continue to support policies of profligate spending, contributing to unsustainable growth in demand. Third, it is not responsible, particularly given the last 20 sets of warnings which emerged from the Reserve Bank, not to invest on the supply side of the economy in skills and infrastructure. These are the lessons which we take to heart, and they underpin the approach we take in the overall management of the economy.
On the question of dealing with the inflation challenge that we are presented with, it is important that the House be seized of the fact that, when this government took over, inflation was running at a 16-year high. As a consequence of that, and the inattention to it by those who preceded us, we have the second highest interest rates in the advanced world. So the challenge that we face in framing the upcoming budget is to make sure that we are attending to these emerging pressures across the global economy—which are real, significant and substantial and should not occasion laughter on the part of those opposite—and that we are dealing simultaneously with the challenges of domestic inflation.
High inflation, if left unaddressed, is an enemy of working families because of the roll-through effect of interest rates on disposable family income, not the least of which is people’s ability to pay their mortgages. That is why, in our overall approach to the economy, acting on inflation remains key. That is why, from January this year, within six weeks of taking office, we embraced a five-point strategy for dealing with the threat of inflation, hinging on, firstly, what we do by way of producing a responsible budget which maintains a responsible surplus, given the circumstances that we now face; secondly, dealing with the challenge of boosting private savings; thirdly, dealing with the challenge of skills; fourthly, infrastructure; and, fifthly, enhancing productivity and dealing with the challenges of workforce participation. What now unfolds in the global economy is of real moment to the nation and every working family in the nation. I would strongly recommend to all members of the House, including those who regard this as a matter of rolling humour and interjection, that these are serious matters, requiring the serious attention of Australia’s monetary policy authorities and other economic authorities as we seek to ensure that this economy has a robust future. That means being attentive to the inflation challenge. That means pursuing a policy of prudent economic management. That means ensuring that we do not sustain the profligate levels of spending inherited from those who preceded us.
Housing Affordability
2056
2056
14:24:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
Mr DUTTON
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I refer the minister to the comments made by his adviser Dr Nicholas Gruen that ‘those who have taken out mortgages in the past four or five years would be the hardest hit by the efforts by both the Reserve Bank and the government to control inflation’. Does the minister for finance agree with his adviser’s comments and does he really understand the impact of the government’s decisions on struggling families with mortgages?
2056
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—Dr Nicholas Gruen is not my adviser, as was stated in the question from the member for Dickson. That is yet another thing that is wrong in a question from the opposition. We had it from the member for Wentworth all last week—factually incorrect statements in questions. Dr Gruen is not my adviser. I have indicated in a speech that I will be seeking to get assistance from him on the matter of deregulation—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—He’s a consultant, not an adviser.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—Exactly. And your point is?
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question has been asked.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—I hope you can do better than this in the last five or six questions in question time, folks. Dr Gruen is not my adviser. As a person who is a respected columnist in a number of journals, he is entitled to express views on other matters as he sees fit, as indeed any other consultant who works for government, be they from KPMG or Deloitte or whoever, is entitled to express views or to work for clients as they see fit.
Housing Affordability
2057
2057
14:26:00
Clare, Jason, MP
HWL
Blaxland
ALP
1
Mr CLARE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of recent trends in housing affordability? What is the government doing to address the challenge of homelessness?
2057
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. We have just come from about an hour and a half debate in the federal parliamentary Labor Party on what various members of the party have found in their local communities on the homelessness front. They have been out visiting shelters for the homeless. Also, what is now an emerging development is the fact that homeless shelters are having to cope with people who are falling out of the housing market because they cannot afford to pay their mortgages. This was a most serious debate and discussion that we had. Those who have traditionally provided shelter services are now having to deal with a whole group of families who, for the first time, are having to rely upon various charities across the country to provide them with transitional accommodation and in some cases crisis accommodation because affordability has become such a real problem.
Some of the statistics referred to in the report by AMP and NATSEM released today are worth recording for the House. I note that these were not referred to in the earlier question to me. The report describes the 1995-96 to 2005-06 period as a decade of dwindling hope. What are the actual figures when it comes to housing affordability? This is a figure which I think should sear itself into people’s attention. In 1995-96, according to this report, purchasing a typical home cost less than five times annual income. In 2005-06 that ratio had blown out to 7½ times annual income. Therein lies the core definition of the housing affordability problem. Whatever increases occurred in the disposable income of households in that period of time have not kept pace with the extraordinary explosion in overall housing costs. That is the absolute core of the housing affordability problem.
In response to an earlier question I ran through our responses on housing affordability generally: firstly, a half billion dollar program, the first home saver account; and, secondly, a half billion dollar program to provide affordable rental accommodation which is designed to bring into stock 100,000 additional units of affordable rental accommodation for the nation over time. Thirdly, we want to deal with the real challenge which local authorities and state governments have brought to our attention nationwide, and to that of the development industry, which is: how do you bring down the level of infrastructure charging on new housing developments? That is why we have also put forward our proposal for a half billion dollar fund to deal with housing affordability, with the object of bringing down local infrastructure charging, with the participation of local authorities, by as much as 20 per cent.
This is one part of the problem. The other is when it flips over into actual homelessness. Here the data becomes so compelling. In the presentations I received from so many of my backbenchers today—and 38 of them spoke in the debate in the parliamentary party—they reported that in the various centres that they visited right across the nation, from electorates spanning Fremantle to Launceston, the constant reply was that there is such a huge and growing turn-away rate for homeless shelters across the country. There are turn-away rates of 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 100 per cent, depending on where you are. This means that we have a problem in the physical availability of crisis accommodation stock in the country. This is a big problem.
The attendant problem is that, with people who are using homeless shelters, the recurrence of the problem—that is, people who use a homeless shelter but, through the inadequate provision of associated health facilities, dental facilities, mental health facilities, become return visitors to homeless shelters—is huge. This problem has not received sufficient ventilation in the national debate. It must do so. It is a crying shame for Australia that, according to the census data, we have 100,000 people classified as homeless. It is a crying shame for Australia that, according to the data, we have some 10,000 people who are sleeping rough each night. The reports from individual caucus members about individual stories of distress, discomfort and plain financial disaster are disturbing deeply. That is why the first white paper commissioned by this government is on homelessness. We as a nation have to get this right not just in boosting the physical supply of stock for homeless across the country but also by dealing with it in a way where we actually bring down the number of people who use these services on a repeat basis. It is a core hallmark of whether we are a decent society or not. It therefore commands our attention. These days it doubly commands our attention because of the data contained in the report released today by NATSEM and the AMP, which points to this ballooning housing affordability problem for working families everywhere, placing all of them at risk of one day having to contemplate the possibility of needing emergency accommodation themselves. That is why this government is determined to act in this area. It is of fundamental relevance to all working families.
Economy
2058
2058
14:32:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s media statement of 5 March, which referred to the household final consumption expenditure chain price index. Would the Treasurer explain to the House why this index is widely considered a broader measure of inflation than the headline CPI? Will the Treasurer confirm that the national accounts showed the index of household final consumption expenditure increased by 0.4 per cent in the quarter, the second lowest quarterly rise in 2½ years? Given that the national accounts showed this measure of consumer price inflation moderating, does he now regret egging the Reserve Bank on to hike interest rates with his intemperate remark, ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle’?
2058
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. No, I do not regret it for one moment. It is not more reliable than the CPI. It is not more reliable than the Reserve Bank’s underlying rate of inflation. It is not as reliable as the Reserve Bank’s underlying rate of inflation. That is the situation in economics.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Why?
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Because that is the view of the Treasury and that is the view—
Opposition members interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—So we are going to question the honesty and integrity of the Treasury again, are we? Are you going to put your foot in your mouth again? The truth is that anyone who understands the consumer price index in this country, anyone who understands inflation, knows it is the consumer price index and the Reserve Bank measures of underlying inflation—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Why?
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—They are the ones that are showing that inflation is at a 16-year high.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr Costello interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The sound effects man up the back is going to put his hand up again! A 16-year high! The member for Wentworth came into the House last night and gave a speech on inflation. Do you know what he had to say here last night?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question was, ‘Would the Treasurer explain to the House why this index is considered a broader and more reliable measure of inflation than the CPI?’
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! There is no need to repeat the question. The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer will continue.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Why, Treasurer?
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Because it is not a more reliable measure. Here we have another fiction from the member for Wentworth. He came into this House last night and gave a speech on inflation. Do you know what he had to say? Listen to this. He said in the fight against inflation it was ‘mission accomplished’. Can you believe this guy? What planet is the member for Wentworth living on? He does not sit around the same kitchen table as the average Australian. They know inflation is high.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer was asked why this index is considered a broader and more reliable measure of inflation than the CPI.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: once again I draw your attention to a frivolous point of order from the member for North Sydney. This is a question about inflation and the Treasurer is answering a question about inflation, even if this bloke thinks it does not—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella
—Get someone who can be a Treasurer, not a wimp!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I warn the member for Indi! I call the Treasurer.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The member for Wentworth was in the House. It was about 5.30 last night. He gave a long speech about the Australian economy. In it he declared the battle against inflation was ‘mission accomplished’. All that was missing was the banner, the jumpsuit and the aircraft carrier.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: he was not asked about alternative views.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will return to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I would be absolutely delighted, Mr Speaker. What is this all about? This is about covering up the legacy of those opposite—the highest underlying inflation in 16 years. The member for Wentworth will say anything and do anything in his quest to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition, to get a cheap headline, to tell a lie about a particular figure, to distort and attack the head of the Treasury. He will do anything. Last night in the House he declared that the battle against inflation was ‘mission accomplished’.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I ask him to withdraw the comment about the lie.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will withdraw.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Those opposite do not want to front up to their legacy, a legacy of incompetence, which produced the highest underlying inflation in 16 years—recognised by the IMF, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank—and they cannot live with their dreadful legacy.
Economy
2060
2060
14:38:00
Raguse, Brett, MP
HVQ
Forde
ALP
1
Mr RAGUSE
—My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer further outline the need for disciplined fiscal policy in the current inflationary environment?
2060
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. This government is committed to delivering strong surpluses, getting government spending back under control and targeting investment to increase the productive capacity of our economy, because that is what is required in the fight against inflation—a fight the opposition do not recognise. They argue that inflation in this economy commenced on Monday morning, 26 November last year. The truth is that it did not. It has been on the march for a couple of years. That is what the Reserve Bank says, that is what the Treasury says, and they certainly cannot live with it. Part of the reason is that spending got out of control. Spending increases under this government have been at the highest level in any four-year period in the last 15 years. That is the legacy of the member for Higgins, who complained to Mr Howard’s biographers that he could not control the previous Prime Minister. The result of that has been eight interest rate rises in the last three years. That is their legacy. We are determined to put in place our five-point plan to tackle inflation and to look after Australian families who need some relief.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
2060
Distinguished Visitors
2060
14:40:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today Judy Maddigan, the former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Victoria, who is accompanied by Liz Beattie, the member for Yuroke, and Khalil Eideh, the member for Western Metropolitan Province. In addition, we have in the gallery Steve Dubois, a former member of this House. I warmly welcome them all.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2060
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
2060
2060
14:40:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is also to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that, between the election and last Saturday, the average price of petrol has increased by 4c a litre in Sydney, 4.8c a litre in Melbourne, 4.9c a litre in Brisbane and 7.1c a litre in Adelaide? Will the Treasurer advise the House what flow-on impact this petrol increase, along with the new tax on diesel for trucks, will have on grocery prices?
2060
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question because we do take cost of living pressures very seriously on this side of the House, unlike those opposite who did not take them seriously for 11 years, which is why we have a petrol commissioner in place in the ACCC. It feeds into inflation; there is no doubt about that. That is why we on this side of the House will take every possible action that we can take to put downward pressure on prices and make sure that markets are competitive.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: how can the Treasurer suggest to the Australian people that the petrol commissioner has already started work when he hasn’t?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Dickson will resume his seat, and the Leader of the House will resume his seat. A point of order is not an invitation to come to the dispatch box to debate the point. The member for Dickson knows that full well and should not adopt that as a habit.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Aston will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Aston then left the chamber.
Economy
2061
2061
14:42:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
Mr PERRETT
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister outline the growth in government spending over recent years? What efforts have been made to cut government spending in previous years, and what steps is the government taking to cut spending now? What is the government’s response to proposals for new spending?
2061
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—Inflation is at the highest level that Australia has experienced in 16 years and it is being fuelled by government spending, which is running at a 4½ per cent increase in real terms in the current financial year. Treasury analysis published last week gave us some indication as to why this is the case. It showed that over the past four budgets the former Liberal government virtually had no savings initiatives at all. Only about five per cent of the total new initiatives in the budget over the past four years constituted savings. In other words, in the budgets for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, roughly 95 per cent was new spending and five per cent was savings. The Treasury document shows, when you get to the 2007 budget, that the savings bar on the graph is so tiny you can barely see it. That is one of the key reasons why we have an inflation problem in this country, and that is one of the problems that this government is committed to tackling.
Unfortunately, not much has changed on the other side. They do not believe that this is a problem. They do not believe there is an inflation problem. The member for Wentworth has said it is all a fairytale. The Leader of the National Party thinks the solution to the problem is to increase spending. And they are still advocating further increases in government spending. Recently we got a very interesting proposal for a new piece of very substantial government spending from the member for Mayo, the last of the Bourbons, in an article in the Adelaide Advertiser headed ‘Build us a beacon’, in which he put forward his view about what the government should be spending its money on. He called on the government to build:
... the most innovative, unique, attractive art museum in the southern hemisphere—
in Adelaide, with:
... a 1000-seat concert hall—
designed by Frank Gehry or Norman Foster; a building that would:
... excite the world in the way presidential monuments like the Pompidou Centre or the Quai Branly museum do in France.
And, of course, he suggested that it should be built in the hills, to keep the riffraff out, as well! The member for Mayo did raise some concerns about the cost, and I quote:
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer interjecting—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House will come to order. The minister for finance has the call.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—The member for Mayo did express some concern about the cost. He said:
OK, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars ... maybe $300 million. That’s a lot. And I’m not a big government advocate by any means. ... The State and Federal governments could both contribute and the cost would be spread over several years.
It must have been a very, very long lunch. And this is not the only profligate lunch that has been occurring recently. I understand that a number of members of the opposition were spotted having lunch at Timmy’s today while the Leader of the Opposition was actually giving his speech. The member for Indi, the member for Mackellar, the member for Hume, the member for Dickson—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question was clearly about government spending.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cowper is the winner in a lottery. The minister will come back to the question and not give us dining notes of ‘Around Canberra today’.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—I am not sure if the member for Wentworth was present at the lunch, Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will get back to the question.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—He was certainly there in spirit, as the Prime Minister indicated. I have been critical of the National Party’s attitude to government spending in this place on odd occasions, but—
Opposition members interjecting—
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—It’s about government spending!
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Both the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice are explicit: the minister should not be referring to party activities or party policies and if, in this case, the minister wants to continue down this path, we will feel free to ask questions about the Labor Party and its—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney knows that he went—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! When both sides of the chamber come to order, I will give the minister the call.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—Mr Speaker, I have been critical of the Leader of the National Party for his attitude to government spending in recent times, but I would have to say this in his defence: at least his monument, the Fishing Hall of Fame, was only going to cost the taxpayer $3 million. The member for Mayo’s monument, the one that he is proposing, is $300 million. His answer and the Liberal Party’s answer to all of those Australians who are out there suffering higher prices in groceries, higher rents or higher mortgage payments and who are worried about inflation is, ‘Let them eat cake.’ That is the position that the Liberal Party and the member for Mayo put in this bizarre spending proposal.
That is not the position of the government. We accept there is a serious challenge here for the Australian government to get inflation back into the Reserve Bank target band. We accept that there is a serious challenge for this government to get government spending down to a reasonable level, not at a 4½ per cent real terms increase per annum. And most particularly, we accept that it is critical that government spending is directed to investments that will build the economic capacity of this nation for the long term, for our children—the infrastructure and skills that will generate high levels of productivity, economic growth and wellbeing for future Australians.
Tree of Knowledge
2062
2062
14:49:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question follows on from the answer just given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, but the question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer the minister to the government’s decision to spend $2.5 million on the unions’ so-called ‘Tree of Knowledge’ and the conservation of a dead tree situated in Barcaldine. Does the minister regard spending millions of dollars on a dead tree as an appropriate use of government funding?
2063
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I am very pleased to get a question from the shadow minister opposite. And I am particularly pleased to get a question about the Tree of Knowledge—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question has been asked!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—in Barcaldine in Queensland because indeed it was the former Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell—rest his soul—who listed the Tree of Knowledge on the National Heritage List on 26 January 2006. I can understand that they did not check with former Senator Campbell before they asked the question, but maybe they should have checked with the member for Flinders, because this is what the member for Flinders, who knows his history, had to say on 28 January 2006:
Heritage and Environment parliamentary secretary Greg Hunt said the 150-year-old tree, 1000km northwest of Brisbane, had played a major role in Australia’s political and regional history—
‘a major role’!
But there is more. They could have spoken to the local member, the member for Maranoa, about what he thinks about the project, because the member for Maranoa said that he was pleased to see the historic symbol awarded such an honour. He said: ‘The Tree of Knowledge reminds’—
Opposition members interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I bet he is not supporting the amalgamation.
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My support was at the time the tree was alive.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member knows it is not a point of order.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question was asked; it was in order. The response being given is in order. The chamber will listen to the response in silence.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was a good question. The National Party is full of deadwood, but we do not worry about it. We do not say that you should not be represented here.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will get back to the question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—We think that is fine. There is more. This is what Senator Campbell had to say about the killing of the tree. On 21 May 2006, with appropriate respect for an iconic heritage listed site, he said:
We condemn the action and we will work closely with the Queensland Government to make sure this site—
wait for it—
is properly protected and the history properly commemorated.
I understand why we, on this side of the House, have 117 years of proud history and know what we stand for. Those on the other side of the House do not even know the name of their amalgamated party. The National Party is full of deadwood. The Liberal Party is all over the shop. We understand why they object to the commemoration of this historic site. But this historic site is important not just for the local community as an important tourist attraction but also to all those who want to understand the important history of this nation. That is why Labor has committed funding to support the ongoing protection and establishment of a memorial at the site, the interpretation of the Australian Tree of Knowledge story within the Australian Workers Heritage Centre, and the creation of a theme pathway to enable visitors to walk to the memorial and to facilitate access to the museum and town. We stand by this project and our history. You stand for nothing.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I hope in future that the minister will direct his remarks through the chair and not to the chair, as he did in his conclusion.
Workplace Relations
2064
2064
14:56:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
Mr SULLIVAN
—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on the disposal of Work Choices paraphernalia? What does the future hold for the 97,898 mousepads created for the Work Choices promotion?
2064
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I think it is interesting that this question should come in a context where members opposite are trying to feign some interest in the effectiveness of government spending, because when they were in government apparently it was entirely appropriate, as far as they were concerned, to waste $121 million on Work Choices propaganda—money ripped out of the purses and wallets of hardworking Australian taxpayers in a desperate attempt to try and pay for their re-election campaign. It is true that we do have left 97,898 mousepads. We do have that many left.
We have put out a call to the Australian people about the best way of using these surplus Work Choices mousepads like the one I am holding up here. We have received some very interesting suggestions. One member of the public has suggested that they would be good under-floor insulation for public buildings. You lay them face up, pour concrete over the top of them and then you walk on them. That is one suggestion we have had, and I think it is a pretty good one. Another is that they could be cut up to make feet for chairs and stoppers for cabinets because of the spongy nature of the material. A third suggestion is that you could use the back, decorate it and then use it as a placemat—also a very good suggestion. We have had mothers suggesting that they could take a cookie cutter, cut out a shape and spray paint it to make a good decoration for a child’s bedroom. We have had schools and craft groups approach us for using mouse mats for a comparable purpose.
For all those Australians who detested Work Choices, who wanted to see it gone, who believed it was an offence to Australian values and that the Liberal Party’s extremism should not be allowed to stand, there is the suggestion that we stamp ‘cancelled’ over them, and they could be a good piece of memorabilia. The suggestions from the public do not end there. We have had suggestions for mudflaps, stubby holders or putting mousepads together so that you could have enough to make a yoga mat.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A question to you: is the sustained use of a piece of material like this appropriate within the standing orders?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The incidental use of objects—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—It is quite easy for me to rule the way you wish to predict by doing that, but I was about to say that the incidental use of objects is in order and it probably is being overdone.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am at least assured that, if I happen to accidentally break this one, there are plenty more where it came from.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Prime Minister will get back to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Then of course there is the suggestion that they be used as the bottom for green shopping bags, something the minister for the environment would approve of, giving you a nice firm surface at the bottom of your green shopping bag. We have had the suggestion that they could be used for notice boards, shin pads for soccer, innersole pads for shoes, doormats or, my personal favourite, floor liners for portaloos—a good use of Work Choices surplus mousepads.
I am reassured, having sought advice, that, under the provisions of the Financial Management Act, an official or a minister can make a gift of this property on the basis that it was acquired as a gift. Well, it was not really a gift, was it, when Australian taxpayers paid for it. But we are in a circumstance where we can provide mousepads to those who ask for them. On that basis we will be providing 5,000 mousepads to the Mental Health Activity and Learning Centre, who are planning to cut them up because of the colours and use them in a large mural. We will also be forwarding a large number of mousepads to two schools who have requested a bulk number, no doubt to use in art and craft classes.
We are continuing to collect expressions of interest from members of the public. We have a lot of mousepads to get rid of, so we are going to need a few more good suggestions—so please send them in. We are also asking for suggestions about what to do with the 77,000 pens and the 100,000 plastic folders we have left over from the excess of the extremists in workplace relations who sit opposite.
Bonnie Babes Foundation
2065
2065
15:02:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the answer given by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in relation to the Prime Minister’s decision to provide $2½ million for the preservation of the dead union tree at Barcaldine and, on the other hand, the decision by the Prime Minister not to provide $800,000 to the Bonnie Babes Foundation, which is based in Melbourne and provides counselling and support to 12,000 Australian women who have suffered miscarriages and stillborn babies. I ask the Prime Minister: is he aware that one in four pregnant Australian women will lose her baby to miscarriage? Is he aware that one in 200 will suffer a stillbirth? And, further to his answer when I asked him about this earlier, is he aware that Lifeline refers callers who have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth to this service? Will he now agree to meet these women and provide them with the $800,000 that they desperately need to support Australian women in distress?
2065
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—When it comes to the needs of women in these terrible circumstances and their families, suffering miscarriage, suffering from still births, of course every level of humane service should be provided. These are very difficult and awful times for families to go through. There are a range of services out there in the community that provide services to women and to families, one of which is Bonnie Babes—I will come back to that in a minute—another of which is Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Support Australia, SANDS. Then there is SIDS and Kids and the Stillbirth Foundation. When it comes to the application which was made to the previous government for funding by the organisation Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Support Australia, SANDS, no support was forthcoming from the previous government. That is just a fact.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question has been asked.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Secondly, on the question of the Bonnie Babes Foundation, let the record again speak for itself: this organisation, which I am absolutely confident does great work, was not funded by the previous government in previous budgets. The previous government made a pre-election commitment on it but there was no flow of funding to the organisation by the previous government during its period in office. Therefore, the challenge that we are presented with is: how do we effectively ensure that women who need these critical services are provided with proper counselling and support across the range of agencies that exist? The responsible course of action, both in these areas and also when it comes to postnatal depression, is to ensure that we have a proper examination right across the sector. The minister has already announced a way to do that. And, in the context of that examination, the minister will be actively consulting with Bonnie Babes and with the other organisations—SANDS, SIDS and Kids and the Stillbirth Foundation—to make sure that we get the best set of services possible for women who are dealing with these extraordinary challenges.
We are talking about an amount of money that has been put forward by Bonnie Babes, and there are requests by others as well. I find it remarkable that those opposite, when it comes to the overall balance in the allocation of government funding, could have happily spent $120-plus million on taxpayer funded advertising on Work Choices. When it comes to that $121 million my strong suggestion to those opposite is that it would have been much better spent right across public health, right across dental health. Instead of abolishing the Commonwealth Dental Health Scheme, why did you not dedicate those funds to the proper delivery of dental services, to the whole raft of perinatal and postnatal services, to the health sector in general? Instead, the former government invested $121 million in an area of spending which could only be described as political propaganda.
In addressing these areas of need, community organisations, non-government organisations and organisations that deliver important services, such as Bonnie Babes, are to be commended. The minister will be consulting with these organisations during the course of her review. We will make sure that the proper delivery of funding to support these critical services for women experiencing these distressing circumstances is met into the future.
Problem Gambling
2066
2066
15:08:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
Mr CHAMPION
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the government’s efforts to address problem gambling and any other approaches to this issue?
2066
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question. He, like so many others in this House, really understands that problem gambling wrecks so many lives. People who are addicted to gambling know, unfortunately, that it is a very dangerous and damaging drug. It wrecks families and it wrecks workplaces. So many people in Australia are suffering from it. It is hard to believe that, on a per capita basis, Australia has roughly five times as many gaming machines as the United States. We certainly know that there are no easy solutions. There is a mountain of challenges that we have to address when confronting this difficult area.
Just today, the Prime Minister met with Tim Costello to discuss some of the ways in which this very difficult issue should be tackled. Key to tackling this problem has to be working with a very wide range of stakeholders. I will be convening a meeting of the Ministerial Council on Gambling. Those opposite might be aware that the council was originally established in 1999. It is made up of state and territory gambling ministers and is chaired by the Commonwealth. When this council was originally established, the then Prime Minister said that the council would ‘focus on stopping further expansion of gambling in Australia’. It is amazing then that the council has not met since 2006. I say to those opposite: how on earth can a council stop the expansion of gambling if it does not meet?
Unfortunately, it is the case that the Howard government’s inaction on gambling did not stop there. In fact, its record reads like an expose of how little the previous government cared about this very, very serious social and economic menace. Let us go through some of the things that the Howard government said it would do. It said that it would establish a national advisory body and it then disbanded it in 2003. In addition, a ministerial working group to consider access to cash in gaming venues was dissolved in 2006. It is hardly surprising that the state governments in South Australia and Victoria gave up waiting on the Howard government to do anything and had to act on their own accord to limit access to cash machines in gambling venues. You would think that the previous government worked overtime not to do anything about problem gambling.
However, it does seem that there was quite a spurt of activity back in 2003. Back then, the Howard government did think about running a national campaign on problem gambling. Just one example of its thinking was the $1.1 million it spent on getting an agency to develop storyboards for another creative content campaign. An amount of $1.1 million was spent on these creative storyboards. I am sure that the Minister for Health and Ageing is very interested in what the previous government spent $1.1 million on. This is what it actually spent the money on. The Minister for Health and Ageing rightly says, ‘And then what happened?’ Absolutely nothing. The former government wasted $1.1 million on these pictures and presentations about possible ideas for an advertising campaign to help encourage people to stop gambling, and nothing came of it—a waste of $1.1 million with zero to show for it. It just goes to show that this previous government did absolutely nothing to deal with what is a very, very serious social and economic menace in this country—and we intend to do something about it.
Beijing AustChina Technology
2067
2067
15:13:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
Mr ROBB
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer the minister to the tabled pecuniary interest register. I refer the minister to his five trips: to China on 16 October 2005, to China on 3 July 2006, to Beijing and Hong Kong on 21 September 2006, to Hong Kong on 19 April 2007 and to Hong Kong and Beijing on 10 July 2007—all of which were paid for by the Chinese company Beijing AustChina Technology. I ask the minister: what was the purpose of these five trips to China covering 31 days over this 21-month period? Has the minister had any contact with Beijing AustChina Technology since becoming Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry?
2067
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—As the member opposite knows full well, the reason he has those dates and the reason he has that information is that it was all declared in due time in the appropriate course on the public register. As the former minister also would be fully aware, it being my first term in parliament, there would be no public money available if I were to do any overseas travel relative to my portfolio. To have private sponsorship was the only way that that was able to be done.
Opposition member interjecting—
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—I noticed the interjection from the member of the Nationals just then as I was saying that. The member of the Nationals would remember seeing me at the Boao conference, which he attended with me. We were both there at the Boao conference on Hainan Island in China. Of course, the Leader of the Nationals was at that conference with me, paid for by the Australian taxpayer. But I was there at the same conference, attending the same meetings, listening to the same speeches from the world leaders who were present. I do not begrudge that the taxpayer paid that, but obviously, as a shadow minister, the only opportunity in my first term to be able to attend those meetings—
Opposition members interjecting—
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—The question asked about the meetings. I am letting you know. Why don’t you just ask Warren?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The point of order relates to relevance. This is a very serious question about five paid trips, the association between the minister and the Beijing AustChina Technology company, which is based in China, and his relationship with them now—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—The Leader of the Nationals would also know a fair bit about that company, given that they have sat on the main table at National Party fundraisers next to him.
Also, when the trips were detailed then, I noticed that the trip to Manila was not referred to. I think that is just as important to mention on the public record. When I travelled through Manila, that was disclosed as well. The reason for that, of course, was that that was the opportunity to meet with the 55 remaining members of the stateless Vietnamese who had been waiting for a durable solution for some 20 years at that point. Other meetings that took place during that time included meeting Henry Tang, of Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong office of Fragomen, the largest immigration business in the world. Obviously I had some significant interest in trying to get to the bottom of some very significant rorts in immigration that were coming out of China at that time with respect to the 457 visa. The list of meetings goes on from that, but, as I say, this is all available and on the public record. That is why you are able to ask the question. That is why it was disclosed according to the rules of the parliament each step of the way.
Heatwave
2068
2068
15:17:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is also to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the effects of the latest heatwave in South Australia and south-eastern Victoria?
2068
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I note that we have now had more than 200 questions in this House, and we are yet to get a single question from that side of the House, including from the Nationals, about anything to do with agriculture—more than 200 questions, and not one about anything to do with agriculture. It is not as if there are not significant issues out there—for example, the issue that I was just asked about by the member for Kingston.
Look at the impact of climate change. I know there is a consensus that has emerged over the last 10 years for those opposite, and it is essentially this: climate change has definitely been happening for the last three months. That is about the level of consensus on climate change. You talk to anyone in South Australia at the moment working the land. They are living climate change. The heatwave that has just been endured has been described and reported today by one scientist as a one-in-3,000-year event.
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—It’s called weather, not climate change.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—The member for Kalgoorlie says, ‘Ah, it’s just the weather.’ Member for Kalgoorlie, come in spinner, because the scientists around the world have acknowledged what I thought the members opposite had at least understood for the last three months.
I had the opportunity to talk to Wayne Cornish, the President of the South Australian Farmers Federation, shortly before question time. He took me through some of the devastation which is being felt through this heatwave. Let us make no mistake: we have just had in South Australia 15 consecutive days at more than 35-degree heat. Wayne Cornish took me through the impact on various industries. There has been significant sunburn on salad vegetables, lettuces and leeks. Because of the nature of that produce, the turnover tends to be quick enough that they will not be as hard hit as others. From the apple and pear growers, for the crops that were still available in that part of horticulture, the image was given of granny smith apples that should at this stage be completely green but, after the last fortnight, are completely brown on one side. But no area has been harder hit than viticulture. The member for Kingston is very much aware of the impact on viticulture in her seat. The wine grape growers who had not yet found space to get to the crushing plants have either seen the crops wither on the vine or are now facing critical sugar levels which they are having to continue to monitor.
Virtually every industry in agriculture is affected. Because the areas affected have already been declared for exceptional circumstances payments, farmers in the worst affected regions are eligible for EC support. They should contact the National Drought Hotline on 132316, and the South Australian Rural Financial Counselling Service is also available.
I met with senior officials from my department today to work out how we can do more to work through not just adaptation but better preparation. We know that on climate change there has been much discussion—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—I acknowledge the member for Flinders—there has been much discussion as though climate change is only about water. It is not just that. An important part of it is an increase in the severity and frequency of major weather events. That is what is happening right now in South Australia. It is tremendously important that both sides of the House live up to the rhetoric that we heard at the National Press Club today and acknowledge that climate change is real and that we as a parliament and we as a government have an obligation to help people working the land to prepare for the future.
Prime Minister: Visit to Sudan
2069
2069
15:22:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
Mr ROBB
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his answers to questions yesterday regarding his travel to Sudan, China, the USA and the UK in 2006, fully funded by Beijing AustChina Technology. I ask the Prime Minister: will he release all emails, correspondence, cables or other memorandums from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that relate to this trip?
2069
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—On this visit: as I said yesterday, it was to deal with the matters that the honourable member raised. First of all, in the case of Sudan, it was about the crisis in western Darfur. The itinerary I had for that visit has the following: arriving Khartoum 5.35 in the morning; head off to the United Nations mission; then off to the United States embassy; call on the Charge d’Affaires,Cameron Hume; depart the United States embassy for the National Assembly; call on key National Assembly figures, including the Speaker; then head off to the World Food Program compound; then head off to an informal dinner with representatives of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police. There are about 20 of them on deployment there, in an important continuing peacekeeping operation. That was the first day. The following day, I have here: meeting with World Vision project officer. Then I had dinner with the then visiting Irish Ambassador, Richard O’Brien, who had recently been appointed here in Canberra. Then there was a visit—and I do not have the page for that—to western Darfur itself. The host organisation was World Vision. In fact I mentioned it briefly in my discussion with Tim Costello today. This is completely normal and, as I said before, if the then government seriously have reservations about the sponsorship from this company, why does the now opposition contain within its ranks the National Party, who received $100,000 worth of funding?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked to release all Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade correspondence relating to this trip where he was accompanied by a member of the department. It was specifically about that.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member has repeated the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—If the now opposition and then government have reservations about sponsorship from this particular company, why is it that the now opposition and then government, including the National Party within that government, were perfectly happy to receive $100,000 worth of political donations?
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. He was asked about documentation. He has not spoken about that documentation at all. Will he release it or not?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Has the Prime Minister finished?
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the Prime Minister table the itinerary from which he was reading.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Was the Prime Minister reading from a document? Is the document confidential?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The document is confidential.
Alcohol Abuse
2070
2070
15:26:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
Ms SAFFIN
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister please inform the House what action is being taken to tackle binge drinking by young people, and how can local communities get involved?
2070
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—As members of this House and many members of the public who have been contacting us about the announcement made by the Prime Minister last week would be aware, the Rudd Labor government have committed $53 million to tackle teenage binge drinking. We have in this House previously outlined three components of that initiative, including further details that were provided last week when the Prime Minister, the Minister for Youth and Sport and I met with the heads of several of Australia’s major sporting codes. What I would like to address today, going to the question the member for Page asked—and I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the House have a particular interest in this—is this: what are the ways that local communities can get involved and be part of the solution to this significant problem? We have allocated $7 million of the $14½ million that we are investing in community level initiatives to support a range of local solutions to these problems. I would like to invite and encourage all members to start talking within their local communities—whether it is to P&C committees, whether it is to the local police, whether it is to clubs, schools or maybe even local councils or to others who have ideas—about ways that local community solutions and projects could be supported in order to tackle this problem and get a good strong message through to young people that this is something that is harming their health, harming the community, causing a lot of grief and suffering and if permanent damage to their health is done it will not be able to be undone in the future.
It is interesting. We were very pleased that, when we announced the policy, the Leader of the Opposition supported it. The Leader of the Opposition was very clear in saying that he thought we were living in a society where we have to do everything we can to educate young people, to educate our children, about the dangers of binge drinking. But this morning, two weeks later, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition no longer believes that young people binge drinking is an issue. He was on the radio this morning saying that he is concerned that there is a risk that we are in some way assigning blame to young people in relation to their binge drinking. This is not an issue just about blame—although I do accept that, if anyone was going to recognise blame, it would be those on that side of the House, who constantly want to blame others for their inactivity. This is not about blame, but it is about responsibility. It is about explaining to young people that they need to take responsibility for their actions, that they do have consequences. It is about making it clear to them that we are here to help but that they too need to make good choices in their lives. We need to be working with local communities and those who can take leadership roles—whether it is sportspeople, whether it is the local principal, whether it is the local school captain or even some of the local clubs and public sector—and want to be involved in providing decent solutions to these problems. We have put money on the table so that local communities can actually apply for some funding to support their initiatives. I am not sure why the Leader of the Opposition would have changed his tune in two weeks and decided that this is a bad idea, just when I would have thought everybody in this parliament would have been pleased to know that as local members they can start talking in their communities.
There will be an application process for local initiatives. If the member for Indi has a good idea for Wangaratta, the member for Corio has a good idea for Geelong, the member for Page has a good idea for Grafton or the member for Newcastle has a good solution for her community, those ideas will be considered, and funding can be applied for to provide good, strong initiatives in our communities and set an example for young people. This is a community-wide problem. We do not pretend that the government has all of the answers, but I feel pretty confident that, out there in all of our communities, there are people who do have some of the solutions. We want to be able to provide a mechanism for them to apply for funding so that they can use their initiative to make sure that they have an impact for young people.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I encourage the minister to refer accurately to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about it being a problem for everyone, not just young people.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—Actually, I was sure that the member for Dunkley was going to say that he would welcome this sort of funding in his electorate. I am sure in Frankston there would be a lot of community groups that would be worried about this issue. There is a busy pubs-and-clubs scene down there, and I am sure that he, along with other members of the backbench, will be applying for this funding. But, unfortunately, you will need to encourage the Leader of the Opposition to back these initiatives. It is important for us to take action, and we hope the whole House will be behind this initiative.
Workplace Relations
2072
2072
15:31:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Is the minister aware that members of the shop employees union in South Australia are complaining that, in a new collective agreement between the shop employees union and Coles Myer, terms and conditions such as penalty rates and rostered days off were negotiated away by the union secretary against the express wishes of union members? Will the minister undertake to ensure that the Workplace Ombudsman investigates these complaints, given that the union secretary who negotiated the agreement was Don Farrell, the Labor senator elect for South Australia?
2072
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition appears to be referring to a collective agreement made under Work Choices. And, yes, I agree that Work Choices is a dreadful set of laws that have hurt the Australian community. You are absolutely right. The laws that you brought to the Australian community—
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in terms of relevance. This is against the wishes of the union members in a union collective agreement.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am endeavouring to explain to the Leader of the Opposition the way in which the Work Choices laws that he supports operate. Let me explain to him the way those laws operate. An employer can make a greenfields collective agreement and just impose it on people unilaterally. That can happen under the laws that he supports. An employer can present an employee with a take-it-or-leave-it AWA which strips away basic award conditions for no compensation or no proper compensation. They are the laws that he supports. People can make collective agreements under Work Choices and, because the benchmark for those collective agreements is the so-called flawed fairness test, which the member for North Sydney spent $121 million of taxpayers’ money advertising—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—They do not like to hear about Work Choices, do they?
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was whether she is going to refer Don Farrell, the Labor senator elect for South Australia, to the Workplace Ombudsman for negotiating an agreement against the wishes—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member will resume her seat.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I will continue explaining the nature of flawed agreement making under Work Choices. For a collective agreement under Work Choices, the benchmark is the so-called ‘protected’ award conditions, which means that things can be lost without any proper compensation. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, if she is aware of anyone who has a complaint about a collective agreement-making process, they should refer that matter to the Workplace Ombudsman. But I also say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that what they will find when they go to the Workplace Ombudsman is that the Workplace Ombudsman will say to them, ‘All I can do is apply the laws’—and the laws allow working families to be ripped off. The Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for North Sydney, the member for Warringah et cetera—the list goes on and on—sat around a cabinet table and imposed these laws on the Australian community knowing that they could rip people off.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I asked a specific question. I asked whether the minister would refer a complaint by union members against the union secretary Don Farrell—the Labor senator elect for South Australia—to the Workplace Ombudsman. Will she refer that complaint?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question in totality.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Let me just say again that the Work Choices laws that were supported by the Liberal Party—the party of Work Choices—allowed people to be ripped off. In respect of the matters that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised in her question, can I just say that the opposition have not got one fact right today. I am not accepting that the so-called facts in her question are anywhere near accurate, because everything they have said today has been wrong. But I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to people in the Australian community generally that, if they do have a complaint about a collective agreement-making process, they should raise that matter with the Workplace Ombudsman. If the Workplace Ombudsman says to them, ‘I’m really sorry, but you can be ripped off because of Work Choices,’ they should ring the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about it.
Cost of Living
2073
2073
15:36:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
Ms COLLINS
—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister update the House on government initiatives in relation to the cost of groceries for working families, and will the minister outline to the House the community response to date to the ACCC’s grocery price inquiry?
2073
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr BOWEN
—The cost of groceries and the cost of petrol both play a very significant role in the family budgets of Australians. Ensuring transparency and competition in these two important sectors have been important priorities for this government. That is why the government have introduced enhanced investigatory powers for the ACCC when it comes to petrol, and that is why we are putting in place Australia’s first ever petrol commissioner, who I am pleased to inform the House will commence on 31 March, now that the consultation process with the states prescribed by the law is complete.
On the issue of groceries, the House is well aware that the government has instituted an inquiry into grocery prices by the ACCC under part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act, an inquiry that will examine every part of the supply chain from the farm gate to the checkout counter. There has been a very significant community response to the government’s grocery price inquiry. This underlines the importance of this inquiry to the general community. One hundred and thirty-eight submissions were received by the ACCC on the closing date. They are from a wide range of groups, from groups as diverse as the Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries; the Consumer Action Law Centre; the Australian National Retailers Association, who represent big retailers; the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; the Cancer Council of New South Wales; Metcash; and the Australian Beef Association. Of course it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any particular submissions—that would pre-empt the results of the inquiry—but they do cover a wide range of topics and are very substantial, each one of them. The inquiry has also been welcomed by a wide range of groups, ranging from Choice to the National Farmers Federation, which shows there are concerns about the operation of the grocery sector from both ends of the supply chain, from the farm sector to the community sector and consumers.
In addition, the ACCC has also required information from principal parties in the industry, using its formal evidence-gathering powers under section 95ZK of the Trade Practices Act. It is important to note that these are powers the ACCC did not have until this inquiry was called. The inquiry was called in order to give the ACCC these powers to seek all relevant documents and all relevant information and evidence which go to the supply chain in the grocery industry. Using this information will allow the commission to commence its public hearing processes, where witnesses will be called upon to give more detailed answers. The Chairman of the ACCC will be outlining in coming days the exact location of the hearings. But, as I have reported to the House previously, there will be a hearing in every state and territory, and they will range across metropolitan and rural areas.
The people who will be called upon to give evidence will include senior executives from every significant participant in the grocery industry supply chain. The inquiry will enable the ACCC on 31 July this year to provide the government with advice on all aspects of the grocery market and policy recommendations where appropriate. This will be the most rigorous analysis of the Australian grocery industry which has been undertaken in recent years, certainly in the last decade. This is an inquiry which will put on the table the concerns of Australian working families and seniors. This is an inquiry which will get to the bottom of what is concerning Australian consumers. It takes more than a pathetic speech at the National Press Club—a speech devoid of substance, devoid of content, with a meaningless five-point plan—to represent the needs of Australian working families and seniors; it takes a government concerned about the needs of consumers, a government prepared to act, a government in the mould of the Rudd government.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
2074
Questions to the Speaker
Question Time
2074
2074
15:42:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Given that the state funeral for Clyde Cameron has been scheduled for 11.30 am on Thursday, have you been advised of any change to the order of business for Thursday? If you have not, Mr Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the House to provide us with early warning about any proposed changes to question time on Thursday.
2074
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I have not been informed.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—We would not dream of missing one of these events. I will inform the Manager of Opposition Business when decisions are made.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
2074
Personal Explanations
2074
15:42:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—It was implied that I was lunching at Timmy’s Kitchen at lunchtime today. I was. And I was at La Campana last night. I would have thought that the members for Canberra and—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat.
DOCUMENTS
2075
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government)
15:43:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2075
Ministerial Statements
Economy
2075
2075
15:43:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
0
Mr SWAN
—The world has witnessed substantial financial market turbulence since it began in August last year, making its presence felt across markets, across nations and across continents.
It is of course most evident in the United States, but it affects all of us to a greater or lesser degree, including the hardworking families of Australia.
As global financial market turbulence has become more prolonged, Australians have become more concerned about the dimensions and possible consequences of this uncertainty.
Later this week the House will rise, and when we next meet it will be to consider the first budget of the Rudd government.
Accordingly I seek the indulgence of this House at this time to review the character, magnitude and status of recent global financial turbulence.
I will inform the House how the Commonwealth government and the relevant regulatory authorities and agencies within my portfolio are assessing the risks and monitoring these developments.
And I will offer this assessment in the wider context of where the Australian economy has come from, where it is now and where we hope to go.
When these developments began to unfold eight months ago, the central concern was around the size of the write-downs that major global banks would have to accept from the rapidly rising default rates in US subprime mortgages.
Within a very short time, however, it became an issue of uncertainty about the credit risks embedded in packages of mortgages bundled together by financial institutions and sold into global financial markets.
Sources of funding dried up and the market in subprime mortgages virtually closed.
Shortly thereafter the entire residential mortgage backed securities market ceased to function with the depth and liquidity that had made these securities among the most widely held financial assets over the last decade.
With financial institutions here and elsewhere unable to raise as much funds through securitisation, and with uncertainty as to the extent of exposures to losses on these assets, they began to hold on to the cash they had.
