2009-05-26
42
1
5
REPS
0
0
2009-05-26
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
4257
Ministerial Arrangements
4257
14:00:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I inform the House that the Minister for Home Affairs will be absent from question time today and that the Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
4257
Ministerial Statements
North Korea
4257
4257
14:01:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—by leave—As members will be aware, North Korea claimed it had successfully conducted an underground nuclear test on 25 May and subsequently carried out a short-range missile test. This is an unacceptable, provocative and destabilising act by North Korea. All indications point to this being another deliberate step by North Korea in its systematic efforts to acquire a nuclear capability and the means of delivering it. These actions obtain the absolute condemnation of the government of Australia as fundamentally inconsistent with the security of our region and Australia’s own long-term national security.
While formal verification procedures have not concluded, all indications point to a test having been carried out. Seismic signals consistent with a one- to three-kiloton nuclear explosion in the vicinity of the site of North Korea’s last nuclear test in October 2006 have been detected by monitoring stations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation around the world, including in Australia. Confirmation there has been a nuclear explosion will depend on collection and analysis of emissions from the explosion and is still expected to take some days. The fact that North Korea also tested a short-range missile yesterday was a calculated and further provocation following its 5 April ballistic missile launch, and there are now reports of further possible missile tests by North Korea. This behaviour is unacceptable on the part of the North Korean regime and further undermines regional security.
If substantiated, this North Korean nuclear test represents yet another step towards North Korea refining an effective working nuclear weapons capability which directly affects Australia’s national security. First indications suggest this test was larger than previous tests. Clearly, this demonstrates North Korea’s intention to proceed down the path of developing nuclear weapons in the face of international condemnation. At the same time, North Korea appears to be making steady progress in its ability to refine delivery mechanisms, especially in the area of missile technology. I note the recent missile tests and the clear intent to refine and improve this missile technology. The marriage of these two parallel developments is of the greatest concern to the Australian community and to the international community. Australia and the international community must work in concert to thwart North Korean efforts to marry its nuclear weapons capability with an effective long-range delivery vehicle.
North Korea’s reckless actions have earned the condemnation of the international community. It is critical that the international community takes a strong and unified position against this unacceptable act aimed squarely at escalating tensions within our own region. The Republic of Korea, Japan, the United States, China and Russia have all condemned in the strongest terms North Korea’s latest test. It is important the international community works together to address this serious threat to the peace and security of the region and of the world. North Korea is displaying a pattern of reckless disregard for the international community in its behaviour and it represents a flagrant breach of UN Security Council resolution 1718, which condemned North Korea’s 2006 nuclear test and called for an end to missile testing and imposed sanctions on trade in a range of goods with North Korea.
The UN Security Council met in an emergency session overnight and agreed to move straight to consideration of a new UN Security Council resolution. Australia is fully supportive of this decision. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said this morning, Australia shares the UNSC condemnation of the North Korea nuclear test and supports a new UN Security Council resolution which will not only reinforce UN Security Council resolution 1718 but also contain new, additional measures against North Korea. The foreign minister has asked Australia’s acting ambassador to the United Nations to contact the permanent representatives of all 15 current members of the UN Security Council to register the importance of a decisive response by the international community to North Korea’s action. Australia currently has strong, autonomous sanctions in place against North Korea: a visa ban applies to all North Korean nationals, North Korean flagged ships are banned from entering Australia and all bilateral aid is suspended.
The North Korean test reminds us of the importance of the international community insisting on adherence to the norms set out in the comprehensive test ban treaty, which prohibits nuclear tests. The North Korean action only strengthens the government’s conviction that Australia play an active role in enhancing the CTBT regime, because this directly affects Australia’s national interests. The Australian ambassador in Vienna is also currently chair of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation and is working hard to take forward international adherence to the CTBT. We also call on North Korea to re-engage with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am also pleased that the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, established a year ago and co-chaired by Australia and Japan, is working to bring about the consensus needed to make these non-proliferation regimes more effective for the future.
Today I have spoken with President Lee of the Republic of Korea and I am scheduled to speak to Prime Minister Aso of Japan this afternoon. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken to the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Foreign Minister Yu of the Republic of Korea. At my request, our ambassador in Washington has reflected the government’s position with the National Security Council of the United States and with the US Special Representative for North Korea Policy, Ambassador Steven Bosworth. In all of this we are registering Australia’s deep concern at the North Korean test and considering further ways that we can work together to thwart North Korea’s future nuclear ambitions. North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are an increasing threat to regional security, to Australia’s national security and to the wider international community. We must work with our friends and our allies around the region on this threat now to ensure that this emerging threat is contained in the future.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:08:00
—by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Turnbull (Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 7 minutes.
Question agreed to.
4258
14:08:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—On behalf of the coalition, I join with the Prime Minister in condemning the extremely provocative decision of North Korea to detonate another nuclear device. This blatant act of defiance amounts to a direct repudiation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1718. In effect, the North Korean regime has returned to its default setting of brinkmanship and confrontation. Its delinquent behaviour not only challenges the authority of the United Nations Security Council but also represents a profound threat to peace and stability in our region. North Korea cannot feed its starving population and yet, ignoring the basic needs of its own people, it has diverted significant resources to develop and detonate a nuclear device which, according to some estimates, had the same explosive power as the Fat Man atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki in August 1945.
Today is not the time or place to engage in theorising about what drives this belligerent, destabilising and frankly bewildering behaviour. The fact is that North Korea is dangerously unpredictable, the one relic of the Cold War era that has not come in from the cold. What does seem to be clear is that yesterday’s test was significantly more powerful than North Korea’s 2006 nuclear weapons test. That attempt, by almost all estimates, failed. But the sad truth in this most dreadful of sciences is that weapons engineers can sometimes learn more from failure than from success. On this occasion the magnitude of the explosion has been estimated to be as high as 5.3 on the richter scale. Russia and South Korea have released estimates suggesting a 10- to 20-kiloton yield from the underground explosion. By contrast, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation has released estimates in the low, single-digit kiloton range.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs told the House yesterday, definitive assessments must await the testing of atmospheric samples which will take some time to emerge. But what is not in doubt is the message of provocation North Korea intended to send and the apprehension and anxiety it has deliberately sought to generate, coming only weeks after its firing of a long-range missile towards the Sea of Japan. We note the solemn reactions around our region. We note that South Korea has been forced to place its military on heightened alert. We were honoured to meet in Sydney recently the new President of the Republic of Korea, Lee Myung-Bak. As he is the leader of a key democratic partner of Australia in this region, I was glad to hear of his resolute and principled approach to dealings between Seoul and Pyongyang. We note also, and support wholeheartedly, Japan’s demand for strong and effective international action and we welcome the signals from the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in New York overnight which would suggest a more robust, binding resolution may be negotiated by as early as tonight.
We in the opposition believe that all possible pressure must be brought to bear upon the North Korean military regime to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Under the Howard government, Australia took part in the Five Plus Five talks, an attempt by the broader region to persuade North Korea to abandon its illicit weapons program. Likewise, we strongly supported the six-party talks—involving the US, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas—as the best mechanism involving the major powers of East Asia to convince North Korea to become a constructive member of the international community. We have joined in proactive efforts regionally and internationally to stop the illicit trade in nuclear weapons technology, through our contributions to the proliferation security initiative.
The need for a resolute international response to North Korea’s delinquency relates not just to peace and stability in our own region but to the wider imperatives of global security, for the fear and concern of everyone who aspires to peace must be that where North Korea goes others soon will follow. I note that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is refusing to hold talks over his country’s nuclear programs with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. It raises this question: has the world’s failure to respond appropriately to North Korea’s flagrant defiance of international protocols had the effect of emboldening others to do the same? It represents a stark reminder, if one is needed, that the world cannot afford to stand back and allow the UN Security Council to be defied. We welcome the efforts of our acting ambassador at the United Nations to press for a robust international response and we trust that the United Nations can and will agree to deliver new and additional measures that will persuade and impress upon North Korea that its policy of blackmail and brinkmanship will not be rewarded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
4260
14:14:00
Questions Without Notice
Economy
4260
14:14:00
4260
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement in the House yesterday that government debt will peak at $300 billion. I also refer him to the Treasurer’s statement minutes later that government debt will reach $315 billion. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether public debt will peak $15 billion higher than he advised the House yesterday?
4260
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. Gross public debt peaks at $300 billion—
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—As I said to the House yesterday, gross public debt—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question having been asked, I would have thought members would be interested in the answer.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. Gross public debt peaks, as I advised the House yesterday, at around $300 billion, which is 21.7 per cent of GDP. When it rises in aggregate terms to $315 billion, that is 21.4 per cent of GDP. As I advised the House yesterday, therefore, ‘peaking’ is at 21.7 per cent of GDP, which is around $300 billion.
Budget
4260
4260
14:16:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
Mr CHEESEMAN
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the government building Australia out of recession and laying the foundations for recovery from the global recession for its nation-building agenda?
4260
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question because he, like various members of this House, is proud of the government’s nation-building strategy for recovery. Our nation-building strategy for recovery involves construction of infrastructure right across Australia, including in Corangamite—and including in various of those seats which were referred to in this House yesterday when it seemed that honourable members from benches opposite were pleased to attend local launch ceremonies while pretending in this chamber that they did not support the measures through the House which gave funding for those local launch ceremonies of infrastructure. I am surprised by that.
Under the Nation Building for Recovery plan, there are 115 projects underway in the member’s electorate at a cost of $49 million. These include 87 projects under the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history across 72 schools in the Corangamite electorate. There are 18 social housing units being built. There are 10 projects under the government’s black spot and boom gates programs, including $510,000 in black spot funding for the Princes Highway West in Belmont. There is $6 million going to five local councils under the Community Infrastructure Program, including $2 million towards a wide-ranging sports facility at Bannockburn which will include new netball, football, soccer and tennis facilities for young families moving into the area.
These projects are supporting jobs and small businesses in suburbs like Ocean Grove, Torquay, Grovedale and Colac. This is part of the government’s Nation Building for Recovery plan—supporting jobs, small business and apprenticeships for today while building the infrastructure Australia needs for tomorrow. If the Liberals had their way in this House, not a single one of these 115 projects would have ever seen the light of day—not a single school would be upgraded, not a single black spot would be repaired and no social housing would be built. The contrast with those opposite is clear for all to see.
Right across the nation we have the same construction work underway—investments supporting 200,000 jobs next year and the year after. This is being done through the vehicle of investing in 35,000 projects across the country by year’s end. Let us just take a few of these as examples, because those opposite need to be put up close and personal with what is actually going on around the country. Have a look at the Cootamundra to Parkes railway upgrade. This photo shows the first of 301,000 new concrete sleepers being unloaded near Parkes to commence the Cootamundra—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order. The rules with respect to props are very clear. The Prime Minister has a whole stack of hard-hat photographs he wants to show to the House and I ask that he not do so.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—So you are not interested in a response to your point of order. There is no point of order and the honourable member for Sturt knows it quite well.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—To the great disappointment of those opposite, members on this side of the House will be attending ceremonies right across the country, also making sure that these projects are being rolled out right across the country. Ministers will be attending in each one of the electorates represented by those right across the country, because each of those projects equals jobs, equals infrastructure, equals our nation-building strategy for recovery. The Seymour-Albury rail upgrade—here we go. This photo shows concrete resleepering work being done in the Seymour to Wondonga rail project.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I assume that the relevant local member is not interested in this. Work will involve the laying of around 225,000 sleepers to complete an upgraded Melbourne to Sydney corridor, which has seen the laying of over one million new concrete sleepers. Again this is about nation building for recovery.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Let us see those opposite laugh and sneer about this. Here we have defence housing in Brisbane. This is a housing site in Brisbane where 41 new defence homes are already under construction.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Mackellar will resume her seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt is warned. Member for Oxley, there is no need for any encouragement.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the matter of precedent of this particular display, is it now permissible for the opposition to come in here tomorrow with cardboard cut-outs of the Prime Minister in his jacket and hard hat?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The great thing about Wilson is he is always on song. For Wilson’s benefit, in the seat of O’Connor, there are 265 projects, at a value of $37.3 million. Perhaps the member for O’Connor would care to identify which in his electorate he would not wish to proceed—which of these schools would he prefer not to have upgraded? I am surprised; he is normally so quick to his feet.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean
—He’s gone silent!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Nothing. What about the social housing units being constructed? Black spot and boom gate projects—there are 19 in the electorate of O’Connor, worth $5.9 million. You want none of the 23 boom gates—is that correct? Six million dollars for 48 local councils—he wants none of that. I see surprising silence on the part of the member for O’Connor.
Defence housing: near and dear to the heart of those opposite, near and dear to the heart of those in the government—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Time and again you and other Speakers have ruled out of order the use of props. Why is there an exception on the part of the Prime Minister and will you rule them out of order?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—From time to time Speakers have ruled the use of props in order if they are used incidentally to the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! This is an opportunity for me to indicate, when I hear the interjection ‘use of a PowerPoint’, that it would be a wonderful thing if this chamber was so mature that it could actually use things like PowerPoint and photos and that was enabled for everybody. But I think that one of the problems is that, again, we have this insider’s view of the way in which the chamber operates. We do not often reflect upon how we are looked upon from outside. I will watch carefully the use of these props, but to say that they have been blanketly banned is an incorrect observation of the way in which this place has operated.
83Q
Schultz, Alby, MP
Mr Schultz interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Hume has a very great habit of making comments by way of interjection on the Speaker. I think the reference that he is making he well and truly understands was deserving of the action that was taken on that fateful day of last year. I will listen to the Manager of Opposition Business, but he should understand that this will not be an occasion to abuse the opportunity that he has in speaking to a point of order which I have already ruled on.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, the member for Mackellar raised a point of order which you have quite correctly ruled on from your opinion of the standing orders. You did, however, in doing so, say that the standing orders said that props were entitled to be used incidentally to the question. But I would put it to you, with due respect, that the Prime Minister is not using these props incidentally; they form the major part of his answer to the question, which has now been going for almost eight minutes, and if you expect the House to maintain its decorum—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. I thank him for his observation. It will not dissuade me from my ruling. I will just add another observation of the eight minutes that this has been going on—only five minutes of them have been an answer.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for Mackellar for her intervention, as, given that she is wearing her own high-visibility vest today, she is obviously entering into the spirit of the occasion in terms of launching infrastructure projects across the nation. Also, Manager of Opposition Business, in the electorate of Sturt there are 82 projects, worth an investment of $40 million. Perhaps the member for Sturt, given he comes to the dispatch box so frequently, could identify which of those 82 projects he would not wish to support—82 projects in 48 schools, $34.5 million into the schools in Sturt. These are funded under the February package, Building the Education Revolution, which those opposite are—supporting or opposing? It is hard to work out. What about the $4 million for the Campbelltown Public Library redevelopment—supporting or opposing? Hmm, there is an interesting silence again on the part of both the member for Sturt, surprisingly, and the member for O’Connor, equally surprisingly.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Previously, you have ruled that the Prime Minister, in asking members of the opposition to answer questions, knows that they are not entitled to do so, and you said the Prime Minister should desist from doing so the last time this occurred. He is doing it again today. If he wants to be able to give us the facility to answer—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Oh, how sensitive they are about infrastructure construction! I would say to those opposite: with each one of these 35,000 projects across the nation, we will be there participating in each of them, including in those electorates where the local members are pretending they are not supporting them.
With respect to defence housing, I hold up this illustration of 41 new defence homes already under construction. Just two months have elapsed between the announcement of the stimulus plan and the start of construction of these homes. The Defence Housing Authority has been provided with $251 million—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Prime Minister, I think that members have the picture.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Canning should be very careful. He should not think that anything has been set as a precedent for that type of behaviour.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—People around the place raising signs. You know.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. If the Prime Minister is going to show photos, he could at least show ones with him wearing a hard hat!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Paterson may leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Paterson then left the chamber.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business is named.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:31:00
—I move:
That the Member for Sturt be suspended from the service of the House.
Question put.
14:35:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
80
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
63
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Sturt is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b).
The member for Sturt then left the chamber.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Therefore, the government’s strategy—nation building for recovery—is clear: supporting jobs, supporting small business and supporting apprenticeships, right across the nation today, by investing in the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. That is why we are taking strong and decisive action to achieve this on the ground—infrastructure like rail, road, ports, broadband, solar energy and the biggest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. This is investment that supports more than 200,000 jobs that would otherwise be destroyed as a consequence of the recession. The government has rightly stepped in to fill the gap left by a private sector in retreat because of the global economic recession. The government has rightly decided to invest 70 per cent of its stimulus in nation-building infrastructure. This is a strategy for the future. It is a positive strategy for the future. It is a government which is in the business of building the economy up, rather than an opposition seeking to tear and talk the economy down.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
4265
Distinguished Visitors
4265
14:40:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Minister of Housing and Minister of Fisheries, Philip Heatley, from New Zealand. On behalf of members, I offer him a warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
4265
Questions Without Notice
Economy
4265
4265
14:40:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement yesterday that in 2020 his government will have left the country with a net debt liability of $75 billion. Will the Prime Minister inform the House in which year his ‘temporary’ debt will be finally paid off?
4265
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I am advised by the Treasury it will be within about two years of that time.
Budget
4265
4265
14:40:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the reactions from industry and market economists to the budget’s emphasis on nation-building infrastructure?
4265
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Dobell for his question. There are something like 74 projects underway in Dobell, including 54 school projects. Isn’t that tremendous? It certainly has the support of this side of the House. These projects are supporting jobs and small businesses on the Central Coast of New South Wales. They are a central part of our nation-building plans for recovery. If those opposite had their way, not one of those 74 projects would ever see the light of day.
What we see in these projects is economic stimulus in action, supporting jobs in local communities and small business in local communities and making up for the fact that private demand has withdrawn. That is what economic stimulus is all about. And that is what the budget has been about—phase 3 of economic stimulus. Phase 1 last year gave cash to cash-constrained consumers to boost demand and employment, particularly in retail. Phase 2 was in February—our nation-building plans for investment in schools, investment in energy efficiency and investment in social housing. It was economic stimulus for jobs in action. It was nation building for recovery. That is why this program has had the support of the business community. I quote from Peter Anderson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who said:
The investment is overdue and will contribute to a more efficient and competitive economy when the recovery arrives.
That is what he had to say about the nation-building investment in infrastructure in the recent budget. Heather Ridout, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, said, ‘This spending on infrastructure will be directly supportive of jobs.’ Trevor Martyn of the Australian Trucking Association said:
Australia’s truck drivers will be using the roads funded in tonight’s Budget for many years into the future. Our journeys will be safer and faster, with lower transport costs for businesses …
The endorsement from the business community goes on, because they recognise the importance of economic stimulus. Those opposite do not. We know they do not have an alternative budget plan or fiscal policy. We heard nothing about it in the Leader of the Opposition’s reply. They do not want to admit that they would not borrow one cent less or pay debt back one day earlier. They will not admit that because they want to go around the country and campaign against economic stimulus that creates jobs now and into the future. They cannot bring themselves to support this vital investment in our community. But I certainly take great heart from the fact that Australians, right across this country, understand the importance of economic stimulus and understand the importance of economic stimulus in local communities. That is why governments borrow and that is why they borrow responsibly—to support jobs and to leave a lasting legacy for the nation. That is what this government has done and that is what those opposite are opposing.
Economy
4266
4266
14:44:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the Prime Minister’s last answer today when he said the government net debt will be paid off in 2022. In order to now pay the debt off, the government would have to run record surpluses of more than two per cent of GDP for eight years straight. Treasurer, when ever in the history of our country has a government done that?
4266
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—We know those opposite could not find savings in recent budgets. We on this side of the House are up to the task of making the savings in budgets. We made them in the last budget, and we have made them in this year’s budget. We are entirely up to the mark in terms of charting a path back to surplus. Of course, those on the other side of the House went on an unsustainable spending spree at the height of the mining boom and they spent like drunken sailors. We know what they did because the member for Higgins blew the whistle in John Howard’s biography, where he complained about the spending of the former Prime Minister and his own inability to stop it.
What we will see from this side of the House is fiscal discipline. We have put in place a spending cap of two per cent real when growth returns to trend. That is why our objectives are entirely reasonable and achievable. And it is a bit rich when those on that side of the House cannot front up and find any alternative savings in the budget.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Both the Treasurer and the member for Dickson will resume their places. To assist the member for Dickson, I indicate to the Treasurer that he should relate his remarks to the question.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Well just say you don’t understand!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Regrettably, the member for Dickson is now warned!
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—As the Prime Minister indicated before, net debt as a percentage of GDP is expected to be 3.74 per cent in 2019-20, charting the path back to surplus and paying down the borrowings in 2015-16. This government has been entirely responsible in supporting the economy in our hour of need. This government has had the courage to support jobs through economic stimulus, to put in place a medium-term fiscal strategy and an expenditure cap to bring the budget back to surplus and to pay down debt. If only those on the other side had the courage to front up to this parliament with an alternate budget policy or fiscal policy. They do not have that courage because they want to play the scare campaign. They are so opportunistic and so devoid of a commitment to the national interest, all we get are these silly political games.
Budget
4267
4267
14:48:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
Mr BIDGOOD
—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the minister update the House on the impact that Building the Education Revolution is having on jobs in local communities?
4267
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Dawson for his question. I note that in the member for Dawson’s electorate there are 216 projects that are being invested in through the government’s economic stimulus. Of these, 201 are Building the Education Revolution projects in local schools. The member for Dawson knows that that is great news for his local schools and great news for local jobs. He also knows, of course, that the Liberal Party is opposed to each and every one of those projects in his electorate because the Liberals are all about talking the economy down while we build the nation up.
The member for Dawson would also know that the projects in his electorate are being joined by projects right around the country in almost 10,000 schools. This is being well received right around the country. The endorsements for this program have been flooding in. To take just one example in the member for Grey’s electorate, a primary school on the Yorke Peninsula, where Nick Goodge says:
This is seriously once-in-a-lifetime stuff. It’s a really exciting prospect for a little school.
This is an endorsement about how important this is for local schools. But of course this is also important for local jobs. The Leader of the Opposition has been known to say that Building the Education Revolution is a poor quality spend and that it will not support any jobs. Well, Australians in local communities know the truth and the truth is Building the Education Revolution is there supporting local jobs. To take one example, in the Australian on 8 May there was a report about the impact Building the Education Revolution was having on architectural services. It says:
Within a week of the federal Government’s announcement of a $14.7 billion schools upgrade program, Law Architects had 10 new projects on its books, worth $20 million.
Not in [their] lifetime had the economy been so bad—and business quite so good.
The article goes on to quote Ms Law, of the business, who says:
When the announcement came out, we were leaping for joy, and when the phones kept ringing we kept leaping …
We are flat out. We haven’t been this busy for many years …
Another firm, which specialises in building and architecture for education facilities, is in the process of hiring up to 12 architects in order to deal with the economic stimulus work. Given the National Party has been left in charge of the House today, we might note that in the member for Riverina’s electorate her local newspapers are noting that the Building the Education Revolution program is supporting local jobs. One of her local newspapers reports that Laing O’Rourke will manage the overall project and its time frames and has been inundated with applications from the local department of commerce, accredited builders, tradespeople and small businesses with school experience who want to play a role in the program. He is going to base teams in the local area in order to back this program.
Then we have the endorsement from the contractor responsible for overseeing the maintenance at a school called Alexandria Park Community School. The head of that contractor says that ‘there is little doubt that several of those small and medium-sized businesses would not have survived the global financial crisis without benefiting from government infrastructure contracts’. So the evidence is clear from people in local communities who are in touch with what is happening in their communities. On the other side of this House, all we see is continued opportunism. Depending on the moment, they will blurt out whatever comes into their mind next. In terms of blurting out whatever comes into their mind next, some days they blurt out ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’. Some days they blurt out that they proudly voted no. Some days the member for Gilmore and others are going thumbs up for local projects. Some days the member for Wentworth is trying to get himself into the local photograph. People obviously notice this cheap opportunism and these inconsistencies. The members opposite, in their embarrassment and shame because they did not stand up for jobs in their local communities, are yelling out, but the Australian community knows the truth. This side of the House stands for Building the Education Revolution; this side of the House stands for supporting local jobs; this side of the House stands for building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. Those opposite stand for talking the economy down and the sort of carping we have just seen.
Budget
4268
4268
14:54:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his own budget papers and particularly Budget Paper No. 1, 10-6, the table relating to the underlying cash balance. I note that since 1970 on only three occasions has the government delivered a surplus of two per cent or more: 1970, 1971, some time ago obviously, and two per cent in 2000. Does the Treasurer seriously believe that Australians will believe him when he says that to pay off the Rudd government debt this government will deliver eight years straight of two per cent surpluses?
4268
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—The very first point that needs to be made is that I do not accept necessarily the premise of the question. I do not accept the assertions about the levels of surplus whatsoever. I do not accept them at all. What I do know—and this is something the previous government did not do—is that we have published more information on our medium-term fiscal strategy than any government prior to now. We have done that for a very serious purpose. We are in the middle of a once-in-75-years event, which has had a dramatic impact on this country.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance: I would ask the Treasurer to answer a simple question about his Prime Minister’s own numbers.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer will respond to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I am responding to the question, Mr Speaker, because what has occurred in this budget year is that taxation collections have dramatically fallen, by $210 billion over the forward estimates. There has been a dramatic collapse in taxation revenues, and the responsible course of action for a government in those circumstances is to borrow to support the economy—to support jobs and to support small business. That is precisely what we are doing. The responsible course of action in the circumstances is to chart a course back to surplus, to bring the budget back to surplus as soon as we possibly can—in 2015-16—and to pay down those borrowings. That is the course that we have set out in the budget papers.
In addition to that, we have put in place some tight fiscal rules. We have said—we said this in UEFO; we said it in February of this year but it was not the subject of any questioning in this House at that time—that there would be a two per cent, real, cap on spending. We said that because we have been prepared to take the courageous and decisive steps to support employment in our economy, to support business, and we have had the support of the business community in doing that. They recognise how important it is to borrow to build infrastructure—the jobs for today and the jobs for tomorrow. They do understand the importance of investing in our educational facilities and the need to borrow to do that to bring a lasting benefit to our nation and our children. They all understand that. The only people in the country who do not understand it are those opposite. We do have the support of the business community and we have the support of most responsible economists because they all understand that when revenues collapse governments borrow to support their economy. That is precisely what we are doing.
The levels of net debt here are low by world standards—very, very low by world standards. We can afford to support our people and we are doing that and we are proud of it. But we also understand our responsibility to pay down those borrowings. We understand that totally, which is why the budget papers contain so much information on our medium-term fiscal strategy. Our strategy is very simple—to bring the budget back to surplus in 2015-16 and reduce the levels of net debt to 3.7 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. That is a reasonable thing to do. It is a responsible course of action and the only irresponsible course of action is the one being taken by those opposite in this House today.
Roads
4269
4269
14:59:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
Mr TREVOR
—My question is directed to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister outline how the government has expanded its Black Spot Program as part of the economic stimulus plan? How has this increased funding being received by local members and the community?
4269
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Flynn for his question. Indeed, in the Flynn electorate alone, 13 projects worth some $2.3 million have been approved under the Black Spot Program as part of our stimulus plan. There is $100,000 to fix a black spot in Tannum Sands on Hampton Drive near St Francis Catholic school, $1 million to fix a black spot on the Capricorn Highway in the small town of Comet, $60,000 to fix a black spot at the intersection of Falcon Street and Duck Street near the day care centre in Longreach, and 10 other projects in the electorate of Flynn, every one of them leading to support for local jobs, every one of them stimulating the local economy and every one of them leading to an improvement in road safety for all the residents of Flynn and those who travel through the electorate of Flynn. This is just one component of the stimulus package, which is delivering 412 projects for Flynn, worth some $65.7 million.
The Black Spot Program was increased by $150 million as part of the economic stimulus plan, meaning that over the next couple of years we are spending a quarter of a billion dollars on black spots, part of the 70 per cent of the economic stimulus plan that we are putting into infrastructure. This additional funding is delivering an additional 607 black spot projects around the country.
I am asked also how this has been received by local members and by the community. You can always rely upon the National Party—always good for some material. The member for Gippsland, when he was in Canberra on 26 February, said this:
What I’m saying is the government has gone for a very low quality spending spree. We have seen a very low quality spend of taxpayers’ money.
In accordance with that principle, he voted against the expansion of the Black Spot Program; he voted against the Building the Education Revolution program; he voted against the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program; he voted against all the measures in our stimulus package.
So I was a bit surprised to look at yesterday’s copy of the Latrobe Valley Express, where there is a lovely photo of Mr Chester at an intersection upgrade that he voted against declaring how terrific it is—in fact, speaking on behalf of the federal government. So I went to the Nationals website. A press release by Mr Chester was headed ‘Dangerous roads to be upgraded’. There are at least two press releases. He has gone through each of the programs, outlining how terrific it is that the federal government is doing these projects and supporting the projects that he voted against. His press release also says:
… he would continue to work with State and Federal Government Ministers to secure more funding to improve the safety of local roads.
I will give you the hint, brother: just vote for it! When these packages come before the parliament, just vote for them. Just sit on this side of the chamber and vote with the government. That would be a good start.
Of course, the opportunism does not stop there when it comes to the National Party. Indeed, it is just beginning. The member for Mallee put out a press release also, and he said this about black spot funding:
This sort of essential infrastructure upgrade spending must be sustained in regional Australia despite economic recession.
Correct.
Black spot funding goes to the heart of road safety.
Correct.
There’s plenty more that needs to be spent, so I’m hopeful this Black Spot funding does not become a casualty of the May Budget.
Listen to this, folks:
Expenditure on economic infrastructure is the best way to generate sustainable jobs into the future.
Then he goes through the 20 projects in Mallee that he voted against.
But there is more—although I must say I am not sure about this. I want to give the member for Maranoa the benefit of the doubt because, when I looked at the press release welcoming our funding that he voted against, I looked at the date: Wednesday, 1 April 2009. Given he voted against it, it might just be an April Fools joke. But there he is, praising the green light for Kingaroy road funding, praising the right move for Dalby road funding. I table that release; I table the releases from Mr Chester; I table the Latrobe Valley Express; I table the media release from the member for Mallee. It is quite clear, when you look at why they say one thing in Canberra and something else in the electorate, that they know that what they do here is not fair dinkum. They know that our economic stability package is not only good for their electorates; it is good for the nation.
Budget
4270
4270
15:06:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his own budget paper at 3-8, which says that the underlying cash balance for the budget—
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney will wait till those on my right come to order.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—His own budget papers state that the underlying cash balance will not reach two per cent by 2020. If that is the case, how is he going to meet his own Prime Minister’s projection that the debt of the nation will be paid off just two years later?
4271
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—The first thing is that the member for North Sydney is well known as ‘Sloppy Joe’, and it is pretty rare—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I accept that it was a very juvenile, undergraduate term, but I would think that in the interests of trying to keep some sort of order in the House you might like to ask the member to withdraw that comment.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am in the difficult position of assessing whether the member for North Sydney would find this offensive, but given that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he might I ask the Treasurer to withdraw the remark.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I withdraw, Mr Speaker. If the member for North Sydney bothered to go to the budget papers and look closely at chart 2 on 3-8, he would see that the premise of his question is wrong.
Budget
4271
4271
15:08:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. How is the government’s commitment to build 20,000 new social housing dwellings supporting jobs?
4271
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women
1
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I thank the member for Kingston for her question. She, of course, well knows that there are 132 projects underway in her electorate. She is very supportive of those projects, because they bring local jobs. As well as building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow, they are providing the jobs we need today in electorates like hers, particularly in suburbs like Hallett Cove, Seaford and Woodcroft. Indeed, in the area of housing, there are 20 new homes being built in her electorate at a cost of $6.1 million in the first stage of the social housing stimulus package. If the Liberals had their way, not a single one of those 132 projects would be going ahead—not the education, not the social housing, not the large infrastructure and not the small grants there either. It is clear that, while we are building the economy up, the Liberals are talking it down—constant negativity on the issue of jobs for the future.
Just three weeks ago, I visited Hackham with the member for Kingston and saw the work about to commence on 16 homes in her electorate. While I was there, I spoke to Bradley Jansen, the Managing Director of Qattro, the company that are building these homes. Qattro currently have 14 employees but, of course, as is the way with building companies, they have about 40 to 50 full-time-equivalent contractors on their books at any one time. Prior to the announcement of the stimulus package, Qattro were considering laying people off. Instead, when they heard about the stimulus package in social housing, they attended an information forum about it. They saw the opportunities for their business and, instead of laying people off, they are now putting people on. Indeed, they decided against redundancies that they had planned. As well as the project that we are talking specifically about, Mr Jansen wrote to us and said:
The social housing stimulus package gave us confidence to plan positively for the future. This confidence, coupled to responsible management, has helped us view this economic cycle as one of opportunity as opposed to one of doom and gloom. Thanks again to your team and the Federal Government for supporting our business, our staff and supplier subcontractor base.
It is well worth remembering that, as well as this particular project of 16 homes, the investment that is provided through the stimulus package has unlocked equity that Qattro have. It has meant that they have been able to go right through their building supply chain. Projects that they had stalled because of the very tight finance environment will proceed because they have been able to do this deal with the South Australian Housing Trust to build these 16 homes. Qattro say:
This has allowed us to plan for the re-utilisation of the equity and profits on other projects on our books that are currently stalled due to tightened institutional funding.
It is also worth saying that, as well as putting on a new trainee just yesterday and putting on a new contract manager in the next few weeks, Qattro attended a local jobs summit last week that was organised by the member for Kingston. She is a very active member and, indeed, on the day that we were in her electorate she spotted a fellow across the road from the Hackham Business Association—a very nice man; Lloyd I think his name was—and said: ‘Lloyd! Lloyd! Come over and meet these people.’ She introduced them to Qattro, and Lloyd said, ‘Yeah, we’ve got a brickie up the road and we’ve got an electrician down here.’ Qattro have attended the local jobs summit in Kingston and have been able to make connections with local tradespeople and local suppliers there. So the flow-on effects of jobs in that area are supported by this investment in social housing.
The Daily Telegraph has been reporting over the last two days on homelessness in Western Sydney. As well as these fantastic job benefits, it is also worth remembering that we are building 20,000 new units of social housing and fixing up more than 10,000 homes that would have been lost as accommodation because of their poor state. Through these 30,000 extra properties and another 50,000 properties through our National Rental Affordability Scheme, we are putting roofs over the heads of families that need to house their children and that need help at a time when they are particularly vulnerable. I would love to hear from the opposition what their plan is to support these families that need a roof over the heads of their children and I would love to hear from them what their plans are to support jobs in construction. If they have a plan, they did not enunciate it in the budget reply speech and they did not enunciate it down there at the National Press Club, when they could have. There was not a word on homelessness, not a word on housing these people and not a word on construction jobs.
Budget
4272
4272
15:14:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is again to the Treasurer. I refer him to the page he just referred me to, where it says, ‘The budget is currently projected to return to surplus in 2015-16.’ Treasurer, in order to meet your own Prime Minister’s statement that net debt will be paid off by 2022, what will be the surpluses required each year, every year to pay off that debt?
4272
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—He is not known for great attention to detail. We have seen that time and time again. There is a very, very simple answer to this: you do not need eight years, Joe—you do not need eight years straight of two per cent surpluses.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their titles.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I look forward to seeing your accurate figuring.
Climate Change
4272
4272
15:15:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
Ms NEAL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline for the House the importance of giving business the certainty it needs to play its part in reducing carbon pollution?
4272
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—It is one hour and 16 minutes into question time and there has not been a single question from those opposite on action on climate change—not a single question on the topic which dominated the joint party room this morning amid such a celebration of party unity, or cross-party unity, as I have heard it described. What the Australian nation saw today was the Leader of the Opposition rolled in his own joint party room. What we saw today was, once again—as on Work Choices, so today on climate change—the Leader of the Opposition rolled by the ideological hard right-wing of his own party and the National Party. The Leader of the Opposition came to the leadership of the Liberal Party rolling his predecessor—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—that of relevance. The question related to certainty on climate change.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The relevance to certainty on climate change goes to what happens in the Senate through the votes of the National Party and the Liberal Party. That is why this question is of direct relevance to business certainty, certainty on the actions to be taken at Copenhagen, actions which would be necessary to provide Australia with hope on acting on climate change, to help save the Barrier Reef, to help save Kakadu, to take necessary action for the future—
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—and those opposite scoff at that possibility. The Leader of the Opposition undertook a political campaign within the Liberal Party to roll his predecessor, with one of his causes being he would be strong on climate change. He accused his predecessor of being weak on climate change. That was the political attack. What happened today was that the Leader of the Opposition was rolled in the Liberal Party party room, rolled in the joint party room, by the climate change sceptics—the self-proclaimed climate change champion rolled by the climate change sceptics. That is what happened on the part of those opposite.
Let us go to what currently constitutes the position of those opposite, given how intimidated the current leader of the Liberal Party is by the person who seeks to replace him as the leader of the Liberal Party—that is, the member for Higgins. Remember in the joint party room the member for Higgins—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—that of relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Remember the member for Higgins, who now comes to consciousness, glad that he is mentioned in the chamber, so he can participate fully in the debate. He did so in the joint party room some time ago when he said there are two things—
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is relevance. On any measure the Prime Minister was not in the coalition party room, so he would not know to be able to say this at all.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question went to the importance of business acting to reduce carbon pollution. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The dynamics of the Liberal Party party room and the joint party room is of direct relevance to what happens in the Senate. The reason we know what happens there is that you leak it all out. That is why we all know—and we know within an hour of it occurring. As my colleague said, there are in fact many emissions from those opposite when it comes to the way in which they leak from their own party room.
The next leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Higgins, said in the party room recently that the two things they have got to do are stand against action on climate change and support Work Choices. What have we seen in the most recent few months? Precisely that course of action being supported here in the chamber. The leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition has been fundamentally undermined by his inability to stand up to the climate change sceptics in his own party. The reason those opposite are silent during this debate is they know it to be true. It is exactly what has transpired.
Let us go to the current position of those opposite, which is that action should be deferred on climate change pending—wait for it—another review. Let us quickly go to the evolving position of the Liberal Party on this question. What did they say back in December 2007? The then spokesman said, ‘We will set both medium- and long-term targets after the Garnaut review.’ The Garnaut review was on 30 September 2008. Then they went on to say, ‘We won’t set any figures until we see the government’s modelling.’ Treasury modelling was released on 30 October 2008. Then they said, ‘We will look at what the government comes up with in its white paper and see what the Treasury modelling is when it comes out.’ Well, that was released on 15 December 2008. Then they said that they would take a position after the Pearce report was delivered—that is their own internal inquiry. The Pearce report apparently delivered its findings on 30 April 2009. Then we had the member for Goldstein say, ‘Well, we’ll finally sort out our alternative once the Senate inquiry has been concluded.’ The Senate inquiry, they have ensured, has been delayed until 15 June 2009. Then they say it is going to happen once we have a Productivity Commission inquiry. There is no fixed date. What you have here is a rolling series of excuses to underpin the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not had the courage to take on the climate change sceptics in his own party. It is an absolute failure of leadership on his part and he knows it.
What Australia is looking for at present on climate change and what the business community is looking for on climate change is certainty. They have called publicly for certainty. When you look at the statements by the Australian Industry Group and by the Business Council of Australia, they want certainty for the future, and the Leader of the Opposition in response to this call for business certainty has simply gone missing. When those in the broader Australian community want action at Copenhagen to provide Australia with some hope of appropriately helping to protect the Barrier Reef and Kakadu in the long term, the Leader of the Opposition has gone missing. All Australians wanted this Leader of the Opposition to stand up and to defy the climate change sceptics in his own party, but instead of acting in the national interest he is acting in the narrow interest of the Liberal Party all the way through this.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I heard an interjection from those opposite saying that this represents a misrepresentation on our part. I have gone through seven reasons they have given in the last 12 months to prevent them from taking a final position on climate change and carbon pollution reduction, and those opposite say that we are misrepresenting the facts. Those opposite had an opportunity in their party room today—most particularly the Leader of the Opposition—to show some leadership, to take a position, to actually stand up for the national interest rather than to act purely in terms of the Leader of the Opposition’s personal interest.
The moral authority of the Leader of the Opposition on climate change, and more broadly, was shredded once and for all in the joint party room today. The member for Higgins, representing the next leadership of the Liberal Party, went in there a couple of months ago and said, ‘The Liberal Party cannot support this action on climate change,’ and what we saw today was the current Leader of the Opposition buckle to that pressure. Australia demands action in the national interest and what we have seen instead is partisan action on the part of those opposite, an absolute failure of leadership and an undermining of the national interest.
Budget
4275
4275
15:24:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer, again. I refer to his own budget papers, which say:
… the Budget is currently projected to return to surplus in 2015-16 …
Treasurer, I ask you again, what would the surpluses need to be between that year and when the Prime Minister has pledged to pay off $203 billion of net debt, by 2022?
4275
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question; ‘Sloppy Joe’ has changed tactics.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will withdraw the remark.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I withdraw, Mr Speaker. He asserted in his earlier question that it would require surpluses in excess of two per cent of GDP. That is what he said. He has now suddenly crab-walked away from that assertion. The budget indicates that net—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Answer the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—You have walked away from your assertion. You pretended that it would require surpluses of two per cent of GDP and now you have walked away from it because it is simply not credible. You have completely walked away from it. Those opposite are just acutely embarrassed by the fact that they have been exposed to the Australian people as not having an alternative fiscal policy—not a one—and that is what this questioning is all about.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This cannot possibly be relevant. This is the worst contribution by a Treasurer in the country’s history. He is a shocker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Dickson will resume his seat.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the member for North Sydney to order. The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The Treasurer will respond to the question.
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Net debt as a percentage of GDP is 3.7 per cent in 19-20.
Opposition members interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—In 2019-20. And there we go again. The juvenile games as a substitute for the fact that there is not one element of fiscal policy in anything they have said.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will ignore the interjections and the interjections will cease.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—And why are they so upset—3.7 per cent of GDP. Let us just have a look around the world at what the international comparisons are.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer cannot hide his own budget numbers. He does not even reach two per cent—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat, and he has the same warning that the member for Dickson received.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Earlier, he was proposing that the figures were wrong; now he is saying they are right. Which one is it, Joe? Very, very sloppy.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will refer to members by their titles and refer his remarks through the chair.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Those opposite are absolutely embarrassed by the fact that the budget puts in place structural saves over the long term to bring the budget back to surplus and to pay down debt. They are embarrassed by the fact that they have no structural savings whatsoever. What we saw in the House for their budget reply was this fudge of the tobacco tax increase, which was somehow supposed to make up for the fact that they are going to oppose our means test of the private health insurance rebate. A fundamental save to bring the budget back to surplus and to pay down debt, and who is opposing it? All of those opposite. So they are not serious about a serious medium-term fiscal policy. We have one and they do not and it is there for everybody to see.
Emissions Trading Scheme
4276
4276
15:28:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
Mr DREYFUS
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister outline the importance of investment certainty in the transition to a low carbon pollution future and what has been the response to the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
4276
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr GARRETT
—I thank the member for Isaacs for the question. The fact is that certainty is absolutely critical to the business community and to the Australian community in determining what appropriate measures and actions should be taken to respond to the dangerous threat of climate change. The fact is that action on delivering the necessary investment for clean technologies and for energy efficiencies is absolutely central to our efforts to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. And for that investment to take place, business needs certainty. The Prime Minister has just referred to that. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and others have made clear on many occasions how important, in terms of economic planning, certainty really is.
The government recognise this because we have brought forward a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for this parliament to consider, and we recognise it because we are bringing the largest ever rollout of a clean energy initiative seen in this country. I notice today a statement by the Australian renewable energy company Pacific Hydro, who, in responding to a major financing deal that they have announced today in relation to Chile, said:
Australia will benefit from similar significant investment and job creation opportunities once the climate change and energy policies proposed by the Rudd Government are put in place.
Pacific Hydro went on to say:
We call on the Australian Parliament to ensure passage of both the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and the 20% Renewable Energy Target (RET) this year so we can set about the task of transforming our stationary energy sector into one that is substantially less carbon intensive and better able to compete on the world stage.
That was the message today from one of Australia’s leading renewable energy companies.
But what was the message that we got from the opposition? What we have seen today is a comprehensive failure of the position that the Leader of the Opposition has held ever since he came into political life. What is more, it is a position that shows that economic policy in the opposition has been abrogated to the National Party. The opposition’s position seems to be: ‘We aren’t prepared to do anything, but we’ll call for another report.’ Let us just see how long this has been going on. In 1997 the then environment minister, Robert Hill, established an inquiry into emissions trading. In 1999 the Australian Greenhouse Office released four discussion papers on emissions trading. In 2002 the previous Prime Minister announced Australia would not ratify the Kyoto protocol. In 2003 the then Treasurer and the environment minister took a submission to cabinet to establish an emissions trading scheme, only to see it vetoed. That was six years ago.
Six years ago, the opposition, when they were in government, were looking at an emissions trading scheme. In fact, as the opposition leader said on Lateline on 9 July:
The Coalition’s policy, the Howard Government’s policy last year was that we would establish an emissions trading system not later than 2012.
And he went on to say—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—This will interest the member for Flinders:
It was not conditional on international action, it was obviously done in the context of international action.
What has happened today is this. On one side of the opposition benches we have the National Party, who are sceptical about climate change and want to deny its impact and to delay it. On the other side we have the Leader of the Opposition, who previously has held that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed. But, when the press releases came out today, I could not help noticing that the press release by the coalition announced that the coalition wants to be in touch with the rest of the world on this issue. I thought to myself: why would that trouble the opposition when, in government, they were perfectly happy not to be in touch with the rest of the world on this particular issue?
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—You’re out of touch!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—I am glad that the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals, has made a timely intervention because it gives me the opportunity to respond to his comments about an emissions trading scheme in which, if I read them correctly in the Age, he said something to the effect that it is a ‘job-destroying rabid dog’ scheme. So imagine the instructions that the Leader of the Opposition gives to the Productivity Commission: ‘I want you to consider the matter of an emissions trading scheme. Ignore the comments from my senior colleague that it is a job-destroying rabid dog scheme when it comes to your views.’