Banks here and elsewhere became more reluctant to lend to each other, except in the very short term.
Central banks in all major advanced economies, including our own, responded by offering to lend cash to banks on a much larger scale than usual, accepting as security a wider range of financial assets.
Towards the end of last year it appeared the crisis was beginning to ease as the US Federal Reserve responded by cutting the cash rate and supporting the liquidity of financial institutions.
However, as financial institutions sought to finalise positions prior to Christmas, spreads began to widen once more.
As we entered the new year, renewed concerns in financial markets were coupled with increasingly convincing signs that economic activity in the US was sharply slowing.
Equity prices across the world declined, as did the US dollar, and banks once again became reluctant to part with cash.
The US Federal Reserve responded with a large cut in the cash rate in January and more recently has taken action to provide further liquidity to the market.
The prolonged uncertainty took its toll as exposed financial institutions, those with illiquid assets and short-term liabilities, came under increasing pressure.
In Australia we experienced a fresh episode of funding dislocation this year, which we have seen in a wider premium of wholesale market rates over the cash rate.
In the US market, concern moved on from household mortgages to the risks of dealing with investment banks which might have difficulty accessing liquidity.
Just this week the US’s fifth largest investment bank was absorbed into a larger competitor after it encountered mounting liquidity problems.
I do not want to downplay the severity of the global financial developments.
Nor do I wish to say that they have no impact on us.
On the contrary, there is no doubt Australia’s financial system has been affected by the global financial circumstances.
The residential mortgage backed securities market is no longer functioning in an effective way.
This is true more generally for most asset backed paper markets, here and elsewhere.
Where Australian financial institutions had been very successful in bundling streams of mortgage income to sell as securities offshore, they now have been obliged to seek other sources of funding.
In recent weeks there has been renewed stress in global short-term bank funding markets.
This is in addition to the continued difficulties in term and securitisation markets, which have functioned under considerable strains for some months.
Funding costs have continued to increase.
Though markedly narrower than it was a week ago, the spread between the Australian 90-day bank bill rate and the cash rate is still around 60 basis points—somewhat wider than the usual spread.
Australian banks have continued to issue in offshore markets, though at higher spreads than were previously the case.
This has led to higher costs of borrowing for businesses and higher mortgage rates for households.
The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority is closely monitoring the impact of developments in our banking sector.
Its focus is on ensuring that all institutions have adequate plans in place if the market turbulence continues.
Despite increased issuance in domestic and international bond markets in the early months of this year by major Australian banks, further instances of market turbulence cannot be ruled out.
Problem loans are still very low by historical and international standards, however, and Australia’s corporate debt-to-equity ratio remains at historically low levels.
The turmoil in global financial markets has not unduly restricted the total supply of finance to our economy, with strong growth in bank lending more than offsetting the reductions in corporate bond issuance, and in lending to households by mortgage originators.
As the House will be well aware, the Commonwealth government and its regulatory agencies are charged by this parliament with the responsibility to protect the stability of the financial system on which this economy depends.
My department, the agencies within my portfolio and the government have been following the global market developments with an eagle eye.
We are in close and continuous contact with financial markets here and offshore.
I have been in almost daily discussion on this topic: with our central bank, with the regulatory authorities and with the leadership of the financial community.
I have consulted with my counterparts in Europe and North America.
Only last Thursday the secretary of my department met with his colleagues in the Australian Council of Financial Regulators to discuss all of these developments.
While we are alert to the impacts on our economy, I would point out to the House that the circumstances of our financial institutions are different from those in the United States.
While the 12 consecutive rate rises since 2002 have undoubtedly taken a toll on household budgets, we are not experiencing the same levels of mortgage defaults that are now occurring in the United States.
While it is important that we recognise the severity, duration and possible consequences of the global financial turbulence, we should also recognise that Australia’s circumstances are more favourable than those elsewhere.
We are not in the least bit complacent about the circumstances of the Australian economy, but we do recognise that we have strengths on which we need to build.
The very clear differences between Australia’s circumstances and those of some other economies bring me to my second theme.
This is the issue of what economic policy strategy is appropriate in Australia’s current circumstances.
One of those circumstances is the financial turbulence which I have already described.
But that is by no means the only circumstance which I am taking into account in shaping policy in the run-up to the budget over the next couple of months.
I want to now offer the House my assessment of some other important aspects of our economy.
Our economy’s strength in recent times has been supported by large rises in the prices of our commodity exports.
Australian output growth through the last year was just under four per cent.
But while we have high prices for our commodities, over the last few years our export performance still has been weak.
It is a surprising but undeniable fact that Australian exports have been growing only slowly over most of this decade, at least in terms of volumes.
Our export volumes have grown at an average annual rate of just 1.9 per cent in the seven years since 2000, compared to an average annual rate of 6.9 per cent over the preceding seven years.
This slowdown in export volumes growth has occurred despite strong world growth over this period and against a backdrop of a once-in-a-generation terms of trade boom.
It is clear this performance is more a reflection of supply side constraints, rather than a lack of demand for our exports.
The slowdown in export growth also goes hand in hand with the slowdown in productivity growth.
Driven by strong global demand for our metals, minerals and energy exports, our terms of trade have risen to 50-year highs.
While the resource-rich states of Western Australia and Queensland have experienced the largest direct benefits from the terms of trade, the impact has been felt across the whole of our economy.
The rising terms of trade have provided a significant external stimulus to the economy—adding something like 1½ percentage points each year to the growth of Australia’s gross domestic income over the last four years.
Demand created by this strong growth in income has outpaced increases in the economy’s supply capacity. This has contributed to inflationary pressures.
While there is considerable uncertainty around the medium-term outlook for non-rural commodity prices, recently settled contracts and market expectations for iron ore and coal suggest further support for the terms of trade in the period ahead.
While further gains in our terms of trade could be expected to continue to support domestic activity, they also present further challenges for an economy already pushing up against its capacity.
It is sometimes said, including in this place, that an upswing in mining output from Western Australia and Queensland must be at the expense of Victoria and New South Wales.
This was quite evident in conversation with my state colleagues last week. However, they do not necessarily see it that way.
While Queensland and Western Australia are expecting remarkable increases in the production and transport of iron ore and coal in particular, New South Wales and Victoria are not despondent about the outlook.
Some talk loosely about a two-track economy, but New South Wales’s final demand increased by over 4.5 per cent last year, and overseas exports from New South Wales increased by over four per cent.
Exports increased more in New South Wales over that same period than in Victoria or Queensland or Western Australia and, of course, were well above the national average.
Over the same period Victorian final demand increased over five per cent.
Unemployment in New South Wales is 4.2 per cent and in Victoria 4.1 per cent, in both cases the lowest outcomes in 30 years of data.
These are not numbers which suggest considerable gloom in either state.
With the right policies, growth in the resource-rich states of Western Australia and Queensland does not have to be incompatible with growth in New South Wales and Victoria.
A good deal of the increased income from mining will be distributed locally as higher employment and, consequently, higher local spending.
But some of it will be distributed through the rest of the country as higher government revenue or as returns to shareholders.
It is our task to think through all of these challenges, as we are doing in the run-up to the budget, and get the balance of policy right.
Given the challenges we confront, the Rudd government has twin objectives in economic policy, which it is pursuing with equal vigour.
One is primarily about the next year or two, and the other is primarily about the next decade.
It would be quite wrong to suggest to the House that our first May budget will accomplish both objectives immediately.
On the contrary, we are now planning the architecture of at least three budgets, each closely related to its predecessor and each taking us a bit further down the road towards our twin objectives.
The first objective is of course the gradual moderation of inflation from the rate of four per cent or so, which the Reserve Bank expects to see in the year to March, to within the target band.
And we will be doing what we can through budget policy and through other measures to make the Reserve Bank’s job less difficult.
That is why we have a five-point plan to fight inflation which includes a surplus target of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2008-09.
The second objective is to modernise our economy.
This includes the removal of constraints in our physical infrastructure of roads, bridges, ports, water and energy.
It includes a big improvement in Australian education, from preschool to our centres of higher education, to compete with the best in the world.
It includes more and better training in skills to improve the quality and size of our workforce.
And it also includes taxation and childcare reforms to lift labour force participation to reward hardworking families for all of their efforts.
These are big jobs, but we are clear about what we want to do and we will deliver on all of our election commitments to Australians.
We have already laid foundations with the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, the provision of an additional 450,000 high-quality training places, the decision to better resource technical training in schools and the plans we have in hand with our counterparts in COAG, of which I will have more to say on another occasion.
The government seeks an effective balance between our two objectives.
We cannot rebuild the nation’s economic infrastructure in one budget. Building world-class education systems, modernising our infrastructure and tackling skills shortages will take some time.
And our new policies will need to be carefully implemented so that we do not further complicate demand pressures in the economy.
But we also recognise that tackling inflation in the longer run is largely an issue of the capacity and the flexibility of the Australian economy.
The underlying trend increase in inflation has been apparent now for some time and it represents a failure of past government to foresee and to prepare for the inevitable consequences of the long expansion that we have enjoyed.
To control inflation we need a more responsive and flexible economy, and we will not get it without addressing our infrastructure constraints now and into the future, without world-class education at every level, without upgrading the skills and the quality of our workforce.
So in that sense our two objectives are mutually reinforcing.
Once a lower rate of inflation is achieved we will have more room to remedy the structural shortcomings which have contributed to its acceleration over recent years.
The deteriorating global outlook does present a significant risk to the Australian economy.
Businesses and households are already feeling the effects of higher interest rates which, in part, reflect global financial turmoil.
The outlook for the global economy and uncertainty in global financial markets is beyond our control, but we are vigilant.
And we remain confident that Australia’s financial institutions and our regulatory agencies are coping reasonably well with a global challenge of considerable severity.
Developments in global financial markets, combined with significant inflationary pressures in the domestic economy, reinforce our determination to build long-term productivity and growth in our economy.
We are putting all of our efforts into modernising our economy so it is strong enough and flexible enough to meet future challenges—to create the right environment for business to flourish and to deliver for the working families of our nation.
Mr BYRNE
(Holt
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister)
16:01:00
—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Wentworth speaking for a period not exceeding 17½ minutes.
Question agreed to.
2080
16:02:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I welcome the statement by the Treasurer on the crisis in international credit markets. The Treasurer has summarised the history of the development of the crisis, and I will not go over the same ground again other than to make some observations about the different nature of this credit crisis relative to previous episodes consequent upon periods of imprudent lending. Over the last 20 years, we have seen the development of enormous markets for securitising debt of all kinds. Residential mortgages are very much the focus of attention at the moment, but the securitisation markets cover all debt classes. This has enabled a substantial increase in competition in all debt markets, and Australian home buyers have especially benefited from this. Since the early 1990s, the range of lenders has continued to expand as balance sheets could be effectively outsourced to the public markets via securitisation.
What we have seen, as the Treasurer observed, is a global shutdown of those securitisation markets. Since the beginning of this year, for example, and according to Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank Guy Debelle, speaking on 5 March, there has only been one successful securitisation of Australian residential mortgage backed securities. This credit crunch has seen some second-tier mortgage lenders pulling out of the business, including Macquarie Bank, and others dramatically curtailing their lending. The consequence is that, whereas six months ago the top five banks had around two-thirds of the Australian mortgage market, perhaps a little less, now they are believed to have over 90 per cent of that market. The major banks have continued lending but in doing so have been obliged, as the Treasurer noted, to access the wholesale debt markets directly. The availability of credit does not yet appear to be unduly constrained in Australia but, as the assistant governor observed recently, the major banks have been picking up the slack from the closed public markets. Corporates that financed themselves directly from the public markets are now borrowing from the banks directly—a process of reintermediation—and that is coming with an increased cost of credit. A number of banks’ CEOs have talked about credit rationing. What that means, of course, is that credit terms will be tighter and the cost of credit will be higher. This is one of the factors that feeds into the considerations by the Reserve Bank on interest rate adjustments in particular and inflation in general.
The closure of these securitisation markets has been particularly unfair to the Australian market. Our residential mortgage market is of a considerably higher credit quality than that in the United States. In that sense, in Australia we are all being tarred with the same brush. Residential mortgage backed securities are out of fashion, to say the least, and there does not seem to be a lot of discrimination in the markets at the moment; there has been such a collapse in confidence. It is worth noting that the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Review of March 2007 said:
The closest equivalent to sub-prime loans in Australia are non-conforming housing loans, which are provided by a few specialist non-deposit taking lenders and account for an estimated 1 per cent of all outstanding mortgages, well below the 15 per cent sub-prime share in the United States.
The reality is that the American residential mortgage market is very different from ours. It has a very large, relative to Australia, share of subprime loans. If they can be described as imprudent lending—and I think few people would disagree with that characterisation with the benefit of hindsight—then we can say that Australia’s credit culture has been a more responsible and conservative one. I was speaking only today with Paul Fegan, who is the Chief Executive of the St George Bank, our fifth biggest bank, and he noted that out of 500,000 Australian mortgages St George has issued it has got foreclosure proceedings in respect of 74. Each one of those would be a matter of great disappointment—tragedy, perhaps—to the particular borrowers, but it gives you an idea of the strength of our overall residential mortgage book. Nonetheless, the securitisation markets are as shut for Australian mortgages as they are in the United States. It is important also to remember that residential mortgages in the United States are, for all practical purposes, nonrecourse to the borrower. A homebuyer can literally give the keys back to the bank without further recourse to him for the balance of the loan.
The former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday in an article in the Financial Times that the credit crisis ‘is likely to be judged as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War’. If that is so—and let us hope it is not—it will be because of the way in which the contagion from this imprudent lending on residential mortgages, subprime mortgages, infected the whole system. This can be compared with an earlier credit crisis in the United States, in the late 1980s, when a large number of what we would call building societies, I suppose—Savings and Loans—collapsed again because of poor lending practices. In that episode, the impaired assets—the dud loans—of the S&Ls remained on their balance sheets for the most part. The United States government was able to take over the S&Ls via an entity called the Resolution Trust Corporation, so a conventional process of workout was undertaken—assets were sold, losses were realised and the market was able to function.
In this case, the economic interest—the ownership, if you like—in the subprime mortgages had been so widely sliced and diced in different forms of securitisation that the impacts of the dramatic fall in value of those assets are widespread and very difficult to predict and identify. The difficulty in identifying where the losses lie, on a mark to market basis, has dramatically undermined confidence in financial institutions. Once confidence dries up, so does credit. Confidence is critical. So we have seen central banks around the world pumping unprecedented levels of liquidity into the financial system. As the Treasurer said, we cannot be complacent here in Australia, notwithstanding our stronger financial system and our stronger credit culture. It is vital that our regulators are more attentive than ever to the health of our financial system. That is why I welcomed the statement by the Treasurer yesterday in a response to a question of mine that the Labor Party’s proposal to cut $130 million of funding from ASIC will be rescinded, at least for the next two years.
The Treasurer has taken the opportunity to recapitulate his economic policy. I will seek briefly in response to that to identify where I differ from him. Firstly, I recognise—as do we all—the importance of ensuring that inflation remains within moderate levels, by which I mean between two and three per cent on average over the cycle. That is the inflation target objective. It is in the latest objectives of monetary policy that have been agreed to by the current Treasurer and the Reserve Bank, and the target has been set out in that form since 1996, when it was put in place by Mr Costello. Despite the very considerable positive shock to our economy from the improvement in our terms of trade we have, over recent years—and in particular over the 47 quarters of the Howard government—been able to contain inflation within the target band. That is so whether you are measuring inflation as the headline CPI or as the RBA’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the trimmed mean. It is salutary to recall why we have been able to do this and it is important to be proud of that achievement and not to deny it. It was only last week that the Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens, answered the question: how have we been able to do this? He said:
Having said all that, it is important to keep some perspective about the situation in which we find ourselves. We have been living through one of the largest transformations in the structure of the global economy, as far as Australia is concerned, for a century. The rise in the terms of trade over the past five years is the biggest such event since the Korean War boom in the early 1950s ... In essence, we are seeing a very large change in relative prices in the world economy, and a relative price change that is more important to Australia, in particular, than to almost any other country. These sorts of events will always produce stresses and strains, including significant divergences in performance across industries and regions (though these are often exaggerated in popular discussion). Because the event is, overall, very expansionary, it was always likely to be associated with some risk of higher inflation.
In other words, the Reserve Bank Governor is speaking with the moderation, the objectivity and the perspective that has been so lacking in the rhetoric of the Treasurer. Therein lies my disagreement with the Treasurer. He has spoken about our economy not only in a way that is misleading in terms of our economic history but in a manner that is calculated to undermine confidence. Treasurers and central bank governors have one big thing in common: they should speak about the economy in a way that creates confidence and ensures that people have faith in our markets and in investing. Let me go on with Governor Glenn Stevens. He continued:
But given the magnitude of the shock, when all is said and done, the economy has coped pretty well so far. Yes, inflation has risen. This is a problem, and requires a suitable response from monetary policy. But compare the outcomes on this occasion with those in the commodity price booms of the early 1950s or the mid 1970s. In the early 1950s, CPI inflation reached 25 per cent, then fell back to zero within a few years, associated with quite a pronounced recession. In the mid 1970s, inflation reached about 18 per cent, and took a very long time to come down to acceptable levels. This time, we are grappling with a peak CPI inflation rate that looks like it will be around 4 per cent in CPI terms, and trying to assess how soon it can reasonably return to 2 -3 per cent. This is a far cry from the problems of yesteryear.
How different is that language? Scrupulously accurate, endorsed as comprehensively correct yesterday by the Treasurer—and yet it is night and day; that language is at complete odds with the exaggerated rhetoric of the Treasurer. The governor is seeking to inspire confidence by being accurate and measured in what he says; the Treasurer, to make a political point, is undermining confidence. The governor goes on:
The reason we are doing better this time around is not hard to fathom, either.
Well, it is pretty hard for the Treasurer to fathom—but, anyway, it is not hard for the governor or for anyone on this side to fathom.
As work in the Treasury has argued persuasively, a flexible exchange rate, a reformed and flexible industrial environment, better private-sector management and much stronger fiscal and monetary policy frameworks have made a lot of difference. The fruits of those decades of effort of reform are an economy that, for all its strains, is doing well under the circumstances.
I could not describe the economy better myself. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has spoken accurately and comprehensively about inflation and in moderate language which inspires confidence.
Why is confidence so important? As Alan Greenspan said on 12 February 1998 in his congressional testimony:
The state of confidence so necessary to the functioning of any economy has been torn asunder.
He was speaking about the circumstances of the time.
Vicious cycles of ever rising ... fears have become contagious.
… … …
Once the web of confidence, which supports the financial system, is breached, it is difficult to restore quickly.
Indeed, as Martin Feldstein, the President of the National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States said only last month: ‘Confidence is everything.’ And that is why, historically, prime ministers, treasurers and central bank governors have consistently used moderate language when speaking about the economy—for confidence can turn quickly; it can ‘turn on a dime’, as the Americans say, and as recent consumer and business confidence surveys show. We have now seen three surveys of confidence, with business confidence falling dramatically in the National Australia Bank’s survey for January 2008 and record falls in consumer sentiment in the Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey showing confidence at its lowest level since 1993. So, in 106 days under the Rudd government, business and consumer confidence have tumbled. That is a fact.
The Treasurer no doubt would say: ‘It’s not my fault. Look at all the turmoil around the world.’ Well, there is plenty of turmoil around the world. But there is something that was not there before November last year—and there was plenty of turmoil at the end of last year, and not just in electoral politics in Australia; this crisis really got underway in August of last year. The big difference is that we now have a Treasurer who speaks about the economy in a way that is calculated to undermine confidence.
He is not prepared to acknowledge that our economy is one that has been described by the Economist as the ‘wonder down under’. Our economy is one that has unemployment at a 35-year low and a participation rate at a record high. Our economy enjoyed average growth over the 11½ years of the previous government—so reviled by the Treasurer—of 3.6 per cent a year, higher than most other developed economies, including the United States and Europe. Our economy was 50 per cent larger in real terms when the coalition left government compared to when it came into government. Real wages grew 21½ per cent over those 11½ years, where they had fallen 1.8 per cent under the Hawke and Keating governments. This is a government that has no net debt and has run consistent strong surpluses. The government was praised in September last year by the IMF for its ‘exemplary macroeconomic management’. That is the track record.
I do not expect the Treasurer to become a spokesman for the previous government. I do not expect him to sing our praises. But what he does not seem to understand—and it is not that he does not know enough about the economy; I think it is that he does not have a feeling for it—is that confidence underpins everything. And when you trash your own economic history, when you say, ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle,’ that is inevitably interpreted as, ‘Inflation is out of control.’ That is interpreted as meaning that the Reserve Bank is not doing its job and that the government was not doing its job—that the system is not working. And yet, manifestly, the system is working. We want our financial system to work. We want the securitisation markets to reopen. We want Australian homebuyers to have access to more lenders to get the benefits of competition. And central to all of that is confidence, and confidence is evaporating. (Time expired)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
2084
Matters of Public Importance
Economy
2084
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Cowper proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to adequately address the impact of rising costs on struggling families.
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—
2084
16:20:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—This is a very important matter that we are discussing today. The cost of living has been affecting families right around the country. During the entire election campaign in 2007, we heard the now Prime Minister and the now Treasurer wandering the countryside talking endlessly about the cost of living and the cost of petrol. But once the election was over there was an eerie silence. They went back into their shells. They pulled down the hatches. There was an eerie silence. We went from a moral crusade about the cost of petrol and the cost of groceries to one of virtual inaction. I say ‘virtual’—I will pay them a small, ever so small, degree of credit—inaction. And what did they do? They announced an inquiry—just for something different! It was really unexpected, I thought, that they would announce an inquiry! And then they appointed a bureaucrat. So, true to form, true to type, they announced an inquiry and they appointed a bureaucrat.
The real problem is that the cost of living is vitally important to Australian families. They feel they need more than just another inquiry; they feel they need more than just another bureaucrat, because the cost of living affects every family. It affects every single parent and it affects every pensioner and self-funded retiree. Every time they visit the shops, every time they fill their plastic shopping bag with goodies, they know that the cost of living is going up, and they judge their pension, their allowance or their wage against what they can buy for the money that they have. We are not talking about luxuries; we are talking about the necessities. We are talking about putting food on the table and putting petrol in the car. We are talking about a car that has to get people to work or kids to school. We are talking about the cost of keeping a roof over people’s heads. These are questions that people are really concerned about. They are far too concerned about these questions for the government to just appoint a bureaucrat. They are far too concerned about them for the government to just start another inquiry.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—The buck stops with the Prime Minister.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—That is right. Where does the buck stop? The buck stops with the people to the right of Madam Deputy Speaker. They made the promises during the election campaign, and we on this side of the House are going to be keeping them accountable during this term of the parliament for the promises they made.
For those people who are living on limited incomes it is not necessarily an option to increase their income. Many of them are ill. Many of them are on a very low income—perhaps they are pensioners—and they just have to do what they can to manage their resources and their budgets to meet the day-to-day costs of living. They depend on the government to manage the economy well. They depend on those opposite. They depend on the Assistant Treasurer.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan
—They will be sadly disappointed.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—They will be sadly disappointed, because the government pulled down the hatches on the cost of living and then started talking up interest rates. How is the Treasurer of this parliament, who is wandering the countryside talking up interest rates, going to take the pressure off struggling families? How is he going to help them in any way whatsoever? We believe that families should have the lowest possible interest rates. We do not believe it is the role of the Treasurer to wander the countryside talking up interest rates and causing Australian families to pay higher mortgage repayments than they should need to pay. The families that I have talked to have an ominous feeling about the future.
We have seen business confidence collapse. We have seen consumer confidence collapse. A large part of that collapse has to be due to the lack of confidence in our Treasurer and the way in which he wanders the countryside talking up interest rates. We see that consumers are now facing a world oil price of $110 a barrel. People know that oil at $110 a barrel is going to translate and is translating into a higher cost at the bowser. It is going to mean that they have to think about taking that extra trip. It means that they are going to have to think about whether they can take the kids to soccer on a Saturday morning. They are looking to the government for a solution. They are looking to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer, who are wandering the countryside, claiming they have the solutions for the problems facing the people of Australia—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—He promised prices would go down.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—He promised prices would go down. That is right, member for Moncrieff: he promised that he would put downward pressure on prices. But what do people feel? They feel they have been the victim of a cruel hoax. A cruel hoax has been played on the Australian people. As I go around the country and talk to people, they tell me that they can feel the higher petrol prices and that they feel deserted. They were expecting action and, instead, they got a bureaucrat and an inquiry.
It is interesting to look at some of the quotes from the media about this issue. One Labor media statement on 10 June said that their sole purpose was to ensure ‘that Australian families are not paying one cent more to fill up their car than they should’. As with much that comes out of the Labor Party, we were left wondering what was meant by ‘pay no more than they should’. There is no detail about what people should pay or how the petrol commissioner would decide what they should pay or how he might enforce what they should pay. The clear implication is that, as soon as elected, the members opposite deserted the battlements on this fight and merely appointed this petrol commissioner.
We now have a petrol commissioner: Pat Walker, the former Western Australian Commissioner for Consumer Protection and Prices. I wish him well, I really do. The motorists throughout regional, rural and metropolitan Australia also wish the petrol commissioner well. They hope that he will be able to do what the Prime Minister and Treasurer imply—wave a magic wand and somehow give relief to these rising fuel prices. Unfortunately, I have to say to motorists, ‘Don’t hold your breath.’ At the time of his appointment, Mr Walker said:
I don’t underestimate the degree of difficulty in this assignment but I believe I can make a difference ... It’s not an easy task.
This guy is sounding a lot less like the high-octane superman promised by the Prime Minister. It was interesting to note the testimony given to the ACCC inquiry into fuel prices by an organisation called Informed Sources. They said that they had made an analysis of the average price in Perth before and after the introduction of FuelWatch. FuelWatch was a scheme introduced by Patrick Walker. At the time of the introduction of FuelWatch, Informed Sources said that this analysis indicated that the introduction of FuelWatch increased the price of petrol in Western Australia by an average of 1c to 1.5c a litre. How is that going to affect consumers and motorists in Western Australia?
We have also heard a lot about the issue of climate change. We have heard members opposite being very vocal about climate change. It is an important issue, but there are some cost of living ramifications for families. There are some very big ramifications from it. There is a potential increase in the cost of electricity. There is a potential increase in many of the products that families buy. There is also a potential increase in the cost of petrol. It was interesting to see a report, which states:
The federal government has refused to rule out the possibility that its proposed emissions trading scheme will force up prices.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—More price rises.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—More price rises courtesy of the members opposite. The report goes on to say:
Asked today whether the scheme would force up petrol prices, Senator Wong today refused to rule it out.
She refused to rule out higher petrol prices. The report continues:
The Australian people recognise the scheme would not be painless, she said.
I find that those remarks offer very little solace and very little comfort to Australian families trying to put fuel in their car and trying to go about their business.
I also came across a document from Caltex which looks at the carbon trading regime and what impact that might have on the price of fuel for motorists. Here are some of the examples that were given in the document: at a carbon price of $10 a tonne, the increase in the cost of fuel would be some 2.4c a litre for unleaded petrol; at $20 a tonne, 4.8c; at $30 a tonne, 7.2c; and at $50 a tonne, 12c a litre. I think it is imperative that the members opposite come clean with struggling families and give them some indication of the carbon regime they plan to introduce and what it will do to the budgets of families.
Then of course there are groceries. We are all aware of the magical wand that is going to be waved by the grocery inquiry. But it is interesting to look at the action of the government in relation to grocery prices. What was the thing they did most recently to reduce grocery prices?
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Put up the fuel tax!
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—They put up the fuel tax on trucks and they increased the cost of truck registration. As far as we on this side of the chamber can see, that is going to have an upward impact on the price of groceries; it is not going to have a downward impact. But with their perverse economics the members opposite seem to have a different slant on things. If this government are keen to put downward pressure on grocery prices, why not at least keep the cost of fuel excise for trucks the same? Instigating an inquiry is no substitute for putting up fuel prices—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—More taxes!
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—or registration taxes, indeed. It is more money in government coffers and more money out of the pockets of the consumers feeding into inflation. Wasn’t it the Treasurer that said inflation is our No. 1 priority—amongst a number of No. 1 priorities, I would admit? And what do they do? We hear the rhetoric. We see what they are doing. They are pushing up the cost of motoring; they are pushing up the cost of the inputs to the grocery industry.
This increase in fuel prices is not only going to have an impact on road transport. Increased fuel prices are having an effect right across the production chain, as it were, and that is flowing through as rising grocery prices to consumers. So really it is up to the government to take the lead by not increasing fuel prices. I call on the Assistant Treasurer to reverse this ridiculous decision. You cannot stand at the dispatch box and say that you are serious about pushing down the price of groceries to consumers and then push up the cost of the inputs. It is just not credible. The people of Australia will not believe you; certainly no-one on this side of the House is going to believe you. You are an absolute disgrace to the people of Australia—that you should push up those taxes and that you should push up the cost of groceries—because people are struggling out there.
We only recently had the issue of carers, a very deserving group in our society looking after their loved ones. What do the government members do? They propose to cut the carer bonus. How are they helping a struggling household by cutting the carer bonus? How is cutting payments to seniors going to take pressure off struggling families?
There is an incredible hypocrisy with those opposite. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. They feign concern for families, and all they can come up with is a petrol commissioner and another inquiry. That is all they can do. The people of Australia are looking for real leadership and real policies in this area—not hot air, not rhetoric and not excuses. We have had the Treasurer, as I said, talking up interest rates. We have the Assistant Treasurer pushing up the price of excise on fuel for trucks. Their rhetoric is not being matched by action and the Australian people are demanding more.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—They know the truth.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—They very much know the truth. They are very quickly seeing through the rhetoric of Rudd. They are really calling on him to do a Rudd-flip with a pike and to reduce the fuel excise.
This is a very important issue indeed. It is one that the people of Australia are very concerned about. It is one that is very much front-of-mind and it is one that the people will be keeping the Australian government to account on over the months to come. We will certainly be reminding them of that fact. We believe that no appointment of a petrol commissioner or inquiry is going to take the place of good policy and real action. We will be expecting real action out of this government, and I know that the people of Australia will be speaking up very loudly on this subject in the weeks and months to come.
2088
16:34:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—One of the great mysteries of the 42nd Parliament is why, oh why, is the member for Cowper on the opposition front bench. We are no closer to an elucidation on that particular point after that contribution. But we have to give credit where it is due. This MPI does get an award. It gets an award for chutzpah; it gets an award for hide and hypocrisy. For a member of the previous government to have the hide to propose a matter of public importance criticising this government for not adequately addressing the impact of rising costs on struggling families is simply breathtaking. He was a member of the government whose official policy was to shoulder shrug—to shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Australian working families have never been better off, therefore there is nothing we can or should do about rising prices.’ The official policy of the Howard government was to shrug their shoulders. That was the best they could do over 11 years.
At the crux of this MPI is inflation. Inflation is the enemy of families struggling to make ends meet. That is why we have signalled that we will be taking a very tough approach to the upcoming budget. That is why we have signalled that we will be taking some tough spending decisions which escaped the previous government, because we are dealing with the highest underlying inflation in 16 years. It is the highest inflation rate in 16 years which has been causing the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates. Inflation affects working families in two ways: it increases their costs directly and it increases their costs indirectly through interest rate increases.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the $84 billion of state debt contribute to inflation and interest rates?
10000
Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. KJ Andrews)—Order! That is not a point of order.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—Just today the minutes released by the Reserve Bank show that inflation is what has been concerning them, if anybody needed that clarified. If the member for Wentworth needed an explanation, if he needed a little bit more evidence, the Reserve Bank minutes released a few hours ago show that. But of course these are members of a government that said inflation was right where we wanted it. What an insult to working families, to seniors and to other Australians to say inflation is right where we want it when the Reserve Bank just today released its minutes showing that the CPI was expected to top four per cent. Inflation is right where we want it! And they have not learned their lesson. Yesterday the alternative Treasurer in this chamber, standing at that dispatch box, said when it comes to inflation under the Howard government: ‘Mission accomplished.’ What an insult to the intelligence of Australians and an insult to the intelligence of families who are struggling with rising costs, which this opposition is apparently so concerned about.
But within inflation there is further cause for concern when the price of goods that are unavoidable purchases, such as groceries and petrol, goes up more than the average inflation rate—which is what happened for more than 11 years. Australia’s food price inflation at 43 per cent has been amongst the highest in the world. Those opposite let that happen. When it comes to inflation, and to petrol prices in particular, we are hearing a lot from the opposition; we just heard a lot about petrol prices from the member for Cowper. But it is a concern that dawned on the previous government on 25 November. As the sun set on the Howard government, it suddenly had this concern with petrol prices in this country. Suddenly it was concerned about the impact of petrol prices on struggling families and seniors. Up until then, it was okay. Up until then, the ACCC had enough powers. Up until then, there was nothing further that the Howard government could have done!
On 28 May, the former Deputy Prime Minister said:
... the ACCC already has significant powers of monitoring and being able to take action.
On 7 June, the former Treasurer said:
The ACCC has extensive powers. It can demand people give evidence, it can demand documents, upon a search warrant it can go into anybody’s premises and seize books.
The ACCC has those powers now, but it did not have them under the Howard government until formal monitoring powers were granted to the ACCC. If the ACCC has any concerns at all at any point in the supply chain, it now has those powers. But they were not powers that it had under the previous government in relation to petrol generally.
We heard again just then the member for Cowper claiming that the Labor Party, when in opposition, said, ‘We have a magic solution; we are going to drive down prices.’ We know what those opposite are trying to do. They are trying to pin us for their bad policy and for their mistake, when they said in 2004, ‘We will keep interest rates at record lows.’ They misled the Australian people, because that was a promise they could not keep—and they paid the price for it on 24 November. But the facts do not bear out their little equation. They do not bear out their story.
Let us have a look at what the Labor Party said in the election campaign; let us have a look at what the now Prime Minister said. On 8 August 2007, on ABC Radio AM, he was asked by Chris Uhlmann about Labor’s policy:
Could you guarantee to lower the cost of any grocery item on any supermarket shelf in Australia by a dollar?
KEVIN RUDD: I couldn’t guarantee that for the reason being that what I have said is that we need to have a robust competition policy watchdog on the beat.
We are about introducing more competition and more transparency to put downward pressure on prices. What did the now Treasurer say on 15 July, when being interviewed by Laurie Oakes? The transcript reads:
OAKES: Can you guarantee if Labor wins the election grocery prices will fall?
SWAN: No, but what I can certainly guarantee is we will make consumer information widely available so people can scrutinise the prices in an accessible way.
The transcript continues:
OAKES: Can you guarantee if you win government petrol prices will fall?
SWAN: No, I can’t guarantee that, but I can guarantee that we will do the maximum amount possible to make sure that people aren’t being ripped off.
As though that evidence was not clear enough, our old friend the member for Higgins, the then Treasurer, raced down to a hold a press conference to draw attention to Wayne Swan’s comments earlier that morning—to point out that the then shadow Treasurer had said that there was no formal guarantee that, under a Labor government, we could reduce petrol or grocery prices. But the then shadow Treasurer had added that what we would do was take every step possible to introduce more competition and more transparency into the market, which those opposite had failed to do for 11 years. We now constantly get this cheap grab for a headline from the opposition, but it is not borne out by the facts.
But the confusion continues. It goes to where those opposite stand now. It goes to where they stand on petrol prices. It goes to where they stand on grocery prices. It goes to where they stand on being honest with people. Just after the election, our old friend the Leader of the National Party made comments to the Courier-Mail and said that he had a plan to reduce petrol prices. After 11 years, he suddenly had a plan to reduce petrol prices. What was it? It was to take the GST off petrol. It just dawned on him on 25 November. He said: ‘I’ve got a good idea. It just escaped me for the last 11 years. We’ll take the GST off petrol. That’s what will do it.’ But then the shadow Treasurer, when asked recently whether he supported that policy, said, ‘No, I think that would be a very bad idea.’ So we do not know where they stand on anything. They stand for nothing. They cannot develop or agree on a policy on petrol or grocery prices—in contrast to the government, which has a plan in place which says: ‘There are no magic solutions here, no easy answers. There are a lot of impacts on the rising cost of living, but we will do whatever we can and we will put these concerns at the forefront of government thinking.’
But the confusion goes on. Last weekend we had the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Stirling complaining that the petrol commissioner had not yet officially started at work. There were two points of confusion. Firstly, they do not understand how the law works and what the Trade Practices Act says about appointments to the ACCC—that, when the Commonwealth recommends an appointment to the ACCC, there is a statutory period of consultation with the states and that a majority of states must agree. That has now happened. A majority of the states have agreed to the appointment of Patrick Walker and, subject to the agreement of His Excellency the Governor-General, Mr Walker will start on 31 March.
But the second point of confusion is this: they claim that the petrol commissioner will not make a difference. They say that they do not support the petrol commissioner—but they are very disappointed that he has not started work yet. They are very disappointed that an officer that they do not believe in has not yet started work. This is their cheap attempt at a headline. This their cheap grab for a headline, because they do not know where they stand. They have criticised the decision to appoint a petrol commissioner. They do not support a petrol commissioner. They did not appoint one for 11 years. I agree with them: the petrol commissioner is starting a little bit late—about 11 years too late, because those opposite never got around to appointing one.
Those opposite do not believe in competition. They do not believe in transparency. They do not believe in the regulator having the power to ensure that consumers are not being ripped off. They sat by and watched for 11 years while Australian consumers did not have a petrol commissioner looking out for their interests. That is what they did. They did not give the ACCC extra powers; they claimed it had enough. They have the hide, the hypocrisy and the chutzpah to come into this chamber and lecture us about the cost of living on ordinary, everyday Australians. Shame on you. Shame on you for taking the Australian people as mugs. Shame on you for pretending that you could get away with that.
10000
Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
Order! The Assistant Treasurer will direct his remarks through the chair.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I do not intend to criticise you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think there should be shame on you. There should be shame on other members of the opposition because they have zero credibility.
As far as our actions since the election go, they have been at the heart of our election commitment to put the views and interests of Australian consumers at the forefront of our policy. What is their alternative? The Leader of the Opposition is fond of saying that he leads the alternative government of Australia. What is their alternative? What is their alternative to the petrol commissioner? To do nothing. What is their alternative to the increased investigatory powers for the ACCC? To do nothing. What is their alternative to the other steps we have taken to introduce more transparency in the banking industry, to allow people to change their banks more regularly with fewer penalties and to encourage and to allow bank switching? Nothing. What is their alternative to criminalising cartels? We do not know where they stand on that measure either. They promised to do it and then reneged on their commitment. The member for Higgins, the then Treasurer, let the Australian people down by going back on his word and failing to meet his commitment to do it. We are doing it. We released draft legislation within two months of taking office, something they could not do even though it was recommended by their inquiry in 2003. What is their alternative to the first home owners scheme? Nothing. What is their alternative to the teen dental scheme? Nothing. What is their alternative to the increase in the utilities bonus? What is their alternative to the National Rental Affordability Scheme? What is their alternative to the steps that the government has taken to improve housing affordability in this country? They sit there and they carp and they whinge and they complain that they no longer have the chance to do anything about it, when, for the last 11 years, they did nothing about it.
This MPI is what you call a fill-in. The member for Cowper first proposed this MPI on 18 February, I think it was. It was a Monday, of course, and it was a stunt. He got up and said: ‘It’s a Monday. I want to have an MPI on the cost of living.’ It was a stunt because he knows that the standing orders do not allow MPIs on Mondays. I said to my office, ‘We’d better get ready, because they’re clearly going to do an MPI on the cost of living on the Tuesday.’ But they did not get around to it. And they did not get around to it on the Wednesday, and they did not get around to it on the Thursday. Now, three weeks later, they have gotten around to it. That is how important it is. And why? Because usually the MPI is lodged by the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer. That has been the pattern.
Why isn’t the shadow Treasurer doing it today? Because he is embarrassed. He is too embarrassed to come in here and propose an MPI because he knows that we will point out his record over the last few weeks. There was his question to the Treasurer: ‘Why aren’t you chairing the ERC?’ Well, he is chairing the ERC, actually. There was his question: ‘Why did you reject the advice of the Treasury on the minimum wage?’ Actually, we accepted the advice of the Treasury on the minimum wage. I am not in the habit of giving free political advice to the opposition, but I will make this exception: when you get a leak, verify it before you get up in the chamber and say it is a fact. Check your facts before you make allegations. That is where Malcolm has gone wrong. That is where the member for Wentworth has gone wrong. That is why his leadership campaign has received such a dent in the last few days—because in this House you have two commodities: your integrity and your credibility. You have nothing else.
Now, I do not question the integrity of the member for Wentworth but, by God, I question his credibility. It has gone in the last couple of days. It has evaporated as he has made serious accusations against this government which have evaporated into thin air. What has been his response? It was to say: ‘The Secretary to the Treasury is covering up for the government.’ What an outrageous response. We all make mistakes from time to time. We all make errors. We are all human. When you make an error, fess up. Be man enough to get up and say: ‘Well, I got that one wrong. The Secretary of the Treasury did not give that advice to the government. I accept I was wrong.’ We all have to do that from time to time. It is not pleasant, but it is what you do. You do not then blame the bureaucrat. You do not then blame a respected Secretary to the Treasury who was appointed by that government and kept by us because he is the best in the country at his job. You do not do that. That shows why the member for Wentworth is unfit to hold the office of Treasurer of this country, and it shows why we have got the B team doing an MPI on this day—because we are covering up for the incompetence of the shadow Treasurer of Australia, the member for Wentworth. Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously as the alternative government of this country, you have to do better than that. You cannot have 11 years of inaction and then come in today and say— (Time expired)
2092
16:49:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
0
Mr MORRISON
—This MPI addresses the government’s failure to address the impact of rising costs on struggling families. This is an important matter to be discussing because it is the government which has raised the expectations on this matter. It is the government which, when in opposition, went out there and created a very real expectation on the part of the Australian people that it was going to do things about the cost of living, that it was going to do things about petrol prices, that it was going to do things about grocery prices, that these things were actually going to produce a result and that people would not have to face rising costs under a Labor government. In that same election campaign, the opposition, as it then was, made a range of claims about what the government at the time was saying about interest rates. You could argue that it was somewhat successful in prosecuting an argument that, if interest rates were to rise, the government should be accountable for those things and, as a result, the government should not be elected.
If it is good for this government, it is good for us. The government has created the expectation out there in the Australian community that it can control the revolution of the planets, that it can go out there and it can control the universe. It can control petrol prices. It can control grocery prices. We will come to how it actually plans to do this, but this is the expectation that the Prime Minister in particular has created. He has created it knowingly, he has created it willingly, and he has created it enthusiastically. So it is a fair thing—a very fair thing—for the people of Australia to hold this government to account for that pledge. Government members can come in here and argue the toss on words, but one thing is very clear: as I walk the streets of my electorate, people tell me that the government—as it is now known—made a pledge to control petrol prices and grocery prices. The price of everything from Weet-Bix to Chupa Chups is going to be controlled by this government, so it is very important that we discuss this matter today.
I also want to add that we are talking specifically about struggling families. The government likes to talk about working families, but a number of people have come to me, particularly from my own electorate, and said, ‘Who are these working families?’ Small businesses ask the question: ‘Am I a working family?’ Under the government’s definition, they are not. They are not a working family. Small businesses are not working families. And what about single working people? What about pensioners? What about self-funded retirees? Do these not fit into the spectrum of people who are the target of this government’s policies, or do they just have to wait their turn until the government is finished trashing our economy?
Let us examine what the government actually has done and make a few comments. Firstly, the government makes a lot of noise about inflation. It says it has a five-point plan on inflation—a plan whose features, as the shadow Treasurer revealed yesterday in question time, failed to receive acknowledgement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. There was no mention of at least three of the five points. My maths may not be the best in this place, but that leads me to believe that the Governor of the Reserve Bank gave the Treasurer two out of five for his inflation plan—which is a fail.
What are those five points? Firstly, there is fiscal restraint. What I think the Treasurer fails to understand is that there were 10 consecutive surplus budgets under the previous government, and consistently in the last three at 1½ per cent of GDP plus. The Prime Minister comes in with the hairy-chested announcement that he is going to be able to bring in a budget surplus at 1½ per cent of GDP. That is like running a four-minute mile today and claiming that you have made some great athletic achievement. It is just nonsense. In addition to that, the fiscal restraint agenda which is outlined by the government opposite is silent on state debt—an $80 billion-plus debt binge on the part of the states. It is silent on tax reform at a state level. It is prepared to bankroll the incompetence of state governments all around this country.
Secondly, the government talks about private savings. I am staggered, because I like to follow what happens in politics, I like to follow what governments do, and if I remember correctly it was actually the government prior to the election of this government that introduced the single greatest reforms to superannuation in our history—unquestioned. That is what I call a private savings initiative. The government might like to take some notes about how to implement its five-point plan based on the success of the previous government in addressing these issues.
Then there is the skills crisis—a skills crisis caused by having the lowest unemployment in over 30 years, now at four per cent. The government’s answer is to close trade schools and drive up unemployment. That is how they are going to fix the skills crisis. They will just have more people out of work, increasing the pool of available workers to the marketplace. There were 418,800 apprentices being trained at the time of the last election. That compares to 154,800 when the previous government came to office.