Seriously, that is where members of the opposition are at on this issue. And then we saw the release from the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Barnaby Joyce. Senator Joyce has seen fit to put his views on the record and state with absolute crystal clarity what the Nationals’ position on an ETS is. It has got nothing to do with deferring. It has got nothing to do with referring matters to the Productivity Commission. It has got nothing to do with waiting for any more time to allow other countries to do what the opposition cannot get its act together to think about: what it wants to do. It is all to do with the fact that the National Party do not want one at all. Why do we know that? Because Senator Joyce says that ‘delay is a vote against the ETS’ and then goes on to say that the goal of the Nationals is:
… to stop the scheme and utilise whatever mechanisms it possibly can to do that …
So what we have today is a position that has come out of the party room of the opposition, where economic and climate change policy is being determined by climate change deniers, agrarian socialists and hokey contrarians. Frankly, it is not good enough, and the opposition leader should show some leadership on this issue.
Budget
4277
4277
15:35:00
Broadbent, Russell, MP
MT4
McMillan
LP
0
Mr BROADBENT
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister in her capacity as the Minister for Education and it is particularly relevant to regional members like me and to my seat of McMillan. What advice has the minister received from her department as to how many young Australians currently in their gap year will be penalised by the government’s changes to the eligibility criteria for the independent youth allowance?
4278
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question and I can tell him very clearly what advice I have received. I have received advice that over 100,000 students will be better off—that is, 68,000 students will receive income support for the first time and 35,000 students will receive higher payments. What the changes to the parental income test mean is that parents can earn more before their children start to lose income support—and I think that, as a regional member, the regional member will be very interested in these statistics. The way the scheme currently works is that, for a student to receive the maximum away-from-home payment of $371.40 a fortnight, the income of their family has to be $32,800 or less. Under the new scheme, that threshold will increase to $42,559. And then we have changed the taper rate. The current taper rate is 25 per cent. The taper now will be 20 per cent.
For the regional member—and I know he will be concerned about this because he will know about incomes in his electorate—I point out that, under the Rudd government scheme, that means a family with university-age kids of 17 years and 21 years living away from home can receive support up to a family income of $139,388. That is compared with a family income of $75,324 now. He would know, as a regional member, that the average annual household wage and salary index study shows us that in regional and rural areas we are talking on average about household incomes of $54,500—that is, on average the constituents in his electorate fit into this scheme and will get student income support. That is before we moved to the question of the scholarships that we are having under our scheme.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question specifically asked for a figure, the number of students currently in their gap year who will in fact be disqualified—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The deputy leader will resume her seat.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—from attending university as a result of—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The deputy leader will resume her seat. I refer members to page 552 of House of Representatives Practice, which indicates that, no matter how specific members think that the question is, the Deputy Prime Minister is being relevant in some way or in part to the question and that is being held to be relevant under the standing orders.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Thank you, Mr Speaker, as this is a serious topic and I am treating the answer seriously. The Rudd government is also introducing student start-up scholarships. Some 146,000 students will get these. That is a major increase from the 12,900 scholarships available now. And we are introducing 14,200 new relocation scholarships. That is also a major increase on the number of relocation scholarships available now.
The member also asked me about the characterisation of who is ‘independent’ for student income support. This goes to the question of the gap year, which was just raised with me. I can say to the member this on the question of the gap year that he has raised and on the independence test for student income support: the Bradley review found that, in relation to that test, income support was poorly targeted. The Bradley review found that 36 per cent of independent students living at home were from families with incomes over $100,000, 10 per cent in that situation were from families earning more than $150,000 and 10 per cent came from families earning over $200,000. When I received that information from the Bradley review, I was concerned about poor targeting. But I was not the only one. Let me quote something to the member which I think he will find very relevant. Let me quote the following advice I got along the way:
If the government is serious about reform, then come Budget time we should see some consideration given to reforms suggested by Bradley in student income support—to ensure that sufficient support is going to those who need it.
I accepted that advice. It came from the shadow minister for education.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have sought your call to ask whether or not the minister would table the advice, which I found very valuable.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Was the Deputy Prime Minister quoting a document?
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Yes, I was.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Was the document confidential?
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—It is confidential.
Health
4279
4279
15:42:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
Mr GEORGANAS
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the government’s plans to improve the health system for all Australians and on any other policy proposals?
4279
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. It is nice to get a question on health. It has been a number of days since the budget and we have not had any serious questions from the opposition on health, we have not had one on infrastructure and we have not had one on family and community services. In fact, even as I stand here today there does not appear to be a health spokesperson or an education spokesperson even here in the chamber. We are determined to invest in health. It is why in our budget we are making historic investments in hospitals, in primary care and in infrastructure in a whole range of different areas. The fact that every Australian can receive free treatment in a public hospital, no matter where they live and no matter what their income level is, is something that Labor is absolutely committed to. It is why the government has invested more than 50 per cent more into our public hospitals than the previous government did in its last agreement.
It seems clear to me that the opposition are really struggling to come up with any alternative health policy. I can imagine after the budget the Leader of the Opposition sitting down, perhaps with the member for Dickson and perhaps sharing a Bacardi Breezer or something, and having a chat over what sort of a response they might make. I would not be surprised if the member for Dickson does not have any suggestions and I imagine that the Leader of the Opposition might decide to call an elder statesman of the Liberal Party, so put a call in to say, ‘What sorts of ideas do you have for our health policy?’ I am pretty sure that call was made because shortly after we saw some comments coming out that seemed to be the formulation of health policy. We heard the member for Dickson exclaiming, ‘We need to get private patients out of public hospitals.’ Then we heard the Leader of the Opposition speaking fondly of his utopian vision that every Australian would have private health insurance. It seems to me that the view was becoming clearer and clearer about what the Liberal Party sees as a sensible health policy: take money out of public hospitals and force everybody into private health insurance. I am sure it will not be long before they are attacking Medicare.
So you might, on this side of the House, be asking: ‘Who was it? Who was it that the Leader of the Opposition called in his hour of need?’ I want to give the House a bit of a clue. It is an elder statesman in the Liberal Party. It is a person who has been in the parliament for a long time. He is a man of ideas—I know that does limit the people that it might be. He is a man of vision, which does rule out the member for Higgins, in case anybody thought it was him.
The Leader of the Opposition decided to call somebody with real policy gravitas and I would like to give you a quote, before I tell you who this person was. Listen to this interview conducted with the then Liberal shadow minister for health. The interviewer says simply, ‘So the proposal is the end of Medicare and for everyone to pay for private health insurance?’ The shadow minister says: ‘Yes, no Medicare. Yes, everybody to be privately insured.’ And who do you think the architect was—the true ideological grandfather?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—It was me.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—Of course, that is right. Malcolm would turn to the member for O’Connor for advice on health policy—taking us not just a decade back but two decades back into Liberal Party thinking on health policy. No wonder there have been no questions from the opposition on health after the budget.
We are determined to invest in public hospitals. We are determined to support those who have private health insurance. We are determined to get the right balance, and we expect the Leader of the Opposition to be prepared to do the same. He should recant on his view that every single Australian must have private health insurance and he should start backing our investments in public hospitals so that every Australian can get their care in a public hospital free of charge if that is what they choose.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
4280
Personal Explanations
4280
15:46:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—Grievously so, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—During question time, the PM inferred that I had offered—by my enforced silence at that moment—that I had no criticism of his education cash splash in my electorate. I refer the House to yesterday’s Proof Hansard, in which I said:
Then there are school buildings. There is the government’s—
that is, the Howard government’s—
$1.2 billion Investing in Our Schools Program, which was funded with cash and gave school principals and local parents groups the opportunity to spend up to $150,000 on buildings or equipment.
I went on to say:
Very few schools in my electorate applied for the full amount of $150,000, although some could have wisely spent more. But this budget forces them to take another $200,000. It is like feeding a pate goose: you have it forced down your throat whether you need it or not … But is it going to improve the education of the children—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member has explained where he has been misrepresented—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—No, sir. The other comment I made related to spending that money on the training of teachers and it is no good having schools built. In other words, I have made a public comment on this and I stand by it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member has explained where he has been misrepresented and I thank him for doing it by the processes—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I thought that there might be, but I just want to put on record—and the member should sit down and just settle down a little bit—that he has taken the opportunities that are available to him when aggrieved with things that are said, or rhetorical questions are put to him. He has shown the way to deal with it. I thank him for that.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—I wish now to make a further personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the member for O’Connor claim to have been further misrepresented?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—I do.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—The Minister for Health and Ageing suggested that a program that cancelled waiting lists and saved the people a third of the cost of Medicare was some sort of dumb exercise. It was very smart. It was rejected by the—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. Having been given an A for his first effort, that was nearly a fail, but he has made his point.
DOCUMENTS
4281
Documents
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:49:00
—A document is tabled in accordance—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Not the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House, sorry.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Twelve years was long enough, Mr Speaker; I do not intend going back there.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—They do change them very quickly, you know. It is easy to get confused, they change them so frequently.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am not suggesting he is putting in a job application. The Leader of the House has the call.
Opposition members interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—You will not be at all. A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.
MR TONY LEVY
4281
Miscellaneous
4281
15:50:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to place on record my thanks. This week sees a changeover of the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, with Tony Levy leaving the position after many years of honourable service both to this government and this House and to the previous parliament. We actually extended Tony Levy’s stay as much as we could in this position. He is very professional. Members on both sides of the House would acknowledge that.
I welcome the appointment of Henry Thomson, who has worked in this area servicing the functioning of the parliament for a period of time and is an excellent appointment to the position of Parliamentary Liaison Officer. I think he has big shoes to fill if he is going to be as good as Tony Levy was in this position. I place on record my welcome, as the Leader of the House, to Henry, but particularly my sincere thanks to Tony Levy.
4281
15:51:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to add the thanks of the opposition to Tony Levy for the work that he has done in supporting the parliament during his time in this place. All members of the House certainly appreciate the great work of the staff in supporting the very difficult business that we do here.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I would usually associate myself with the remarks but, as Tony has a couple of days left, I do not want to encourage him in leading us astray. So I will hold my remarks until Thursday.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
4282
Ministerial Statements
International Education
4282
4282
15:52:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—by leave—International education has made a significant contribution to Australia. It has grown to now be our third largest source of overseas earnings, generating $15.5 billion in 2008 and supporting more than 125,000 jobs. In 2008, nearly half a million students came to Australia. It is the lead sector in terms of export earnings in Victoria and the second largest in New South Wales.
But international students do much more than contribute to our economy and create jobs. They build on Australia’s long multicultural history that has created a friendly, tolerant and secular country.
International students enrich our society. They help to provide a diverse and rich education experience for Australians. This diversity enables our education institutions to offer a much wider range of courses and campus facilities. People coming to Australia to study and Australians studying abroad promote cross-cultural experiences that benefit us both now and in the future, building understanding that underpins tolerance and stability here and abroad.
The relationships formed by students support long-lasting diplomatic, research and business links. From the early days of the Colombo Plan through to the current day Endeavour scholarships, we have provided scholarship opportunities to students from across the Asia-Pacific. Many have gone on to be leaders in their own countries and the contacts and relationships they forged as young students have proved of invaluable benefit to us.
Australian government support for international education
The Australian government has provided significant support to facilitate the development and growth of the highly regarded international education sector we now have. We have done this through an integrated approach to policy, regulation, international engagement and promotion, both here in Australia and overseas, using our international network of counsellors.
In March 2009, I announced the Study in Australia 2010 strategy, a $3.5 million drive to support Australia’s international education and training sector during the global recession. It is underpinned by four key themes: showcasing Australian education and training excellence; positioning Australia in the global market; enhancing the student experience; and supporting the Australian international education sector.
The Australian government’s 2009-10 budget continues our drive for a world-class education system, planting the seeds for Australia’s future growth and positioning Australia as an education leader, with modern facilities and high-quality teaching.
Australia has a long record of providing scholarships. Our Endeavour scholarships are internationally competitive, merit-based scholarships providing opportunities for citizens of the Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Europe and the Americas to undertake study, research and professional development in Australia. Importantly, awards are also available for Australians to do the same abroad.
The Endeavour scholarships have recently been enhanced by the Prime Minister’s Australia Asia Endeavour Awards, a $14.9 million initiative over four years that will further enhance the internationalisation of Australian education. These new awards will develop internationally-aware, skilled future leaders in Australia, build human capital within Australian businesses and contribute to productivity gains and innovations, establish enduring education and professional linkages and develop a network of people across Asia which has a strong affinity to Australia.
Moving forward—focusing on two key areas
Today I want to focus on two aspects of international education which I believe will be fundamentally important to the future of Australian international education: quality and the student experience.
To remain competitive we need to:
-
continue to enhance our quality education and training system and ensure that Australia’s reputation for world-class education is maintained and strengthened; and
-
further improve student experiences, particularly students’ living experiences and safety.
Quality—a cornerstone
Australia needs a highly regarded, high-quality and internationally relevant education and training system, one which provides students, both Australian and international, with the skills and knowledge they need to participate fully in our globally engaged economy and society.
The Bradley review found that the future of Australia’s higher education system rests on continuing to ensure its quality and reputation. In responding to the Bradley review the Australian government has committed to the creation of Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which will oversee the new framework for quality assurance and regulation. It will accredit providers, carry out audits of standards and performance and streamline current regulatory arrangements and provide for national consistency. A national approach to regulation and quality assurance will mean Australia’s knowledge and skills needs can be met in a more efficient and transparent way, enabling higher education providers to focus on what they do best—providing quality higher education.
Australia offers students a high-quality education and a choice of education providers. Australia cannot afford poor-quality provision of services damaging the international reputation of our education and training. The government has developed a close working relationship with the states and territories on these issues. This strong relationship has resulted in initiatives like the recent program of targeted swift audits by the Victorian government. We will work with other states to implement similar initiatives.
As part of a strengthened compliance regime, we are increasing our scrutiny of education providers. Our focus is to assist them to better understand their legislative obligations, through workshops and other educative material, at the same time ensuring that providers are fully aware that the Australian government will not hesitate to use the full extent of its legislative powers to sanction those that breach the law.
To further enhance quality and protect students, the Australian government will also review the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 in 2010-11 in consultation with state and territory governments, the sector and students. The review will make sure that the framework for regulation of overseas education meets world’s best standards before it becomes the responsibility of TEQSA.
I am also working with my colleague Senator the Hon. Chris Evans, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, on student integrity measures to support genuine students to come to Australia to realise the benefits of an Australian education.
Student experience—a cornerstone
I am aware of and am concerned about the reports in the media of international students’ safety being compromised and of their having unsatisfactory experiences while in Australia. I was personally particularly disturbed by recent violent incidents which occurred in my own electorate.
Most international students report that they do feel satisfied with their social experience while in Australia. However, reports of any violence or discrimination directed at international students can do much damage to our international reputation as a welcoming country.
The Australian government is working with state and territory governments, through its Joint Committee on International Education, to enhance the student experience. This group is:
-
building on the learnings from the Victorian and New South Wales task forces to improve the experience of international students nationally;
-
identifying and addressing gaps in support services and information for international students, including addressing the question of the performance of education agents; and
-
addressing key concerns around social inclusion, safety and accommodation, including by promoting greater diversity and raising Australians’ understanding of the benefits of international education.
Today I am announcing that the government will invite international student representatives to participate in a round table to discuss issues affecting their study experience, such as accommodation, welfare and safety. I will also be asking the round table to consider how the government can best hear and respond to their views on these and other issues of vital concern to international students, on a continuing basis. I will shortly call for expressions of interest from those wanting to participate in the round table. Participants will be selected on the basis of their ability to represent the views of international students. The round table will include participants from across all international education and training sectors, and all states and territories. With over 430,000 international students visiting Australia annually, it is important to me that their views and concerns are heard and addressed by government.
The outcome of this round table, along with other international education issues, will inform discussions with state and territory education ministers at the inaugural meeting of the Ministerial Council on Tertiary Education later this year, and we will agree on what more needs to be done to promote and protect Australia’s reputation as a safe destination for top-quality study and research.
Conclusion
I am committed to working towards a sustainable international education sector that delivers high-quality, internationally recognised courses which maximise international students’ experiences and outcome. I want international education to continue to positively contribute to Australia’s productivity, participation and society.
In this parliament today—and I am sure, in this regard, I speak for all members of this parliament—I also want to send a message loud and clear that international students are very welcome in this nation and Australia will not tolerate discrimination against or victimisation of any of our international students.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Boothby to speak for 12 minutes.
Leave granted.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Dr Southcott speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 12 minutes.
Question agreed to.
4285
16:04:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—As the shadow minister for education is unavoidably absent, I will be responding on behalf of the opposition. I have a response that has been prepared by the member for Sturt, the shadow minister for education.
As the Minister for Education said, education represents Australia’s third most significant export industry after coal and iron ore. We cannot overstate the importance of this industry to Australia’s economy, Australia’s university system and the quality of Australia’s skilled migration intake. A strong international student community provides immense benefit to Australian students at our universities too. They contribute to an enhanced cultural experience for our local students and, as many of our international students later take up leadership roles in business and government when they return to their home countries, our own community and business leaders have excellent networking opportunities with our regional leaders.
Many international students emerge from our institutions and choose to migrate to Australia, providing us with highly skilled new citizens who contribute greatly to our nation throughout their lives. I myself remember with appreciation the good friends I met amongst international students at Adelaide university when I was studying in the late 1980s, some of whom I have been fortunate to maintain contact with in the years since.
The elephant in the room when discussing the contribution of international students is that the government’s 2008 decision to abolish the right of Australian students to take up full-fee places at Australian universities has left our higher education sector dangerously dependent upon the international student sector for its continued financial viability.
In her recent review of Australian higher education, Professor Denise Bradley paid tribute to the great success of our university sector during the stewardship of the former Howard government in developing a remarkably strong international education sector. Indeed, it was during the Howard years that education rose to become our third largest export earner—and to that end I acknowledge the valuable work of former Ministers Vanstone and Kemp as well as the members for Bradfield and Curtin. As Professor Bradley wrote:
Australia has been a world leader in international education. It has also been extremely successful in developing education as an important export industry and Australia’s universities have been central to the development of this industry.
Professor Bradley also gave a warning that the new government cannot afford to rest on its laurels, particularly in a shifting global environment. Professor Bradley said:
But the Australian Higher Education sector will need to build on this success and broaden the focus of its international education activities if it is to remain globally competitive. A critical issue is whether our approach to promoting and regulating international education needs to change in recognition of the current stage of development of the industry in Australia and the strategies adopted by Australia’s international competitors.
The opposition has previously signalled its disappointment at the low priority placed on higher education by the current government. As I said earlier, last year this government created a funding crisis in our universities by removing their right to allow any intake of full-fee domestic students. This group of students had provided an important funding growth stream for our universities that was providing significant and increasing funds that could then support improved courses.
In this climate of increased demands for funds, the government’s own Bradley review provided a series of recommendations that Minister Gillard released in December. At the time, the budget was not $58 billion in deficit. Our current generation of university students had not yet been consigned to spend their working lives paying back this government’s $315 billion worth of debt. As the government was looking for ways to spend billions and billions of dollars, higher education did not even make it to the starting gate. $3.7 billion was spent on pink batts—not a penny, not a cent, for higher education; $22 billion was spent on cash handouts. Our universities could only look on with longing.
It took the government six months to respond in the budget to the Bradley review, by which time they had already spent all of the Australian people’s money. No wonder there was only $1.5 billion in new spending for teaching, despite Denise Bradley’s call for more than four times as much. Our universities will therefore remain dependent upon the international student market for their continued viability. There are many other reasons why we should cherish our international students. They deserve better than to be considered primarily as a funding source.
For all of these reasons, the opposition welcomes the minister’s announcement today of a roundtable discussion with international student representatives to discuss ways to improve the experience of international students, to identify and address gaps in support services and information for international students and to address key concerns around social inclusion, safety and accommodation. I believe it is particularly important to address some of the safety concerns that a number of international students, or indeed potential international students, may have.
We are all aware of our shared national shame when we see media reports of international students who may have come to some harm while on our shores. The minister mentioned her distress upon learning of recent violent incidents in her own electorate and it is a distress that would be shared by all members when these incidents occur. While Australia is a safe country by many measures, some students from different cultural backgrounds come to Australia and find aspects of our city night life, for example, quite confronting. There are areas in some of our major cities that are near to our educational institutions and student accommodation, which perhaps many members of this House might choose to avoid at night.
It is important that students be given appropriate support while acclimatising and orienting themselves to life in Australia. I would hope that the minister’s roundtable will contribute to the suite of resources available to international students as we work to continue enhancing Australia’s international reputation as a high-priority destination for study and research. I hope that, in addition to the minister’s promise to include representatives from all international education and training sectors and all states and territories, the government will work to ensure that as broad a range of cultural backgrounds are represented in this roundtable as is possible—recognising the different sorts of challenges that are faced by students from different backgrounds. I confirm the opposition’s support for this sensible measure.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
4287
Matters of Public Importance
Budget
4287
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Nationals, the honourable member for Wide Bay, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact of the Government’s reckless spending and debt explosion on Australian 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—
4287
16:13:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—I have been hearing a lot of concern lately in cricketing circles about the future of spin bowling in Australia. Do we really have a quality spinner whom we can send on the Ashes tour? Is spinning a lost art in Australia? I wonder who it might be that spins better than anyone else. Frankly, I was rather surprised when the Australian team was named the other day and the craftiest and trickiest spinning talent was actually left on the bench. He is someone who can spin with the best of them. He can spin to the left, the left and the Left—perhaps the most extraordinary spinner we have ever seen. But he was left behind. That man, of course, is the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. In less than a fortnight since the budget was handed down, the Prime Minister—ably assisted by his spin twin, Treasurer Wayne Swan—has tossed up more leg breaks, googlies, doosras and flippers to the Australian public than even the great Shane Warne.
But it has been spin without substance. Perhaps the most stunning example of the spin was the extraordinarily stubborn refusal of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to use the words ‘$58 billion’ or ‘$300 billion’ together in a sentence to describe the government’s deficit and debt. Of course they were back at it again today, where the Prime Minister could not bring himself to use the word ‘dollars’ after the confusion about whether in fact the maximum debt is $300 billion or whether it is $315 billion.
Now there might not be much guile in a lot of that spin, and it is perhaps not surprising that the journalists were considering the actions of the Treasurer, and, for that matter, the Prime Minister, as just silly games. It was silly games, but it was not silly games by the media or the public. They had a right to be told in the budget speech how much the deficit was going to be and how much the debt was going to build up to in subsequent years.
Is it any wonder that the disease spread to the member for Petrie? She had not heard these numbers used together, so she could rightfully plead ignorance. She did not know what the deficit figure was; she did not know what the debt figure was when she was rostered for her perhaps once-a-month turn to do a doorstop on arrival to Parliament House. I guess she is off the list now, like the member for Dawson and others, who dared not to use the carefully chosen lines for the spin of the day.
For a full 13 days, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer seemed to think that if they did not mouth the words ‘$300 billion debt’ or ‘$58 billion deficit’ then the light bulb would stay off above the head of every Australian. They thought they could go on and bore interviewers, without the mere mention of any real numbers that would actually mean something to the people of Australia. But this $315 billion debt is in fact a lot of money. When the public come to appreciate how much this debt really means to them and to their future, they will know it is an awful lot of money. It is a debt bombshell like our country has never seen. And, when the spin doctors finally realised that this message was in fact starting to grate on people, they could not stop using the word ‘billion’. They were at it all the time, time and time again. Then they accuse the coalition of talking down the economy when we make frequent reference to the fact that this incompetent and incapable government has, in just 18 months, turned around a government with a surplus, a government with money in the bank, to one that is now borrowing from people around the world and heading towards a debt of $315 billion.
With all of the political spin in the world, no-one can make that sort of money sound like nothing. A billion dollars is a lot of money; a billion means a lot. In fact, if you are going to pay back this $315 billion at the rate of $1 a second, it would take more than 10,000 years to recover the debt. Labor has mounted, in just 18 months, a debt that, if it is paid off at the rate of $1 a second, will take 10,000 years to repay. It is real money; it is the money that should be in the hands and the pockets of the men and women of Australia. Mum and dad and their children will have to go without because they will be paying off the spending of this government.
This government might be master spinners, but they are completely incompetent when it comes to economic management. The children of today will not be able to go to the cricket because they will be paying off the spinners’ debt. They will not be able to go to the school camp in the future because they will be paying off their share of this enormous debt. They will not be able to enjoy the things that they should have in life because we will be paying off the debt of this government. It is simply an inevitable fact that there will be less money available to spend on roads and rail infrastructure, on schools and hospitals, on youth allowance, on cataract surgery—there will be less money in the future to spend on all of the important things in our society because one of the biggest items in every federal budget every year will be paying off this government’s debt, paying it off year after year. The debt bombshell will be blowing up in every budget between now and, the government says, some time in 2022—but that assumes record budget surpluses. It is the kind of surplus Labor have never achieved in their history, and yet we are being asked to believe it will come in, year in year out, in the future.
I have a bit of news for the spin twins: the public is brighter than they may think. The public knows a bad deal when it sees it. People were happy to get a $900 cheque to pay off some of their personal credit card bills or to enjoy a day at the poker machines or wherever else they may have chosen to spend it. I pointed out during the MPI in budget week that the interest bill for this $900 cash splash, and everything else that Labor was proposing, amounted to $900 a year. In fact, now that it has been confessed that the debt figure is $315 billion, the interest will be about twice the $900 cheque that these people have got once, except the interest bill is going to have to be paid every year until the debt is finally repaid. So, for one $900 cheque, people get a $1,800 interest bill every year of their lives until this debt has been paid off.
It is all about spin. There was plenty of spin before the budget, but when it came to budget night the ball hardly turned at all. The reality was the government was unable to make the tough decisions that were necessary to rein in its expenditure. All that is left, after all of this spending, is the debt bombshell. The chief spinner has gone off at the drinks break, leaving $315 billion worth of debt—and that is no small number. And, just because the government can think of other countries that have a bigger debt, that does not make this debt acceptable. Have they forgotten that only 18 months ago we had no debt at all? The wonder down under economy did not have a debt, but the government has wound it up so that now we can compare ourselves with the great spenders of the world. The government seems to think that there is some great, intrinsic merit in spending more than others can spend.
But it is not spending that matters; it is what you pay for that counts. The reality is that they have started to wind back a couple of the budget measures. It was not long before the union bosses came on the scene and said: ‘Hey, we won’t have this new share ownership scheme. That’s not for us.’ Now the captain, the chief spinner, did not come out to tell the public they were backing down on this story; it was twelfth man who was sent out to break the news that in fact the government was going to bow immediately to the union mates. It only took a few hours for the union mates to get their message across, and their servants, the people in government, decided to back down on this measure.
The reality is that there are plenty of other people in just as much need. What about the students who are going to lose their Commonwealth accommodation scholarships because Labor has abolished them? What about students in their gap year who are not going to get access to the independent youth allowance that they had expected? And what about those people who will no longer have access to cataract surgery because the government has decided to cut the benefit? This is the kind of approach that this government has taken to expenditure—splashing money around but, when it comes to people in need, it is time to cut and cut.
This government, like all Labor governments, spends a lot of time and spin on all sorts of things that they are going to do, and after a while the public realises that they have not actually done anything. Then we get to the next stage of the spin. The Prime Minister, or in the case of Queensland Anna Bligh, the Premier, goes out in a hard hat. They are seen in a tunnel every day pretending that something is actually being done—that they are actually a government that is delivering something. The spinners are out wearing the hard hats. Usually, in cricket when the spinner is bowling it is the close-in fieldsmen who wear the hard hats. In this case, it is the spinner himself who is wearing the hat.
They run this kind of spin that the government is spending more than the coalition did on this, that or the other. But what is important is not how much you can spend but how much you are actually paying for. Any five-year-old can go out and spend money, and spend more than the five-year-old down the street. What we really need is an understanding of where the money is going to come from. In our first eight years, we had to pay for what Labor had spent the last time. So, when they criticise us for not having spent money on roads, it was because we were paying money for the roads that Labor had built during their time in government. They have not learnt any lessons from that. They are out spending again now but not paying for it. That is a debt for future governments to pick up. The real test is how much they are paying for, not how much they are spending. So, when they go to openings—the opening of the new assembly hall that has been dumped in the schoolyard—they should not say how much has been spent on the project; they should say how much debt is being left to the children of that school to pay back: about $15,000 for each of the children in return for the school building that they get. When they have the plaque at the official opening saying how much was spent, it should also say how much debt has been left behind as a result of this spending spree.
Labor makes much of the claim that it is spending on infrastructure. But the fact is that Labor will spend less on road and rail construction over the next six years than the coalition committed to spend over the next five. For all the talk of $22 billion in new infrastructure spending in the so-called nation building for the future package, only $1.7 billion will be spent this financial year when the stimulus is supposed to be occurring. Only $1.5 billion will be spent in 2009-10. To construct all the projects that are part-funded in that package, other levels of government or the private sector will have to stump up another $60 billion. Nowhere in the budget papers or in the national infrastructure priorities are there any cost-benefit analyses to demonstrate that the project chosen is in fact the right one.
The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government comes into this place frequently demanding accountability and talking about auditors’ reports. Now he is in charge, he is asking us to believe that Infrastructure Australia has done some kind of cost-benefit analysis on these projects and these are the ones that are chosen. But he will not release the figures. He will not tell anybody about it. This has all got to be confidential. We are not being told what the numbers are and why these projects have been chosen. It sounds very smelly to me, like Labor’s infamous Better Regions program—closed before it was even open. The only projects being funded are those promised by Labor members of parliament and Labor candidates at the last election. No-one else need even bother applying. I am looking forward to the Auditor-General’s report on the Better Regions program. It is a scam beyond belief. It is funding projects that have been specifically rejected by the department on the basis of their being unworthy.
Despite all the spin, this is an infrastructure package that means it is basically business as usual. It is about what the previous government would have spent in good times or in bad. The reality is that Labor is all spin and no substance.
They are also very good at criticising opposition members for being involved in openings and similar occasions for projects that might be funded under this package. Do they remember the $1.2 billion Investing in Our Schools Program? Labor members all over the place now are turning up to open Investing in Our Schools projects even though they abolished the program. Even the Treasurer turned up in his electorate to open one of these projects. He put it in his newsletter and said it was a government initiative. It was a government initiative all right—they axed the program! The hypocrisy that has been associated with this government’s criticism of opposition members for doing their job in their electorates is mind boggling. I can produce hundreds of letters from Labor members backing projects that they voted against, and their criticism is typical of the spin that the government is mounting around its budget.
It is just like when the Prime Minister arrives at a site and the machines have to start up to provide a television picture so there is a pretence that there is something happening, and then all the machines stop when he leaves. This is the kind of government we have. Once the television pictures are done, then the project is done as well and the tab will be picked up down the track. (Time expired)
4291
16:28:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—I am just trying to draw a diagram to summarise what the Leader of the Nationals had to say. He started off saying it was all spin, and then he went on to say that Labor’s spending is creating too much debt. ‘Spin’ suggests that there is no spending. The next proposition is that Labor’s spending is creating too much debt, and then he says the Nationals would have the same level of spending that Labor in government has had—they would have done it anyway. I am advised by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that during the last matter of public importance the Leader of the Nationals complained about spending cuts the entire time. So this is the problem—they say one thing in one matter of public importance debate and another thing in another; one thing in their electorates and another thing in the parliament. They hope that no-one notices, but we do notice. This government is engaged in nation building for recovery, yet this MPI criticises the two stimulus packages that have been brought down by the government.
I will go through some of the economic context very quickly so there is an appreciation of the environment within which the budget was formulated and the two stimulus packages were brought down. Australia has experienced the biggest fall in export earnings in half a century. The coalition in government enjoyed the highest commodity prices in half a century. Labor has come to government at a time when Australia has experienced the biggest fall in export earnings in half a century. That has contributed directly to the carving of $210 billion off Commonwealth taxation revenue—$210 billion has been lost from Commonwealth taxation revenue. Sounds like a big number? It is a big number. It is one dollar in every five of Commonwealth taxation revenue wiped out as a consequence of the impact of the global recession and its impact on commodity prices, meaning that the Commonwealth has lost one dollar in every five of Commonwealth taxation revenue. That $210 billion deterioration accounts for two-thirds of the total deterioration in the budget bottom line.
These are the external influences—two-thirds of the deterioration in the budget bottom line caused by a $210 billion loss of Commonwealth taxation revenue. Yet the coalition, through this pamphlet and through their websites, which I have inspected, are giving the impression that they would not have any debt—that debt is bad and the coalition stand for no debt. Not only that, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about this very topic on the AM program on 13 May this year. Chris Uhlmann asked:
But just quickly, you would have engaged in some stimulus spending and there would have been a deficit?
Malcolm Turnbull gave quite long answer, but he said:
… it may have been in deficit by a very small amount or it may have been in surplus by a small amount …
There you have the Leader of the Opposition saying that if in government the coalition would have a small deficit, a small surplus or a balanced budget. They are saying they would eliminate the deficit. That is their public statement—and yet the fall in Commonwealth taxation revenue accounts for two-thirds of the deterioration in the budget bottom line. So the Leader of the Opposition is really saying that he can fix the fundamental problem here, and that is the collapse of commodity prices. I can just see him now—King Canute: ‘I command commodity prices to rise.’ The King Canute of Australian politics, the Leader of the Opposition: ‘I’ll fix it all. I command you to rise, commodity prices.’ So absurd is the economic prescription of the Leader of the Opposition.
If he is going to go around saying that Labor’s net debt is no good and we should have a balanced budget or a slight surplus, you would think he would have used the opportunity to say so on the Thursday night of his budget reply speech—a golden opportunity. Expectations were raised. I was waiting in breathless anticipation for the Leader of the Opposition to come in here, show some courage and say, ‘This is how we would move from deficit into a balanced budget. These are the taxes that we would increase. These are the savings, the reductions in government spending, that we would make.’ What did he do? He produced not one dollar of net savings when he had a golden opportunity in his budget reply to do so. He does not have the courage to put his money where his mouth is, say where the money is coming from, say which taxes he would increase and say which programs he would cut. He is guilty of duplicity. He is guilty of hypocrisy.
Let us see what the Leader of the Opposition said about the first stimulus package, about which he has subsequently become so deeply critical. On 14 October last year he said:
… we are not going to argue about the composition of the package or quibble about it. It has our support. It will provide a stimulus to the economy, that’s for certain.
Here he is supporting the stimulus package, saying it is great. On the same day, he went on to say:
… we’re not arguing about the size of the stimulus. We support these measures and we are particularly pleased about the measure, the payments to pensioners.
What did he subsequently describe it as? A cash splash—a total waste of money. This is the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition. He says something one day to suit his purposes and then something different the next. I will not have time to list them all, but there was a litany of quotes from the Leader of the Opposition subsequently saying, ‘We never liked that stimulus package at all. We voted for it, but we never liked it and never said it was good.’ But they did say it was good—they supported it at the time.
On the second stimulus package, of course, the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘We wouldn’t have introduced the same stimulus package; we would have had one about half the size.’ So instead of Labor’s net debt of $188 billion they are saying they would have $168 billion. Half of 42 is 21. Take 21 from 188 and you have 167.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr Anthony Smith
—You’re not good with numbers, you lot, are you!
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—I think I am actually a lot better with numbers than you, mate. You are the numbers man for your bloke, sitting up there on the back bench, the member for Higgins. The member for Higgins is not even here in the chamber, so do not talk to me about being good at numbers, mate. You are hopeless at numbers—absolutely hopeless.
We had the Leader of the Opposition saying that under the coalition the deficit would be $21 billion lower—$188 million; $178 billion; $168 billion; $167 billion. There it is, right on the money—$167 billion is good; $188 billion of net debt is really bad. That is really what he is saying. But even then in his budget reply he did not identify the $21 billion that he would save. He had the opportunity to do so. At least he said, ‘We don’t support this package; we’re voting against it’—and vote against it they did. Why? Because the member for Higgins, the guy for whom you are the numbers man, up there on the back bench and on Lateline, described the stimulus packages as a ‘low-quality spend’. Then it caught on. Here in Canberra the coalition, full of courage and full of bluster, said: ‘That’s a low-quality spend. We’re not voting for it.’ At least you can respect them for that. Here they are in Canberra saying that they are not going to vote for all this infrastructure and school modernisation stuff. It is far too expensive—a low-quality spend.
Okay, that would be understandable, but what have we got? This matter of public importance has been put by the Leader of the National Party, the friend of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry here—
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke
—I love him!
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—He loves him. He is very, very fond of the Leader of the National Party. Why? Because he gives us so much material. He gives us so many lines. There are two Nationals here now from the guilty party. You are both guilty. Why? The member for Maranoa, on 1 April, put out a media release headed ‘Green light for Kingaroy road funding’. It stated:
Federal LNP Member for Maranoa Bruce Scott welcomed $650,000 in funding from the Federal Black Spots Program …
Ain’t that grand! The very program that he voted against and that they described as a ‘low-quality spend’. On the same day, April Fools’ Day, in another press release headed ‘A right move for Dalby road funding’ another $70,000 was welcomed. And then we have the National Party member for Mallee—and his name is John Forrest. I would not use the name ordinarily in parliament, but I am quoting directly from a press release:
Federal member for Mallee John Forrest says Black Spot funding approaching $2 million for the Mallee Electorate announced by the Federal Infrastructure Minister today will be money well spent.
Money that they voted against! Now we have the member for Gippsland. Thank you for coming along, because you probably thought you would get a run in this MPI and you are. The article’s headline is ‘Dangerous roads to be upgraded’. It states:
The dangerous McKean Street intersections with Victoria and Dreverman streets in Bairnsdale will be upgraded following an announcement of $500,000 from the Federal Government—
which the member for Gippsland voted against. So you are all brave here in Canberra, but when you go back to your electorates you are cowards. You are cowards because you do not have the guts to say to your local constituents, ‘Listen, I’ve got to be honest with you, I’ve got to be frank with you, I’ve got to level with you: we voted against this; we are against these measures; we are against these local initiatives.’
The member for La Trobe is writing letters to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government saying, ‘Look, it would be terrific, Minister, for the city of Knox if we could establish an indoor stadium and regional soccer facility.’ I have another one from the federal member for Swan—and this I think is a lovely personal touch:
Dear Minister’—
‘Minister’ is struck through and replaced with ‘Anthony’; we call him ‘Albo’—
The City of Canning in my electorate of Swan has submitted an application for assistance towards the development of replacement playground equipment, pathways and sports field lighting under the above program. I would be grateful for your consideration of the application, which I strongly endorse.
What! Out of a program that they voted against? He strongly endorses an application from a program that they oppose in Canberra but do not have the guts to tell their local constituents that they are opposing. I have three more letters—and I will not go through them all. There is one from the member for Wannon talking about three different proposals that he has asked Minister Albanese about—there is a strike-through there as well; he has changed it to ‘Minister/Anthony’. He thinks, ‘Maybe that will maximise my chances of getting the application approved.’ We have got more and more of these proposals. Sometimes you cannot be sure if they are bogus, because you cannot really believe some of the stuff that they go on with. I know people in the past have said, ‘We’ve been set up, it really wasn’t us.’ Is that really Steve Irons, the member for Swan, having a look at the new civic centre library in South Perth—the government contributing $2 million? It sure looks like him. I think that is him. And who is this handsome fellow here? Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, at the announcement of $2.5 million for Port Pirie Library and Internet Centre. He looks particularly pleased. He is very happy with the program that he voted against but which he pretends in his electorate that he supported.
Here we have a fairly recently elected member who replaced Alexander Downer. His name is Jamie Briggs, the member for Mayo. There he is, happy at the announcement of more than $2.3 million for a new swimming pool in Strathalbyn. And then we have the thumbs up: here is Joanna Gash with Senator Arbib. ‘Go Mark!’ says Joanna Gash, the member for Gilmore. She is really happy with her thumbs up. And who is this guy here? You can only see part of the photo. We have got Albo, the minister, here. Doesn’t that look like the Leader of the Opposition? There he is, the member for Wentworth, at the announcement of $2 million for a new pavilion at Waverley Park. Isn’t that terrific!
That is the problem, though—they just do not have any guts. Here we are, as a government, investing in roads, rail, ports, broadband and the biggest school modernisation program in Australia’s history and supporting small business and jobs, with Treasury estimates that 200,000 extra jobs would be lost if it weren’t for the stimulus packages and the budget measures that we have announced and are implementing now. Here are the questions for the coalition: where is the money coming from? Where are you going to cut spending? Where are you going to increase taxes? We are building the economy up while you spend all your time talking it down.
4294
16:43:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—It is my pleasure to support this matter of public importance by the Leader of the Nationals. I tried to listen to every word that the previous speaker uttered. There was a touch of verbal anaesthetic there, I have got to say. It was like listening to a lawnmower going over wet grass. With all his bluff and bluster and all his histrionics that those opposite have to put up with on a daily basis, you did a good job, members of the Labor Party backbench, of smiling painfully on cue. But once again he still could not bring himself to mention the $58 billion deficit in the budget.
Here two weeks ago today it was budget day. The Labor Party caucus were preparing to be briefed on the budget. When you look at the language we have had from those opposite, the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and you measure the extent to which they have gone out of their way not to level with the Australian people, this last three weeks has really begun to show the true side of the Labor Party. Before the budget we had the astonishing use of language, with ‘six years of temporary deficits’—‘temporary’! In budget week the Treasurer and the Prime Minister did not blush when they talked about ‘temporary’ and ‘six years’ in the same sentence. Imagine getting a temporary car when you get your car serviced and having it for six years. Imagine a road being temporarily closed for six years—although my colleague the member for Cook points out that this does happen in New South Wales. I thought to myself: where would the Labor Party have got this language, because they are so programmed? Did someone just think of it or did they delve back into their history? What has come to my attention is that the Labor Party, fond of their history as they are, indeed delved back into their history. Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, were not the inventors of the term ‘temporary’. Actually the inventors of it were Gough Whitlam and Rex Connor during the loans affair, where they said in an executive minute—that famous minute that summed up so much the economic incompetence of the Labor Party, that saw them thrown from office in 1975—that the borrowings would be for ‘temporary purposes’. Now we are starting to get a true picture of the Labor Party.
Then we had the extraordinary revelation of the Treasurer not being able to utter the budget deficit figure during his speech. A budget is four documents and a speech, and all these documents come down to the outcome. They all add up to one figure—the deficit or the surplus—and he could not mention it on budget night. When the Labor Party were briefed on the budget just before the budget speech it is now quite clear that they were not briefed on the figure either. There has been a lot of criticism of the member for Petrie, but she cannot say what she has not heard or what she does not know because the Treasurer did not tell his own people and deliberately omitted the budget deficit figure from the speech. As he did so, it just demonstrated the extent to which this government will go to conceal the truth from the Australian people—and those opposite know it. They know it. They know it is wrong. We have seen that time and time again.
Instead of caucus members being issued with facts and figures on the budget, what we have seen in the week after the budget is that they were all issued with hard hats and fluorescent vests! That is what we have seen all over the country. The extent to which this government will go to bring on a stunt and avoid the substance is breathtaking. This is not a government; it is a stunt factory. That is all we see from those opposite. For 100 years the budget papers were as you would expect: plain old, boring, black-and-white budget papers. Then, when this government got elected, you can see one of their biggest decisions—they probably spent the day on it—was: ‘Let’s make them blue.’ You can imagine, can’t you, the Labor strategist saying, ‘What’s the really important thing to do?’
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison
—They should be red.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—That is exactly right—they should be red. That is what we have seen from those opposite. We have seen the Prime Minister join the Treasurer and refuse to mention the level of debt. The previous speaker uttered the words ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’ but he would not say how big the deficit was. The Prime Minister spent an excruciating week going out of his way to conceal the most basic figures from the Australian people. No matter how hard it is to conceal it, the Prime Minister was determined to. We had the infamous interview on Lateline, where he was asked over and over again and refused to let the words pass his lips. It made the John Clarke interview look like a serious interview. That’s how pathetic it was. When asked the debt figures both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer took the fifth—and so they should, because those figures do incriminate them.
Those opposite know that. They did everything they possibly could all week to avoid levelling with the Australian people. The Australian people are beginning to wake up to it. They are beginning to wake up to the fact that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, our Prime Minister and our Treasurer, are not up to the job of economic managers. They might be up to the job of media pictures. I think it was probably a lineball call from the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s office on whether they should actually wear their hard hats here into the chamber!
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison
—And the vests.
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—And the vests. Whenever you see fluorescent vests and hard hats coming, you know the Labor caucus and a few ministers are on their way. You should have one of those safety signs there—‘Danger! Reckless Spender’—because that is what we get from those opposite. What we have seen from those opposite in the last week tells the whole story. That is why the Prime Minister, grudgingly, after a week of evasion, finally uttered the budget debt figures and the Treasurer finally uttered the deficit figures. But this is their stock in trade. As we have seen with the employees share scheme fiasco, the has been two weeks of chaos—absolute chaos. The first instinct when a mistake has been made is to cover it up, to ignore it and to babble on like demented cockatoos.
The public are beginning to wake up to this. Those opposite get given their lines, they get given their fluorescent vests and they get given their hard hats. If they are prepared to stick to the script, the public will very quickly wake up to them. But those opposite know in their heart of hearts that for a Treasurer not to release the budget deficit figure during his speech is extraordinary. That sums it up very much for this Prime Minister and Treasurer. Of every Labor Prime Minister and Treasurer—and this is a big statement on Labor Party history—this duo is easily the most economically incompetent and irresponsible in our history.
4296
16:53:00
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
1
0
Mr GIBBONS
—Today’s MPI has to be one of the greatest examples of hypocrisy that I have witnessed in 11 years in this House. The opposition have already acknowledged that had they been in office they would have done almost exactly the same as the government has done. On 13 May, the Leader of the Opposition told ABC Radio’s Chris Uhlmann:
It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which the Budget this year would not be in deficit.
And, on the same day, the opposition’s Treasury spokesman said that the deficit would be only $25 billion less under a coalition government.
This government is borrowing for a legitimate purpose: it is borrowing to cushion this country from the worst effects of the global economic downturn; and it is borrowing to rejuvenate this country’s infrastructure—its roads, its railways, its ports, its schools, its broadband and its other community assets. These are investments that the Howard-Costello government should have financed out of budget surpluses from the commodities boom while it was in office. The Rudd government is borrowing to stimulate economic activity at a time when the private sector is either reluctant to invest itself or cannot raise finance because of the freezing up of global credit markets. The government’s borrowings will result in thousands of Australian businesses, large and small, getting government contracts to supply goods and services. This will keep thousands of Australians in jobs who would otherwise be on unemployment benefits and therefore unproductive.
As the government has acknowledged, there is no doubt that the remainder of 2009 and beyond is going to be tough. As with other advanced economies, the International Monetary Fund expects our economy to contract over 2009, but the IMF also believes that Australia will weather this global crisis better than virtually any other advanced economy. That is partly because of some of our strengths, like the stability of our financial system and the fact that our banks are amongst the safest in the world. But a big part of the reason we are much better placed than most other nations is—apart from the superb economic foundation built by the previous Hawke and Keating Labor governments—the decisive action taken by this government to stimulate growth, to support jobs and to mitigate the impact of the global recession on all Australians. That decisive action started last year with stimulus payments to give the economy a short-term boost, particularly in the vital retail sector, which employs over one million Australians. We saw the results of this in figures which showed that the value of retail sales increased by 2.2 per cent in the month of March. Monthly retail sales are now 4.5 per cent higher than they were in November last year before the government’s first economic stimulus payments started to flow to pensioners and families. By way of comparison, over the same period retail sales fell 2.5 per cent in the United States, 3.1 per cent in Japan, 2.2 per cent in Germany, 3.1 per cent in Canada and 1.7 per cent in New Zealand.
Following the rollout of the stimulus payments, the next stage of the government’s economic stimulus package is well underway. Two-thirds of that stimulus is infrastructure investment and these construction projects are starting now. In 12 months time there will be around 35,000 individual construction projects around the country, including the largest school modernisation program ever. All of these will be boosting thousands of local economies and small businesses right across Australia. They will be keeping contractors, tradies, truck drivers and small businesses working and employing Australians. As the minister for infrastructure informed the House yesterday, even members opposite are welcoming these investments in their own constituencies. They cannot get their hard hats and safety vests on fast enough for all the photo opportunities. But we hear nothing but criticism from them in this House and in this chamber about the enormous amount of economic activity that is just starting around the country, including in their own electorates, where they line up to try to claim some of the credit. They roar like lions here in Canberra and squeak like mice in their electorates.
Let me highlight some of those investment projects. The first sod was recently turned on the $164 million Midland Highway-Brighton bypass project in Southern Tasmania, six months ahead of schedule. This bypass and the associated transport hub are expected to create up to 380 jobs directly with additional flow-on benefits to local businesses. Work has started on installing flashing lights and advance warning systems at 13 high-risk rail level crossings in Tasmania. Builders have been selected for the new Mandurah Entrance Road in Western Australia. Work will begin in the coming months, a year ahead of schedule. Investment in other transport infrastructure projects continues, with 268 rail level crossing projects announced in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Contractors have been named for the Tarcutta and Woomargama bypasses on the Hume Highway in New South Wales. Black spot projects have been announced across Australia—160 in Victoria, almost 200 in New South Wales, 93 in Queensland, six in the Northern Territory, 27 in Tasmania and more than 50 in both South Australia and Western Australia.
Approval has been given for $250 million worth of projects by 564 local councils across Australia under the first round of the $800 million Community Infrastructure Program. Councils have now lodged applications under the second round for projects like sports grounds, community centres and town halls. Work has started on stage 1 of social housing construction all around Australia. Almost all of the 667 homes to be built in my home state of Victoria have planning approval and 503 projects are expected to start this financial year. The education sector has been a significant beneficiary of the government’s economic stimulus package. The National School Pride program, which represents 13,176 projects in 9,461 schools, has been approved and work has begun or is about to begin. Under this program each school will receive between $50,000 and $200,000 for things like building refurbishments, water tanks, sports grounds and specialised infrastructure support for students with disabilities or special needs.
I estimate that close to $142 million has been allocated to my electorate of Bendigo in central Victoria in some of the programs I have just mentioned. That, in just the first 18 months of the Rudd government, is more than the Howard government delivered in almost 12 years, if you exclude the Calder Highway funding—and remember that the Howard coalition government had to be dragged kicking and screaming for four long years before they finally allocated the promised funding for the Calder Highway.
These are just some of the projects being funded by the government’s borrowing program, which will create opportunities for businesses across the country to get involved and support thousands of jobs. The importance of economic stimulus measures such as these was emphasised recently by IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard. He noted that ‘fiscal policies have made a gigantic difference’. The IMF estimates that, without these stimulus measures around the world, world growth in 2009 would be somewhere between 1.5 per cent and two per cent lower. Mr Blanchard went on to say: ‘Therefore, we would be in the middle of something very close to a depression. So I think we have to understand that the strong policies which have been taken have made a difference.’
The Reserve Bank of Australia, in its recent quarterly statement on monetary policy, cited the government’s ‘substantial fiscal initiatives’ as a key reason why Australia is outperforming other countries. It noted that Australia’s economic activity is slowing at a significantly more gradual pace than many other advanced economies. So the government’s response to the global economic crisis has been swift and decisive and is obviously working well.
But what has the opposition got to offer Australia in these difficult times? Not one speaker from the opposition in today’s debate has mentioned anything about what they would do or any policy initiatives. There has been plenty of carping and whingeing but no policy substance. There has been no leadership, no viable policies and no direction except scaremongering about the forecast levels of government borrowing. Depending on which spokesperson you listen to, either they would be doing almost exactly the same as the government or they would be fiddling around while the global economy collapsed about them, taking Australia and Australian jobs with them. The Leader of the Opposition will undoubtedly go down in history as the Andre Rieu of Australian politics. He does bear a striking resemblance in more ways than one, except for the hair, of course—they are both fiddlers. Come to think of it, fiddling around is probably the Leader of the Opposition’s true vocation in life. Of course, he is nowhere near as good at it as his international look-alike; Mr Rieu can at least boast of considerable talent. The opposition leader’s fiddling over economic management is woefully out of tune. He and the parties opposite are out of tune with the needs of the times. They are out of tune with the actions being taken by the governments of other developed countries around the world and they are out of tune with the wishes of the Australian people.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—I call the member for Swan.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—I have your picture here.
4299
17:02:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—Yes, it’s great. I’m glad you have been flashing it around. It will give me a bit of ID, so thanks for that.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—The minister will desist from holding up those props. He does not have the call.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Can I pass it over? It’s the same shirt and tie.
HYM
Irons, Steve, MP
Mr IRONS
—I am glad to note that you are also taking notice of what I am wearing. I rise to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to the impact of the government’s reckless spending and the debt explosion on Australian families. It was interesting to hear the member for Bendigo take a very positive spin on the debt. The government putting a positive spin on debt as being good for the country is like when the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy said in this very place, ‘Spending money on capital equipment will improve cash flow.’
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—I didn’t say that.
HYM
Irons, Steve, MP
Mr IRONS
—That is not how it works. Money coming into your business actually improves cash flow, not money going out of it. You said it in this very place.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson interjecting—
HYM
Irons, Steve, MP
Mr IRONS
—You did. It just shows that this government and its members have no idea about the consequences of their decisions and their effects on the economy, which small business people do understand. The more debt you get into as a business means that you are taking away your ability to run that business because you have to focus on meeting your debt repayments instead of running your business. Just to make sure that the government know what debt is, because they do not seem to have any concern about debt, I googled ‘debt’ as a definition and have brought the response in here to tell the government so that they will know. The definition says:
-
Something owed, such as money …
-
An obligation or liability to pay …
-
The condition of owing
-
An offense requiring forgiveness or reparation …
Debt is an offence. The plain fact is that the Labor government have lost control of the nation’s finances. The easiest thing any government and any person can do is to spend other people’s money. This is money earned by hardworking Australians and hardworking families, by people who raised a sweat, people who wore hard hats for the correct reasons and not just a photo shoot. It is the people of Australia who have earned the money and paid the taxes. That money was not earned by the Labor government and they should not treat it as their own money. You have also spent the money they have not yet earned; you have mortgaged the futures of Australians, their children and their grandchildren.
Today during question time the Treasurer spoke about paying down debt. Let him come into this place and tell the people of Australia how much debt he has paid down. I would like to bet that while the government are running around and spending like a drunken sailor, which the Treasurer accused the Howard government of today, they have not paid off any debt at all. They are not even spending this debt wisely, and we need only look to the member for Fowler, who was quoted in the Canberra Times today in reference to the government’s budget. She said, ‘I have to ask the question of whether its programs are targeted as well as they could be.’
I always look to see what the electorate is saying, and I will read a letter printed today in the West Australian. The letter is from Sean Hefferon, from South Fremantle—traditionally a Labor area but now a Greens safe haven, recently wrested away from the Labor Party in a by-election in Western Australia. The letter is to the Treasurer and Kevin Rudd, and I will read it out in total. It starts off with, ‘Please explain,’ and it is not from Pauline Hanson, either:
The Rudd Government is keen to gamble with other people’s money. The Government wants us to believe that the record debt (that the Treasurer would not mention in the Budget) will be paid off over five or six years of annual GDP growth of 4.5 per cent. This is sheer optimism at best—a lie at worst.
We are an export nation, so which of the ailing international economies are going to provide us with this 4.5 per cent growth year in and year out? The mining boom that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan go on about, saying it delivered ‘rivers of gold’ to the previous government, delivered only an average of 3.25 per cent growth a year over 10 years. This was, as Mr Rudd told us ad nauseam in 2007, apparently a ‘once in a lifetime’ boom. Now we can expect an even bigger boom when the IMF and the RBA are predicting a protracted recovery? Kevin07? By the time the debt is paid off it may be Kevin27.
Now we hear that Messrs Rudd and Swan want to cut tax breaks on people’s superannuation funds—like a pair of Nambour safe crackers creeping through the night, oxy torch in hand. This reminds me of a scene in the first Harry Potter movie when the wand maker says words to the effect, ‘I wondered when I would be seeing you.’ Similarly I have to say, I wondered when they would start to raid super. If only all of this was fiction—like the movie.
But why are we surprised with these ‘casino economics’? Wasn’t it Mr Rudd who offered in 2007 the bizarre idea that WA’s future (post-mining boom) lies in investing Chinese savings in real estate in Latin America? Such an idea was a clear sign of things to come. And come they have with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, charged with overseeing the national broadband network, stating that the $43 billion project doesn’t require a cost-benefit analysis! This is contrary to common sense and this Government’s duty to the Australian people.
(Time expired)
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—I seek leave to table a photograph of the previous speaker, the member for Swan, at the new civic centre library in South Perth, to which the government contributed $2 million.
Leave not granted.
4300
17:07:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—By raising this supposed MPI the member for Wide Bay has once again shown in this place just how out of touch he and his party are. The Nationals have shown that they do not want the government to invest in jobs and infrastructure for the future. They are a party of no ideas. They are more content to mock and block in opposition because when in government they never stood up for their communities. The Nationals today are a party without vision and a party that stands for nothing. The Nationals do not want the government to invest in education, schools, community infrastructure, roads, rail and ports.
I think The Nationals like opposition. They are comfortable there. It means they do not have to fully realise what is going on in the community. We, however, are listening. The nation-building economic stimulus plan includes $14.7 billion over three years for the Building the Education Revolution program. It will fund the building and rebuilding of primary and secondary school infrastructure and the maintenance of Australia’s schools, including combined schools and special schools. The government is listening.
I have a list of all the projects here, which the Deputy Prime Minister numbers at around 216. Millions and millions of dollars are being invested in the seat of Dawson, and the opposition are against it. I went to Victoria Park State School in my electorate and met with the principal of the school and the President of the P&C on Friday just gone. They were not against it. They were over the moon. Maybe someone in the National Party could explain to them why their school does not deserve the federal government funding they are getting.
The Australian government has also brought forward $110 million of funding for the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program from 2010-11 to 2009-10. This will provide additional support for the economy now and also fast-track measures to improve the skills base of the workforce. I am pleased to announce that a $6 million trade training centre will be built at the CQUniversity site. The previous member for Dawson promised and promised this but never delivered. We have delivered for the people of Dawson. Maybe someone in the National Party could explain to Mackay North State High School, Mackay State High School, Mirani State High School, Sarina State High School and Pioneer State High School why their schools do not deserve this federal government backing.
The National School Pride Program has now successfully been implemented, with the second and final round of funding announced on 21 May 2009. Together with round 1, the NSP Program will deliver $1.3 billion to 9,490 eligible primary and secondary schools across Australia for minor infrastructure and refurbishment projects. In Dawson that has totalled over $5 million in funding. I suppose the member for Wide Bay believes they do not deserve federal government funding either.
Round 1 of Primary Schools for the 21st Century saw 1,499 eligible primary schools across Australia receive $2.8 billion in funding for a variety of projects, including libraries and multipurpose halls. This is all targeted spending on important nation-building infrastructure, including $800 million for the Community Infrastructure Program. This is all about infrastructure for the future and creating jobs now—something which we, the Labor Party, have a core commitment to. We do not only give it lip-service; we deliver real dollars, real investment, for real projects on the ground that will serve this nation for generations to come. Shame on The Nationals for voting against it.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The discussion has concluded.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2009 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2009
4301
Bills
R4102
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2009-2010
4301
Bills
R4110
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2009-2010
4301
Bills
R4111
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2009-2010
4301
Bills
R4109
Referred to Main Committee
4301
4301
17:12:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—by leave—I move:
That:
-
the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration, and
-
unless otherwise ordered, at the adjournment of the House for this sitting, the following bills stand referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Appropriation (No. 1) 2009-2010;
Appropriation (No. 2) 2009-2010; and
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) (No. 1) 2009-2010.
I inform honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax.
Question agreed to.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (SMALL BUSINESS AND GENERAL BUSINESS TAX BREAK) BILL 2009
4302
Bills
R4094
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2009
4302
Bills
R4034
CUSTOMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NAME CHANGE) BILL 2009
4302
Bills
R4065
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (ENHANCED BORDER CONTROLS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2009
4302
Bills
R4025
Assent
4302
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
LAW AND JUSTICE (CROSS BORDER AND OTHER AMENDMENTS) BILL 2009
4302
Bills
R4080
Report from Main Committee
4302
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
4302
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia)
17:14:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION SWITCH-OVER) BILL 2009
4302
Bills
R4106
Report from Main Committee
4302
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
4302
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia)
17:15:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
4302
Committees
Public Works Committee
4302
Report
4302
4302
17:15:00
Butler, Mark, MP
HWK
Port Adelaide
ALP
1
0
Mr BUTLER
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the second report of the committee for 2009 relating to the proposed redevelopment of RAAF Base Edinburgh, Adelaide, South Australia.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
HWK
Butler, Mark, MP
Mr BUTLER
—by leave—This report addresses the RAAF Base Edinburgh redevelopment stage 2, in Adelaide, South Australia, valued at $99.56 million, which was referred to the committee on 26 February 2009. Notably, these works come on the back of a number of other works particularly relating to the Hardened and Networked Army initiative, which in total means that around $800 million of capital works is either underway or is about to be underway, assuming parliament approves this report. At the one base in Edinburgh in northern Adelaide over the course of this year, next year and into 2011, there will be an extraordinary amount of capital works on a very important base, which is well overdue for refurbishment.
The redevelopment stage 2 proposal will provide a range of refurbished facilities to meet the functional requirements of several Air Force units, to enhance base security and to upgrade engineering services at the base. The local member, the member for Wakefield, who is a member of our committee, in public hearings on this referral and on previous referrals relating to Edinburgh particularly raised questions about the impact of the project on local employment and the capacity of local businesses to access work under the project. The committee is satisfied that local companies and workers will be competitive in securing contracts on the project and welcomes this level of employment activity in the Adelaide region. During the public hearing and the private hearing for this referral, Defence was able to give us some figures on the number of local workers and local businesses who have been able to access the Hardened and Networked Army initiative work. Some 1,300 workers have already been inducted to that aspect of the base refurbishment and it is very clear that the area of northern Adelaide is benefiting significantly in employment and business terms from the refurbishment of the base. The committee was also pleased to hear that the Department of Defence is taking steps to alleviate traffic congestion, which is quite significant around the Edinburgh Defence Precinct.
The committee commends the environmentally sustainable initiatives taken by the Department of Defence at the Edinburgh Defence Precinct, including installing electricity submeters and implementing strategies to reduce demand for potable water. The committee considers that these initiatives will provide a good example of sustainable building practices for other Commonwealth agencies involved in the provision of public works. In the report, the committee has made additional commentary encouraging all Commonwealth agencies to lead by example by implementing sustainable water initiatives in government construction. The committee intends to monitor those issues in future referrals by this parliament.
While a number of issues were raised with the committee, it has reported on an exception-only basis on issues that it thought warranted further comment—which is now its practice. I would urge those interested in this work to supplement the report with the transcripts and submissions available on the committee’s website. The committee has recommended that the House resolve that the works be carried out. I would like to thank the members and senators on the committee for its work in relation to this inquiry. As always, I thank the secretariat for their support, although I note that, as I table this report, the inquiry secretary, Ms Siobhan Leyne, is at the moment sunning herself on the Iberian Peninsula and in the northern areas of Africa, which is instilling some level of jealousy in me. With those few words, I commend the report to the House.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2009-2010
4303
Bills
R4110
Cognate bills:
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2009-2010
4303
Bills
R4111
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2009-2010
4303
Bills
R4109
Second Reading
4303
Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4303
17:21:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
0
0
Mrs HULL
—It is in continuation that I will focus my issues particularly on the concerns raised on the changes to Youth Allowance. Continuing with my speech from last night, I would like to explain to the minister the unintended consequences and the impacts of this policy. I would seriously ask the minister to look at the consequences of her changes and to rectify the issues relating to the way in which regional students will be able to study in future.
I will use my electorate of Riverina as an example. We are extremely fortunate to have Charles Sturt University campus in Wagga Wagga, the largest city in my electorate. The electorate, though, is over 42,000 square kilometres, so it is only those students who actually live in Wagga Wagga itself who can attend the university without having to leave home and relocate. Even if the students decided that they would be able to study at Charles Sturt University, the majority of them come from well outside travelling distance and will be unable to undertake that travel, bearing in mind that we do not have the public transport system that is available in the cities. So not all students can attend Charles Sturt University; some will need to go to other universities that cater for their specific needs. Those students who must move towns or states to attend the appropriate university for their career of choice need some form of financial support.
For some students, due to course commitments it is literally impossible to hold down a part-time job in order to support themselves. For example, a fourth-year veterinary science student at Charles Sturt University spends around 80 hours per week dedicated to his or her degree through combined personal study and in-class lessons. If he or she had to move to Wagga Wagga to study and their parents could not support them then they would need to receive student income support. If their parents do not come in under the family tax benefit part A and still do not have the means to support the child, and the child cannot work due to their university commitment and the heavy lift of the degree study, how does one suggest that these kids live, eat and pay for their rent and their upkeep? The reality is that they cannot. The individual in this example represents the situation of so many students. Under the proposed changes, this student would have to take a two-year break between school and university and attempt, with no guarantee of success, to hold down a full-time job or at least 30 hours a week for 18 months over two years.
Let us consider this: we have a rise in unemployment, particularly in regional Australia but also right across Australia. The logistics of finding full-time work or 30 hours per week for at least 18 months during a two-year period in regional areas and towns is extremely precarious. Many of my constituents believe that they or their sons and daughters will not be able to accomplish this. We have singularly been in drought for seven years, so the opportunities for employment are vastly reduced. A large percentage of my constituents’ employment is dependent on agriculture. This type of work is often unreliable due to environmental impacts and, in many cases, is seasonally structured. With the area having been in drought for seven years, for many of my kids from right across my electorate from areas such as Hay, Ivanhoe, Temora, Rankins Springs, Merriwagga or Bland shire, it will be just simply impossible for them to meet this requirement.
The third element of the current workforce participation criteria, which the government intends to scrap, is an extremely practical and appropriate criterion for regional circumstances. A person can earn, in an 18-month period after leaving school, an amount equivalent to 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under wage level A of the Australian pay and classification scale generally applicable to trainees. Currently, this requires earnings of around $19,532. This criterion has enabled so many regional students access to student income support, enabling them to attend university. It is imperative that the government see that the criterion of working full-time, or 30 hours a week, for 18 months over a period of two years in order to be independent is not appropriate for regional residents and, for many, will simply be absolutely unobtainable.
As I have previously mentioned, I have received considerable amounts of calls, emails and letters from concerned parents and potential students. I can seriously stand here and say to you that this issue alone has generated more phone calls, emails, letters and counter inquiries than any other issue that I have had in 11 years, such is the concern. The minister stands up at the dispatch box and tells us that it is all good for us and that we are just scaremongering, but I have said nothing to elicit the phone calls and concerns that have come in; they have come in off their own bat.
People in rural and regional areas are not stupid; they do not just blindly follow the leader—they know how to work things out for themselves. They have worked out for themselves that they have got a major issue. I will certainly not mention any names in this, but I received a letter from a person from a tiny little town that has been drought stricken and on its knees for seven years. The person wrote:
I have grave concerns for the future of many rural students following the release of changes in tender for the Youth Allowance scheme in the 2009 budget.
I will not go into the specifics of the person but they talk about seeking the advice of Centrelink after the daughter had completed her HSC in 2008, with regard to eligibility for independent youth allowance. She has been working toward the goal of earning that $19,500-odd I spoke of earlier. In order to do this, she deferred her university studies in a particular field for 12 months. The staff at the university that she was going to attend also recommended that she defer so that she could qualify for youth allowance, understanding that she had significant financial pressures that could hinder her heavy study load.
This young lady has been living in quite a remote town and working really, really hard to meet the criteria. As the writer of this letter said:
Should the changes to Youth Allowance be implemented, it will be almost impossible for rural students to find a full-time job for 30 hours a week for an average of 18 months out of two years.
That is because they are living out in these isolated towns and there is no work there. That young woman’s community is identical to most of the communities across my electorate that sadly will be impacted by this measure. This person has driven tractors for wheat harvesting, worked on building sites and done an enormous amount of seasonal work, two lots of which involved living away from home, because of course there are no employment prospects for her in the local community. There are no jobs in those local communities. Sadly, this girl has now been denied the opportunity to meet the criteria that were in place at the time, as a result of the minister making these changes retrospective. If you are going to make these changes, surely you would make them prospective, for the future, so they would not impact so on these regional students, who have no choices. The letter goes on to say:
These changes, if implemented, will be particularly unfair for the students who deferred for 2009, as they have left school, followed the guidelines of Youth Allowance eligibility criteria as set by legislation, only to have the goalposts changed halfway through the year.
It says:
We need to make sure the Rudd government does not sacrifice the 2008 HSC class in order to make their bottom line look better.
And, seriously, that is the issue. A drastic mistake has been made; fix it. Please do not just stand on this issue and let the students of Australia down. (Time expired)
4306
17:31:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—In my introductory remarks on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills, I want to say a few words about the very opportunistic campaign that is being run by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the shadow ministry concerning the issue of deficit and debt without ever putting the reasons for our budget deficit and the reason for our borrowings in any kind of genuine context. The opposition must surely know—the Australian people know—that most of the deficit projected in this budget, the deficit of $57.6 billion, has been caused by an unprecedented global recession coming at the end of the mining boom. The previous government was not cognisant of the impact the end of the mining boom would have; hence we are now looking at debates about the issue of a structural deficit, the legacy of the Howard era. So the global recession and the end of the mining boom have naturally led to a huge loss of revenue both now and in the forward estimates, and it is in this context that the government has seen the need to borrow.
In the last couple of days and constantly in question time, we have seen exemplified this ongoing political opportunism that we first saw displayed in the rejection of the nation-building and jobs bill earlier this year. As we continue to point out, the most obvious demonstration of the insincerity and hypocrisy of members of the opposition is that they voted against our stimulus package but cannot wait to get out there and be photographed when the results of that package are being made known to their local constituents.
I looked back to see what I said in the debate about the legislation for the earlier stimulus package. I just want to quote a bit of what I said then, because I think it is highly relevant to the debate on this budget and these appropriation bills. I said that it was ‘an unprecedented package for unprecedented times’, and so it is with the bills before us. We are living through an unprecedented era, an unprecedented global meltdown—the worst since the Great Depression. If the opposition do not get that then I think the Australia population at large clearly does and is thankful that at least we have a hedge against the worst excesses of this downturn, which is being experienced by many comparable nations. As I said back in February in the debate on the nation-building and jobs bill:
We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the consequences of this crisis and its impact on Australia. We cannot afford—
as a government—
to sacrifice jobs and economic output, because to sit around and not take bold action—
which is where the opposition were heading with their rejection of the package—
or not give a clear and consistent commitment to solving the problems, would leave our economy and our nation even more exposed …
So it is as a result of these unprecedented global circumstances that, inevitably, we have had to revise projections on several occasions, and those revisions have been based on the best advice from competent Treasury officials—and I find the consistent attacks on their integrity by members of the opposition really shameful and totally unwarranted. And what does the best advice tell us? As the budget indicates, we are looking at zero growth in 2008-09, with a contraction of 0.5 per cent in GDP in the subsequent financial year. It is precisely because we are in that kind of recession that our focus as a government has been on stimulatory packages and public demand—to offset the contraction in private demand within the economy so that we can minimise the overall negative impacts on households and jobs.
Our strategy all along has been to support the jobs of today by building the essential infrastructure we will need when we come out of this global recession. It has always been about a stimulus that provides some assistance in the form of disposable income for those who are feeling the pressures of the recession. And, as we know, a substantial proportion of allocations went in the first round to the Community Infrastructure Fund. Every council that I have heard from has welcomed that stimulus.
What else does the budget tell us? It tells us that unemployment is expected to peak at 8.5 per cent in the second half of 2010. Let us hope that prediction is right, because it is far lower than the unemployment rise that we saw in previous downturns. There is no doubt that if it were not for the stimulus packages the peak of unemployment would rise to around 10 per cent. That is what would happen if we did what the opposition urge us to do, which is to sit around and fail to act decisively. All we continue to get from the feeble opposition is politically opportunistic attacks not just on our strategy but on the integrity of Treasury advice, never with any clear enunciation of the alternative strategy that they would put in place to deal with these unprecedented circumstances.
What really appals me about that is that this debate is about real people, real jobs, real households and real families. The budget tells us that without the stimulus there would possibly be some 200,000 additional Australians feeling the brunt of unemployment were it not for our nation-building investments. We have heard a lot about cash splash, but they never tell you, do they, that 70 per cent of our economic stimulus is for nation-building infrastructure. This budget provides the biggest school modernisation program in our nation’s history. It provides unprecedented levels of investment in roads, rail, ports, hospitals, broadband and major solar energy projects. Treasury estimates that the budgetary stimulus will see the real level of GDP some 2.7 per cent higher than otherwise would be the case in this financial year and 1.5 per cent higher in 2010-11. The whole purpose of our nation-building investments is to shield real people and real jobs from the negative consequences of the global situation.
As the budget also indicates, tax revenues will be $210 billion less over five years, with a budget deficit of $57.6 billion. It is patently dishonest to present this as some kind of reckless spending spree by a Labor government without understanding that, naturally, we have to borrow to cover the deficit which has been caused by a downturn in revenue—through no fault of the government. It is a consequence of the meltdown in global circumstances. The forecasts in the budget show gross debt reaching $300.8 billion in 2012-13 and net debt of $188 billion in the same period—or 13.8 per cent of GDP.
When the opposition are out running their terrible scare campaign about debt and deficits, they never tell you how Australia is faring by comparison with other countries. They hide that truth from the electorate. As our Prime Minister indicated yesterday in question time, Australia’s net debt performance is the lowest of all the major advanced economies. He indicated that, when net debt peaks for Australia at 13.8 per cent of GDP, the average for the major advanced economies will be 88.7 per cent of GDP. The figure for Australia will be 13.8 per cent at the peak and for major advanced economies it will be, on average, 88.7 per cent. The figures are: Japan, 131 per cent; the UK, 80 per cent; the US, 80 per cent; Italy, 125 per cent; Canada, 28 per cent; France, 79 per cent; and Germany, 84 per cent. Why don’t you tell the Australian people, when you are out there scaremongering about the level of debt and borrowings, what the true position of our nation is by comparison to all others? As the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to a question, when our net debt peaks at 13.8 per cent of GDP, it will represent not just the lowest of the other major advanced economies; it will be something like seven times lower.
No-one wants to be in the situation of having large borrowings, so we have made a conscious commitment that we will put a cap of two per cent on future spending. With the expected bounce-back in economic growth, our plan is to return the budget to surplus in seven years time. Again, another debate rages about the forecasts that are made for economic growth. Treasury have told us that they are forecasting economic growth in the order of 4.25 per cent in 2011-12 and 2012-13 and four per cent a year thereafter. There has been ongoing debate about those figures. Some claim that they are overly optimistic. The Leader of the Opposition has said that those projections are ‘completely unbelievable’.
Let us look at the explanations for those figures. I think they are pretty compelling. I would like to hear an argument as to why those projections are not compelling. The projections do indicate a strong bounce. Why? Because after three years of below trend growth there will be an upswing, particularly due to the nature of this recession, which people have described as a U-shaped recession. We will expect a strong bounce-back when the economy turns. So there will be higher rates of growth because we will be coming off a low base of three years of below trend growth. Coupled with that, the slashing of interest rates has been stronger and stimulatory spending has occurred faster than in earlier downturns. We acted quickly and decisively early in the piece to shield our economy as much as possible. The earlier boom in mining investments, together with public investment in infrastructure, should make a bigger contributionto productivity growth in the upswing.
As I said earlier, the Leader of the Opposition just asserts that the projections are completely unbelievable but never gives us hard data on which he bases those misguided judgments. For example, he does not tell us that in the 1990s there were six years of growth above four per cent. So when we are talking about four per cent beyond 2012-13, that is not completely unbelievable. It is, in fact, comparable with six years of growth above four per cent in the 1990s. I like this little quote from one economist. He said, ‘The debate is a little surreal,’ because Australia’s position is so much stronger than other countries, and that ‘folks with mortgages five times their income need to understand that the government is taking on gross debt of less than 100 per cent of revenues’. So, again, what we have had is scare campaigns, scaremongering and talking down the economy. Ross Gittins, who always makes economic issues understandable to the lay person, said:
The budget’s forecasts are plausible. But plausible doesn’t mean omniscient.
I take his point. They are the best estimates, the best forecast, based on the professional advice and integrity of Treasury officials, who do not have a political agenda to run.
The budget, shaped in very difficult times, has generally been well received in my electorate of Throsby. I just want to refer to a couple of features of the budget. The long-overdue increases for pensioners, especially for single age pensioners—whose plight did not touch the Howard government, in all the time it was in power, in terms of raising the level of the basic pension rather than just the supplements that were handed out—has been very well received. I also particularly want to mention and commend the Minister for Health and Ageing for what appears to be a small measure but which has a marked impact on families whose children who suffer from epidermolysis bullosa, commonly known as EB. Our budget provides a national $16.4 million program which will substantially improve affordability and access to specialised bandages and dressings. Two young children in my electorate, Jayden and Billy, were diagnosed with EB at birth. Their parents, on a single income, have up to now spent around $900 a month on bandages, pain relief and other medical needs, with no financial assistance. I know members of the opposition have also spoken on this issue—the member for Cook raised the matter in parliament, and I spoke in that debate. This commitment shows that, even in the most difficult times, Labor values can still shine through.
The budget announcement in relation to the raising of the qualifying age for the age pension, however, was not well received. That is not surprising in an electorate like mine where many workers are involved in difficult manual labouring jobs in a labour market compounded by ongoing and persistently high unemployment rates. But I have to point out there has been some confusion about what this change means. The change is about raising the qualifying age for the age pension from 65 to 67 by 2023. The change is not about raising the retirement age or the age at which workers can access their superannuation. Even so, as a government we will need to give a lot more compassionate consideration to the implementation of this measure or else it is inevitable that thousands more workers will end up on the disability pension or at the end of unemployment queues, with no job opportunities and no light at the end of the tunnel.
I take the liberty tonight of referring to the comments in today’s media by my longstanding friend and former Secretary of the ACTU, Bill Kelty, and former Prime Minister Paul Keating, the architects of Australia’s wonderful superannuation system. Bill Kelty rightly argues that, in the negotiations between the then Labor government and the unions, it was agreed that ‘superannuation wasn’t simply a substitute for the old age pension’. He went on to say that raising the preservation age would be ‘an abrogation of the fundamentals’ on which the retirement system was built. Well said, Bill. I have no doubt this debate will continue. On our side of the House we must surely remain committed to maintaining one of Labor’s proudest social achievements.
I welcome also the provision in the budget to our local university. The budget provided $43.8 million to the University of Wollongong for a new Institute for Innovative Materials—Processing and Devices. That comes on top of the $35 million injection of capital funding into the SMART Infrastructure Facility. Our university is a wonderful one, and it is through the university that we are able to diversify our local economic base, which has always been heavily reliant on coal, steelmaking and other manufacturing jobs. So well done to Gerard Sutton, the vice-chancellor, and his staff for presenting an excellent submission to government. In all, the university has benefited from more than $100 million in capital funding from the Rudd Labor government, on top of the wonderful investment we are getting from Building the Education Revolution. That is a wonderful investment that the opportunists on the other side of the House voted against, but of course they are out there wanting to be photographed when the announcements are being made.
Let me end on a positive note which I hope highlights why I am so pleased with the budget. In March this year the unemployment rate in the Illawarra region was 8.3 per cent. In April it had fallen to 7.4 per cent. For the Wollongong statistical region, the trend was down as well, falling from 9.1 per cent to 7.4 per cent. Let us hope this trend—a one-month trend, but at least it is heading in the right direction—is sustainable in the months ahead. I believe that, if not for the stimulus packages and the infrastructure investment that is continued in our budget, this decline in the unemployment rate would not have occurred and the trajectory would have continued to rise. This, in my view, is the best advertisement for the government’s economic strategies, the strategies that underpin the decisions made in the budget. And of course, as always, if the truth is told, those strategies are based on contending with global circumstances of an unprecedented nature that every country in the world is living through. On that, I rest my case.
4310
17:51:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—I am pleased to be part of the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills and to make my contribution. This budget reveals the high price all Australians will pay for Labor’s reckless spending spree. After inheriting the most favourable set of economic conditions, it has taken only 18 months to achieve a record $58 billion deficit, put one million Australians out of work by 2010-11 and record a net debt of at least $188 billion by 2012-13. So much for working Australians! Labor introduced tax hikes which increased revenue by $26 billion. Have you noticed that the Labor Party have stopped talking about working families? Because they will continue to put them out of work. The annual interest bill paid by the Australian people in 2012-13 will be $8 billion. That is more than $9,000 a year for every Australian. Sadly, Labor have lost control of Australia’s finances.
In my electorate of Canning, 68 per cent of residents will be affected by changes to private health insurance through higher premiums because of Prime Minister Rudd’s broken promise to not change health insurance rates. While I welcome the rise in the rate of the single pension, my office has been inundated with calls from local pensioners trying to cut through the spin. Let us not forget that the government did not really want to raise the pension. They stalled and waited for a review. The increasing pressure from the opposition and age groups forced this move. No doubt Mr Rudd’s spin doctors, Hawker Britton, had told him that it was inevitable.
The government talks about corporate greed and golden handshakes. Surprise, surprise—in an effort to tackle the growing epidemic the government has launched a new review. I understand that the Productivity Commission will report on executive remuneration by the end of the year, and today I want to raise one of the worst examples of corporate malevolence in this country. I have been an ardent critic of Telstra in recent years. After Sol Trujillo’s appointment as CEO, Telstra’s mantra was complete domination and thuggery, played out in a high-stakes game of aggressive bluff. Telstra wanted to reduce the regulation that applied to it, limit competition and, in turn, cost everyday Australians more for the privilege. Mr Trujillo and his American mates ripped apart Australia’s national carrier but made sure they looked after themselves in the process. But now we, including Prime Minister Rudd, have said ‘adios’ to Sol Trujillo, his four amigos, and chairman Donald McGauchie. I can only hope a new era for this country’s leading telco has dawned. But I fear it may be a case of blink and you will miss the change.
Armed with a $600,000 relocation bonus, Trujillo arrived in 2005 with a throng of American consultants in tow—Bain and Co, which was paid $54 million, led the way. His amigos—Greg Winn; Bill Stewart; the belligerent so-called government relations manager, Phil Burgess, who probably did more damage to government relations than any other single Telstra executive; and Tom Lamming, senior vice-president of transformation—came to implement his vision and have all now departed, or have announced their departure, from the sinking ship, significantly richer personally for their efforts. Sol came with a plan but was ignorant as to doing business in Australia. He wanted $12 billion to turn Telstra around. Sol’s plan was so anticompetitive no-one could come at it. He offered to build a fibre-to-the-node network for Australia on the condition that Telstra did not have to share the network with any of their competitors. If they did have to share it, okay, fair enough: they would just have to make it so ridiculously expensive that no-one could afford it. Contrast this with the recently announced sharing of rail-line infrastructure in the Pilbara.
Sol’s plans did not work. Let us look at his scorecard. While sales are up, Sol promised that costs would be held at 2005 levels. They have risen by eight per cent. He said he would cut thousands of jobs to reach his efficiency targets. He achieved that—10,000 good Australian workers lost their jobs. While pretending to be as nice as pie, he sacked Aussie workers and stripped them of their entitlements. A complacent and weak board led by Donald McGauchie let this happen and even Geoffrey Cousins, who was appointed to the board by the former Prime Minister, John Howard, was complicit in these decisions. Sol promised up to 30 per cent of revenue would come from new products. This is not the case. Net profit is down by 14 per cent. But one statistic he made sure was looked after was his own salary: this increased by 54 per cent.
Sol was one of the worst corporate executives that this country has seen. At the expense of Australian shareholders he travelled the world and stayed in lavish hotels. He was already an obscenely wealthy man, having netted an estimated $70 million to $90 million payout from his former telco job. By all reports he was particularly fussy with his tastes, which had to be catered for. For example, Pepsi Max had to be available at all times, maybe because he was a former board member of PepsiCo, and he even indulged in making sure that there were almonds, bagels, Las Vegas trips, private jets and suites with up to $10,000 a night price tags.
HVW
Bradbury, David, MP
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—Absolutely. While local staff lost their jobs, Telstra’s top executives earned $46 million between them in 2008 and lived the lifestyle to match it. Meanwhile, the workers were used, abused and conned. Mr Trujillo’s travelling habits were well known and well reported. Once he defended his travelling habits, ironically just before taking off to Barcelona on his corporate jet to announce a major upgrade to Telstra’s mobile network. How this announcement benefited the people of Barcelona is beyond me and, no doubt, the mum and dad investors of Australia too.
Mr Trujillo pocketed $34 million over his four years at Telstra. Last year he took home a staggering $13.4 million. That is almost $260,000 a week. He stands to pocket $3 million in ‘termination payment’ but his final figure is likely to run into being substantially more when bonuses for the current financial year are calculated this August. The fact that he is to actually receive a termination payment is ludicrous in any case because he resigned and chose to leave before the expiration of his contact. In fact, he was paid three times more than his predecessor, Ziggy Switkowski—so compare the value. Shareholders have every right to be unhappy with his performance. Telstra’s share price fell by 37.8 per cent during his reign.
Despite Mr Trujillo’s protests that the share value holds up against other shares considering the global market, Bloomberg’s data reveal that Telstra shares underperformed the rest of the market by a staggering 18 per cent. When Sol took over, the shares were at $5.06. They opened at $3.08 this morning. They reached a low of $2.96 on 19 March this year. So much for rewarding somebody with a massive corporate salary package for advancing the company! He has actually driven the company, its share price, its profits and its income earnings down.
Sol destroyed relations with both the Howard government and the current government. This had a costly impact on shareholders and the reputation of the once proud national carrier. Under Trujillo, Telstra became no more than another big, bad corporate bully and a corporate thug, showing complete disregard for shareholders, customers, the regulators and the government. This is Trujillo’s legacy.
Never was Telstra’s arrogance more evident than in its token submission for the National Broadband Network under this current government. Owning much of the existing copper network and other infrastructure, Telstra holds complete dominance over the market and continues to push the bounds and to use its advantage—bringing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to the brink on this issue. Its lack of effort in its bid for the National Broadband Network caused shockwaves. Its game of chicken with the minister and the government came with a $4.7 billion windfall to Telstra—if it got to build it, obviously. Sol was on a corporate jet out of the country when all the big decisions were being made. In fact, when that decision was being made he was not in Australia. Unlike Optus, who lodged documents and more documents in box after box for their bid, Telstra lodged an insulting 12-page submission. Even a letter from shareholders included in the October 2008 Telstra AGM notice was not enough to tell Telstra to pull him into line. It said that Telstra’s tactics on the NBN tender were ‘increasing the likelihood of negative outcomes for shareholders’. Sol’s claims to be a man who puts customers and shareholders first are as much spin as the current government uses. As we know, Telstra was ruled out of the bid but won a reprieve because the government’s shambolic handling of the process may mean it has an opportunity to inject itself into further negotiations.
It was being rejected from participating in the National Broadband Network that finally showed Sol the door. That day shares fell 11.5 per cent—the largest one-day fall since 1997. His amigos had deserted and soon McGauchie would follow. Sol has still got a job, if only just. After 15 years tenure on the board of the American retail giant, Target, Sol is hanging on by the skin of his teeth. There is a push to unseat him shortly because of his lack of retailing nous.
A poll in the Australian on 27 February, following the Telstra resignation announcement, showed that 69 per cent of people rated his performance as bad—not just average but bad. Trujillo managed to alienate everyone during his reign—shareholders, government, customers and workers. Do not forget when unionised Telstra workers protested after Telstra refused to negotiate on wage increases, causing far-reaching network outages.
Interestingly, last week Mr Trujillo was holed up in what is no doubt a lavish resort in San Diego. Spruiking the wonderful job he had done in Australia at the Future in Review conference, he may have gone a little overboard with his self-praise. Following Sol’s claims that Next G was the envy of the world, one astute investor questioned how Telstra managed to get 21 megabits per second to mobiles when the network in Silicon Valley could get only seven megabytes per second. Sol’s exaggerations were publicly caught out when he had to admit that 21 was the absolute optimum and unfortunately most services operated well below this. He was sprung by a real telecommunications expert. This revealed that his bragging and boasting was all about touting for another lavish executive position—this time probably in the US. The industry and his American peers can see through him, unlike the gullible Telstra board that was fascinated by him.
Telstra’s billing procedures and IT changes pushed calls to the company to unsustainable levels. This is by their own admission. A new cash grab has come in with 30-second billing blocks for STD and overseas calls. Reports indicate that this will increase revenue by tens of millions, costing small business owners and families up to double. Complaints are skyrocketing. In just 90 days earlier this year, Telstra’s complaints increased by 90 per cent. This is no surprise to me as complaints about Telstra and broadband access are among the most common calls to my office. Interestingly, according to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, complaints about Telstra rose by 241 per cent through Mr Trujillo’s reign. Last year, complaints were averaging 250 a day about phone services and over 50 about broadband. These figures will give you some idea about the number of Telstra complaints that come across my desk. I will not go through the examples in detail today but, needless to say, my constituents often call me to seek assistance when they feel as though they are hitting their heads against a brick wall. Fortunately, I have had the great assistance of senior Australian Telstra operatives who have gone to great lengths to see that my constituents’ complaints are rectified. Despite their efforts, it is a testament to the ineffectiveness of Telstra’s procedures that I have had to go to such high levels to have basic administrative and reception complaints rectified.
It was Telstra’s arrogance that ultimately led to the demise of the chairman of the board, Donald McGauchie—along with his unwavering support for Sol. As an editorial in the Australian stated:
Mr McGauchie calculated Mr Trujillo and the gang of American mates would crash through, instead they crashed.
With the rest of the board—Charles Macek, John Stanhope, John Mullen, John Stewart, John Stocker, Peter Willcox, John Zeglis—McGauchie walked Sol’s straight line. Even Geoff Cousins, who the other members did not want on the board, became weak and compliant, focusing much of his attention on the Tasmanian pulp mill rather than the job that he was actually paid for. McGauchie worshipped the ground that Sol walked on. He was instrumental in luring him to Australia in the first place. In the article ‘Who killed McGauchie?’ on 10 May 2009, the Financial Review reported that McGauchie fell on his sword when he was outgunned by Future Fund guardians who said:
The Board of Guardians is focused on seeing value returned to the fund’s Telstra holdings and looks forward to engaging with the new chair and the board.
It was another example of Telstra’s arrogance when the Future Fund board—Telstra’s major shareholder at more than 16 per cent—requested a meeting with the full Telstra board on 30 March. Only McGauchie showed up. That, combined with support for John Stanhope as new CEO, as another import, put the writing on the wall for his future at the company.
Like Sol, Mr McGauchie will not be at a loss after leaving Telstra. He remains on the board of the discredited James Hardie, which has spent $20 million battling the corporate watchdog and has suffered a 44 per cent fall in operating profits. After his failed role in the wharf dispute of 1997, he became a corporate gun for hire, willing to prostitute himself for a fast dollar. McGauchie also sits on the board of Nufarm, as well as having been reappointed to the Reserve Bank by former Treasurer Mr Costello until 2011. I am sure he will not survive after that.
In Canning, my electorate, broadband is a serious issue. I have had many calls, as I have said, about how we can get broadband into the electorate, but time prevents me from continuing on that. All I can say is that, under NBN Mark II, Serpentine, Mundijong, Dwellingup, North Dandalup and Jarrandale will be battling to get the rollout that is being touted.
Finally, the government will now have to deal with the CEO’s replacement, former enterprise executive David Thodey. The real concern is that it is not clear that anything is actually going to change. Mr Thodey has already said on the record that Telstra’s strategy and values are not going to change. Oh, dear—it is the same strategy that got them into this mess to begin with. He recently said that the strategy of differentiation and competing for customers on value that Sol and the whole executive team set for Telstra is not going to change.
While many believe that the incoming chairman, Catherine Livingstone, has seen the results and could not possibly make the same mistakes, one has to wonder. She was a member of the former board and therefore complicit in every poor decision and every bad judgment. I suspect the Future Fund guardians—and not only them but of course every Telstra shareholder in Australia—remain concerned. One can only assume Ms Livingstone played a role or was complicit in the many ill-considered decisions that were made, as I said. She has also said what a good bloke Mr McGauchie was. What hope is there for the future, then? People are questioning Ms Livingstone’s ability to work through the mess she has been left with.
I note today that Sol is complaining that Australia is something of a racist country. The sad irony is that Sol and his amigos brought this focus on themselves by their greed and unnecessary antagonism. In that context I would like to say, as they would say in a good western movie: ‘Adios, gringos; you’ve just been run out of town.’ I hope this draws to a conclusion the worst case of corporate malfeasance that Australia has ever had to endure.