Then there are the bottlenecks that the government is going to clear. It is the responsibility of the states to develop infrastructure. This was discussed in the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. While I am sure there are many examples in other states, in my home state of New South Wales the state government has made an absolute mockery of state infrastructure planning. For years under Treasurer Egan, the government did nothing to actually reduce the state’s debt. It is a worthy initiative, but if to reduce state debt you do nothing, you spend nothing on infrastructure and you effectively allow the house to fall into disrepair, you build up the desire for a binge of state debt to address the imbalance of previous years’ obfuscation of responsibility.
Then the government talks about the participation rate. This is from a government who when in opposition opposed welfare to work reforms. This is from a government that seems to misunderstand that we have the highest level of workforce participation on record. This is a five-point plan with a five-star blind spot. It says absolutely nothing about containing wage pressures. Something that the shadow Treasurer, remarking in an earlier debate today, made very clear was that different between the mid-1970s and today are the changes in particular in our labour market. We have a more flexible labour market. That is what enabled us to achieve a 21.5 per cent increase in real wages under a government that was prepared to do the right thing in our workplaces and create greater flexibility that enabled people to be employed in this country and enabled businesses to move forward.
The government’s plan says nothing about containing inflationary expectations. The shadow Treasurer has made the point extremely well that the Treasurer of this country stood in this place today and confirmed ‘the genie in a bottle’ comment. It is bad enough for the Treasurer to go recklessly bumbling around our financial markets, making reckless statements on the state of our economy and talking about genies coming out of bottles on the eve of Reserve Bank meetings where they set interest rates, but the Prime Minister also stood in this place today and confirmed the state of our economy in the way he did. Inflationary expectations—I have made the point on a number of occasions—in the December quarter were at 4.3 per cent. After the election of this government, inflationary expectations, while previously sitting on 3.8 per cent, have gone up to 4.3 per cent. I suspect that it will only get worse from there because, while this government continues to talk up inflationary expectations, we will continue to see inflation rise and we will continue to see a claim being made, as is currently being made in New South Wales by Unions New South Wales, for a 4.8 per cent increase in wages. What is that based on? Expectations of inflation. Who is setting those expectations of inflation? Those who sit opposite, who simply do not know how to run a strong economy.
Since the election of the Rudd government, which has created the expectation out there that it will be able to do something about rising petrol prices, petrol prices in Sydney, as the Leader of the Nationals said today, have gone up by 4.8c, in Melbourne by 4.9c and in Adelaide by 7.1c. Grocery prices have also continued to rise. The government’s response on all of these things, as it is to everything, is to establish a review and/or a committee. In fact, there have been 47 reviews established by this government since it took office in November. It has got a bit more work to do because it announced 55, so we can expect more reviews to come from this government. (Time expired)
2094
16:59:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—The sheer hypocrisy of this particular matter is something that I find breathtaking. For those on the other side, it is a short walk from the government benches to the opposition benches, but what a profound change we have seen. Like being struck down by a blinding light on the old road to Damascus, those on the other side who were incapable of seeing the hurt and the pain that working families across this country were facing now bring forward a motion about attending to the needs of struggling families. Those who could not see it—nor could they act on or respond to the policy challenges that faced the former government—now come forward bleating in support of those that are feeling it tough in our local communities throughout this country.
The pain that people are feeling is not new to me; it is something that I had been campaigning about for a considerable amount of time. In campaigning through the last election I encountered scores of families and scores of individuals throughout the community that were feeling the pain of increased mortgage payments and the increased cost of living. Right throughout, the then government’s position was that working families had never been better off. Never, ever forget it: working families had never been better off. But clearly upon the election of a Rudd Labor government things have turned around. That is not the case. Go and talk to families throughout this country and you will know that the pain they have been feeling has progressively been getting worse. It has been getting worse because of the high inflation legacy that the former government has left this country with.
Listening to those on the other side, you would think that there were no problems. The member for Wentworth says there is no inflation problem; it is merely a fairytale. The member for Higgins told us he had inflation right where he wanted it. It is a shame for working families throughout this country that that was not in the Reserve Bank’s target band; it was above it. That is why he and his colleagues left the working families of this nation with the highest inflation rate in 16 years. That is the Liberal legacy that they now seek to expunge from the record. We will not allow it. We will not allow people throughout this country to forget about the disdain with which those on the other side have treated those feeling pain as a result of the rising cost of living that has progressively been getting worse, particularly over the last 11 years. Whenever there was a request for a policy response, a suggestion of how to respond to these challenges, those on the other side said, ‘Working families have never been better off.’ What you see in this government is a government that cares about the needs of working families—‘struggling families’, as those on the other side have put it in this motion. We care about the needs of those families, and that is why we have a platform and why we are implementing changes that will have a marked impact in lifting and improving the quality of life and the living standards of those families.
Clearly the biggest impact on the household budget at the moment is from housing costs, whether you have a mortgage or whether you are paying a rent. Those who have mortgages have seen 12 consecutive increases in interest rates. Surely those on the other side are not going to try and sheet home blame to those of us within the government for those 12 increases in interest rates. They were the ones that went to the 2004 election saying, ‘We will keep interest rates at record lows.’ They were the ones that claimed responsibility for interest rates. Twelve interest rates rises in a row—that is how many increases we have seen. The pressure on working families in my electorate means that many families are now paying $750 a month more in mortgage repayments, and that is on an average mortgage. It is probably on a more modest level than in other parts of Sydney, but that is $750 a month that people have to find from somewhere else.
At the same time, there are those on the other side: the architects of Work Choices. Never has there been a policy more focused towards striking at the very heart of the living standards of working families. We hear the member for Cook talking about the need for wage restraint. It is really code for, ‘We’re still sticking with Work Choices.’ Forget about the mantra of, ‘We neither support it nor oppose it.’ What does that mean? The member for Cook has just let the cat out of the bag. What it really means is: ‘We got caught out. Sure, it wasn’t a very popular policy, but that doesn’t mean we can’t adhere to it. It doesn’t mean we can’t stick with it. It doesn’t mean we can’t breathe a little bit of life back into it when the opportunity next arises.’ That is the position of those on the other side when it comes to Work Choices. How they can come into this place and purport to stand up for working families when they were the architects of, and the ones that implemented, those policies is beyond me.
The high inflation legacy that we have been left with has meant that there has needed to be a very direct and a very immediate policy response. We do have a five-point plan. I hear a lot of talk from those on the other side about how ineffective that plan may prove to be, but I do not hear a lot about what their alternatives might be. They accuse those of us on this side of talking up inflation. I accuse those of you on that side of driving it up. You and your policies have driven up inflation. There is no greater attack upon the living standards of working people than to erode the value of the dollar in their pocket, and that is what inflation does. We have a five-point plan. It is about modernising our economy. To modernise the economy you have to show restraint when it comes to spending.
We have seen a cavalcade of excesses demonstrated time after time in this parliament when we have gone through the spending priorities of the former government. We have seen cheese factories that did not produce cheese. We have seen $10 million rain makers, even though the authorities only suggested and recommended that $2 million would have been a stretch when it came to a funding proposal of that scope. We saw $121 million in expenditure on propaganda for Work Choices. We saw over an 11-year period $2 billion worth of government advertising.
There is not a lot of discussion from those on the other side about spending restraint, because they did not show any. When they were in government they could not help themselves. And the problem was that they got away with it for so long that they lost sight of what they were doing. They spent their way out of trouble in the 2001 election, so they came back for more in 2004. They just kept doing it. And the worse the position for them became in the polls, the more they spent. In doing so, they have left this country with a high inflation legacy. That is the Liberal legacy and it is the legacy that we now attack not just by showing expenditure restraint but also by investing in workforce participation, investing in skills and infrastructure and by boosting national savings.
We talk about boosting national savings. I can only assume from the comments by the member for Cook that he would acknowledge that the introduction of superannuation was the biggest savings measure this country has ever seen. These are the sorts of things that need to occur to modernise the Australian economy to ensure that we are able to keep inflation within manageable limits, that does not strip away at the value of the dollars in the pockets of working people. Labor have brought forward many proposals, many of which we have begun to implement, such as the appointment of a petrol commissioner. This is a very serious initiative that will lead to much more transparency in the setting of petrol prices. Our inquiry, through the ACCC, into grocery prices; our tax cuts; the tax cuts which will deliver improvements in workforce participation; our childcare tax rebate; and our education tax refund are all policies designed to help those struggling families which the opposition has only just discovered.
So I say to the opposition: get out of this place, go around this country and talk to those families. That is something you did not do much of when you were in government. I suggest you go and do it before you stand up purporting to represent them. They had had enough of you. That is why they turfed you out. It is why they are supporting our platform, which is a platform directed towards implementing initiatives which take pressure off families and which gives them some support, as they do the hard work of trying to raise families and build a better future for their children and their grandchildren. (Time expired)
10000
Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. KJ Andrews)—Before I call the next member, can I say that I did not interrupt the member for Lindsay, but I encourage him to address his remarks through the chair in future.
2097
17:09:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I am pleased to talk on the MPI today about rising prices. I was pleased to hear the members for Prospect and Lindsay both mention a subject dear to my heart, which is housing affordability. The member for Lindsay has made remarks in this place about that topic, which is important to his constituents of Western Sydney.
I want to provide those members and the House with some figures about the cost of developing land and putting a house on it in the growth areas of north-west and south-west Sydney. These figures were released with a big fanfare by the New South Wales government in 2001 but, unfortunately, not one single house has appeared and not one single lot has been developed. I will explain why. The costs for the developer are as follows: to purchase the lot, and 450 square metres is not very big, $50,000; a special infrastructure charge, payable to the New South Wales government, $23,000—a special charge because it is in the growth centre; a section 94 contribution to local council, $30,000; water, energy and gas costs, $20,000; and stamp duty, $2,500. Of course, there are costs that the developers have to pay for architects and their own work and GST of $10,000. But the total cost to a developer of developing one of these blocks of land is $302,000. The market will bear a cost of about $300,000. As a new homeowner, that is what I pay for my block of land. That is the market price. So the developer is not going to go ahead with it, and I am not going to purchase it. And that is why not a single block of land in these growth centres has been developed.
This MPI is important. We talk about the government not adequately addressing the impact of the rising costs on struggling families. Inflation and the increases to mortgage rates are mentioned and of course they are significant. But these housing costs are much more significant. It has been recognised many times today and this week that housing affordability is a problem. If I front up as a new homeowner and get the keys to my new home, I am paying $90,000 to $100,000 in taxes to the state government. If my mortgage was $90,000 to $100,000 less, I would not be suffering from as much mortgage stress as we read about every day. When you look at these costs to deliver an available block to the homeowner, you can see where the problems are. If Labor wants to improve housing affordability, it should force its state Labor mates to drop these imposts on housing, because it is state governments that are actually imposing housing affordability taxes. We cannot even rezone ‘rural’ land to ‘urban’, because the command and control mentality of the state government—and I am talking about New South Wales—has put these developers on the drip feed. I believe the reason for that is that there is not the scope for the government owned utilities to develop the energy and water infrastructure on these blocks that is required. The areas are zoned, but they are still rural. Nothing is happening; meanwhile, homeowners are desperate.
The government has announced a couple of measures in response to the housing affordability crisis. I do not want to pour cold water on all of them, but I wonder how well they will work. The Prime Minister was asked in question time today about the first home saver account. He could not explain to the Leader of the Opposition why a person earning $200,000 a year would receive $1,500 of taxpayers’ money, but an apprentice earning $10,000 would only receive $750 of taxpayers’ money. The Prime Minister could not answer that question. I asked the Minister for Housing that question a few weeks ago and she could not answer that question, either. So, in designing a first home saver account, can we please inject some equity. Can we ensure that we actually help the people whom we are designing a project for.
Another interesting measure that the government has introduced is the Rental Affordability Scheme. This is about giving developers $6,000 in tax relief to build houses in certain regions. The bottom line is that the expectation of any investment scheme launched in a free market economy should be that it delivers a fair level of income and a fair level of return; otherwise, you will not get any investment into it. I am not confident that investors will in fact take up this initiative. I have seen no evidence or indication that they will. The Housing Affordability Fund, likewise, is a bucket of $500 million for state governments and local councils to dip into to fix up the inefficiencies that they should be fixing up. (Time expired)
2098
17:15:00
Jackson, Sharryn, MP
00AN2
Hasluck
ALP
1
0
Ms JACKSON
—I would have greater respect for the contributions from members opposite if there were some acceptance of their own role and responsibility in the issues facing struggling working families in Australia. It is ironic to me that an opposition whose leader said, but a few months ago, ‘Working families have never been better off,’ now have a new-found concern for struggling working families. It is ironic to me that the opposition, who until literally a few weeks ago, championed extreme industrial relations legislation that put the take-home pay of struggling families at risk, now claim to be concerned about those same struggling families.
They are the same party who had over 11½ long years, more than a decade, to put in place programs, policies and plans to protect struggling families in Australia and they failed. Over a decade of economic growth—with budget surpluses that the opposition, when in government, used to crow about—what did they do to protect struggling working families? What did they do, long term, to keep inflation under control and maintain downward pressure on interest rates? What did they do to deal with the infrastructure bottlenecks creating so much heat in our economy? What planning did they put in place to deal with the skills shortage, to ensure that we had appropriate skills training and development? What did they do to seriously monitor fuel prices or grocery prices? What did they do to tackle housing affordability—both homeownership and rental costs? Not much, not much at all.
The opposition were no nation builders. They had no plan for the future. And guess what: in November 2007, Australian families judged them lacking as well. The member for Lindsay called it what it is: hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy that the party who had over 11½ years in government and failed to protect struggling families now accuses the party that has been in government for 4½ months—just over a hundred days—of not doing enough to assist struggling families. The opposition are a joke. You were judged; you were found to have failed. I think it is only right and proper that you take some responsibility for that.
One of the reasons why you were judged and found lacking was that you did not have a plan for the future—no plan that was sensitive to the pressures on working families. Labor did have a plan for the future and a series of election commitments which we are diligently putting into action. To assist some of the members opposite, I can advise you that the government has now produced a booklet on the actions we have taken in the first 100 days since coming to government. In case you have not seen it, I am prepared to remind members opposite of some of those initiatives.
We have begun the inquiry into grocery prices by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We have announced the appointment of Pat Walker as petrol commissioner, to monitor the prices that oil companies charge and ensure that prices are not higher than they should be. We have provided references to the Productivity Commission to examine and inquire into paid maternity leave. We have introduced legislation to end AWAs and restore balance and fairness to Australian workplaces, protecting the take-home pay of struggling families. We have provided greater financial support to older Australians. This week we deliver the election commitment of the increase to the utilities allowance to over three million Australians—seniors, carers and people with disabilities—increasing that utilities allowance from $107 to $500 a year for age pensioners and people receiving other concessions. That is just some of what we have done. I have not even begun to talk about the steps in the area of housing affordability and trying to assist people with the skyrocketing rent increases.
We are taking action, not the least of which is introducing legislation to reform personal income tax to provide tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners. About the only thing I can agree with the opposition on in this debate is that the impact of rising costs on struggling families is a matter of public importance. It is a pity members opposite did not use the last decade to properly assist them and address those issues by putting in place plans that would assist ordinary struggling Australian families to make ends meet. (Time expired)
10000
Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. KJ Andrews)—Order! I encourage the honourable member in future to address her remarks through the chair. This discussion is now concluded.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2008
2099
Bills
R2916
TRADEX SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2099
Bills
R2935
Referred to Main Committee
2099
2099
17:20:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
I indicate to all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
2099
Committees
Public Works Committee
2099
Reports
2099
2099
17:21:00
Butler, Mark, MP
HWK
Port Adelaide
ALP
1
0
Mr BUTLER
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 71st annual report and the second, third and fourth reports for 2008 of the committee relating to HMAS Creswell redevelopment, Jervis Bay Territory; Land Engineering Agency Test Services relocation, Monegeetta, Victoria; and Refurbishment of staff apartments, Australian Embassy complex, Tokyo, Japan.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
HWK
Butler, Mark, MP
Mr BUTLER
—by leave—Report 1 of 2008 is the 71st annual report of the Public Works Committee. Under the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the Public Works Committee is required to table a report of its activities within 15 sitting days after the year ending 31 December. This report covers the activities of the PWC of the 41st Parliament during 2007. The Public Works Committee of this parliament felt unable to comment in any substantial nature on the works of its predecessor, so this report fulfils its obligations under the act but does not offer any detailed commentary of the activity of that committee.
Likewise, reports 2, 3 and 4 are reports of inquiries that were finalised by the PWC of the 41st Parliament. These reports relate to the referrals detailed in the motion just passed by the House. These referrals were originally made to the PWC of the 41st Parliament in the first half of 2007. The committee had finalised and adopted its report into each inquiry but had not tabled the reports due to the dissolution of the 41st Parliament. Proponent agencies for each work have assured the committee that there are no changes to the proposed works. Taking this into consideration, the PWC of the 42nd parliament did not wish to delay the progression of these works any further; so, rather than undertake the inquiries again or spend time writing its own report, it has adopted the reports as adopted by the PWC of the 41st Parliament. While these reports bear the name of the PWC of the 42nd Parliament, they are entirely the work of the PWC of the 41st Parliament.
I would like to thank the PWC of the 41st Parliament for all of its work in relation to these inquiries. In particular, I would like to thank the former chair of the committee, the Hon Judy Moylan MP, for her work. I commend the reports to the House.
INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2100
Bills
R2951
Cognate bill:
ROAD TRANSPORT CHARGES (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) REPEAL BILL 2008
2100
Bills
R2952
Second Reading
2100
Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2100
17:24:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 make adjustments to the cost recovery charge-setting mechanism that applies to the trucking industry. The two key elements of the charge structure that apply to Australia’s road freight sector are registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system, known as the road user charge. The determination of the appropriate level of these charges occurs through the National Transport Commission, which makes recommendations to the Australian transport ministers at their meeting of the Australian Transport Council to recover road expenditure attributable to heavy vehicles. The principle behind the charge-setting arrangements that apply to the trucking industry is that it should pay its way. The trucking industry accepts this principle. Whilst this does mean that the industry pays higher charges than would otherwise have been the case, it recognises that as an industry it has an obligation to the community to pay its way. It is important for the community to know that, whilst there is substantial community expenditure on roads and other infrastructure, the road transport sector—those big trucks that run up and down the roads day and night—is making a substantial contribution to the cost of maintaining and building that road network.
Specifically, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 updates definitions contained in the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and grants the Australian Transport Council the power to determine the charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 ends a system whereby the Australian Capital Territory sets the reference charge for other jurisdictions to follow, currently based on Commonwealth provided ACT law—the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993. Members may be aware that on 29 February 2008 Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council agreed to a revised set of charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. These charges will be used as reference fees by the states and territories on their own heavy vehicles. Essentially, that is what these bills are about: the application of charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to heavy vehicles registered under the Commonwealth and the subsequent take-up of those charges to vehicles registered under the states and territories. We are talking, therefore, about what costs are imposed upon Australia’s road freight industry.
The opposition has concerns about the impact of these bills, and I will refer to some of those issues later. But we also have specific concerns about some of the content of the bills. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, for example, will require the Commonwealth to always impose the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to trucks registered by the Commonwealth, known as the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme or FIRS. This provision may be found in proposed section 5(4) on page 9 of the bill. The relevant clause reads:
Regulations made for the purposes of this section must implement the national charge imposed on the registration of heavy vehicles, and any adjustment process of that charge, that is agreed by the Australian Transport Council.
This provision causes us some serious concern because, under it, the Commonwealth will lose its discretion to dissent from the ministerial council and will be unable to determine in its own right the charges that should apply to Commonwealth registered vehicles. Given that the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council are reference fees used by the states and territories, should the Commonwealth wish to apply competitive pressure on the charges imposed by the states and territories on their own heavy vehicles it will be unable to do so. It seems extraordinary that an Australian government would bind itself to decisions made by other governments without giving itself any discretion to be able to make a separate determination in the national interest. Moreover, decisions in the Australian Transport Council are not always by consensus. In the case of a disagreement between jurisdictions it is possible for a majority decision to occur. In theory at least, it would be possible for the Commonwealth to be saddled with a decision which it did not support.
I accept, when it comes to regulatory issues, that the states and the Commonwealth are essentially sovereign, but I am still uncomfortable with a legislative provision that removes the right of the Commonwealth to dissent from a charge regime agreed to amongst the states. In other words, the Commonwealth would be binding itself to a decision made by others. This is something that seems to have escaped the Rudd government. It is the job of the Commonwealth to provide national leadership and to ensure, where possible, that competitive pressure applies to state based charge-setting arrangements. What we are seeing is an abrogation of this role. The Labor-run federal government is letting its state Labor mates have free rein when setting the fees that will have to be carried by a crucial sector of the economy, Australia’s road freight industry. I think this is another example of what is meant by ‘ending the blame game’! The Commonwealth is walking away from any attempt to impose accountability upon the decisions of the states. This is highly regrettable.
The real impact of these bills will be felt in the associated regulations that are to be tabled in parliament after the passage of the bills. The regulation will schedule the details of the heavy vehicle registration charges. These charges will contain significant increases to be implemented over three years from 1 July 2008. The basis of these increases is the view of the Rudd government that the trucking sector is somehow not paying its way—which is by no means clear, with independent research commissioned by the trucking industry suggesting that the sector is already overcharged by around $100 million per year. Even if you accept the figures of the National Transport Commission, there is still only a relatively minor under-recovery of the costs that are imposed by the industry. There are arguments about whether the charges are being evenly collected across the industry and whether one sector is subsidising another. Those sorts of issues are the key elements of work done by the National Transport Commission.
In spite of the case for these increases in charges being unclear, the Rudd government has decided to press ahead anyway. It will determine these charges by applying an annual road cost adjustment formula. This formula is largely based on expenditure costs associated with the impact of trucks on our road system. It will be a particularly expensive formula for Australia’s road freight industry since, as is common knowledge, costs associated with road construction and maintenance—such as steel, concrete, asphalt, oil products et cetera—are skyrocketing. So the registration costs are going to go up at a higher rate than the CPI. What does this mean? It means that close to 70 per cent of Australia’s truckies—and, in particular, all of those at the heavier end of the industry—are going to be paying more. This will mean that there will be rising costs associated with road expenditure that are completely out of their control.
The structure of the charges penalises productivity, since the costs agreed to by the Australian Transport Council fall heavily on the highly productive multicombination vehicles, such as B-doubles and B-triples. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including the multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. Smaller vehicles will not have increases and, in a small number of cases, will actually pay less. The reality is these are very substantial increases in charges on the most efficient sector of the industry. Indeed, previous meetings of ministers at the Australian Transport Council had agreed that there ought to be encouragement to move the sector towards the more productive units. There was a conscious decision made to cross-subsidise these larger units to encourage their take-up. I think that this was sound policy. These larger units have road-friendly suspensions. The evidence suggests that they are more friendly to roads and less likely to cause damage than the smaller units. The result of this fee structure will reduce the incentive for operators to use high-productivity vehicles. Operators will be inclined to stick with semitrailers instead. For a government that has got a long-proclaimed greenhouse agenda, it seems extraordinary that it has agreed to a charge arrangement that will actually encourage more greenhouse emitting vehicles on our roads.
But there is more. As the second part of the fee structure imposed on heavy vehicles, the Australian Transport Council decided to increase the road user charge, or diesel excise, from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre. This will be achieved by reducing the amount of rebate that on-road diesel users will receive in the trucking sector. Most importantly, this fuel excise increase will be indexed on the same formula that is used for the heavy vehicle registration charges. This regulation under the Fuel Tax Bill 2006 was tabled by Labor on the sly in the House on 13 March, before this legislation had even been brought into the parliament. It will take effect from 1 January 2009. We will be moving to disallow this instrument. This instrument brings back fuel excise indexation. It brings back something that has been written out of the Australian agenda for quite a few years now. The indexation of fuel excise, members will recall, was introduced by the Keating government and then abolished by the Howard government in early 2001. After a seven-year absence, it is back for trucks and pegged to a formula that will lock in a greater tax take than you would get under the CPI. Not only do we have indexation but it is indexed to a formula that will deliver very much higher tax rates than would occur under the CPI.
This is a highly significant decision by the new Labor government. In one of its first acts in office, it has introduced a new tax—a tax that will increase at a rate greater than the cost of living. Who will pay for it? Initially, the sector responsible for moving 75 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight will pay. Those who drive the nation’s 365,000 trucks, many of whom are struggling small business operators, will have to pay. So much for defending working families. Here is a group of very small businesses, most with high debt and many of them single unit operators—people who battle to win contracts and who keep their trucks on the road for long hours just to make a living. These are the people that are going to have pay a new indexed tax, introduced compliments of Labor.
In the end, of course, all Australians will pay. The increased costs will be passed on to the consumer and there will be a rise in prices for everyone. From cornflakes to building materials, from medicine to school shoes—the everyday items that working families need—all of these prices will go up as a result of the new tax Labor is proposing to introduce today. For the Rudd government to increase taxes when so many Australians are hurting due to interest rate rises exposes the emptiness of his claim to be serious about fighting inflation.
Many of the smaller operators will have particular difficulties in passing on these taxes, but the larger operators who move groceries and some of the big-volume items for regular customers will of course pass these increases straight on to the shopkeepers, the retailers, who will in turn put them straight onto the price of every item in every store. Remember the Prime Minister’s promise in the election about putting downward pressure on grocery prices—he has done precisely the opposite. What is the good of an ACCC inquiry into grocery prices and pretending it is going to have some kind of downward impact, when on the other hand you are putting up taxes in a way that will guarantee that, no matter what the findings of the inquiry might be, groceries will be dearer after the election of the Rudd Labor government than they were previously?
This decision also clarifies another element of this so-called ‘ending the blame game’, which Labor ministers like to say. It means that, now that we have wall-to-wall Labor governments, no Labor transport minister will blame another for raising taxes; they are all in the deal together. The Labor transport ministers have been wanting to increase these taxes for years. The coalition government has blocked this revenue rise. Now it appears that there is no longer any protection for Australia’s hard working truck-ies. We have wall-to-wall Labor transport ministers, so in reality the increases in taxes will come again and again. What about the struggling farmers and the cash-strapped mums and dads who will have to pay more as the increases flow through to them?
It also flies in the face of the reassurances that were given by Labor frontbencher Martin Ferguson, who when he was the spokesman for transport told the trucking industry at the Australian Trucking Convention in Cairns in April last year ‘squeezing profitability of the trucking industry is in no-one’s best interests’. He pretended on that occasion to be a friend of the truckies. He pretended that Labor would stand up for the trucking industry. But now they are in government the story is different. Either the member for Batman was being indifferent to the truth or he got rolled. Regardless, the Rudd government has introduced a new tax that is inflationary and will make life harder for struggling families.
Let us look now at the revenue implications of raising heavy vehicle registration charges and reintroducing fuel indexation via the road user charge. Labor state and territory government revenue will rise substantially as a result of increased fuel tax and registration charges, with the annual revenue stream to Labor governments growing by $168 million. Put another way, the fuel tax take to Labor states and territories will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010-11—an increase of $80 million. The increase in heavy vehicle registration charges will push up the tax take for Labor state and territory governments from $638 million to $727 million in the same period—an increase of $88 million. In terms of the states, Labor-run New South Wales will see its registration tax rise from $150.3 million in 2007-08 to $166.8 million in 2009-10 and Victoria’s registration revenue will rise 15 per cent, from $171.4 million to $197.9 million, in the same period.
Given the poor track record of the Labor states in project management, there are no guarantees that we will actually see any improvement in transport infrastructure arising from these higher charges. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the road user charge scheme is that the money collected from the registration or the fuel excise is not hypothecated, so there is no guarantee that any of this money will actually be spent on roads. There is no guarantee that the states will go out and build extra roads to benefit the trucking industry. There is no guarantee that they will spend more money on maintaining the roads. It will simply go into their revenue and they will do with it as they wish. The minister has said that there will be a program of new road enforcement regulations—building a couple of rest stops and a number of issues like that. Some of those issues may well be worth while, but there is no guarantee that the money raised from this indexed new tax will in fact ever be spent on roads. I think the people of Australia need to be aware when they are paying higher prices for groceries, equipment and transport that the money essentially being collected from them will not necessarily be spent on roads.
Indeed, we have good reason to be concerned about where Labor is going in relation to road funding. I think the softening up process by the Rudd government to drastically reduce road funding around Australia has already begun. Labor used incomplete and old statistics in a crude attempt to downplay the coalition’s funding commitments for land transport, which were at record highs some years before the last election. With less than two months to go before the May budget, it now appears that the Labor government will halve the coalition’s AusLink commitments of $31 billion between now and 2013. Labor could spend as much as $15 billion less than the coalition promised during that period.
The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government released a report by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics which suggested that, once adjusted for inflation, the coalition spent less annually on road funding than the previous Labor government. Unfortunately for those who expect some transparency and honesty from the government, there were at least three major flaws in that claim. Firstly, the report deals with spending until 2004. It was only in 2004 that the AusLink program was introduced. The big boost in expenditure, up to around $4 billion a year, occurred after the introduction of AusLink—and that occurred outside the time frame for the figures that the minister was quoting. Secondly, a big component of AusLink was the billions of dollars of new funding spent on rail—to get more freight off our roads so that they can last longer, freeing up money for new roads and a more efficient transport system. The minister conveniently forgot the expenditure on rail when criticising the coalition’s performance as an infrastructure builder. Thirdly, and never let this be forgotten, the previous Labor government put its road funding on the bank card. It was part of the $96 billion worth of debt that the coalition government inherited on coming to office. So the coalition government not only had to build new roads but also had to pay for the ones that Labor had built in its earlier term.
The reality is that we were left with the bill for the meagre road construction activity that Labor had undertaken during its previous term in office, so it is somewhat disingenuous for the minister to criticise the previous coalition government’s record on road funding. But it is even more dishonest if in fact he intends to drastically slash over the next four years the amount of funding that the coalition committed to roads during the last election campaign. In its last budget the coalition detailed infrastructure spending of $22.3 billion between next year and 2013, and an extra $7.3 billion was announced before the election. And all those promises were independently costed by Treasury. We provided to Treasury an extensive policy document—something like 75 pages—and the policies were fully costed. The policy package detailed the projects across the length and breadth of Australia on which $31 billion would be spent.
Labor’s election promises, we are now told as a result of the press releases that were put out during this last week, amounted to only $15.5 billion—half of what the coalition had promised. This amount would actually take expenditure backwards from what had been achieved in the past. There will be projects right around Australia that will be at risk from Labor’s razor gang. We have already heard about some of those projects. The $1.2 billion F3 to Branxton link road in New South Wales is not going to be built. There will be $500 million slashed from the Bruce Highway funding for work between Cooroy and Curra. What about Roads to Recovery and the $350 million funding that has been so essential for local governments to keep their roads up to date or the $300 million we had committed to spend on development roads around regional Australia? Labor has not committed to either of these essential elements of a road budget.
One has to be deeply concerned about the future of our nation’s road system under this government. Labor has never had much sympathy for the road transport industry. I can recall, as a minister attending meetings of state and territory transport ministers, state Labor ministers one after the other venting their spleen on the evils of having trucks running up and down their roads. Some of them are very much in a ‘get square’ mood at the present time and, sadly, they have a federal government that is only too willing to roll over and to impose these additional taxes on the industry.
A couple of days ago there was a letter to the editor in one of my local newspapers that was signed by Peter Schuback, from the Australian Long Distance Owners and Driver Association. He comes from an area not far from my home town. He wrote:
If the government was serious about tackling inflation then why has it approved the extra charges for the transport industry?
Why has it allowed the near doubling of registration costs of some long distance trucks (up to about $14,400 a year for B-doubles)?
Why has it allowed the horrific fines for truck drivers for minor breaches ($10,000 plus $1,000 for every 15 minutes over on your log book and six demerit points), especially when it has not provided the facilities so truck drivers can do the right thing and abide by the laws?
Members of the public should be made very aware that their household costs are going to double because of the government and National Transport Commission’s actions.
You have been warned.
Well, the consumers of Australia have been warned. This is not a tax that is going to be innocently imposed upon a profitable trucking sector that can simply absorb it and not pass the costs on to consumers; this is a tax that will be felt by every shopper every day that they go to a supermarket. Every time a struggling family goes to buy the week’s groceries, they will pay more as a result of this tax. And the minister admitted as much. He acknowledged that the effect of this would be of the order of $16 or $18 a year on the average grocery bill.
But it will not only be groceries for which there will be higher costs; there will be higher costs for everything that we buy every day. There will be higher costs on the sorts of things that people, particularly those who live outside the capital cities, use in their daily lives. People who live outside the capital cities will pay a higher share of this cost because transport is more important to them. Everything has to travel a distance to get to many of the small country towns in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, and in my own electorate. This will also affect a manufacturing industry in a regional area. Because of the way in which parts are moved to put together various items of manufactured goods these days, there will be multiple times when this particular increase will be paid on the construction or manufacture of an item in a factory. As parts are moved in and out and are moved on a truck from one place to another to be assembled, the truck will pay higher fuel costs and higher registration charges each time as a result of this legislation.
This is not legislation that people can simply put aside and say has nothing to do with them. They will feel the effects of this every day. When the government comes into this place or goes on television and talks about how it cares about the higher costs of groceries for struggling families, people should be reminded that part of the reason that groceries are more expensive is that this government has indexed the diesel fuel that the truck uses to travel around the roads. Of course, the fuel itself has to be transported to service stations around the country by diesel trucks—diesel trucks that will cost more to register and for which there will be a higher level of tax on the fuel that they use to complete their journeys.
These bills support a new tax and an increase in registration charges, for which the case is not clear. The fees will discourage the use of efficient vehicle combinations and will increase truck traffic on our roads. The taxes and charges are inflationary and will make worse the financial struggle of not only the families of transport operators but all Australians. They include a new indexed fuel excise that will rise faster than the CPI. The taxes fly in the face of the Rudd government’s statements about fighting inflation. The decision represents an abrogation of federal Labor’s responsibility to ensure that the taxes imposed by their state Labor mates are competitive. It is for these reasons, and indeed many others, that the opposition will oppose these bills.
2107
17:53:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—The extent of the carnage on our roads has been reduced over recent years; however, the tragedy continues to strike too many families. We see it on our television screens, unfortunately, on a daily basis, and it continues to inflict devastation not only on the families of the truck drivers or the road users involved but also on the wider community. This trauma is not isolated to the immediate victims of road trauma. The collateral damage affects many people, from the emergency services who lend assistance to the various voluntary organisations across the country to the people whom I represented for many years—the various members of the police service. I have to say, sadly, that the fight in terms of road carnage as a result of heavy vehicles cannot be won but there are many things that we should look at in addressing those issues, and they particularly go to road safety.
The National Road Safety Strategy has a target of reducing the annual number of road deaths per 100,000 head of population to below 5.6 by the end of 2010—that represents a 40 per cent reduction relative to the 1999 benchmark. This figure has become a formidable target with the aim of reducing the number of road fatalities. On 29 February this year, the transport ministers across the country unanimously endorsed this government’s plan to put into effect a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity plan. I have had the opportunity to have a brief discussion about this with one of the main characters in the industry, Lindsay Fox, and with a former colleague of mine Bill Kelty—but I will come back to that later. In terms of Lindsay Fox’s involvement in the industry—apart from his history in establishing heavy vehicle transport throughout the country and his commitment to the ongoing viability of this industry—I think his views are certainly very much respected, at least on this side of the chamber.
The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 enables the nationally agreed heavy vehicle registration charges to be applied to heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme—or FIRS, as it is known. The new heavy vehicle charges are one component of this government’s broader heavy vehicle productivity and safety agenda and will ensure that the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme charges are consistent with the state and territory registration charges as they apply from 1 July 2008.
Heavy vehicles operate across our country and transport from state to state almost 1.7 billion tonnes of freight, which represents 70 per cent of the total domestic tonnage carried by all transport modes. As many as 365,000 heavy vehicles operate in Australia. As you would no doubt appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, being on the Hume Highway, my electorate of Werriwa experiences a lot of the heavy vehicle transport that operates along the eastern seaboard. The Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne is one of our most active interstate corridors, and it carries 20 million tonnes of freight per year. In the lead-up to the last federal election, it was so critical that the then Rudd opposition outline a plan to widen the Hume Highway where significant bottlenecks were occurring. Within the bounds of Werriwa on the Hume Highway, we experience 6,000 heavy transport movements per day.
In raw terms, this bill is about ensuring there is a proper charge applied against heavy transport movements that has regard to recovery against infrastructure with respect to roads. The basis of that, as was agreed by the transport ministers, was to ensure that a fair amount was paid in order to contribute to the preservation of roads and essential infrastructure to allow the passage of this transport. Therefore, the collection of the heavy vehicle charges has the support of state and territory governments, but more importantly the Commonwealth government. This is about ensuring that heavy vehicles pay their fair way in terms of the impact on our roads.
Having just heard the contribution from the Leader of the Nationals, I should indicate that in 2007 the then Leader of the Nationals and transport minister—the member for Lyne, Mr Vaile—put reform of heavy vehicle charges on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments. He said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
Currently the amount of money raised through the heavy vehicle charges does not recover the cost of providing the infrastructure for heavy vehicles. That is the position which underpins this bill and it was certainly the position at the heart of the statement made in 2007 by Mr Vaile.
Recovery of road expenditure is achieved through a fixed registration charge collected by state and territory governments and a road users charge collected by the Australian government. The heavy vehicle charges have not changed since 2001, when it was determined that the charges would recover past expenditure from the heavy vehicle sector. This had the effect of lowering registration fees for some larger trucks, which consequently brought about a situation where they were effectively being cross-subsidised by the operators of smaller trucks. As I stated earlier, an overhaul of the heavy vehicle charges is urgently needed in order to construct and maintain the infrastructure needed for these heavy vehicles. In fact, the National Transport Commission estimates that under-recovery is currently in excess of $100 million per year.
In 2007, the National Transport Commission was asked by the Australian transport ministers, who were directed by COAG as part of the overall transport reform package, to prepare a new heavy vehicle determination to deliver revised charges for introduction this year. This bill deals only with the registration charges. The road user charges are not dealt with in this bill; however the determination increases the road user charge from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre, indexed annually. To provide industry the opportunity to adjust to the new road user charge, it was agreed in cooperation with the industry that its introduction would be delayed until 1 January 2009.
Under the proposal recommended by the National Transport Commission, there will be a new set of registration charges which will rebalance the contribution of different heavy vehicle classes. The new registration charges will in effect put a stop to smaller trucks paying as much as they do presently—in effect subsidising the larger trucks—and the larger trucks, the B-doubles and road trains, will be required to pay their fair share. This will result in decreases in registration charges for about 25 per cent of the transport fleet, a small increase for about 69 per cent of the fleet, and a significant increase for the remaining six per cent of the fleet—that is, the heavy truck trailers and multicombination vehicles that are currently subsidised by smaller vehicles. To assist the industry to adjust, these increases will be phased in over three years and will better align charges to the impacts of heavy vehicles on our roads. To supplement the determination by the National Transport Commission, the government, after listening to the concerns of the industry, has developed a $70 million, heavy vehicle safety and productivity plan. (Quorum formed)
I had the opportunity to talk to Lindsay Fox and Bill Kelty, together with the member for Maribyrnong, only a couple of weeks ago. It was very refreshing to hear what people who are absolutely committed to this industry have to say about its future and the degree of investment that needs to be made. One thing Mr Fox was talking about was the trial of technology, particularly the electronic monitoring of truck drivers’ work hours—effectively, a black box within the transport industry. As he put it, there are certain charges involved not only with administering it but also with regulating it. He was talking not only of the working conditions of professional drivers but also of the responsibility we have to drivers, their families and, as a matter of fact, all other road users. That is why an organisation such as Linfox is so committed to looking at those aspects of technical development that could be deployed in this industry with a view to enhancing the safety of our heavy transport sector.
Another thing that is being looked at is the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and decoupling areas along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities. Again, that is something that is quite significant. A third thing is upgrades to linkages between our AusLink freight routes and the strengthening of some of our bridges to cope with the contemporary transport we use and its frequency.
Safety in the heavy vehicles sector is paramount not only to those directly involved in the industry but to all road users. We have a dreadful situation where approximately 330 people are killed each year in crashes involving heavy vehicles, a one in five fatality ratio, with three times as many injured. That does not mean that it is just trucks that are at fault; it means ensuring that our roads are maintained so as to accommodate the use of those roads by the heavy transport sector. This is a significant cost to our community; it is a cost which it would be almost immoral to put a value on. There is certainly a fiscal cost to the community of around $2 billion per year. But the cost that road fatalities have on our community is something that we all have an obligation to try to do something about. That is what this bill does: it seeks to recover in the transport sector the moneys to reinvest in better roads and to reinvest in the infrastructure that is ever so necessary if we are to continue to utilise heavy vehicles as the prime transport mode for our domestic product. I commend the bill to the House.
2109
18:11:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—I am proud to come to this House and come to Canberra to represent the electors of Grey. One of the things I need to do as I represent the electors of Grey is put forward their interests. Since I have come to Canberra—and I have only been coming here for a few weeks—I have felt as though my electors are under assault. We have had 115 days of this government, and the government’s attacks on rural and regional Australia are setting a pattern. We have had the termination of the Investing in Our Schools Program. We are in the middle of a $2 billion raid on the Communications Fund put aside for rural Australia. In my electorate, it seems as if we have just lost an Indigenous youth festival called Croc Fest. We have had cuts in Exceptional Circumstances funding. We have had the removal of $10 million of support for agricultural research—support put in place to help alleviate the loss of levies grower organisations have at the moment through the drought. So here we have a government proudly claiming to be delivering on its election agenda, but there is a whole stack of nasties out there as well, a whole heap of nasties that we did not know about before the election; in particular, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008.
And there is more in the pipeline. We are already talking about what is going to happen to the Australian technical colleges and Regional Partnerships. Let us face it, the government even had a go at trying to cut the carers payment in the last week, but the public outcry was so great they could not proceed. But rural and regional Australia is an easy hit. They have a go at us and they can get away with that.
The previous Prime Minister often said, ‘We will not abandon rural Australia in its hour of need.’ It seems to me that this government cannot get out fast enough. Labor does not understand or care about rural and regional Australia. We are now seeing the product of wall-to-wall Labor. The last time these proposals were put up by the NTC, the Australian Transport Commission rejected them. That was when the coalition still had a seat at the table. We are not seeing that sense of cooperation now—first meeting and the changes go straight through. My office has had numerous contacts on this issue. Figures bandied around suggest that it will add 13c to a $100 grocery bill. Maybe that is the case when your freight is five per cent of the final cost. I might point out that fuel in the northern part of my electorate is over $2 per litre. That would suggest to me—
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Why didn’t you introduce ethanol?
HWS
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
Mr RAMSEY
—I was not here then. That price would suggest to me that we have at least a 25 per cent freight component on fuel. It shows that, in the country, freight is a much bigger component, whether it be 10, 15 or 25 per cent. This impost delivers an 80 per cent increase on the registration of a B-double, rising from $8,041 to $14,340. The Australian Transport Commission adopted the higher road fuel user charge. We are going to see not only a rise in the fuel cost of around 1.4c per litre but also the return of indexation, something that we thought we had seen off. This indexation is not going to be linked to CPI, as all other indexations have been before. This indexation will be linked to the road-building indices, which are rising at a far greater rate than the CPI. Since much of the road-building material has to be brought in, the raise in freight rates will naturally raise the price of the roads. Truckers have no choice but to pass on this cost. One medium-sized operator in my electorate estimates that it will cost his business $160,000 to $200,000 a year. He will have no choice but to pass this on. Truck operators tell me that they expect their freight costs to rise by about six per cent.
My electorate runs on freight. Broadacre agriculture involves big tonnages that must be moved to the port. We have the mining industry. We always pay freight two ways in the country. Six per cent will be added to the freight bill of fuel, fertiliser and industrial inputs. Six per cent will be added to the freight bill of groceries. Six per cent will be added to the freight bill of lettuces, toilets, toilet paper and shampoo. Residents of Grey will pay the freight both ways on everything that comes into and out of their electorate. Higher freight rates will mean higher prices. Higher prices will mean higher inflation. This government has done nothing, if it has not talked about inflation. How many times have I heard the word ‘inflation’ in this House in the last three weeks? Possibly about half as many times as I have heard the term ‘working families’. The working families of the electorate of Grey will not appreciate the inflation caused by these higher rate charges.
The increases that were rejected in 2006 as being an unfair slug on rural Australia were deemed unfair because at that time rural Australia was struggling in the grips of a drought. I ask the other side of this House what they think has changed since that time. I would say that nothing has changed. The drought is still there and rural Australia is still struggling. What are we going to do? We are going to hit them with a six per cent rise in freight prices.
Australia is addicted to fuel tax. We pay fuel tax of around $14 billion a year, yet we are still spending less than half of that on the roads in Australia, even allowing for large increases in road funding in the last four years. The road transport industry and the motorists of Australia are paying more than enough tax already to pay for all the repairs on the road. And there is no guarantee that these increases are going to be spent on the road network anyhow. It is within the government’s power to spend it on whatever they wish. Australia consumes around 37,000 megalitres of fuel a year. I do not have the exact calculations on this, but if you assume that 80 per cent of that is for non-export activity that should lead to about another $5 billion worth of GST receipts, which will be going straight to the states. The states are able to spend more on the roads; they do not need this extra registration slug.
Far from the transport industry not paying their way, at this stage they and the motorists of Australia are carrying the load. The Australian Trucking Association claims that the National Transport Commission’s finding that heavy transport are not paying their way is flawed, that they meet more than their costs and that there is little transparency about this increase. In the light of that, it behoves the government to go back and look at those figures and check to see whether they are correct. Heavy imposts on large combination registration will push freight back onto smaller trucks.
I have just been listening to the member for Werriwa talking about the issue of road safety in Australia. I could not agree with him more. Everybody is concerned about road safety. Every year that goes past we see more and more transport movements on the road, yet our road toll is falling. That is a great testament to the people who run the trucks, it is a great testament to the motorists and it is a great testament to the investment of all governments that have improved roads. No-one more than me would like to see the road toll fall further. But we do have to have a sense of reality here. If we are going to push freight back onto smaller trucks—this is the old argument—why not push it around in wheelbarrows? Why not put the freight back onto 14-tonne trucks? That would mean we would only have small trucks on the road and, when you get hit, it will only be a 22-tonne weakling that runs over the top of your car—and we are going to have five times as many of them. That just defies logic. You cannot have more trucks on the road and be safer. We need to push the loads onto the big trucks to keep the traffic density down. More trucks mean more danger, more greenhouse gases and more congestion, and ultimately it will do more damage to the roads. Much has been written and said over the years about Australia being cursed by the tyranny of distance. In this case we tax to our disadvantage. In an economy like Australia’s, it is nonsensical to tax freight over and above what is necessary to achieve the road network that we need. It taxes productivity—the very thing that builds this nation.
I think there was an estimate in 2002 that the road freight task for Australia will double by the year 2020. I point out that in 2008 we are about one-third of the way through, so the increases that you have seen in the last six years will keep happening. And the idea of pushing freight back onto smaller trucks, of using the motorists and the consumers of Australia as a cash cow not just to build highways but to keep putting money back into the rest of the economy, is flawed. We will pay the price for it in the long term. We need to freight more safely on roads; we do not need more trucks. I conclude my remarks by saying that I believe this bill is an unfair attack on rural Australia. The people in the cities may not understand the implications, but you pay freight on everything you consume and then you pay GST on top of the freight. That tax should be part of the accounting plan for the roads but it is not being counted at the moment. Somewhere around $5 billion of fuel tax delivered to the states is not part of the equation. We need to draw attention back to it. We do not need this extra impost.
2112
18:23:00
Clare, Jason, MP
HWL
Blaxland
ALP
1
0
Mr CLARE
—I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008. Our freight travels the length and breadth of our vast country, from the mines in Western Australia to Port Botany in Sydney, from cattle stations in Far North Queensland to the homes of South Australia. The tyranny of distance is largely borne by our truck drivers. They rely on the road infrastructure that we provide. We need to give our freight movers roads of the highest quality; we need to give our truck drivers rest stops to combat driver fatigue; we need to make the presence of heavy vehicles on the roads safer for the sake of truck drivers and, importantly, for all road users. We need to improve the efficiency of our road network by upgrading our roads and strengthening our bridges. In laying out the obligations the government have to heavy vehicle users, we also recognise that contributions from the freight industry are an important part of the total road expenditure. Successive governments of both political persuasions and many in the trucking industry have supported the contribution towards the cost of road construction and the contribution towards fixing the damage that heavy vehicles do to our roads. Ultimately these contributions directly benefit the freight and road transport industry. This bill will overhaul the existing act and create charges which are more equitable for all truck drivers.
An inquiry into road and rail infrastructure pricing by the Productivity Commission found that currently small trucks are paying too much while larger trucks are paying too little. On advice from COAG, chaired by John Howard, the National Transport Commission recommended that the former government introduce legislation to ensure full cost recovery of heavy vehicle usage and cross-subsidisation of large trucks by smaller vehicles. The Howard government at that time said that those changes were to be implemented on 1 July 2008. The new Rudd government, based on the same recommendations, aims to do the same. Significantly, the government’s bill deals only with registration charges. The implementation of the road user charge will be delayed until 1 January 2009. I welcome the support of the industry for this change. Stuart St Clair, the Chief Executive of the Australian Trucking Association, had this to say:
Minister Albanese has listened to the industry and delivered a strong result for trucking operators and Australian families ...
The bill introduced by the government will reduce registration fees for 25 per cent of the nation’s 365,000 heavy vehicles, distributing the costs to larger vehicles. The greatest increase will be for six per cent of trucks, for the larger trucks such as B-doubles. To ensure minimal impact on the industry, these increases will be introduced over three years. The logic is that those that do the most damage and enjoy the greatest benefits from road upgrades will pay the highest cost.
My experience over the last four years working on the Westlink M7 project in Western Sydney is testimony to the advantages that road freight gets from first-class infrastructure. The M7 is a new freight link through Western Sydney, a 40-kilometre road that connects the M5 to the M4 and on to the M2. It is a road that has made the work of moving freight in Sydney, and particularly in Western Sydney, so much more productive and so much more efficient. The evidence of this can be seen in the heavy vehicles that use the road. On most motorways in Sydney and across the country on most arterial roads you will find that the traffic mix on those major roads is around eight or nine per cent heavy vehicles and the rest smaller vehicles. The M7 has a very different traffic mix: it has in the order of 18 per cent heavy vehicles. Those trucks, those heavy vehicles, are taking advantage of the M7 because it cuts travel time, and time is money. A couple of years ago, the Victorian Transport Association released some information on the real impact of saving time for the freight industry. They gave me some information which indicated that, at that time, an hour saved on the road for a B-double equated to around $100 saved. That incorporated the cost of fuel, it incorporated the cost of labour and it incorporated the cost of maintenance. When all of that was taken into account, a B-double saving an hour on the road saved about $100.
Good infrastructure that cuts time and cuts costs makes business more efficient and more productive. Good infrastructure saves time and money. That is what the M7 does, and that is why I welcome the investment that we see in this bill in new and improved road infrastructure. We can also see these benefits in major upgrades to the Pacific Highway. Travel times have been cut significantly and the route has been opened up to B-doubles, with over 200 B-doubles utilising the road every day—heavy vehicles that are moving from the New England Highway over to the Pacific Highway to take advantage of the travel time savings, and cutting their costs and becoming more productive as a consequence. We can also see the benefits in Victoria, with the $331 million Deer Park bypass, a nine-kilometre four-lane freeway which will improve access to the Western Ring Road and Melbourne Ports, and reduce travel and operating costs for 7,000 heavy vehicle users. Also, we see the benefits on the Hume Highway, where the bypass around Albury-Wodonga has reduced operating costs for heavy vehicles, drastically cutting the driving time between Melbourne and Sydney.
The benefits of these projects have a ripple effect. They increase efficiency and safety, and they increase productivity. When you increase productivity you go a long way towards lowering inflation. But the bill that we are discussing today is not just about boosting productivity or improving infrastructure; it is also about saving lives. This government, through this bill, will invest in driver safety. This government will invest $70 million into the trucking industry and road infrastructure to prevent the loss of hundreds of lives and the thousands of injuries that occur annually on our roads. The road toll can be reduced by using the measures that the minister for infrastructure and transport has outlined: the introduction of black box technology to make it difficult for drivers to drive for too long or at high speeds; upgrades to freight routes and the strengthening of bridges to enable them to safely carry larger, heavier loads; and the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and parking areas along highways to reduce driver fatigue. The Monash University Accident Research Centre estimates that road spending on such measures can reduce heavy vehicle related deaths by 38 per cent. That translates into 125 lives potentially saved each year. I commend the minister for working closely with the states and territories and the industry to develop a plan not only to create greater efficiency in the existing road network but also, very importantly, to potentially save lives.
Again, I welcomed the comments in the Australian Financial Review this morning of Stuart St Clair, the Chief Executive of the Australian Trucking Association. He said:
These are very significant changes to the industry, they should not be underestimated ...
I also note that the former minister for transport in his contribution spent considerable energy defending the former government’s investment in road infrastructure. However, his argument is not borne out by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, which released a report only recently that showed that road funding during most of the Howard government era was about 11 per cent lower than during the years of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments. Federal road funding averaged $2.3 billion a year under the former Hawke and Keating Labor governments but fell to less than $2.05 billion a year under the coalition. There is a lot of work to do to realise the aim of the freight industry: to move more freight, to move it more safely and to move it at less cost. We are just beginning, but I welcome the government’s commitment to this task and I welcome the minister’s contribution to this task.
2114
18:33:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, which will enable heavy vehicle registration charges to be applied to trucks registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 also updates definitions contained in the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and establishes a new charge-setting mechanism based on a rate agreed by transport ministers meeting as the ATC.
These updated charges were determined by Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council meeting on 29 February 2008. The states and territories will impose the same charges for heavy vehicles that come under their registration systems. Separately, but as part of rationalising the charge-setting mechanism, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 repeals the current charge-setting mechanism based on Commonwealth-provided act law, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993. The two elements of the charge structure upon the Australian trucking system are through registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system. The determination of the appropriate level of these charges occurs through the National Transport Commission, which makes recommendations to the ATC to recover road expenditure attributable to heavy vehicles.
The trucking industry has long accepted the principle of paying its way, an approach endorsed by all levels of government. All money collected under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme is paid to the states and territories. These bills make adjustments to the way heavy vehicle registration fees and the diesel fuel excise, known as the road user charge, are determined. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 grants the ATC the power to determine the charges that will apply to Commonwealth-registered heavy vehicles. The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 ends the system whereby the Australian Capital Territory set the reference charge for other jurisdictions to follow. The Australian Trucking Association has objected to the proposed increases, and the Australian Long Distance Owners and Drivers Association has opposed both the higher registration and excise costs. However, my main concern is that the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 will require the Commonwealth to always impose the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council. The Commonwealth, therefore, will lose its discretion to dissent from the ministerial council and would be unable to determine in its own right the charges that should apply to Commonwealth-registered heavy vehicles.
The Australian Transport Council charges are reference fees used by the states and territories. Should the Commonwealth wish to apply competitive pressure on the charges imposed by the states and territories on their own heavy vehicles, it would be unable to do so; therefore, the Commonwealth will have no capacity to scrutinise these charges. The regulation that stipulates the heavy vehicle registration charges will contain significant increases that will be implemented over three years from 1 July 2008. These increases will arise from the application of an annual road cost adjustment formula—a formula that will result in charges higher than the CPI.
The increase in charges will fall heavily on the already highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-doubles and B-triples. B-doubles and B-triples carry the more time-sensitive foodstuffs—such as fresh fruit, vegetables, milk and wine—and are highly effective in Western Australia, where great distances are travelled to regional and remote towns. The imposts, therefore, threaten to slow the road freight sector’s improvement in productivity and in environmental performance by discouraging trucking operators from converting from semitrailers to the multicombination vehicles, which will result in even more trucks on our roads.
The second part of the charge structure to be imposed on heavy vehicles comes from the decision by the Australian Transport Council to increase the road users charge from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre. This will take effect from 1 January 2009 and will be indexed annually to the same formula as that used for registration charges.
The two measures will impose an increasing cost burden on Australia’s struggling truck operators and their families. The measures will also push up prices for everyone. Since trucks carry over 70 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight, the flow-on effect of increased prices will be passed on to all consumers—Australian working families—over many, many goods. For those imposts to occur when so many are hurting due to higher interest rates exposes the Rudd government’s claim to be serious about fighting inflation. It is also an indication of what ending the blame game between federal and state governments actually means—no state Labor transport minister will blame another for imposing higher cost on Australians. They will not have to. It will mean that the government, in one of its first acts in office, will be reintroducing fuel excise indexation by stealth.
Registration costs will be substantially increased, and fuel tax on truck drivers will be increased from 19.6c a litre to 21c a litre. Obviously, any increase in the cost of transporting goods will place upward pressure on interest rates and also impact on the cost of goods to consumers. Any increase in the cost of transportation will hit regional Australia hard, particularly in Western Australia. Regional areas have a particularly heavy reliance on the trucking industry to deliver consumer goods where they do not have access to the rail network. I have great respect for those in the transport industry: they deliver 1.6 billion tonnes of domestic freight. An increase in transport costs will also make Australian exports less competitive and could cost jobs. One in four jobs in regional areas is dependent on exports, and most exports start their journey by road. The Rudd government has claimed that fighting inflation is its No. 1 priority. If these increased charges are adopted then it will prove these claims are nothing more than rhetoric. With fuel prices rising, almost on a daily basis, now is not the time to increase transport costs.
The associated charge framework will result in higher costs on Australia’s road freight sector. Once the measures are fully implemented, the revenue of states and territories will increase by a further $168 million. Far more significant is that there are no guarantees that the states and territories will actually spend this revenue windfall on roads. Although state Labor governments demand that heavy haulage transport pays its fair share of road use, I am very concerned that all the money received from these increased charges will be returned to the states and territories. Where is the accountability and transparency now that the state governments actually direct increased funding back into fixing roads and where will it be in the future?
The vice-president of the Australian Long Distance Owners and Drivers Association recently pleaded in an email that, if the government allows the recommendations of the NTC to go ahead and increases charges for trucks, there will be many who will go broke in this process. The transport industry believes that it does pay its way and has put up with some of the worst road conditions. Many truckies are questioning where their contributions go to, because they cannot see the funds that they have been paying being ploughed back into the nation’s roads by various state Labor governments.
Farmers have also slammed federal Labor’s decision to increase heavy vehicle charges as just another cost burden. Registration fees for 75 per cent of the nation’s 365,000 heavy vehicles will now rise. I agree with the statement made by Leon Bradley, Chairman of the PGA Western Graingrowers, when he warned that the cost increases would erode the competitiveness of WA farmers in international markets and that consumers would pay for the extra tax, because any produce carried around the nation on the back of a truck would now be more expensive. The National Farmers Federation commented that the decision added to a growing list of escalating costs that have hit farmers. They said:
... by arbitrarily increasing the cost of transporting food to local stores, consumers must realise that, ultimately, this means higher prices at the checkout.
Farmers—as price-takers in the supply chain—simply do not have the capacity to absorb these additional costs.
The trucking industry consists of small companies and individuals operating on small margins. Those in the industry know that freight rates are highly competitive. We have some very committed, quality small, medium and large operators in the trucking industry in Australia. Any government decision that forces good operators off the road and out of business should be condemned. The road user charge increases to be delivered in January 2009 will only continue to add to the pressure on the economy and increase prices to the consumer.
The government cannot fight inflation at this rate and with these types of decisions. The government also cannot claim it is putting downward pressure on grocery prices. Effectively, this will do the opposite. The government has already conceded increased freight costs would be passed on to consumers, but its assessment of the increase is a mere $17 per year. The trucking industry has said that Australian families may well have to find an extra $70 in their household budgets each year after the Rudd and Labor state governments increase registration and fuel charges through this mechanism. The Assistant Treasurer yesterday stated that food prices have actually increased 43.6 per cent since 1996. Additional road transport charges will only add to this increase. I have actually contacted road haulage companies and asked the simple question: who will pay? The simple answer is: the ultimate consumer.
The new plan to maintain the nation’s roads is to increase charges for 69 per cent of the nation’s 365,000 heavy vehicles by between one and 10 per cent. That is the additional cost to these particular operators. Six per cent of the fleet, the biggest vehicles on the road, will be hit with even higher increases, with the rise phased in over three years. Registration fees for some classes of licences will rise from about $8,000 or $9,000 a year to $20,000 a year, and of course those increases will have to be passed on to consumers. The state Labor government is happy to have this windfall and it says there will be more money for infrastructure spending—but, again, where is the accountability and where is the transparency? How can the trucking industry be assured that the funds generated by this will actually be spent on road infrastructure?
Continued Australian government investment in strategically important freight corridors through the AusLink program has been and continues to be vital to the national economy, with official forecasts indicating that growth in the road freight task will continue to outstrip growth in the aggregate economic activity over the period to 2020. The provision of quality and well-targeted road infrastructure is the leading contributor to productivity growth in the trucking industry. Therefore, there is an urgent need for more spending on road infrastructure for important AusLink freight corridors in urban areas.
I am also concerned that, with the establishment of the government’s Infrastructure Australia, and the development of the national infrastructure priority list, there may be calls for funding to be diverted from important road projects to other infrastructure priorities. The Bunbury outer ring road was promised by Labor during the campaign, and I am hoping that that will be delivered as a matter of priority. It may also allow the government to delay the implementing of road projects for referral to the assessment processes of Infrastructure Australia.
I am deeply concerned that federal Labor will drastically reduce road funding around Australia and therefore reduce road safety. The B-doubles and B-triples, the bigger, longer, higher mass carriers, have proved to be the safer and more productive combination. The federal government needs to encourage the use of these combinations and deliver on road infrastructure to keep Australia moving and improving. As the CEO of the Australian Trucking Association, Stuart St Clair, said:
Australia’s new national transport policy will only be a success if it focuses on boosting the trucking industry’s productivity and not on slugging the industry with even higher charges ...
I strongly oppose this bill on the basis that it will increase the cost of living and the cost of doing business and is actually an attack on rural and regional Australia.
2118
18:49:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
0
Mr TURNOUR
—I rise to support the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and related bill. The bills enable a nationally agreed new heavy vehicle registration charge to be applied to heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. These bills are the result of deliberations by COAG, the Council of Australian Governments, and were unanimously endorsed by all ministers at the Australian Transport Council meeting on 29 February 2008.
The Rudd government take economic reform very seriously and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 is a very important part of our ongoing plans to build a modern and prosperous Australia into the future. The Council of Australian Governments deliberated on this bill—and the issues facing the transport industry—and unanimously endorsed it. The bill forms part of a three-pronged strategy to improve fairness in the distribution of funding in relation to heavy vehicle use in our transport industry. Those three prongs are the heavy vehicle registration charge, a slight increase in the road user charge and a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. So this bill forms part of an overall plan—and that is what we are about. We are about planning and building a stronger Australia and a stronger economy into the future.
I come from the electorate of Leichhardt. I am a proud citizen of Cairns and have a rural and country background. This evening I have heard members of the National Party banging on about their representation of rural and regional Australia. They are a dying breed in Queensland in terms of federal politics and the reality is that they are dying because they do not effectively represent rural and regional Australia. I am a proud member of the Australian Labor Party and I am working very hard to ensure that rural and regional Queensland are represented. We understand how important road transport is to Australia. It is particularly important to my local community of Cairns and my electorate of Leichhardt. Cairns, up there in tropical North Queensland, is a long way from Brisbane, from Sydney, from Melbourne and from other capital cities. We depend on the Bruce Highway. We depend on heavy vehicles to bring in the basics, whether it is food or basic materials such as nappies and medications. For the common things that everyday working families need we rely on the road transport system and the road transport network to deliver, and we understand how very important it is that we continue to build and support a strong economy and make sure the road transport network and heavy vehicles are actually operating effectively within this country.
Not only does the system bring in goods, though; we also export a lot of goods. I have heard the National Party members today talk about representing rural Australia. I am proudly from a country background and I know that a lot of bananas and a lot of mangoes come out of North Queensland. Heavy vehicles take them out. The road transport system is a very important part of dealing with that and ensuring that we support those local industries and those local communities.
The National Transport Commission estimated that, under the current system, there is an under-recovery of the cost of providing infrastructure to heavy vehicles in excess of $100 million per annum. So it was estimated not by the Labor Party, the National Party or the Liberal Party but by the National Transport Commission that, under the current system, we get an under-recovery of $100 million per annum. So there is need for reform, and we recognise that. The system unfairly places a heavier burden of cost recovery on small trucks at the expense of large vehicles. Effectively, small trucks are cross-subsidising the impact of large trucks on the road network.
In April 2007, the Council of Australian Governments directed that, as part of an overall transport reform package, Australian transport ministers should require the National Transport Commission to prepare a new heavy vehicle determination. In its determination, the National Transport Commission recommended a new set of registration charges that rebalance the relative contributions of the different heavy vehicle classes. This is a fairer system of allocating the cost of heavy vehicle transport—and it is no wonder that we are getting a fairer system under a Rudd Labor government.
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
—What, because you’re giving us new taxes!
10000
Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms S Bird)—Order! The member will restrain himself.
HVV
Turnour, Jim, MP
Mr TURNOUR
—Successive governments, at both Commonwealth and state and territory levels, have supported the principle of cost recovery from heavy vehicles. Successive governments, at both the Commonwealth and state and territory levels, have supported the principle of cost recovery from the heavy vehicle industry for road construction and maintenance costs incurred through the collection of heavy vehicle charges. So successive governments, including the previous Howard government, have supported this approach.
In a speech given on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’, the member for Lyne, then federal transport minister and Leader of The Nationals, said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.
The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
So the then minister under the Howard government was moving to implement these sorts of reforms. We have the current opposition, led by the Leader of the National Party today in terms of this bill, basically now opposing this. We have heard that since the election the opposition does not really know where it stands. It does not know where it stands on this bill, effectively, and it does not know where it stands on the basic things that are important to working families, like industrial relations legislation and climate change. The contributions by those opposite to the debate on this bill today are another example of the opposition having lost its way and not understanding that working families, the Australian community, is looking for economic reform and leadership, and that is what the Rudd Labor government is providing. As I have said, the previous minister supported these reforms.
If we want to build a modern Australia equipped for the 21st century, we must continue with economic reform. We are a government that listens and responds to industry and the community. Prior to the introduction of this bill, the National Transport Commission undertook comprehensive consultations to inform its final recommendations. This also was begun under the previous minister, who actually had some direction in terms of transport reform. As a result of these consultations, the National Transport Commission made a number of changes in terms of its recommendations. The determination proposed by the National Transport Commission recommended a new set of registration charges that rebalanced the relative contribution of the different heavy vehicle classes. Under the determination recommended by the National Transport Commission, registration fees for 25 per cent of the nation’s 365,000 heavy vehicles will be cut, while the fees on 69 per cent of the fleet will rise by between one per cent and 10 per cent. So there will be some rise for 69 per cent, but that rise will be between one and 10 per cent—not the huge increases that we have heard about in contributions from the opposite side of the chamber.
Some larger increases are proposed for the six per cent of heavy vehicles that do not pay their fair share—because at the heart of our changes is ensuring that everybody pays their fair share. We do not want to see cross-subsidisation from small truck owners to large truck owners and B-doubles. Going to the heart of these reforms is making sure that we get people paying their fair share—making sure that, in terms of economic reform, we are seeing a user-pays approach and that proper decisions are made within our economy in terms of how we transport and move freight within Australia.
These new charges will result in larger trucks, the B-doubles and road trains, paying more in registration charges. But, to assist the industry to adjust, these increases will be phased in over three years—because we do listen and we recognise that reform takes time. We are going to allow for these changes to be phased in over three years, particularly for the larger trucks, the B-doubles and road trains, that will be impacted most heavily by these changes. These changes will also result in a reduction of charges for smaller trucks. No longer will owners of smaller trucks have to subsidise B-doubles and road trains. These changes better align charges to the impacts of those vehicles on our roads, so they better align the charging system into the future.
This determination will also increase the road user charge by a small amount—from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre—indexed annually. But again, after consultation—because we are a government that listens to industry and to the community—we have decided to delay this increase until 1 January 2009. The previous minister’s plan, under the former government, proposed to bring it in on 1 July this year and not six months later, as we have decided to do because we recognise that we need to listen and we need to support industry as it takes on these reforms. This charge is not part of this bill before the House but a separation declaration under a tax act.
It is nice to see that the fact that we listen and respond to the community, to working families and to the trucking industry has been recognised by the Australian Trucking Association. In a media release dated 29 February 2008, entitled ‘Rudd government listens to trucking industry’, the CEO, Stuart St Clair, from the Australian Trucking Association said:
The trucking industry and working families will benefit from the Australian government’s decision to delay increasing the fuel tax paid by trucking operators ... Minister Albanese has listened to the industry and delivered a strong result for trucking operators and Australian families ...
That is exactly right. Mr St Clair has hit the nail on the head. We are delivering for working families and we are listening to the trucking industry. These reforms are needed, but we are implementing them in a way that ensures that we reduce the burden on the trucking industry. He goes on to say—and this is a very interesting quote from that media release—that the minister:
... inherited a proposal that the National Transport Commission developed under the previous government.
So we on this side of the House, the government, inherited a proposal developed by the previous minister, yet we have seen the opposition today running away from that position. They are running away from taking the serious economic reforms that are needed for this country so that we can grow and strengthen our economy and ensure that we meet the challenges of the 21st century. Even the previous minister understood that reform was needed. The Leader of the National Party, who started this debate today, has basically run away from that reform because the current opposition have lost their way. They do not know what they stand for and their reaction to this bill is another example of that.
A further outcome of our deliberations and our consultation is—and I touched on it earlier—the fact that we need to improve safety in the heavy vehicle industry, and we also need to improve productivity. After these consultations the minister included in the determinations a $70 million four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package that will fund three components: trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed; the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and decoupling areas along our highways and the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers’ rest; and bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing AusLink freight routes, enabling access to those roads by more productive, heavy vehicles. So we have listened, and we are introducing a $70 million safety and productivity package.
This commitment is critical to improving road safety in Australia. The National Road Safety Strategy targeted a 40 per cent reduction in road deaths by 2010. This is unlikely to be achieved, which is disappointing, and I know that is part of the reason the minister responded with this package. We are determined to work on improving road safety; this plan is part of our commitment to work in partnership with the states and territories and with the Australian Trucking Association and truck drivers. About one in five road deaths involves heavy vehicles, with speed a factor in around 30 per cent of these crashes and driver fatigue in up to 60 per cent of them. We need to tackle speeding and fatigue within the heavy vehicle industry if we are to reduce the road toll. So we do take this seriously, and components of this package will allow us to trial some new technologies in reducing speeding and fatigue and also to provide truck drivers with new facilities, allowing them to rest and take a break when they need to. These are very important reforms and very important components of our overall plan in terms of delivering for working families and the trucking industry in this country.
The third component of this package deals with productivity. I have heard some of the contributions from members of the National Party this evening on this bill, where they talked about Labor not understanding productivity. They should understand that under their 11½—close on 12—years of government, productivity effectively declined to the point that in the year to the December quarter we had zero per cent productivity growth. This is below the long-term trend of 2.4 per cent—that is a fact. On the other side of the chamber they can bang on about productivity, but productivity is at zero per cent at the moment. We have got inflation at 16-year highs, the second highest interest rates in the world and productivity at zero per cent, and there is no plan from the opposition for the future of the Australian economy. This bill is part of our package to strengthen Australia and to build a stronger Australian economy into the future, because increasing productivity is the key to growing and strengthening the Australian economy. Our plan provides for targeted investment which will open up more roads to heavy vehicles, freeing up the movement of freight and easing congestion. So the third component of that $70 million plan—the bridge strengthening and connecting of our road transport network—is about improving productivity within the Australian economy by allowing our road transport and freight to be more effectively connected and to more efficiently and effectively move freight around this country. The government will consult with industry and the state and territory governments to determine the best combination of projects for the use of this $70 million, because we do listen and respond not only to industry but to the community and working families. We take productivity seriously. That is why we will be investing in infrastructure and the education revolution.
I want to take the opportunity in my closing remarks to pick up on the statements made about productivity. If we are serious about tackling the problems with productivity then we need to make sure that we invest effectively in our infrastructure and in skills in this country. That is why bills like this, which ensure that we get a fair distribution of the costs of road infrastructure to heavy vehicles, are part of an overall plan. That plan involves Infrastructure Australia auditing and ensuring that we have a plan for future investment in our road, rail and port infrastructure and involves our education revolution to tackle the skills crisis. Productivity has reached zero per cent in this country; we need a plan to tackle that and to ensure that we build a strong economy that meets the challenges that confront us in the 21st century.
In closing, I commend this legislation to the House. I believe it is a good reform that was supported, effectively, by the previous government. The current opposition do not really have a position on a whole range of different areas. This legislation is just another example. They are effectively talking about productivity and talking about the fact that it might impact on grocery prices. I will take up that point very quickly in my last few minutes and mention the regulatory statement underpinning this. The Australian Trucking Association indicated in their submissions that this legislation will have negligible impact on grocery prices. In fact, I understand that 30c a week was the Australian Trucking Association estimate in terms of grocery prices, and I think that between 7c and 17c on a $100 basket of groceries was the assessment in the regulatory assessment of this legislation. So it is not going to impact on grocery prices. It is going to provide economic reform going forward to ensure that we build a strong economy and that we deliver for working families, for the trucking industry and for the broader community.
2122
19:08:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr McGAURAN
—It has not taken the Labor Party very long at all in government to impose its traditional strategy of increasing taxes. Here we are tonight debating the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, debating taxes. There is no fine way to say it. When you remove the charade of registration fees, the diesel fuel rebate, the diesel fuel excise system and the like, the fact is that these are penalising the transport industry with new taxes. The government are very slow—despite the commentary of many adoring persons in the media—to get up to a level of acceptable competence. They are trotting out long-held beliefs, policies and briefings from many departments. You can see it in their language. It is always a giveaway when a minister at the table, either in a speech or in question time, talks about the need to ensure that an event occurs or a program is implemented, and this is a classic. We rejected in government, as a coalition, similar proposals two years ago because we knew they were a new tax on one of the most important sectors of the economy which has flow-through implications for every person in this country, given that overwhelmingly freight is carried by trucks—up to 75 per cent all up, although we would wish it were not so high and that rail carried a great deal more. So that is what we are debating here tonight: new taxes, taxes that are struck for the convenience of the states.
There is one great way to end the blame game that Prime Minister Rudd has spoken about for so long and so often, and that is to give the states everything they want. These new taxes are designed to make up for the shortfall in the states and territories funding and lack thereof in roads, bridges and highways—to end the blame game by completely conceding or surrendering to the states. Not only has the Commonwealth done that by the unnecessary extent of the increase in registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system but it has locked itself into a majority decision on the Australian Transport Council, which is made up of state and federal ministers. Of course the transport ministers of the Labor states and territories are always going to have a majority, and of course they will caucus before the ministerial meeting and come to an agreed position which is invariably contrary to the interests of the Commonwealth, so much so that the Commonwealth Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will have to commit the government to an increase in registration fees or to an increase in the diesel fuel excise system anytime the states so deem it. It is beyond me how a self-respecting Commonwealth government, let alone minister, would surrender so much discretion and power to a majority vote of state ministers, whatever the portfolio might be, let alone one where there is no more obvious or shameful dereliction of duty by the states than in the area of roads and bridges.
The state governments have been leeching off the Commonwealth’s generosity for many years now. It is only the coalition government that has invested so heavily in necessary infrastructure. The AusLink program, initiated by the National Party in coalition, had a new funding commitment of $38 billion between the financial year 2004-05 and 2014. It identified freight corridors of national importance and developed long-term plans to develop them for the freight task they will face in 10 or 20 years time. The incoming Rudd Labor government, as they parrot—obviously at the urgings of the federal secretariat—have yet to commit to abiding by that $38 billion investment by the coalition government. We will be watching that extremely closely. AusLink also includes the Roads to Recovery program, which has funded more than 25,000 local council road projects across Australia and an investment of over $2.4 billion in Australia’s interstate rail networks. The Black Spot Program further improved road funding through the elimination of around 300 black spots on Australian roads.
So everyone should be alert to the certainty that the states will further backslide on funding for roads, whether they be local or main roads or highways—or arterial roads, as they are deemed in some states—unless there is a strong Commonwealth minister backed up by his or her government. To roll over so early in your term to the Transport Council is an indication that the minister lacks the intestinal fortitude or backbone—or both—to stand up to the Transport Council. The state ministers could not believe their luck that, having been denied these increases for two years by a resolute coalition government, at the first Transport Council—made up of all jurisdictions’ transport ministers—the Commonwealth minister agreed, and furthermore agreed that in future the Commonwealth will be bound by a majority decision. If there is ever a strong minister in the portfolio, that decision will be reversed. No self-respecting Commonwealth minister, in the interests of the whole nation, would lock themselves into a majority vote of a ministerial council.
It worries me enormously that the costs are going to blow out. For example, the registration fees for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340—an extraordinary increase of more than $6,000—and B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340. The road user charge, or diesel excise, will increase from 19.6c per litre to 21c per litre. Worse still, this fuel excise will be indexed to the same formula used for heavy vehicle registration charges. In other words, the indexation of fuel excise is back—bigger and better than ever in the eyes of the revenue raisers within the government.
This is a proposal by the central agencies—namely, Treasury, Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet—and they have found a docile minister for transport or infrastructure to implement it on their behalf, having been denied it for many years by strong and resolute coalition ministers. Really, regardless of the personal regard or affection one might have for the personality and good humour of the minister for infrastructure and transport and other responsibilities, one cannot admire him at all for his weak-kneed response on this vital issue of road funding. Do not ever give in to the states on road funding. Mind you, we should offer that gratuitous advice to the ministers for health, for housing, for disability services and even for agriculture. Of course, you have to cooperate and compromise at times, but there is a difference between capitulation and compromise—a difference the minister for infrastructure and transport fails to appreciate.
I am worried enormously about the effect this will have on ordinary consumers going about their everyday shopping. The inflationary effect is undeniable. How can you increase the diesel fuel excise and registration charges without a cost being imposed at the retail end? It defies basic economics to believe otherwise. In Victoria we are slightly better off than other states because Victorian state governments, of whatever political complexion, have always had a much stronger tradition on road funding, with the portfolio headed by a senior minister—whereas in the other states these ministers are far further down the ministerial pecking order. There have been exceptions in Victoria under Labor governments, to be sure, but overall the transport and roads ministers in Victoria carry political clout—unlike the present incumbent at the federal level, as evidenced by this legislation.
We in Victoria have been further aided by arguably the best of the road agencies in Australia; namely, VicRoads. I have always found them extremely efficient. They have a national and an international reputation for excellence in engineering. They get the best value for taxpayers’ dollars. They respond locally and they are known to build up strong links with communities as well as local government authorities and respond as best as possible on a regional basis. I have always found them supportive—to the greatest extent possible for them within limited state budgets—of local communities, whether remote or central.
No-one, especially someone who represents a rural constituency, could deny the vital importance of road funding. I am very proud to have been part of a government that over several years increased local road funding as well as funding for upgrades of highways. We also invested heavily in bridges and black spot funding. But a great deal more needs to be done, and it would be of enormous reassurance to local government authorities and the communities they represent if the present federal government would commit to at least equalling the coalition government’s forward estimates on all things infrastructure and road funding.
I obviously drive around the Gippsland roads. Gippsland is as mountainous as it is flat, and road funding is essential for the safety of more distant communities. I was reminded on 8 March that I had passed through 25 years of representing Gippsland. So I do know those roads—I cannot say I know them blindfolded, but I do know them backwards—and there has been a great improvement over the years, which brings me a great deal of personal and professional pleasure. Living in my own electorate, one wants to get home quickly from far-flung electorate functions. After 25 years of representing the electorate, one of the benchmarks of one’s contribution has to be an improvement in services, whether it be aged care, community health centres or road funding.
I should pause to thank all those who have contributed with me to this improvement in infrastructure and the overall wellbeing of Gippsland over those 25 years. Obviously a great many people in rural areas feel the community bonds even stronger than metropolitan areas and come together to push causes for the benefit of their whole community. It always gives you a great deal of pride as a local member in a rural electorate to be part and parcel of that community momentum and to see the tangible results of what people working together and pulling in the one direction can truly achieve with the support of governments, whether they be local, state or federal.
I have been very fortunate that my wife, Trudy, has been supportive of me, whether it has been travelling long distances throughout the electorate to cover the length and breadth of Gippsland or further afield. My brother, Senator Julian McGauran, also takes a great interest in Gippsland and supports me when causes need to be pushed. Nobody represents a large rural electorate, with the same intensity and demands of a geographically smaller metropolitan area, without the support of parents, family and extended family. I believe those 25 years have been productive, but that has only been possible because, in discharging the responsibilities and duties of holding office in the federal parliament, there has been support from the community. In country areas, people invariably put aside any political affiliation or views to support the local member, as long as the member is representative of their area, to achieve things for the community as a whole. It is an enormous privilege for any one of us to serve in this federal parliament, let alone to serve for 25 years covering 10 elections. I will be eternally grateful for the confidence and support vested in me by the people of Gippsland.
It is for those reasons that I feel so strongly that the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 has to be opposed. It raises the cost of transportation, and that is a vital factor for the timber jinkers and the dairy tankers that crisscross my electorate with great frequency. Our grocery prices, and indeed most other household requirements, are more expensive because of the distances travelled to bring them to Gippsland and other rural and regional areas of Australia. We have to be very mindful of the input costs that are reflected in the final price paid by people. We cannot have two classes of citizens in this country: one that lives approximate to the centre of metropolitan Australia and the other that lives further distances away. I oppose this legislation. It is an unnecessary increase in tax.
It has been said by government speakers that industry has been consulted. That may well be true but there is a world of difference between undertaking consultations and actually acting on those consultations or being influenced by the views of those most directly affected. Whilst there might have been consultations with the trucking association and individual trucking companies—and possibly a compromise on the ambit claims of the transport council was reached to get to this point—the general public has not been consulted, and it is for them that the opposition speak during this debate. The public do not want taxes of this kind. They want the state governments to properly share their portion of the burden of road funding. It should be a greater priority for state governments, and then there would be no need to impose these charges on transport companies and individual truckers, and therefore the community at large.
2126
19:25:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008. I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate. This bill introduces new road user charges and new road safety measures. I heard from the speaker opposite that the former government rejected many of the recommendations that we are about to address in this bill. The reality is that the former government did not reject the idea of these road user charges or their increase; they merely parked them under the carpet because they were too afraid to address these issues at a critical electoral time in 2007 when the former government knew they were in trouble. Under the carpet they also stuck the inflation numbers and the low productivity numbers.
In this legislation, we are addressing critical issues to do with our road transport infrastructure. You know as well as I do that an efficient economic framework which sends and receives correct price signals is a key component of a market economy. This bill receives and sends price signals to the road freight transport industry and will set a sustainable economic framework for Australia’s heavy vehicle users. It will implement principles and policies which have had bipartisan political support as well as endorsement from the trucking industry, the rail sector and highly credentialled economic advisers such as the Productivity Commission. Successive governments have supported user pays and cost recovery. Successive governments—at both state and territory levels of all persuasions—have supported the principle of cost recovery from the heavy vehicle sector. That heavy vehicles should pay their way is at the core of this principle.
In response to the 2005 national competition policy review, in February 2006 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, led by the former Howard government, agreed to a new national reform agenda. This agenda was aimed at providing a supportive market and regulatory framework for productive investment in energy, transport and export infrastructure by improving pricing and investment signals as part of a competitive market. The agenda also focused on establishing measures to ensure the efficient use of export infrastructure. COAG and of course the former government agreed to a series of transport measures aimed at improving the efficiency, adequacy and safety of Australia’s transport infrastructure and committed to a number of high-priority national transport market reforms.
In early 2006, following the failure of the states and the Commonwealth to agree to scheduled new charges, COAG asked the Productivity Commission to examine the issues of road and rail pricing—COAG, being the instrument of the former federal government. The Productivity Commission were also asked to develop proposals for efficient pricing of road and rail freight infrastructure through consistent and competitively neutral pricing regimes. Throughout 2006, the Productivity Commission, under the former government, undertook their inquiry into road and rail freight infrastructure pricing. This involved extensive industry and stakeholder consultation and the development of a draft and final report to COAG—all done under the former government. The Productivity Commission noted that efficient freight infrastructure is of particular importance to Australia given its dispersed population and production centres. It also said that pricing and regulatory arrangements are hampering efficient provision and productive use of road and rail freight. The commission also noted that maintaining cost recovery for road freight infrastructure is an important objective. And it is cost recovery that we are talking about here not tax increases. Our heavy vehicle charges regime scrupulously ensures that heavy vehicles are not overcharged.
In April 2007, COAG—again, led by the former Howard government—considered the Productivity Commission’s findings. COAG fully endorsed the findings and agreed to a comprehensive, long-term reform agenda for road and rail freight infrastructure pricing and investment decision making. This agenda builds on and reaffirms COAG’s commitment to measures agreed to in February 2006—again, under the former government—to ensure that policy and regulatory settings promote timely and efficient investment in and the use of land transport infrastructure to enable Australia to meet the growing freight task and maximise economic growth.
COAG agreed to a phased road reform plan, focusing on the reform of road pricing. The three-phased approach focuses on immediate efficiency enhancements from regulatory reforms and improved decision-making frameworks. As a first step, COAG requested that the National Transport Commission—the NTC—undertake a new heavy vehicle charges determination. That was the decision of the former government. COAG specifically directed that the new determination would ensure that charges would deliver, and continue to deliver, full recovery from heavy vehicles of their allocated share of infrastructure costs in aggregate and remove cross-subsidies across heavy vehicle classes.
It is noteworthy that those opposite have expressed opposition to this bill. They have always been part of the dialogue on this important issue; this is not something that has cropped up overnight. This is a difficult decision, and we understand that, but the distinction between the Rudd Labor government and our predecessors is our preparedness to make the hard decisions in the name of addressing our national infrastructure needs. This bill is part of COAG’s ongoing work and sets registration charges that, when combined with the new road user charge, fully meet COAG’s request.
During 2007, the National Transport Commission undertook a comprehensive consultation process which informed its final recommendations. Flowing from these consultations, the National Transport Commission made a number of changes to its recommendations to take into account stakeholder feedback on the draft regulation impact statement. The National Transport Commission further discussed these subsequent changes with industry and government, across jurisdictions, to ensure that they appropriately reflected industry feedback. The recommendations contained in the National Transport Commission’s heavy vehicle charges determination establish a new set of registration charges which ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs. The new charges seek to address the balance of cost recovery from different classes of heavy vehicles, ensuring the removal of cross-subsidies between heavy vehicle classes. In order to remove the cross-subsidies and ensure aggregate cost recovery, the new charges will result in increases in registration charges for larger trucks such as B-doubles and road trains.
Australians have come to expect a world-class service for the movement of fresh food, building materials, imported goods and resource materials for export—to name a few. There is no doubt that Australia’s road transport industry has delivered and will continue to deliver for consumers and suppliers alike. But to continue the service that we all expect from the road transport industry, the industry must be given the tools it needs. Year in and year out, the road transport industry invests billions of dollars in state-of-the-art trucks, including smart suspensions and trailing gear. Furthermore, the industry is acutely aware of exhaust emissions and its responsibility to address these emissions. The role for government is to ensure that safe, efficient roads are there for this industry to access. As I have heard more than one truckie say, ‘Everything in this country is delivered on the back of a truck—except for a baby.’
To ensure that the increases can be better managed and to soften their impact, the charges will be phased in over three years. The removal of cross-subsidies will result in a reduction in registration charges for many smaller trucks. For the first time, operators of smaller trucks will not have to subsidise the larger trucks’ share of road construction and maintenance costs. The determination also recommended increases in the road user charge from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre.
On Friday, 29 February, Australian Transport Council ministers considered the National Transport Commission’s final heavy vehicle charges determination recommendations. After careful consideration of the outcomes of the public consultation process and the impact that new heavy vehicle charges will have on the heavy vehicle industry, Australian Transport Council ministers voted unanimously to support the new charges determination. Transport ministers considered that the new heavy vehicle charges reach an appropriate balance. We now have the mechanism for achieving that balance and satisfying the requirements set forward by COAG in April 2007. That is the COAG established and run by the former Howard government. In reaching the decision to approve the new determination, the Australian government announced that it would postpone the recommended increase in the road user charge from 1 July 2008 to 1 January 2009. Delaying the increase in the road user charge will help to smooth the transition to new charges for heavy vehicle operators. This is in addition to the phasing in of the registration increases.
The increase in the road user charge is not part of the bill before the House but a separate declaration under the Fuel Tax Act 2006, which was tabled in both houses last Thursday. This is an important microeconomic reform. It implements the longstanding commitment by all parties for appropriate charges for the heavy vehicle industry. At the same time that we are implementing this important economic reform, the Rudd government recognises that more needs to be done to assist the heavy vehicle industry in addressing major road safety issues. We have decided to supplement the implementation of the new charges with a $70 million, four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package that will fund areas such as trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed; the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and decoupling areas along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers’ rest; and bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing AusLink freight routes, enabling access to those roads to more productive heavy vehicles. The government will consult with industry and state and territory governments to determine the best combination of projects for expenditure of the $70 million package.
The Rudd government has made some difficult decisions since taking carriage of this issue. The former government did not make difficult decisions. As I said earlier, it pushed the difficult decisions under the carpet where it pushed its inflation numbers and its productivity numbers. Our decisions to implement the $70 million safety and productivity package and to delay the implementation of the road user charge until 1 January 2009 were taken after we listened carefully to the views of the heavy vehicle industry and other key stakeholders. I note that key stakeholders like the Australian Trucking Association have expressed strong support for the introduction of the new safety and productivity package and the delay in the increase in the road user charge. I also note that the new charges will encourage state and territory governments to facilitate access of higher productivity vehicles to the road network. This, in turn, will make better use of the nation’s infrastructure—a key element of the Rudd Labor government’s plan to raise productivity and thereby fight inflation and maintain economic growth. I commend the bill to the House.