I seek leave to table an email from Mr John Houston.
Leave granted.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—Mr Houston is the one who actually encouraged me to take a closer look at Mr Trujillo when he first came to this country. As you will see, the email is dated 2006. To paraphrase, he said he had worked with Mr Trujillo on international telcos. He was the chief operating officer of Orange in Switzerland. He said, basically, ‘Watch this guy; he’s no good.’ So I did, and I watched him carefully. I want to thank Mr Houston for sending me that email. In it he then goes on to explain some of the reasons why he said to watch him. He says, ‘Accordingly, I am glad to see that someone in the government’—this was when we were in government rather than opposition—‘has stood up for the real issues with Telstra now.’ He says that Telstra is in the worst possible leadership hands under Mr Trujillo and his imported team. He finishes by saying: ‘Good on you. Continue to call for his sacking.’ I can say to Mr Houston: your wishes have been delivered. He might not have been sacked but he is gone, and I hope for a new dawn of Telstra in Australia. Seriously, as a Telstra customer myself at home and in my office, I want Telstra to work and be the national carrier, the pre-eminent company in Australia, that it should be. It is there to serve not only corporate Australia but the mums and dads of Australia who want to communicate in the modern age in the most modern way possible. It needs governance. I hope the new board are up to it and the new CEO and the new chair will deliver that professional management. I thank the House.
4315
18:11:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I am very pleased to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and related bills, which support the second budget of the Rudd Labor government. The 2009 budget was a positive, responsible and appropriate budget for the future of Australia, given the current global financial crisis. I must put on record my respect for the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, for the hard work that has gone into the planning and the execution of what is one of the most important budgets for generations. Let me also state my admiration for the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, and of course the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, for delivering such a responsible and responsive budget, one that significantly contributes to economic reform even though it was delivered during the most challenging economic times we have known since the Great Depression.
I would also like to thank the Assistant Treasurer, Chris Bowen, who visited my electorate last Friday to speak with business and other stakeholders on the content and impacts of the 2009 budget. This is a budget that will support the jobs of today while building the Australia of tomorrow, investing in the infrastructure to create the wealth that our nation needs to not only weather the current financial storm but come out stronger for it.
The extent of the global financial crisis cannot be ignored. In the Howard-Costello era we saw the equity market grow at an incredible pace, with a variety of new obscure and opaque financial instruments called ‘derivatives’ introduced onto the American market. This was an unregulated and grossly speculative market and we are now all paying the price. The involvement of commercial banks in the derivatives market boomed in America—they joined the investment banks in promoting the trading in debt and risk. This coincided in America with the subprime mortgage lending spree and saw investors exposed to ever-growing credit risk and potential losses.
But whilst profits rolled in there was no international inclination for tighter regulation or for shining a light on the extent of the risk and the debt being accumulated—debt that was never affordable or even repayable. In fact, the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, encouraged Australians to put all their excess cash into superannuation, which of course was heavily weighted toward equity market investment. To their detriment, they did—borrowing against their mortgages, taking out loans and salary sacrificing to build their super fund investment. Corporate executive remuneration skyrocketed even when the cracks began to appear in what had become a globalised practice. Toxic products were traded over and over again, especially in the form of credit default swaps, trading the risk of default from one institution to another. Finally, with the crash of the subprime mortgage market in 2008, the derivatives market imploded. Taxpayer funded bailouts and guarantees swept the world, but, with credit frozen and investment funding dried up, with debt now unrecoverable, economies around the world quickly slipped toward recession and depression.
So let us not forget what led us to this financial crisis: the promotion of market economics. The market is always good and government intervention is always bad, so they thought—read, ‘Greed triumphs over common sense and collective good exercised through elected and representative governments—or, as the Prime Minister so aptly described, the folly of unfettered neoliberalism, so slavishly espoused by the coalition opposition throughout their time in government, to which they still adhere today.
The International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook statement in April 2009 describes the US as the epicentre of the crisis and details the impact on economies around the world. Their data projects Australia as having only one year, 2009, where real GDP will contract, predicting a return to positive growth in 2010 but experiencing unemployment growth peaking at 7.8 per cent in 2010, significantly below the projection of an average of 9.2 for advanced economies. In April our unemployment rate was 5½ per cent. Europe’s rate was 8.9 per cent; the US, 8.9 per cent; France, 8.8 per cent; Germany, 7.6 per cent; Canada, eight per cent; the UK, 6.6 per cent; and Spain, 18 per cent. Those figures represent quite an achievement by the Rudd Labor government.
So whilst Australia has not been able to escape the global financial crisis, the Rudd government, through its financial stimulus packages and this budget, has met it head on, reducing its impacts upon the people of Australia and protecting the quality of life we all appreciate. Already, before this budget was brought down, Australia was placed in a strong position to face the challenges of the global financial crisis. The Rudd Labor government’s stimulus packages of December 2008 and February of this year provided much needed support to the Australian economy and won international praise for their implementation. One IMF spokesperson stated that if ‘the Rudd government hadn’t responded early with stimulus packages last year and this year, the world would probably be experiencing a depression right now, not a recession.’
So now to the details of the 2009 budget. There were many big-ticket items—important ones. The budget contained $22 billion in total infrastructure spending to offset the lack of investment by the previous Howard-Costello government, to compensate for the lack of investment from the private sector and to enrich the lives of all Australians into the future. This included $3.4 billion for roads, $4.6 billion for metro rail and $389 million for ports and freight infrastructure. It also committed $4½ billion on new clean energy initiatives; $3.2 billion to modernise hospitals and improve cancer facilities; $2½ billion over five years for hospital and health workforce reform; an extra $64.98 a fortnight for single pensioners and $20.28 for couples; $731 million over four years to phase in paid parental leave, a landmark decision and one we all celebrate on this side of the House; an increase in the Medicare levy surcharge, to encourage private health insurance and means testing for the Medicare rebate so that all Australians make a contribution; an extra $150 million to the ABC over three years; and tax cuts that were delivered as promised.
Significantly for members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which I chair, this budget gave due recognition to our report into the impact of the efficiency dividend on small agencies, Size does matter, and removed the two per cent efficiency dividend. Through funding allocations it also recognised the difficulties being experienced by some particular agencies—the Australian National Audit Office, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and CSIRO particularly. We do accept the economic challenges of the time, but we encourage Finance to continue to implement the recommendations of our report.
All in all this is a conscientious budget that will deliver for the working families of Australia. It will provide greater support for the age pensioners of Australia as well. And it will give invaluable assistance to the students of Australia, from kindergarten all the way through to postgraduate.
I am pleased to say that the budget also delivered for the people of my city, Newcastle, and for the Hunter region, specifically allocating $35 million for the Hunter Medical Research Institute over four years and an extra $3.6 million to various projects at the RAAF Base Williamtown. It also funded important upgrading of weather radars at numerous Bureau of Meteorology weather stations within my electorate, a measure that I know will be particularly welcomed by our keen fishermen in the region. At the regional level the budget allocated $1½ billion for the Hunter F3 link—or the Hunter Expressway, as it will now be known—and $5½ million for Tocal College’s Rural VET Infrastructure project. These projects will all, in their own way, sustain employment and help to maintain the Newcastle economy through enhancement to our services, the diversification of our economy and the support of important infrastructure. On top of the more than $1.1 billion that has already been spent in my electorate since the Rudd Labor government took power, these projects are further recognition of the input and contribution our city makes to the nation.
The $1½ billion for the long-awaited F3 link between Seahampton and Branxton, near my electorate of Newcastle, will relieve pressure on the roads in my electorate. The link road will be a 39.5-kilometre-long dual carriageway freeway with two lanes in each direction, running generally north-west from the F3 at the Newcastle Link Road interchange to the Belford Bends Deviation on the New England Highway north of Branxton. The road will allow traffic to bypass the Maitland area—one of the fastest growing regions in Australia—and will significantly reduce travelling times between Newcastle and Sydney. After years of delays and neglect from the Howard government this incredibly important development for the people of the Hunter will finally come to fruition under the Labor Party. I congratulate my colleague the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, for his strong advocacy and his insistence on due process. Undertaken with the support of the Rudd government, a Lower Hunter transport needs study found the new road will deliver $1.3 billion in economic benefits. We look forward to those benefits flowing to support our economic future.
I would also take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Newcastle. We have gained tremendous dividends from the Rudd government stimulus packages and from the 2009 budget. But a key factor in this has been the successful diversification of our economy. I can only feel for my Illawarra colleagues, who struggle still with that challenge. Historically a centre for heavy industry, Newcastle has established itself as a hub for innovation and research, knowledge based manufacturing, collaborative and investment friendly business sectors and a first-class service sector operating across many fields. By building a strong skills base, complemented by sound social and economic infrastructure, Newcastle is reaping the benefits of a multidisciplinary, diversified economy. In particular our movement toward clean energy research, innovation and business services, supported by the CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship and energy division, by the Rudd government’s National Solar Institute and by the Clean Energy Innovation Centre, all located in Newcastle, we will continue to attract more industry and more investment into Newcastle and the Hunter.
I note that the two stimulus packages have seen spending in Newcastle thus far of over $86 million. I would like to elaborate on that. In the first stimulus package last year, individual payments exceeding $42 million were received. Although that has been described as a cash splash by some in the House, I have to say that when I read about these single age pensioners, age pension couples, disability support pensioners, veteran service pensioners and carer payments; we all know that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Those cash payments were very much welcomed and were certainly needed in my electorate. In the second stimulus package earlier this year—and that money is continuing to roll into electorates around Australia—the Building the Education Revolution has seen almost $19 million spent towards infrastructure. Community infrastructure on other projects exceeds $10 million, with $8.5 million going to the museum redevelopment project in the CBD. It is very much needed in these times. Public, community and Defence housing spending has thus far exceeded $5 million. And spending on roads has thus far exceeded $9 million. Just a measure like the insulation and the solar hot water rebates has delivered $291,000 to the electorate. People in my electorate are taking up those measures with great enthusiasm. We have seen over $44 million in infrastructure stimulus spending in my electorate, and I look forward to the benefits flowing to the people in my electorate.
But the budget has not been just good news. There have been some tough decisions taken to pave the way back to surplus when the economic recovery from recession emerges. These measures include the following: the longstanding 30 per cent private health insurance rebate will be reduced for those earning more than $75,000 for singles and much higher for couples; tax breaks on salary sacrificing into superannuation will be scaled back; the eligibility age for the age pension will rise to 67; tougher income testing for pensions; means-testing of the health insurance rebate; the introduction of less generous arrangements for family payments and superannuation; the rationalisation of student income support programs; and the introduction of safety net measures to drive down specialist fees for important and common procedures. Naturally, there have been concerns by some in our electorates about those measures, but they are all aimed at reducing future spending and getting the budget back to surplus, as well as achieving fairness and assisting those Australians most in need.
The budget forecast tells us that the economy will shrink overall. Unemployment will hit 8.5 per cent by mid-2011 and debt will rise significantly, as we have heard. As the Treasurer has stated:
Now, of course we will have to take hard decisions, hard decisions to support jobs, hard decisions to make sure we put that long term investment in place and to make the Budget sustainable over the long term.
With the global recession wiping more than $200 billion from Australian government tax revenues, we have had to deliver a deficit budget with significant debt projections. With the private sector unable to access credit, with commodity prices falling and earnings reduced, it falls to government to invest in the economy to avoid the full brunt of the global financial crisis.
Net debt is forecast to peak at 13.8 per cent of GDP in 2013-14. But Australia’s debt level is the lowest of equivalent economies in the world, with net debt of 80 per cent of GDP projected for advanced economies in 2014. The UK are facing a 22 per cent debt level, Canada 60 per cent, the United States 71 per cent and Japan 196 per cent of GDP. These are serious times and they require serious financial decisions. We have all heard the opposition talking up our debt and talking down our economy—we have all heard that the sky is falling—but they have no solutions. It is important to realise that through this spending—70 per cent of which is going towards infrastructure—future generations will have in place first-class schools and universities; major investments in our public health system; the advantage of significant training and reskilling opportunities; roads, rail, port infrastructure to support trade, export and commerce; and investments in first-class research and innovation to create solutions for the future. That is a wonderful legacy for future generations.
This is a budget that builds the future of Australia. There is $22 billion in infrastructure spending, combined with $52.4 billion of economic stimulus packages, that will all help to push Australia through the GFC. And it will work. But you do not need to take my word for that. According to a CommSec briefing given by Craig James—the Chief Equities Economist of the Commonwealth Bank—in my electorate of Newcastle this month, apart from six economies that will experience growth, Australia will experience the third lowest fall in GDP out of 52 countries. Let me share their forecast with you. They say that we will have a small fall in economic growth in 2009 but that we will see growth in 2010 of between two and 2.5 per cent. That will be, of course, the beginning of a much better time. They say that inflation will be between two and 2.5 per cent on average this year, rising to 2½ per cent to 2.75 per cent on average in 2010. Unemployment is projected by CommSec to be seven per cent by the end of this year and 6.5 per cent by the end of 2010. The cash rate benefiting everyone at the moment will, they say, rise from 2.75 to perhaps three per cent at the end of 2009, rising to 3.25 per cent at the end of 2010. The share market will be at 4,000 at the end of this year and will rise to 4,300. The Australian dollar—and I think they are just about spot on—will move from 75c to 77c this year.
I am very pleased to share other people’s views of the economic projections for this country. Just remember, though, that the only ones talking down the Australian economy and its management are Malcolm Turnbull and the members of his coalition opposite. I would like to end my contribution to this debate by quoting the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, in a recent interview with Tony Jones on Lateline:
If we were to take Malcolm Turnbull’s approach, you would see a further contraction of the economy, thousands more jobs lost, thousands more businesses going broke. What we have to do is to sustain activity through short term spending which our stimulus package involves, through investment in infrastructure, and longer term investment to improve productivity which is also central to the budget, and that means that we have to live with that debt. But we’ve got a strategy to get out of it, medium term, and we’ll follow that.
Of course, we will, and the Australian economy will be much stronger for it.
4319
18:30:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—Labor is back. We see in this year’s budget the old-style Labor Party is back in control of the finances of Australia. We see that the Labor Party, true to form, has reverted to its old ways—running up debt, losing control of finances, driving up unemployment, costing people their jobs—and the net result is that Australians are less wealthy today than they were when the coalition left government. In summary, if you listen to the whole debate between those opposite and those on this side of the chamber, it essentially comes down to this: the Australian Labor Party likes to pretend that this is all a result of the GFC, as it calls it—the global financial crisis—being thrust upon the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party likes to claim that it is the victim here, that the decisions that it makes are largely irrelevant and that Australia is where it is today as a consequence of external factors affecting the Australian economy and not as a result of government policy.
But what is the real story? What do we know, once we scratch past the superfluous arguments—and, I have to say, in many respects the spurious arguments—of the Australian Labor Party that we hear from so many members opposite time and time again? What is the real story that lies behind the actual budget numbers that we see? Contrary to Labor’s claim that this $57 billion worth of deficit, this $300 billion worth of debt, is all a consequence of a $210 million write-down, we discover that that is not entirely true. The truth of the matter is that two-thirds of the debt this country faces is as a consequence of this government’s reckless spending. There has been $124 billion of new spending announced by this government in the 18 months since it was elected in November 2007. That equates to some $230 million a day of new spending announced by this reckless and irresponsible Rudd Labor government, some $10 million an hour.
It is no wonder that the ministers on the front bench hang their heads in shame. And so they should. I notice that the Minister for Youth is in the chamber. I wonder whether the Minister for Youth has the courage to talk to young Australians and say, ‘As a consequence of our government’s decisions and as a result of the reckless spending of the government, you are now in debt to the tune of $9,000.’ I am sure that the Minister for Youth has not had that conversation with young Australians. The ministers opposite are ashamed about the true state of affairs and the parlous state in which this government has left the nation’s finances. Because of this reckless spending spree that we have seen over the past eight months, we know that Australia today is fundamentally less strong than it was when the coalition left office. Bear in mind that the coalition spent a decade, or the best part thereof, repaying the $96 billion of debt that the Australian Labor Party left Australia last time.
Those who have been around for a while will recall that last time it was also a consequence of circumstance—not a result of Labor’s bad policies, not a result of Labor’s mismanagement of the economy, not a result of the myopia that seems to be part of the incumbency of the Australian Labor Party but, rather, a consequence of a government that simply was the victim. And so we see again, now that Labor has been in government for 18 months, all of the same arguments being trotted out. What we see is that, despite having spent a decade paying off that $96 billion of Labor Party debt, despite the coalition reducing unemployment to a 33-year record low, despite the coalition saving for our nation’s future—through the Future Fund, through infrastructure funds, through the health fund, through the education fund; putting aside tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, in forward forecasts under the coalition—all of that counts for nought. In 18 short months, the Australian Labor Party has undone all of that work.
I stand in this chamber and question why the Australian Labor Party has been spending $10 million an hour since its election and question the wisdom of those spending decisions when we know that it simply threw $22 billion straight out the door. It borrowed money and threw it straight out the door and concocted a story that it was a necessary precursor to stimulating the economy. But what do we know is the truth? We know that it did not stimulate the economy. Australians have paid a very heavy price, and will for decades pay a very heavy price, as a result of the last 18 months alone of this reckless Rudd Labor government. Unfortunately, it will be the case that the Rudd Labor government, even in the most optimistic forecast as contained in the budget papers, will not even commence repaying Australia’s debt until 2017. It is forecast that we will be a nation that is borrowing until 2017 under this Labor government. Under this Labor government it is no wonder that the 33-year record low in unemployment, consumer confidence and the money we set aside for future investment have all been lost. We know already that the Labor Party is going to drive unemployment up to one million Australians. We know that debt will reach $300 billion under this government—a $58 billion deficit this year alone. Australians are rightly very concerned, because this deficit and this debt amounts to some $9,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in this country. That is an appalling legacy after only 18 months of the Labor Party in power.
The concern that we have on this side of the chamber also extends to the fact that the Australian Labor Party have the most optimistic forecast in their budget papers—$300 billion worth of debt and then we see that their so-called plan for recovery, which all Australians are rightly so cynical about, is predicated upon the fact, according to the Australian Labor Party, that we are about to re-emerge from the GFC into the most glorious economic renaissance that this country has ever seen. Under the Australian Labor Party, Australians are about to enjoy, if you believe Labor’s budget papers, six years of around 4½ per cent of GDP growth. This has never occurred in Australia’s history, and I daresay it is unlikely to occur any time in the near future. There might be one or two years where, probably only as a consequence of good luck rather than good management by the Australian Labor Party, the economy does grow at 4 or 4½ per cent. But six years is unlikely. Economic commentators have made that point repeatedly.
So, we know already that the Australian Labor Party forecast which predicates the way they will pay down this mountain of debt and deficit is completely false and based on the most optimistic scenario—so optimistic as to be completely and utterly useless. We can expect, therefore, to see a situation arise where this mountain of debt and deficit just continues to grow. I know from speaking to my constituents on the Gold Coast that they question Labor’s forecasts when there is not even incorporated into the budget papers money for Ruddbank, which is predicted to be around $28 billion, $43 billion for the National Broadband Network and who knows how many tens of billions of dollars, if not a hundred billion dollars, on defence spending. That is not even in the budget papers. It behoves all Australians to look very closely at the forecasts in the budget papers. It is a most blue-sky scenario that the Labor Party has attempted to portray here, when this government has predicted some $300 billion of debt but then excludes $43 billion for the National Broadband Network, $28 billion for Ruddbank and, as I said, perhaps a hundred billion dollars on defence white paper spending.
The real level of debt in this country over the next decade or so could quite conceivably and easily touch a half a trillion dollars—up to $600 million or $700 million. That is, of course, also predicated on the fact that the Labor Party seeks to have no new spending initiatives between now and 2017. That again is part of Labor’s policy. I will bet the member for Blaxland will not speak about these matters in his contribution to the debate. The Labor Party is silent on each of these things. The Labor Party will not speak about the fact that their forecasts are so optimistic. The Labor Party will not speak about the fact that their $300 billion of debt excludes the National Broadband Network and Ruddbank. They will not talk about the fact that they have been spending $10 million an hour, and the Labor Party certainly will not talk about the fact that they have racked up $124 billion of new spending since they were elected. They will run the line that they are the victims, that one million unemployed Australians is acceptable and that people just need to understand that it is all because a $210 billion revenue shortfall has been thrust upon them. That is not good enough. With the passage of time, it will be on each of their heads that they have been part of a government that has allowed the Australian economy to go to rack and ruin.
In my capacity as shadow minister for small business, tourism, independent contractors and the arts, I would also like to make some comments about small business. We know on this side of the chamber that small business is the lifeblood of the Australian economy. This side of the chamber understands small business. That side of the chamber certainly does not. It is the truth that for the vast majority of those members who occupy the government benches, the closest they have come to a small business is when they have stepped inside one to buy themselves a cappuccino or perhaps to sip on a chardonnay. That is typically the extent of small business knowledge and understanding in the Australian Labor Party. That was highlighted in the budget presented recently by this government. There was so little provided to ensure that those 2.4 million small businesses that employ around 3.8 million Australians have what they need to carry themselves forward when times are tough.
The Australian Labor Party like to crow about the fact that they made one announcement—and it was, to all intents and purposes, the third time they had made the announcement, in some variation or other—about the tax effective investment allowance. It provides a 50 per cent investment allowance for small businesses on the purchase of new plant and equipment. As the shadow minister I have taken the view that that announcement will be of some benefit to small businesses. But it really does not do much at all. The Labor Party just does not understand that the reason it does not help most small businesses is that, when times are tough, cash flow is king. When you are in a small business you need every dollar you can get your hands on and, if revenues are down and costs are up, then your small business may be teetering on the very edge and at the point where it may be difficult for it to survive. When that happens, one of the first things that small businesses do, especially if they have employees, is reduce the hours of their employees. We have seen that occur in the last 12 months. The next step after that when small businesses are starved of cash is that they reduce their labour force. They put people off. That, unfortunately, has also been happening because this government has done nothing for small business and, as a result, we see the 3.8 million young Australians employed in small business starting to lose their jobs.
The problem with Labor’s big announcement about tax effective investments is that it does nothing to assist small business cash flow. In fact, it does the exact opposite of helping small business cash flow—it makes it worse because it requires small businesses who want to take advantage of it to actually use cash or credit to purchase new plant and equipment. If the Labor Party understood small business they would know that was the case. Let members opposite—the member for Blaxland or the member for Adelaide—take a look at a dynamic business blog and see what small businesses say about Labor’s policy. They will see it in black and white: ‘We can’t use it because we don’t have the cash to spend on plant and equipment.’
Those on this side of the chamber understand that, and that is why a key part of our policy is to assist small business. That is the reason why the Leader of the Opposition stood up in his budget reply speech and focused fairly and squarely on small business. He said to them, ‘We will help you with your cash flow in these tough times.’ One of the initiatives we put forward was the tax loss carryback. I do not intend to go into detail on that in this speech. I have done so on numerous previous occasions and, of course, there are opportunities for interested members to look at our very comprehensive small business website to see our policy ideas. I encourage members opposite to do that because, frankly, they need some ideas for small business.
Turning to the tourism industry, this industry is just so crucial to Australia’s future. Around 500,000 Australians are employed in this industry. It generates around $22 billion or $23 billion of exports in an industry worth around $80 billion. The Australian tourism industry has once again been completely left in the lurch by the Australian Labor Party in this year’s budget. Admittedly, this budget was not as bad as the previous year’s, when the Labor Party imposed $1 billion of new taxes on the tourism industry. This year they simply cut a lot of the funding. There were no new taxes for the tourism industry, and I guess tourism operators might be grateful for that—after they were bashed up last year they will just be pleased that they were not bashed again this year by the Australian Labor Party. But let me make it clear again: from the coalition’s perspective the Labor government will cost thousands of jobs in the tourism industry. They have already started the rot with such failed budgets as last year’s, and they have continued it this year by axing the Australian Tourism Development Program, a $27½ million investment in tourism which the government walked away from. There was no media release about that. We saw a spiffy release from the Minister for Tourism announcing $8½ million for the tourism industry. He forgot to mention that he was axing $27 million. The tourism industry is angry with the government. The 500,000 people employed in the industry are angry with the government because they know that the reckless financial mismanagement of the Labor Party government is costing thousands of jobs.
I would like to discuss the very real impact of this Labor Party budget on my constituents in Moncrieff. Around 55 per cent of my electorate has private medical insurance. People take pride in the fact that they do something to help provide for their own health. Many of them sacrifice on a weekly basis to keep their private health insurance. They do so because they do not want to be a burden on the public system; rather, they are willing to provide for themselves. This government is now going to strip away the affordability of private medical insurance. The Labor Party will claim that it is only for the top end, but, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is this: as people shift from private medical insurance, premiums for everybody will go up. As more people drop out of the system as premiums go up, the downward cycle will continue until we reach the socialist nirvana that all those opposite believe in of no private medical insurance. We know that that is the ideology that drives them. We know that the Labor Party would like to see one massive public health system with no-one in private medical insurance. If you cast your mind back you can remember the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, a man, at the time on $200,000-plus a year, who proudly boasted that he did not have private medical insurance. That is the nirvana that they are after, but this side of the chamber will stand up for those Australians who are willing to put their shoulder to the wheel, work, earn an income and provide for their medical insurance.
Finally, we hear so much about infrastructure from the Labor Party. We have seen them crow about an alleged—and I use that term advisedly—investment in light rail for the Gold Coast. A close look at the budget papers shows that it is contingent upon so many different things that I doubt the people of the Gold Coast will ever see one cent from the Australian Labor Party. (Time expired)
4324
18:50:00
Clare, Jason, MP
HWL
Blaxland
ALP
1
0
Mr CLARE
—It is not often that you meet a bloke named Kevin and even rarer that you meet two in one place, but that is where I found myself a couple of weeks ago: between Kevin the Prime Minister from Queensland and Kevin the builder from Bankstown. Kev the builder from Bankstown told Kev the PM from Queensland what the government’s actions had meant for his business. Kev is in the building game. His family business, Co-Wyn, has been around since 1954. The government’s nation-building infrastructure plan means that Kev has a lot of work on at the moment. He employs 13 full-time staff, including two apprentices, at Co-Wyn and he is about to sign another one on. After the Prime Minister visited Co-Wyn, a young bloke saw the story on television, was interested in a job and rang Kev. He rifled through the Yellow Pages, found the business and gave him a call. Kev was so impressed by his initiative that he promised him a job at the end of the year when he finished school. That is the sort of bloke that Kevin is.
On every single job site he subcontracts a whole raft of different jobs to local tradespeople who do everything from clearing the site to wiring it up. I asked him for a list of the sorts of people who work on his job sites: demolition contractors, excavator operators, truck drivers, landscapers, concreters, concrete suppliers, form workers, timber suppliers, steel fixers, bricklayers, block layers, structural steel fabricators, carpenters, roofing contractors, window and door manufacturers, plasterers, joinery contractors, renderers, metal fabricators, fire safety contractors, signage companies, waterproofing contractors, ceramic tiling contractors, vinyl and carpet layers, painters, plumbers, electricians, refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanics, lift suppliers and installers, and industrial cleaners. A lot of people work there. On any given day, up to 50 subbies work, as Kev does, on a $3 million project to build halls for schools in the Catholic education system on the Central Coast. He tells me that over the life of the project he is employing between 300 and 400 workers.
I asked him about the 30 per cent rebate for small businesses. He knew all about it. He told me that he had recently bought an $80,000 bobcat with the money and bought two new cars for the business. I asked him a little bit more about the budget. He told me that two of his apprentices had just bought their first home with the first homeowners boost, supporting more jobs in the local community, in the car industry, in the bobcat industry and in the housing industry. It is a story that is being replicated all around the country. It is the story of this budget. It is a ‘Kev the builder’ budget.
We know from the Treasury modelling—and, if you look at Budget Paper No. 1, on pages 1-7, you will see—what life would be like for people like Kev if the government was not stimulating the economy and if it was not injecting money into the economy. Budget Paper No. 1 says that, if the government had not acted, there would be more people unemployed and the recession would be deeper. It says that, if the government had not acted, 210,000 more people would be an out of work in the next financial year and the recession would be deeper than in the United States. That is the consequence of not acting and it is a consequence that would be felt by people like Kev the builder and by people in my electorate of Blaxland. They are the sorts of people that would bear the brunt of this.
Blaxland has borne the brunt of 10 interest rate rises in a row—we were the mortgage stress capital of Australia for a long, long time. Now we are bearing the brunt of the global recession. I have got some horrifying statistics to provide to the House: in the last month 6,000 people lost their job in southwest Sydney—194 day. Unemployment is currently 8.6 per cent. It is up 3½ per cent in the last 12 months. That is twice as fast as the national average. We are, in many respects, the canary in the coalmine. It is a place where many people work in manufacturing, and so it has been hit hard by the downturn in trade and overseas demand. There is a big company in my electorate called Dane Automotive. They are in Yennora—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—It is not as big as it was.
HWL
Clare, Jason, MP
Mr CLARE
—It isn’t; that is a fair comment. Four hundred and nineteen people have lost their job in the last two years, 65 in the last month. Two years ago the workforce was 580; now it is 161. I spoke to the managing director, and he told me that the global recession meant that they did not have a choice. Fixed costs are still the same but demand has gone through the floor. There are other companies in my electorate that tell the same story. I spoke to an employee at one business the other day. They usually have a monthly turnover of around $5,000. In the last three weeks they sold about $78 worth of stock. Good businesses, businesses that have been around for a long time, are hitting the wall, and they are not the only ones. People who have never sought help before are suddenly going to places like Vinnies, the Salvos and organisations like Creating Links, a local NGO around the corner from my office. They have just had to increase the number of food vouchers that they hand out each week to meet the surge in new demand. Often they are seeing people who have lost their jobs, who are behind in their rent and who are looking to help. Most of us now know someone who has lost a job, someone who has been the victim of the global recession. It is a devastating experience.
Louise is the manager of Creating Links, and she tells me that people that she sees are just in a state of shock. I know what it was like when my dad lost his job when he was made redundant in the early 1990s. The whole family was in a state of shock. It left a real sense of uncertainty and fear. But we were one of the lucky ones, because Dad got another job in just four weeks. If you find yourself out of the workforce for an extended period of time, the long-term effects can be really crippling. The last recession left a generation of people unable to find full-time work again. We cannot let it happen, and that is why this budget is so important. That is why we need to protect jobs, and that is why we need to borrow. That is what this budget does: it builds infrastructure and it protects jobs. That is why it has my support. It is a budget for the people of Blaxland.
For the 25,400 pensioners in Blaxland it means an extra $32.48 per week for single pensioners and $10.14 per week for couples. But, more than that, it means a better quality of life. Herman and Dora Saavedra, good people from the Grevillea Court Retirement Village, tell me that in Yagoona the 82 people who live at the retirement village were absolutely delighted. They said the increase is going to make a tremendous difference to their way of life. It is going to mean that they can buy more fruit and vegetables and they will have more ingredients to cook with. I spoke to a bloke called Stan Quirke, who is the president of the Greenacre Senior Citizens. It is a great organisation, and he is a great bloke. He told me that what this budget means to single pensioners is that instead of sausages for dinner they can have steak. That is the sort of difference it means on the ground, and it is the sort of thing that the former government should have done years ago when gold bars were raining from the ceiling. When $300 billion worth of transfer payments were splashed across the economy between 2002 and 2007, there was not a dollar spare for pensioners—not a dollar spare for people who needed the money more than most. I am proud to be part of a government that has given some priority to pensioners, that has made this massive reform that makes a difference for people like Stan Quirke and for people like Herman and Dora.
For the thousands of young families that are in Blaxland, the budget delivers a national paid parental leave scheme. It is a historic decision, one that is long overdue—one that will make it easier for parents to be with their newborn child in those critical first six months and one that will boost female participation in the workforce. It is an important reform, and I am proud to be part of a government that is finally delivering it. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, described it as ‘a major triumph for not only mothers and parents, but for our community’. I agree. It demonstrates the value that this government places on family relationships. For women in lower paid jobs, it will be even more significant because this is where, currently, there is very limited access to maternity leave. It is also where a lot of women in my electorate currently work. This will give them the financial support that they need, it will ease the pressure to return to work and it will give them extra time to spend with their beautiful new baby. Every mum will tell you that the first few months go too quickly. This will help more parents to enjoy that precious time.
For the young people in Blaxland the budget marks an equally dramatic and important shift in public policy. It is a budget that means more young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds will get access to university. The budget allocates about $400 million to encourage universities to draw students from areas of social and economic disadvantage—from places like Blaxland. Social disadvantage begins early. In Blaxland, fewer children go to preschool than elsewhere around the country, fewer finish high school and even fewer go to university. It is these sorts of lost opportunities that entrench social disadvantage and that account for a youth unemployment rate of 36.2 per cent in Bankstown and 41.6 per cent in Fairfield, double the national average. Education opens this door and gives us a chance to turn this around. This budget recognises that.
For small businesses in Blaxland, the budget increases the tax offset for assets over $1,000. It was 30 per cent; it is now 50 per cent. It will help more businesses to grow and expand—businesses like Kev’s. Kev has told me that in the next few months he plans to buy a truck, an excavator and a generator. It also, importantly, has a multiplier effect. It means that more businesses will benefit from these assets being purchased. That is why this is a ‘Kev the Builder’ budget. While Kev the Builder is building classrooms on the Central Coast, $99 million is being pumped into the 52 schools in my electorate—fixing leaking rooms; carpeting and painting classrooms; and building covered outdoor learning areas, libraries, halls and classrooms. The principal of Punchbowl Boys High School was here in the parliament just last night. He is over the moon. They are getting $200,000. They are going to paint the school with it—the school has not been painted in decades—and they are going to do it by employing local tradespeople.
Never underestimate the difference that this program can make to schools in places like Blaxland. For some schools it means a new hall or a new library. For a school like Bankstown North it means something special indeed. They do not have a hall; they do not have a library; they do not even have permanent classrooms. All of the children in that school are taught in demountables. This program will mean that for the first time they will have permanent accommodation—permanent classrooms where those children will be taught. The Building the Education Revolution program gives children in Bankstown, Cabramatta, Guildford, Punchbowl and Fairfield the type of quality learning environment that they deserve—the type of environment that you find elsewhere in Australia. Mark Diamond, who is the principal of Lansvale Public School, said it like this: ‘I cannot think of a more appropriate way to stimulate the economy.’ I agree.
The first home owner boost is also changing the face of Blaxland. I am glad to see that the budget is extending the first home owner boost. Last year we were the mortgage-stress capital of Australia. Sheriffs were flat out evicting people. This year, real estate agents are flat out finding places for people to buy. The number of repossessions in Blaxland in the last few months has dropped by two-thirds and the number of homes for sale has increased by 20 per cent due to massive cuts in interest rates and things like the first home owner boost. What it means is that we are saving more homes and buying new ones.
The government is involved there as well, helping to build new homes. The first of 20,000 social housing homes that are being built as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan was completed on the weekend in Blaxland. It is a four-bedroom house. It took 52 tradespeople 13 weeks to build it—more money and more jobs for my local community. I spoke to a bloke called Adam. He is from Degree Constructions, the business that built the home. He told me the same story that Kevin did. He has just put on another apprentice, a young bloke called Jack. He is probably going to have to put on more, he tells me, just to cope with the flood of work coming his way.
Down the road there is a suburb called Potts Hill. Potts Hill is a place where Landcom is busy. They are about to build 400 new homes. It is going to require 1,000 people to do the work. It is a great project in a place where people are still doing it tough. It is the sort of project, I think, that is purpose-built for the Housing Affordability Fund, for which there is $459.8 million in this budget—it is one that I will be lobbying for.
The budget also has $186 million to redevelop the Villawood detention centre. It is a soulless place in the heart of my electorate. It is one of the first places I visited when I became a member of parliament. I was shocked with what I found. It is what the Human Rights Commissioner described as ‘a shameful, miserable place’. This redevelopment will help fix that. It is the biggest infrastructure project in Blaxland and it will create a lot of local jobs. That is what this budget is all about.
A couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister visited Bankstown. That was the day he met Kev the Builder. It was the first time that a Prime Minister has visited Bankstown in 13½ years. Bankstown was not on the priority list of the former Prime Minister. It was on his priority list to get rid of government jobs. He got rid of 650 jobs from the tax office when he shut that down. It was on his priority list when he got rid of 150 jobs from the immigration office in Bankstown when he shut that down. But apart from that it was not on his priority list. But it is on this government’s priority list and it is on this Prime Minister’s priority list. It is one of seven priority areas around the country—seven areas hardest hit by the global recession. My area, Blaxland, south-west Sydney, is one of those. It is now an area that is backed by a local employment coordinator and the $650 million jobs fund. This is the sort of thing that governments should do. It is the sort of priority that places like Blaxland deserve. We cannot as a parliament, we cannot as a government, wave the magic wand and hope that we can wish the tide of a global recession away. But we can act in a responsible way. We can build sandbags around these communities to protect these sorts of jobs. That is exactly what this government is doing and that is what this budget does.
If you have a look at the budget papers you will see the sort of money that is being injected into my local community and the difference that it can make. In the last few months we have seen more than $3 billion injected into south-west Sydney. The impact of that you see in the story of Kev the Builder. There is more of that in this budget. Of course the budget is bigger than just Blaxland, but Blaxland is a place where the impact of good policy is felt most, where universal access to preschool can make a difference, where extra money to encourage young people to go to university can really make a difference, where paid parental leave makes a difference and where extra money for pensioners that can turn a meal from sausages into steak can make a real difference.
Blaxland is also the sort of place where bad policy can hurt—where it can really make a difference. We see that in the budget papers as well, because if this government had not acted, if it had not done what it did in October last year and again stimulating the economy in February this year, the consequences of that would have been wrought on the streets of Blaxland. There would have been 210,000 additional unemployed people. That is the equivalent of two Olympic stadiums; it is the equivalent of 25 schools full of young people, who would not have had a job and would be on the unemployment queue. They would have been the real human consequences of not acting. That is what this budget is built all around: protecting employment and keeping people in work.
Malcolm Turnbull talks about jobs, jobs, jobs. You then need to build a budget around jobs, jobs, jobs, if you think that it is important. It is very easy to have a budget in surplus if you want to. If the government had so chosen, it could have delivered a surplus budget. It would have meant hiking up taxes, it would have meant slashing services, it would have meant not a cent for hospitals around the country, it would have stymied recovery and it would have meant a recession deeper and longer than the United States will experience, but it is possible. It is not an approach being recommended by the opposition though. The opposition’s approach, from all accounts, is that they acknowledge that when $210 billion is ripped out of tax receipts governments have to borrow. I think that most people on the other side recognise that.
The budget is built around making sure that we protect jobs; that we keep unemployment as low as we possibly can—that it does not go as high as it may have otherwise. The budget papers show that unemployment would reach 10 per cent or more if the government had not acted. Every job is precious and every job is important. We need people in apprenticeships and training. We need people working—working for people like Kev the Builder. We do not want people on the unemployment queue. That is why everything that this government has done is responsible, right and important.
I support this budget because it is a budget that supports jobs; it is a budget for Blaxland.
4329
19:09:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—After 18 months of Labor government, the coalition’s $22 billion budget surplus has dropped to a whopping $58 billion deficit. The $70 billion in savings has plunged to a staggering $188 billion worth of debt and the government has now acknowledged that the gross debt figure will reach $315 billion. Unemployment is predicted to double to 8.5 per cent. This budget has to have been one of the great shockers of modern government. Labor’s so-called temporary deficit is predicted to last until at least 2015-16, but even that date is ridiculously optimistic. It will simply require the return of a coalition government for an extended period if this debt is ever to be repaid.
The Prime Minister and Treasurer have proven yet again that Labor simply cannot be trusted to manage money. Give Labor something in good working order and it will soon be broken. They simply lack the competence to manage a national economy. The only budget strategy the Rudd Labor government have unveiled is one of debt, deficit, recession and higher unemployment. Labor lacked discipline and control in the lead-up to their budget and we are now left with a directionless mess that offers little for our regions.
Labor has turned to its usual hit list of victims to fund its budget spending: self-funded retirees, people saving for their retirement, those with private health insurance, people on hospital waiting queues, as well as primary producers and exporters. And of course it is the exporters that we will be expecting to help drag our economy out of the Rudd recession.
At the last election the Prime Minister promised to maintain the private health insurance rebate, but now it will be means tested. His written promises were empty. This will mean that fewer people will have private health insurance and there will be longer hospital queues. People will be waiting longer—poor people will be waiting longer—for necessary hospital treatment because the Rudd Labor government is continuing its vendetta against private health insurance.
The Prime Minister promised to maintain superannuation co-contributions but now they will be cut back. There will be $3 billion in cuts to concessional superannuation arrangements. Mr Rudd promised to maintain the Medicare safety net but the thresholds will be lifted and a means test applied. Labor also plans to implement full cost recovery for export inspection certification services, scrapping the 40 per cent rebate provided by the previous coalition government to exporters.
The increase to the age pension, for which the coalition had campaigned for over a year, will be appreciated by those who receive it, but many people will actually lose some of their pension entitlement because of a tougher means test. In the future, Australians will have to wait until they are 67 to get a pension.
The budget will also deliver belated tax cuts that nearly match the former coalition government’s tax plan, but the effect of the cuts will be eroded by massive rises in fees and charges and cuts to key government services.
The government’s changes to Youth Allowance will cut off the opportunity for a university education, particularly for people who live a long way from a capital city. Those people who have no choice but to move to a city to be able to undertake a tertiary education are particularly adversely affected by the changes Labor has announced in this budget. They are not only making it harder for people to get the independent youth allowance but they have decided to abolish the Commonwealth accommodation scholarships. These Commonwealth scholarships paid $4,500 a year for students to meet some of the extra costs of living away from home. That is being replaced by a relocation allowance of only $4,000 and then $1,000 for the subsequent three years. What is the government’s justification for taking away the opportunity for people in remote and regional parts of Australia to obtain a proper education? They ought to know that country people already have a much lower level of tertiary education. Fewer people living in country areas have a tertiary qualification and now they are implementing measures designed, it seems, to entrench this disadvantage.
Labor talk a lot about sticking up for the battlers but, in reality, they have well and truly lost any interest and concern about people who live over their horizon—and their horizon is the outer suburbs of the capital cities. The last budget saw more than $1 billion stolen from regional Australia, and I heavily criticised the government then for penalising the people who did not vote for it. This budget is no different. In fact, it is worse, and the undeclared war on regional Australia continues.
Last week my colleague the member for Calare and shadow minister for agriculture criticised Labor for an astonishing $908 million cut from the department’s budget for next year. The Treasurer accused the Nationals of not being able to count, but the reality was that in his budget the Treasurer said that there was a special efficiency dividend being required from that department. The figures that the minister criticised us for using came from his own department—they are there in black and white. All the spin that he likes to use is to no avail.
The truth of the matter is that exceptional drought funding disappears next financial year and has not been replaced. In fact, there is a specific statement in the budget saying that drought assistance has been terminated. The government says it will come up with something at some stage in the future, perhaps in 18 months time. But it is quite obvious that the government intends to make it more difficult for farmers to qualify for drought assistance, and therefore many of those people who have endured the toughest and longest drought in memory can expect to have their support from the government terminated. Of course, if the government is going to introduce a new drought assistance program it will cost money—and it is money that is not in the forward estimates. That means the budget predictions will blow out even further. If there is even one more dollar of expenditure than has so far been acknowledged by the government—and who could believe that the Prime Minister will be able to go a single day without spending more money—that will add to the $315 billion government debt which has to be paid for by the Australian taxpayers.
Looking again at the department of agriculture, 312 departmental jobs are to go. The respected Land and Water Australia is to be abolished, so there will be no funding available anymore for critical research into conservation and environmental issues in rural areas. Labor only want one sort of funding in that area, and that is to deal with their agenda for climate change and emissions trading. They do not want any kind of independent advice, and the loss of Land and Water Australia is a critical blow to the research capabilities that support industry and life in regional areas. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation has had its funding slashed as well. I felt sorry for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry at the rural women’s awards dinner last night, a function hosted and sponsored by the RIRDC—he was there only a few days after he had slashed the funding. He stood up and expressed his interest in women’s issues but, in reality, he has slashed the funding to the very organisation that sponsors those awards. Also, I am told that 60 graduates will not be taken on by the department of agriculture this year, so the staff renewal which is so important in any department will not occur.
The minister for agriculture, who represents the least agricultural electorate in the country, must stand up for his department. He cannot expect others to do it for him. He cannot expect the opposition to save the jobs of people who work in the department of agriculture or the rural programs. He has got to stand up to his city mates and the union heavies and say that there are other people in Australia and there are worthwhile programs that need to be maintained. The last time I checked, the Land’s FarmOnline was running a poll that rated the minister’s performance. A mere 5.5 per cent thought he was doing an excellent job, while 26 per cent said his performance was poor and 34.3 per cent said it was terrible. There were more than 700 votes, so it was a much larger poll than many we read about in the newspapers.
The government’s priorities for agriculture were well and truly spelt out when it announced on budget night a new $460 million program that will support farmers in other parts of the world as part of its foreign aid program. This $460 million program is to support food and agricultural programs overseas while the government is cutting double that amount from the department of agriculture in Australia. This precious UN seat that the Prime Minister wants for himself is costing Australians dearly. At a time when there are cuts right across the board in the Australian budget, one area that has had a substantial increase is foreign aid. Why are we going to spend a significant amount more on programs overseas, including in areas such as the Caribbean and Africa, where our aid program has not been strong in the past? Why are we cutting programs in Australia so that we can fund this kind of activity in other parts of the world? The reason is simple: Labor want a seat on the UN Security Council and they are prepared to pay any price, and then they want a job for the PM after he has outlived his welcome in Australia. The cost of that will be simply enormous. It seems a seat at the UN is more important than a hospital bed in Australia when it comes to this government’s priorities.