2129
19:38:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
0
0
Mr HAASE
—I have listened with interest to the member for Brand and I congratulate him on a very well disciplined performance on behalf of the government. It must have galled him somewhat because he does know the impact that this legislation will have on the trucking industry and, more importantly, he knows the impact it will have on north-western Australia and the cost of living.
I am delighted to be able to speak against the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 this evening because this bill will do all of the things that this Labor government have said they will undo. It will increase grocery prices—absolutely; there is no doubt. For the trucking industry, of course, it will increase fuel prices, when another pre-election commitment from Mr Rudd, the current Prime Minister, was that he would contain fuel prices. It will increase the cost of construction of dwellings and therefore impact directly on housing affordability. So a disciplined performance it was indeed from the member for Brand, because he is a member of the government and he is not—most assuredly he is not—representing the constituents of north-western Australia.
This bill has been introduced to the House in order to make changes that will allow at some point in the future an increase in the registration charges for rigs. How on earth can you increase the charges for anything and not impact on inflationary pressures? I thought that was another promise by the incoming Rudd government—that inflationary pressures were going to be reduced; that the pain of working families was going to be eased. Let us talk about those working families, because many of the families of Australia today are in fact non-working families. I will explain to you in detail just how this bill will help keep those non-working families as non-working families. This whole proposition has been whitewashed on the basis that the industry, if it suffers increased charges, will simply pass those increased charges on to the consumer. The wholesale consumer, the freight industries, will pass those additional costs on to their retail consumers. We are led to believe that somehow those additional costs will simply evaporate into the ether. It does not work like that in all situations, if in any.
I have a situation back in my electorate, which I am passionate about, where the trucking industry has come to me and said: ‘This is a no-go zone. For years, the Howard government kept increases at bay by using the discretionary measures of the transport minister to curtail the increases nationally.’ The member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss, to his credit, in a previous government did just that. Contained in this legislation is the fact that the Commonwealth minister must agree to the proposition put up by the council—the ministers, that is.
In my electorate we have a situation where the transport industry is involved to a great degree in the transport of ore from a mine site to a milling site, sometimes over a distance of hundreds of kilometres. That ore is milled, and the resultant gold is sold onto a world market. The world market dictates the price of that gold. All that these increased transport costs will do is to increase the operating costs to the transport industry and the operating costs for the mining industry. And the mining industry will not be in a position to simply increase their revenue. They rely on a world price. So what will that mean in mining industry boardrooms around the nation? Instead of them looking at a prospective development and saying, ‘Yes, we can separate revenue from mining costs to the degree that we can give this project a tick and go ahead,’ these increased costs will make the difference between that new project going ahead or not—and the member for Brand knows that. If those projects do not go ahead, prospective employees will not be employed. Should they be unfortunate enough at this point in time to be on welfare, they will stay on welfare. It is irrefutable that these increases will directly affect those hard-working, struggling families that the leader of the current government loves to talk about.
You might say, ‘How on earth can it be that these increases will have such an impact on the profitability of mining operations?’ I will give you a case in point. These transport companies shift ore using A-class trailers. A-class trailers, as a single part of the popular rig for the transport of ore, currently have a registration cost of $355 per axle. Each trailer has three axles. The proposed new registration cost for these A-class trailers is $2,000 per axle. That is not an insignificant sum, and I assure you that it will impact on the mining industry, it will impact on the viability of Western Australia as a state supporting the whole nation currently and it will impact on would-be working families. More importantly, this change makes a mockery of the publicly stated aspirations of this government about making our transport system safer.
The information that has been provided by the Refrigerated Warehouses and Transport Association of Australia shows that the current rate for registration of a B-double bogie-drive tri-axle is $8,041 per annum. The B-double combination is considered by the transport industry to be the safest, most economical use of diesel on the bitumen. They shift a substantial amount of payload—about 37 tonnes per unit. They shift it efficiently and they shift it safely. The use of B-doubles means that there is a minimal amount of transport traffic on the road. The more traffic that you put on the road the more frustration that is caused for the motoring public in Australia—the grey nomads, those who tow caravans and those who are moving from city to city on country roads.
According to the proposed new registration charges, the registration for a B-double bogie-drive tri-axle will increase from $8,041 per annum to $14,340 per annum. Is that an insubstantial increase? Not on your life. It is a very substantial increase; it nearly doubles the cost. Smart transport operators—certainly those in my electorate—will go back to the old semi—the semi bogie-drive tri-axle—because they are presently registered at $5,084 per annum and will increase to $5,220 per annum. They carry a payload of 24 tonnes. The transport industry will be faced with carting 37 tonnes—that is 50 per cent more—at almost three times the price per annum for the registration of that rig. It is absolutely unacceptable. If they make the change back to the semis at about a third of the cost per annum for two-thirds of the payload, more prime movers will be on the road, more fuel will be consumed, there will be greater hazards for the other motoring public in Australia and the environment—another issue that this government is concerned about—will be impacted upon by the additional litrage of diesel consumed in a year on the roads of Australia. It is not rocket science. This legislation flies in the face of all those public statements that the government have made about wanting to reduce the impact of inflation and wanting to reduce the cost of groceries, fuel and housing—increasing housing affordability, they say in a very lofty manner. To have some semblance of understanding as to how on earth they can get away with it requires rocket science.
Under the previous government, our Minister for Transport and Regional Services rejected the suggestion that federally these interstate registration rates should be increased. He said, ‘No, there is no way that we are going to contribute to inflationary pressures.’ This government says, ‘We want to pull down inflation, but we want to take the registration costs for a B-double from $8,000-odd to $14,340.’ That is not going to impact on inflation? You would have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. If this government is seriously concerned with maintaining office in the long term and convincing the Australian public that it is dinkum about the reduction in the cost of groceries, the reduction in the cost of fuel and the reduction in the cost of houses—that is, improving housing affordability—how on earth can it argue for an increase in registration costs for transport rigs? It is incomprehensible.
Western Australia, the powerhouse of the nation right now—and I have 91 per cent of it in my electorate—is suffering a skills shortage. If we create an economic situation where it is advisable for transport industries to put more prime movers on the road to carry the same amount of freight, they will be looking for more drivers. Where will they get them? We cannot house them in Port Hedland or Karratha because of state government actions, and there is no way that we could build houses for these staff because LandCorp have got such a monopoly on land development over there. One of my outstanding transport operators, frustrated with the lack of accommodation in Port Hedland in the last 18 months, bought a pub. He had to buy the local hotel to accommodate his drivers.
This move has been portrayed as very soft and insignificant, as having minimum impact that will allow costs to be passed on and as having no significant impact whatsoever. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tonight I have heard Stuart St Clair from the Australian Trucking Association so frequently quoted. They just love his grab that said:
The trucking industry and working families will benefit from the Australian Government’s decision to delay increasing the fuel tax paid by trucking operators
That is like saying that we are sentencing you to death but we will delay it a little while. I could hardly believe it when I found this selective quotation in the minister’s speech, because it is one of the very few things that were said by Stuart St Clair that was in any way complimentary to the introduction of this legislation. He said reams of other things that absolutely criticised this government pushing through this legislation at a time when the economy cannot stand it and when it will simply add to inflation. The proposed bill additionally takes away any ministerial discretion. If this government were fair dinkum about doing the things that they promised before the election when they said to the Australian people, ‘We are your saviours, we are your white knights; vote for us and the world will be a better place,’ how on earth can they sleep at night? This piece of legislation is absolutely perfect in demonstrating the hypocrisy of this leadership. The Australian public, through this opposition, will learn of that hypocrisy, and learn it fast.
2132
19:53:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 before the House this evening. This new Labor government says that it will govern for all Australians, but this is the biggest slap in the face that I have ever witnessed from any government in its first 100 days of government. It is a slap in the face for the people who live outside metropolitan Australia. The tax rise that will accrue over time from this bill is going to impact not only on the very productive sector, the wealth-generating sector of our country, but also certainly on working families. We have heard a lot about working families from the government—working families and their costs of living. It is certainly going to impact on the resources sector—the coalmining, the oil and the gas industries, the industries which are so vital to job generation and wealth creation in our country. It is going to impact on those industries. There is not a sector of our community—the resources and agricultural sectors and the families who live in rural Australia and work in the jobs which are obviously created from these sectors—that will not be affected adversely by the passage of this bill.
I represent an electorate that is almost half the land mass of Queensland, although my electorate is not quite as big as the electorate of the member for Kalgoorlie. Located in my electorate is the Surat coal basin, the largest coal reserve in Australia. It is unexploited at the moment, but over the next two years these resources will be developed by international mining companies, with demand coming from overseas, particularly from China. In the far west of my electorate—in fact, near my home town of Roma—we have the gas industry. We have coal seam methane gas. We also have gas right out in the Moomba and the Jackson oilfields and the Cooper oil and gas basin. These resources rely on the trucking industry to bring the goods and the machinery in and to service these great resources. The gas industry in the Cooper basin, with pipeline connections to Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Mount Isa and Townsville, is driving industry and generating electricity—electricity needed by all Australians on the eastern seaboard. It is clean electricity in many cases, particularly when gas is used. I have seen the trucks that go out to the Cooper oil and gas basin and service these oil and gas wells. One company alone has brought in huge oil and gas drilling rigs from America. They have to go out over very unfriendly dirt or gibber roads. They are not sealed roads; they are not main highways. These are roads in very remote parts of Australia. These companies will be impacted upon by this legislation, should it pass both houses of this parliament.
Last year I made a visit to the Inaminka hot rocks geothermal power station that was under construction in a very remote part of Australia. That will generate clean electricity and will have an impact on Australia’s carbon footprint because it is a zero emission. You drive out there on dirt roads, and the trucks that have to go in to service those rigs that are drilling into these hot rocks that will generate electricity for consumption within Australia will also be adversely impacted upon as a result of this bill. What will happen to electricity prices? If we just take a look at the oil and gas industry and the geothermal plants and the hot rocks in Inaminka in the western part of my electorate and just over the border in the seat of Grey in South Australia, we can see it is going to add to the cost of production and that will have to be passed on to their consumers. As the member for Kalgoorlie asked, will that be inflationary? Of course it will be inflationary. We have the Prime Minister coming into this House every day, we have the Treasurer out there on the stump and we have the Minister for Finance and Deregulation saying that there is a great big inflation bubble coming; it is a legacy of the previous government, for heaven’s sake! I reject that notion for a start, but if there is one thing this bill will do it will be to drive up the cost of production for electricity, the cost of doing business for the mining sector and the cost of sending basic food items to and from points of production, whether it is into the cities or back out into these rural communities. The cost of freight will inevitably rise because of the passage of this bill. That is going to be inflationary.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand—but maybe I should understand. This is a very unfriendly government—or an inexperienced government; that is probably a better word. It is a very inexperienced government. I cannot for the life of me understand how this government, in its first 100 days, having been given a mandate to govern for the next three years and having not spoken about this in the federal election campaign, could introduce a bill to increase taxes on our transport sector in Australia. Out there, during the campaign leading up to the 24 November election, did the now Prime Minister and the now Treasurer—or the now transport minister, the now finance minister or any of those on the front bench, back bench or middle benches—say to the people of Australia, ‘If we are elected we are going to increase taxes on the transport sector in Australia, which will clearly be inflationary’? No, they did not.
The other disturbing part of this bill, should it pass both houses, is that the increase in the per-litre fuel tax, which will apply to the trucking industry as of next year, is also going to be indexed into the future. And it is not going to be indexed to the CPI; it is going to be connected to the cost of building roads in Australia. We know that the cost of building roads in Australia is going to increase, and does increase, at a greater rate than the CPI. So not only is this going to impact on the cost of building roads, because there are going to be extra taxes on the transport sector that are involved in the construction of roads, but also it is going to then be automatically indexed so that this tax will rise year after year without the government having to come back to the parliament or go back to the people and ask them whether they agree with that automatic indexation.
The same applies to the registration charges that are being imposed as a result of this bill. Firstly, they are certainly going to be increased across the nation. In my own electorate of Maranoa I see many, many large trucks: type 2 road trains, B-doubles and B-triples. A vital part of the freight task in Australia is being carried on roads across Australia. Tragically, in Queensland and many of the other eastern states, as we lead into what I hope is going to be a very big grain harvest this year, we are no longer seeing state governments investing in rail infrastructure and in carriages to carry grain. They have become lazy and they have walked away from their responsibility to put new infrastructure onto our rail tracks that would take the weight off our national road network. What will be the inevitable outcome of that? The freight task must be carried out. Who is going to pick up the load? The trucking industry will pick up the load.
Because of the monopolies that the state owned rail corporations have and the state governments’ failure to invest in grain trucks, we are going to see a situation, I predict, by the end of this year, where we as a nation are not going to be able to lift the grain from the farms and the receival points in regional and rural Australia and carry it through to the ports for export. I predict that, as a result of that, there will be markets lost because we are not able to meet those market demands and shipping regimes on time. We are dealing with an international market where competition is fierce and is growing all the time. And, of course, after seven long years of hard drought for those many grain producers out there, the last thing that they need is the impost of a new tax introduced by this government on their costs of doing business. And that is what this legislation will do: it will bring a new cost—a new tax, an increase in the cost of doing business—and I refer to the grains industry in this regard.
But we need not stop there. We can turn to the beef industry. The beef industry is Queensland’s second largest export earner by value. I just cannot understand the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, or her transport minister even thinking of supporting this, because the two largest industries by value in Queensland in terms of exports in dollar terms are the coal industry and the beef industry. They are not located down in George Street or on the coast or in Brisbane; they are in the outback—in Mount Isa, in north-west Queensland; they are in the Bowen Basin; they are now in the Surat Basin. Of course, the beef industry is scattered throughout Queensland and, obviously, across Australia. This bill, if it passes both houses, will be a further impost on those industries. It is going to hit their bottom lines. And if you hit the bottom line of any business, business finds itself in a position where it has got to pass that cost on to the consumer. Once again, that is where the inflationary component comes into this bill—its imposts and the impact that it will inevitably have on the very productive beef and coal sectors of Queensland.
The other point I want to make with regard to this is that there is not a commitment from this government to use the additional tax revenue that will inevitably flow from this bill; there is not a commitment from the government to invest a dollar more in our road infrastructure—or, for that matter, our rail infrastructure. So this is just a tax grab on the productive sector that creates jobs for Australians. That is what this is: it is a tax grab—a new tax; a tax that has been stealthily brought forward without the people of Australia being advised prior to the last federal election.
I mentioned a few moments ago the importance of the beef industry. Some of the roads that I would like to see more money invested in are the Warrego Highway and the Landsborough Highway. They link Brisbane right through to Mount Isa. We desperately need an investment of $700 million where the Warrego Highway comes up through Toowoomba so that a second range crossing can be established just to the north of Toowoomba. This is a main arterial road from Brisbane through to Darwin, via Longreach and Mount Isa. This road carries the bulk of the road freight between the port of Brisbane and the port of Darwin and all the points in between. One particular section of the Warrego Highway, between Mitchell and Roma, is impacting as we speak on the beef industry and the freight industry from Darwin to Brisbane and from points in the south. Type 2 road trains—that is, three semitrailers are hooked up behind a prime mover and are about 60 metres to 70 metres long when they are on the road—can couple-up about 90 kilometres west of my home town of Roma and travel through to Darwin with freight or, vice versa, bring livestock back to Roma. Roma is the largest store cattle selling centre in Australia.
If we can get some investment from this government to upgrade that road so that it is safe for the type 2 road trains to travel the extra 90 kilometres to the largest store cattle selling centre in Australia, it will have the effect of reducing the cost of bringing cattle to the sale point of Roma. Roma sells something like 8,000 to 10,000 head of cattle per week. The cattle market in Roma is a bit like the Sydney stock exchange: it sets the prices and the trend of prices right across the eastern states. Cattle often come from Victoria to the markets in Roma. It is not uncommon to see cattle being trucked from Kununurra in Western Australia—a five- or six-day trip on type 2 road trains—to Roma. The cattle are spelled twice, but they are 80 kilometres short of their final destination at the saleyards of Roma. The driver has to decouple the last trailer and take the other two trailers through. They decouple the trailers on the flat outside of the town of Mitchell. No-one is there to supervise this. Either another truck is sent out to bring one of the trailers in or the truck comes in with one trailer, which is decoupled at the saleyards, and then it goes out without any trailers behind it to bring in the next trailer. It is the reverse when they want to go west, whether they are taking cattle, heavy machinery for the mining industry or goods from the eastern seaboard through to Darwin.
If the government is serious about the freight task that we confront in Australia and the bill passes through the House, we have to see the revenue from these measures not just as a money grab for Treasury but as money to be reinvested for the benefit of our road network in Australia, because it is the transport sector—the truckies and the truck owners—who are going to pay the price.
I mentioned earlier the impact that this legislation will have on working families. Whether trucks are carrying beef into the markets, soft goods—food items—into the supermarkets in the west, flour to the mills or animals for processing for human consumption, there is going to be an inevitable cost if this bill is passed in its entirety. The inevitable cost on working families will be an increase in the cost of their groceries at the supermarket. Why? Because the freight task—the cost of moving freight across Australia—will rise and that will be passed on to consumers. If it is not passed on to consumers, it will be passed back to the producer. Someone is going to pay. I assert tonight that it will be working families and the trucking sector, as well as the production sector in Australia, which will be impacted on by this legislation.
This legislation is a most appalling grab for money and the most deceitful performance that we have witnessed in modern times by any government in its first 100 days in office. One hundred days into this government and legislation is being introduced into this place that will bring new taxes into play. One of the worst aspects of this legislation is that the registration charge and the fuel tax charge that apply if this bill passes the parliament are going to be automatically indexed every year, and that linkage will be to the cost of building roads in Australia, which is far greater than the annual CPI. When the coalition were in government, we ended automatic indexation of fuel excise in this country, and now we are seeing it reintroduced by a Labor government, without it having told the people of Australia before 24 November. Members on this side of the House could speak on this issue for days and days. We are going to fight this legislation to the end. We are not going to give up.
(Quorum formed)
2136
20:15:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
0
0
Mrs HULL
—It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 in the House this evening and to voice the concerns that I have for the industry that I have been involved with over several years—over many, many years as a matter of fact. I have several concerns about the impact that this bill will have on transport operators within the Riverina and the additional costs that will flow on to the consumers. Consumers and businesspeople throughout my electorate are already doing it very tough. The ongoing drought and the additional charges will make it all the more harder for these people. Many of these people own trucks. Many of these people, who have been suffering from drought and who have not had a crop in seven years, will be affected by the increase in these charges as well, and I just feel that it is all very unfair.
We know that rural and regional areas are especially dependent upon transport services, and it is these areas that will most certainly feel the pinch as costs flow on to them. My electorate has a lot of heavy vehicle usage, especially with four major national highways running through the electorate: the Hume Highway, the Sturt Highway, the Olympic Highway and the Newell Highway. In September 2007 statistics showed that about 7,000 vehicles, and in particular about 4,500 heavy vehicles, travelled over the Sheehan Bridge at Gundagai on a daily basis. We are now seeing the duplication of the Sheehan Bridge. Finally, after many years of lobbying, we now have the duplication of that bridge taking place, which obviously will see those movements and the freight task being increased because the road, particularly a duplicated highway from Melbourne through to Sydney, will be able to take more of the freight task than it does now. Information that I have obtained about traffic from the RTA website shows general traffic movements through the other three Riverina highways, and most of these are of significant heavy vehicles. The Olympic Way had an annual average daily traffic of 3,040 vehicles just at a very small area in The Rock. The Sturt Highway at Collingullie had an annual average daily traffic of 2,782 heavy vehicles in 2006 and the Newell Highway at Narrandera had an annual average daily traffic of over 1,200 vehicles.
The tax rise for the trucking and bus industries will mean an extra 1.3c per litre on fuel from January 2009 and an increase in registration charges for 69 per cent of the nation’s heaviest vehicles. This means that registration fees will in some cases go up by 227 per cent. The issue that I have with that is the fact that we are rewarding inefficiencies. It is in fact the B-doubles and the B-triples and other heavier vehicles that will be slugged with this tax. But the heavy, fixed-rig vehicles that tear up the highways and cause the most damage at intersections, traffic lights and other areas due to having a fixed rig are not going to have this tax imposed on them. I think it is very short-sighted of the government not to question this through the National Transport Commission.
We have sincerely opposed these increased charges and taxes. The states have been trying to impose these additional costs and additional registration fees for a very long time. When we opposed this last time we were able to win because if the Commonwealth stands up and is counted, if the Commonwealth minister stands up and says no to these increases in charges then the states capitulate. They did last time and they will capitulate again, because they do not want to be the bearer of bad tidings. The states do not want to be blamed for the bad news, whereas now the states can just turn around immediately and blame the Commonwealth because ‘they forced us to do it’. This is an NTC issue. So, undoubtedly, the Commonwealth will get the blame for this. I am indebted to the previous minister for transport, former Minister Truss, who is now the Leader of the Nationals, for having the courage to stand up against the states and against the recommendations from the NTC to oppose this in the last parliament.
We found that, in addition to the increase in these costs and the 1.37c increase in the excise, the trucking industry has already borne the brunt of many increases. It has borne the load of heavy fuel prices for so long now. It has absorbed most of those; it has not passed them on to the consumer. It is an industry that is valuable to the Australian people. In fact, it is an industry that is integral to the operation every day of the Australian people. I feel it is short-sighted and neglectful and a non-recognition of the thousands and thousands of working owners, operators, drivers and their families, because these are the people who are most impacted upon by this legislation. It is the people who, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I purport to represent on a daily basis along with both sides of this House. They are working Australian families. They are doing their best to deliver to us every day what we require in our supermarkets, in our whitegoods and in our retail outlets.
Imagine what it would be like—and I have raised the ire of some people by suggesting this—if all trucks were to stop at Gundagai for a day. Let us see just how well we would cope in Australia without the good men and women of the trucking industry. They are good people. They are solid Australians doing a job. It is a dangerous job. It is a job that is required and it is something that the Australian people sincerely cannot do without. However, instead of giving them recognition, we slug them. We capitulate and kowtow to the states’ call for ‘more money, more money, more money’. This is what it is all about. It is a revenue raising exercise by the state governments for which the Commonwealth will be blamed. Mark my words: the Commonwealth will wear this issue.
We have heard about the reviews and the studies that the government is doing currently and about one in particular, the ACCC inquiry to bring down the cost of groceries. Today we heard at the dispatch box from the government what the inquiry into the cost of food and groceries would reveal and how it was out there and operational—all because a government cares about the cost of living, of food and groceries, to the average daily consumer! I cannot understand how you would be concerned, on the one hand, about the rising cost of food and groceries and, on the other hand, allow the states and territories to dictate the terms and to push up those prices. There is no way that those prices cannot be pushed up by this decision. So how does one reconcile what is being done by the right hand with what is being done by the left hand under these circumstances? It is a very disappointing day to be speaking on this bill.
With these increases, even the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, has admitted that grocery prices are set to rise and they will impact on the family grocery budget by around 32c per week. But I say that it is not going to be 32c per week; it is probably going to be 32c per item, because eventually owner-operator transport drivers and trucking institutes will have to decide to bite the bullet and recoup the losses that they have been experiencing and absorbing over a long period of time. They are undergoing significant pressures.
Owners of transport companies in rural and regional Australia are unable to get skilled drivers and skilled workers. We have a skills shortage. Not only that; the states have imposed on them an enormous chain of command of occupational health and safety that is absolutely ridiculous. Everybody wants to ensure their workers are safe on the job, but what is being imposed upon New South Wales operators is an absolute disgrace. You have an industry that is already in crisis. It is an industry that does a magnificent job for the Australian people—which obviously is not recognised on the government side of the House, where there is a lack of desire to represent those fabulous trucking industry people who, each day of the week, make Australia operational. That we have this issue here this evening to debate and discuss, I guess, means that there is no longer recognition of what small businesses, particularly transport operators, are providing to the Australian people.
The Australian Trucking Association argued that the proposal for increased charges should be rejected completely. It also wanted to ensure that indexation did not increase the charges on the industry above what the industry should be paying. There has to be a clear understanding of what the industry is paying. I think there is a view out there that the Australian transport industry is not paying its way on highways and byways—and, in fact, that is incorrect. That has always been an incorrect assumption. Stuart St Clair, chairman of the ATA, is quoted in a media release of 5 February 2008, just after the most recent interest rate rise, as saying:
The Government has a five point plan to fight inflation and keep interest rates down, but it will be a while before it takes effect. By rejecting the NTC’s plan, the Government could take immediate action to keep some of the pressure off working families.
That is the truth. It would keep pressure off working families that happen to be owner-operators or people involved in the trucking industry.
Along with this imposition of costs and this slap in the face for the Australian trucking industry, I have another problem. Where the Transport Workers Union is in this, I have no idea. Where Tony Sheldon sits in amongst all of this, I have no idea. I for one believed that he was one man who really did seek to ensure that the rights of operators were paramount, particularly those of contract drivers. In fact, I have stood side by side with the TWU in support of the best interests of contractors and their drivers. I am aghast to think that nowhere have I seen anything that is said to be looking at supporting the very people that the TWU should be supporting.
I also have concerns about Labor’s plan to commit, between now and 2013, to only half the spending by the coalition government for road and rail. I am very pleased to see the member for Eden-Monaro in the House while I speak. The member for Eden-Monaro has been quoted in my local press as saying that the withdrawal of funding for Gocup Road was because there was no consultation with the states—that the Commonwealth just came in and put up $11 million. That is not true.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
—You’ve betrayed the bush.
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs HULL
—The member for Eden-Monaro has been misled. There was consultation with the state government. The state government was actively aware of what was going on with Gocup and it actively supported it.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
—It was never going to happen.
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs HULL
—Indeed, the state government guaranteed Visy Industries that, if the Commonwealth government would come on board and pay the money toward Gocup Road, it would most certainly come on board.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly interjecting—
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs HULL
—Madam Deputy Speaker, am I not entitled to speak without continual interjection?
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Riverina has the call.
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs HULL
—Thank you very much. The fact is that we have had consultation with the state and the state is very well aware of this issue.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
2139
Adjournment
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Forrest Electorate: Regional Partnerships Program
2139
2139
20:30:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I am particularly concerned for the various sporting and community groups and regional shires within my electorate of Forrest. These groups and organisations have made application under the previous government’s Regional Partnerships program for funding for their community projects and infrastructure development, as well as for private sector projects. They have researched, planned, been through a thorough and rigorous assessment process and attracted partnerships funding. They already have local and state government approved funding as well as having the results of their own fundraising and in kind considerations—often genuine regional community efforts. Federal government funding through Regional Partnerships is the final part of this process. However, they are now in limbo. The government is not providing these groups with any genuine information or certainty on when they will receive their funds or letting them know exactly where the process is. By its very silence, federal Labor is condemning these regional community projects back to the drawing board, which will again hinder and restrict these important community projects and infrastructure development in the region. As a result, federal Labor is stalling regional community development. Not only have these specific projects gone through the rigorous processes of planning, designing, feasibility study and the expense of consultants’ reports but also they have often been through fundraising efforts by the many volunteers who are the backbone of our communities.
In my electorate of Forrest there are currently 15 Regional Partnerships applications waiting for direction. These projects have met the criteria and have been assessed locally by the board of the South West Area Consultative Committee and ranked as priorities for the region. The Busselton jetty project is one. The Bunbury Sea Search and Rescue project, the Bunbury hockey sand field redevelopment and the Morrissey Homestead’s Leschenault Day Centre project are others. To explain these further, the Busselton jetty restoration project is not only an important project for the future of Busselton but also a historical tourist icon that plays a vital role in the economic and social fabric of the greater south-west region. The Bunbury Sea Search and Rescue Group ordered a rescue boat after being guaranteed funding of $50,000 in the Regional Partnerships program last year. That funding has since been delayed indefinitely, but the boat has already been ordered and partly built. The group may be still liable to purchase it if a new buyer cannot be found, as it was being built to specifications for their purpose. The new rescue boat would have allowed entry to the Leschenault Inlet and would have acted as a training vessel for the service’s 35 members. Can you really imagine what this would mean to a group which is providing such an extremely valuable service? Morrissey Homestead in Australind is another local community group that does not know if its project will ever proceed. They are desperately waiting to hear if they will receive their promised funds and have attempted to arrange a meeting with the member for Brand. After written approval was received, the Bunbury and Districts Hockey Stadium Association commenced work on the redevelopment of their defunct sand surface in preparation for the opening of the 2008 hockey season. Their project is stalled. Without the delivery of funding they cannot finish the resurfacing of their field. They are now behind schedule and this will delay the opening of the season.
All of these projects in Forrest are legitimate and have gone through a rigorous assessment process. My questions are: has the government met with the proponents of these and other south-west project proponents and will the South West Area Consultative Committee continue? Does federal Labor have any idea of what delays and uncertainty mean to regional groups and organisations? I call on the government to deliver the funding to those projects already approved by the previous government and to allow the funds to flow through to these projects so that regional communities can continue with their plans. We cannot afford any further pressure or impact on volunteers who work tirelessly in our community.
Major Capital Facilities Program
2140
2140
20:34:00
KELLY, Mike, MP
HRI
Eden-Monaro
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
1
0
Dr KELLY
—As some may know, I have a great deal of personal experience of the incompetence of the previous government on security issues, but the extent of their mismanagement and incompetence has only been fully revealed to us since the last election. I have to advise the House this evening on one aspect of that mismanagement, which was the defence capital works program. We call it the Major Capital Facilities program or MCF. This program covers capital and reinvestment in the defence estate and the provision of new facilities to meet new capability requirements. Funding for capital reinvestment in the defence estate has fallen from the $600 million that the Labor government maintained over the period from 1985 through to its defeat at the election in 1996. That was $600 million, I reiterate, that was invested in the defence estate to maintain it in the condition required to keep our ADF operating to its capacity. From 1998 onwards, however, that amount was reduced to $400 million and it has been maintained at that level ever since. That effectively results in the guts being ripped out of the defence estate over a period of 10 years.
This has led to a serious problem for us. Before the election we committed to maintaining our defence spending at the level of $22 billion, with a three per cent real increase annually, but that was intended of course to maintain the capabilities and acquire the new capabilities necessary for the security of this country. We are now under extreme pressure because of this lack of investment and reinvestment in the defence estate. Effectively, over these past 10 years all we have been able to do is to keep the fire extinguishers and sprinklers going while the buildings deteriorated. This is a particularly grievous problem because we are in a period now where we are intending to generate the Enhanced Land Force and the Hardened and Networked Army as well as to accommodate new capabilities for the defence of this country and the contribution to international security. This is going to mean that we will have to be really digging a lot deeper than we originally intended to try and maintain our commitment to those capabilities. At the same time this has an impact on the recruitment and retention issue. Our personnel are demoralised when they see the deterioration in the defence estate that the previous government was responsible for.
When we add to that the record of the previous government in relation to the management of operations, we have a horror story that stretches for 11½ years, starting with what occurred in Timor Leste in 1999, when the government failed to heed intelligence warnings about what was going to take place post ballot and then afterwards had the hide to say that they were not receiving that information, which was completely misinforming the Australian public. Then we had the spectacle of the defence minister at the time referring to ‘hot pursuit into Indonesian territory’, which was a gross inaccuracy, incorrect in law and irresponsible and led to the deterioration in our relationship with Indonesia. That saga of mismanagement continued all the way through to 2006 in Timor, where the previous government failed to take advantage of the availability of the new Peacebuilding Commission to work on the issues of East Timor and also, over that period of time, neglected the issues of security sector reform and supporting good governance. We have since then had the children overboard saga, the failure to identify governance problems in the Solomons and then of course the saga in Iraq, with the weapons of mass destruction issue, the Australian Wheat Board crisis and the Abu Ghraib story as well. I should remind members of the fact that the previous government funded Saddam Hussein to the tune of $300 million while our soldiers were preparing to go into battle with his troops.
Their record on security matters is sorry. They are probably the worst government in relation to security matters that this country has ever seen. They are impostors on security as they are on so much else. They have proven to be strategically inept and morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Private Health Insurance
2141
2141
20:39:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
0
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—I rise to bring to the attention of the House a matter of concern regarding the announcement of increases to fees charged by private health funds. On 6 March this year, the Minister for Health and Ageing put out a media release entitled ‘Private health insurance premiums rise by 4.99%’, and that is what the public heard when she went on radio and television spruiking her victory.
Today I got an email from a constituent in Tahmoor. It reads:
The Government gave permission for a rise of under 5% for the Health Insurance companies to apply from April.
Several of us have received advices of the new charges from Medicare Private for our cover and the rise is in the region of 9%!!!!
Is the government policing this matter as obviously the increases are far above those specified by Mr Rudd and his cabinet.
Does the minister for health know? Did she tell the Prime Minister?
Another constituent of mine went in to Medibank Private last week to pay her monthly fees and to make a claim but instead got a double whammy. Her premium had not risen by the $4.50 she expected but by $10.00, which was a whopping 8.1 per cent rise—as worked out by her customer service person. When my constituent asked the reason for the size of the rise in fees, Medibank told her it was because people on her level of cover made a lot of claims. They also said that, if she was on a level of cover where people made fewer claims, the rise would be less.
The heavily promoted 4.99 per cent increase is only an average taken across all the products offered by a health insurance provider. The range of increases is another matter entirely, it seems—so much so that Medibank Private will not publish the range, although their increases are as high as 8.9 per cent, and I am sure the other private health insurers are the same. The minister for health publicly crowed about keeping increases low. In fact, they are only lower in the levels of cover where people either do not claim or cannot claim. The rest of us will pay a lot more than the minister for health said.
Not only did my constituent get hit with an increase double what the minister told her it would be; the items covered by her insurer were cut. My constituent has had a double mastectomy. In spite of being a pensioner, she has to pay for private health cover because there are no public health facilities in rural areas where she could receive the regular therapies she needs. So, with very little money, she has to pay for private health insurance.
My constituent knows and double-checks exactly what her cover entitles her to claim. She is covered for up to $500 worth of prostheses and prosthetic appliances per year. A pair of prostheses costs $715, and, because my constituent needs the pair, she claims $500 and pays the other $215 every second year. To successfully wear the prostheses she needs a special bra. When these bras are purchased from a specialist retailer and receipted as prosthetic appliances she has been able to claim 85 per cent of their cost. My constituent needs regular physiotherapy and hydrotherapy to address muscle wastage, back pain and other issues. As a consequence, she needs to wear a special swimsuit designed to take the prostheses. When it is purchased from a specialist retailer and described as a prosthetic appliance she has been able to claim 85 per cent of the cost. Every alternate year she buys specialised bras and swimsuits and claims them—but not this time. The Medibank customer service person told her that the specialised bras and swimsuits were no longer claimable. So her fees went up by more than double what the minister for health said, and Medibank Private cut the items for which she could claim.
When I contacted Medibank Private health insurance last Friday, they said they would return my call before close of business. They did call me today—Tuesday. They said their average rate of rise was only 4.64 per cent across all of their products. They said Medibank had never covered the bras or swimsuits under that particular level of cover. Medibank’s media manager then went on to say that once in 2006 a claim for the items had been paid because the call centre had given my constituent wrong information and she had bought the items on that advice. The payment was ex gratia and was a one-off payment only.
I then went back to my constituent, who searched through her papers and came up with receipts, Medibank customer information statements and the like. Tomorrow I will have them to hand. But tonight I can say that the minister for health and Medibank Private appear to have been economical with the truth, in that they have not told all and have put a particular spin on what they have said.
Defence Procurement
2142
2142
20:43:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement
1
0
Mr COMBET
—As members of the House would be aware, a number of defence procurement projects have received extensive media coverage in recent months. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, the Minister for Defence commissioned me to review a number of projects that have suffered from a delay in schedule and/or increases in cost. At the top of my list for these reviews was the $1.3 billion Super Seasprite helicopter project. There are others on the list, including the guided missile frigates, or FFG, upgrade, which is now almost five years late.
In reviewing the FFG upgrade, I have been struck by the lack of direction provided by the Howard government in these important areas of government expenditure. Despite the frigates project being notoriously complex, and receiving wide media attention and parliamentary scrutiny, the previous government appears to have failed to get across the detail. What I found in my review of the project was that there was a fundamental lack of government direction and supervision of projects like this. By providing that direction in relation to the FFG upgrade and aiding the communication flow between the prime contractor, the subcontractor, the Navy and the Defence Materiel Organisation, I am now hopeful that progress on the project can be made.
The same lack of direction and supervision by the Howard government was evident in the review of the Seasprite helicopter project. On 5 March the Minister for Defence announced the Rudd government’s decision to cancel the Seasprite helicopter project, which had been due to deliver 11 helicopters to the Navy by 2001. Seven years later not a single helicopter was operational—seven years after the due date not a single helicopter was operational. Around $1.3 billion of taxpayers’ money had been spent by the Howard government for no result. In my experience, there is no doubt that there were many good people who worked on this project and did their utmost to bring it to fruition. I know that many in the Defence Materiel Organisation have done whatever they could to bring the project to successful completion.
But what seems to have escaped sufficient scrutiny is the pathetic performance of the former Howard government in its decision making and monitoring of the project. We are aware now that the current opposition leader and former Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, recommended to the Howard government in May last year that the project be cancelled. That was the right recommendation, but the fact was that he lacked the authority to carry the argument with his colleagues. This point is very important: despite $1 billion having been expended for no result and with little prospect of a result forthcoming—and acting on the same advice, facts and figures that the Rudd government now has available to it—the Howard government rolled its own defence minister and ploughed on, spending taxpayers’ funds. The other senior ministers involved at the time rolled Brendan Nelson and kept spending taxpayers’ money on a project with very little chance of success.
One of those who rolled him, we assume, is the current shadow defence minister and then finance minister, Senator Minchin. The interesting thing about Senator Minchin’s involvement is that he now thinks the decision to cancel the Seasprite helicopter project is the right decision. What a rabble we are dealing with here—a defence minister who lacked the authority to carry a recommendation through and a finance minister who supported the project less than 12 months ago and now thinks it is the right decision to cancel it when nothing substantially has changed in that time. They knew, I think, that they should have cancelled the project at the latest by May last year, but they kept going and, in the process, a further $26 million of taxpayers’ funds has been wasted. And I think we all know why that money was expended. It was for purely political purposes. It was an election year, with the Howard government increasingly on the nose, and they did not want to own up to a fundamental failure in this procurement area and the incredible fact that $1.3 billion of taxpayers’ money had been lost.
Just imagine what could have been done with that money in the areas of health and education, skills development or infrastructure investment. I think the former government and Dr Nelson, and Senator Minchin in particular, have a fair degree of explaining to do. They have to explain why the monitoring of that project was so incompetent. And they must explain why they failed to make the right decision in May last year. (Time expired)
Cowan Electorate: Education Funding
2144
2144
20:48:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I rise tonight to speak on the circumstances of the Hawker Park Primary School in the electorate of Cowan and the effects of the state government’s influence on the Investing in Our Schools Program—an influence that has undermined the benefits that IOSP would have provided to the school. In Western Australia the state government made it mandatory for most Investing in Our Schools projects to be project managed by a contractor of the state Department of Housing and Works.
Hawker Park Primary School wanted a concrete slab as a stage, a curtain system, some light and sound equipment, a storage area and some enhancements to the undercover area within which the stage would be constructed. In 2006 the school had an estimate prepared by the state’s contractor. The state government imposed their contractor on WA schools because, I am told, they were experienced and could properly advise the schools on construction projections. I make the point that parents and friends of the school, regardless of qualifications, experience, licences or insurance were barred from assisting the school. In the case of Hawker Park, the contractor was required to give the estimate and manage the project. I should also mention that the school was obliged to pay the contractor 11 per cent of the total final fee for the works—20 per cent of which was up-front.
Based on the experienced advice of the contractor, I myself filled out the application for the school, with the estimated cost of the project being $68,000 and a 10 per cent contingency of $6,800, which totalled $74,800. The contractor’s cut of the funds was to be $8,228 as their fee and that was added on top, to make it $83,028. I emphasise that that $8,200-odd would not be spent on a project for the benefit of the children of Hawker Park Primary School but would go to the state’s middlemen. The contractors wanted 20 per cent of their cut within 30 days of the estimate, and that fee was $1,645.
The school received the grant from the former government in February 2007, yet it took a further 11 months for the project to go to tender. Why? It was because the state government’s contractor was unable to manage this project. They would not deal with the P&C, who had won the grant; they would only deal with the principal, and I understand that the principal had great trouble contacting the contractor. When the tender process finally came to deliver prices, the lowest price was $217,750. The state government’s contractor blamed the huge increase in costs on the time taken since the estimate was provided. Independent sources in Western Australia indicate that the cost increases per year amount to around 12 per cent to 13 per cent—not around 200 per cent in two years, as was the case in the Hawker Park Primary project. Sadly, the school now cannot possibly make up the shortfall through the standard method of fundraising in state schools—that is, chocolate drives and sausage sizzles. The sum of $143,000 is just too much to try to get.
The main point I wish to make here is that the handling of the Investing in Our Schools Program by the state government’s middlemen is a disgrace. The contractors have the overwhelming appearance of being incompetent. Perhaps their estimate was hopelessly inadequate but, whatever the cost, it is certain that the contractors are not up to managing projects such as this. What they have done, however, by intention or incompetence, is to kill off a project that would have real benefits for the children in my electorate, so I am not very happy. The contractors will walk away with their fee and the school will not get what it needs. Perhaps that was mission accomplished for the Carpenter Labor government in Western Australia.
Given that the new government in Canberra refuse to make state governments responsible for their mismanagement in the name of ending the blame game, I call upon the federal government to cover the cost of the shortfall in funds brought about by state Labor’s insistence on using these contractors. The bill is $142,950. So if the new federal government are actually interested in supporting schools and infrastructure projects such as this and if they are interested in supporting what parents think are important projects then I ask them to cover the shortfall now. There are more cases just like this and more shortfalls to be covered. I look forward at a future date to presenting the costs of other examples of the state government’s— (Time expired)
Parramatta Electorate: Parramatta Park
2145
2145
20:51:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—On 18 March 1857, 150 years ago, an act to provide for the disposal of the Parramatta domain obtained royal assent, with a parcel of 200 acres to be set aside for a park promoting the health and recreation of the inhabitants of Parramatta. Today, I rise to acknowledge the 150th birthday of one of Australia’s great city parks, Parramatta Park, and to acknowledge and thank the many people over the last century and a half who have fought for and protected the park for future generations. The Parramatta River meanders through Parramatta Park. It is a very special place, as anyone who has visited it will know, and it is in every way an oasis of open space in the heart of the Parramatta CBD.
Before white settlement, it was the core land of the Burramattagal clan of the Darug people. ‘Burra’ means eel and ‘matta’ means creek, and it was the river itself and the Burramattagal clan that gave Parramatta its name. Each clan of the Darug people consisted of between five and 60 people, and they had their own well-defined territory and their own traditional rights and responsibilities over the land. The territory of the Burramattagal clan extended along the tidal estuary between the crescent in the park and Duck River, and encompassed the present park and the centre of the city of Parramatta.
Governor Arthur Phillip created a government domain on Burramattagal land and the present site of the park, and he established the colony’s first farm within that domain to provide food for the fledgling colony. Governor Macquarie extended the government domain and all New South Wales governors lived at least part of the year there, until 1855 when the vice-regal residence was established at Sydney. Two years later in 1857, the 200 acres of the governor’s domain was set aside for a park promoting the health and recreation of the inhabitants of Parramatta, and the boundaries were surveyed and gazetted on 6 August 1958.
The movement to create Parramatta Park began in 1847—and it just might be our first green movement—when a popular movement by locals lobbied in 1847 for access to the domain for ‘exercise and recreation in open grounds and pure air’. Today, Parramatta Park continues to be used for that purpose, with cricket ovals, a golf course, a swimming pool, playing fields and open parklands for community use. The park is considered to be Australia’s pre-eminent colonial landscape, being home to two of the oldest buildings in Australia—the dairy cottage and Old Government House—containing rare and historic monuments, archaeological deposits and landscape elements from the earliest years of the colony.
Throughout its history, it has been used for activities of the time: boxing exhibitions, military parades, exhibitions, car racing, and at one time it even had a zoo—a deer park that was closed down this century and became the site of the current RSL club. It even had its own beach, a very popular one in the summer. People in my electorate tell me how they swam at that beach, Little Coogee. It was created in 1922 near the ranger’s cottage, complete with a sand beach that was created from sand dredged from the river bottom. Little Coogee also had dressing sheds, a kiosk, play and picnic equipment and a boatshed—all of which were demolished as swimmers deserted Little Coogee for the council swimming pool, built in the early 1960s on parkland on the eastern edge.
The people’s park has deep meaning for the community of Parramatta. As a place of recreation and play it engenders a strong emotional attachment and sense of place. Parramatta Park is listed on the National Heritage List, the New South Wales State Heritage Inventory and as a local heritage item. It is listed by the National Trust of New South Wales. Significantly, it is part of a nomination of 11 Australian convict sites for World Heritage listing by the Australian government.
Money has always been an issue for the park. From as early as 1887, the trust was faced with a reduction in its grant by nearly a quarter. Inadequate funding is a feature of Parramatta Park’s history and still is today. Through its history, the community found ways to raise money, which included things such as agistment, the sale of sand from dredging, the selling of hot water for billy tea and, in the early 1950s, they tried Formula 1 car and motorbike racing. It was very popular. Thousand of spectators attended, with notable drivers such as Jack Brabham and Stirling Moss participating. But, unfortunately, the events never made much money because, in true Parramatta style, people jumped the fence to avoid paying the fee. It is well and truly the people’s park, and for 150 years it has been so. Again, today, I salute the many people, past and present, who worked so hard so that we and future generations could enjoy the open spaces of Parramatta Park in the heart of our city.
Free-to-Air Television
2146
2146
20:58:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—I rise to convey some concerns that my friends and parliamentary colleagues the member for Cowan, Luke Simpkins, and South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi have raised with me. In essence, their concerns relate to representations they have received about the proper classification of some of the content on our free-to-air television networks. Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares is one example, where very strident and frequent coarse language has raised concerns. Also, the Channel 9 series Underbelly has received some attention about of its content. I think what is fairly categorised as adult drama may often not be properly reflected in the classification and therefore the timing of that show going to air on television. Interestingly, Channel 9 has properly recognised that in some episodes there is frequent very coarse language. That is an advice that is provided to the viewer, but that insight is not reflected in the actual classification given to the show. If we are to continue to have a self-regulatory system, we need confidence in the way these judgements are made. I encourage the networks involved to carefully look at the issues that have been raised with them and to respond appropriately.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
2147
21:00:00
House adjourned at 9.00 pm
NOTICES
2147
Notices
The following notices were given:
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
to present a bill for an act to amend the law in relation to health insurance, and for related purposes. (Health Insurance Amendment (90 Day Pay Doctor Cheque Scheme) Bill 2008)
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
to present a bill for an act to amend the Quarantine Act 1908, and for related purposes. (Quarantine Amendment (National Health Security) Bill 2008)
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
to present a bill for an act to provide for certain memorials to have the status of Military Memorials of National Significance, and for related purposes. (Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008)
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to veterans’ affairs, and for other purposes. (Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (International Agreements and Other Measures) Bill 2008)
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way at the Russell roundabout, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations at Block 9, Section 31, Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new warehousing facilities at Wadsworth Barracks, East Bandiana, Victoria.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: RAAF Base Tindal Redevelopment Stage 5, Tindal, Northern Territory.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: RAAF Base Darwin Redevelopment Stage 2, Darwin, Northern Territory.
HRI
KELLY, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Enoggera Redevelopment Stage One Project, Gallipoli Barracks, Brisbane, Queensland.
2008-03-18
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 4.32 pm.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
2148
Statements by Members
Manning Memorial Bowling Club
2148
2148
16:32:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—I am going to speak to the Main Committee today about the Manning Memorial Bowling Club, in my electorate of Swan. It is named ‘memorial’ in honour of the many returned soldiers who became members. The club was opened in 1957 and has just celebrated its 50th anniversary. In 1980, the club had one of the largest memberships in Western Australia, with over 600 members. In more recent times the club has made a concerted effort to attract greater numbers of women to the club. This includes promoting weekend events such as pennant competitions for the women members.
It is with this focus in mind that I want to bring a very important event to the attention of members, an event that is not only important to the Manning Memorial Bowling Club as a local organisation in the Swan electorate but also important to both the state of Western Australia and Australia as a nation. This event is the women’s lawn bowls Australian Sides Championships, which has not been held in Western Australia for 15 years. It will be held from 31 March to 3 April 2008 and hosted by the Manning Memorial Bowling Club. The club is expecting an influx of over 140 people on a daily basis to attend the competition, with 96 of these people competing.
Currently the club has five women members who have previously represented Australia in the state team, including Liz West, Helen Morse, Clair Hill, Lee Poletti and Kelli Rae. These women will again be representing the club and Western Australia in the upcoming championships. Kelli Rae became a club member at the tender age of 14, and now at 19 years of age is a brilliant young bowler who also represents Australia in the under-25 international squad. Kelli is the epitome of the club’s renewed focus to promote women’s bowling.
To host these championships, the Manning Memorial Bowling Club has had to significantly upgrade its facilities to cater for such a large number of competitors. With 50 years as an active community club, the task has not been easy and has recently included a complete refurbishment of the existing kitchen facilities. The Howard government, in its wisdom and in its support for community clubs, agreed to fund the upgrade of the kitchen facilities if re-elected at the 2007 election. This commitment was to the tune of $90,000.
Government members interjecting—
HYM
Irons, Steve, MP
Mr IRONS
—Don’t knock the women! I am sure there are a lot of women on your side who would be disappointed to hear you say that. As the coalition was not returned at the election, the bowling club has had to borrow the money from the local council, the South Perth City Council. I call on the Rudd government to support this club and this important women’s event in Western Australia by funding the commitment made by the previous government for the benefit of local clubs and women’s sport. I know the government has flagged cost-cutting to smaller sporting clubs in its misguided effort to fight inflation. In the interest of women’s sport in Australia, it is imperative that clubs like the Manning Memorial Bowling Club receive support from government so that all clubs in Australia can confidently go out and pursue events like this. (Time expired)
Dads in Education
2149
2149
16:35:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—During the January break, I had the pleasure of assisting nine-year-old Brandon Aubrey in realising his dream of walking to Canberra. His dad, Kerry, who is here today, accompanied him. The two had walked as far as Goulburn before Brandon, on a rest day, had an unfortunate accident jumping from the bunk bed. He twisted his ankle and was unable to complete the walk unassisted. Kerry and I then pushed Brandon in a wheelchair some 61 kilometres, leaving Brandon just 37 kilometres to walk to Parliament House. The 375-kilometre walk from the Central Coast to Parliament House originally started as a request by Brandon to walk to his cousin’s house in Canberra. Kerry viewed this as an opportunity to learn and grow, not only for Brandon but for his family also, but, most importantly, to raise awareness about Dads in Education.
Kerry is a director of the not-for-profit organisation Dads in Education. Last year I was approached by Kerry in my capacity as the National Secretary of the Health Services Union to support a Father’s Day breakfast on the Central Coast. This breakfast attracted some 10,000 dads to an en masse ‘Let’s Read’ that celebrated what dads could do for their children and to show that they support their children’s school in providing the best educational outcomes for their children. Dads in Education see National Literacy and Numeracy Week and Father’s Day as an obvious catalyst to ask the nation to invite dads into school and into their children’s lives to celebrate fathers, literacy and numeracy.
This year Dads in Education, as a result of the walk undertaken by Brandon and Kerry, will be running the breakfast on the Central Coast once again and launching the program in the Australian Capital Territory, north-eastern Sydney and the Hunter. The breakfast will deliver approximately 150,000 serves, and more than 300,000 children will write their dad’s story, which will be displayed in outlets across various regions where this event is being run.
Kerry would be the first to recognise that there is no silver bullet for the lack of good male role models in Australian society. However he does say that the Dads in Education Father’s Day breakfast is one of those first steps in the right direction for dealing with teenage crime, alcohol and drug abuse. By engaging fathers as significant male role models in the educational outcomes of their children, there can on the whole be good outcomes for families. Given the work that is being done to get the Dads in Education Father’s Day breakfast to this point and the obvious benefits to Australian schools, children, families and fathers, I am calling on the government to look at the merits of this program very closely. Hopefully, Dads in Education can fulfil its goals in a national Father’s Day breakfast program that allows children and others in the community the opportunity to celebrate their fathers and their valuable contribution to their families and to Australian society.
Fadden Electorate: School Leaders
2149
2149
16:38:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—I rise to commend the new student leaders of the northern Gold Coast schools within the electorate of Fadden. It is no small achievement to be appointed a student leader in today’s schools. These leaders have been selected because of their potential and because of their identified abilities to make a contribution to their schools and to society going forward. Australia needs great leaders, and I am especially pleased to name some of Fadden’s up and coming leaders this afternoon. These leaders are 100 per cent of Australia’s future and I look forward to hearing of their leadership journeys and their future successes.
From Assisi Catholic College there are College Captains Benita Salvatore and Simon McCormack; Social Committee Leader Holly Whitehouse; Social Justice Committee Leader Lauren Turner; Environment Committee Leader Jessica Kennedy; Cultural Committee Leader Anika van der Velde; and Family Team Leaders Georgie Harper, Karis Lambert, Luke Simpson and Jamie Walker.
From Coomera State School there are Captains Dylan Higgins and Zoe Fishpool; Vice-Captains Jack O’Rourke and Rhiannon McKenzie; House Captains Max Carney, Brodie Palmer, Emily Benton, Jacob Fava, Carlie Simon and Stakaya le Chalmers.
From Helensvale State School there are year 6 House Leaders Rebecca Handsaker, Sean Speight, Jessica Hughes, William Marshall, Chelsea Keynes, Jordan Martin, Stephanie Redman and Samuel Coxhead; year 7 House Leaders Olivia Collins, Nathan Lyons, Kelly Adams, Ryan Menzies, Kiowa Doyle, Cameron Lillyman, Natasha Addison and Jake Gould; and the music leaders—Strings Captain Greta Oakley; String Orchestra Leader Eden Flowers; Band Captain Aleksandra Mladenovic; and Band Vice-Captain Liam Miller-Little.
From Livingstone Christian College there are College Captains Ashley Coetzee and Deborah McMillan; and College Vice-Captains Joshua Kay and Leah Major.
From Coombabah State School there are School Captains Rhomany Fitz, Luke Lang, Isabella Michael and Danny Pointing; House Captains Jasmine Duderec, Brody Upson, Madison Jordan, Nick Ramage, Rhomany Fitz, Kyle Woolard, Shae Fraser-McGrath and Danny Pointing; and House Vice-Captains Brooke Coward, Nelson King, Danielle Brown, Jayden Wood, Ashley Harker, Luigi Tagor, Jasmine Elliot and Jesse Borlaise.
From Labrador State School there are Peer Leaders Corrina McColl, Courtney Brown, Alani Faustino, Nataliya Vacic, Caitlyn Mathias, Jessica Brunton Fraser, Kaitlyn Mansell-Nettle, Sindi Sadikovic, Bahia El-Rebehy, Aleisha Smith, Isla Smith, Emilie Roberts, Brandon Gates, Damir Helvida, Dean Jones, Tim Welsh, Rhys Weber, Anthony Braumberger, Martin Thomson and Ben Nelson.
From Oxenford State School there are Student Leaders Ashleigh Paler and Lee Summerville; House Leaders Naomi McAdie, Sean Luckman, Cambelle Fox, Toby Needs, Jordan Payne and Jack Lace; Music Leader Rebecca Anderson; and Technology Leader Joel McDonald.
From Gaven State School there are School Captains Billie Tisdell-Hall, Louise Verschaeren and Tyler Ward; House Captains Nathan Vekar, Jessica Tyrer, Douglas McDonald, Carly Thomas, Cory Withers, Dylan Struthers and Jasmine Cosper; and Music Captains Chelsea Mynott and Hayden Norris.
From Park Lake State School there are School Captains Amber Jenkins and Elijah Pulemoanatama. (Time expired)
Solomon Electorate: Manunda Terrace Primary School
2150
2150
16:41:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise today to put on record my congratulations to the children and staff from the Active After-school Communities program at the Manunda Terrace Primary School outside school hours care service. I had the pleasure recently to present Manunda Terrace Primary School’s outside school care service with the Northern Territory Active After-school Communities Super Site Award for 2007. To be selected the Super Site Award winner in front of 70 other participating sites around the Territory is a fantastic effort by all those involved. This award recognises the outside school hours care service commitment and excellence in being part of a national program where 150,000 children participate in a wonderful array of safe and fun structured physical activities and each term have been coming back for more. It is my understanding that during the program the children did activities such as canoeing, archery, Irish dancing and netball.
The Active After-school Communities program is offered to all Australian primary schools and approved out of school hours care services. It is free to participating children and their families and is offered in the after-school timeslot between 3 pm and 5.30 pm—a time of day when often both parents are still at work and a timeslot that ensures kids have great fun being physically active with their friends.
The program relies heavily on people who are delivering the physical activities to the schools and the out of school hours care services. I acknowledge the commitment of the staff and applaud the significant contribution of all those who are involved in delivering the program. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Sandra Evans and her team at Manunda Terrace Primary and Tracey Parker, the Active After-school Communities regional coordinator supporting this site.
Eighty-five per cent of children currently participating in the Active After-schools Communities program were considered inactive, so it is through programs such as this that we can increase the physical activity levels of primary school age children in an effort to decrease childhood obesity rates in Australia. What has been most pleasing, though, is the retention rates of children involved in these programs, with over 80 per cent of children showing great enthusiasm to return to the program each term. Once again, I congratulate all concerned with this program and encourage all schools in Australia to engage in similar programs.
Mitchell Electorate: Housing Affordability
2151
2151
16:43:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise to speak on a matter of vital importance to my electorate of Mitchell: that of affordable housing. It is a fact that one of the main contributors to unaffordable housing in Australia is state government and local government taxes and charges. The 2006 census shows that my electorate of Mitchell has one of the highest proportions of mortgage owners, one of the highest proportions of McMansions and the highest rate of couples with dependent children. My electorate, including the suburbs of Kellyville, Rouse Hill, Beaumont Hills and Castle Hill, has a particular interest in housing affordability, as do young Australians and people in greater Western Sydney.
When the GST was introduced in 2000, there was a clear commitment that state governments would abolish stamp duty on mortgages and business conveyances. Today, stamp duty, land tax and local government contributions add around 30 per cent to the cost of a new home. Sometimes this is justified on the basis of infrastructure provisions, but coming from one of the most infrastructure-deprived electorates in the country I can confirm that these exorbitant taxes and charges do not go towards infrastructure in Mitchell. And many homeowners in my electorate want to know where that 30 per cent of taxes and charges has actually gone.
In particular, I would also note that property taxes such as stamp duty and land taxes represent around 33 per cent of states’ own-source revenue. States certainly have failed. This is not confined to the supply and demand problems created by the mismanagement of land release that I have spoken about previously. The main failure of states like New South Wales is to remove or reduce taxes and charges. These taxes and charges remain the greatest impact a government can have on lowering housing prices. There have been many calls for inefficient stamp duties to be removed. The Productivity Commission said that tax arrangements can have direct and indirect effects on housing prices and thus on affordability. Stamp duty is a hurdle for households endeavouring to save a deposit for their first home.
I would argue the time is long overdue for state governments to remove this hurdle for working families and young Australians if we are to retain the great Australian dream of owning a home. Working families in New South Wales want to know what the Rudd government has done to pressure the New South Wales state government to cut mortgage stamp duty. Let us be clear about this: state Labor is dining out at the expense of working families in Western Sydney.
The federal Labor Party and the Treasurer have typically announced a four-point plan—or, I should say, one, two, three, four points. We have seen a lot of this lately. The Treasurer has warned the big banks and set up a complaints hotline and taken other innocuous measures that will achieve very little; what he has not done is ask his Labor mates in New South Wales to reduce stamp duty.
Working families in Mitchell want to know what Kevin Rudd is doing about this issue of housing affordability. Will he end the blame game about housing affordability in New South Wales? Will he raise this matter with his Labor mates? I urge this Labor government to put aside partisanship and get New South Wales Labor to give working families in my electorate of Mitchell, in Western Sydney, and elsewhere a break.
Workplace Relations
2152
2152
16:46:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—I want to comment quickly on the demise of Work Choices in industrial relations, an issue that is of particular concern to my electors. During the campaign, I met many workers who were losing their penalty rates, rest breaks and other important conditions. What Work Choices was doing in particular was creating a take it or leave it attitude amongst many employers. This particularly affects workers in areas where there are weak bargaining positions, like retail and hospitality. In my electorate, where there are a lot of retail and hospitality workers, this was a very big issue.
There are a few key points about Work Choices. First of all, it had no mandate. It was conceived and prepared in secret without reference to the Australian people and it created an environment where working people’s conditions were lost without any compensation at all. That is mainly because of the provisions in the bill which removed the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, and introduced AWAs without any no disadvantage test, which accelerated the trends that were already present in the operations of pre Work Choices AWAs. It had almost Stalinist controls on unions and employers throughout the bargaining process and it introduced greenfields agreements where employers could, in effect, make an agreement with themselves if they were moving or refurbishing a site.
This was, I think, a specific repudiation of John Howard’s 1995 promise that no worker would be worse off under the Liberals. The environment created by Work Choices was a direct result of the intent of these laws. Many in the Liberal Party are now trying to pretend they did not understand the implications or the effects of Work Choices. We have people saying that the cabinet was not aware. That is absolute nonsense. We now know that the Liberals are divided between two groups: the honest true believers who want to stand by Work Choices and those who want to make a tactical retreat. Either way, the Liberal position is to make laws to the detriment of working families. Labor’s bill will restore fairness and the bargaining position for workers. It will provide an important transition from AWAs to collective agreements.
To conclude, one worker likened bargaining under Work Choices to playing poker in a game where your opponent had all the picture cards and you had all the number cards. That is why Work Choices offended the Australian ideal of the fair go.
Queensland: Local Government
2153
2153
16:49:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I would remind the member for Wakefield that his policy is going to see unemployment increase by one per cent and that that is not really a fair go for working families.
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you will know that in Queensland on Saturday there was a fantastic result in the local government elections. Across the state, Labor administrations were thrown out lock, stock and barrel. Why were they thrown out? Because they had lost relevance to their local community. In Townsville the longest serving Labor administration in the country got thrown out lock, stock and barrel. A new council has been installed, and we are looking forward to great things. In Brisbane city, Labor lost control of the council, and that is a great outcome.
The change in Townsville will see a bit of sense come back in relation to proposed developments at the port. The previous administration supported a canal estate in front of the casino, out in Cleveland Bay, right next to the port of Townsville. It was totally inappropriate to put 1,000 dwelling units in the port, and sense has prevailed. The new council said, ‘No, we’re not going to do that,’ and I support them 110 per cent. I would like to see the new model that has been proposed, with Ross Creek being diverted in front of the casino and the port being sealed off to improve the security of the port. It would allow the new cruise ship terminal and the new defence wharfage to be constructed. Services to the new cruise ship terminal and the defence wharfage could be provided through the port, thereby ensuring safety in respect of refuelling services and ammunition services. It would also eliminate the need to put in a cross-creek opening bridge at the end of The Strand, which would mean that those who use the moorings upstream of The Strand would not have to wait for the bridge to open once or twice an hour. There will be no bridge; there will be no necessity for one. More than that, it is a sensible win because an operating port creates noise and dust and increases the amount of light. We do not want a situation in the years to come whereby residents of 1,000 units complain that the port is affecting their lifestyle. This is a sensible decision that I support. I support the new council and its attitude. I support the port authority’s attitude so that our community can be a living and viable community in the years ahead.
Queensland: Local Government Elections
2153
2153
16:52:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
0
Mr SULLIVAN
—As the member for Herbert indicated, last Saturday local government elections were held in Queensland. My electorate of Longman is entirely within the new supercouncil, as it is so called, of Moreton Bay Regional Council, which is now the third-largest in Queensland after Brisbane and the Gold Coast. On the weekend, several longstanding councillors lost their positions, mostly in contests against other standing councillors. I would like to particularly mention those from Longman who no longer hold positions on the council: Lyn Devereaux, Yvonne Barlow, Chris Monsour and former councillor John McNaught, who was unsuccessful in his bid for the mayoralty. I want to thank them all on behalf of the community that they have served for many years and wish them well in the future.
In the contest for the mayoralty, voters favoured existing mayors over the others who had sought election to those positions, although preferences have not yet been distributed. The inferences from scrutineers suggest that the mayoralty may well be won by the former Redcliffe mayor, Allan Sutherland; therefore, Caboolture mayor Joy Leishman will also lose her position. I want to acknowledge her service to our community over several years, which included contesting for the Liberal Party against me in the state parliament in 1992, which I am happy to say was unsuccessful.
There are some winners, and I want to congratulate all of them. Serving the people within the Longman electorate for the next four years will be Gary Parsons, Chris Whiting, Greg Chippendale, Julie Greer, David Dwyer, Bob Miller and Adrian Raedel. All except new Councillor Raedel were serving councillors in the Pine Rivers Shire Council or Caboolture Shire Council. One personal disappointment is that only two women won seats on the new council. They contested only five but it is still disappointing that only two out of 13 councillors will be women. Voters have trusted experienced hands with the difficult job of harmonising the diverse programs of the three former councils that now make up the Moreton Bay Regional Council. I wish them well in that endeavour and offer them whatever assistance I can give that they may require.
There is one small, inexpensive and worthwhile project that I recommend for continuation, and that is the production of local histories. The Deception Bay history which I was pleased to attend the release of quite recently was an initiative of Councillor Whiting. Written by Thom Blake and Peter Osborne, it is a product of research of the literature and of local family histories and it settles, once and for all, the origin of the name of Deception Bay. Not Cook, not Flinders, not explorer John Oxley but Andrew Petrie named Deception Bay. Andrew Petrie was one of the first free settlers in the Moreton Bay colony— (Time expired)
Lavarack Barracks: Health Services
2154
2154
16:55:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you will know as well as I do that Townsville is the garrison city of Australia. On many occasions you have visited Lavarack Barracks and you know the fine work done by the men and women of Australia’s Defence Force. Lavarack is Australia’s largest Army base—and soon to get larger with the arrival of the 3rd Battalion. During the election campaign the current Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, made an election promise and announced that there would be a new defence health clinic opening at Lavarack Barracks. It will be a defence families health clinic. That was part of an announcement to fund an initial 12 family healthcare clinics across Australia, and the first two of these clinics are to be established at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville and Robertson Barracks in Darwin.
Townsville’s military personnel are often away on exercises or deployed on overseas operations, and that of course places significant pressure on the families left behind. These families have been waiting since November to get news of the free GP and dental services to be made available at Lavarack Barracks. I call upon the defence minister to let us all know and to let my defence community know when he expects to open the new defence families health clinic. Lavarack Barracks already has a fully operational medical centre, the Lavarack Barracks Medical Centre, and James Cook University is providing a steady supply of doctors and dentists to our local community. So I wonder what the hold-up is. It is time for the government to prove that they will do something more than pay lip-service to the sacrifice being made by Australia’s defence families.
I hope we are not in for another backflip, as we have seen on the Super Hornets. I remind you that the defence minister’s stance after the election was, ‘No way, Jose!’ for Super Hornets. There was a lot of thunder and lightning in what was said about the ‘inappropriateness’ of the former government’s choice to purchase 24 Super Hornets. Surprise, surprise—yesterday, suddenly, the Super Hornets are exactly what Australia needs, and the defence minister announced that he had changed his mind. Well, let us not have another backflip on the defence families health clinic. Let us get an announcement from the defence minister on when we are going to see that opened in Townsville.
Health Services
2155
2155
16:58:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—I want to continue with some unfinished business from 22 February—unfinished because the member for Herbert interrupted my contribution to the debate on his private member’s motion on health services. I say to the member for Herbert: that puerile activity stopped me from making a contribution to support your good motion, sir. So I would like to finish what I started to say on that day, but I have to say first that the attitude of the member for Herbert, with the hand-wringing that has gone on over many years in this place and the unctuous self-righteousness, is shared by other members of the opposition from Tasmania such as Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck in relation to health in my local area of Braddon. They talk health down when people need support in their health services. What we need to do is cooperate with the state government, local government, local communities and health providers to provide the very best of services. So I will continue now in the same vein as that motion that was put forward on 22 February.
I want to reiterate what the Rudd Labor government has promised and is working towards delivering in Braddon and particularly on the north-west coast of Tasmania. There will be $7.7 million for a new cancer treatment unit, with preference for it to be located on the north-west coast. That is very much needed. There will be $10 million for better patient transport, with a focus on the north-west coast. That is also very much needed. There will be up to $2.5 million for a GP after-hours clinic in Burnie and up to $5 million for a GP superclinic in Devonport, which are much needed.
The member for Herbert said in his motion that services are needed throughout Australia. It is also so in my area. We all share that view. There is a PET scanner to be located in southern Tasmania. It is very much needed, as the member indicated in his motion that I was unable to support because he would not let me finish my contribution. There is a Medicare licence for an MRI machine on the north-west coast. Hopefully that will be tendered for fairly soon. There is a specialised childcare and early intervention centre for north-west children with autism. That is so needed. There is $64,000 to augment the Penguin Medical Centre, and we have just delivered on $1.25 million in four-year funding for the Sisters of Charity in Devonport.
We will honour our commitments as to the Mersey hospital and the people of the Mersey region. We have to do this sensibly. We have to provide these services in a sustained and safe way. We did not promise to provide an ICU, but if we can we will. Senator Colbeck said that was a promise of Tony Abbott and the last government. Well, even I know it was not, so he should not tell lies about that. We want to get this hospital to the best standard possible with the best services possible, and we will honour that commitment. I am glad that at least I could begin to finish what I started as to your motion, given your puerile activity on that day. (Time expired)
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to in the House previously, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2156
Bills
R2921
Second Reading
2156
Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Mr Tanner:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2156
17:02:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I rise to speak in favour of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Bill 2008. The bill primarily amends the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, commonly known as the CAC Act, to improve the transparency, governance and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies. The bill also contains a small number of consequential amendments to the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, the Australian National University Act 1991 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991. The proposed amendments to the CAC Act represent the most significant and much-needed update since the CAC Act commenced on 1 January 1998.
The amendments will improve the efficiency and transparency as to how directors of Commonwealth authorities and wholly owned Commonwealth companies are notified of the general policies of the Australian government that apply to their body. After a responsible minister consults with these directors on proposed general policies that are to apply to their body, the finance minister may issue general policy orders that will be published on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. These new arrangements will improve the transparency to the parliament and the public of the application of general policies of government to these bodies.
Other significant amendments in this bill will improve the alignment of provisions in the CAC Act with the equivalent arrangements in the Corporations Act 2001 in areas of offences, penalties, reporting and terminology. The proposed amendments will, for example, insert new offences and amend a number of penalty clauses, including introducing new civil penalty provisions to align the CAC Act with similar provisions in the Corporations Act. The proposed amendments will also improve the accountability of Commonwealth companies by requiring annual reports to be prepared in line with the requirements for public companies under the Corporations Act. Additionally, the bill strengthens the test for determining when the Commonwealth controls a company, by employing terminology used in the Corporations Act for determining when a company is a subsidiary. For wholly owned Commonwealth companies the amendments in the bill will also allow the finance minister to require additional information, through the finance minister’s orders, to ensure annual reports contain appropriate disclosure on public sector governance and risk management issues.
Other proposed amendments relate to the responsibility for providing ministers with the financial statements and audit reports of subsidiaries of CAC Act bodies. The amendments in this bill implement an Auditor-General’s request to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for the directors of the relevant CAC Act body to submit the reports of subsidiaries to responsible ministers, rather than the responsibility being with the Auditor-General, as is currently the case. Finally, this bill will provide the Commonwealth authorities with greater clarity about their ability to purchase goods and services by the use of credit cards, where they do not currently have express power to borrow. Importantly, the bill introduces a related criminal penalty associated with the misuse of credit cards for all Commonwealth authorities, including those whose enabling legislation already provides an express power to borrow. Overall, the amendments improve the transparency, accountability and governance arrangements for authorities and companies under the CAC Act. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
CONDOLENCES
2157
Condolences
Mr Leonard Joseph Keogh
Dr Kenneth Lionel Fry
Ms Helen Mayer
Hon. Robert Lindsay Collins AO
Mr Matt Price
Mr Bernard Douglas (Bernie) Banton AM
Hon. Sir Charles Walter Michael Court AK KCMG OBE
Sir Edmund Percival Hillary KG ONZ KBE
2157
Debate resumed from 21 February, on the Speaker’s announcement informing the House of the deaths of:
Mr Leonard Joseph Keogh, on 10 October 2007, a Member of this House for the Division of Bowman from 1969 to 1975 and 1983 to 1987;
Dr Kenneth Lionel Fry, on 10 October 2007, a Member of this House for the Division of Fraser from 1974 to 1984;
Ms Helen Mayer, on 7 February 2008, a Member of this House for the Division of Chisholm from 1983 to 1987;
The Honourable Robert Lindsay Collins AO, on 21 September 2007, a former Senator for the Northern Territory from 1987 to 1998 and Minister;
Mr Matt Price, journalist, on 25 November 2007;
Mr Bernard Douglas (Bernie) Banton AM, victim of asbestosis, mesothelioma and asbestos-related pleural disease, on 27 November 2007;
The Honourable Sir Charles Walter Michael Court AK KCMG OBE, a former Premier of Western Australia, on 22 December 2007, and
Sir Edmund Percival Hillary KG ONZ KBE, on 11 January 2008, New Zealand mountaineer and first known climber to reach the summit of Mount Everest.
2158
17:07:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—I wish to speak about the great Bernie Banton. Bernie Banton was one of the most famous anti-asbestos campaigners in Australia. He was the face, heart and soul of the hard-fought struggle to bring corporate giant James Hardie to account. He was the face, the heart and the soul of the biggest battle for compensation in Australia’s workplace history. We live in an age where suggestions of heroism are treated with cynicism, an age where the overworked expression ‘Australian hero’ can often be trite. Not so on this occasion. Bernie Banton was a hero—a hero for ordinary Australian workers and a hero for all Australian families. He, like very few before him, was able to prod the Australian conscience and to touch our souls. At a time when we were drifting towards a more insular life, looking after those immediate to us, Bernie reminded us of the importance of togetherness—the Anzac spirit. He reminded us of the importance of the great Australian traditions of the fair go for all, of looking out for each other, of sticking up for your mates and of punching well above your weight. In so doing, Bernie Banton was an ordinary Australian hero doing extraordinary things.
We know that one of Bernie’s greatest achievements was negotiating the creation of a $4 billion compensation fund which offers financial security to thousands of workers who have contracted asbestos diseases whilst working with products made by James Hardie. The fund will also provide financial security for the families of those workers. The sum is the largest voluntary payment in Australian corporate history. My friend and colleague the member for Charlton, who worked very closely to make this deal a reality, has made it very clear that it would not have been possible without Bernie’s influence. Bernie did not just prick the Australian conscience; he lanced the conscience of one of Australia’s biggest and oldest companies. Given James Hardie’s past, making it meet its responsibilities for having put thousands of lives at risk was an insurmountable task for many but not for Bernie Banton.
Gideon Haigh, the author of Asbestos House: the Secret History of James Hardie Industries, notes that a memo from Hardie’s Camellia plant manager warned of the dangers of asbestos. The memo from October 1972 stated:
Even assuming that all vented systems were perfect, the fact remains that dust clings to every cut surface, is generated every time a block is moved ...
… … …
I see no real solution to these problems except by use of an asbestos substitute.
One former safety officer at James Hardie, who later went on to become an executive, has described the negligence at the Camellia plant, where workers were exposed to plumes of asbestos dust so thick that they could barely see what was in front of them. In 1999 the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that by 1938 Hardie:
... had actual knowledge of the dangers to health posed by visible clouds of asbestos dust.
Yet, despite the countless warnings, James Hardie recklessly and irresponsibly continued to use asbestos, inflicting disease and ultimately death on the hundreds of workers who gave the company their utmost loyalty—including Bernie. Bernie’s success at halting James Hardie in its tracks when it tried to run away from its obligations is one of Australia’s greatest David and Goliath stories. Bernie’s heroic battle was symbolic of what is right, what is decent and what is proper in all Australian workplaces. He single-handedly delivered the message that employees could not be written off as mere commodities. Human beings deserve to be treated with care and respect at all times. Bernie understood that.
Through this there seems to be an obvious message. It was one that only Bernie could deliver to the executives at James Hardie. It was a message upon which justice for hundreds of workers and thousands of family members hinged. Despite being hampered by asbestosis and ultimately mesothelioma, Bernie never wallowed in self-pity. He was unrelenting in his pursuit of justice, not for himself but for those who would not otherwise have had any. Gideon Haigh traces Bernie’s activism to the experience of one of his mates. Bernie was watching a friend undergo antagonising, patronising questioning and obfuscation from James Hardie’s lawyers. Bernie recalled:
They made him look like such a dope.
The judge could see he was telling the truth, but it was just these smartarse lawyers, especially the bloke from Hardies.
I would have thumped him in the gob.
Bernie’s asbestos campaign began and ended with concern for others, despite his own deteriorating health. Bernie’s oncologist from Concord hospital, Stephen Clarke, recalls urging his patient to put his own health needs first—advice that largely went unheeded. Bernie should have been worrying about his own health but he was more concerned about his mates, about the injustice and about the workers around Australia. He was concerned about those whose names he did not know and whose families would experience the same challenges as his wife, Karen. Bernie’s altruism, dignity and determination earned him admiration from many quarters, but he would have been beaming with pride at the accolades given to him by the ordinary Australians for whom he fought so hard. The wife of one victim who met Bernie at a Canberra fundraiser said:
He was inspirational. He was already sick with asbestosis and I had lost my husband but I was really appreciative of what he was doing for others.
Another widow said:
He inspired a lot of people to really fight hard for important things.
Bernie battled for victims and their family members to the very end. Knowing that he might only have weeks to live, Bernie was still fighting for others from his hospital bed. I had the immense honour of meeting Bernie at his hospital bed in Concord hospital. He held my hand tightly for 25 minutes, extolling the virtues of the drug Alimta. Bernie was eligible to receive Alimta free of charge but hundreds and potentially thousands of patients remained ineligible, paying tens of thousands of dollars to access a treatment that relieves pain and prolongs life. Vowing to take up his fight, I collected thousands of signatures from my constituents in my electorate of Lowe. With the assistance of others, Bernie was already well on his way to collecting 17,000 other signatures. As we know, Alimta was finally listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Bernie Banton was a courageous man. He was a thoroughly decent man. He was a selfless man. This is perhaps no more evident than in a moving tribute that he had written for his wonderful wife, Karen, and read by his brother Bruce at his funeral. He said:
You seem so fragile at times.
But you are so strong when it’s needed. I’m sorry to leave you. But I’m so happy and blessed to have spent the past 16 years of my life married to you.
Go on with your life. See you in heaven. I love you. My soul mate. My wife. And always my darling.
Bernie, we will all go on with our lives. We will live them mindful of the legacy of justice and comfort you have left behind for asbestosis and mesothelioma sufferers. We may no longer be able to hear the audible rasp of your respirator, but your words and deeds will resonate with us for years to come. There is much to do, many fights to win. We will do our best to honour you by continuing your battle to raise awareness of asbestos related diseases and their debilitating nature. That is why I am so proud that the Bernie Banton Centre, located at Concord hospital in my electorate of Lowe, will work earnestly to provide early diagnosis and treatment for victims of asbestos related diseases.
The work of the Bernie Banton Centre will take on a heightened sense of importance in the years ahead as ordinary Australians expose themselves to asbestos fibres, not at work but at home. The number of asbestos related cases in Australia is not expected to peak for another decade. In the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of Australians have unknowingly been exposed to asbestos products in their homes and at work, including mums washing clothes covered in asbestos fibres, dads cutting fibro sheets in the backyard and any children standing nearby. None knew of the dangers confronting them. Now there is a wave of cases of asbestos related diseases appearing among a new generation of home renovators. In my electorate of Lowe, where old Federation and Californian bungalow homes abound, there are many homes that have some asbestos in them. Bernie may no long be with us, but his battles clearly remain.
2160
17:17:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I thank those opposite for their indulgence. I rise to speak, on this condolence motion, of a good friend and mentor of mine, former Senator Bob Collins. Bob was born in Newcastle and migrated to the Northern Territory, where he worked in agriculture in Maningrida for many years before joining the Labor Party. Bob, when he was in this place as a senator, was no taller than me but was at least twice my weight. Many people would have been surprised to have seen the footage shown in a Four Corners program that I have seen of Bob riding a horse and looking every bit like Little Joe from the TV show Bonanza.
In the late 1970s, to be a member of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory was a pretty tough ask. At successive elections in the middle 1970s, the Labor Party was effectively wiped out so that at one stage, out of a 19-person assembly, 18 of them belonged to the Country Liberal Party and only one was an Independent. There were no Labor members at all in the parliament when Bob was first preselected to stand for the Labor Party in that parliament.
Dawn Lawrie, who was the Independent member at that time, became of course a lifelong friend of Bob’s and eventually a member of the Labor Party herself. Bob was duly elected to the assembly and became leader of the Labor Party for the 1983 Northern Territory election. Things did not get easier for the Labor Party in 1983. In that election we polled less than 34 per cent of the preferred vote and suffered terrible losses as the newly elected Country Liberal Party government in a parliament of 25 seats cornered for itself over 17 of those seats.
Importantly, Bob was a champion of Aboriginal causes—most importantly, the cause of getting Aboriginal people into parliament. He was fearless in championing the cause of uranium mining and never looked back when it came to the interests of Indigenous people. Bob supported the preselection of Wesley Lanuphuy, the first Indigenous member of the parliamentary Labor Party in the Northern Territory, and then Maurice Rioli from the Tiwi Islands. By the late 1980s, Bob’s attention had turned to the Senate. He stood for Senate preselection and walked that in in 1987. He stood for election at the 11 July 1987 election that also saw Warren Snowdon elected to this place. Warren and Bob had always had a fascinating relationship—Warren from one wing of the Labor Party and Bob from the other. It was with some amusement that, in early 1986, in a ballot for the national executive, the ballot was eventually won by Bob—the party vote having been tied on the conference floor, and the deciding vote being drawn from Warren Snowdon’s hat.
Bob had been responsible for developing a core of staff that were extremely loyal, diligent and hardworking: the late Barbara James was central to that core, as were Rolf Gerritsen, now a professor and working in Alice Springs; Jack Lake, who now works for the current Prime Minister; and Brian Johnston, whom I mentioned earlier, who is battling with his own demons at the moment—he has cancer. By 1990, Bob was a minister in the federal parliament: Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and Minister for Transport and Communications. As his ministerial career developed, Bob maintained a massive interest in domestic Northern Territory politics, so by the defeat of the Keating government in 1996 his interest had encouraged the career of, firstly, Brian Ede, who became leader of the party in the early 1990s and then Clare Martin, who became the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. When Bob left this place, his work developing the Labor Party in the Northern Territory was continued by Clare Martin. I remember Bob for his great humour and his incredible capacity to process information, to speak in a lucid manner and to speak in a concise and precise frame. He is survived by his wife, Rosemary, and his sons and daughters. Bob was a wonderful man—a person who gave me my start in politics. I thank him for that, and I will not forget him.
2161
17:22:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise on this condolence motion to express my condolences on the death of a very great Western Australian, Sir Charles Court. Sir Charles was not born in Western Australia, but he did arrive there at the age of three months. He is one of the most significant historical figures in the history of my state. He is certainly a historical figure in the history of our country. In many ways, the good fortune that Western Australians and Australians are enjoying at the present time—through what is called the mining boom—is as a result of the efforts of Sir Charles when he was deputy premier, a minister and ultimately premier of Western Australia.
Sir Charles entered parliament in 1953. Prior to that, he had been an accountant and a soldier. He had founded the accountancy practice Hendry, Rae & Court that still exists in Perth. During the war he served in the AIF. He rose very quickly from a private to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was married twice: firstly to Rita, who died in the early 1990s, and secondly to Judith, who survives him. He also had five sons: Victor, Barry, Ken, Geoffrey and Richard, many of whom have been very prominent Western Australians also—in particular, of course, his son Richard, who went on to succeed him as the member for Nedlands and also went on to be Premier of Western Australia.
When Sir Charles entered the Western Australian parliament, Western Australia was a very different place from what it is today. It was very much a laggard state. There was not a lot going on in the way of the Western Australian economy. Generally, what happened was that if you grew up in Western Australia you would leave to find opportunity in the eastern states or elsewhere. That was the reality of Western Australia in the 1950s. Sir Charles was determined to change that. When you think back, it is astonishing that his first big battle to do that was to try to convince the federal government to allow Western Australia to export iron ore. When you think of that, it seems quite extraordinary—that the state government would be required to battle the federal government to export iron ore. There was a lot of opposition to that going on at the time, believe it or not. In winning the battle, and in the efforts that he made to develop the resources industry in the north-west of Western Australia, he really sowed the seeds of the state’s, and of course the nation’s, current prosperity.
Sir Charles rose very quickly to be Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1957. Then, when the Liberal Party won government in 1959, he became the Minister for Industrial Development and the North-West, Minister for Transport and Minister for Railways. He had an extraordinary presence. In that portfolio he travelled the world. He went to boardrooms in Tokyo, he went to boardrooms in New York and he went to boardrooms in London, and he convinced them about the viability of the Western Australian resources industry. He was also an extraordinarily loyal deputy to the then Premier, Sir David Brand, who was of course a very significant Western Australian also. But it was really in that time when he was Minister for Industrial Development and the North-West that he became the architect of the current resources boom. In doing so, he took Western Australia from being a laggard state, a mendicant state, to being the powerhouse that it is today. All Australians owe him a great debt for doing that.
He served very loyally as the deputy to Sir David Brand, and ultimately he succeeded him as Leader of the Opposition after the Brand government lost to John Tonkin in 1971. He took the Liberal Party back into office after just three years in opposition, which is a feat that has not occurred very often in Australian politics. Indeed, I understand that it was only the second time that it has happened. In 1974, when he won that election against John Tonkin—who I might add is also a much loved Western Australian former Premier—he became Premier and took on the portfolios of Treasurer, Minister Coordinating Economic and Regional Development, and Minister for Federal Affairs.
During that time, in Canberra there was the Fraser government. There was not a lot of love lost between Sir Charles and the Canberra authorities, regardless of which political party they represented. Sir Charles really did not have that much time for party loyalty. His loyalty was to the state of Western Australia. He was something of a fearsome advocate. Indeed, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, came to attend Sir Charles’s 95th birthday, a big celebration that we had in 2006 in Perth, and he relayed some of the stories about Sir Charles being an extraordinarily formidable man to deal with. Robert Menzies noted that Sir Charles—and Robert Menzies was a relatively formidable man himself—refused to ever take no for an answer. Menzies had the greatest of respect for him. I note that former Prime Minister Paul Keating was also a great admirer of Sir Charles.
Sir Charles, above all else, was fiercely Western Australian. He really did not approve of terribly much that went on in Canberra, and he held the Canberra authorities in contempt in many ways. He was an extraordinarily strong public presence. He had a tremendous sense of humour, which was not often noted about Sir Charles. He was also a very formidable leader. I suspect that, for some of his ministerial colleagues when he was Premier, he was quite an exasperating leader. He used to be famous for calling them at 4.30 in the morning. He would get up, read the papers, call his ministers extraordinarily early and expect them to be on top of their brief. He always had extraordinarily high standards of probity. He refused to let the treasurer of the Western Australian Liberal Party tell him anything about who was financing the Liberal Party of Western Australia, because he did not want to know.
As well as being a tremendous leader, a very formidable presence and someone who, it was said, did not suffer fools gladly, he was not an arrogant man. I think that is very important. He was a leader but not an arrogant man. He remained a very humble man. Throughout his period as Premier—and I think this is quite extraordinary—he kept his phone number in the Western Australian phone book. He used to school his boys on answering the phone if someone were to call up to complain about specific aspects of the governing of Western Australia. He expected his sons to treat anyone who called the house with respect and he gave them instructions about how they might pass the message through to him. That is the sort of man he was. Even when he was Premier, he remained humble.
I had the privilege of attending the celebrations for his 95th birthday. Sadly, that was only about 16 months before he passed away. He gave a powerful speech, as he always did, without notes. He spoke for about 40 minutes. Sir Charles opened that speech by chastising the audience for not having faith that he was going to reach his 100th birthday and for celebrating his 95th. But of course that proved prescient in the end as Sir Charles passed away towards the end of last year.
It is very important that the House pay its respects and condolences to one of the greatest Australians to have served in a political arena, former Western Australian Premier Sir Charles Court. He will be sadly missed. He often advised Western Australian Liberals of all ages about appropriate courses of action. We will certainly miss him, as will all Western Australians. Australia has lost a very significant political figure.
2163
17:31:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
0
Mr GARRETT
—I rise to speak on the condolence motion to take note of and commemorate the life of great service that Bernie Banton gave. I think courage is sometimes an overused word, but it was a quality that Bernie displayed in very great measure. He endured, as did many other Australians, the ravages of diseases related to exposure to asbestos dust, which, regrettably and sadly, eventually took him away. He endured the shortness of breath, the onset of mesothelioma and even the loss of his own brother, who died of related diseases in 2001.
Not only did he endure with courage and with fortitude the ravages of those diseases but he also became well known as somebody who stood up for the victims of asbestos diseases. He eventually became a leading figure in the campaign to ensure there was fair and just compensation for all those affected by James Hardie’s activities in New South Wales, including the factory in the western suburbs of Sydney that Bernie and others had worked in. This campaign became known nationally and internationally. Bernie was an indefatigable fighter in this campaign. I was pleased and privileged to have worked for a number of years with him and with other members of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia. I served for a number of years as patron of the foundation and at all times I witnessed Bernie’s extraordinary bravery, courage and fortitude.