I want to turn to the activities of the minister for regional development. In fact, I do not think he has got a right anymore to be called the minister ‘for’ regional development; he is the minister ‘against’ regional development. Again, he is a minister who comes from the centre of Sydney. I thought his idea of the regions was well and truly explained when he provided $3.4 billion for a ‘regional rail project’ in Melbourne. The definition of a regional rail project in Melbourne was out to Bacchus Marsh and to Werribee. That is this federal government’s definition of the regions. The Labor government has failed in this budget to deliver on its election promise that there would be a new regional development program. At the last election Labor committed to expanding the role of the area consultative committees and rebranding them as Regional Development Australia. According to Labor’s election policy, the ACCs were to play a leading role in facilitating development in the regions. However, the federal government will no longer have any direct or specific responsibility for regional development as the entire ACC network is to be closed down from 30 June. There are no continuing arrangements yet negotiated for a number of states, but the doors are going to shut on 30 June, the leases are not being renewed and 150 employees do not know what their future will be. This is in spite of the fact that the minister personally stood in front of these employees and assured them that their jobs were safe. His words were not worth the time he spent to deliver them.
This whole network is to close and, in fact, the government will no longer have any direct connection with the regions or any mechanism so that advice can come direct from the regions to the federal government. They are going to be absorbed into the state government structure. In the case of Western Australia, where the agreement, the MOU, is reasonably public, the state government is to take over complete control. They will get the money and they will make all the appointments and the Commonwealth will simply have no role. We understand that the situation is broadly similar in other states. I feel sorry for the parliamentary secretary because obviously he has been held out to dry. I think he has genuinely tried to come up with a good solution. He has tried hard, but it is obvious that Minister Albanese has stomped over the top and decided that the area consultative committees and the regional elements of his department are to be wound back. The state offices are largely closed and, to add insult to the injury of regional communities, the government has set up a new Better Cities unit in Sydney. That is now going to be one of the major policy advice bureaus for this government.
Indeed, the government seem to have an active campaign to strike the word ‘regional’ out of as many programs as they possibly can. We know that what was once the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is now just the Community Infrastructure Program. As well, there is legislation before the House to strike the word ‘Regional’ out of the name of the Regional Strategic Roads Program. The Black Spot Program is to have its funding redirected to national highways. These sorts of changes are specifically designed to ensure that there is a shift of funding away from regional areas and into the cities. That has been classically illustrated by the announcements by the Infrastructure Australia Fund and Labor’s commitments under AusLink 2. There is a substantial shift in funding away from roads in regional areas, and I note that one of the members sitting in this room comes from a comparatively regional area. He needs to be aware of the fact that funding in his sort of area is going to be cut so that more money can be spent especially on urban public transport projects. I know that urban public transport is important but it is being funded by stripping away a range of significant projects that were committed for regional areas so that Labor can fund what it proposes for the cities.
Labor have developed their own regional development program, called Better Regions—rorts personified. This program, as I said earlier today, has never been open for public nominations. The only projects to be funded are those that were announced by Labor candidates at the last election. It is exclusively set up to fund projects that Labor announced in marginal electorates around the country. No-one else should even bother to apply. There is no assessment as to whether the projects are worthy. Indeed some of the projects funded had been specifically refused by the previous government because they lacked merit, but Labor promised them and those are the projects to be funded. Let me say I am looking forward to the Auditor-General’s report on the Better Regions Program. If the Auditor-General was critical of the former government’s Regional Partnerships program, then the administration and choice of projects under the Better Regions Program is a national scandal. The minister, who has spent so much time in this House on personal attacks on and criticism of me and the other members on this side of the House, should be ashamed of himself for introducing a program that is a rort beyond rort and has no scrutiny and no public accountability whatsoever.
While I am talking about public accountability, I will note the choice of road projects by Infrastructure Australia. We were told that Infrastructure Australia was set up to be independent so that it would make a separate and independent judgment about the projects to be funded. However, the government will not release any of the reports done by Infrastructure Australia or any of its costings or any of its assessments. They are all secret. We are asked to believe that it is an open and transparent process except nobody is allowed to see any of the documents. It is a sham from beginning to end. We all know that Labor mates were appointed to Infrastructure Australia and Labor’s projects were chosen. They were not chosen on the basis of merit; they were chosen for political reasons. It is quite appalling that the minister would come into this place and try to pretend that he is on some kind of high moral ground on the basis of having a transparent and open process when it is clear that exactly the opposite is happening.
This budget also fails to address a number of other significantly important issues in rural and regional areas. The appalling state of rural health needs to be fixed. The Prime Minister said that the buck would stop with him by 1 July, but changes to his means tested private health insurance rebate will increase the pressure on the already overburdened public health system and there are simply no measures in the budget which are likely to lead to improved health services for people who live outside the capital cities. Some of the changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for things such as cataract surgery will mean that country people will no longer be able to have that kind of operation in their regional city. They will have to go to mass clinics somewhere or other in the city because that is the only place where this kind of surgery will occur. Even Labor’s decision to quarantine losses from unprofitable businesses for people with higher incomes will have a significant, adverse effect on regional communities, particularly poor communities. It has often been those so-called hobby farmers who have done a lot of the spending that has kept little country towns alive and has made those regional communities stronger. Some of these hobby farmers have also been the most innovative of farmers, and they have employed people. So this attempt to try to stamp out investment by wealthy individuals in country areas will affect poor people in country towns just as much as it will affect the lawyers and wealthy business people in the capital cities.
I also mention Labor’s decision to axe the en-route charges subsidy scheme for aviation services. It is tough enough as it is for country air services to survive but Labor are now going to take away this support for aviation services. This is a vendetta against regional Australia that seems to know no end. If you want any further evidence, let me finally mention the broadband scheme. Two million country Australians have now been left out of the promise that the government made at the last election. Two million Australians are not worthy of the same level of broadband coverage as is occurring in the cities. Country people have to pay their share of the debts but they do not get the services. (Time expired)
4333
19:29:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise tonight to make my contribution to this debate and to support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills. We need an economy that is stimulated and that helps cushion Australia from the full impact of the global recession while also laying the foundation for a strong and more prosperous future—a budget that realises that we need to build and build upon infrastructure. Unfortunately, the previous government did not do this. The Prime Minister and the very hardworking executive have delivered a budget in tough economic times that focuses on supporting jobs today by building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. The Treasurer outlined clearly to the people of Australia that this budget is designed to meet the challenges we face. In a recent address to the National Press Club, the Treasurer said:
No modern Australian government has had to prepare a Budget under such testing economic times.
We are in a situation where we are trying to implement an ETS to make real progress on climate change; to bring back fairer industrial relations laws and get rid of Work Choices; and to build infrastructure for all Australians, not just those in marginal Liberal seats. We need our defence forces; we still have about 14 different engagements around the world. We have had floods and fires. And then on top of all that there is the global financial crisis. As the Treasurer said at the National Press Club:
The biggest global recession since the Great Depression has hit our economy and government tax revenues hard—
some $210 billion.
A temporary budget deficit was simply inescapable, increased government borrowing likewise.
But I’m determined this will not be an excuse to abandon either the vision we have for Australia, or the program for which the Rudd Government was elected, or the goal of getting our Budget back into surplus.
Even in the hardest times, we remain true to the vision we were elected to pursue: advancing the Education Revolution, advancing the cause of working families, tackling social inclusion, tackling climate change.
The budget demonstrates this. The Treasurer continued:
… we want to pursue these goals in a way that sets our economy up for a strong recovery as fast as possible.
This budget also charts our path back to a surplus, after the global recession wiped more than $200 billion off government revenue. Our government has a clear strategy that currently expects to see the budget returned to surplus in 2015.
In my electorate of Solomon, we are not immune to these hard economic times. Fortunately, in Solomon we have not yet suffered nearly as badly as many of our fellow Australians. I speak often to my colleagues on both sides of the House, and they talk about high youth unemployment in their areas as well as massive job losses on a daily basis. This budget is the third stage of our economic stimulus plan, which we know is working to help cushion the Northern Territory economy from the worst global recession in living memory.
Today I will outline for the House the commitments that have been made in the 2009-10 budget and, more importantly, the commitments that will be delivered by our government to the people of Solomon. This budget provides a strong emphasis on vital pieces of infrastructure for Northern Australia—infrastructure projects that demonstrate our government’s commitment to the north, unlike the previous government’s focus.
An example of that commitment is investment in health initiatives for the Northern Territory. It was with a great deal of pleasure that the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and I announced that the Rudd government will invest a massive $85 million in three key health projects for the people of Darwin. This budget allocates $28 million to Flinders University to build a dedicated network of hospital and community based medical education facilities to allow a full medical program to be delivered in the Territory. The new facilities will be centred around two sites, the Royal Darwin Hospital and Charles Darwin University.
Importantly, our government will also provide in excess of $4 million over four years to the NT government to support increased teaching spots and medical places for local students. These investments are expected to increase the number of graduates who choose to practise in the NT after finishing their medical degree and help tackle medical workforce shortages and retention issues in the NT. Construction is expected to begin in 2009-10, with the first student intake in 2011. No longer will our kids have to go interstate to complete their medical degree. This is the best opportunity to keep local graduates working in the Territory. The clinical dean of Flinders University, Professor Michael Lowe, is obviously excited about the project and was reported as saying, ‘It will help to deal with the Territory’s unique health issues.’ This is a fantastic initiative and one I am very proud of, and I know it will be a lasting legacy for the people of my electorate.
The budget also provides over $18 million to build an accommodation complex of 50 units on the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital for patients and their carers. This much needed investment will alleviate problems caused by the current shortage of short-term affordable accommodation in Darwin for people from regional and remote areas and the effect this shortage has had on access to medical services and discharge from acute-care facilities. Construction is expected to begin in January 2010 and be completed by 2011.
More than $34 million will also be invested in building a Centre of Excellence in Indigenous Health and Education in Darwin. The aim of this centre is to assist researchers to develop the evidence base needed to drive improvements in Indigenous health. An improved understanding of diseases affecting Indigenous communities will translate into better health care. Research, integrated clinical care and workforce training will focus on interventions related to early childhood, education, chronic diseases, substance misuse and child abuse. The facility will mean increased Indigenous employment and training at the Royal Darwin Hospital campus and in remote communities. The project is expected to begin later this year, 2009, with construction due to be completed by mid-2012. From what I heard on ABC radio the other day, Dr Jonathan Carapetis, from the Menzies School of Health, is jumping out of his skin about this. He is very happy with this result and is excited about the government’s focus on training, education and Indigenous health.
These investments build on the Rudd government’s investments of $19 million in an oncology facility at Royal Darwin Hospital and $10 million in a GP superclinic at Palmerston, both of which are progressing well. It is proof that the Rudd government is committed to providing improved health care to the great people of my electorate of Solomon. These investments will also be welcomed by the construction industry, providing employment to construct all these health investments in Darwin. It will provide immediate job benefits for local building workers.
Another significant budget initiative highly relevant for the good people of Solomon is the delivery of $134 million for a landmark package of measures to tackle shortages of doctors and health workers in rural and remote communities in Australia. This initiative will encourage doctors to go and work in rural and remote communities as well as help to keep them there. These benefits will be seen because the Rudd government’s Office of Rural Health looked into how rural and regional programs could best benefit those in our community most in need.
As I have said, this is a budget that focuses on supporting jobs today by building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. An example of that is the $50 million going to the Darwin port expansion. We have also committed $3.2 million for a feasibility study on the port. I have already met with the port authority, and they are very happy as there are a number of projects that they can use this money for immediately—shovel-ready projects that will not only continue to develop the infrastructure that we need in the north but also give jobs and surety right now, when the economy and working families need it.
In this budget the Rudd Labor government is investing nearly $130 million in Northern Territory roads, rail and infrastructure, an investment that will support local jobs and local businesses during the current global recession. All up, the budget delivers an increase in federal funding of $51.4 million, or 66 per cent, over 2008-09 for Northern Territory road and rail projects. As well as putting in place the modern, well-planned transport infrastructure vital to the Territory’s and the nation’s long-term prosperity, our record investment program will support jobs and provide an immediate stimulus to local communities.
This budget sees $25 million allocated for stage 2 of the Tiger Brennan Drive East Arm Port Access Road. This project stalled under the previous government. It was never going to get over the line. The member for Wide Bay made a comment about roads in my area; well, I am happy to say that at the election there was a $74 million commitment from the Rudd Labor government. Stage 1 is completed and we are now going on to stage 2. Not only is this a vital piece of infrastructure for working families that commute from Palmerston to Darwin on a daily basis but it gives seamless access to the port facilities by rail and road, including for road trains coming up the Stuart Highway. It was well overdue, and I am glad to say that we are delivering this commitment to the people of Darwin and Palmerston. Work is expected to commence shortly on stage 2, and the entire project is scheduled to be completed by 2010. As I said before, our government is committed to completing this important link between the growing rural region and the expanding Darwin and Palmerston areas. This major investment will improve safety and travel time for people commuting between Darwin, Palmerston, the northern suburbs and the rural areas.
Completing this extension is an issue that is close to my heart, as I and thousands of others who live in Palmerston and the rural areas sit in gridlock every morning and afternoon getting to and from work. This project is also part of a national projects initiative that is designed to deliver major benefits to the business community by allowing easier access for industry to the East Arm Port and the trade development zone. When it is completed, this major infrastructure spend will have significantly improved both efficiency and safety.
Minister Albanese and I have also committed to reducing crashes on Northern Territory roads. The Black Spot Program is vital to improving road safety. In this budget we deliver $1 million to the Woolner Road in Stuart Park under the Black Spot Program. The Black Spot Program complements the funding that I have already secured for major national infrastructure links in the Territory like Tiger Brennan Drive and the Stuart Highway, which I have just mentioned. On top of the additional money for upgrading the Territory’s road network, we are funding a range of initiatives designed to improve road safety. Over $1.5 million dollars is being committed to continue installing boom gates and other safety measures at three high-risk level crossings. There is $1 million to address the lack of safe, modern roadside facilities for truck drivers, including new and refurbished rest stops, parking bays and decoupling areas.
This budget improves road safety at both the national and the local level. The member for Wide Bay touched on community infrastructure. Last year in December I had the pleasure of being here with the lord mayors. I have had fantastic feedback from my lord mayors, who have spoken at length to me about what the budget has meant to them. The Darwin City Council is to receive $313,000; the City of Palmerston Council, $196,000; and the Litchfield Shire Council, $152,000. Recently the Palmerston City Council received a further $2 million for streetscape improvement. I spoke to the lord mayor today and he is very excited about and thankful for that money. It will make a great deal of difference in replacing pavers and the like and making it a better area. The Darwin City Council is receiving $3.6 million. These are projects that are hitting the ground running. The member for Wide Bay tried to say that it was pork-barrelling, but, in fact, of the top 10 councils that received money, eight were in Liberal-held federal seats.
Both the member for Lingiari and I are very excited about the $159.4 million for defence infrastructure spending for the Northern Territory that was announced in this year’s budget. This vital commitment will enable significant upgrade and improvement of defence facilities in the Northern Territory. The expenditure is going to cover a number of projects in the Northern Territory. Key capital works projects, for which $115 million is allocated in 2009-10, include the following. There is $19 million for the $72 million Robertson Barracks redevelopment project. Construction is planned for completion in 2011. There is $16 million for work on the $49.8 million RAAF Base Darwin redevelopment project stage 2. The project will provide a new fuel farm, maintenance and administrative buildings, and a workshop and a vehicle wash bay, and construction is scheduled for completion in 2011. And there is $9.8 million in 2009-10 for approved medium capital works at the Darwin Naval Fuel Installation and RAAF Base Darwin.
During 2009-10 Defence will spend around $43 million on estate upkeep in the Northern Territory. Estate upkeep works provide for the ongoing maintenance of Darwin’s extensive existing base infrastructure, with a rolling maintenance program being developed and revised each year focussing on areas of highest priority. Works to be undertaken as part of the program in Solomon include painting of bulk fuel storage tanks at RAAF Base Darwin and refurbishment of living accommodation for soldiers at Larrakeyah Barracks. This budget ensures the Australian government’s strong commitment to the Defence Force and, through a significant military presence, it also builds on the economy of Solomon.
This budget is fantastic for local businesses in the Darwin and Palmerston area. That is because the government will continue to source goods and services from within Solomon and will continue funding of both Defence facilities and personnel serving in the Solomon electorate. This budget shows that the Australian Defence Force is front and centre this financial year with the government funding programs. This significant investment in Defence infrastructure will benefit jobs and the Northern Territory economy.
Two very big issues that came out of the budget related to pensioners and paid parental leave. This budget addresses these two important issues, I believe. Both are things that I think our government can be truly proud of. We all know that many seniors in our community do it tough. I have spoken to countless seniors in my electorate about the weekly struggles they face to get by on a pension, particularly those on a single pension. This budget recognises the fact that people in the community who are getting on in age deserve support from their government as they approach their twilight years. We all know pensioners thoroughly deserve this extra support and it is great that, even in the hardest of economic times, the Rudd government has delivered.
In Solomon there are over 15,000 age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers, wife pensioners and veteran income support recipients. They will all benefit from the sustainable and responsible reforms announced in the budget to increase their pension payments. The reforms will improve the pension system and make it simpler and more sustainable into the future as the population ages. These changes have been a long time coming but they deliver a stronger and fairer pension system that will serve pensioners and Australia well into the future. These are the people who have seen us through our darkest hours and we should support them in their old age. The total increase will comprise a rise in the base rate for single pensioners and a new pension supplement for all pensioners. The reforms will deliver for pensioners on the full rate an annual total increase in permanent payments of $1,689 for singles and $527 for couples combined. I know that Graham Suckling from the Council on the Ageing NT was extremely happy about what has happened. He has been lobbying very hard for probably over eight years for an increase.
The budget also allocates $5.5 million for investment in the Australian Institute of Marine Science facility in Darwin. That is a fantastic initiative. We welcome the injection of $5.5 million in new funds for the Australian Institute of Marine Science facility in Darwin announced in the 2009-10 budget. Darwin is a crucial gateway to Australia’s northern waters. It is an ideal base from which to run ocean monitoring exercises, and this has been recognised by the important funding to upgrade the AIMS Darwin facility. Here in the Northern Territory coastal developments are coming on at a rapid pace. We need to balance this great new development with attention to preserving our important natural environment. By enhancing the capacity of the AIMS Darwin facility we will be well-placed to achieve this balance. The AIMS is increasing its research activity in the Arafura and Timor seas. The expansion of the current facilities will enable this increased research to continue.
This budget has delivered for the people of Solomon. This budget will be good for families and it will be good for families with children in child care. It is fantastic for the people of Palmerston and the rural areas, who for so long have missed out on vital health services and infrastructure upgrades. I join other members in congratulating the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the executive in putting together this budget. The people of Solomon were let down by the previous government. As the Prime Minister recently said, the Labor government is the party of hope and the coalition is the party of fear. I commend the bills to the House.
4338
19:49:00
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
0
0
Mr COSTELLO
—It is worth remembering that Labor’s first budget, the budget that was brought down 12 months ago, in May 2008, forecast an economy which would grow at around 2¾ per cent. When Mr Swan, the Treasurer, brought down that first Labor budget some 12 months ago he said in his speech:
We are budgeting for a surplus of $21.7 billion … 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in nearly a decade.
He went on to claim that it was a ‘surplus built on substantial savings’ and, further, a ‘surplus built on disciplined spending’. When he brought down the first Labor budget in May 2008 what Mr Swan was saying was that he was no girly-man; he was going to produce a huge budget surplus—none of these wussy coalition budget surpluses of 1½, 1.3 or 1.4 per cent. He was going to produce a budget surplus of 1.8 per cent of GDP. Of course, none of what he forecast came to fruition—none of it. As I said at the time, the 2008 budget is best filed in the fiction section of the Parliamentary Library because the forecast could not be held from May 2008 to May 2009. And when he came back here in May 2009 he adopted a somewhat different approach. He had had no trouble telling us about the bottom line in May 2008, but in May 2009 he was strangely silent about what the bottom line of the budget would be.
A budget is a statement of how you are going to manage expenditures and revenues over the course of the year. The most basic, fundamental thing about a budget is what you are budgeting for. It makes no sense to say: ‘I’m budgeting for an undisclosed bottom line. I can’t tell you whether I’m budgeting for surplus or deficit. I can’t tell you how much it’s going to be.’ The crucial thing about a budget, particularly a Commonwealth budget, is to actually inform the nation what the budget is. Is it for a surplus? Is it for a deficit? Is it for X billion dollars or is it for Y billion dollars? We had the extraordinary situation on budget night this year where the one critical fact that governs the parameters of any federal budget was actually omitted from the speech because apparently, we are told, the spin merchants of the Labor Party had said to the Treasurer, ‘You cannot utter those words in the parliament; it will go on film and it could be used against you.’ Chalk one up for the spin meisters; chalk one down for accountability and transparency in public debate in this country.
The $22 billion surplus which was forecast in May 2008 came in as a $32 billion deficit. I want to make this point: that was driven by policy decisions. Do not let anybody claim that the failure of the government to deliver its forecast in 2008-09 was driven by revenue downturns. As this year’s budget papers make entirely clear in table 5 of budget statement No. 3, it was policy measures, new spending of $33.3 billion, that turned that forecast surplus into a deficit. In addition to that there was a parameter change. But it was not the parameter change that drove the budget into deficit; it was the new spending. In October, there was the spending on the Economic Security Strategy. In December, there was the spending on the nation-building strategy. In February, there was the spending on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It was policy measures that drove the projected surplus of 2008-09 into deficit. As table 5 of budget statement No. 3 shows, again in this fiscal year $32 billion of new spending, of new policy measures, will drive the budget into deficit. In addition to that there are parameter changes of $45 billion which will drive it into a deep deficit. Discretionary policy measures drove the budget into deficit in 2008-09, as they will drive the budget into deficit in 2009-10.
Why do I emphasise the failed forecasts of last year’s budget? Only to make this point: if the government’s budget forecasts between May 2008 and May 2009 were interrupted by new discretionary policy spending, we should take with a grain of salt the forecasts and projections which it now wants us to believe in this document out over the next seven, eight and in some cases 13 years—because this government would have you believe that, even though it was wildly inaccurate between May 2008 and May 2009 on growth forecasts, and indeed on policy measures, you can believe the projections that it gives for six years of continuous growth to bring the budget back into balance in 2015-2016, and, what is more, you can believe the projections for another seven years of continuous growth after that to retire in 2021-22 the debt they are building up.
Let us just consider this for a moment. The government would have you believe that for seven years, from now until 2015-16, we will have: a contraction of half a per cent this year, followed by 2¼ per cent growth, 4½ per cent growth, 4½ per cent growth, four per cent growth and four per cent growth out to 2015-16, which will bring the budget back into balance. The government is very confident, apparently, in growth figures between now and 2015-2016. It then says there will be above-trend growth after that, and then returning, once we have got to full employment of five per cent—interestingly defined as five per cent in the budget papers—to continuous growth to 2021-22. That will be in 2021-22, as we heard from the Prime Minister in question time today.
And what will be the great achievement by 2021-22? We will be back where we were in 2006. The Prime Minister says that he has a plan to get us back, by 2021-22, to where we were in 2006, which is debt free. Maybe this is what Labor meant by its education revolution. Think of those tiny tots who started school this year. After they have done seven years of primary education, the budget will just be getting back to balance. After they have finished all of their primary education and all of their secondary education, according to the most optimistic forecast in this budget, just as those tiny tots who started school this year are coming out of the education system after 13 years of education in 2021-22, we will be coming out of temporary debt. I wonder if those kids who are going into 13 years of education regard it as a temporary education. I wonder if those kids who are going into primary education regard seven years of primary education as a temporary period. That is how this government regards it. It regards it as a temporary deficit, just as it regards 13 years of debt as temporary debt. That is even on the most optimistic of assumptions—that is, two years of growth at 4½ per cent followed by four years of four per cent followed by trend growth, with no interruption over that period. Let me say this to the House: it just will not happen.
The Treasurer said today in question time that he has put a ceiling on the growth of outlays. Has he? What has he actually done? Has he legislated a ceiling on the growth of outlays? No. What he means by saying that he has put a ceiling on the growth of outlays is that, in order to make his figures add up, he intends that there will be no more than two per cent growth in outlays over all of those years, just as he intended in May 2008 to produce a budget surplus. And there is no reason to believe this intention will come into reality any more than his intentions of last year came into reality in the past 12 months. ‘That fixed that,’ he said. ‘I’ve put a cap on outlays; two per cent real growth every year.’ If only it were that easy; if only you just had to say it for the word to become a deed. This is a Treasurer whose one and only budget had an increase of outlays of 13½ per cent and who now says, ‘Over a period of seven years I’ll restrict it to two per cent per annum. And I’ll restrict that through the election in 2010 and 2013. And then, in order to pay off debt, we’ll go through the election of 2016 and 2019 and we’ll be back where we started in 2021-22.’
Of course, all of the assumptions in relation to that assume that there will be no tax cuts, that inflation will take off again as the economy grows and the revenues will come back through bracket creep. Before the 2007 election, I recall the now Prime Minister saying, when he refused to follow the full coalition tax plan, which was to cut the top marginal tax rate from 45 to 43 to 42 in this term, that in his next term, if he were re-elected, he would be looking at bringing the top marginal tax rate down to 40 per cent. But of course there is no capacity to do that in these budget papers. These budget papers assume getting the budget back into balance without tax cuts and without indexation—bracket creep.
It is sometimes claimed that all of this is the result of some kind of collapse in the terms of trade. Well, the terms of trade are forecast to fall 13¼ per cent this year off the all-time record of 2008, when the Labor Party was in government, and it will take those terms of trade back to 2007 levels. But they will still be substantially higher than they were under the coalition government. There has been no collapse in the terms of trade. In fact, the budget papers themselves say on page 2-30:
Even after this fall, the terms of trade would remain around 45 per cent higher than the average in the decade prior to the commodity boom …
So it is not as if the terms of trade are going to be at some historical low. They are going back to 2007 levels as a result, higher than what they were when I was Treasurer from the period of 1996 to 2007—much higher, in fact. And this government is blessed, according to these forecasts, by terms of trade which will be much higher than they were during that period.
In fact, this is where the budget story becomes very puzzling indeed. On the one hand we are told this is the greatest downturn since the Great Depression and yet, on the other hand, the budget forecasts a contraction of half a per cent of GDP. In the year to June 1983, in that recession, there was a contraction of 3.4 per cent. In the recession to June 1991, there was a contraction of 1.5 per cent, so the government is in fact forecasting a much milder recession than 1991 or 1983. It is forecasting in this recession that unemployment will rise to around nine per cent compared to 10 per cent in 1982 and 11 per cent in 1991. When the Treasury does its analysis of how we will come out of this recession, it does its analysis comparing the experience of 1982 and 1991, not the Great Depression when unemployment peaked at around 20 per cent. The Treasury is comparing this with 1982 and 1991, and indeed forecasting that it will be milder than both of those recessions. The only thing that will be greater coming out of this recession is the budget deficit, because in neither of those recessions did the budget deficit ever blow out to five per cent of GDP. So, on the indicators of growth and employment, this will be a milder downturn than 1982 and 1991—and bear in mind we have had many recessions over the last 50 years—but the budget deficit will be of a greater dimension. Indeed, the debt build-up will be of a greater dimension. From trough to peak, debt will build up about 18 per cent of GDP compared to the Keating recession where, from trough to peak, it built up about 14 per cent of GDP.
And when the government says, incidentally, that Australia will have a debt to GDP ratio that is far better than those of comparable countries around the world, it is not because of anything this government has done. This government is building debt to GDP up by about 18 per cent of GDP. It is because it started from a net asset position. It is because the coalition paid off all debt and established the Future Fund and had a negative net debt of about four per cent of GDP. Countries like the US and the UK started with debt to GDP ratios of about 50 per cent. While the coalition was delivering surplus budgets through the late 1990s and early 2000s, in the UK and the US they were running up deficits. While we were paying back debt, they were building debt up. The strength of the Australian position comes not from anything the Rudd government has done, but from its strong starting point—and it would be an honest thing for Mr Rudd to actually acknowledge that. If we had gone into this downturn with a debt to GDP ratio of 50 or 60 per cent, we would have built it to 80 too. But we went in with a negative net debt and asset position because we had sat here and retired debt and built an asset position without the help of the Labor Party through those periods when comparable countries, such as the US and the UK, were running deficits and building up their debt position.
Undoubtedly there has been an international downturn, but the government’s response here in Australia reminds me of the statement of Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, who said that you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. This government has not let this crisis go to waste—dusting off spending proposals which we could not afford when we had the money and introducing them now that we do not. These are spending proposals like giving out cheques, as the government did before Christmas; spending proposals such as insulating houses, a spending measure which was rolled up to me which I did not believe we could afford when we had the money, but which the government now believes we can afford now that we do not have the money. It is funding projects which it hopes will boost its election prospects. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have heard in question time the Prime Minister, equipped with graphs and pictures, talking about projects he is funding with borrowed money in order to try to buy electoral appeal.
This is the biggest increase in outlays that this country has seen since Gough Whitlam. Whitlam increased outlays by 15.7 per cent in 1975-76 and Rudd increased them by 13½ per cent in 2008-09. But I will say this for Whitlam: Whitlam at least did not flood spending out into the community from borrowed money. Under Whitlam we had no net debt. The difference between Rudd and Whitlam is that Rudd is borrowing the money that he is flooding out into the community—much more Peron than Whitlam, this approach, to borrow money and flood it out into the community in an effort to try and buy votes. Let us be honest about this. Under the cover of the global financial crisis, a whole host of policies were advanced for political gain. These debts will be with us for 20 years at least—maybe forever. The Australian public will pay for this recklessness.
4342
20:09:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—I rise in the House today to inform members about the significant achievements brought to the residents of my electorate of Robertson by the sound and decisive economic management of the Rudd Labor government. It is a proactive budget which acts decisively to protect Australia from the worst fallout from the global economic crisis. It is a budget of vision and of hope. It is a nation-building budget of optimism which builds our infrastructure and protects 220,000 Australian jobs.
This budget shares the heroic optimism of the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy of October 2008 and the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan of February 2009. These measures together have delivered great benefit to Australia and to my electorate of Robertson. The government has also provided funds that have brought substantial investments in community infrastructure and that have had a direct, immediate and positive impact on the household budgets of Robertson and on the wider economy of the Central Coast. Today I would like to make members aware of the measurable nature of this positive impact in my electorate.
In the lead-up to the federal election that brought the Rudd Labor government to power in November 2007, we made a range of commitments to the electors of Robertson. I am delighted to report that the Rudd Labor government has delivered in full on all of these election commitments. All of these commitments are major infrastructure projects that are now making the Central Coast a better place to live, work and raise our children. The Rudd Labor government has indeed proved to be the architect of hope for regional communities like those on the Central Coast. A major election commitment that I have been pleased to deliver to the people of Robertson was an $81 million investment in a water pipeline from Mardi Dam to Mangrove Creek Dam. This missing link pipeline will ensure future water security for the people of the Central Coast. A sum of $840 million is being invested in creating a dedicated freight rail track between Sydney and Newcastle. This will separate freight from passenger traffic, taking significant freight traffic off the vital F3 freeway, and improve travel for the tens of thousands of commuters who travel to Sydney every day to work. An amount of $7 million was allocated to make available an additional 400 car parking spaces in the Gosford CBD for those same commuters. An amount of $150 million was provided for preliminary planning work for a vital road link between the F3 freeway and the M7 motorway in Sydney, and $900,000 was provided to build a multipurpose community sporting facility at Erina High School that can be used for students and community groups, who can share much needed support and recreational facilities. The Rudd Labor government has also provided $680,000 to Gosford City Council to install 24 CCTV cameras in three important shopping centres at Umina Beach, Woy Woy and Ettalong Beach. The rollout of these cameras has already begun and when completed they will make the three CBDs on the peninsula safer and more friendly places to work, live and shop in.
The improvement of community services and the provision of new and upgraded infrastructure have been among the highest priorities for me and the people of Robertson. All these election commitments have been delivered in full. Despite the downturn in the global economy, the Rudd Labor government has reasserted its commitment to invest in the practical infrastructure projects that Australian communities need to keep their economies strong. Projects such as these are a down payment on a prosperous economy for the Central Coast, providing the community with the capacity to grow again when times improve. The delivery of infrastructure projects of great significance has continued over the year and a half since the election. In September of 2008 the government allocated $4.5 million to assist Gosford City Council upgrade the quality of drinking water at Woy Woy and on the peninsula. This provided a practical solution to what has been a serious problem for peninsula residents for many years.
The state of roads is also a crucial factor for the safety of motorists and pedestrians all around Australia. Through the Roads to Recovery program and the government’s Black Spot Program, local authorities are funded to redress some of the backlog of roadworks that are urgently needed in many areas. In 2008 Gosford City Council received $1.58 million in Roads to Recovery grants, an increase of more than $500,000 on what was provided when the former Liberal Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads was the incumbent member for Robertson. In March 2009 the Rudd government allocated a record $5.4 million in Roads to Recovery funding over five years to Gosford City Council. This unprecedented level of funding for roads in Robertson helps maintain and upgrade our local roads, but it also supports local jobs and businesses during the current global recession. The funding under this program is untied so that councils can spend the money on local road priorities identified by members of the local community actually using the roads in question. Black Spot Program funding for this year in Robertson has helped remediate conditions at four serious accident sites on the Central Coast, with funding of more than $900,000.
The Rudd government’s $800 million Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has brought many significant improvements to thousands of local communities across Australia. The program provided $1.345 million to Gosford City Council for nine groups of projects in Robertson in March 2009. These were all practical but very necessary on-the-ground projects that would have been left in the too-hard basket or the unfunded basket by the local authorities without a substantial injection of federal funds. They included upgrades to scores of community facilities, including sportsground lighting upgrades, playground refurbishments, disabled access at community halls and centres, and oval and park upgrades. These initiatives greatly improve social infrastructure in the Gosford City Council area, which has essentially the same boundaries as my electorate. They also boost local jobs, providing a stimulus to the local economy and adding to national productivity in the long term.
The Community Infrastructure Program also included $500 for strategic projects that were shovel-ready but which could not have proceeded without additional funds. Gosford City Council was provided with more than $3 million to build the world-class Peninsula Recreation Precinct at Umina Beach. This precinct will include the renovation of tennis courts and the associated clubhouses; upgrades to the skate park and BMX track, including safety and visibility upgrades; upgrades to the sports oval, much used by the local Umina soccer, cricket, Rugby Union and Rugby League clubs; construction of a new super-playground, including playground equipment, lighting and a large shade cloth; recreational infrastructure such as park furniture, barbecue and picnic facilities, new pathways and cycleways, and fitness equipment for all ages and abilities; and renovations to the Umina Eagles clubhouse.
Projects such as these are vitally important to local communities like those on the peninsula, which has shown a growth rate and population increase for many years that has far outstripped the provision of community infrastructure. This community-building initiative will address a real demand on the rapidly growing Central Coast for better sporting facilities, parks and playgrounds. It is facilities such as these that help keep our young children and families active and healthy. The delivery of better infrastructure and community facilities to the people of the coast was a strong election commitment of mine. I will keep on fighting for funds to make the coast a healthier and more pleasant place to bring up children.
I am pleased the Rudd Labor government is willing to accept this challenge through innovative initiatives such as the Community Infrastructure Program, but perhaps the biggest commitment from the government is the revolution now taking place in schools across Australia. One of the major components of the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, itself the largest one-off investment in infrastructure in Australia’s history, is the Building the Education Revolution program, or BER. This is a broad-ranging initiative of historic proportions that is transforming schools and bringing them into the 21st century. The various components of BER have all made great contributions to schools in Robertson. More than 2,960 computers have been provided to 17 secondary schools in Robertson from the government’s $1.9 billion National Secondary School Computer Fund. This amounts to an allocation of more than $2.96 million for local schools in my area alone. It will allow a computer-to-student ratio of one to two in our secondary schools for years 9 to 12. For example, the two campuses of Brisbane Water Secondary College will receive 439 computers between them. This program will help our local students get access to the tools for tomorrow’s digital learning landscape.
In March 2009, St Joseph’s Catholic College and St Edward’s Christian Brothers College received more than $1.4 million to establish the East Gosford Industry Training Pathways Project. This is part of the Labor government’s $2.5 billion Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. The schools built metals and engineering workshops, construction workshops, new commercial cookery rooms, art rooms and new administration areas. They now offer certificate II and III courses, greatly enhancing local students’ access to quality accredited trades training and helping to address areas of skill shortage in Australia’s economy and also in areas of the Central Coast economy. The federal government has also integrated $10 million from the Australian technical colleges initiative into trade training in our local schools. This will provide greater access to trade courses for children still at school who might otherwise have left school before completing their higher school certificate.
Other components of the Building the Education Revolution program are now having even greater impacts on our local schools. In two rounds of the National School Pride program, 43 Robertson primary and secondary schools received between $50,000 and $200,000 each to undertake vital infrastructure improvements and refurbishment works. This represents a direct investment of $6.8 million in the schools of the Central Coast. This program will help support many local jobs as tradespeople and local businesses help transform the physical environment of our schools. The National School Pride program will help improve the quality of education for our students. It will also provide a massive boost for the local economy.
The $12.4 billion Primary Schools for the 21st Century Program is helping primary schools in Robertson with major infrastructure improvements such as libraries, multi-purpose halls and new classrooms. In round 1 of this program, two schools in Robertson received a total of $2.85 million to refurbish administration areas and classrooms and to build a primary information resource centre. I am looking forward immensely to round 2, when the rest of about 40 schools in Robertson can begin to rebuild and refurbish. Building the Education Revolution has so far delivered a great deal to the schools of Robertson. Taken together, the four major programs—computers in schools, trade training in schools, National School Pride and Primary Schools for the 21st Century—have delivered more than $14 million directly to the schools in my electorate. This is a massive investment just for my area. When this is multiplied across all the electorates in Australia—including those of the coalition members opposite me, who may or may not support the provisions for their electorates—you can begin to gauge the scale of this historic undertaking.
The Building the Education Revolution initiative is a $14.7 billion program, a program of immense proportions. The greatest proportion of the stimulus funding provided over the past 1½ years has gone into nation-building infrastructure programs that will transform the Australian economy in the long term. It will be clear from what I have said tonight that a transformation has been underway in my electorate of Robertson as well. The impressive list of funding achievements that I have outlined here is a testament to the soundness of the economic management of the Rudd Labor government in these extremely difficult times. The government has taken timely and decisive action to lessen the impacts of the global recession. It has taken action to save and preserve jobs, and it has also charted a way forward to recovery. We have seen the positive impact of those measures in my electorate of Robertson and we are seeing similar positive results across Australia.
4346
20:25:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise tonight to speak in the budget debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010—an appropriation bill which outlines the price Australian families will have to pay for Labor’s reckless spending spree over the past 18 months—and related bills. As a consequence of Labor’s senseless budget, projections indicate that there will be one million unemployed by 2010-11, a record $58 billion deficit and a record net debt of at least $188 billion by 2012-13. These figures are all key markers of the failure of the Rudd Labor government’s economic management. It is important that all Australians are aware of the damage that the Rudd Labor government has inflicted on our national economy. Two-thirds of the debt owed by taxpayers in 2012-13 will be due to spending decisions taken by the Rudd Labor government over the past 18 months. Paterson families are far worse off under Rudd, as are all Australian families.
Since the November 2007 election, Labor has announced measures which have increased Commonwealth spending by $124 billion. That is an average of $225 million of new spending every day. The Rudd Labor government must not continue to pretend that the destruction of our nation’s balance sheet is an unavoidable consequence of the global recession. It is a result of its economic mismanagement. The proposed budget highlights that the Prime Minister and Treasurer have failed to deliver a credible plan for recovery for the Paterson electorate. I listen to my constituents in Paterson electorate who call my office daily to tell me how they fear for the nation’s future under Kevin Rudd. They ask: ‘How can one man waste so much money?’ and ‘Will I ever be able to retire?’ Many add, when asked this difficult question, ‘I think to myself: how long is a piece of string?’
What this budget reveals is the biggest tax and spending binge in Australia’s peacetime history, driving an expansion in the size and scope of the public sector not seen since the Whitlam years. The electorate of Paterson is as diverse as it is large. Scoping south from Nelson Bay, north to Forster and Tuncurry and out west to the township of Gloucester, Paterson is filled with an array of industry, infrastructure and colourful individuals.
However, as diverse as all the 91,000-plus Paterson constituents are, they all have one thing in common: they are fundamentally and absolutely worse off under a federal Labor government. From broadband to education, health to energy and resources, Labor’s budget reveals that Paterson’s constituents will be left in the dark due to Labor’s reckless spending over the past 18 months. Not only that but, due to the Rudd Labor government’s incompetence, the constituents of Paterson will pay the price through higher future taxes, higher future interest rates, higher future foreign debt and higher unemployment. As I mentioned, no portfolio is safe from the Prime Minister’s tornado of destruction.
In the lead-up to the last federal election, the current Prime Minister declared that he would fix health by mid-2009. Instead, Labor’s reckless spending means that Australians will now pay more for their health care. Alarmingly, whilst Labor splashed $23 billion in cash around the nation, not one cent went to health. Labor’s budget reveals that Australians will now pay more for their health care, with a tax on the private health insurance rebate, the Medicare safety net, and pathology and diagnostic services. Labor’s budget delivers a significant blow to the private health sector, despite the Prime Minister and Labor promising not to alter rebates for private health. One million, seven hundred thousand. Australians will be immediately affected by changes to rebates for private health insurance, facing either higher premium payments or higher tax payments through the Medicare levy. This includes nearly 50 per cent of all enrolled voters in the Paterson electorate—58,289 people who were deceived by the Prime Minister when they took him at his word that their private health insurance costs would not increase. It is an absolute disgrace the way that the Prime Minister has misled the people of Paterson in his pursuit for power.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
4347
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Paterson Electorate: Tea Gardens Public School Parliament
4347
4347
20:30:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—The area of Port Stephens, in particular the north shore area, was put forward as a possible home for the Parliament of Australia. Sadly, the proposal did not progress. That being said, I rise tonight to recognise the oldest parliament in my electorate of Paterson. By that I mean the Tea Gardens Public School parliament, which celebrated its 20th official opening on Friday, 22 May. This is truly an amazing achievement. It recognises the commitment of the school community as a whole in ensuring the parliament is an ongoing success.
The Tea Gardens Public School parliament was established following a visit to Canberra 22 years ago. The staff at the school were keen to implement a parliamentary system to give the students a voice in implementing change at the school, which continues strongly today. The school parliament, which is based on the Westminster system, is highly valued and well respected by the students, staff, parents and the wider community. The ‘Prime Minister’ and the ‘ministers’ have designated roles and responsibilities and are supported by the ‘Governor-General’, the principal; the ‘senators’, the teachers; and the parliamentary advisor.
The school parliament plays a significant role in implementing change at the school. Simply put, the voice of the children is listened to and acted upon. The parliament sits each fortnight, and ideas, motions and questions are put to the student members for discussion or vote. Each year the students receive their badge of office from the current Tea Gardens/Hawks Nest Lioness Club Citizen of the Year at a special school leaders induction service. The Tea Gardens Public School parliament has been a model for many other schools in setting up their own parliaments and is an outstanding example of student leadership within a school.
I would like to report to this parliament that the 2009 school committee is: Prime Minister, Sky Boonon; Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Building and Health, Lachlan Hole; Minister for Special Events, Candice Cotterill; Minister for Transport, Ray Finch; Minister for the Environment, Jessica Treacy; Minister for Education, Thomas Ross; Minister for Pupil Welfare, Lindsay-Jean Banks; Minister for Sport, Jackson Page; Leader of the Opposition, Nash Johnson; Speaker of the House, Ryan Howarth; Deputy Speaker, Lauren McCaul; Serjeant-at-Arms, Ethan Schloeffel and Alex Bartholomew; Usher of the Black Rod, Luke Fenner; Hansard reporters, Taylah Cooke, Kant Richardson and Kiarna Eddy; and Parliamentary Advisor, Ms Annette Benton, who has been in that position for the whole of the 20 years the parliament has been established. And, of course, the principal, Sue Estens, is the Governor-General.
The motions that were put to the Tea Gardens Public School parliament at the 20th official opening of parliament were: (1) that the school get games to use during wet weather lunches, such as Twister and other board games—that was carried; (2) that the school set up a ‘Bully Bank’ where bullies are fined and the money given to charity—carried; (3) that the school get speakers put in every classroom so the principal can say messages to classes and she does not have to leave her office—carried; (4) that we get new play equipment for the younger kids—unfortunately defeated.
Following the parliament, the Senate—the teachers—meets to discuss the motions that were carried by the students. Some of the more memorable motions from the past 20 years have included: that we do 30 minutes of exercise a day at school; that we do not have to tuck our shirts in; that the canteen sells stationery; that we raise money for a professional DJ for the year 6 farewell social; that the art area gets fixed; that the school get some new sports equipment, including pogo sticks; that we start soccer practice early so we have a chance to win; that we are able to go down the back at afternoon recess; that the school get a toilet down the back; that teachers should not be able to keep children in at lunchtime; that the school get an alarm down the back; and that each classroom gets a telephone in case there is an emergency.
The students have some great ideas. However, sadly, not all their motions are passed in the Senate—that is replicated here. I would like to acknowledge that the inaugural Prime Minister in 1988 was Chris Hall, followed in 1989 by Olivia Meek. In 1990 at the first official opening, the Prime Minister was Anya Cole and the Governor-General, the principal, was Daryl Martin. Even though Daryl Martin has been retired for some time now, he has managed to attend all of the official Tea Gardens Public School parliament openings. What I observe at each and every parliament opening that I have been able to attend over the past 13 years is that the children are well behaved and that they speak with unbridled passion yet with absolute respect for their peers. I congratulate the Tea Gardens Public School parliament on achieving its 20th official opening and 22nd year of operation.
Braddon Electorate: Promoting Australian Produce Program
4348
4348
20:34:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Mr Speaker, you will be aware, as are some of my colleagues on this side, that I live in the village of Forth, which was the hometown of Edward Braddon, whom the electorate is named after. I have said many times that Forth has such a fertile soil that if you throw a toenail in the ground it will grow a foot. It is in the Forth Valley itself that we have the Forth based nut producers, Webster Ltd, who can now develop a new marketing initiative—which I would like to highlight tonight—for its product, thanks to a $212,500 grant from the Rudd government.