The history of exposure to asbestos is relatively well known, but what needs to be remarked upon as we reflect on Bernie’s service and his life is that there are still many Australians who suffer from the ravages of asbestos related diseases. The miners in the asbestos mines around Wittenoom in Western Australia and the people who were exposed to building products are quite often suddenly finding they are carrying a legacy of serious health problems that will inevitably result in their premature deaths. It is a tragic epoch in Australian history that it took so long for the recognition of this terrible disease to become clear and even longer for compensation to be paid to those who suffered.
In 2000 Bernie Banton successfully settled his claim for $800,000 with James Hardie. I think any other person would have probably stopped there and tried to build some kind of life for themselves, given the ravages of the disease were still in evidence. However, Bernie then went out and, as he had previously, started fighting day in and day out for the rights of the former employees of James Hardie. His catchcry was a simple one: ‘We are going to fight until we get justice for victims and their families.’ He became a well-recognised figure on television screens, on the streets and in meetings. He absolutely refused to accept anything other than proper justice for the victims of the exposure to asbestos that had taken place when people were in the employ of James Hardie. That story is a well-known one, and the member for Charlton and others in this House were involved in that campaign. After six years of battle, it was to Bernie’s and many others’ great credit that the compensation package was finally agreed. I think that his campaigning throughout that time, quite often in significant physical distress, earnt him the respect of all Australians. He literally served his community. His was a sterling effort undertaken while having the daily battle of dealing with the symptoms of the disease.
Bernie started work with James Hardie at its Camellia facility in 1968. He left his job in 1974. Some 137 others continued to work at that facility. As of 2004, approximately only 10 of those former employees were still alive. That tragic loss fuelled what was Bernie’s anger at times but was also absolutely justifiable outrage and indignation over people having been treated in such a way, people who until such time as James Hardie finally delivered compensation found themselves struggling with the ravages of the disease and then being cast aside as a consequence of it.
Bernie Banton was made a Member of the Order of Australia in the Queen’s Birthday Honours of 13 June 2005 for service to the community, particularly as an advocate for people affected by asbestos related diseases. On 5 December there was the occasion of his funeral. His family had been offered a state funeral by the New South Wales government as testament to his enduring service, and both the Australian and the New South Wales state flags on all government buildings and establishments in New South Wales were lowered to half-mast on that date as a mark of respect. What a journey for someone who was a fighter for working people and who said continually that this issue was about justice. Despite how physically ravaged Bernie and others found themselves, there was a stronger spirit to stand up for the rights of people and to continue that campaign until justice was done.
Bernie was a warm, feisty, funny, tough and tenacious individual. He was a master of the one-liner, which got him on television on regular occasions, just as he should have been on television on regular occasions, given his message was a compelling and necessary one for Australians to hear. All of those who worked on the campaign and all of those who knew him will mark him as an individual of rare courage and considerable grit and determination. He never gave in. He never gave up hope that a settlement would be reached and that justice would be done. We commemorate his life’s experience and we offer our condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
2165
17:38:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—I am pleased to be able to join this condolence debate to associate myself with the comments made by other honourable members about a number of Australians who have made a very significant contribution to our nation in various ways and also about Sir Edmund Hillary of New Zealand. I knew Mr Keogh and Ms Mayer. I knew Bob Collins and also Sir Charles Court. I had not come across Sir Edmund Hillary, a person whom I greatly admired. Having condolence debates for not only former members of parliament but also those who have made significant contributions to Australia and more widely is a very important step forward. I first got to know Len Keogh when he seemed to be the regular government representative opening facilities in the electorates held by opposition coalition members. He did so with grace. It was always good to see him. He was well respected, and I know that his constituents in the electorate of Bowman had a very high regard for him. A friend of mine worked with Mr Keogh for quite a considerably long period of time and she spoke very highly of him.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts outlined the contribution made by Mr Bernie Banton in relation to the issue of asbestos, and I just want to associate myself with the remarks made by the minister.
Sir Edmund Hillary was an icon in New Zealand and when he passed on there was an incredible outpouring of national grief. I read about it in quite a few of the New Zealand papers. I always respected Sir Edmund Hillary but I was not aware of the way in which he was a role model for all New Zealanders. When he passed on, New Zealand as a nation felt that a living national treasure had departed, as indeed he had. There was also a sense of national grieving and an outpouring of national sentiment. Clearly, New Zealand felt that one of their favourite sons was lost forever.
I do respect Sir Charles Court. I admire him for a number of reasons. He is someone who very successfully led the government in Western Australia. Depending on where one stands politically, one might have a view on some of the decisions that were made by Sir Charles and his government over the years. He had the pleasure of seeing one of his sons, Richard Court, subsequently become the Premier. Sir Charles Court, unlike some other political figures, actually chose the time of his retirement. I think it is regrettable that so often in public life political leaders stay beyond their use-by date. There are very few leaders who, like Sir Charles Court, accept that it is time to move on. He passed the mantle on as Premier and, in doing so, I think he enhanced his own reputation as the leader of that state.
I do not intend to detain the Main Committee for long, except to say that I want to associate myself with all of the comments made on this condolence motion to date. With respect to the deceased persons, in the case of those who were Australians, I want to applaud their service to Australia, and I would like to applaud the service to the world of Sir Edmund Hillary, known affectionately in New Zealand as ‘Sir Ed Hillary’, who of course is a role model for us all.
2166
17:42:00
Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)
—I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I thank the House.
Ms OWENS
(Parramatta)
17:43:00
—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
2166
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
2166
Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Mr Hale:
That the Address be agreed to.
2166
17:43:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—I take this opportunity in my introductory remarks in the debate on the address-in-reply by thanking the electors in the seat of Throsby for providing me with the privilege of representing them again, in the 42nd Parliament. It is indeed an extraordinary privilege and honour to be an elected federal MP, and my colleagues and I all take our responsibilities very seriously. I want to also thank the constituents for the faith they placed in federal Labor, in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and, I hope, in me as their local member, which was reflected in the almost 10 per cent swing to me as the Labor candidate on the two-party preferred results. They may not be aware that the seat of Throsby now holds the distinction of being the seat in New South Wales with the highest percentage of first preference Labor votes, at 65 per cent. I am indeed delighted with that result.
I give my commitment to the electorate to continue to work very hard on their behalf, delivering improvements locally across a range of innovative national programs that the Rudd Labor government will institute, be they in the important areas of health, education or the environment. Of course, I see it as my responsibility to ensure that the specific promises made in the lead-up to the election are delivered to my constituency, including, very importantly, the commitment to a GP superclinic in the Shellharbour area to address problems with lack of GP services and the commitment made to a combined Centrelink-Medicare office to service my community at Warrawong. And the funding for the feasibility study into the Maldon-Dombarton rail link is an important infrastructure project that I hope will be advanced with the election of the Rudd Labor government.
I think there is wisdom in the saying that you are only as good as the people behind you—and, in my case, with me. So I want to take the opportunity again to place on the record my thanks to my hardworking electorate staff, who represent me so efficiently and so well and who always provide a caring hand to the people who come to my office for assistance. I want to thank my campaign director and the team of over 200 branch and volunteer members who worked on the 40 booths that we staffed on election day. I want to place on record my thanks to a range of unions locally who worked very effectively in the Your Rights at Work campaign. Of course, the issue of Work Choices, as we all recognise, was a very important component of the victory by Labor at the federal level. And, last but not least, I want to thank my partner, Denis Lennen. I think all members appreciate the important role that is provided by family members, friends and partners in ensuring that they can undertake their responsibilities, as deemed important by their constituency.
I want to say a few words tonight about some of the challenges that I see confronting the federal Labor government and the importance of addressing those challenges if we are to deliver on the big agenda that we put forward in the lead-up to the federal election. Our agenda for reform, very importantly in areas of social reform, is predicated on continuing national economic prosperity. In that regard I have to say that I think the former government, while they pointed to a range of positive economic indicators, missed the opportunities that the terms of trade have presented to our nation. There is no doubt that the terms of trade boom has provided us all with a once in a generation opportunity to modernise our economy so that we can more successfully meet the challenges of the future. Strong global demand for Australia’s commodity exports has seen our terms of trade rise to a 50-year high. The Reserve Bank recently stated that the rise in the terms of trade has boosted real national income in the order of eight per cent. That is the equivalent of around $80 billion in the last year alone. But as we know, ironically, the ongoing terms of trade boom has revealed some of the weaknesses in our economy and, specifically, the capacity constraints that the Reserve Bank had warned us about for a long time.
I think the Howard government squandered the opportunities that these boom times have given the nation. I think they failed to appreciate that these boom times are the best times to invest in strengthening the economy to set us up for the future. It is my belief, which I know is shared by people on our side of the chamber, that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Howard era. So in an economy which we know is now operating at close to full capacity, our efforts will need to be directed to expanding the supply side of the economy. A lack of investment in the nation’s infrastructure and the skills of our people has contributed to the current predicament of inflationary pressures. As we have indicated, the inflation genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am finding it hard to make my comments with the chatter that is going on in the room.
10000
Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr S Georganas)—We will ensure that the chatter quietens down.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms GEORGE
—As I was saying, the lack of investment in the nation’s infrastructure and the skills of our people is contributing to the current predicament of inflationary pressure in the economy. While government spending was growing very rapidly, particularly always in the lead-up to elections, the spending was not adequately directed to addressing the supply-side constraints on our economy. In fact, what we did was leave to the Reserve Bank the heavy lifting on the challenge of tackling inflation.
But, as all we know, monetary policy is a very blunt instrument. Its impacts are most acutely felt by those already burdened by substantial financial pressure. Despite the promises that we had from the Howard government about keeping interest rates at record lows, the fact is that there have been 12 increases in interest rates, which have risen by three per cent since 2002 and by one per cent in the past six months. So it is no wonder that people I represent are constantly telling me about the financial pressures they face on a daily basis.
That is why the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we have a responsibility as a government to tackle inflation and apply downward pressure to the extent that we can through the budget decisions that we make and, in that way, complement the efforts of the Reserve Bank through the blunt instrument of monetary policy. We also believe that our future prosperity will require sustained productivity growth. The more we can increase productivity, the more our economy can grow into the future without fuelling inflation and without the risk that it poses to increased interest rates. There is no short-term fix to these challenges, but we are committed—and I think we have the vision and the wherewithal to ensure that we do better than the former government in investing in the key supply inputs of economic growth, in particular in our workforce, in our infrastructure and in skilling the Australian people.
Despite comments made by opposition speakers in the House since parliament resumed, we cannot ignore the fact that we have indeed inherited the highest level of inflation in 16 years. That is a legacy that was bequeathed to us, and we cannot run away from that fact. But we have taken the responsibility for tackling this inflation legacy. We are not just saying, ‘Oh, well, it’s a problem we inherited. Let us just blame the former government for that.’ The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made it very clear that it is now the responsibility of the federal Labor government to tackle that inflation legacy.
We have a number of prongs to our strategy to fight inflation. The first is the importance in this coming budget of exercising fiscal discipline and reining in the kind of profligate spending that we saw, particularly in the lead-up to the last election. If you do not want to take my characterisation of the previous government’s measures as profligate spending at face value, you only have to refer to comments made by the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, when he on several occasions expressed his public concern at the ‘sustainability’ of the former government’s pre-election spending. So I think the member for Higgins was already sounding the alarm bells, and we certainly will heed that message. As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has made very clear in the House, the days of reckless, politically driven spending and programs that were nothing more than rorts are over. After 12 increases in interest rates and with inflation at a 16-year high, families and businesses—the people we represent—will suffer if the inflation genie is not reined in. To that end, it has been made very clear by both the Treasurer and the minister for finance that we expect to run a strong budget surplus of at least 1½ per cent of GDP.
In that regard we also have a responsibility to do more about encouraging private saving. In a couple of articles I have read in the last couple of weeks the emphasis has been very much on the inflation issue, but people are also alerting us to the very high levels of private debt in our economy. I think it is a growing case of serious concern that we will need to address when you consider that debt has been growing faster than GDP for the past 44 years. There are estimates that the level of debt is now higher than it was in the era leading up to the events of the Great Depression.
We must maintain our focus on encouraging private savings, and in that regard the announcement about the first home savers account and the incentive to save through superannuation show that Labor understands and is committed to the further encouraging of private savings. We have heard a lot from the Deputy Prime Minister about Labor’s agenda with the education revolution and our solid commitments to investing in the training and education of our people. This is important not only in terms of raising human capital but also, as we all know, in addressing the skills crisis that has been on the agenda for the last decade and about which the former government did very little.
I want to commend the government for the early introduction of the bills relating to our skilling agenda. I also want to compliment the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for the speedy legislative decisions that we are now debating about establishing Infrastructure Australia so that we can provide long-term planning and coordination of vital economic infrastructure to relieve all those bottlenecks that we are so conversant with. These are bottlenecks that are constraining output, pushing up business costs and further fuelling inflationary pressures.
The last arm of our fighting inflation strategy is to do more to encourage workforce participation. While there has been debate about the tax cuts, they will be phased in. They will deal with the effective marginal tax rate dilemma which we have, on our side, talked about for a considerable period of time—that is, the disincentive to participate in the workforce, particularly for the second income earner. We do want to provide incentives for people, particularly women, to rejoin the workforce. We hope the labour supply will rise by around 65,000 with the tax reforms that we have outlined and the economic modelling that underpins them. Together with other changes, we estimate that not too far down the track we will be seeing an additional 2½ million hours of work on a weekly basis. So you do not take the tax cut issue alone but link it into our agenda for encouraging workforce participation to see, hopefully, the benefits on the labour supply side that will come with those changes.
Similarly, I welcome the commitment that has been made by federal Labor to the childcare tax rebate. As we know, the out-of-pocket expenses in many areas are causing huge constraints on household budgets. The education tax refund will also ease the pressure on household budgets. I believe Labor’s announced strategy to tackle the inflation problem will help keep downward pressure on interest rates, although we recognise there is no magic bullet. But through our budgetary policies we can lend a helping hand to the Reserve Bank’s efforts to keep inflation within the target range. Certainly, the cost of living pressures are major issues that are identified by constituents in their representations to me.
Prior to the election I did a local survey asking constituents to identify the issues that were causing them most financial grief. Of the five that stood out, the first was rising petrol prices—and more recently the rise in the cost of LPG. I commend the early intervention in these issues with the appointment of a petrol commissioner whose brief will also look at diesel and LPG costs.
The second issue that was identified was increasing health costs. While it is regrettable that we have had another round of increases in private health insurance, I think our minister did a sterling job in making the private health insurers account for and provide the rationale for the increases they were seeking. So, unlike previous years, it seemed to me that it was not just the regular tick-off that had occurred.
The third issue was increases in interest rates—and I have touched on that—and that is an ongoing issue that must concern all of us on both sides of the chamber. The fourth issue was rising grocery bills, and that issue was explained very well by the task force that Labor had in the lead-up to the federal election. My colleague the member for Ballarat chaired that task force. Rising grocery bills is still an issue of concern and I welcome the commitment that Labor has made for the ACCC to undertake a range of measures relating to that very important issue. The fifth issue identified was the impact of Work Choices. I am delighted that before we rise this week we will have, I hope, the transition bill in place that consigns Work Choices and the insidious statutory AWAs to the dustbin of history.
In the concluding time that I have I want to also commend Labor’s announced policies to deal with the issues of housing and rental affordability. Those are major issues in my electorate. The 2006 census identified 11,000 households in the Illawarra that were facing mortgage stress, and that is a severe underestimation because we have had further interest rate rises beyond the data gathered in that census. What I found really alarming was that, in the time between the earlier census data, between 2001 and 2006, there had been a 100 per cent increase in the number of households in the Illawarra suffering from mortgage stress. In my electorate alone, 43 per cent of people who rent privately are now in rental stress, according to the 2006 data. Both rental and housing affordability are key issues of concern in my electorate.
I am delighted that we are now debating the outline of the First Home Saver Accounts, which is going to make a difference. It will help young people in my electorate save for their first home through a special low-tax superannuation style savings account. I hope our Housing Affordability Fund will be an important mechanism to leverage federal funding for infrastructure so that when land is released we can assist in that land release, providing there are complementary savings provided by state and local government to lower the development charges. Our National Rental Affordability Scheme, which aims to provide properties at 20 per cent below market rental values, will help because there is a huge backlog of people waiting for public housing, and our better approach to land release will also free up housing, development and community infrastructure land. So I am very excited about being the member for Throsby under a federal Labor government and I look forward to delivering to my constituents the benefits, the promises and the policies that Labor took to the last election.
2170
18:03:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I am delighted and honoured to rise in the parliament today to speak in the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s remarks regarding the opening of the 42nd Parliament. This is the third parliament to which I have had the great privilege of being elected—of course, coming here in the successful re-election of the Howard government in November of 2001. When I made my maiden speech in this House on 13 February 2002, I understand I was the 986th person to have been elected to the Australian House of Representatives since our formation as a federation in 1901, and I think this illustrates just what a rare and remarkable honour it is to be elected to this place.
With the class of 2007, I understand that we have welcomed to the House of Representatives our 1,059th member. I take this opportunity to extend personal congratulations to those 31 men and 11 women who come to this parliament representing their constituencies across the length and breadth of this wonderful country. The influx of 42 new members is one of the largest in recent history, outdone only by the 53 members elected in 1996 and the 69 new members elected in the 1949 election, when the House of Representatives expanded from 75 members to 123. So there is clearly an enormous turnover of members. More significantly, of course, it represents a fundamental shift in the parliamentary and political landscape of Australia.
Obviously for me, as a sitting Liberal member returned to this House by the people of Ryan, the election was a great disappointment in terms of the defeat of the Howard government. But, as someone who believes fervently in the democratic practice of our country and the values of representative democracy and free and fair elections, I say that one of the greatest assets of our country is that people can go to the polls on a given day and have their say to choose their political representatives—to choose their voices in the national parliament.
The coalition now faces a challenging road to rebuild itself as a group of parties that can go to the next election to seek the mandate and the support of the Australian people. Of course, it goes without saying that this will take good policies, quality candidates and a united party if we are to earn back the confidence of the Australian electorate. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the Liberal Party, Dr Nelson, and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Ms Bishop, for the confidence that the Liberal Party placed in them in electing them to their respective high positions.
I also want to briefly pay tribute to a former colleague of mine in this parliament: the Hon. Mal Brough, the former member for Longman, who I think will be recorded as one of the most successful and courageous Indigenous affairs ministers of our time. For those who knew Mr Brough, he was certainly a minister with genuine affection for Indigenous Australians. He was a minister who had great passion for his work and a great desire to see the situation of indigenous Australians changed from one of great disadvantage to one where they could share in the opportunities of our country.
The gap between black and white Australia is unacceptable, and it must be the priority of this government and, indeed, of all future governments that are elected to this place. The Governor-General, in his remarks at the opening of the parliament, spoke of the significance of the new government’s focus on Indigenous affairs. I certainly welcome that. I hope that this government will be true to its rhetoric. I hope that this government will be true to its high platform of making a permanent impact on the state of affairs in this country in terms of the gap between black and white Australia. I will, however, say for the record that I am not quite sure that history will be kind to this government, because of its focus on ideology rather than outcome. I think that history will not be kind to this government in the years ahead, when we look back. Now that we have given an apology to those who are very deserving of that apology, the focus must be on the cause of authentic and meaningful practical reconciliation that will give Indigenous Australians across this country a very real share in the great prosperity of our nation.
I also want, in this presentation, to make some remarks about the loss to the parliament of the Hon. John Howard, the former Prime Minister. He, of course, was a stalwart of the Liberal parliamentary team after his election in 1974 to the seat of Bennelong. I have no doubt that he will be recorded in Australian political history as the most successful Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies and certainly one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
I have often commented on the fact that one of the most remarkable features of his stewardship of this nation, and of the government of which I was proud to be a part for two of my terms hitherto, was the willingness to take very courageous decisions and, in many cases, decisions that were very unpopular with the electorate but were clearly in the best interests of this country. I think that is the test of any government, whether at state or national level. It is the capacity of the government to make the very hard calls—the capacity of the government to make the hard judgements when they might not go down well with the wider community. So far, I think, we have seen a fair bit of bread and circuses and very little substantial decision making from the new Rudd Labor government.
After all, one is elected to government for a purpose. One is elected to government to make an impact and to make the hard calls. If it was easy, then of course, anyone would be doing it. The Howard government can stand proud for some of the very courageous decisions it made during its time in office. I will just touch on a handful: reforming the waterfront; the gun control issue, in the first term of the Howard government; introducing sweeping taxation reform, particularly the introduction of the GST; the introduction of welfare to work measures; and, in the last parliament, the Northern Territory intervention.
Most importantly, however, the Howard government can stand very proud for having implemented a very successful range of policies that saw the paying off of $96 billion of Labor government debt which hung over the heads of all Australians when the Howard government came into office in 1996. Let us just consider for a moment this figure of $96 billion. It is a profoundly large sum of money, such an amount that one really cannot get one’s head around it. To break that down into a more meaningful context: when the coalition came to office in 1996, that $96 billion of Labor government debt represented $9,073 per taxpayer, or $5,230 per Australian. So in 1996, as a 26-year-old, I owed $9,073; my sister, who was not a taxpayer at the time, as a 16-year-old, owed $5,230. This gives some perspective to what a huge amount of money that $96 billion of Labor debt represented.
If anyone asks the question of why those on the coalition side of politics continue to raise this figure of $96 billion of debt, the response is quite straightforward. A government, just like a household, has an obligation to pay off debt. If it does not have the revenue stream, it does not have the financial resources to invest in the nation’s future; it does not have the funds to invest in critical aspects of the economy such as education, road infrastructure and hospitals. That is why the Howard government made it a central element of its economic policy to repay that $96 billion of Labor government debt.
Of course, today the new government does not have the misfortune of having inherited an enormous amount of government debt. After all, a government that is fundamentally broke is not able to do much for its citizens. So there is no way that I, as the member for Ryan, am going to let the constituents that I represent in this parliament forget the capacity of Labor to manage the economy. I know that those opposite are going to try and improve their lot, their skills. I certainly wish them well, but I have very great reservations about their economic management skills.
It is not to be forgotten that the new Prime Minister opposed so many of the initiatives of the Howard government which did so much to pay off this enormous government debt and he did so much to oppose the initiatives that really brought Australia forward out of the economic malaise of the mid-1990s under former Labor Prime Minister Keating. We all know that he clearly opposed the introduction of the GST, he opposed the privatisation of Telstra, he opposed tariff reduction scheduling for manufacturing industries and he opposed the protection of small business owners by voting against unfair dismissal laws. These are not the voting actions or voting patterns of a fiscal conservative, but of course the Australian people were convinced that he was a fiscal conservative. We will see in the next 2½ years whether conduct reflects rhetoric.
The new Labor government takes the reins of a nation that is no longer drowning under the burdens of public sector debt and high unemployment. The country has been relieved of $96 billion in Labor debt and now has a AAA credit rating and the lowest unemployment rate in over three decades—for some 34 years. This is something that all of us should be very proud of, irrespective of the colour of our politics. The most significant thing that a government can do is to provide the climate in which all Australians who seek employment—young Australians, men and women—can acquire jobs. There must surely be nothing more crippling, for a young person in particular, than to stare into the climate of the times and see that his prospects for employment are very minimal indeed. The Howard-led coalition government of 11½ years leaves an economic picture for the new Labor government that is quite outstanding. We have higher pensions, better living standards, more funding for health and education, more money for the state governments and an economic resilience that surely is the envy of the rest of the developed world—and I have not even touched on the 10 out of 12 budget surpluses that the former Treasurer delivered.
I am not quite sure which other country’s economy the new government would have preferred to have inherited. The Treasurer talks very frequently about the inflation genie being out of the bottle, but I am not sure whether he would have preferred to have under his stewardship the Chinese economy, the American economy, the French economy or the British economy. Maybe he would prefer the economies of Malawi and Rwanda, which one parliamentary secretary spoke of as a reference point for how good Australia was in the dark recession days of the Keating era. I would have thought that the new government would have been very pleased to have the economy that it has inherited rather than the likes of the Chinese economy—or the American economy, which currently faces a major challenge.
For the coalition, the foremost challenge is to hold the Rudd government accountable for the campaign promises it made to the electorates across the country, including to the people in my electorate of Ryan. The Rudd government did make some very significant election promises, and it needs to be held accountable for those promises. If the government delivers on its promises, then it should be commended for delivering them. Equally, if does not deliver, it should be hung, drawn and quartered by the Australian electorate. I can certainly make a commitment here that, as the Liberal member for Ryan, I will keep a very close eye on the Labor government and its rhetoric. The government left a very heavy inference in the community that grocery and petrol prices would go down and the solutions to very difficult, complex problems would be resolved once the people of Australia elected a Labor government. As we know, in life things are not always as simple as that. There is a bit more to government than just making rhetorical comments. The members of the coalition, and I as the member for Ryan, will certainly be watching like a hawk the policies and the conduct of the new government.
I want to touch on the issue of climate change. A big issue that the now Labor government raised in the election campaign was its capacity to bring Australia in step with the rest of the countries that it said the former Howard government was not in step with. On behalf of the people of Ryan, I want to ask a question about the costs for the families and businesses of Ryan. What costs will the Australian government’s policy solution incur? There must be some cost—some financial imposition. Climate change is a genuine and significant issue. We all accept that; I certainly accept that. Equally, I am also candid enough to say that there must be a financial cost. All I want to know, as the representative of the Ryan electorate, is what the cost will be. In the parliament, there have been circumstances when the shadow environment minister has asked questions of the executive about petrol price rises and so forth. In my opinion the ministers, reflecting their inability to provide an answer, were dumbstruck and quite seriously out of their depth.
I want to comment upon a very significant development last week. The federal opposition, on behalf of the carers of Australia, was able to force the Prime Minister and the Labor government to back down from quite remarkable plans to axe the $500 seniors bonus payment and the $1,600 carers payment for those who look after disabled dependants. It defies belief that a Labor Prime Minister would target one of the most vulnerable groups in our society as part of his drive to save money in the budget. If inflation is as serious a problem as the government wants to make out, I would have thought cuts could be made in other areas, but not in the areas where the most vulnerable people in our society would be affected.
No doubt most members of this parliament—and certainly, I suspect, most members of the government—would have had their electorate offices flooded with constituents expressing great anger, frustration and disbelief. I certainly have a range of constituents from the Ryan electorate who made it very clear that they were dumbstruck by the message they were receiving on their television sets and in the newspapers that a newly elected Labor government would dare to touch an area that made a significant impact on the lives of ordinary Australians who are, in fact, doing the country a favour by looking after their loved ones rather than having them in institutions. Regrettably, time does not permit me to read the very eloquent and moving statements of my constituents, but I do want to assure them that I have heard their concerns, their anxieties and their voices. I take the opportunity to express their views, as they have asked me to do, for the record because I think they are deserving of acknowledgement in this parliament.
In conclusion, I want to thank the people of Ryan for showing their faith in me and returning me to this place. Ryan is an electorate that sits in the western suburbs of Brisbane. Its most iconic landmark is probably the University of Queensland. It is a wonderful part of Brisbane in which to bring up a family. As one of the younger members of this parliament, I acknowledge the great faith that the people of Ryan have placed in me by re-electing me to my third parliament. I assure them that I will honour their faith in me. (Time expired)
2174
18:23:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. I think this is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the chair. Congratulations on being elected to the Speaker’s panel. I know that you will acquit yourself in a fine and upstanding manner, as you do in every job that you do in this parliament, including your position as Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing.
The previous speaker boasted about the Howard government’s record and its economic management skills, and I had to stop myself from laughing. It was the government that allowed Australia to develop the highest inflation rate in 16 years, oversaw 10 interest rate rises in a row, ignored the skills crisis and failed to address the major infrastructure needs of our nation. It was a government that sat on its hands and did nothing except create fear.
It was an arrogant government. Nothing typifies the current opposition’s arrogance and shows that they have not learnt from their loss at the last election more than the campaign they launched last week, which was based on speculation, not fact, frightening and causing anxiety for tens of thousands of carers throughout Australia. This campaign was based on speculation. There were no facts; there had been no announcement from government that there would not be a carers bonus in the budget. Rather, it was at the whim of those in the opposition struggling for some relevance within the parliament. They linked into an issue about which they thought they could drum up a bit of publicity and create a bit of fear and anxiety. I am appalled that they could be so insensitive as to try to create fear amongst people that are vulnerable. It says to me that they have not learnt anything from their election loss.
At the last election, the Australian people elected the Rudd government because they knew that the Labor Party was the party of the future and that the Prime Minister would be a fine leader of this country. The Labor Party, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, is committed to nation building, to building a better future for the nation and working families. The Australian people recognised that the Howard government was out of touch, had lost its way and had absolutely no plan for the future. Nothing typifies this more for me than the statement made by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, prior to the election that ‘Australian families have never been better off’. It showed me and other members of the Labor Party that he was out of touch and that he did not go out into the community and talk to people that were struggling and doing it hard—people that had suffered the 10 interest rate rises in a row.
If there is any message I would like to give to the opposition it is that they need to look at the reasons why they lost the last election. They need to come to terms with the fact that they are the opposition now; they are not the government sitting on the opposition benches. They need to be truly sensitive to the needs of the people in Australia that look to us in the federal parliament to behave responsibly—not to engender fear when there is no reason for a fear campaign. They need to learn, develop some policies, get their facts right and make themselves relevant.
I would like to thank the people of Shortland for the trust that they have placed in me by electing me to the parliament for the fourth time. The people of Shortland are very special, as is the electorate of Shortland. I know most members feel this way about their electorate, but I think I can justify making the statement that Shortland is probably one of the most beautiful electorates in the nation. It is a long, thin electorate nestled between the lake and the sea, and along with that we have some very special and unique issues. I was very pleased that one of the first acts of the Rudd Labor government was the ratification, the signing, of Kyoto. That is very important to the people I represent in this parliament. We know how important protecting our environment is. We know that climate change is an issue and we know that by making that initial commitment we are saying it is on the agenda, we are going to address the issues of climate change and we are not going to pretend it does not exist. We need action, not inaction. Once again, I thank the people for the trust they have placed in me. I promise that I will work for them and see that they have a strong voice in this parliament.
I would also like to thank the team that worked with me in the election. They are a very dedicated team. The members of the Labor Party in the Shortland electorate worked very hard to see a Rudd Labor government elected and to see me elected. They spent many hours letterboxing, coming out doorknocking with me and helping in a variety of different ways. I would also like to thank my staff, particularly my Campaign Director, John Buckley, and my family. My husband, Lindsay, is one of the very hard-working ALP members in the electorate and somebody that not only believes in what the Labor Party stands for but also has supported me throughout my time in parliament, so I thank him specially. And I thank my children, although now they are grown-up the impact of my being a member of parliament is nowhere near as great as it was when they were younger.
I was exceptionally proud when, on the first day that this parliament sat, we had the Indigenous welcome to country. It set the theme for what the Rudd Labor government was about. It created a whole new environment within the parliament and I think most members on both sides of the House would have felt that. On the following day, when we had the apology to Indigenous Australians, once again I was proud to be a part of that historic event. I think it was one of the members on the other side, Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, who said that it was a historic day, but it did not need to be as historic as it was because we should have made that apology 11 years ago. But as a parliament we finally made the apology and members of this particular 42nd Parliament are fortunate to have been part of that apology.
One of the big issues in the election was the Work Choices legislation. I had people coming to my office asking me what they could do to help unseat the Howard government, and many of those people were motivated purely and simply by the Work Choices legislation. I have had a number of people over a very long period of time come and see me about issues that related to the previous Work Choices legislation—people who have been disadvantaged and people who have had their lives turned upside down because of that legislation. And there were a significant number of people within the electorate that wanted to sign petitions and wanted to work with me during the election.
When I thanked people, I should have thanked those people that were involved with the Your Rights at Work campaign. They came out and worked on some of my polling booths, and the polling booths that had the Your Rights at Work paraphernalia displayed were where I had the biggest swings. In an electorate like Shortland, achieving 13 or 15 per cent swings on already safe polling booths showed that that campaign touched the very hearts of people within the electorate who had felt that the Work Choices legislation was really disadvantaging them. Given that Shortland electorate is the 10th oldest electorate within the nation, it showed that those older members of the community were fearful of the effect that it was going to have on their grandchildren. It was said to me a number of times, ‘This does not affect me directly, but it will impact on the lives of my children and my grandchildren.’ Once again it shows how far-sighted, how intelligent and how practical the people of the Shortland electorate are.
I would like to touch on the issue of skills shortages. In the Shortland electorate, we have a large number of people who in the past relied on industry—people who undertook traditional apprenticeships, people who saw their role in life as working in those professions. Under the previous government, young people leaving school were unable to get those traditional apprenticeships. There were a number of new apprenticeships, but they were not preparing people to meet the areas of skills shortage that existed within the community. That was identified by the employer groups in our area and by the people who were seeking work.
One of the key commitments that the then Rudd Labor Party, now the Rudd Labor government, took to the election was to address the skills shortage. We would create opportunities for all those young people who wanted to undertake traditional apprenticeships so that they could do just that. I know that that has been embraced by people in the electorate of Shortland and it has been embraced by the schools within Shortland. I have visited a number of schools since the election. I have talked to them about the computers in schools program that Labor went to the election with and I have spoken to them about the trade schools. Next week I will be visiting all the high schools again to discuss computers in schools and the trade schools again.
I encourage members of the opposition to do the same, because it is a unique opportunity for your schools, for the schools you represent in this parliament. I was speaking to my staff member earlier today, and he said that the schools that he has spoken to when arranging the appointments for me to go out to visit them have all been excited about the fact that these initiatives are being put in place. They are excited about the computers in schools program and they are excited about the trade centres. I would encourage members to look at it creatively and to make sure that they do not let political rhetoric stand in the way of getting resources that are going to benefit the people they represent in this parliament. It is a great initiative, something the schools are welcoming, both government and non-government schools, and it is something that all members of parliament should embrace.
The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, the bill to set up Infrastructure Australia, has passed through this House. Once again, it is legislation that is picking up on the inaction of the previous government—the fact that, instead of investing in the future of the country, it was blatantly looking after its mates and allowing to develop in Australia a situation where those people who were very well off were taken care of but those who were doing it hard found it even harder to survive. That really shows in the fact that the gap between those on the lowest incomes and those on the highest incomes widened during its time in government. I think it is the role of government to support everybody within the community.
One area that I am particularly interested in is health and the government’s health reform agenda. I think that it is time that governments stopped blaming each other for the problems that exist within the health system. It is a time when governments of all persuasions, whether state or federal, or local, for that matter, should come together and look at what they can do to address the real health issues confronting the communities we represent. The chronic shortage of doctors, which has existed for a long time—and a shortage of not only doctors but also allied health professionals—needs to be addressed. Labor is putting in place GP superclinics that will help to address that in some ways. In the electorate that I represent, Shortland, we have a real problem because the doctors in three areas of the electorate have closed their books. The government’s reform agenda is about addressing these issues and actually solving the problems.
Regarding problems with dental health, Labor’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program will be reinstated. I cannot understand why the previous government ever removed it. It was a program that was working. I was a state member of parliament at the time that the Howard government was elected. When they decided to discontinue the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, pensioners and people on low incomes came to my office for help because they were no longer able to get the dental treatment they needed. The Rudd Labor government will be fixing that. We will be providing services to help those 650,000 people who are on the dental waiting lists throughout Australia.
I would like to quickly touch on homelessness. There are a number of different aspects to homelessness. In the Shortland electorate, we have a youth hostel and a women and children’s refuge. They provide crisis accommodation for people who find themselves homeless for a variety of reasons. They are two excellent organisations operating within the electorate. They do absolutely everything you could ask of them to provide support and service to the people who need them. But we need far more than we have at the moment. It is one of the issues that the Prime Minister is addressing at the moment.
But homelessness is taking on another face within the Shortland electorate. There is a chronic shortage of rental accommodation. People are being forced out of their homes because of the interest rate rises. I have had a number of families that cannot find accommodation come to my office. Many of them do not have rental records. The system that monitors people’s rental records is something that they cannot access. It is very difficult to find information about it, and that does not help at all. Homelessness has a number of different faces. Solving the private and public housing shortage is something that this government will embrace.
Finally, there were two main issues that I made a commitment to the people of the Shortland electorate on, and they were funding of the Fernleigh Track and a Medicare office at Belmont. The Belmont Medicare office was operating when the previous government came to power. It had a higher throughput than a number of offices that they kept open, but it was in the heart of a Labor held electorate and they closed it in a mean-spirited way. Fernleigh Track is a fantastic asset within the Shortland electorate. It is a vital tourist track and something that is embraced by the community. In closing, I would like to once again thank the people of Shortland for the trust that they have placed in me by electing me to this parliament. I promise them that I will serve them faithfully throughout the term of this parliament.
2178
18:43:00
Bailey, Fran, MP
JT4
McEwen
LP
0
0
FRAN BAILEY
—I rise to speak in this debate on behalf of the people of McEwen. I want to place on record my appreciation to the 44,165 people who gave me their first preference, 5.5 per cent more voters than those who cast their first preference for the ALP. To the many hundreds of other people who marked the number 1 in the box beside my name but sadly neglected to fill in any other square, I thank them for their confidence in me but in the future I would be even more grateful if they would complete the ballot paper by numbering every square. I am very proud to represent all of the people of McEwen.
The result in McEwen, as everyone knows, has made national political history by becoming the most marginal electorate in the entire country and also because the ALP have petitioned the High Court to overturn the final decision of the AEC. By the way, they want the Australian taxpayers to foot their bill. This is in spite of the ALP and their candidate giving an assurance that they would abide by the umpire’s decision on the recount in McEwen. In taking this action, the ALP are questioning both the conduct and the role of the AEC. This stands in stark contrast with the public comments made by the ALP at the close of the recount, when they stated that the AEC was a thoroughly professional organisation and thanked them for their fairness.
The electorate of McEwen is now the biggest Victorian electorate, by population, by a country mile, with more than 107,000 registered voters. Just three years ago, where cows grazed in paddocks there now stand around 15,000 homes. In this debate, I want to raise a number of issues that are of critical concern to people across the huge and diverse electorate of McEwen. I do not think there would be a member of this House who has not been touched by the hardship of drought, either in their own electorate or vicariously. To put this into perspective for my electorate, every rural local government authority has been declared to be in severe drought and the three shires that are more regionally based on the outskirts of Melbourne have had their rural areas declared in severe drought also. Imagine then how the farmers, the small business people and the tourist operators in these areas felt when they were told without any consultation that water, their very lifeblood, was to be diverted from their area to approximately 200,000 homes in Melbourne via a pipeline from Yea to the Sugarloaf Reservoir which was to be known as the Sugarloaf pipeline.
This is water that is needed to grow produce for both our domestic and export markets. It is water that is needed to sustain our magnificent natural environment of the north-east—the Eildon catchment area; the Goulburn River, which flows into the Murray-Darling system; the Acheron and the Yea rivers. It is this environment that is responsible for attracting tourists who pump millions of dollars into these regional economies. It is the water that defines this region and provides the basis for many communities and a lifestyle that has supported many generations. However, not only were these communities not consulted about such a massive diversion of water but the Victorian state government did not conduct any scientific or environmental assessment of the impact this diversion would have on the environment or the flow of the Goulburn River, which feeds into the Murray-Darling. In fact, on 28 December 2007 the Victorian Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, said an environmental effects statement would not be required for the Sugarloaf pipeline.
Imagine if a private company attempted to start a comparable major infrastructure project and attempted to bypass the normal measures designed to protect the community and the environment. This clearly demonstrates the Victorian government’s arrogance and complete lack of care or understanding of the needs of these rural communities which are dependent on this water for their livelihood. Not only have the state government arrogantly flouted the rules that apply to everyone else, but they have bulldozed ahead with their plans and have already appointed the construction engineers. When they appointed the John Holland construction company as the successful firm to construct the pipeline, no decision had been announced on their preferred route for construction. So the question needs to be asked: what information was detailed in the tender documentation to enable these engineers to accept the job?
While telling the public that the route was still under discussion, as Melbourne Water officials did at a public meeting in Yarra Glen on the night of Wednesday, 30 January this year, had the state government already decided on the route? Again, there was no consultation with landholders or any of the affected community. How else could they have entered into a contract with the construction firm if they had not indicated their preferred proposed route?
The question needs to be asked: why would this state government take such a decision to divert 75 gigalitres of water? And, by the way, that is equivalent to one-fifth of the capacity of Sydney Harbour. Why would they take this amount of water from a region that has been in severe drought conditions? The water catchment of Lake Eildon, according to the CSIRO, will not reach more than 30 per cent capacity before 2020, and many farmers dependent on their water supply from Eildon have not been able to get their full water entitlements because of the depleted levels of the catchment.
Initially the state government claimed that water would be saved from fixing some of the ageing and leaking irrigation channels in the Goulburn Valley. They said that one-third of this so-called extra water saved would be retained and sold to irrigators, one-third would be returned to the environment and one-third would be piped to Melbourne to service approximately 200,000 homes. But the state government have never released any research to substantiate their claims of water to be saved, and there is no environmental or water scientist who can verify or agree with their claims. The state government refuse to allow any independent analysis of these claims by, for example, the Auditor-General. There is a very simple reason why they will not: they know their claims that water can be saved cannot be substantiated. Even if those savings were real and could be substantiated, the responsible course of action would be to make the savings first, before diverting any water from an already stressed area. But of course that is not what is happening.
The Sugarloaf pipeline is being pushed along at great speed, and it is the intention of the state government to have this built before one litre of their imagined savings from the work to be carried out on the irrigation channels is harnessed—and this comes at a cost of around $1 billion. On 18 February this year, following sustained opposition from irrigation farmers, broadacre farmers and local businesspeople, the state government released a 186-page document titled Project impact assessment. This document sets out very clearly in the first chapter that the purpose of this project is to transfer water to Melbourne. The report then details in chapter 2 Melbourne’s water supply situation. It says:
Inflows into Melbourne Water’s reservoirs over the past 10 years have been significantly lower than in the previous 100 years. The year 2006 saw the lowest stream flows in recorded history ... This followed a period of 10 years in which there were 3 major drought periods ... This extended dry period has resulted in a long-term decline in storage reserves—
with those reserves at only 29 per cent of capacity.
No-one denies any of that, but the Eildon catchment area, where they plan to take water from, has been in severe drought conditions throughout this entire period and its capacity has plummeted to a critical level of only nine per cent. At that level, they are barely able to provide sufficient water to flush out the Goulburn River if there is an algae outbreak. As we stand here today, Eildon’s capacity is only 16.6 per cent. The report states quite clearly up-front:
... the key objective is to increase water security for Melbourne in light of predicted lower inflows which are expected to occur as a result of climate change, increased population, and continued metropolitan growth.
So we are left in no doubt whatsoever that the main aim of this pipeline is to secure water for the future of 200,000 homes in Melbourne. The real question here is at what cost? The needs of country people come a very poor second to the needs of those lucky people living in those 200,000 homes in Melbourne. The Victorian state government is prepared to sacrifice the livelihoods of country people so that approximately 200,000 homes in Melbourne can have enhanced water entitlements in the future. Let me quote further from this document:
Key findings contained in the PIA are summarised as:
The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will not significantly impact environmental, social or economic values associated with the project;
The level of investigations and assessment undertaken is appropriate to assess the key issues associated with the project and to determine preferred pipeline corridors, taking into account mitigation and management option identified for those key issues ...
That is the rhetoric, but the reality is a very different picture. At the back of the report there are 18 pages of appendices. I will not go into all of them but I will give you a bit of a snapshot. They include: ‘Design Assessment Report’, ‘Environmental Implications of Transferring Water Assessment’, ‘Hydrogeology Assessment’, ‘Flora and Fauna Assessment’, ‘Socio-Economic and Tourism Impact Assessment’ and ‘Greenhouse Gas Assessment’. But here is the crunch: every single one of those 18 pages, which are supposed to be containing those appendices, is blank. Can you believe it? They have released this report to the public with 18 blank pages!
This is not just a very serious problem for the people of my electorate but a serious national problem because the waters of the Goulburn River feed into the Murray-Darling system. An action under the EPBC Act has been referred to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Given the total lack of environmental assessment by the Victorian state government, I do sincerely urge the federal minister to give this application his very close attention. There is just too much at stake for the health of our environment, the water flows and the future viability of all the small business people affected by this unprecedented and very callous decision by the Victorian state government.
We do not have an awful lot of time in this debate and I do want to touch on a couple of other issues. The Labor government, as we heard on day one, is wedded to accountability and being transparent. So I want to get on the record that, during the election campaign, so-called cast-iron commitments were made in my electorate. These included a $3½ million indoor sports stadium in Diamond Creek. Is the government going to honour this commitment? When will they make the funding available? Will the funding be determined by other levels of government coming forward with their funding first? These are matters that we really must know about.
As well there is the $1 million GP superclinic in Wallan. This was announced by the now Deputy Prime Minister and the now Minister for Health and Ageing in Wallan. There was no consultation with the local community or the GPs. Of course, since the election, there has been a big question mark over these GP superclinics, so I would like to know if the government is going to deliver on this commitment. We would like to know where it is going to be located. Are the government going to deliver on the podiatry, physiotherapy, chronic disease management, GPs and after-hours GP services that were promised during the election campaign?
I listened to the previous speaker talk about computers in schools. I do not think anyone disagrees that computers in schools is a great idea, but I would like to know who owns them. Is it the school, the families, the children? When something happens to them, who bears the cost for repairs, maintenance, insurance et cetera? Do you know what the parents in my electorate are really interested in? They want an answer to the question: why has the Investing in Our Schools Program been abolished? This was a program that delivered more than $14 million into schools across my electorate for programs. For example, one school got its first permanent building. The children of that school had been educated in temporary portables that had been recycled many times. The families of children from those schools are asking me, ‘How can you talk about an education revolution if your kids are going to a school where the buildings they are being educated in have exceeded their lifespan by at least 20-odd years?’ They want a good, clean toilet block. They actually want buildings that do not leak. They do not even have basic funding for maintenance. I think we have to get answers to this.
The government have been saying a lot about skills, and we have all been very concerned about skills. They have never given credit for the 87 per cent increase of skills under the Howard government. But one of the first actions that they have taken is to cut $98 million in four key areas, which really affects the people in my electorate. They have cut FarmBis, the Advancing Agricultural Industries program, apprenticeship incentives for agriculture and horticulture and the living away from home allowance for school based apprentices. These programs were really valued by people.
Another election commitment was blazoned in pamphlets all over my electorate. It was: ‘We want every local student to get the best chance in life. Labor will build new labs and workshops in local schools.’ They went on to name the 20 secondary schools in my electorate that were going to get them. I want to ask on the record: when will these 20 schools in my electorate get their labs and workshops? The government has gone on record that they are not going to cut funding to government or non-government schools. I want answers to all of these questions. I can assure the Rudd government that I will not just be asking for answers to these questions in this debate today; I will be asking until I get answers to these questions. (Time expired)
2182
19:04:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I have only been in this place for a short period of time, having come in at a by-election, but I have been here long enough to appreciate that in the cut and thrust of election campaigns it is very easy for people to be caught up in making promises to all and sundry simply to secure votes. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, spoke recently at the National Press Club about some of the approaches of the former Howard government and Labor’s responses to those in the election. It is not my approach, nor one that I would support, to simply go out and—some would, uncharitably, call this pork-barrelling—make promises that, in honesty, you know you cannot commit to. That is not a practice that politicians should adopt. At the end of the day, the very thing that gives politicians a bad name is going out and making ‘commitments’ that they have little chance of being able to deliver.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that my electorate, in the south-west of Sydney, is very much a growth area. We have already seen extensive growth in the population, and it is set to grow further, notwithstanding the fact that this area is some 55 to 60 kilometres outside Sydney. If you can think of Sydney as having affordable land, this is an area where younger families do try to purchase a house and land, so it is an area dominated by young families and one where significant growth is planned. One of the most significant commitments made by the Rudd government to the people of south-west Sydney in the lead-up to the election was to widen the F5 freeway between Ingleburn and Campbelltown. The F5 is also the Hume Highway and is one of the main thoroughfares between Sydney and Melbourne. There are a large number of truck movements along this road. But, as I indicated, it is also a fast-growing area and, as a consequence, we have huge bottlenecks on this freeway in both the mornings and the afternoons. That has slowed the travelling time for residents setting out for work in both the mornings and the afternoons. It is not just people’s travel convenience that is affected. It also affects local contractors who set out in their businesses to serve their clients and who need to operate in what has become a very extended peak hour period on one of the main arterial roads linking the south-west of Sydney to the major economic centre of Sydney. The depth of feeling of local residents about this was very much expressed when I received 2½ thousand signatures on a petition I sent out concerning the F5.
On numerous occasions after I came into this place I asked the then minister in the Howard government about their position on widening the freeway. That went on year after year while we had to persevere with the traffic bottlenecks and there was no relief in sight. It was Kevin Rudd who came out and made a commitment to the people of Campbelltown to upgrade this significant piece of infrastructure, not just for local residents but to ensure that it could do what it was designed to do, and that is to help commercialise the employment lands of the south-west of Sydney in order to generate jobs for the thousands upon thousands of people who have moved there. That, in turn, will have a significant impact by taking an amount of domestic travel off this road. That was one of the things that went down like a treat in my area. At one stage the member for Macarthur wanted to call it a range of things, but Labor came out and committed to approximately $140 million for this significant piece of infrastructure upgrading. More importantly for our commercial developments in that area, people saw that this was Labor’s commitment to commercialise the employment lands of the south-west of Sydney with a view to generating jobs and accommodating the natural growth occurring out there. That was a very significant feature of the last campaign.
There is not much pretence in the south-west of Sydney. They like going to their football on the weekends to see the Wests Tigers win, as they did last week. But, more importantly, they like to see things occurring that are actually good for their families. And good for their families are local jobs, education and opportunity. These are the things that really came to the fore during the last election—and that was certainly not lost on me.
As part of our campaign, Labor committed $350,000 to investigate the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. That link does not yet exist, but if it ever came to fruition it would connect the port of Port Kembla to the main southern rail, which intersects with Campbelltown and the employment growth areas of the south-west of Sydney. It would be a significant infrastructure upgrade. For some time I have been arguing that we should look at the development of areas such as Liverpool, Campbelltown and Ingleburn as inland ports. As history shows, employment is generated around ports for approximately five to 15 kilometres. If we are able to attract cargo for ships, it would more easily reach the south-west of Sydney through a dedicated freight rail line, which is now planned. If those containers were being offloaded in the south-west of Sydney there is a very good chance that jobs would be generated for the future of kids in those areas. That is why I am very passionate about the growth of the area, not just a haphazard occurrence but a well-planned operation. It is no good to simply say, ‘Let’s open up more land for housing.’ It must be done in tandem with opening up land for the development of employment opportunity. We need to have a very clear view about growth centres, and the development of facilities in the south-west is one area I think we can capitalise on.
Not surprisingly, one of the other significant things that occurred in south-west Sydney during the campaign was the impact of the industrial relations debate. I do not think many people in this place were not aware of my views when it came to the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws. I have worked representing not only trade unions but also employers. Indeed, at one time I was on a tribunal, so I think I have seen industrial relations from all perspectives. I try to bring a pragmatic approach to the debate. In that, I sought to bring to the fore the application of fairness and decency in the way we treat people. People can talk about workplace relations, or industrial relations, as it was known in my day, but really the heart of this debate is how we treat one another and how we would want people to treat our kids.
Without stretching the argument, eager as I was to maximise my vote in the last election, I did such things as go to train stations at a quarter to six in the morning to talk to workers as they went to work, and again when they were returning at six or seven in the evening. Not everyone wants to talk to you at those hours, I might say, but when people walk back from a train to talk to you, and you think you are about to get a mouthful of something, and they say to you, ‘The reason I’m not going to vote for the conservatives this time is because of industrial relations,’ you do take note.
I know that when talking after the event people can put whatever gloss they like on these things, but the fact is that it happened with a degree of frequency that certainly resonated with me. It was not that these people were coming back for some ideological reason, saying, ‘This is what we’re going to do.’ By and large the reason that people actually took the opportunity to come back and did come back in the wee hours of the morning to have a talk to me about these things was this: they were parents concerned about the industrial relations environment that their kids were going to move into or, alternatively, they were grandparents worried about the workplace environment that their grandkids were going to move into. This was an extension of people caring for their families. Clearly, one of the things that was not considered to be high in people’s priorities was to see an environment of ‘catch and kill your own’. They did not necessarily want people to be corralled, in terms of regulations and all the rest of such things, into joining unions. What they wanted to know was that if Labor got in they would repeal this legislation and bring back fairness and decency.
Given what has occurred in the first 100 or so days of this government, I think the government has gone on to act on that. We have actually been true to what was said. We have certainly proceeded on the basis of addressing those particular issues. Without stripping flexibility out of the system, we have looked to engender in the system fairness and decency. I think history will show that that was absolutely the right position. But what is going to be more important is what the people in those families think this means for their loved ones as they are growing up in the workforce.
The other thing that I feel was quite significant is the issue of climate change. Just because the people of the south-west of Sydney live some 50 kilometres outside of the main economic areas of Sydney, that does not mean that they are any less motivated when it comes to issues such as climate change. A lot of the people who spoke to me about this issue were looking down the track in terms of their families and the environment that their kids would grow up in. It is noteworthy that the idea of sitting back and doing nothing was really not on their radar. So what Labor said it would do—that is, sign Kyoto—had major resonance in the south-west of Sydney. In Macarthur we have the Macarthur Centre for Sustainable Living, which is co-funded by the federal government. It has been designed to look at various sustainable energy development programs that could be adapted by households through retrofitting, whether it be with water tanks, solar water heating or other forms of efficient energy usage systems. This organisation is well patronised by the people out there. It is not just about their living and working in the south-west of Sydney; it is also about their wanting to do the best for their environment.
As for the issue of ratifying Kyoto—and I know that the opposition, when they were in government, struggled long and hard in thinking about that; and I would have hated to hear the debates that occurred in their party room, although no doubt we will read about those in someone’s book in the not too distant future—that was absolutely critical. We had to make a stand on it. We could not wait until the Americans had decided to do it and then kowtow to them and say, ‘We’ll sign too.’ This issue required a stand. It is about some degree of maturity by us as a community. Signing Kyoto deals us back into the game in terms of how we now relate to the international community over internationally based changes to ameliorate the effects of climate change. That is going to be a long process; there is no question about that. The fact that we have committed this country to a program to be a part of that says a lot about the commitment of the government to locking itself in over a significant issue in electorates, that being climate change, as opposed to our being doomsayers. It is time we started taking responsibility not just for the problem but also for resolving those issues out there. Signing Kyoto has made us a part of that resolution process, and I think that is something that should be applauded.
One of the other things that was key in the last election was education. The member for McEwen just indicated that she thought the provision of computers in schools was very laudable—and so it is. Being a father of three and a grandfather of four, one of the things that motivated me to get into politics—and hopefully motivates all of us—was that I genuinely wanted to do the best for my community but also as a parent I wanted to do the best for my family. If we can give our kids a head start by giving them the tools for education, we do it. This is going to do this on a slightly wider scale. This is to achieve the result of every kid in years 9 to 12 having access to a computer. That is a very significant thing to do to prepare kids not only for tertiary education but for advanced vocational education and for the workforce generally. We need to give our kids a head start on these things. This is not an issue that should necessarily be reduced to politics, although on this occasion it seems it required the election of a Rudd Labor government to make this commitment. This is something that we should be committed to do, just as we are discussing the development of trade training in schools. Once again, this is about giving kids an advantage. Let us give those kids who are not going to go into tertiary education but are going into the labour force every opportunity to succeed. That is something that we want as parents and that we should all be aspiring to do as members of parliament, regardless of what side we are on in this place.
It is an absolute honour and a rare opportunity to be in public office. I am the 1018th person since the Federation of Australia to have had the honour of representing the local community in the federal parliament. That is not something that is widespread, and it is something that, quite frankly, I do think about regularly. If this ever became a job where I needed to do or say something just to get re-elected, I do not think this would be the place for me. To be in public office is such an honour that we can afford to be ourselves. We can afford to talk as genuine representatives of our community and not be afraid to go out and discuss our commitments with our community. Certainly when you do that you do not always get bouquets thrown in your direction; you get the occasional brick. But, if you are not thick-skinned, you ought not to be here either.
Realistically, an election is a time for renewal. It is a time when there is a new mandate and change is going to occur. This is a new generation of thinking in Australia. It is a very important period. We think it is going to be a central period in revitalising this country.
I would like to thank all those people who have been of assistance to me: my branches, my various party members, my staff and, in particular, my wife, Bernadette, and my family, who have stood by me. I will do this as long as they stay standing by me.
2185
19:24:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
0
Mr ROBB
—I appreciate the opportunity this evening to reflect on the last three years and also on the outcome of the election and the contribution of so many people in supporting me in representing the seat of Goldstein. I would like to thank the people of Goldstein for their trust during the election. It is a big thing to represent some 130,000 local people, over 300 community groups, 40-plus aged-care facilities, all of the 50 schools in my electorate, 5,000 businesses and 60,000 households. It is a wonderful thing to be able to come to this place and seek, as best you can, to represent the priorities of that community. I have been in and around the political system for a significant part of my life, but the last three years was the first time as a representative of the people—the first time that I had stood for parliament—and I do not regret a minute of it. It has been a wonderful experience.
I will come back to my activities in this House a bit later. The most enjoyable part, I think, has been my association with the local community. I did not know how much I would enjoy the experience of representing them, meeting them, absorbing their views and doing my best to fairly represent their views in this place, no matter how people voted. I must say, it has been a great joy to me to be able to get around and make the acquaintance of so many.
I have seen the efforts of significant parts of my community. I think we are privileged as parliamentarians to be able to see the number of people who are involved locally in a voluntary capacity. Most people in the community have one or two extracurricular activities. That is what they do and it is an important part of their life. As a parliamentarian you get to be exposed to everyone’s extracurricular activities and the volunteers that are involved. In my electorate there are 130,000 people, including all the kids. There are somewhere in excess of 20,000 people who volunteer in some capacity, and without them our community would not work. My electorate of 17 suburbs has tens of thousands of people who, of their own volition, are providing their own time, effort and skills to make that community work. It is a privilege to know those people and to do what I can in a small way to help their cause.
I have taken a particular interest in a lot of the organisations who provide disability services. It has been an eye-opener for me to see the sacrifice. I am in awe of the sacrifices made by the people in those organisations, many of them volunteers. The professionals go the extra mile, endlessly. What they do for so many people in our community who unfortunately often have some sort of disability is something which is really hard to come to grips with. You wonder how you would cope and what sacrifice you would make if you were put in their circumstances. I really do live in awe of the sacrifices made by so many of those people. At Marriott House, Lloma Shaw, the chief executive, is just an outstanding woman. There is MOIRA disability services, Bailey House and many others, including Family Life services, which works so closely with families who are having difficulties, through mediation and all the rest. There are so many organisations and I really am privileged to be associated with them.
I would like to thank my team in my electorate. We have local volunteers. I have the good fortune of having close to 700 Liberal Party members in my seat. They are a very active, very interested, very competent and very experienced group. I had the great benefit of taking over from David Kemp three years ago and inherited a very strong organisation and a strong body of people who really have done most of the work for me.
As a party, we lost government at the last election with, in some cases in Victoria, a swing a touch over five per cent. The swing in Goldstein was 1½ per cent less than the national and state swing and I do attribute much of that result, which was a better result than in many other places, to the work of those involved in my re-election to this House. All of my campaign team, headed so competently by Jeannette Rawlinson, should be extremely proud of the result, and I would like to thank them in particular. Jeannette Rawlinson, who has been my campaign director on the two occasions that I have stood for the seat of Goldstein, has done a just outstanding job. My deputy campaign director and chairman of my federal electorate council, Rob de Fegley, has been a source of great advice. I trust his judgement enormously. His feel for the seat and the issues in the party has helped me do my job in here and in other parts of Australia. He provides feedback and brings insight to that job.
Others on the committee included Brett Hogan, Ian Mence, Kaye Farrow, Yolande Henderson, Stephen Gage, Bert Moffatt, Leo King, Paul Nettelbeck, Raymon Frederico, Hanife Bushby, Roy Aspinall, John Foley, Peter and Katrina Grove, Trevor Beaumont, Jo Goss, David Feldman, Colin Gourley, Andrew Hudgson, Andrew Tame, Daryl Williams, Stephen Hartney and Stan McConnell. As you can see, there is a huge list of people who were on my campaign committee. All of them were very actively involved in the campaign and there was a good mix of experienced and young people amongst them. It was a great team effort. My team certainly carried the bulk of the load and enabled me to carry out a range of responsibilities in the electorate and beyond. I thank them for their work. I also thank the over 300 volunteers who worked tirelessly, particularly on polling day, across the 37 booths in my electorate, as well as the dozens of others who went from my electorate to assist in areas of the state where we did not have such a strong party membership.
I would like to thank my electorate staff: Kathy Foley, Sam Russell, Megan Cox, Nick Troja and Anne Lane. All of them worked above and beyond, not just through the campaign but for many months. They have all been my Rock of Gibraltar and I really do thank them with all my heart for their work, for their sacrifice and for the loyalty that they displayed. Equally, I would like to thank my former ministerial staff. They played such a big part in helping me in the lead-up to the campaign and in helping me do the best job I could last year in my role as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. My chief of staff, Julie Abramson, is an outstanding woman who helped me in my earlier role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and last year in my role as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. I also thank my wonderful personal secretary, Margo Beales, who was with me in business before I entered parliament, as well as Andrew Coombe, Suzi Hewlett, Stuart Eaton, Mary-Anne Mellor, Kathryn Hodges, Ben Davies, Donna Schmeider, Jane Farr and Robyne Head, who helped out locally for me during the campaign. I think we all realise in this place the importance of good, loyal, committed staff. That is something that both sides enjoy. Certainly I, as much as anybody, have been greatly blessed with the quality of staff that have worked with and for me.
I would also like to record my pride in some of the achievements, many of which were very significant for the local community, many of them driven by the efforts of local community groups over the last three years. A lot has been achieved in the seat of Goldstein with local community groups. As I said at the outset, it has been a great pleasure not only to be involved with so many of these groups and to get to know them in my first three years as a parliamentarian but also to properly understand my patch and, I hope, get to properly and effectively represent their interests.
Aged-care facilities were justifiably rewarded with more than $4½ million of new aged-care places in the Bayside area. Demographically, not only are many young families coming into my part of the world but also we have a large senior community. The aged-care facilities are second to none and provide a great service for the seniors in the seat of Goldstein. Other achievements of which I am particularly proud include the Sandringham Yacht Club, which received a grant of over $400,000 for a really important initiative. It will contribute towards building a training centre at the yacht club. It is the second sporting club in Australia which has become a registered training organisation—after the Bulldogs, which do a great job in the western suburbs in Melbourne with their training programs. This followed meetings I had with it. I discovered it had started to provide for literally thousands of young people. Last year, several thousand young people attended training programs at the club, using small yachts. It taught them leadership and teamwork and introduced them to sailing. Many thousands of those are young kids from more disadvantaged parts of the south-east suburbs. The club draws kids not just from my electorate but from far and wide.
I think it is a wonderful thing the yacht club is doing and it is a great contribution to the community. It has opened new horizons for literally thousands of young people who may never have thought that they had the opportunity or the wherewithal to be part of the yachting community. It caters for people from all walks of life. It is a great sport and it is a great thing that the Sandringham Yacht Club is doing. I am very proud to have been associated, as the patron of the club, with this wonderful development that it is involved in.
Family Life is an organisation in my electorate that now extends well beyond my electorate in providing mediation services for families in difficulty. In the last three years it has been successful with programs in excess of $2 million that it is providing on behalf of government to local communities. It is a very difficult process, trying to avoid courts in cases where family relationships have broken down et cetera.
The Sandringham Bowls Club is a great club and a very progressive club. It was successful in getting $119,000 for an innovative water conservation project. It put together money it had raised, together with money the local Bayside council had put in, to be fully self-sustainable, from a water point of view, in the coming years. It is a great symbol, a great project to the local community. Senior members of the community should take note of this initiative—this very innovative, leading-edge technology. It is currently being introduced, but it will stand as a great symbol and an example to the local community of the need to make the most of the scarce water resources that we have.
I am also very proud that, since 2004, the local schools in Goldstein have shared in $5.3 million of funding for over 90 projects at all of the 50 primary, secondary and special schools within my electorate. The Investing in Our Schools Program was a very significant program. It enabled the local school communities to decide for themselves what was most needed. There have been some super projects and wonderful infrastructure that have filled lots of gaps that were not being met by the state government, and I am really disappointed that that program has been shelved by the Rudd government as one of its early forays into the education field.
One of the many things I am particularly proud of is the Green Vouchers for Schools program, and I am really disappointed that the new government has downgraded it very significantly. Most of the schools in my electorate had started the process of putting in rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems. It has been amazing to watch the enthusiasm and focus that that gave to the whole community in the short space of two or three years. I will also endeavour to keep the new government accountable for all its election commitments in Goldstein over the next three years. Already we have had a watering down of the commitment to provide a laptop to every school student—it has been watered down to providing access to a laptop to students in secondary schools. This is disappointing but, on behalf of the whole community down there, I will seek to ensure that these commitments are met.
In the short time that I have left I would like to say that my first three years in parliament have been a great experience. I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities that I have had in the House of Representatives. In the first few months, I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I came to appreciate the significant work of both sides of the House with regard to those committees and, in many respects, I was disappointed not to be able to continue with a couple of the projects that we had embarked upon. I spent six months as chair of the Federal Government Task Force on Workplace Relations, which was a very stimulating time, and 12 months as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Working with the Muslim communities at a very difficult time stretched and motivated me. I came to value the members of that community, and I look forward to continuing to help them with their integration into our community and achieving proper acknowledgement of their contributions. In respect of African refugees, I am disappointed that I am unable to follow on with lots of the ideas and the opportunities I had to help them to become wonderful Australian citizens.
Last year was again a most stimulating time as Minister for Vocational and Further Education. In many ways I have had training wheels on, but having lots of different projects and many different opportunities has meant that, firstly, I have not been bored for a second and, secondly, I have been highly motivated and stimulated. I have enjoyed it immensely. It really is what you come to this place for, no matter which side of the House you are on.
I am very proud to have been a part of the Howard-Costello government for three years. I do think they have left a wonderful legacy. In years to come, they will be remembered for having provided a golden age of uninterrupted economic growth and for paying dividends to people in social terms—for the jobs, the quality of life and the peace of mind that have been delivered to people for so long. I do think there have been significant changes. In many respects I think the welfare mentality that permeated a lot of our community has progressively been turned into an aspirational mentality, with people increasingly accepting responsibility for their own destiny. (Time expired)
2189
19:44:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—Let me start my speech on the address-in-reply by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, on your election as Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be back in this place for another three years. It is an opportunity for me to thank the electorate of Hindmarsh for electing me again. This was my fourth campaign, a campaign fought just as hard as any other campaign. Over four elections since 1998, when I first ran, we in the electorate of Hindmarsh have managed to turn the seat from an eight per cent safe coalition seat into what is now regarded as a fairly safe Labor seat. In the first campaign in 1998, we needed a swing of eight per cent to win the seat, and we found ourselves in front on the night by 600 votes. This led to my running again in 2001, and even though there was a slight reverse, a very small reverse, in that election I decided to take the plunge again in 2004, where I won by 108 votes and became the member for the most marginal seat in the country. This election was a little different. The result on the night of 24 November had me 10,000 votes in front, and it felt good. It actually felt that I had been finally legitimised. Regardless of the vote on the night, and regardless of the margin, I feel very humble that the electorate have given me so much support with their votes. For me, the way that we will continue to service the electorate and work in the electorate has not changed, regardless of whether it is considered a safe seat or a marginal seat. I think each and every one of us in this place, whether we are in a marginal or a safe seat, has an absolute duty to our electorate to work as hard as we can for the people that have put us here.
The election held on 24 November 2007 was a release of public support that had been strengthening over several years. It was a mood for change which became particularly evident in opinion polling in late 2006, and with the election of Kevin Rudd as the federal Labor leader the floodgates were opened. The public demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the Howard government throughout 2007 and, in the end, voted for change. The result was the loss of 21 coalition seats and a swing of 5.4 per cent to Labor. That is 1½ times higher than that of the election result which deprived Malcolm Fraser of the prime ministership and elevated Bob Hawke to the status of Labor hero. It was a truly remarkable result and a very clear and loud statement by the public, who said, ‘We need change.’ The change the public called for consists, in part, of genuine leadership of our nation: leadership that promotes movement, not stagnancy; leadership that prepares for our future and does not dwell on the past; leadership that involves alliance and encourages those being led toward a better life; and, most importantly, leadership that is focused on genuine, meaningful outcomes to issues of public policy that address the required investment in our future, in people and in social, environmental and economic infrastructure.
This form of leadership has been sadly lacking in Australia for many years. The prospect of long-term structural investment in our future has been displaced by one-off vote-buying bonuses that in themselves offer no encouragement for future behavioural change or economic progress. The public clearly saw through the vote-buying exercises. They saw a need for long-term strategic policy making and investment, and this is what they voted for in electing a Rudd Labor government. Whether it be investment in education and the development of a high-value, highly paid workforce, whether it be in reshaping our national health and hospital system with meaningful, sustainable structural change in relations between levels of government, whether it be in Australia in future becoming a hub in our region for various economic activities or whether it be in grasping the nettle and making effective commitments to the fight against dangerous climate change, these and many other areas of public policy focused the public’s attention, especially last year, and continue to do so today.
The prospect of a government that actually engages in meaningful and effective public policy development and implementation offered too much of a change from the previous government for the public to ignore or deny the opportunity for federal Labor to govern. The public wanted change to focus on its own and its nation’s future. The prospect of a Labor government gave them cause for hope, a level of expectation and, in some cases, a certain excitement, I would say. Australia is keen to engage in the 21st century and with a Rudd Labor government Australia will engage in the issues of the time with a new vigour and new and dynamic expectations, and will create a new and better future.
The challenges we face as a nation are highly complex, but the message from the 2007 general election is that Australians are prepared to face the challenges. We believe in ourselves and in our capacity to work through our problems. There is a level of optimism about our future that comes from our belief in ourselves as Australians capable of progressing through what will be a highly challenging century with a government that prizes innovation and expects challenges to be met through advancement of multiple social and economic players.
The drive for progress, lacking federally for over a decade, was immediately evident upon the election of this government. What we saw, literally within days of being elected, was that the Rudd government ratified the Kyoto protocol and engaged with the community of nations as a combatant of climate change. Within hours of the swearing in of the 42nd Parliament, the government honoured its longstanding commitment to acknowledge the stolen generation with a formal apology. This was unthinkable under the previous Prime Minister and it is still even now unbelievable to multiple members of the opposition.
Within a breathtakingly short period the newly formed Rudd federal Labor government has commenced the rollout of trades training centres to Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools and commenced the government’s $1 billion computers in schools package that will allow every Australian student in years 9 to 12 to have access to a school computer. It has invested $150 million for an immediate national blitz on elective surgery waiting lists, launched the $50 million tender for the purchase of water licences in the Murray-Darling Basin, increased the utilities allowance and the seniors concession allowance to $500 a year, increased the telephone allowance from $88 to $132 a year for those pensioners with a home internet connection and announced the appointment of Australia’s first petrol commissioner. The Rudd Labor government has also progressed legislation within the parliament that will reform the personal income tax system for the benefit of low- and middle-income earners and it has increased the low income tax offset from $750 to $1,200. Most importantly, one of the bills that is being progressed through parliament will achieve one of the things that the majority of Australian voters wanted to see changed last year—it will bring a halt to new AWAs.
There is much more to come. There is more hope for timely responses, for structural systematic changes that evolve into new relationships and divisions of responsibility and greater expectations of meaningful and long-lasting action through multiple sectors of the community. Within 12 months of the election of the Rudd Labor government, Australians can look forward with anticipation to the withdrawal of Australia’s combat forces from Iraq. There will be 450,000 new training places to tackle the skills crisis. The government’s teen dental plan will assist the first of one million Australian teenagers between the ages of 12 and 17 with dental costs. There will be the end of the former government’s wasteful Pacific solution. There will be an interim report by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and a long-term health reform plan for modern Australia and the announcement of the government’s design of Australia’s national carbon emissions trading scheme. These are just some examples of the drive and ambition of members on this side of the House that excited the nation into voting for a Rudd Labor government.
The Australian public has hoped for change and is seeing evidence of it almost on a daily basis. One of the most substantial areas of activity that the community will be watching with considerable interest is the development of a national carbon emissions trading scheme. It is proposed that the architecture will be devised by the end of this calendar year. It is also anticipated that Australia will have engaged in the national carbon trading system in 2010, probably prior to the next federal election, and it is good that this is the case.
If there is any area of social, economic and environmental policy that illustrates the chasm between the Rudd Labor government and the opposition, it is that which is in response to the prospect—some would say inevitability—of dangerous climate change. We have seen the New South Wales government’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme operating for several years. Involving the supply side in the development of efficiencies and cleaner generating capacity, and the demand side again in efficiencies in business and homes around the state, and encouraging the sequestration of carbon through revegetation projects, the New South Wales government’s scheme led to the world’s first mandatory emissions trading scheme.
The community support for the scheme can be observed through the increasing interest of individuals and organisations in using elements of the scheme to voluntarily show their own commitment to carbon neutrality. These are the citizens and organisations that have no obligation under the rules of the scheme to participate, but they wish to and they do, simply because they believe in the scheme’s objectives and the overall obligation of each and every one of us to do what is not only in our own personal interest but in the interests of Australia as a whole. There is real and strong support for action in the abatement of greenhouse gases. The question on most people’s lips is not one of whether we should decrease emissions but what level of emissions cuts we should set to be reached by us by the year 2020—only 10 years after the commencement of our national emissions trading scheme.
The European Union called for cuts in the range of 25 per cent to 40 per cent by 2020. Irrespective of what 2020 target Australia agrees to internationally or commits to individually, substantial work will inevitably be required on a permanent basis. Efficiency work such as that occurring within New South Wales on the demand side and the South Australian Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme, which will commence soon, is of immediate importance. Efficiencies constitute too great an immediate and substantial reduction in emissions not to be implemented now. Of course work is necessary not only in the development of renewable energy technologies but in the extensive amount of work in their rollout around the country, and this will take time. So I find it strange that in the media the debate about what baseload generation capacity is—or, more to the point, the value of renewable energy generation in baseload terms—continues to undermine the place that renewable generation will increasingly play in our energy mix.
I would like to give some perspectives on this point offered by many Australian scientists and columnists, who address myths that underlie doubts about renewable energy, especially wind power, being a valuable and potentially highly significant proportion of our total future energy mix. Some myths include, for example, that since wind power is an intermittent source it cannot replace coal-fired power unless it has expensive, dedicated long-term storage; secondly, because of wind power’s intermittency it has no value in meeting peak demands; and lastly, to maintain a steady state of voltage and frequency requires much additional expense. Some 25 years ago CSIRO and ANU scientists used Monte Carlo computer simulations—mathematical probability models of electricity grids containing various amounts of wind power capacity. Their conclusions have been subsequently confirmed and built upon by several overseas authors—that is, that any given quantity of wind power generating capacity can be factored into baseload power capacity, whether it be one per cent, 10 per cent or 70 per cent, as is currently happening in places such as WA.
Neither coal-fired power stations nor wind turbines nor hydro systems are all running at all times. The Australian national electricity grid network mandates backup. Its electricity inputs are managed so as to minimise spikes in generation, drops in delivery, breakdowns and the like. A substantial amount of backup is required, and this is the case for existing coal-fired power stations, just as it is the case for the 15-odd per cent wind capacity currently being fed into the grid from South Australia in order to maintain supply as required.
Backup is mandatory and non-negotiatiable. It is a matter of factoring in the potential limitations of the source as a proportion of overall generating capacity—whether you source 10, 20 or 50 per cent of grid requirements—and having the most cost-effective backup power generation at your disposal. This would be rapidly deployed hydro or gas-fired generators, and these are the technologies best able to meet periods of peak demand—at least hydro has been.
Internationally, Denmark reached 18 per cent of total electricity generation through wind power in 2002—not necessarily easily, but they managed it—and intend increases in capacity, and Germany is planning for 25 per cent of electricity to be sourced from wind power by 2030. It has been advanced that as much as 40 per cent or more of an energy grid’s power can be generated from wind without the need for highly expensive long-term storage. The extent to which these scenarios may be cost-competitive is beyond the scope of my comments here today, but the potential of wind and other sources is highly substantial.
Advances in photovoltaic technology are being perfected in a mass production setting in Adelaide that will see its costs, as measured in the number of years of free electricity that will pay for its capital costs, decrease from the current 20 years to between five and seven years. That is a decrease of 70-odd per cent. The prospect of Australian households right around the country deploying solar and photovoltaic cells for hot water, thereby decreasing their reliance on conventional power generation and consequent pollution in the order of 30, 50 or 70 per cent or more over time; the six per cent hydro and almost 20 per cent wind capacity as seen in South Australia; the onset of biofuels; the advancement in geothermal which would even satisfy sceptics’ concerns; and other sources such as wave power being harnessed off the coast of Perth must elucidate as mythology the idea that renewables cannot supply highly substantial proportions of our power demands, subject to economics and the performance of the market under the national emissions trading scheme.
This is the most substantial area of activity that Australia will engage in over the years ahead and it is a substantial area that the elected Rudd Labor government will engage in. This is no doubt one of the most important areas facing us. This is the most dynamic area of emerging Australian industries, but it requires the goodwill and investment of business, government and the community to succeed. This is the most substantial drive for innovation that any of us can expect in a generation. It is an exciting time and it is a time for the aggressive, strong and inherently sound leadership that Australia is now pleased to support. Over time, 20 million Australians will know that a Rudd Labor government set greater, more structured and more permanent goals for itself and the nation. These are goals that, once achieved, will place Australia in a position where we can once again hold our heads up high in the gaze of the international community and our reflective conscience. It is this desire that led to the election of a Rudd Labor government and a chance for Australians to have their ambitions realised and their responsibilities met with increased innovation and a belief in progressive leadership and change.
We saw that change through the election of the Rudd Labor government. The voters on 24 November had a choice to make between the same old government and a new, progressive government with fresh ideas to ensure that we build the foundations for a modern Australia. The former government had lost their way. They were out of touch and they had no plans for the future, in contrast to the Labor government, which had all of those three things. I look forward to the next three years as a member of the Rudd Labor government. It is an exciting time. It will be a time when the nation progresses and the foundations of our nation are built on for many more years to come. (Time expired)
2194
20:05:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
0
0
Mrs VALE
—As the member for Hughes, it is a privilege and an honour to be able to add my name to that of my colleagues and members of this House in responding to the address of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the 42nd Parliament of Australia. I thank the constituents of my electorate of Hughes for the privilege of representing them here in this place as their federal representative for a fifth term. We have just witnessed a significant change in Australian politics and, firstly, I would like to note the smooth transition of government that has just occurred. This is a tribute to Australia’s strong democratic traditions and the principles of the representative parliamentary system upon which those traditions are based.
The new government has made a large number of commitments to the electorate. Unsurprisingly, a lot of those are underpinned by the policies of the previous government. The 11-year period of economic prosperity under the Liberal leadership of John Howard and Peter Costello was defined by a number of great economic achievements: the commitment of a policy of budget surplus as a means of reducing public debt and public demand for money; the positive revolution in waterfront productivity; the restructuring of our tax system to provide incentives for those who work harder; and the development of incentives to give the most disadvantaged a path from welfare to the dignity and security of work—to name but a few.
The result of these achievements was to create perhaps the world’s most successfully developed economy of the past decade, one that was referred to as the ‘wonder from down under’ by United States economic commentators. Despite its vehement opposition at the time, the new Rudd Labor government has committed to retaining all of these initiatives. While there are a few questions as to whether it can actually maintain its commitments, it is clear that the ideas and policies of the coalition have triumphed.
The Governor-General in his speech referred to the current uncertainty in the global economy and the challenges the new government have on their hands. Fortunately for the new government, they have inherited an economy that is underpinned by strong economic fundamentals and one that will prove it can weather the current global uncertainty if it continues to be managed with discipline and diligence. As the opposition, we will be ever watchful.
Over our time in government, the coalition put the budget back into the black; eliminated government debt; started saving for the future; restored Australia’s AAA credit rating; and delivered more jobs, lower inflation, lower interest rates, lower taxes, higher wages, more productive workplaces, higher pensions, better living standards, more funding for important priorities like health, education, defence, transport and the environment, and more funds for state governments for them to provide those services expected by modern Australia.
The coalition has a proud record in relation to financial management. When we came to government in 1996, we inherited a $10 billion budget deficit, one which we converted into a surplus by our second term in office. We inherited $96 billion in government debt, which we completely eliminated by the last term of the coalition government through that solid economic management. We inherited levels of government spending equal to 25 per cent of GDP. They are now equal to 21.2 per cent. We also inherited a ballooning unfunded superannuation liability, which we addressed by creating the Future Fund.
A strong economy is not something that happens by chance. Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy requires discipline, focus and experience. It requires an ability to put aside short-term politics and media spin, and take hard decisions in the national interest. The coalition took difficult but necessary decisions to establish the Future Fund. For the first time in Australian history, Australia has a specific fund to provide for the superannuation of our Navy, Army, and Air Force personnel and other Australian government employees as we go, rather than passing the bill on to the next generation. Removing this burden will help offset the effects of our increasingly ageing population, which looms as a great future challenge for both state and federal governments in Australia.
During the coalition years, we reformed the tax system to provide tax relief and reward hard work and initiative. This included the largest tax relief in Australia’s history in 2000, which was followed by further tax relief in the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 budgets. Further encouragement was given to enterprise, initiative and savings through the lower company tax; halving individuals’ capital gains tax; removing benefit taxes on superannuation; replacing the complex wholesale sales tax; reducing petrol excise; and moving from a 150 per cent diminishing value rate on business assets to a 200 per cent rate. This was to encourage investment in plant and equipment and technology. The coalition invested in key infrastructure, including the AusLink national land transport program with an investment of $38 billion and the largest innovation packages in our history in Backing Australia’s Ability.
The social concerns of our Australian communities are also very important to me and to many of my constituents. We need to remember that the economy is really a means to an end. I say this because, without a strong economy, no government can do very much for those of its citizens who are in need of social welfare support or special assistance. When an economy is weak and in decline, it is those at the lowest levels of our society who suffer the most. They have no buffer against adversity and are the most vulnerable of our citizens. Good economic policy and good social policy go hand in hand, but good economic policy leads the way and dictates the kind and quality of social welfare we can provide for our most vulnerable Australians. A sound economy dictates the kind of society we can become. It allows us to be the best we can be and bring all Australians to share and enjoy in the ‘commonwealth’ of our nation in the real sense of that word.
Speaking of our most vulnerable Australians, the talk from the government in recent weeks in relation to carers and seniors was nothing but disgraceful and disrespectful. I was pleased that the opposition-led outcry from fair-minded Australians forced the Rudd government to rethink its plans to withdraw their special payments. I want to know if this behaviour will be the norm for the Rudd Labor government’s approach to fiscal policy. Hopefully, that carers and seniors were the first target of the Rudd razor gang is not symbolic of future savings measures to be aimed at those in our communities who are least able to withstand the pain. The new Prime Minister obviously did not mean a word of his first speech as leader of the Labor Party when he talked about compassion. He said:
Compassion is not a dirty word. Compassion is not a sign of weakness. … compassion in politics and in public policy is in fact a hallmark of great strength.
I could not agree more. There was a marked absence of this compassion in the measure against carers and senior citizens. Carers are the only welfare recipients who must work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is often a good chance that they have lost the lifestyle that many Australians take for granted. They often lose the opportunities for work or a career. They often lose their marriage, the house, the job and the peace of mind afforded by financial stability. The Prime Minister was literally forced to show that compassion of which he waxed so lyrical in his first leadership speech. This episode was intensely watched by the whole Australian community. We in the opposition and the Australian community will continue to be ever watchful in the event of any future instances of a lack of compassion for this vulnerable group of Australians. To illustrate how difficult life for carers can be, I would like to share a letter one mother sent to me of the reality that is her daily life every day of the year. I spoke yesterday on the motion to recognise the need for greater Australian support for those in our community who give their lives to care for their disabled family members. Regrettably, I ran out of time before I could read this letter fully into the Hansard. This mother is a member of a new organisation in my electorate known as the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group, formed out of the desperation of parents trying to gain appropriate supported accommodation for their adult disabled children. She begins:
Whenever I read about another mother killing her disabled child, I wonder whether it will come to that for me, and would I be able to do it? People do become desperate and overwhelmed. My disabled daughter ‘S’ has become my world and I, hers. And therein lies the problem.
She was born in 1978—induced for the doctor’s convenience as he was going on holidays. She turned blue and stopped breathing. She had streptococcal pneumonia and was found to be 4-6 weeks premature. She spent a month in special care.
From about 6 months of age I knew there was something wrong. Then followed years of doctors and therapies until I finally had to admit you can’t mend a broken brain.
Eventually she attended a special school. Transport was provided but I needed to be there before and after school, so full-time work was out of the question. One problem with going to school out of the local area was that she had no friends to play with and so all her time was spent with me.
Eventually I found a job with a small company run by a couple with kids of their own. They were very flexible with hours, emergencies and phone calls. I brought ‘S’ to work with me in school holidays.
In 1996 my marriage, like so many others involving disabled children, had come to the point where I took ‘S’ and left. I had calculated all eventualities before taking such a big step—or so I thought ... I was working for the small company and ‘S’ was travelling by train to her day-program and managing alone with a few phone calls, until I got home.
Six weeks later the small company collapsed. I quickly found a job with a big company—no flexibility, longer hours and NO phone calls. ‘S’ went on a 4-night respite camp for a break. When she returned, something was terribly wrong. She didn’t sleep, muttered all night to someone, cried all day, got lost following ‘voices’ and didn’t remember to eat or drink. Eventually she was diagnosed with schizophrenia brought on by her absolute terror in being apart from me. Even with hospitalization and treatment the situation was horrendous. She was drugged, terrified, and either constantly crying or staring at a wall for hours. In the 30 minutes it took me to get to work each day there would be 10-12 phone message awaiting me with her just crying. She couldn’t travel alone or stay home alone. Finally, the company gave up; I was fired, and thus became her carer.
People sometimes think that carer equals no full time job, equals what a life. Well, imagine all you’d for a very young child—dressing them, washing them, cleaning them up after ‘accidents’ and then image doing it for a 28 year old woman, who won’t learn to do more than she does now. Imagine never being able to go anywhere alone—not even to see a friend for a chat or a cup of coffee without your ‘child’ with you. Imagine listening to her cry all night because you have a cough and she fears you might die and leave her. Imagine lying awake every night worrying about what WILL happen to her.
We do have respite, but only one day a month. And now, four years ago, I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. My caring time is infinite. It will be the most difficult task to settle ‘S’ into a group-home or similar accommodation. It must be done while I am here and able to help her cope. I have been told that the only way to get accommodation is to abandon her at a police station. I can’t do that. She would retreat from reality forever. She is my problem and I will not leave her unresolved.
What do we want? Peace of mind, I think, for both of us. For me, not having to abandon her or to be at death’s door and still not know if she will have somewhere to live, and for her, relief from the terror of ‘if something happens to Mum where will I go?’ She knows she can’t manage alone. Vague promises are not enough.
This is a sobering letter and one that I could not put down and one that we here in this place have a duty to address. Now is the time for some significant, real measures to be put in place to assist the many thousands of carers across Australia in a similar position. Now is the time to really look seriously at how we accommodate, in supported accommodation in local areas, people who are adults with disabilities. The issue of supported care for adult children is one that really does reach into the hearts of many people across my electorate and across Australia. They must be located in their local areas, not at a place that is two hours drive away. They must be available to their parents and family members to be able to continue to support them and to include their disabled family member in family gatherings and in other social activities.
One way that we could practically assist carers and our senior citizens—indeed, every other person who is dependent on welfare—is to allow them to earn a little more money than is given to them under welfare. I put for consideration the suggestion that we could allow them to earn the $6,000 threshold that is available to all wage earners—to you and me—that we can earn before we have a tax liability. Such an amount would supplement the welfare payments and be of no cost to the government outlays. Let us consider this: all wage-earning Australians have a $6,000 tax-free threshold before incurring any tax liability; welfare recipients should be able to have the same consideration, as a matter of fairness and equity, as fellow Australians.
To secure this threshold, welfare recipients could be asked to undertake a lesson or two, perhaps in home budgeting, on an annual basis. It would also be available, of course, to Indigenous Australians. Amounts exceeding the $6,001 threshold would be deducted from the welfare payment, as is the present practice. But the benefits of this measure would include no cost to budget outlays and it would encourage people to benefit from the socialisation that comes with employment even if it is only part time. It could lead to more permanent work. It would give recipients, including some on the disability support pension, the opportunity to make a little extra income. It would lead to a better understanding of household finance and it would assist some recipients out of the welfare mentality. It would impose a work ethic and self-discipline and it would provide personal empowerment and increase self-esteem. It would provide recipients with the safety net of the full social welfare security base while enjoying a limited participation in the workforce.
I would like to hear some feedback on this idea, which I am sure would be welcomed by welfare recipients and it would assist them in a practical way to alleviate financial hardship and even rise above the poverty experienced by many Australian families. Even though we here are aware that there are challenging times upon us, Australia is still the lucky country for so many Australians. It is our duty in this place to ensure that that luck is shared with all and every fellow Australian that we can possibly reach.
The Governor-General said in his address that the government will implement a new policy agenda focused on social inclusion. The focus on social inclusion aims to improve the opportunities for all Australians to participate fully in Australian economic and social life. Well, the Rudd Labor government did not get off to a very good start by attacking carers and senior Australians. These are the very Australians that should be the focus of the government’s intention to implement social inclusion. It is our duty on the opposition benches to be ever watchful that exercises such as the carers and seniors debacle are not repeated and that we do not end up with government policies that actually deliver social exclusion. Australians deserve better than that and I accept my part in the responsibility to ensure our fellow Australians receive their fullest opportunities that being in this wonderful country can deliver. After all, it is their birthright.
Debate (on motion by Ms Grierson) adjourned.
2198
20:23:00
Main Committee adjourned at 8.24 pm