The funding comes from our government’s Promoting Australian Produce program. This program is all about assisting Australian producers, such as Webster, to promote their product nationally and internationally. Webster Ltd will use the grant to develop a marketing initiative to form a legal entity called Australian Nut Growers, which will serve as a marketing alliance to supply Australian-grown tree nuts to domestic and export markets. Webster Ltd will form the alliance with Nut Producers Australia and Stahmann Farms and focus on the supply of walnuts, almonds, pistachios, pecans and macadamias. This grant will go a long way to helping the north-west nut industry continue to be competitive with its mainland counterparts. The grant, for those interested, is part of nearly $2 million being delivered across Australia to agricultural and seafood industry organisations in the first round of the Promoting Australian Produce program. Under the program, grant recipients are required to match the funding dollar for dollar. I congratulate Webster Ltd and its associates on matching that $212,500 from the Rudd government.
Promoting Australian Produce is a three-year, $5 million program that aims to assist Australian food industries to develop their capacity to promote and market Australian produce more effectively to both domestic and export markets. Under the program, matched-funding grants between $50,000 and $750,000 are available for food industry organisations to undertake projects based around one or more of the following activities: enhancing industry marketing and promotional capabilities; developing new strategies for industry marketing; gaining consumer insights; and strengthening links with domestic and international markets.
As an industry leader, Webster has obviously seen the opportunity to again blaze the trail for its own operation, and others, to increase their competitiveness. Webster Walnuts is Australia’s largest commercial walnut grower, currently owning or managing about 2,000 hectares in Tasmania, mainly on the east coast, and in Griffith and Leeton in New South Wales. Webster also owns Australia’s only commercial walnut nursery. The nursery is part of Webster’s headquarters at my home village of Forth. It is just up the road from my own house and in the heart of one of Australia’s most productive farming areas. Webster Fresh is a counterseasonal producer and marketer of a range of vegetable products, primarily onions and carrots, for both the export and domestic markets. Webster’s Field Fresh Tasmanian brand has a strong reputation in the competitive world market as a reliable producer and an industry leader in production and product safety. Webster also maintains a strong strategic position in the salmon industry through its 26 per cent ownership of the salmon industry leader, Tassal Group Limited.
The Australian food industry, as our nation’s largest manufacturing industry, is a major driver of employment, wealth and prosperity, and that is certainly the case in my electorate, where we specialise in vegetable growing, dairy, beef production, significant horticulture, fishing and a growing viticulture industry. The north-west coast is the food bowl of Tasmania. Australia’s and Tasmania’s competitive advantage in food production is underpinned by an abundance of arable land that is used to produce a wide range of food commodities across temperate, sub-tropical and tropical agricultural systems.
I applaud Webster for their success in gaining the grant and I also applaud the Rudd government for this program to promote Australian produce. I hope others can also benefit from the Promoting Australian Produce program in this coming financial year.
Re-Engineering Australia Foundation
4349
4349
20:40:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
0
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—Last November, members may recall being invited to attend the national final of the Schools Innovation Design Challenge, which was held here in the Great Hall of Parliament House. I saw on the evening that 25 members attended. The final result saw schools from the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia triumph. On the night, federal funding to help support their work for the next three years was announced, and that is something I welcome.
Tonight I would like to highlight the role of the Re-Engineering Australia Foundation, the headquarters of which is located at Pennant Hills in my electorate. In 1998, it was established as a non-profit organisation with aims to interest and inform students about engineering as a career. It provides technology, motivation and opportunities to students nationally through a series of structured experimental education programs which aim at developing employability skills.
The design challenge commenced in 2003. It was aimed at students from years 7 to 10 and it was offered to high schools throughout Australia. It develops the creativity and innovation of high school students through design of projects based on the development of a Formula 1 racing car. The program is linked with the international F1 in Schools challenge, which now runs in 18 countries.
The foundation’s projects link schools, industry, TAFEs, universities and parents in stimulating interest and skills in students. In 2007 over 30,000 students from 280 secondary schools directly participated in the program.
The foundation has had significant corporate and government organisational support. Dassault Systemes contributed $450 million in engineering technology and software to schools. From 2008 until at least 2011 the Department of Defence, through the Defence Materiel Organisation, will be a major supporter. Telstra and Toyota have provided cash contributions and state and local governments have also made contributions.
The benefits are very significant for students. It sows the seeds of inspiration. They can respond to their heroes—there are positive role models and mentors. They gain benefits from participating in national programs and the skills make them eminently employable.
For the schools there is the benefit of having enhanced enthusiasm amongst teachers, there is a boost for participating schools’ reputations and the number of students interested in taking design and engineering subjects has seen an increase of some 400 per cent. And of course there is increased involvement and collaboration with industry. For universities and TAFEs there is heightened morale and enthusiasm, there is mentoring, it creates a national funnel for students interested in undertaking engineering courses and it improves connectivity with industry. For industry, there are increased linkages and involvement with local schools and access to potential staff.
I am particularly interested in this matter because schools in my own electorate have participated. Barker College—which I think has four ex-students in this parliament, including me—was third outright place winner in the Fl in Schools world championships. It is important to note that Australian schools have won places in the world championships each year from 2005 to 2008. And Re-Engineering Australia has won much recognition from Engineers Australia and has also won the Prime Minister’s Award for Skills Excellence, to name just a couple.
They have future plans. They continue to grow the program and members are encouraged to promote this project in schools in their electorates. This year will see the implementation of the first hub with direct defence industry links and collaboration in the ACT through the Navy and ADFA.
The future is very exciting. A pilot program entitled Oz-Blobs Challenge is presently underway in a number of primary schools. Students are provided with 3D modelling software and make their own design, which is then sent to the ‘Blobs factory’, where it is prototyped. With an extension activity of F1 in Schools, the proposed hybrid design competition students will be given a real opportunity to design components for cars in the future. This is a project that deserves members’ support and encouragement. It does a great deal for education and it will do a great deal for Australia and Australian productivity if we encourage students’ participation.
Kingston Electorate: Rail Infrastructure
4351
4351
20:45:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
0
Ms RISHWORTH
—I am very pleased to rise tonight to speak about some of the very important budget measures that are happening in my electorate of Kingston. Probably the most significant investment announced for my electorate is for the rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford. This is not the first time I have risen in this House to speak about how important this project is to the local community. In fact, I have spoken many times about how the outer metropolitan area is starting to grow, especially the outer southern suburbs of Adelaide. Areas like Seaford, Seaford Rise and Seaford Meadows are growing at a significant rate. Previously, the metropolitan area ended around the point of Noarlunga, and the growth has led to an increasing need for more public transport to be available in the area. This budget measure—a commitment of $291 million—is a perfect example of how this government is supporting jobs, small business and larger businesses in Australia by investing in the infrastructure we need for tomorrow.
I want to talk about some of the community that called for this rail extension. It is not just a few people who have called for it; overwhelmingly, people in my electorate have called for it. The Seaford District Residents Association has been campaigning for this for many, many years. In fact, it might be of interest for the House to know that this rail corridor has been mapped out for the past 30 years. However, no previous government has committed to actually build it, and this has been a great frustration for the residents. The Seaford District Residents Association, with people like Ron Jenkins and Harold Warburton, has been out there fighting to try to get this on the agenda because of its importance. The local council has also been talking to various people to explain how important this is. I was very pleased that the South Australian state government put this project to Infrastructure Australia as one of its top priority projects. I made my own submission to Infrastructure Australia to illustrate just how important this project is.
Some of the statistics speak for themselves. It is estimated that the extension from Noarlunga to Seaford will result in about 1.5 million extra public transport trips per year and up to 400,000 passenger hours each year. What that means is that there will be fewer cars on the road. I have spoken to a lot of constituents who have been very frustrated that they have not been able to get easily from Aldinga or Seaford to the rail line. This will make it easier for them to use public transport. It will mean fewer cars on the road, less carbon emissions and more people using public transport. That is a great thing for the future. The rail extension will coincide with the state government’s commitment to electrify the rail. It is projected to start next year and to be finished in 2013. That is a good time line that has been welcomed by residents. It will also play an incredibly important part in stimulating the Australian economy. This project, with the many other infrastructure projects that have been announced by the Rudd government, will help cushion Australia from the full impact of the global recession, while laying the foundations for a stronger and more prosperous future. That will certainly occur as a result of this rail extension in the southern suburbs of Adelaide.
My challenge tonight is not only to raise this issue but also to urge the opposition to support this measure. They have not indicated whether or not they will support the infrastructure measures. There are reports that the Leader of the Opposition has said he will review all the infrastructure projects. My message is that the residents in my electorate do not want this reviewed again. They do not want to continue to talk about it. They want to see action on the ground. They want to see the result of this great investment in the local area that will take the outer suburbs of south Adelaide well into the decades to come. I would like to hear from the opposition. Will they support this project? (Time expired)
Sunshine Coast Health Services
4352
4352
20:50:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—The residents of the Sunshine Coast, which is one of the areas I represent in the Australian parliament, face a risk of diminishing health services as a result of changes announced in the budget that will affect only a limited number of communities in Australia. The area to the east of the Bruce Highway between Coochin Creek and Forest Glen and roughly diagonally across to Coolum and then east of the Sunshine Motorway to Noosa has been reclassified as a metropolitan area as a result of the government switching from the Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas health region classification system to the Australian Standard Geographical Classification: Remoteness Areas system. The explanation is that the former system utilises population data dating back to 1991 while the new system is based on data from the 2006 census and, allegedly, is more accurate. Explanations aside, the new classification has the effect of making the coastal areas of my electorate no longer eligible for various incentives for doctors who wish to practise in the region. These lost incentive programs include the GP registrar placement program and the rural upskilling program.
My office has been advised that this affected area will retain Medicare bulk-billing incentives and benefits under the District of Workforce Shortage classifications. Areas in the electorate of Fisher that are outside this coastal strip, I am advised, will continue to have access to all of the incentives. However, for residents in areas like Kawana Waters, Caloundra, Currimundi, Little Mountain, Alexandra Headland, Mooloolaba and the adjacent areas on the coastal side of the Bruce Highway in my electorate, the fear is that some services will dry up as it becomes more and more difficult to attract doctors to work in the area as a result of those changes announced through the budget.
I ask the Minister for Health and Ageing to recognise the unique situation that the Sunshine Coast finds itself in; that is, it is too regional to attract doctors who wish to practise in a metropolitan area and it is too metropolitan to offer incentives to doctors wishing to work in a regional or rural area. I ask the minister to reverse the classification system so that we can deal better with our doctor shortages. I fear that it may be the case that doctors actually decide to leave the area to relocate in ‘greener pastures’, as any advantages that were previously to be gained by basing themselves professionally in what is a regional area have been struck out as a result of the government’s underhanded budget red pen. The greener pastures for these doctors may well be in Brisbane or, ironically, in areas more remote than the coastal regions of the Sunshine Coast. This may prove to be an advantage for areas like Beerwah, Landsborough, Maleny, Woodford and Kilcoy, which are still classified as rural and therefore have additional incentives available to local doctors. However, the major population areas along the coastal strip will be struggling.
Come 1 July, and with the introduction of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification: Remoteness Areas system for classifying health regions, the Sunshine Coast will be treated the same as the capital city of Brisbane. This change in turn means that doctors who would in the past have come to the region to work because of additional government benefits—which aim to ensure health professionals and adequate services are available in regional and rural areas—will no longer be eligible for allowances and subsidies such as the remote area incentives. Despite the loss of these incentives, young doctors will theoretically be able to secure a similar income whether located in this part of regional Queensland or in Brisbane. Gone is the incentive for doctors to practise away from Brisbane in the regional area of the Sunshine Coast.
It is my understanding that the Sunshine Coast is one of only two areas in Australia—the other being Gawler, north of Adelaide—that have had the health district status changed to ‘metropolitan’ as a result of the budget. The difference between Gawler and the Sunshine Coast is that Gawler is able to employ overseas trained doctors but we are not, due to our classification as a District of Workforce Shortage.
I am sure this situation is an unintended consequence. I am positive that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer did not intend to disadvantage the area from which they originated. This is, in my view, a bureaucratic mistake and I do call on the minister for health, the Prime Minister, also the Treasurer and, for that matter, the Minister for Ageing, who is from Nambour on the Sunshine Coast, to look at this matter again to make sure that people on the Sunshine Coast are treated with equity and are treated as people who reside in a regional area. We have desperate doctor shortages and yet this unintended change by the government mistreats our area terribly. (Time expired)
Flyn Electorate: Roads
4353
4353
20:55:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
0
Mr TREVOR
—Today during question time I asked a question of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I asked the minister to outline how the government has expanded its Black Spot Program as part of the economic stimulus plan. I also asked how this increased funding was received by local members and the community.
My government, following on from earlier announcements, made significant announcements as to my electorate of Flynn under the economic stimulus plan for black spot funding. These announcements were opposed by the opposition. Here are some of the announcements they opposed. They opposed $100,000 in funding to improve safety at the intersection of Hampton Drive and Langton Street in Tannum Sands. This intersection is an extremely busy one, especially around school drop-off and pick-up times at St Francis School. Unfortunately, it has also been quite a dangerous intersection over the years, with many members of the community reporting that something needed to be done to improve safety and the flow of traffic. We have listened to their calls. The funding will be used to modify the signals and incorporate right-hand arrows at the intersection as well as to resurface and re-mark lines to improve motorists’ and pedestrians’ safety.
They also opposed a further $937,000 in black spot funding, including $702,000 to widen the existing floodway to eight metres at seven locations throughout the Muttaburra-Aramac road section near Aramac. They opposed funding for two black spots in Winton. They also opposed a single-lane roundabout at the Falcon Street, Duck Street and Wompoo Road intersection in Longreach. They also opposed funding for two notorious road black spots near Thangool. Some $200,000 will be spent by my government to improve the intersection of the Burnett Highway and Blackmans Yard Road and a further $150,000 will be spent to improve the Burnett Highway near Thangool. In addition to those, they opposed a $1 million announcement to improve a notorious road black spot near Comet. That $1 million will be spent by my government to improve the intersection of Comet River Road and the Capricorn Highway to make this road safer not only for local residents but also for the high volume of traffic that passes through the intersection. The upgraded intersection will include the construction of a U-turn facility as well as an acceleration lane. The $1 million allocated for this intersection is part of $2.2 million in funding allocated to fix 13 black spots, all of which the coalition opposed, throughout the Flynn electorate.
These black spot funding announcements have been well received by my community of Flynn. Apart from the safety aspect, Flynn residents are finally seeing their fair share of funding coming from Canberra after being abandoned by the previous government for 10 long years. Treating the people of Flynn with contempt, I believe, lost the coalition the seat. I know the coalition are sour about it, but nothing has changed. After shortchanging the electorate for 10 long years and paying at the ballot box at the last election for doing so, they have only themselves to blame. They continue to oppose important announcements for my community of Flynn, just as they did for 10 years prior to losing the seat to Labor. The people of the electorate of Flynn are a wake-up to them. Again, they will pay dearly at the ballot box if they continue to oppose our measures.
I am proud of what my government is doing for the people of Flynn. I am proud to be part of a government that is looking after their health and also their safety while protecting their jobs and putting food on people’s tables—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted.
4354
21:00:00
House adjourned at 9.00 pm
NOTICES
4354
Notices
The following notices were given:
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
to present a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, to make amendments consequential on the enactment of that act, and for other purposes.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
to present a bill for an act to provide for an appropriation for the Australian Government Guarantee of State and Territory Borrowing, and for related purposes.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
to present a bill for an act to provide for a Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services, and for related purposes.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991, and for related purposes.
8T4
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
Mr Laurie Ferguson
to present a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
to move:
That the House:
-
notes that:
-
4 June 2009 is the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, in which an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 peaceful protesters were killed by the Chinese armed forces under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party leaders;
-
in the 20 years since Tiananmen Square the Chinese Communist Party has continued to deny the Chinese people a voice in their own government, and has continued to repress arbitrarily those calling for greater openness, democracy and freedom in China; and
-
China continues to deny Chinese workers the right to form free and independent trade unions, resulting in the continuing exploitation of Chinese workers and an unacceptably high rate of workplace deaths and injuries; and
-
calls on the Chinese Government to cease repression against political and religious dissidents and its citizens generally, and to announce a timetable for a transition to democratic government in China.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
to move:
That the House:
-
notes that 4 June 2009 is the 20th anniversary of the free elections in Poland, elections which were the beginning of the end of communist party rule not only in Poland but in all the countries of central and eastern Europe, and eventually also in the republics of the Soviet Union;
-
congratulates the people of Poland for their courageous struggle over more than 40 years to reclaim their independence and to restore democracy and freedom, and on the increasing security, prosperity and freedom which Poland has enjoyed since 1989; and
-
recalls that it was the Solidarity free trade union which led the successful struggle of the Polish people to achieve independence and democracy in Poland.
4V5
Moylan, Judi, MP
Mrs Moylan
to move:
That the House:
-
notes:
-
that the Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) were first formed by the Hawke Labor Government as regional advisory bodies to Federal Parliament;
-
the Howard Government gave them real purpose by restructuring their activities to act as a ‘shop front’ to assist regional communities through the process of applying for Commonwealth government grants;
-
the ACCs had an advisory role in regards to community benefits and assessed the viability of proposed projects;
-
there were 54 ACCs Australia‑wide and they were not‑for‑profit incorporated bodies under the relevant State associations incorporation Acts, operating with around $300,000 per ACC of operational funding from the former Federal government;
-
the Boards are voluntary with a ministerially appointed Chairman and Deputy Chairman; and
-
that by contrast to Regional Australia’s loss of national resources and control over development, the Government has established a Better Cities unit in Sydney;
-
condemns the Government for:
-
its decision to eliminate ACCs;
-
its lack of commitment to locally generated initiatives through the ACCs;
-
the loss of about 150 jobs around the nation;
-
its failure to facilitate a seamless transition of staff to the new State based bodies despite an assurance from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, earlier last year;
-
its failure to value and recognise the volunteer effort, including the unpaid skills and abilities of community members;
-
its lack of leadership and clarity of decision making in the handling of the transition process;
-
the disingenuous way the Minister has treated the chairmen and executive officers of ACCs over the past 18 months; and
-
being willing to pass to the Government of Western Australia the total operational funding for ACCs in that State without any process of transparent accountability;
-
recognises:
-
the tremendous work carried out by the ACCs and the important role they played in business development and job creation in regional and rural Australia;
-
the work carried out by the executive officers, staff and the Board chairmen and the voluntary contribution by members of the board;
-
the value of the decentralised nature of the ACCs and the capacity, therefore, to consider the needs and interests of local communities and local areas in rural and regional Australia; and
-
through community effort, the relatively small amount of funding of $300,000 granted to each of the ACCs was multiplied many times due to the voluntary effort by the committees, local governments and members of the community; and
-
calls on the Government to:
-
reconsider its decision to ignore staff of the ACCs and take steps to re‑locate them in the new arrangements; and
-
recognise and acknowledge the detrimental effect the current Government policy is likely to have on the development and job creation capacity and the fair dispersal of funding for projects across the regions.
HWR
Parke, Melissa, MP
Ms Parke
to move:
That the House:
-
expresses its concern about the grave humanitarian situation of the Tamil peoples of Sri Lanka, many of whom are presently detained in camps following the recent conflict in Sri Lanka;
-
calls upon the Sri Lankan Government:
-
to allow full access to United Nations and other humanitarian agencies to the camps to provide all necessary aid; and
-
to agree to an independent international investigation into war crimes alleged to have been committed by both parties during the recent conflict in Sri Lanka; and
-
expresses its hope that Sri Lanka can move forward from this difficult period in peace and with full respect for the human rights of all its peoples.
2009-05-26
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom) took the chair at 4.00 pm.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
4357
Constituency Statements
Cowan Electorate: Mary MacKillop Catholic Community Primary School
4357
4357
16:00:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I would like you to know that the suburb of Ballajura, in the east of the Cowan electorate, is served by very good schools. One of those schools is the Mary MacKillop Catholic Community Primary School on Cassowary Drive. The school is well led by its principal, James Danaher, and the local parish priest, Father John Jegorow. On a visit to the school some time ago I was having a conversation with a staff member, Mrs Sharon Evans, about the support-a-reader program run at the Mary MacKillop Catholic Community Primary School. The program provides support where reluctant or struggling readers are allocated adult volunteer helpers who come into the school and read with the student. The student and the helper then take turns reading, using a proven system which has achieved great results in many schools. Each student receives 15 minutes of one-on-one time most days of the week. The volunteers come primarily from the school community in the form of dedicated parents and grandparents. It is worth noting that success in helping children to read is not achieved through a one-off session. It is achieved through a level of consistent trust and understanding, as provided by these volunteers, which enables children to overcome their reluctance to read.
I have said before in this House that one of the most important things to young children is to be able to fit in. They do not want to feel different or inadequate and therefore alienated from the opportunities of education. Through support-a-reader, children who struggle with literacy are supported, and they are helped to attain levels consistent with those of their peers. It is a great program that works very well for the students at Mary MacKillop Catholic Community Primary School.
I commend the volunteers for their commitment to our future generations at the school. In particular I commend the volunteers George Hancock, Margaret O’Keefe, Julie Powell, Julia Durack, Maris Filippis, Sally Anne Cross, Yvonne Stevens, Adrienne Grygorcewicz, Deb Harris, Eve Thoroughgood, Anne Rector, Tracey Inwood, Sharon Gayski, Bernece Vitetta, Michele Mitchell and Maria Makinson. On 18 May I visited the school and presented these volunteers with certificates of my appreciation for the great work they do as volunteers. Clearly these are the sorts of people who make this country great and our communities strong. I would also like to mention that for her work in the area of literacy Sharon Evans, the teacher, recently received an Award of Excellence from the Australian Council for Educational Leaders. I congratulate Sharon for the award and her ongoing commitment to the children at Mary MacKillop Catholic Community Primary School.
Lyons Electorate: Promoting Australian Produce Program
4357
4357
16:03:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—I am very pleased to hear of a grant of $50,030 to the Australian mussel industry association under this government’s Promoting Australian Produce Program, a $5 million program providing grants of between $50,000 and $750,000. This grant will help the Australian mussel industry association to conduct research into consumer understanding of Australian blue mussels and assist in the development of a marketing strategy that will promote the Australian blue mussel as part of a healthy diet. Tasmania is well known for its blue mussels, particularly the Spring Bay mussel, which has a national reputation. I am particularly partial to them myself, and many of my family enjoy dishes of mussels. Earlier this month Spring Bay mussels won the inaugural Vogue Entertaining and Travel Produce Award for food heritage and sustainability. Triabunna based Spring Bay Seafoods is one of seven Tasmanian producers to win medals at the awards, announced on Tuesday night at the Sydney Etch by Becasse restaurant. Vogue lauded Spring Bay for its groundbreaking work. It was the only Australian mussel producer with its own hatchery, which meant it was not harvesting young wild mussels, or spat, and depleting natural resources.
Food producers and industry organisations such as the Australian mussel industry association make a vital contribution to the nation’s economy and to rural and regional communities. The grant is part of nearly $2 million being delivered nationally to the agriculture and the seafood industries in the first round of the Promoting Australian Produce Program. So it will help the local mussel industry to remain competitive and contribute to its success into the future. Grants have been awarded to food industry organisations to increase their industry’s marketing and promotional abilities and to strengthen links with domestic and international markets. Tasmania is recognised nationally and globally for its high-class produce and the funding will assist the mussel industry to further that reputation.
Presently, Australian mussels are marketed and sold as fresh quality mussel produce. There is movement in some states to value add to the product in a variety of ways. Mussels have exceptional nutritional value, particularly omega-3, so they are very good for us. I noted recently, according to the American Food and Drug Administration criteria, that mussels are an extra lean meat that is low in sodium, low in fat, cholesterol free and high in protein and heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. When it comes to the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish, mussels have more than any other shellfish: 500 grams of mussel in the shell can yield 150 to 200 grams of raw mussel meat. This is dependent upon animal condition at the time of harvest, spawning period and conditional index. As most of you would know, I bring Tasmanian salmon up for your tasting. I have also brought up oysters. Maybe mussels will be the next tasty bit that I will be able to offer. I congratulate Spring Bay mussels on their enterprise and innovation. (Time expired)
Cowper Electorate: Queensland and New South Wales Floods
4358
4358
16:06:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—Members of the House would be familiar with the flood event affecting my electorate, as it has been broadcast on national television. For some areas of that electorate it is the third such flood event in recent times. On 31 March residents of Coffs Harbour, Bellingen, Nambucca and the Clarence Valley local government areas suffered a flood event. Across the region thousands of people suffered damage to their houses, businesses and farms. The central business districts of Coffs Harbour and Urunga were particularly hard hit. Many people in rural areas suffered major damage to their access roads.
The impact of these floods was severe, and I have detailed that impact in correspondence with the government. Over the past eight weeks I have written to the Prime Minister on 6 April, the Attorney-General on 30 April and the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on 7 and 18 May. I also questioned the Prime Minister in the parliament on 12 May. On each occasion I have sought the Rudd government’s one-off cash payments of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child for those families affected by the 31 March flood event. Seven weeks after the floods first ravaged our region, the Rudd government confirmed that one-off cash payments would not be provided to those most affected by the last event. In my view this was an appalling decision, given the assistance that was extended to residents of North Queensland who were affected by floods in February. In that instance the Commonwealth provided $1,000 for eligible adults and $400 for children. The Rudd government’s decision not to provide similar assistance shows that they are not prepared to govern for all Australians.
After the flooding that has engulfed the North Coast over the past week, I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement in the parliament yesterday that one-off payments would be provided to those affected by the recent flood event. After detailing one-off payments to individuals, small businesses and primary producers, the Prime Minister added the following:
I have also today authorised this assistance for people affected by the earlier floods in New South Wales in late March.
In good faith we accepted that this meant that all of the assistance being provided to those affected by the May event would be provided to those affected by the March event. This morning the Prime Minister’s office advised me that the one-off cash payments to families would not apply to those March flood victims—that is, that the small business and primary producer assistance would go to those affected but that the $1,000 and $400 payments would not. This is an absolute disgrace. Over the past eight weeks I have spoken to many people affected by this flood event. In today’s Coffs Coast Advocate another resident detailed her anger and her feeling of abandonment by the minister for family and community services. She said:
I am one of the many individuals very affected by this flood.
That is the flood of 31 March. She continued:
I lost all of my furniture and anything else that was below the three feet of water that went through my unit.
All of the other tenants in my block of units in Sawtell were similarly affected …
The minister claimed that the reason for not advancing assistance was that damage was primarily to public infrastructure. That is clearly not the case. (Time expired)
Hasluck Electorate: Politician Adoption Scheme
4359
4359
16:09:00
Jackson, Sharryn, MP
00AN2
Hasluck
ALP
1
0
Ms JACKSON
—Many Western Australian members of parliament have spoken about the Politician Adoption Scheme that is operated and coordinated by the Developmental Disability Council of Western Australia. The scheme arranges for a politician to be adopted by a person with a developmental disability in their family from within their electorate. The scheme provides a unique and valuable personal insight into the day-to-day lives of the family. It ensures that we become more effective advocates of the rights and needs of people with a disability.
I am fortunate to have been adopted by Lisa Harris and her family, who live in Kenwick in my electorate of Hasluck. Lisa’s dad and mum, Phil and Tania Harris, have three children: Lisa who recently turned nine; Matty who is six and Lizzie who is three years of age. Through involvement in their lives I get firsthand information and experience of the issues that impact on the quality of life of people with disabilities and their families.
Earlier this month I was fortunate to spend the morning with Lisa at her school. Lisa attends Kenwick School, which is a special ed facility. There are approximately 80 students who come on five different bus services from across my electorate, extending out as far as Byford on the fringe of the metropolitan area. The kids range in age from 4 to 18 years old and have a diverse range of support needs and abilities, with moderate to severe and profound disabilities. Some children have severe and multiple disabilities, others also have vision and hearing impairments. Twenty per cent of the student body have an autism spectrum disorder. Each class has five to 11 students with one teacher and two education assistants. Each child has an individual education plan developed by the teacher and other specialists such as social trainers, swimming teachers, nurses and therapists as well as parents.
Lisa’s teacher is Marie McLaughlin. Marie is ably assisted by her wonderful education assistants, Shirley Gebhard and Rosemary Moore. There were three other students in Lisa’s class that morning. Marie led the class in a welcoming circle, a delightful singalong where each child and adult is welcomed to the room as well as identifying the date, the day of the week, the month and the season. In addition to the singing and play I was able to observe very committed teacher and education assistants working with the kids in their care. They clearly had great affinity with the kids as well as affection for them despite sometimes challenging behaviour from some of them.
I had the opportunity to go with Lisa to the school’s liberty swing. It is not a light duty to secure Lisa’s wheelchair in the swing and I was grateful for Shirley’s expertise. I had the easier task of pushing the swing. The real reward was the look of sheer delight on Lisa’s face as the swing went higher and higher. I understand the P&C raised the funds for the swing and I congratulate them for that effort. Of course, I am also delighted that Kenwick School has received funding from the Rudd government’s National School Pride program. (Time expired)
Paterson Electorate: Emeritus Mayor John Graham Hawley OAM
4360
4360
16:12:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise today to advise the House of the death of Emeritus Mayor John Graham Hawley OAM who passed away on Thursday, 7 May 2009. John Hawley’s service of thanksgiving was held amongst his beloved Dungog community at St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Dungog on 12 May 2009.
John served Dungog council from 1959 to 2004, holding the position of mayor from 1962 to 1982. John was very much a hands-on practitioner of local government and he expected excellence, professionalism and devotion not only of himself but also of those around him. John’s 45 years of service saw achievements such as: the longest serving local government councillor in Australian history; the longest serving executive member of the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales, on which he served as president for a number of years and as patron until his passing; and the longest serving councillor in the history of Dungog Shire Council. John’s dedication to his community through his contribution to the Lions Club, the Masonic Lodge and the RSL of Australia New South Wales Branch was more than evident. His thanksgiving service bore testament to this.
Looking at John’s incredible tenure in local government one has to say that from humble beginnings he was truly a man for the people of the shire and very much a pioneer in local government in New South Wales. His outstanding achievements and commitments to his vocation were exemplary and will always be in keeping with the finest traditions of our Australian and rural heritage. This level of commitment does not come without great personal sacrifice, but John was a passionate advocate for the Dungog community.
Some of John’s achievements forever entrenched in Dungog shire’s history are: the pioneering of the construction of Dungog Memorial Swimming Pool, the upgrading of Glendonbrook Road, the sealing of Stroud Road and the reconstruction of Bingleburra Road, to name but a few projects. John’s contribution to local government was strongly influenced by his work ethic. His most prominent mannerisms were created by friendships forged from common interests and a sense of camaraderie that manifested trust, loyalty and indeed a strong will to defend what some would call the underdog in all of us.
It is no secret that John and I were on opposite sides of the political divide. However, we had a deep mutual respect for each other based on a common cause: fighting for our community above all else. When it comes to advocating for our community, it is the things that unite us that will always be stronger than the things that divide us. On behalf of the parliament, I extend to Mrs Elaine Hawley, and the Mitchell and Lyon families, our deepest sympathy and respect. John Graham Hawley OAM will be sadly missed by the Dungog community. He toiled hard for the community and now deserves his rest. May he rest in peace.
Werriwa Electorate: Campbelltown Stadium
4361
4361
16:15:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—Last week I, along with the Mayor of Campbelltown, Russell Matheson, threw down a challenge to Wests Tigers rugby league club to show locals the same loyalty that has clearly been shown to them by their faithful fans. On the eve of work starting on the $8 million upgrade of Campbelltown Stadium, it is not good enough for this rugby league club not to commit to more games in the region. This redevelopment work, due to commence in the coming weeks, is an important step in meeting a key election commitment made to local residents in the south-west of Sydney by the Rudd government.
I worked very closely with the local community and the Campbelltown City Council to secure this commitment. This is an important investment in the future of the region and, more importantly during these challenging times, this project is expected to support 200 full-time and part-time positions. The Campbelltown Stadium is an iconic venue in the community and our commitment goes a long way to helping transform this stadium and its adjoining facilities into one of the premier sporting precincts in Western Sydney.
This investment in Campbelltown Stadium warrants Wests Tigers committing to play a minimum of six home games in Campbelltown. Once the redevelopment of the stadium—which includes adding another 5,000 seats and upgrading player and media facilities—is complete, the ground capacity will increase to 20,000 people. Campbelltown should be given back the three home games that, in a commercial decision, were reallocated to the Sydney Football Stadium, some 60 kilometres away. Quite frankly, we are now redeveloping Campbelltown City’s sports stadium to satisfy the requirements of the NRL, not only now but also into the future. The chairman of Wests Tigers has sought to defend the club’s decision, saying that football is not just a game, it is a multi-million-dollar entertainment business, and saying further that the local fans seem reluctant to appreciate the commercial side of things.
Backsides on seats at venues such as Campbelltown Stadium do not seem to count as much to a football club as the guaranteed dollars that it will get for playing games at the Sydney Football Stadium. Apparently, the football club receives more money from a game at the Sydney Football Stadium if only one person decides to turn up. There is no question that Macarthur area rugby league fans have been very loyal to Wests Tigers. They pack the stadium for every home game. I would like to think the club is going to be loyal to its fans now and play more than three games at Campbelltown Stadium. Wests Tigers is a great, premiership-winning team; however they must know that Sydney’s south-west is a big market and that loyalty is there to be earned. Wests Tigers should also appreciate that commercial businesses have clients, customers and shareholders, whereas football clubs such as Wests Tigers rely on fans. It begs the question: what game are they playing?
Hinkler Electorate: Australian Prime Fibre
4362
4362
16:18:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—In the spirit of delivering greater outcomes for my electorate, I recently hosted the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, in my electorate of Hinkler. I was very pleased that the minister accepted my offer to visit a number of agricultural enterprises in the Bundaberg and Childers districts. I am sure the half-day tour I gave him broadened his understanding of such local industries as fishing, horticulture, food processing—especially chillies—flying fox control and the tertiary utilisation of sugarcane. On the latter, the minister now has firsthand knowledge of an impressive enterprise, Australian Prime Fibre, operating just outside Childers. It is a great example of industry diversification.
In July last year, the company opened the doors of its $10 million state-of-the-art processing plant, which is considered one of the most modern and technologically advanced agricultural processing factories in Australia. APF takes cane trash, which until recently was simply burned or ploughed back into the ground, and processes it into garden mulch and stockfeed, which is available to national outlets on the one hand and agricultural outlets on the other.
The company has also recently expanded its product line by processing tonnes of excess paper—print overruns, misprints and so on. It turns this into a cellulose roofing installation—a type of pink batt, if you like. This has had a twofold benefit for the community. First, the company is generating a new, locally produced product for the national markets. Second, APF is providing cane farmers with supplementary income for cane trash, which was previously just wasted. So it is a very good operation. Minister Burke was quite impressed.
Today, that company has seven permanent employees and by mid-year expects to grow to 11. Australian Prime Fibre is a classic example of how Commonwealth seed funding can turn a medium-sized fledgling operation into a flourishing one. An investment of around $1 million, which came from the sugar package and from the Regional Partnerships Program, was enough to get the business off the ground. As I said, it was a $10 million business. One of the important things that those grants give the proponents is leverage when they go to the banks. The fact that they have the approbation of government in doing this sort of thing is a very important part of getting the confidence of the banks, particularly in the current economic climate.
Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea
4362
4362
16:21:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise to speak in relation to Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. This is one of the Cancer Council’s leading fundraising events and the largest and most successful event of its kind in Australia. Over $60 million has been raised since it began back in 1994. The official date is this Thursday, 28 May, but events can be hosted anytime during the months of May or June. Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea events have been known to be held in schools, in clubs, at work or even in the comfort of people’s homes. The funds raised during Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea go towards Cancer Council research, prevention, education and support.
Last Monday, I had the pleasure of holding a community afternoon tea at which my guest speaker was the Minister for Human Services, Senator Joe Ludwig. I asked people to give a gold coin donation to fundraise for Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. I can report that, with the generosity of the Petrie constituents who attended that event, we raised approximately $150 at that afternoon tea. I thank each and every one of those people for their voluntary donation.
I also had the opportunity last Friday to attend at the home of one of my constituents, Narelle Armstrong. This was the second year that I have attended the Biggest Morning Tea that Narelle has held. Narelle Armstrong is a tireless fundraiser for the Cancer Council. Each year for the past few years Narelle has held a morning tea in her own home as part of the Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea month. This year, Narelle has held three morning teas to raise money for the Cancer Council. Narelle’s health has not been the best recently. I know that she feels that she is not contributing as much as she would like to. But there could be nothing further from the truth. Narelle has been officially recognised by the Cancer Council for her amazing fundraising efforts. I would like to place on record my gratitude and the gratitude of the community for people like Narelle, who volunteer their time, their homes and their fabulous baking and tea-making skills to raise money to find a cure for cancer.
We know that the Cancer Council do many amazing things. The money goes towards their help line, Cancer Council Connect volunteers, one-to-one support, clinical trials, making life easier for carers, groundbreaking research and new and improved treatments. I would like to thank all of the people who make an effort as part of Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea.
Flinders Electorate: National Australia Bank
4363
4363
16:24:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—Last Thursday, 21 May, I visited the headquarters of the National Australia Bank in Melbourne with two local community leaders, Fergus Nutt, representing the traders of Mount Martha, and Lloyd Smith, representing the residents of not only Mount Martha but also Balnarring and Rye. The reason we visited the state manager of the National Australia Bank and a senior executive in their corporate communications and government relations centre is that the National Australia Bank has decided to close three branches on the Mornington Peninsula: Balnarring, Rye and Mount Martha. Each is a blow to local residents. Each is a blow to the workers. Each is a blow to traders who rely on the bank’s service. So we attended to protest, respectfully but clearly and absolutely. We said that it was time for the National Australia Bank to review, rethink and redetermine the outcome of each those three cases. I am not hopeful, but we will fight and fight and fight to see if we can have this decision reversed.
In the case of Balnarring and Rye, it is a tragic outcome for those communities. They have the small consolation that they also have existing community banks which will remain in place. While the closing of the National Australia Bank would be a great inconvenience, the community banks do at least provide an option. In the case of Mount Martha, a town of 9,000 people, there will be no bank—not a single bank. What we said to the National Australia Bank was very clear: ‘If you pull out, there will be a community response. Mount Martha will fight back and we will push to do two things. We will push to establish a community bank and we will push to make sure that as many of the community members as possible move their business to that bank. Whether they are traders, whether they are residents, whether they have a second residence at Mount Martha, we will push to ensure that as many of these people as possible move their business from the National Australia Bank to the community bank.’
We will not do that out of a vindictive approach. We will do it from the position that Mount Martha needs a bank. We need to establish a bank for seniors, for mums or dads who do not want to travel too far during the day if they have childcare duties, for traders who are unable to be away from their shops in the strip. We need community support in order to establish that bank, so we shall be unrelenting and unflinching in pushing to establish a community bank. I urge the National Australia Bank to review its position. I fear that it is not going to do so, in which case Mount Martha will fight back and we will establish a community bank.
Charlton Electorate: Schools
4364
4364
16:27:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—When I was campaigning to be elected to parliament in late 2007, I talked to parents and teachers in a number of schools in the electorate, but I was particularly interested in an issue that the Edgeworth Heights Public School had raised. I spoke to the principal of that school, Mr Mark Stiller. It is a primary school with 245 students. During the campaign period he told me that the school had never had a school hall. School assemblies were held outside. If it rained, they were able to use, after a period of time, a covered outside learning area which was basically a metal cover only with no walls. This had become the status quo for that school. There seemed no chance of ever building a much-needed school hall. Today it is my privilege to say that this sorry state of affairs has changed, thanks to the Rudd government’s $14.7 billion education revolution. Because of that, the students and staff of Edgeworth Heights Public School are now able to await the completion of their very own school hall.
The excitement of the staff and students is only one story in a much larger narrative. I am excited to be able to say that for schools in my electorate of Charlton approximately $22.3 million is now in the pipeline for new infrastructure projects. The effect of this Rudd government funding in Charlton is twofold. Firstly, the schools that have long suffered from chronic underinvestment from the Howard government will now receive vital new infrastructure. The effect on the morale of students and teachers as a direct result of that funding cannot be underestimated at all. Where does the school assembly happen on a rainy day, for example, when there is no school hall? What happens when there is wet weather and sport is on? A hall is a vital piece of infrastructure for any school, and that is what is severely needed at Edgeworth Heights primary.
The second impact of this funding is that tradespeople and people working in the building and construction industry in the electorate will receive a major boost through the construction of all of the projects. This will help rejuvenate the local economy and provide job stability for many local tradespeople, and the flow-on effect of spending in the local community is equally important. Other schools in the electorate have elected to fund new libraries and gymnasiums. But no matter what the schools elect to spend their extra funding on, all of these projects will have a tangible effect on the quality of education offered by the local schools—and that is a fundamental objective, as I am sure all would agree. All of this is only possible through the funding that has been provided by the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution, and it proves that the government is committed and determined to improve infrastructure at local schools as well as helping—(Time expired)
10000
Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr S Sidebottom)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
HEALTH WORKFORCE AUSTRALIA BILL 2009
4365
Bills
R4101
Second Reading
4365
Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4365
16:31:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
0
Mr DUTTON
—The Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 seeks to establish a new statutory authority, Health Workforce Australia, to oversee clinical training arrangements across the health sector and support workforce planning. The government needs the bill passed before July so that the new authority, agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments late last year, can commence operation by January next year—a point I want to return to a little later. There is no doubt that Australia faces ongoing challenges in providing an adequate workforce in the health and aged-care sectors. A combination of factors has led to these difficult circumstances. We have an ageing population that requires greater access to medical services and we have an ageing and changing medical workforce. There has been an increase in chronic disease, community expectations have increased and some health professionals are working fewer hours.
The Minister for Health and Ageing blames the woes of the health sector on the previous coalition government—of course that would be the spin of this government. The simple fact is that the former coalition government began dramatically ramping up the number of education places for health professionals almost a decade ago—indeed, from 2000. We provided for significant growth in the number of medical graduates, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and psychologists emerging from our universities. At the time, it was quite amazing that the state health authorities in particular were lagging behind in training staff for their responsibilities in terms of the provision of health services. Even more amazingly, it remained the case over the last decade or so that staff retention rates were abysmal in relation to the provision of services by state governments.
Even today, that remains a continuing bugbear at many of our public hospitals and indeed in many areas around the country where health care is provided. Many health workers are working under situations of great duress. They are concerned about their work colleagues and they are concerned about trying to improve health outcomes for their patients. Indeed, many of them are working in an environment which is completely unacceptable. That has added to some of the current woes that the government find themselves facing in relation to workforce shortages, and it is something they need to continue to work on. At the last election they promised to end the blame game—and there is no better area than health for this government to demonstrate that it can provide good outcomes. But that was only an election slogan, and nothing has changed over the last 18 months.
There was a massive expansion to address the needs of the health workforce under the coalition government. However, as this government will find out, it takes years to deliver the graduates of universities and colleges to the front-line of health care. The government has promised major increases across all fields of the health workforce, but after 18 months in office its recruitment drives have been found wanting. The government’s plan to return 1,000 nurses to the workforce last year fell far short, with just 310 additional recruits. Media reports also indicated that the government had difficulty filling additional tertiary training places for nurses.
The Rudd government’s budget, which will drive this nation into deficit and debt for decades to come, contained more than a score of small under-the-radar funding cutbacks in health that may hinder the development of the health workforce over the coming years. One such cut pulled $30 million from a program supporting postgraduate research into public health, which drew criticism from the Public Health Association. Its president described the decision as a worry because the program was important ‘in terms of supporting and developing the public health workforce’. This cut hardly fits with the Prime Minister’s pledge to fix public hospitals by mid this year, a deadline that runs out in just over a month. Indeed, the minister and the Prime Minister may try to paper over their promise by telling Australians that they have fixed our hospitals, but no Australian patient, no family, no older Australian believes this government when they say that they have fixed public hospitals, because it has become all too apparent that Labor state governments continue to mismanage our public hospitals and fudge the figures to pretend that everything is okay.
This bill is largely technical in nature, establishing the authority in law and setting out its make-up, functions and scope of operations, but it is a scope that allows wide interpretation of its role once the agency is operative. As part of the debate it is important to highlight a number of concerns and to pose a number of questions to the government that need to be answered, not just as part of the minister’s summing up in this debate, but also, importantly, in relation to a Senate inquiry, during which we propose to put a number of questions to the government about what exactly they are trying to achieve with this bill; importantly, how they propose to address the concerns of stakeholders and industry groups; and, ultimately, how this is going to deliver better health outcomes to Australian patients.
One question, of course, is: will it result in additional layers of administration and bureaucracy that will soak up valuable resources? That has been the hallmark of the delivery of health services at a state level over the course of the last decade; it is at the core of what is certainly a dysfunctional health system in this country and it is at the core of the continuing problems that this government has refused to address.
Another question that needs to be asked and answered by this government is whether or not this authority will try to usurp some of the responsibility of the colleges and some of the other organisations that seek to provide professional development to the professions around this country. I would be very concerned if this authority, once established, headed down the path that Labor has taken us down at a state level over the course of the last decade. I would be concerned that, if this government’s priority were to manage the health system in a way that the states have managed the health system over the course of the last 10 years, they would head down a track where, instead of employing doctors and nurses and other health professionals, they embarked on a policy of filling the back rooms—putting extra dollars, which should be spent on patients, into spin operations conducted in media units out of ministerial offices and, worse still, out of government departments.
Bureaucrats and administrators have added layer upon layer of officialdom in the nation’s public hospitals and health services. The consequences have been plain to see: failing hospitals, overworked health carers and not enough money for necessities for patients. In some cases, in that Labor jewel of New South Wales, there is not even enough money to pay for food for patients. In some cases in New South Wales, particularly in rural settings, public hospitals do not have the capacity to pay for drugs to treat patients. This is an unacceptable situation and it makes a mockery of the recent statements by the minister that she has fixed public hospitals and that the states have done enough to address the concerns that patients around the country have in terms of the services provided at public hospitals. At a federal level of government, we need to make sure that we do not embark down this same path.
At the very time that this government is cutting back on a host of health programs through measures in this year’s budget, it is planning to spend another $125 million on bureaucracy in this authority—$125 million over the forward estimates, four years, is a significant amount. Many people would argue that that money could go towards helping families who are struggling to pay for their IVF treatment; those who have really received a slap in the face from this government. This money could go towards helping people, particularly older Australians, who require cataract surgery. These are debates that are unfolding and they have a long way to go, because the government has been on a huge spending splurge.
At the same time that Kevin Rudd has been handing out billions of dollars in $900 cash payments, he has been taking with the other hand from Australian patients. He is cutting back cataract surgery and he is cutting back the assistance that the federal government will provide to families who are trying desperately to bring a child into this world. That is something we will be talking a lot more about, because tens of thousands of Australians really have great concern about this government’s decision to rip out of this budget the money for the very necessary cataract surgery that needs to take place for older Australians and, of course, for that support to families who are relying on IVF.
The government need to refocus their attention. They need to refocus their attention onto the patient and away from the bureaucrat. If we are going to bring improvements about in the health system in this country, we need to put money into front-line services. We need to make sure that the health dollar is not being spent—like it is in Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria—on bureaucrats instead of on nurses and doctors. This government certainly has shown all the signs of going down the same health management path that those state Labor governments have, particularly in New South Wales. There is no better example than New South Wales—a better example you could not find around the country. New South Wales has a government which has squandered billions of dollars that should have been spent helping patients and helping doctors and nurses to help those patients to get better health outcomes and to help older Australians who want some sort of dignity in their ageing years—Australians who, before this budget, would have been able to get government assistance to have cataract surgery. They are the people we should be helping, not supporting a government at a federal level now under Mr Rudd and Ms Roxon who are adopting the same management style as Nathan Rees and Reba Meagher in New South Wales. We do not want to see the federal health bureaucracy managed in the same way that state Labor has mismanaged health over the last 10 years.
I say to all Australians, particularly to those in New South Wales: look at the way that Labor has managed health in your state system and remember that this is exactly the same path that Mr Rudd and Ms Roxon are following. These people are not good for health in this country. Mr Rudd and Labor pretend to be the friend of patients in this country but they are not. Look at the outcomes in public hospitals around the country. Look at the outcomes for older Australians in aged-care facilities right around the country. Our very own Australians are suffering at the moment because the government, at both the federal and the state level, are spending more in the area of health and ageing on bureaucracy than they are on patient outcomes. That is something that we need to take the fight up to the government on because this government promised at the last election that, in the Prime Minister’s own words, they would fix public hospitals. So I stand in the parliament today and say to the Australian people: Mr Rudd has had 18 months to live up to his promise and he has failed to deliver anything in relation to his promise to fix public hospitals.
This Prime Minister has presided over a system in which many public hospitals, over the last 18 months, have deteriorated and yet he is looking the Australian people in the eye and saying that he has fixed public hospitals. If your mother, father or child is in a public hospital or in an aged-care facility at the moment, is the treatment that they are receiving appropriate and adequate? Despite all of the wonderful care that all the doctors and nurses and other allied health professionals provide to patients in this country, the answer can be and must be: no. I say to Australian mums and dads around the country who want to get into hospital when their child is sick: Mr Rudd promised you that he would ‘fix public hospitals’. They were the words he used during the last election campaign. Eighteen months later, nothing has changed; in fact, it has got worse. He is now telling you that things have improved in public hospitals over the last 18 months and, clearly, they have not. That is something that we need to remind the Australian people about. Mr Rudd promised that, if public hospitals were not fixed by mid-2009, he would seek to take them over. At every turn since then, this Prime Minister has sought to walk away from that promise. He does not intend to live up to his promise to take over public hospitals; he is now saying that public hospitals are fixed.
I would say to the Australian public: go to the Prime Minister’s website, where it once used to say, ‘I, Kevin Rudd, will fix public hospitals.’ He has now removed those words from his website. He now says that he is going to ‘substantially improve’ public hospitals. And his health minister, in the media recently, said that she would walk away even from that promise.
Let’s look at the facts in this debate. Let’s recognise that this government has made a number of promises in relation to improving the provision of public hospital and public health services around the country, and they have delivered on none of those.
The state governments at the moment are embroiled in controversy in relation to the numbers that they have been providing to the federal government to say that they have been knocking people off waiting lists. Well, literally they have been knocking people off—not because the surgery has been performed but because either many of these people are dying before they get elective surgery or indeed these figures cannot be relied on because they are being doctored by state health bureaucrats, at the behest of Labor ministers. This is not acceptable in the 21st century. We live in Australia. We should not be told by state health bureaucracies, at the direction of Labor ministers, that they can doctor waiting list outcomes. They should not be telling the federal government and the Prime Minister that they have improved their waiting lists in New South Wales or in Victoria when they have not. Indeed, we know that many of the waiting lists have got worse—they have deteriorated since Mr Rudd has been Prime Minister. Yet Mr Rudd stands up and says to the Australian people, hand on heart, that he has fixed public hospitals. He has not. That is why we need to continue this debate.
We will support measures that streamline the provision of health services to Australians. We will support measures that do away with this bureaucratic nonsense at a state level. We will help Australians get better health outcomes. We will support legislation that does away with bureaucracy and provides a streamlined path to better health outcomes and the provision of better patient outcomes at public hospitals around the country.
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in relation to this bill. As I have said, we hope that at the Senate inquiry there will be the opportunity for people who have an interest in this area to come forward, to have their concerns aired. We as a coalition will listen to those concerns. We will genuinely listen to what people have to say through the consultation process of the Senate inquiry so that we can help make for a better health system in this country. We want to make sure that we can hear those concerns and urge this government to have them addressed. We do not want to see another bureaucracy created for the sake of creating another bureaucracy. That has continued at a state level for too long. We do not want to be part of this government’s media spin which says: ‘Put your hard hat or your white coat on, go into a hospital or onto a building site and say to the Australian public, “Here I am; great footage. This is me, Prime Minister Rudd, doing as much as I can; I am working hard for the Australian people”’—when in fact it is all just media spin. That is something that this government has quickly become known for. This is the government of media spin, and there is no greater example than in the area of health, where we have seen media spin at a state level over the last 10 years. So let us not fall as a country for the spin that is going on at the moment.
If this government has a serious agenda of providing support to our front-line health workers then it should bring it on—and we will support that. We urge this government to spend more on front-line services than in the media units which occupy the state bureaucracies around the country. We will make sure that we provide proper assistance, guidance and support to all of those front-line health workers, who deserve much more support than they have got over the course of the last 10 years because of a failure at the state government level. We will make sure that we recognise the hard work of doctors, of nurses, of physios, of psychologists, of pharmacists and of all health professionals who are working in a range of services and who are passionate about delivering better health outcomes. As a coalition we will support those people because we believe in the services they are providing.
We want to support people who are delivering health services at the front-line, as opposed to Labor, who want to support the spinmeisters in the back rooms. We want to make sure that we can help those people who are working in our emergency departments around the country, under great stress, under enormous duress. These are people who work long hours in very demanding conditions. Quite often they are abused at all hours of the day and night, yet they remain so passionate about the health that they are trying to deliver to patients in a time of need. Yet they are frustrated on a daily basis by the bureaucracy and the bureaucratic process that has surrounded them—the bureaucratic process that has been imposed on them by Labor, not because they want to help those health workers and not because they want to help those patients but because they are trying to get the media spin line out to make people believe that they are doing something.
Labor at a federal and state level have become so obsessed about spin and media control that they have forgotten about patients. This government have forgotten about patients. In their desire to put a hard hat on and get in front of the cameras, they forgot about the people who matter most. It has not taken this government long to adopt the same failed policies of state Labor, particularly the model that has operated in New South Wales over the course of the last 10 years, and that is going to mean even worse patient outcomes in the future.
So my plea today to the Australian public is not to look at what Kevin Rudd does. Kevin Rudd is a very tricky political operator—there is no question about that—but he is not delivering better outcomes for Australian patients. We as an alternative government want to make sure that we take the fight up to this government because we believe that they do not have the capacity to improve health services around the country.
One of the other concerns that this government has on its books at the moment is in relation to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. There is considerable concern in the medical community and in some of the patient advocacy groups around what the government has proposed in relation to national registration and accreditation. I made some comments at the annual dinner of the AMA in Parliament House a few weeks ago and I think I echo the concerns of many within the profession who believe that this government is embarking on an ideological war against those in the medical profession. This is a government that clearly wants to go down the path of the United Kingdom model, with state owned public hospitals and public provision of all health services into the future. It is certainly a case which has failed to have been made in the United Kingdom, and yet for ideological purposes this minister seems intent on taking the first steps in nationalising our health service, which would deliver worse outcomes for Australian patients.
We have seen in the recent budget their attacks on private health insurance and their attacks on a range of other health spending. Rural doctors under this budget will be worse off, and some of the detail in the budget papers has been teased out since Tuesday night a couple of weeks ago. The government had a glossy headline about providing services and support to rural health but in the end provided nothing.
The minister, in her second reading speech, said that under this bill:
For the first time, there will be one single body responsible for the delivery, funding, planning and oversight of all clinical training in this country.
If that is truly the minister’s desire, what is at the heart of this bill? If it is going to provide better outcomes, then people will be happy about that, but they will not be happy if it just adds another layer of bureaucracy which does not in the end improve health outcomes for Australian patients.
So we flag all of those concerns as part of the coalition’s contribution to this debate today. We do have real concerns about patient outcomes in this country. We do have real concerns that this Labor government at a federal level under Mr Rudd is embarking on the same failed policies and the same failed health management processes that have not proven to be good for patients at a state level. We will listen to the submissions that are made to the Senate inquiry and see what amendments can be made to this legislation to improve the delivery of the minister’s stated outcome. We raise all of those concerns and we look forward to contributing to this debate in due course.
4371
16:54:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to speak in support of the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009, which is a bill to establish Health Workforce Australia, a statutory authority that will be established under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, particularly after listening to the interesting contribution made by the member for Dickson. What a difference 18 months makes. Listening to the member for Dickson making plaintive pleas about the level of funding for public hospitals, one only needs to remember that just over 18 months ago he was part of a government that had busily over the last 12 years ripped enormous funding out of the public health system.
The member for Dickson talks about the aspiration of the Rudd government to fix the health system in this country, and the reason it needs to be fixed is that it was broken by the Howard government. In his contribution he also seems to have an obsession about spin, and that betrays his own culpability as a member of a government which wrote the playbook on publicly funded spin. One only needs to look at the $60-odd million that was spent on Work Choices paraphernalia to see testament to that fact.
Health Workforce Australia will manage a significant amount of funding around clinical training in this country. It will manage most of the initiatives which are contained in the $1.6 billion health workforce package agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in November last year. During the 12 long years of the Howard government, the Howard government neglected the health workforce in this country. That is felt no more keenly than in regional Australia. It is felt no more keenly than in Geelong, in my electorate, where there are many private practices that have closed their patient lists and where a simple event such as the retirement of a GP has left, on a number of occasions, many patients without a doctor and struggling to find their way onto a new GP’s list.
Right now it is estimated that the doctor-patient ratio in Geelong is about one to 1,500. The GP Association of Geelong estimate that we in Geelong are about 40 GPs short of achieving what they believe would be the ideal ratio of one GP to every 1,200 people. That is a reflection of the state that the health workforce has found itself in after 12 years of the Howard government. This government, the Rudd government, intends to act differently in relation to health and this bill is very much an example of that. We are providing an unprecedented level of funding for health care in this country. The $1.6 billion provided by COAG in November of last year, consisting of $1.1 billion from the Commonwealth and $540 million from the states, represents the single largest investment in the health workforce in this country ever made by Australian governments.
Five hundred million dollars of the Commonwealth’s contribution will be spent on undergraduate clinical training and that will increase the clinical training subsidy to 30 per cent for all health undergraduate places. There will also be $175.6 million spent over four years in capital infrastructure to expand teaching and training places. This particularly will have a focus on regional and rural Australia where the shortage of GPs and indeed other medical practitioners is felt most acutely. What we know is that students who train in rural areas tend to practise in rural Australia.
The health education sector in Geelong has become an area of enormous activity within our town. But we remain in desperate need of trained practitioners. As I stated, the GP Association estimated that we are 40 GPs short of an optimal level. There are 18 medical practices across Geelong right now which are currently looking for GPs. We are also experiencing a shortage in other health professional fields—nursing being another case in point.
The Deakin University School of Nursing is a fantastic example of a part of the education sector which is going from strength to strength. It is now one of the largest nursing schools in Australia. It is the largest nursing school in Victoria and it is growing. Last year across the three campuses of Deakin which do nursing training—Burwood, Warrnambool and Geelong—540 nurses graduated, and of that number 200 graduated in Geelong. Most of those 200 have clinical placements in hospitals in and around Geelong and the vast majority have a placement at the Geelong Hospital, which is becoming one of the busiest hospitals in this state and, indeed, a major teaching hospital within the state.
Last year we had the opening of the Deakin Medical School. It was opened on 1 May last year by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. There are right now 136 first-year students at the Deakin Medical School and 114 second-year students. The first year of graduation will be 2011. All of that is going to help significantly to deal with the issue of the health workforce in Geelong. But as student numbers grow, without any intervention we are going to find that the system will strain to place those students in clinical training places. That is why this bill is being put in place to establish Health Workforce Australia to manage the $1.6 billion investment in this area, and that will expand the scope of training opportunities. It will help find new and varied places for medical students, nursing students and allied health students to train. It will usher in a new era in health training within our country.
Importantly, the bill will open up the private sector, such as private hospitals or private practices, to training students. It is very costly for those private practices and hospitals to take on a student and that is particularly the case when we are talking about allied health students such as physiotherapists or speech therapists. It is particularly difficult for those areas because they have never had, until now, an identified funding stream for their clinical training. Most of the training does occur in private practices and it requires time and effort. There are of course many practitioners who are happy to take on students, through their sheer love of teaching on the job, but in many cases educational institutions find themselves in the position of needing to beg practitioners to take on students in these clinical training places. Health Workforce Australia and the funding that it will administer will help cover the cost of taking on students in private practice, which is a very important and necessary resource intervention in this country.
Another added benefit associated with Health Workforce Australia is that it will have a research function. For the first time it will be gathering very important data on the health workforce which can assist in informing public policy makers about how to improve the situation of the health workforce around Australia.
In terms of the practicalities, this bill establishes Health Workforce Australia, which will administer the new funding and provide an overarching organisational structure. The bill provides for $125 million over a four-year period for the work of Health Workforce Australia. The governance structure of Health Workforce Australia will involve one representative from each state and territory, an independent chair and up to three independent members. That is a very important governance structure and will provide the proper advice to the constituencies that Health Workforce Australia will provide for.
At present, there is a division in the responsibilities for health between state governments and the Commonwealth government. Indeed, for many years this country has been experiencing a blame game, particularly under the Howard government, where blame would be shifted from one tier of government to another and, in the process of doing that, problems that needed to be solved within the health system fell through the cracks. Far from describing an extra layer of bureaucracy, as the member for Dickson was intimating in his contribution, Health Workforce Australia will provide a way of breaking through that barrier between state and Commonwealth responsibilities, it will have an overarching responsibility across the state and the Commonwealth and it will assist in removing that blame game.
It will also assist in providing something of a bridge across both the education and the health sectors. In doing that, it will meet the future challenges of the health system through workforce reform. There will be put in place a mechanism which will allow health ministers around the country to direct the work of Health Workforce Australia; there will also be put in place a mechanism to allow Health Workforce Australia to report to health ministers. There is a need to get on with the business of this bill. Health Workforce Australia needs to be established from 1 July this year in order to be fully in place to administer the funding that exists for the coordination of clinical places from 1 January next year.
In summary, this is a very important bill which provides for an overarching governance structure of a very important and extensive initiative to provide funding for health training in this country. I say this from the point of view of a regional MP in this place and particularly from the point of view of Geelong: we hope that through this additional funding in relation to the training of health professionals we increase the numbers of health professionals practising in regional Australia and address the current shortfall. For those reasons, I very much commend this bill to the House.
4373
17:06:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I wholeheartedly support the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 and say the very simple word: hallelujah! If this is the moment in time when we see the Australian government, regardless of its political persuasion, step up to the plate and start to take some authority with regard to health planning generally within this country, it is a moment that is long overdue and will be welcomed by many into the future.
I am sure all of my fellow local members—there are 150 of us in this place—see what I see on a daily basis when working in the electorate and working on the issues around health services on the ground: a disconnected and fractured arrangement between state and federal government in the delivery of health services and a constant passing of the buck—for want of a better phrase—between the two tiers of government in what should be the provision of health services for the greater good. If this is the moment that creates the entity that allows the various Council of Australian Government ministers to come together and start, in a very practical sense, to deliver outcomes in the public interest rather than in the state’s best interest or the Commonwealth government’s best interest, then this is a good initiative, a welcome initiative and one I strongly support.
It is potentially the start of the conversation with community on some of the language we have heard from government over the last 12 months and in some of the reviews, including the Garling review, that we have seen in the last 12 months with regard to the hopefully increased role that the Commonwealth could and should take in health services in this country. If this is that moment, I place great significance on it. Perhaps in the future we will see the High Court case of 2006, called the WorkChoices case—ironically used to test the corporations powers with regard to the entity that was being created by the Commonwealth—pushing the issue with the states, who ultimately have authority in the decision-making process in workforce planning and health services generally. I do not think that is a moment that any of us in public planning should shy away from; rather, all of us in public planning should be fully supportive of a minister and a government if that is part of the agenda that we are seeing with this bill.
The mid-North Coast of New South Wales is covered by an entity called the North Coast Area Health Service, whose operating budget this year has a deficit of between $30 million and $40 million. In response to this situation, it is looking to lay off up to 400 staff across the region—from Johns River in the south to the Queensland border in the north. That is a significant change in the way health services will be delivered within our region. The financial pressure on the area health service is due to the resource distribution formula. The resources are supposedly allocated on fairness and equity principles, but in reality the allocation is both unfair and inequitable.
The allocation of funds to the North Coast Area Health Service under the RDF is, I am sure, a concern shared by my colleague the member for Page. Because the mid-North Coast is a high-growth area, the state government has traditionally underfunded the North Coast Area Health Service by between two and four per cent of the resource distribution formula. That might not sound like much, but in real dollar terms it means that between $20 million and $40 million per annum is going not to our region but to other areas of New South Wales on an inequitable and unfair basis.
If the North Coast Area Health Service were receiving equitable funding from the state under the resource distribution formula, we would not be facing the workforce issues that we are currently facing in the Hastings-Macleay region. The CEO of the area health service is talking about laying off 40 staff in a number of different roles across the entire area health service. As I said previously, up to 400 staff are potentially going to be laid off as part of this budget deficit.
If the state were providing equitable funding under the RDF, we would not be in this situation and the budget would be balanced. The area health service has been left in the extremely difficult position of having to lay off a large number of its workforce. Communities will suffer the inevitable service delivery issues within the health sector as a consequence of the state government’s unwillingness to make the hard decisions in other areas of New South Wales to establish equity and fairness in their own resource distribution formula.
That is why this bill, if it allows the Commonwealth to start to mobilise in regard to workforce planning, is not just a piece of paper that we are never going to see anything more of again. It is vitally important work being done by the Commonwealth, and hopefully it will be a trigger for very real action in the future and for the Commonwealth to have significant involvement in this problem.
The New South Wales government is dysfunctional, disconnected and doing a disservice to communities on the North Coast. It is not willing to make the difficult decisions that it should make, particularly about the traditional sandstone hospitals in the Sydney CBD. They are difficult decisions but that is exactly the role that governments need to and should play. We have a half-a-dozen sandstone hospitals smack in the centre of the CBD that are essentially money for the region. Whenever these issues arise, the regions should have a stake in these conversations. Unless they do, we will continue to see inequitable and unfair delivery of government budgeting, which is what we are currently seeing.
The government has been quite open about it. On the North Coast—and it would be a similar story in other areas with high growth rates—we are at least $20 million, and up to $40 million, per annum behind on our fair slice of the pie based on the government’s own funding formula. The area health service is incredibly frustrated, as are all the communities on the North Coast. If we only got fairness—and I stand here and ask only for fairness—it would significantly alter the workforce issues and health service delivery issues in one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia.
This is important legislation. I hope that the government’s intent in creating this entity, and the authority attached to it, is honourable, whether it be pursued through the informal processes of the COAG negotiations and the conversations between ministers and the various stakeholders or, as I previously said, used in the more legal and formal context we have seen through pushing issues such as Corporations Law and issues of a constitutional nature. Whatever it takes, health service delivery and health workforce issues can be done better in this country. I think there would be general agreement on that.
I am pleased that the government has recognised that. I am pleased that we are seeing this bill go through. My request now to the government, to the executive and to the minister in particular, is to make it work practically and to use this legislation and the powers of Health Workforce Australia to create a better health system for all of us in Australia.
4375
17:17:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I too rise to speak today on the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009. This bill establishes Health Workforce Australia, a national health workforce authority. It forms part of the package agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in November 2008. Health Workforce Australia will be responsible for implementing the majority of initiatives under the COAG workforce package, which I will detail and outline shortly.
I represent one of the oldest electorates in the country and, as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I have a very keen interest in health issues. I believe that Australia’s health system is one of the best in the world. This is mainly due to our highly competent professional health workforce—our nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and researchers—who are among the best qualified and most professional in the world.
When I was on the last parliamentary health and ageing committee inquiry into public hospitals, we saw figures that showed that $1 billion was slashed from public hospitals under the previous government. We had a decade of neglect. But this government is stepping up to the mark and is determined to deliver dramatic improvements in health care. The state of our public hospitals: June 2008 report was based on figures from when the previous government was in power. I will read out some of those figures. In 2006-07, public hospital admissions increased by around three per cent. That is more than twice the rate of population growth. When did this happen? In 2006-07. Who was in government then? The Howard government.
Again in 2006-07, there were 6.7 million presentations to emergency departments. That is equivalent to a third of Australia’s population. When did this happen? It happened under the former government. Yet at that period of time when we asked questions all that we heard was the blame game. All we heard from the other side during question time when these questions were raised by us when we were in opposition was, ‘Blame the states.’ The number of patients presenting to emergency departments between 1998-99 and 2006-07 increased by over 34 per cent. Three in 10 emergency department patients were not seen within the recommended time. This all happened under the watch of the former Howard coalition government.
At the same time, we were suffering chronic shortages and underinvestment in the health workforce. The end result of this neglect by the previous government is that there are now chronic shortages in general practice, various medical specialties, dentistry, nursing and certain allied health professions. The ageing of the population will also have significant implications on the demand for health resources and the healthcare workforce. That is why we need action now.
This government has stepped up to the plate and is working collaboratively with the state governments on solutions. The government is investing in the whole health system across the whole country to deliver better health outcomes for all Australians. Despite the major challenges caused by the global recession, health and ageing remains one of the top priorities for the Rudd Labor government.
We saw this the other night in the recent budget, which delivered the landmark amount of $64 billion to the healthcare agreement with the states and territories. That will provide record levels of funding for public hospitals and reduce pressure on emergency departments. It provided a $1.3 billion Health and Hospitals Fund and investment in cancer infrastructure as part of a $2 billion package focused on tackling the wide disparity in cancer treatment outcomes for cancer patients in rural and regional areas. It also provides a $1.5 billion investment to upgrade hospitals and clinical training infrastructure across Australia and invested $430.3 million in state-of-the-art research and clinical training facilities.
It also provided more funding for training doctors, including a 35 per cent increase in GP training places. That is significant growth. It also provided funding for growing the nursing workforce, including through enhancing the role of the highly skilled nurse practitioner workforce. These reforms help tackle the health workforce shortages, which are the legacy of the inaction of the previous government. The budget also provided more funding for provision of health services in rural areas to address severe health workforce shortages, which again the previous government neglected over its 11 years in office.
In November 2008 the Council of Australian Governments signed off on the historic $1.6 billion health workforce package. This package forms part of the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform. This was signed by all states and territories in March 2009. The package, comprising approximately $1.1 billion of Commonwealth funding and $539.2 million from states and territories, is the single largest investment in the health workforce ever made by Australian governments. This investment will improve health workforce capacity, efficiency and productivity. It will do this by improving clinical training arrangements, increasing postgraduate training places for medical graduates, improving health workforce planning across Australia and enhancing training infrastructure, particularly, I stress again, in regional and rural areas.
A significant part of the COAG package is the establishment of a national health workforce authority—or Health Workforce Australia, as it will be known—to produce more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce planning and policy. The Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 establishes Health Workforce Australia and implements a majority of the COAG health workforce initiatives. The bill specifies the functions, government and structure of Health Workforce Australia. It enables the health ministers to provide directions to Health Workforce Australia and it requires Health Workforce Australia to report to the health ministers. Health Workforce Australia will be responsible for: funding, planning and coordinating undergraduate clinical training across all health disciplines; supporting clinical training supervision; supporting health workforce research and planning, including through a national workforce planning statistical resource; funding simulation training; and providing advice to health ministers on relevant national workforce issues. The authority will also ensure best value for money for these workforce initiatives and a more rapid and substantive progression of the necessary policy and planning activities.
HWA, or Health Workforce Australia, is to commence management of undergraduate clinical training from 1 January next year. This bill is required to establish Health Workforce Australia by July 2009 to ensure that it is operational within the time frames agreed to in the COAG national partnership agreement. The COAG health workforce package is a major investment in making the necessary and much-needed improvements to the health workforce through effective planning and policy development. It will work with and across jurisdictions and with the education and health sectors, and it is pivotal for the success of the COAG package. For the first time, there will be one single body responsible for the delivery, funding, planning and oversight of all clinical training in this country. This is the creation of a new single body which can operate across both the health and the education sectors and which will have responsibility in health. It is critical to devising national solutions that effectively integrate workforce planning and policy.
I am proud to say that the Rudd Labor government is committed to addressing the chronic shortages which are affecting our health system and is providing support to the dedicated and hardworking professionals that are the backbone of our health system. I am pleased today to be able to support the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009.
4377
17:28:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I strongly support the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 and in fact welcome it because it will address some major gaps in health workforce planning and service delivery. I commend the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, for her good work in getting this bill to the stage where it is before the House and for the work she has done through COAG in securing those agreements, which will be vital for the operation of the HWA when it is set up.
Through this bill, the Rudd government will establish a national health workforce authority. It is an example of the cooperation that is required between the Commonwealth and the states to address some of the outstanding, long-running issues around health—around demarcation, who does what where, who is funding what and some general service delivery issues. It will be called Health Workforce Australia, HWA—another acronym, I know. I am afraid every area is replete with them. HWA is part of the $1.6 billion health workforce reform package agreed to by COAG in November 2008. HWA will, among other things, manage the majority of initiatives under this particular COAG package. The character of HWA will be that of a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, commonly referred to as the CAC Act.
I now turn to why this new body, HWA, is needed. I will then move on to its specific role and comment on its salience to, and impact on, rural and regional Australia. I will then make some general comments. Before I do that, I would like to associate myself with some of the comments made by the member for Lyne in his contribution, particularly about the Garling inquiry. I appeared before that inquiry and gave a written submission on what the member for Lyne was talking about—the resource distribution formula. Under this formula, the North Coast, of which my seat of Page is a part, will be underfunded by a certain percentage—that is, according to the information on the New South Wales Department of Health website. This has an impact on service delivery for the North Coast Area Health Service. The figure is somewhere between $20 million and $40 million—because there is no absolute agreement on the percentage by which we are underfunded. Over the years, there has been a ratcheting-up of the North Coast in that area, but it is not enough. It would be good to see NSW Health make some announcements on corrective action in that particular area.
Health workforce planning has suffered generally from a lack of targeted planning, a lack of coordination and a lack of a unitary body that can operate across sectors and jurisdictions. Over the years, I have seen some well-meaning projects aimed at securing more doctors and nurses for rural areas. Some of them have been successful and some of them have not—most often, they are in the latter category. There have been some state and territory schemes, but there is no overarching national approach—particularly over the last decade, when the need for doctors, nurses and other health professionals was escalating. There was an axing of GP training places and a big reduction in the amount of money that the Commonwealth put into the Australian healthcare agreements. The contribution from the Commonwealth went down from 50 per cent to about 43 per cent. This reduction in funding certainly had an impact on the public health system, particularly the public hospitals, to which a lot of the dollars from the Australian healthcare agreements go.
We have all seen in our own local areas and nationwide a doubling in the number of presentations at hospital accident and emergency departments. All local members would be familiar with that. The numbers have almost doubled in most places. There are a number of reasons for that. It is about the lack of funding that is available, but it is also about changes in the work practices of GPs and medical health professionals in our communities. There was a time when some doctors were always on call and you were able to access them out of hours, but that has changed in a lot of areas as well. There is so much in health that needs to be redressed, addressed, corrected and fixed up. There are matters that have been left unattended by a range of governments, particularly the previous government, whose policy laziness astounds me. Since we came to government, that is one of the things I have been discovering more and more of.
The creation of this new single body, HWA, will address some of the gaps that I have outlined above. It will address them in a formal sense and I hope that it will address them in an informal sense as well. That discussion needs to happen on a daily basis so that some of these issues can be addressed in our communities. HWA will operate across both the health and education sectors, sharing jurisdictional responsibilities. It is essential to have effective coordination and integration of workforce planning and policy, running in tandem with the complementary reforms to education and training. This will cover integrated clinical training arrangements and, critically, support workforce policy and planning for the future.
In addressing why HWA is needed, I have covered some of its role but I take this opportunity to elucidate this point. HWA will comprehensively plan, coordinate and fund pre-professional entry clinical training across all health disciplines. This training will, among other things, provide key support for coordination and supervision at regional and local health service levels. There will be new arrangements that attach clinical training funding to students in a range of settings—and they can be private or community—with payments to service providers. To support the training to universities and other accredited training providers, they can enter into arrangements with HWA so their own students are able to secure appropriate clinical training places. This has been one of those areas, one of those gaps.
For the first time, we will have a national body charged with taking a national approach to health workforce policy and that will be able to provide advice to ministers on health workforce issues. We will also have improved national health workforce information and a national workforce statistical resource developed that will have some cogency and some credibility to it. Back in early 2008, when I was pursuing the matter of Lismore’s status as an area of need vis-a-vis doctors, I found that the figures that the previous government used for health workforce planning—particularly in rural areas—were based on 1991 census figures. That says it all, really. The figures were so out of date that they had no relationship to reality.
Finally, and most importantly to me and the people of Page, will be the impact of the establishment of HWA on rural and regional Australia. (1), HWA will assist and improve access to services in rural areas by delivering more doctors and nurses. We know that is what we need, but we need a range of other specialties and allied health professionals as well. I hope that HWA will be able to work on these areas. (2), it will provide those doctors and nurses with better support while they train. (3), HWA will facilitate more opportunities for expanding clinical training arrangements in rural locations, and that is a good thing. (4), HWA will provide greater opportunities for skills development in the rural based workforce. I will give an example of a local issue I am dealing with, in Urbenville. The honourable member for New England and I share Urbenville.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Who?
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—Urbenville. It is a great place. It is one of those small country towns that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, would know very well.
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—I do.
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—It can be difficult to attract doctors to those areas. We do have two wonderful doctors—they are a couple—and they needed particular help with the upgrading of the Tenterfield Shire Council owned facility they use. I am pleased to say that in the budget there was a grant of $295,000 for them and the council to provide the medical practice service to the local community. Areas like that will be addressed by the new HWA.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Page has the call.
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is lots of activity on my left. I am not sure what it is, but everyone seems a bit excited.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I am not quite sure whether you are comfortable with them being on your left, but never mind!
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—I am not sure, Mr Deputy Speaker. The left are very active! For the reasons that I have outlined in my contribution, I strongly support this bill and commend it to the House.
4380
17:40:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—I rise to support the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009. This is a very important bill because it allows for the first time proper workforce planning throughout Australia. We have heard from pretty much every contributor so far about their own local situations and the difficulties that are there. I, too, want to start with my local situation, because I think it gives a good reason as to why the HWA is so important and why we do need to actually plan our health workforce better than we have in the past. Wyong Hospital, which falls in the beautiful electorate of Dobell, happens to have the fifth busiest emergency department in New South Wales. Yet we struggle to have emergency doctors at the emergency department and rely regularly on locums. While the popular press is quick to blame the state government in terms of these issues, it is not nearly as simple as that. It is really about planning to make sure that our health workforce is there and available. Wyong Hospital has been substantially rebuilt under the state Labor government. But there is no point having a brand spanking new hospital if you cannot get fixed when you go there and there is no-one there to see you. That is the importance of making sure that we have proper planning for the health workforce.
We recently at Wyong Hospital had the maternity ward close down for some months because there were no obstetricians that could be attracted to the area. This was not a fault of the local area health service. It was not a fault of the state government. There were widespread advertisements trying to attract them. There just were not enough doctors because there had not been enough planning to make sure that our hospitals are properly staffed. This is one of the key motivating forces as to why Health Workforce Australia is being established. In the end, with the maternity ward, they had to look at alternate ways of delivering maternity. In Wyong we adopted a midwifery model, which is working tremendously well. My partner and I are soon to avail ourselves of the services of Wyong Hospital, in July of this year. So we are pleased, from a personal point of view, that that is going well, too. What it illustrated was that because of a lack of planning over many years the model needed to change and we needed to plan better for the future, and that is precisely what this bill does.
There is also a very different approach to the way in which the Rudd government will be working with the states compared with the approach of the previous government to these things. Unlike the previous government, we actually intend to work with the states. There cannot be a better and more important example of this than Health Workforce Australia being established. This came out of COAG, where we were able to reach agreement with the other states to make sure that we do plan properly in terms of our health workforce. There is no point setting up different regions of Australia or different states in Australia to compete for the limited pie in terms of the workforce that exists there at the moment. We need to increase the pie, and we need to do that by properly planning where they go. For too long we have seen different health professionals being lured away from one state, and there has been a temporary situation where that state or that particular region may be better off. But it is only temporary if you are not actually increasing the numbers overall and you are not taking a position that looks at the workforce needs across the country. That is precisely what this package intends to do.
The Commonwealth will provide $125 million over four years for the establishment and the operation of Health Workforce Australia. A further $1.2 billion in combined Commonwealth, state and territory funding will be administered through the HWA for the majority of the initiatives under the COAG health workforce package. Given the tight time frames to implement the COAG health workforce package, the HWA needs to be established by July 2009 so it can start managing clinical placements from the start of the 2010 academic year.
Let us have a look at the background of Health Workforce Australia. In November 2008, COAG agreed to a $1.6 billion health workforce package. The Commonwealth is contributing $1.1 billion to the COAG package, with the states and territories providing $539.2 million. The COAG package forms part of the national partnership agreement on hospital and health workforce reform signed by all states and territories in March 2009. This package gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in the health workforce, traditionally an area managed by the states and territories. It means that we take a national position in terms of health workforce rather than setting states and territories to compete against each other in relation to where the workforce should be best utilised.
The package includes establishing a national health workforce authority to produce more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce planning and policy development. The authority will implement the majority of the initiatives under the COAG package, including funding, planning and coordinating pre-professional entry clinical training across all health disciplines; supporting clinical training supervision, health workforce research and planning, including through a national workforce planning statistical database; funding simulation training; providing a national approach to workforce planning; and providing a secretariat and research support to an independent advisory council for the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. The authority will also ensure best value for money for the workforce initiatives, more rapid and substantive planning for future workforce needs and will provide advice to health ministers on relevant workforce issues.
I can recall in the late 1990s in New South Wales when linear accelerators were first coming into hospitals to provide vital cancer treatment. We had the terrible situation of these very expensive machines in some parts of Sydney not working to capacity not because the state government had not provided the machines and the capital but because they could not get the staff to operate these machines. That clearly adversely affected the treatment and ongoing rehabilitation of cancer sufferers. That is something that we should be able to avoid through proper planning of the workforce.
The Commonwealth will also fund the establishment and operation of the authority at $125 million over four years, and the authority will administer around $1.2 billion of Commonwealth and state and territory funding for workforce initiatives. Health ministers have agreed to the authority being called Health Workforce Australia. Health ministers also agreed to Health Workforce Australia being established under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act, therefore providing governance arrangements that reflect the shared funding and policy interests of all jurisdictions.
The bill is required to establish the HWA as a statutory authority under the act and to specify the functions, governance and structure of the HWA. Given the functions and level of funding for which HWA will be responsible, it is essential that there is a legislative basis for its operations. The bill will also enable mechanisms for health ministers to provide directions to the HWA and for the HWA to report to health ministers. The HWA will be governed by a board comprising a nominee from each jurisdiction represented on the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council and a chair, and may include up to three independent members selected by health ministers. The board’s responsibilities will include advising and reporting to health ministers and developing policies and operational plans as required. A chief executive officer will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of Health Workforce Australia and will report to the board. Expert committees and consultants will be engaged to assist with the HWA functions as required. HWA is to commence management of pre-professional entry clinical training from January 2010. This bill is required to establish HWA by July 2009 to ensure it is operational within the time frames agreed to in the COAG health workforce reform package.
The Rudd government are committed to dramatically improving Australia’s health system, and setting up Health Workforce Australia as a statutory authority is just one small part of that. In the 2009-10 budget we are delivering a vital boost to our hardworking doctors, nurses and midwives with a series of major investments to expand and modernise our health workforce. The Rudd government are delivering more training places for GPs, providing Medicare Benefits Scheme and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme access for nurse practitioners and midwives, and reforming support scholarships and training programs. The budget initiatives build on the government’s unprecedented $1.1 billion package of COAG reforms to expand Australia’s health workforce.
The COAG package increases funding for undergraduate clinical training and postgraduate training places and establishes a national health workforce agency to drive a more strategic long-term plan for the health workforce. The budget workforce initiatives will invest $148 million over five years for additional GP training places in 2009 and 2010. It will provide training for remote vocational training scheme GP places in 2011. In addition, there will be a further 212 GP training places provided through the COAG package by 2011. This will permanently increase the number of GP training places to more than 800 per annum from 2011 onwards—a 35 per cent increase on the cap of 600 places imposed since 2004.
The budget initiatives will encourage more junior doctors to become GPs by investing an additional $41.2 million over four years in high-quality supervised general practice training under the Prevocational General Practice Placement Program and will establish the first medical school in the Northern Territory with a strong focus on increasing the number of Indigenous doctors. The government will invest $27.8 million in capital funding to establish the medical school plus $4.4 million over three years from July 2010 in ongoing funding. The government will recognise the valuable role and skills that nurses bring to the health system and to the broader community through providing access to the MBS and PBS for nurse practitioners, at a cost of $59.7 million over four years. This will improve the flexibility and the capacity of Australia’s health workforce, improve patient access to services and provide eligibility for midwives to access MBS and PBS for the first time, expanding choice for women at a cost of $66.6 million over four years. These measures will improve the flexibility of the health workforce and facilitate better access to services for patients.
There are currently significant workforce shortages affecting both pathology and diagnostic imaging. To address this, the government will fund an increase of $10.8 million over four years for pathology places. There will be an additional $5.7 million over four years for radiologists. The government will also introduce a mentoring and academic support initiative for rural pathologists at a cost of $6.2 million over four years. You can see that there is a significant range of additional dollars that are going from the budget to supplement and improve the delivery of health care across Australia. This piece of legislation that helps to plan our workforce is an integral part of that whole package.
I recently had the pleasure of breaking the news in my electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast that a very capable and experienced partnership of doctors had successfully tendered to establish a super GP clinic in the key growth area of Warnervale. This current doctors’ partnership runs a Toukley medical practice, where there are 17 doctors working along with a range of other health professionals, and another practice at Tuggerah where there are an additional seven doctors. A shortage of GPs is a real issue in my electorate, as it is in many electorates around Australia. In fact, the most common problem in the electorate of Dobell is not about how much you pay when you get to a doctor, it is actually being able to get in to see one because many of them have closed their books. The Rudd government in relation to its program of opening up super GP clinics across the country has again contributed in a major way in my electorate to making primary health care more accessible to the people of Dobell. This, along with providing these additional training places for GPs in the coming three years means that we are going to have more doctors available on the ground to be able to see to the people of Australia and to make sure their health is better looked after.
This is an important piece of legislation, because it means that for the first time across the country we are able to plan and look at the way we deliver our health care, matching up the demand for health care with the training that is required for health professionals and making sure that they are not only trained but sent to the places where they are needed in the numbers that are needed. It is long overdue in this country. We have had many commentators on the health system speaking for many years about the silos of health care that operate in this country. This is a significant step towards making sure that these silos are broken down, that we can go across state borders and that we can plan properly so that the health care of all of our citizens is better planned for and better looked after. I commend this bill to the House.
4383
17:55:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
0
Ms REA
—I too rise to support the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009, which was introduced by the Minister for Health and Ageing in the parliament not so long ago, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to not just speak on it but also support it. The Rudd government was elected in November 2007 most particularly on a platform of restoring the community’s confidence in the government’s ability to deliver vital services and much-needed basic community and social infrastructure. In fact, it was elected on a platform to support the needs of all Australians. For too long the previous government had culled services, selectively funded its pet projects and underfunded very basic and vital services. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the $1 billion that was cut from the federal health budget—an indictment on the previous government but unfortunately also a major challenge for the newly elected Rudd government to restore funding for our health system and to restore the confidence of the Australian people in our health system. This bill is a significant step in restoring that confidence.
The Rudd Labor government also promised to end the blame game. Nowhere was the blame game more evident than in the debate about health and health funding across this country. We all know that we need a health system that will support all Australians, particularly those who are most vulnerable and in need of public services. I come from Queensland, so I know too well how the blame game played out in that state. We all know—it is no secret—that our health system is under challenge. We all know that the taxpayer’s dollar is finite and that governments are always struggling to find a way to put more resources into all of our services—particularly in health—and to ensure those resources are spent as effectively as they can possibly be. The Queensland government has been trying to do that through its support for the public health system. It would have been nice, I think, to have had a federal government over the last 10 years that was in fact prepared to work in partnership with the state government to support our health system and to see that resources coming from both levels of government were used most effectively to ensure that Queensland has the health system that they deserve. But, unfortunately, the health system in Queensland was simply used as a political football, and those who fell through the cracks were simply considered collateral damage as far as the federal government was concerned.
We know that one of the biggest pressures on our public hospital system is the lack of services in our suburbs and our local communities—the lack of trained health professionals and the lack of GPs, particularly in after-hours services and particularly on weekends and in the evenings. We all know that a baby with an ear infection does not confine it between the hours of nine and five. They get ear infections any time—in the case of my children, most often at about one o’clock in the morning. It is then that you actually need a doctor. Unfortunately, in most cases these days, the only place you can find that emergency treatment is a public hospital. So the best way to support public hospitals in the state of Queensland, and indeed across the country, is to support and resource more doctors and more GPs in our local communities.
The Health Workforce Australia Bill is a fundamental part of the COAG agreement of health ministers to provide health services and health professionals to our communities where they are needed most. That is why I believe this bill is of great significance. It is a commitment of $1.6 billion in combined funding from both the Commonwealth and the states. The Commonwealth will put in $125 million over four years to run Health Workforce Australia. It will be a statutory authority established under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. It will consist of a board of directors, a nominee of each state and territory and the Commonwealth, an independent chair and may include up to three independent members selected by health ministers. It is important that the governance is right, and I believe that this representation from both the Commonwealth and the states and territories will indicate quite clearly that there is a partnership between those two levels of government to ensure that our health resources and our precious health dollars are used most effectively and most wisely.
What I believe is so important about this authority is that its focus is on training, on planning and on policy development. Why do I say that? I say that because of the comments I have already made. If we had had a coordinated and cooperative approach from the Commonwealth and state governments over the last 10 years, we would not be in the situation we are in now. We would have had the clinical staff on the ground. We would have had the resources put into the training that is needed to build up our health professionals across the whole of the health profession. That is not just doctors but allied health professionals as well. We would have had a body that was able to identify areas like my own electorate of Bonner. South-East Queensland is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. We would have had an independent body that understood the pressure on population growth and was able to plan the health workforce and the services required to meet the demands of that growing population before it was too late. That would have happened before people could not find a doctor at one o’clock in the morning and before the emergency section of the local hospital was understaffed and over-pressured because people were waiting for routine medical assistance that they should have been able to get through their local GP—if it was not after five o’clock in the afternoon.
What is also very important about this bill is that it combines the critical elements of training, planning and preparing ourselves for the needs of the future with policy development. We all know, as I said earlier, that the taxpayers’ dollar is finite. We have to spread it across many services, many needs and many demands on the government. We all know that in the health debate, if you talk to doctors on the ground and if you talk to the nurses in the hospital wards, they will tell you that money is not the only solution. They will say that, yes, of course more funds could always be used in our health system but that just as effective as more money is how the money we have is spent. That is why this authority is so important to delivering a better health service. They will tell you that the critical part of our health system is not just the bricks and mortar—that is, the hospitals, the physical structures—but the staff, the trained workforce. It is the numbers in those hospitals, the GPs on the ground, the quality of the training and the number of trained people in this country to provide health services to our community.
That is why this bill is so important. It does not just say, ‘Let’s throw money at the problem.’ It says: ‘Let’s spend the money where it’s needed, in developing our trained staff. Let’s plan for the future and let’s make sure that we’ve got the right people developing the policies that we need to make our health system even better.’
I know that the good people of the electorate of Bonner will certainly welcome this. We have a small local hospital in the electorate of Bonner, the Wynnum Hospital, which of course provides an essential service to our local community. We also, as part of Brisbane, rely on the three major hospitals in Brisbane, particularly those on the south side, the Princess Alexandra Hospital and the Mater Private Hospital, to provide the much needed services that are required in the city. It is so important to that very fast growing area of Brisbane, one of the fastest growing areas in the country, that we have the health workforce and the planning and policy development that will be able to cater for that growth into the future.
I also have many very good, committed and dedicated local health people working in that area—in particular, the general practitioners who I meet with regularly through the South East Alliance of General Practice that covers the Bonner electorate. They know what is needed on the ground, they know what is needed to support the health needs of our community and they know what the demands in the future will be. I am sure that they will be very pleased to see that this government has actually listened to what they are saying and has said, ‘We are prepared to put money into supporting you and giving you both the policy and the health workers that you require.’
This Health Workforce Australia Bill is also, as I said, part of the overall health agreement that has been discussed and agreed to by the health ministers at COAG—the states and the Commonwealth working together. It will be part of delivering the very important Health Workforce National Partnership. Some significant dollars will see major improvements to our health system across this country: $500 million to support the expansion of undergraduate clinical training places; $86 million to provide 212 additional ongoing GP training places, a 33 per cent increase on the previous government’s cap; 73 additional specialist training places in the private sector; $28 million to help train 18,000 nurse supervisors, 5,000 allied health and VET supervisors and 7,000 medical supervisors; a $175.6 million investment in capital infrastructure to support training of our workforce; construction of new and mobile high-tech stimulated learning environments; expansion of education and training facilities at our major regional hospitals; and $264 million for other important initiatives, including the national health workforce agency.
In conclusion, whilst the establishment of a health workforce authority may not get a lot of publicity out there in the community, I take this opportunity as the member for Bonner to say that this particular initiative will go a long way to supporting the health needs of the people in Bonner and fellow Queenslanders. But, more importantly, it will see the education sectors, the health sectors, the health workforce, the people on the ground, those in government, including ministers, and those working in bureaucracies for the first time in a long time working together to develop a health strategy for our country that will improve our health system, end the blame game and stop health being nothing more than a political football.
4386
18:08:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I commend the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 to the House. With regard to my colleague the member for Bonner, who just spoke, I acknowledge the passion and the conviction that she has about healthcare services in Queensland. I totally concur with her comments and commend her passion and conviction. We have also heard from the member for Dobell and the member for Page, and we will be hearing from the member for Kingston and the member for Blair, who I know also share a deep conviction of the importance of providing top-quality health care to all Australians, regardless of wealth, position, creed or background.
This bill establishes Health Workforce Australia, known as HWA, as a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The principal provisions in the bill specify the functions, governance and structure of the HWA, and the HWA will manage the majority of initiatives under the $1.6 billion health workforce package agreed by the Council of Australian Governments, known as COAG, in November 2008. The Commonwealth will provide $125 million over four years for the establishment and operation of HWA. A further $1.2 billion in combined Commonwealth, state and territory funding will be administered through the HWA for the majority of initiatives under the COAG health workforce package. HWA will implement the majority of initiatives under the COAG health workforce package, which is expected to positively impact the community, including through improvements in clinical training arrangements that will help maintain the quality and safety of the future health workforce, and policy and planning directions to support the Australian health workforce.
The Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 establishes a national health workforce authority, which is part of the $1.6 billion health workforce reform package agreed to by COAG in November 2008. The package forms part of the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform signed by the Prime Minister and all states and territories in March 2009. The Commonwealth is contributing $1.1 billion to the health workforce reform package, with states and territories providing $539.2 million. The national health workforce authority will implement the majority of initiatives under the COAG package.
The authority, to be known as Health Workforce Australia, will establish more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and support workforce planning and policy. Its responsibilities will include comprehensively planning, coordinating and funding undergraduate clinical training across all health disciplines. On this point I would like to bring to the chamber’s notice that the Anna Bligh state government has made a very good decision in its creative accounting to sell off the Mackay, Cairns and Mount Isa airports and to invest in new hospitals. That is good news for the people of Dawson. Particularly, a new Mackay Base Hospital will be built alongside the old Mackay Base Hospital. Because of population expansion, there is a greater need for healthcare services. There will be $405 million provided by the state government. It is good that the federal government can come in and help facilitate clinical training and turn it into a training hospital for future nurses and doctors. That is something on which we are working across different boundaries. The federal government is working with the state government—and I recognise the effectiveness of local government in providing roads and bridges around the area—to the great benefit of the local community.
HWA will ensure this training occurs in the most streamlined, integrated and educationally effective manner, with appropriate support for coordination and supervision at the regional, local and health service levels. This will include new structural arrangements that attach clinical training funding to students in a range of service settings and support for clinical supervision administered through the HWA. The HWA will lead and support health workforce research, planning and policy development to inform policy decisions on workforce supply, demand, distribution, utilisation and design issues. This will include continually improving national health workforce information and the establishment of a national workforce statistical resource. Also, it will provide a coordinated approach to both the use and financing of simulation training, including the establishment and operation of simulated learning environments. Also, we will be taking a national approach to workforce policy and providing advice to health ministers on relevant workforce issues.
HWA will be legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth. It will be established under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the CAC Act, thereby providing governance arrangements that reflect the shared funding and policy interests of all jurisdictions. The bill is required to establish HWA as a statutory authority under the CAC Act and to specify the functions, governance and structure of HWA, including the interaction with ministers and ministerial committees.
HWA will be governed by a board comprising a nominee from each jurisdiction represented on the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council and a chair, and may include up to three independent members selected by health ministers. The board’s responsibilities will include advising and reporting to health ministers and developing policies and operational plans as required. A chief executive officer will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of HWA and will report to the board. Expert committees and consultants will be engaged to assist with HWA functions as required.
In November 2008 COAG agreed to spend $1.6 billion on the health workforce package. The Commonwealth is contributing $1.1 billion to the COAG package, with the states and territories providing the extra $539.2 million. The COAG package forms part of the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform signed by all states and territories in March 2009. The package gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in the health workforce, which is traditionally an area managed by the states and territories.
The package includes establishing a national health workforce authority to produce more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce planning and policy development. The authority will implement the majority of initiatives under the COAG package, including: funding, planning and coordinating pre-professional entry clinical training across all health disciplines; supporting clinical training supervision; supporting health workforce research and planning, including through a national workforce and planning statistical database; funding stimulation, as I have said; having a national approach to workforce planning; and providing the secretariat and research support to an independent advisory council for the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. The authority will also ensure best value for money for the workforce initiatives and more rapid and substantive planning for future workforce needs and will provide advice to health ministers on relevant workforce issues.
The Commonwealth will fund the establishment and operation of the authority at $125 million over four years. The authority will administer around $1.2 billion in Commonwealth, state and territory funding for the workforce initiatives. Health ministers have agreed to the authority being called Health Workforce Australia. Health ministers also agreed to HWA being established under the CAC Act, thereby providing governance arrangements that reflect the shared funding and policy interests of all jurisdictions.
As I said, the bill is required to establish HWA as a statutory authority under the CAC Act and to specify the functions, governance and structure of HWA. Given the functions and level of funding for which HWA will be responsible, it is essential that there is a legislative basis for its operations. The bill will also enable mechanisms for health ministers to provide directions to the HWA and for HWA to report to health ministers.
HWA is to commence management of the pre-professional entry clinical training from January 2010. The bill is required to establish HWA by July 2009 to ensure it is operational within the time frame agreed to in the COAG health workforce reform package. In conclusion, I wholeheartedly endorse and recommend this bill to the House.
4388
18:19:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
0
Ms RISHWORTH
—I am very pleased to rise to support the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009, because there is no service in our community that is more important than health services. Hospitals play a central role in that, but health goes much further than this. In fact, primary health care also offers some very important services to the local community, including GPs, dentists, nurses and allied health professionals. I think we need to acknowledge that a healthy society requires a whole-of-government approach, whatever level of government it is. In my previous job as a psychologist, one thing that I was able to see firsthand was that there is no better resource for our health services than the people who work in them; the people who work every day, and often nights, to keep the rest of us healthy, happy and safe. That is why this bill is particularly important.
Australia has a very good health system. There are a lot of areas in which we lead the world. The people within this system need to be congratulated and acknowledged. We have top-quality people in our clinics, hospitals and community medical centres. These people, whether they are doctors, nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, paramedics or researchers, are truly the backbone of our health system. Yet, when you read the Productivity Commission’s report on Australia’s health workforce, it becomes apparent that there is a shortage of trained personnel in this area:
-
Australia is experiencing workforce shortages across a number of health professions despite a significant and growing reliance on overseas trained health workers. The shortages are even more acute in rural and remote areas and in certain special needs sectors.
-
With developing technology, growing community expectations and population ageing, the demand for health workforce services will increase while the labour market will tighten. New models of care will also be required.
-
Expenditure on health care is already 9.7 per cent of GDP and is increasing. Even so, there will be a need to train more health workers. There will also be benefits in improving the retention and re-entry to the workforce of qualified health workers.
-
It is critical to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the available health workforce, and to improve its distribution.
To put it bluntly: there is now a chronic labour shortage in general practices, various medical specialties, dentistry, nursing and certain allied health professions. These shortages, combined with the inflexibilities and inefficiencies in our training and service delivery, contribute to poor health outcomes for Australians.
Unfortunately, in the past we have not collected any national data about our health workforce, and this makes it even more difficult to plan in response to these shortages. I have to say that, in hindsight, perhaps this was a failing of the previous government. They did not plan for these workforce shortages and, now, when it has become critical, I am very pleased that it is this government that will take up the mantle and try and address this very pressing issue. This problem represents a real challenge for healthcare policy in this country, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing for her hard work in meeting this challenge, because it is difficult. After a decade of underinvestment in health, after the ignoring of this issue and after the ideologically driven policy of the previous government, this government really is stepping up to the plate.
This bill establishes Health Workforce Australia, a national workforce authority, to produce more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce planning and policy development. This authority is part of the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform, which was signed by all the states and territories at COAG. This agreement represents COAG at its best, with the Commonwealth and states working together to achieve real reform and direction for our health system. Because of this arrangement, there will be $1.6 billion in a health workforce package, with $1.1 billion coming from the Commonwealth government. Due to this significant investment, the Commonwealth will become more involved in supporting the health workforce, which has traditionally been an area of state responsibility. The form of that involvement is represented in this bill. Health Workforce Australia will take over from the National Health Workforce Taskforce and assume the responsibility of its work program, encompassing workforce planning and research, education and training, and innovation and reform.
This new agency will have a significant mandate and will oversee the improvement of capacity and productivity of the health sector in the provision of education and training places for the health workforce. The authority will also review the system’s funding and payment mechanisms, review the roles of different professionals within the workforce and provide the opportunity to develop strategies to create incentives for productivity and performance in our healthcare system. Health Workforce Australia will play a pivotal role in the creation of future health policy in this country and in ensuring that Australians are able to continue to enjoy the world’s best health system.
The authority will ensure that our health dollars are spent on the best possible workforce initiatives and that our health workforce is trained, recruited and provided in a way that addresses the health needs of the community. The authority will also provide a valuable font of advice to health ministers both state and federal on relevant workforce issues. It is expected that this function will often be performed by the board of Health Workforce Australia, which I will talk about soon. The bill also enables health ministers to provide directions to Health Workforce Australia and for Health Workforce Australia to report to health ministers.
The bill establishes Health Workforce Australia under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act and also specifies its governance and structure. It is necessary that this authority and its structure are determined by legislation, because of the importance of its objectives and because of the substantial budget of the programs it will be overseeing. This bill provides for a transparent and accountable governance structure for the authority that will serve HWA well. Health Workforce Australia will be governed by a board comprising a nominee from each jurisdiction represented on the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. This indicates that the body is a creature of cooperative federalism and is as much an endeavour of the states as it is of the Commonwealth government. Hence there is a strong place for state interests to be heard on the board.
The bill will also provide for up to three independent members of the board to be selected by all health ministers—not just the Commonwealth minister—which again reflects the cooperative nature of this proposal. As is normal practice for government authorities, a chief executive officer will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of Health Workforce Australia and will report to the board and to the committees and consultants that will be engaged to assist Health Workforce Australia in its functions as required.
As our average population age continues to rise, there can be no better time to get serious about planning our health workforce. Australia needs to respond to the challenge of an ageing population and a shortage of healthcare professionals. I commend the Council of Australian Governments for coming together and making a commitment to address this very important issue. The establishment of Health Workforce Australia and the investment of $1.6 billion in its program show that this government and the governments across the country are serious about tackling this potential crisis in our health system.
For Health Workforce Australia to commence management of the pre-professional entry clinical training from January 2010, this bill must pass by July 2009 to ensure that we can get the best outcomes operational in the time frame COAG has agreed to. A comprehensive strategy to address workforce shortage has been welcomed by electors in my electorate of Kingston. Because my seat is in the outer metropolitan suburbs, my constituents often cannot get access to services such as general practitioners, public dentistry and allied health. This is often because there is a workforce shortage. Addressing health workforce shortages will be critical to ensuring that Australians, and indeed the local residents in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, will be able to have access to the health services that they need. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
4391
18:29:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I rise to speak in support of the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009. If Australia were to be federated today, I am sure that we would construct our federation in a different manner to that which we constructed it in at the end of the 19th century. The situation is that the Commonwealth government’s powers have been expanded through a number of different mechanisms over the years. We have seen referenda put to the Australian public, most of which have been voted down. We have seen High Court of Australia decisions interpreting section 51 of the Australian Constitution, which enumerates the Commonwealth government’s powers, and we have seen a more expansive approach—two steps forward, one step back—with respect to the Commonwealth government’s powers as a result of the High Court’s decisions in relation to constitutional matters.
I think the Australian public expects us as a government, and expects governments of all persuasions, to take a more national approach to health. But the way in which the Australian federation has changed the most, I think, has been in the cooperative federalist approach undertaken by COAG agreements. That is when state, local and federal governments get together to agree on outcomes, which results in legislative and funding arrangements which change. We have seen magnificent reforms as a result of this sort of approach—for example, in the area of corporations law, defamation law and family law and also in the area of health.
I really support this bill, because I think it is extremely important for my local community. I represent the seat of Blair, which is based in Ipswich and the rural areas outside the Fassifern Valley and the Lockyer Valley. In my area some years ago the Ipswich and West Moreton Division of General Practice, under the then CEO, Kevin Pittman, undertook a study in relation to the health needs of the local community. It found that health needs were great. Obesity was a challenge, diabetes was a challenge and heart disease was also a challenge. It also found that our workforce of doctors and nurses was ageing. About a third of the GPs in my local area will retire in the next five to 10 years. It found that there was one GP for every 1,609 people living in the Ipswich and West Moreton area. That is a particular challenge.
We have addressed this issue of the shortages of doctors and nurses at a national level. This issue was created, I might add, by the deliberate and intentional policies of the Howard coalition government. We have addressed this with 457 visas. One of the biggest users of 457 visas, if not the biggest user, has been the New South Wales health commission. It has used the visas to get more doctors and nurses to work in New South Wales. In Queensland we also have many fine doctors coming from overseas, but we simply have not trained enough doctors and nurses and other allied health professionals. Certainly, not enough paramedics and researchers have been engaged.
These people do not just form the backbone of our system; they actually form the blood, the tissue and the muscle that allow us to do what we need to do. So we need to support the health workforce not just in education but in financial support to induce people to work in these areas and to work in rural and regional Australia as well. We also need to support them to achieve the necessary outcomes in job satisfaction, familial satisfaction and also vocational development. We need to have the research and the information available to us which will enable us to work out where we need to place our doctors and nurses. It sounds like indicative planning, but it is important for us to do it, because the forces of the market have not always worked successfully, as we have seen.
We need to really look at planning and research and development, and we need a cooperative approach. That is why I am very pleased that we have talked about $1.6 billion for the health workforce reform package. That was achieved by COAG in November 2008. I commend the Minister for Health and Ageing and all the various state ministers for what they have done. Coordinating planning, funding undergraduate clinical training places, supporting our health workforce and supporting research, planning and policy development are just crucial. It is amazing that the Howard government failed in this regard. The Institute of Health and Welfare in October 2008 came up with a study which the previous Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Warringah, had to admit was correct—the Howard coalition government had failed to invest in health and hospital infrastructure and funding and the much-vilified states had taken up the slack. The states, which at that stage mainly had Labor governments, had increased their funding at the same time as the Howard government had underinvested in this area.
This area is vital. People on low incomes or from low socioeconomic backgrounds simply need to have access to a good public hospital and a GP clinic where they can be treated. That is the front line of our health system. They need that, and the shortages are particularly acute in rural and regional communities around the country, particularly in the state of Queensland, where the pattern of settlement is very different from that in any other state. Workforce shortages and inflexibilities have aggravated that and mean that people in rural and regional Australia have not got access to the kinds of health care they deserve or expect—in a First World country. So this sort of funding and this sort of authority, where we can take a national approach governed by a board comprised of a nominee from each jurisdiction so no-one misses out and everyone has a place at the table, is simply a sensible way to go about a national approach to health funding, research and development. A national partnership agreement is a sensible way to ensure that we invest properly and appropriately and take into consideration not just the demography but the regional development of the country.
Many speakers have gone through in detail the background, the functionality, the coordination and the membership of Health Workforce Australia. I want to concentrate on a more local aspect and make a more Queensland based response. In my electorate we have about 15,000 people who are over 65 years of age. In terms of the pension payments, we received in the first economic stimulus package a lot of money—about 44,000 people actually received either the $1,400 single rate or the $2,100 couple rate. In the budget we saw 23,505 people receive the increase in the pension. There are people with a veteran background. I have many veterans in my community because we have the RAAF base at Amberley. They like to come and settle here. We have nearly 8,000 people on disability support type pensions in my electorate. For these types of people, their GP and their public hospital are vital.
The Rudd government have made a major investment in our public health system—$64 billion over five years, an increase of $20 billion and nearly 50 per cent over the previous Australian Healthcare Agreement. That is an enormous increase in health expenditure, and it is a Labor government that is doing it. Labor governments, when it comes to things like education and health, are the ones that really matter to the Australian public. We are the ones who invest for the benefit of this country. We are delivering vital reforms at a time of great economic crisis—investment in public hospitals, health infrastructure, our workforce, maternity and midwifery services and health services in rural and regional Australia. We are upgrading our hospitals. We are training more doctors—a 35 per cent increase in GP training places. It is to the absolute shame of those opposite that they actually froze the number of training places. We need more highly skilled GPs and nurse practitioners to tackle the workforce shortages left as a legacy of the previous government. That is the tragedy—they simply failed to invest.
Investing also in medical and health research is simply vital. This government will invest $430.3 million to upgrade and build health and medical research and training facilities across this country. There is $596 million to expand cancer research facilities drawn from the Health and Hospitals Fund, including $14 million for a smart therapies institute in Brisbane—a collaboration between the University of Queensland, Mater Medical Research Institute, Princess Alexandra Hospital, the Queensland University of Technology and the Queensland government. That is simply vital for my constituents, many of whom travel to Brisbane for cancer treatment. That is simply the case.
We are investing $1.5 billion to upgrade key hospital infrastructure across the country. For my constituents, many of whom have really challenging problems in terms of oral health, the $104 million for the oral health centre in Brisbane, which will treat 17,000 patients a year, is simply crucial. Investing in our health and hospital system is important for its lifeblood. It is our responsibility. It was the responsibility of the previous government and it is a tragedy that they did not take it up.
The situation is that we will care for our people. We will provide options for women as well. One of the things that I am so happy about is what we have done in terms of maternity care, the access to Medicare and the PBS for midwives. The budget includes a $120.5 million package for measures to include choice for women and access to maternity services for pregnant women and new mothers in Australia. I have met with the local group involved in advocacy in this area, and I commend them for their work. Cas McCullough, the National President of the Maternity Coalition, lives locally in my area. I have spoken with her, and she is a great contributor to the Natural Parenting magazine. The midwifery association of Queensland has been strong in its advocacy for these types of reforms. I think this is a commendable reform, and I think it gives women birthing experiences and options which they did not have before. Surgical interventions are not always in the best interests of women, and it is not always what they want. Often they want qualified midwives with sensitivity, understanding and tenderness, someone with whom they have developed a relationship over a long period of time, to assist them in this wonderful experience for them. Women deserve to be empowered, and this reform of the Rudd Labor government is a terrific reform.
The local expression of that in my electorate, of course, is the University of Queensland Ipswich campus, where you can choose to study nursing or midwifery. Ipswich campus has become well known as a campus of excellence where people come to learn how to become not just nurses and midwives but doctors also. We have taken in our first cohort this year, the first graduates from the Bachelor of Health Science. What we are going to see are doctors trained through the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. I think that is important. I have spoken to Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Alan Rix about this, congratulated him and commended him on the work that they have done in this regard for Ipswich. I want people to actually study in Ipswich, live there and practise there.
For nearly a decade I served on the Health Community Council, as an employee of the Queensland government. One of the challenges we had was getting doctors to come to Ipswich General Hospital and practise locally. We did that in rural areas as well. We gave them a right of practice in places like Boonah, Laidley and Esk in the electorate of the member for Dickson. We did that. But it was difficult getting them into those rural communities. So getting them locally trained means they are more likely to live there. They study there, they live there, they make friends and they get involved in the life of the community, and that is tremendously important for my constituency.
Ipswich campus also has become known as a centre of excellence with respect to research and innovation. There are a number of important things that have developed there as a result of the initiative of the Queensland state Labor government but also as a result of the Australian Cancer Council funding, and with the support of the Ipswich Hospital Foundation. What has been established in Ipswich, at the University of Queensland, is a Healthy Communities Research Centre. That has been involved in important social research undertaken with respect to the Ipswich study. It is undertaken by the University of Queensland Boilerhouse Community Engagement Centre.
Allied with this, we saw the Queensland government undertake a great initiative last year. That was the establishment of the Centre of Excellence for Behaviour Support. What will happen there will be a great deal of study, innovation and research undertaken in the local area to establish what is needed for people with disability. How can we help them? What can we do to improve the health and cardiorespiratory medicine needs of the local area? What about whiplash nursing? What about people who have come from backgrounds where they were institutionalised, in, say, the Challinor Centre in Ipswich, and are now living in the community? What are their challenges? What are their needs? What are their health needs? These two research centres in my local constituency will make a big difference. That is the sort of planning and research we are talking about under this legislation. The Rudd government is committed to it.
If you do not think it is accepted well by the universities, just have a look at what Professor Peter Coaldrake, the new Chair of Universities Australia, said just today, commenting about the implication of the federal budget provisions for higher education. He is the Vice-Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology. He said:
Vice-chancellors—
that is, the vice-chancellors of the various universities in Australia—
examined two recent studies by Access Economics and KPMG that identified education as a lead industry providing immediate economic stimulus, long-term gains in skills and productivity and contributing significantly to GDP.
Professor Coaldrake commended the government for the substantial capital infrastructure funding available as part of the budget for studies and research facilities. These are the kinds of research facilities that I am talking about in my electorate, on the University of Queensland Ipswich campus, which you can imagine Health Workforce Australia will be really interested in. They will be really interested in the kind of information that comes out as a result of the research that develops there. So it is not important just in terms of the budgetary stimulation for jobs, economic development, productivity and skilling. We are really talking about caring for our community when it comes to disability and health needs as well.
This bill seems as though it is about the creation of a statutory authority and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, but I can imagine that Health Workforce Australia will be particularly interested in what the University of Queensland Ipswich campus is doing, because the studies that come from that institution will go a long way towards establishing the real needs of people not just in Ipswich, not just in Queensland, but in Australia and internationally. A coordinated approach to this type of thing is simply vital for our community. It is vital to establish what our needs are locally, state-wide and nationally. This is one of those bills that I am warmly supporting, and I commend it to the chamber.
4395
18:47:00
McKew, Maxine, MP
BP4
Bennelong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare
1
0
Ms McKEW
—I would like to thank all members who have participated in this debate on the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009. I thank the member for Blair in particular, who brought together all the important strands that this bill is seeking to achieve. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to sum up the debate on the bill on behalf of the Minister for Health and Ageing, who has been called away to an urgent teleconference with her state and territory colleagues about the swine influenza situation.
As has been acknowledged during the debate, there are existing workforce shortages and factors such as population ageing and increasing levels of chronic disease that will exacerbate pressures on Australia’s health system and its workforce in the near future. I note the contribution of the member for Dickson, who seems to have some concern about the need for and the role of this health workforce agency. What the community is concerned about, I would say, is the lack of planning by the former government for the needs of the health workforce. This has left many communities around the country with shortages of doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. We know that improvements to clinical training arrangements are needed, along with strategies for maximising productivity and improving the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of the health workforce to ensure that the health needs of Australia can be met into the future.
The $1.6 billion health workforce package of the Council of Australian Governments—the single largest investment in the health workforce ever made by Australian governments—was developed in recognition of these issues. A linchpin of the COAG package is the development of Health Workforce Australia, HWA, a national health workforce authority that will work with and across jurisdictions and the education and health sectors to produce more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce planning and policy development.
Among other critically important functions, HWA will fund, plan and coordinate pre-professional entry clinical training across the major health disciplines from 2010. It is not intended that this agency usurp the functions of accreditation agencies or universities in relation to clinical training accreditation. These bodies will remain responsible for accreditation, although it is important to note that the clinical training subsidy is likely to assist training organisations with the quality of their placements.
The agency will finally allow for proper workforce planning so that we can fix the longer term issues on the health workforce right across Australian governments. The governance arrangements for HWA reflect the shared funding and policy interests of all jurisdictions and provide for directions from and reporting to Australia’s health ministers.
Passage of the bill is required to establish HWA and to ensure that it is operational within the time frames agreed to in the COAG health workforce agreement. Essentially, passage of the bill will instigate the immediate activities needed to improve the health workforce and therefore the health system for the Australian population.
I would like to thank once again all those who directly or indirectly have been involved in the development of this package and this important legislation. I have been delighted by the strong support of all governments and the health and education sectors, all of whom have recognised the significance of this package and the need to get on with the job of improving Australia’s health workforce.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT (MEDICAL DEVICES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
4396
Bills
R4018
Consideration resumed from 12 May.
Second Reading
4396
4396
18:51:00
McKew, Maxine, MP
BP4
Bennelong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare
1
0
Ms McKEW
—I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in a number of ways.
Firstly, it incorporates into the act provisions allowing the stockpiling and supply of medical devices to deal with emergency situations without the requirement for such devices to comply with the act.
Second, it gives effect to a range of amendments which have been in contemplation for a number of years, and which were to have been adopted as part of the proposed Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority, or ANZTPA.
Turning first to the medical devices amendments, these provisions are based on similar provisions allowing medicines to be stockpiled and supplied in emergency situations which were added to the act in 2002.
It is unfortunate that other amendments made to the act that same year to deal with medical devices did not include an emergency provision from the outset. But be that as it may, the government is now acting to include these provisions so that medical devices can lawfully be stockpiled in case of a future emergency and made available in an actual emergency without having to comply with the act.
In 2002 the then parliamentary secretary, in introducing the bill, explained that the amendments were necessary to strengthen the ability of the Commonwealth to plan for, and respond to, national emergencies in which there is the potential for large numbers of people to require emergency treatment. She gave as examples of such emergencies acts of bioterrorism or the emergence of a new, highly contagious disease in Australia.
Exactly the same rationale applies today.
The act presently operates very effectively to ensure that medical devices supplied in Australia to meet our daily health care needs meet very high standards of manufacture and quality control. In general, it is an offence to supply devices that have not been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (the TGA).
But in an emergency the government may need to be able to supply very large volumes of devices such as face masks or injection kits. It may need to source these volumes from manufacturers who do not regularly supply goods to the Australian market, and who have not sought to have their products approved by the TGA.
The amendments in schedule 1 to this bill allow the minister to exempt devices from the requirements of the act so that they can lawfully be stockpiled and made available in an emergency.
The minister can only make such an exemption if she or he is satisfied that it is in the national interest to do so, and the minister’s powers may only be delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing.
The minister may impose conditions on the exemption, including limiting the people allowed to import, manufacture or supply the devices, and must notify those people of any other conditions on the exemption. Breaching a condition of exemption is a criminal offence.
The bill does not provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the exemption through disallowance. This is because a security consultant engaged by the government last year recommended that the contents of the stockpile should be classified as ‘confidential’ to ensure that would-be bioterrorists were not able to find out what preparations Australia had made for dealing with a possible bioterrorist act.
For this reason the bill also amends the act so that similar exemptions applying to medicines are not to be subject to disallowance.
Turning to the deferred ANZTPA amendments, the bill deals with the ‘fit and proper person’ test, default standards for medicines, information disclosure, and the use of restricted representations in advertising. It also makes technical amendments to all offence provisions to bring them into line with the latest policy on how these should be expressed.
The act currently requires the secretary, in deciding whether to grant or revoke a manufacturing licence or a conformity assessment certificate for a medical device, to have regard to whether the applicant, a person taking part in managing the applicant’s affairs, or a person ‘likely to have effective control over the applicant’, is a fit and proper person.
The test in deciding such a person is at once subjective—in that there is no limit on the matters the secretary may consider, and there is no guidance on who is a person ‘likely to have effective control’—and unduly harsh in that the secretary must have regard to any conviction against any law of the Commonwealth or a state or territory, no matter what the crime or when it took place.
Not only has the test been criticised by industry for these reasons, but it is also administratively problematic.
The amendments in schedule 3 of the bill replace this test with a much narrower test, requiring the secretary to have regard to breaches of the act or offences against it, together with offences involving fraud or dishonesty over the previous 10 years.
The amendments also replace the undefined concept of ‘effective control’ with an objective definition of a ‘major interest holder’, defined as a one-fifth shareholder of a body corporate.
When the act was introduced it provided that unless the minister determined standards for therapeutic goods, they had to comply with the requirements of the British Pharmacopoeia. The British Pharmacopoeia thus effectively served as the default standard for therapeutic goods.
Since the act came into effect many manufacturers based in the United States or Europe have entered the Australian market. As part of the ANZFTA consultation process industry pressed for the inclusion of the US Pharmacopoeia and the European Pharmacopoeia as alternative default standards.
Schedule 4 of the bill contains a series of amendments to include these pharmacopoeias as default standards with the same standing as the British Pharmacopoeia. The amendments also remove references to the veterinary version of the British Pharmacopoeia, as the act no longer regulates veterinary medicines, and makes a number of consequential amendments to remove other references to the regulation of therapeutic goods for use in animals.
The act sets out when the secretary can release information obtained under the act to other regulatory agencies or to the public. These provisions are unduly restrictive as they relate to the public release of information, and they have proved operationally difficult as they relate to providing information to other agencies.
The government has decided to broaden the public access to information under the act.
In particular, the TGA will publish a greater range of information about goods included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods on its website to inform members of the public about the therapeutic goods and devices that are available in Australia, and assist them to make better informed choices and decisions about their use of therapeutic goods.
It will publish the minutes and deliberations of expert advisory committees, as well as a greater range of information considered in, and the reasons for, making particular decisions, including summaries of the evaluation of applications for the entry of prescription medicines on the register.
The amendments in schedule 5 will support this by allowing the minister to determine, by legislative instrument, classes of therapeutic goods information which may be published by the secretary. The amendments also widen the definition of information that may be released to include information held by the TGA, as well as information acquired by the TGA under the act.
Other amendments in the schedule resolve the practical difficulties with the provisions relating to the release of information to other government authorities.
The act currently regulates advertising of therapeutic goods. It includes a regime provided for the pre-approval of some categories of advertisements, together with limits and restrictions on the kinds of representations that may be made in advertisements. For example, advertisements to the public cannot refer to serious illnesses, or make claims that a cure is infallible.
While the limits and restrictions are intended to apply to all advertisements, the current structure of the act implies that they only apply to advertisements that do not require pre-approval.
The amendments in schedule 6 are intended to clarify that the limits and restrictions apply to all advertisements.
Finally, schedule 7 contains a series of purely technical amendments to align all criminal offence provisions in the act with current policy on the expression of such provisions.
The changes made by this bill do not encompass all the reforms the government intends to make to the therapeutic goods regulatory regime.
We intend to introduce further legislation next year to give effect to other changes that were foreshadowed as part of the ANZTPA process, including new frameworks for the regulation of human cellular and tissue based therapies and homeopathic medicines.
We will also be pursuing changes to the current advertising arrangements. The Productivity Commission has recommended that the government should streamline and clarify the advertising regime for therapeutic goods. At this stage, government intends to carry out informal consultations with industry over the next few months before releasing a formal consultation document for consideration next year.
The amendments in this bill are thus the first instalment in an ongoing program of reform to the act.
Australia has been well served by the TGA in the past, and it is important that the regulatory regime the TGA implements is kept up to date so that the TGA and the industry that it regulates can operate as efficiently as possible, and so that Australian consumers can continue to have timely access to safe and effective therapeutic goods.
I commend this bill to the House.
4399
19:01:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
0
Mr DUTTON
—The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices and Other Measures) Bill 2008 provides for a number of amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act and in part implements some of the reforms proposed originally for the establishment of the Australia-New Zealand therapeutic products authority. The process to establish the Australia-New Zealand therapeutic products authority commenced with the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Australia and New Zealand in December 2003. However, the process stalled in July 2007 under the pressure of domestic political conditions in New Zealand at that time. As my colleagues have noted in the Senate, with a different political landscape in New Zealand today there is an opportunity now for the government to continue with the trans-Tasman reform process initiated by the coalition government.
This bill will amend the operations of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The TGA has an important role in regulating therapeutic goods, such as medicines and medical devices, according to quality, safety and efficacy. However, it is important that any regulation is also efficient and efficacious. This is particularly the case for the TGA, which operates on a cost recovery basis for the listing of relevant products on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. It is imperative that under any cost recovery process compliance requirements and costs do not jeopardise the listing of potentially beneficial products for the Australian community.
Specifically, the proposed changes in the bill provide for the exemption of medical devices under the act to allow for stockpiling and timely supply in emergency situations, the removal of the requirement that instruments allowing stockpiling of therapeutic goods be disallowable, a narrower ‘fit and proper’ test in the granting of manufacturing licences and conformity assessment certificates, inclusion of the United States and European Pharmacopoeia as default standards for therapeutic goods in addition to the existing British Pharmacopoeia default, improved information disclosure by the TGA and the clarification of regulation applying to advertising.
The coalition broadly supports the amendments contained within the bill, as does industry, according to available stakeholder feedback. The inclusion of the United States and European Pharmacopoeia in addition to the existing British default for therapeutic goods standards is a commonsense reform, providing a degree of flexibility for organisations bringing beneficial products to market in Australia.
The reforms to the fit and proper test provide workability to what is currently too broad a test. The amendments provide practical and measurable guidance as to persons who did not meet the requirements of a fit and proper person. The provisions to improve access to information held by the TGA is important in the interests of transparency, and this will provide interested stakeholders with relevant information pertaining to the details on that Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods: summaries of evaluations of applications to register new therapeutic goods and the records of the advisory committees established under the act.
Advertising provisions in this bill clarify the existing regulations regarding advertising of therapeutic goods. It is appropriate that current regulations requiring pre-approval of advertisements in mainstream media be extended to other media. These amendments are straightforward reforms designed to enhance the operation of the TGA and are largely uncontentious. However, I bring attention to the concerns outlined by my colleagues in the Senate regarding the amendments to the current exemption provisions. These amendments remove the requirement that instruments allowing the stockpiling of therapeutic goods be disallowable. The provision is said to be based on advice that the contents of the stockpile should have a classification of confidential in the interests of national security and therefore should not be tabled in the parliament and not be subject to public scrutiny. Whilst the coalition considers national security of paramount importance, I do bring attention to the caution by which such exemptions to parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial decisions should be made. Nevertheless, notwithstanding these concerns, the coalition is satisfied that this bill will enhance the operations of the TGA as a fundamental institution in our healthcare system.
Whilst I am on this debate in relation to our healthcare system, I want to again return to the very important issue surrounding a patient in New South Wales by the name of Pauline Talty. I want to bring to the House’s attention today the situation of this courageous young woman, Pauline Talty. As we have spoken about in the press before and also in this House, Pauline needs a lifesaving bowel transplant operation. Seven months ago—and I repeat, seven months ago—Pauline sought funding under the Medical Treatment Overseas Program to travel to Pittsburgh for this transplant. At the time, her doctors warned that she may only have around 12 months to live. Through the very long and agonising months since, she has had to repeatedly argue her case to the federal health department, which twice denied her treatment under MTOP, dismissing the advice of numerous health experts. On 13 May—two weeks ago tomorrow—the decision was reversed. Her battle with bureaucracy ended, or so she thought. The secretary of the health department wrote to Pauline to inform her that her lifesaving surgery overseas had been approved. On that afternoon, I stood in the House and praised the government for this change of heart. I had committed to do that. It was a very long, public campaign but, nonetheless, the government in the end changed the decision and I said at the time that if they did that I would praise them, and I did. This is very important, Madam Deputy Speaker.
10000
Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms JA Saffin)—I call the honourable member’s attention to the fact that whilst I am happy to give a lot of leeway, as we do in this place, you have strayed a long way from the bill, so please finish that remark.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—Sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am just finishing on this note and I thank the government for their accommodation made to Pauline’s treatment. Two weeks might not seem a long time to any of us but consider someone in Pauline’s position; two weeks is a long time. She still feels that the red tape is trapping her and that she is being asked to be the middle person between the federal department and the hospital in Pittsburgh, from her hospital bed in Sydney. It is not good enough.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Would the honourable member come back to the bill right now, please.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—Indeed I will. That is why I call tonight on the health minister to intervene in this particular case, because it is unacceptable that the bureaucratic process is still bogging down this particular issue. This government has this bill, which is an important bill, before the House tonight, and the government has the support of the coalition in relation to this bill. We have a health system in this country which is in crisis. The point that I make, by way of example through Pauline’s case, in relation to this very important debate, is that this government gave a commitment to this dying young woman that they would cut the bureaucratic process, but they have not. So the call, again, for this government is to make sure that they put aside the bureaucratic nonsense and provide a better outcome for Pauline Talty.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Would the honourable member for Dickson please return to the bill, and if the honourable member has forgotten the title I will help him. It is the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Thank you.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—We can all read, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we can all see the travesty that has taken place in relation to Pauline Talty. I have made my point in relation to Pauline Talty—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—You have indeed!
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—and I will be making it on many occasions subsequent to this if the government does not act promptly so that this debate can be had and this woman can get on with her life. That is the call we make to the government tonight.
In relation to the bill, there are some areas of concern. Those areas have been flagged in the Senate, and we have made the government aware of them tonight. In terms of the general thrust of this bill and the way in which it has been presented by the government, the coalition support the bill. As the alternative government of this country, we will continue to hold this government to account to make sure we have better patient outcomes in this country and to make sure that the government does not continue to put extra pressure on the public hospital system, which is already at—and in some cases beyond—breaking point. We renew that commitment to the Australian people tonight.
4401
19:11:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I rise to speak in favour of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices and Other Measures) Bill 2008. As a previous owner of two medical centres that service the healthcare needs of 40,000 people in the electorate of Dawson, I welcome this bill. I have seen firsthand the benefit of medical science working hand-in-hand with complementary medicines and alternative therapies—‘complementary’ being the key word. This bill provides for medicines to be approved if they meet specific criteria, or disapproved if they do not. I welcome this because I often come across previous patients, and also people who come in for consultations at my office, who ask for amendments such as this. I know that this bill will be welcomed by many people, particularly in my electorate, who I have seen benefit from different types of therapeutic goods.
Schedule 1 of the bill provides for medicines to be suspended from the register—and, as we know, medical devices can already be suspended. Schedule 2 requires manufacturing licences to cover single manufacturing sites, except in limited circumstances provided for in guidelines, and enables variations to licences and transfer of licences between licence holders. Schedule 3 enhances monitoring powers to enable samples to be taken of any therapeutic good or any thing related to a therapeutic good on premises and to enable video and other recordings to be taken in addition to still photographs and sketches. Schedule 4 establishes a framework for the regulation of homoeopathic and anthroposophic medicines to commence in July 2011 with supporting regulations to be made to commence at that time. I am particularly interested in schedule 4. Currently, many of these homoeopathic and anthroposophic medicines are exempt from the requirement under the act that they be included in the register and meet manufacturing requirements. The bill now provides a framework for the regulation of these medicines and, in doing so, implements the 2003 recommendation by the Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System that these products be regulated. This means that we will have conditions that recognise what truly does work, and we will avoid snake oil type therapeutic goods which clearly do not work. This enables these determinations to be made.
Schedule 5 of the bill enables the minister to determine lists of permitted and prohibited ingredients for inclusion in listed medicines. Schedule 6 makes minor technical amendments to references to orders published in the Gazette and to disallowable instruments to reflect that they are legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Finally, schedule 6 makes other amendments to improve and clarify the operation of the act, including simplifying arrangements for setting conditions on medicines and confirming that decisions of the secretary may be made by a computer program.
The act presently enables medical devices to be suspended from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, known as the register, when there are safety concerns with those goods. However, there are presently no similar provisions for medicines; therefore, if there are safety concerns with a medicine, the only option available to the secretary is to cancel its registration or listing. After addressing the reason for the cancellation, the sponsor must then reapply and pay the related application and assessment fees to re-register or relist the medicine. This is costly and inefficient. This bill provides that medicines can be suspended instead, when there are safety concerns that may be addressed within the period of the suspension.
The bill provides that manufacturing licences are to cover one site per licence, except in limited circumstances to be identified in guidelines, such as when two sites are adjacent to one another and jointly manufacture the same therapeutic good. Licence holders will also be able to apply to vary their licence, and the regulations will set out arrangements to enable the transfer of licences. Presently, many homeopathic and anthroposophic medicines are exempt from requirements under the act to be listed or to comply with quality manufacturing requirements. The bill implements a recommendation from 2003 of the expert committee on complementary medicine to regulate these products in the health system. The amendments will commence in July 2011 to provide time for further consultation with the industry sector to inform supporting regulations.
The regulations currently provide for permitted ingredients in listed medicines; however, the arrangements for amending this list and seeking to include new ingredients are not as clear as they might be. This bill clarifies this by empowering the minister to determine the list by legislative instrument, setting out permitted and prohibited ingredients and amounts of ingredients for listed medicines.
This bill also implements a number of minor amendments to clarify and improve the operation of the act. These amendments are, firstly, to clarify the arrangements for setting conditions on medicines and empowering the minister to determine standard conditions to apply to categories of medicines, with the secretary continuing to be able to set specific conditions on certain medicines; secondly, to clarify that computer programs are able to be used to make decisions for the secretary, with the secretary retaining the ability to replace those decisions; thirdly, to enable applicants to apply for a previous request to have an application to list or register a medicine that was treated as cancelled revoked so as to enable the application for the medicine to be considered; and, fourthly, to strengthen overseas manufacturing quality requirements for medicines by requiring that, before the manufacture of a medicine can be moved to an overseas manufacturer, certification must be received from the secretary that the manufacturing and quality control procedures for the proposed overseas manufacturer are acceptable.
This bill makes a number of minor technical amendments to references to orders and disallowable instruments to reflect that these are legislative instruments for the purpose of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Finally, further amendments are planned for later in the year to establish a new framework for the regulation of human cellular and tissue based therapy products, biologicals, and new arrangements for the separate scheduling of medicines and poisons to reflect recommendations from the 2001 Galbally review and decisions from the Council of Australian Governments. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.
4403
19:19:00
McKew, Maxine, MP
BP4
Bennelong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare
1
0
Ms McKEW
—In summing up on behalf of the Minister for Health and Ageing, I would like to thank the members who have contributed to this debate. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in a number of ways. Firstly, it incorporates into the act provisions allowing the stockpiling and supply of medical devices to deal with emergency situations. These provisions are based on similar provisions allowing medicines to be stockpiled and supplied in emergency situations which were added to the act in 2002. The amendments in schedule 1 to this bill allow the minister to exempt devices from the requirements of the act so that they can lawfully be stockpiled and made available in an emergency. These exemptions are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This follows advice, received by the then government in 2007, which recommended that the contents of the stockpile should be classified as confidential to ensure that would-be bioterrorists were not able to find out what preparations Australia had made for dealing with possible bioterrorist acts. For this reason, the bill also amends the act so that similar exemptions applying to medicines are not subject to disallowance. This bill also gives effect to a range of amendments which have been in contemplation for a number of years and which were to have been adopted as part of the proposed Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority, or ANZTPA.
The bill deals with the ‘fit and proper person’ test, default standards for medicines, information disclosure and the use of restricted representations in advertising. It also makes technical amendments to all offence provisions, to bring them into line with the latest policy on how these should be expressed, and these have been canvassed in the second reading speech. So the changes made by this bill do not encompass all of the reforms that the government intends to make to the therapeutic goods regulatory regime. The amendments in this bill are but the first instalment in an ongoing program of reform to the act. Australia has been well served by the TGA in the past, and it is important that the regulatory regime that the authority implements is kept up to date, so that the TGA and the industry it regulates can operate as efficiently as possible and so that Australian consumers can continue to have timely access to safe and effective therapeutic goods. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2009 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2009
4404
Bills
R4102
Second Reading
4404
Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4404
19:22:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—In resuming debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009, I will briefly address each of the four schedules within the bill, but I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. Schedule 1 deals with the GDP adjustment factor for the 2009-10 income year. The government had previously announced, and in fact legislated, earlier in the year a reduction of that factor in light of the current economic circumstances. That passed through the parliament, and this schedule merely repeats that exercise for the 2009-10 income year. Under the PAYG instalment system, certain taxpayers calculate their PAYG instalment amounts according to the GDP adjustment factor, which essentially is determined using GDP growth between the last two calendar years—as the explanatory memorandum outlines. If that had been the case this year, it would have meant that the GDP adjustment factor would have been nine per cent for the 2009-10 income year. This bill sets it at two per cent.
The coalition has said previously that this is a welcome direction for small business. We had a varied proposal which we think provided more flexibility for all taxpayers in this situation. That was in fact announced by the shadow minister for small business prior to the government coming onto the field in this regard. The shadow minister for small business, the member for Moncrieff, will be following me in this debate, so I will not take the time of the House tonight to reiterate all of that in my contribution. I know he will address all of those issues and a range of issues relating to his shadow portfolio of small business in his own contribution in just a little while.
Schedule 2 of the bill brings into effect an announcement by the previous government. It allows entities that voluntarily register for GST to align their reporting of PAYG with their GST reporting. As I said, it was a measure announced by the previous coalition government, certainly in its last budget, and it will reduce compliance costs for eligible taxpayers. From my perspective as the shadow Assistant Treasurer, I am glad that the government has decided to legislate to bring this measure into being. It will reduce the compliance burden on entities that voluntarily register for GST by allowing them to report GST and PAYG together on an annual basis.
Schedule 3 makes very technical amendments to the petroleum resource rent tax regime. Again, this was announced by the previous coalition government in their last budget of 2006-07. The current government announced in last year’s budget that it would proceed with the measures with an effective date of 1 July 2008. In technical terms, schedule 3 will introduce a functional currency rule into the resource rent tax regime along similar lines to the functional currency rule used for income tax. This will allow entities to use a currency that better reflects the international petroleum market when determining their tax liability. The schedule also amends the petroleum resource rent tax to ensure that all exploration expenditure in an exploration permit area is deductible for petroleum resource rent tax purposes. Currently certain exploration may not be deductible. This amendment will ensure that the correct operational intention applies and the explanatory memorandum details that very well. The schedule also introduces, as I said, a highly technical amendment to provisions relating to petroleum sourced from within a project for refining and also extends the offshore exploration incentive.
Schedule 4, which is the schedule we see in many of these tax law amendment bills, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to update the deductible gift recipient list. In doing so, it includes three new entities which are the Royal Institution of Australia, Diplomacy Training Program Limited and the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation. Once this bill is passed, each of those will be added to the deductible gift recipient list. The opposition will be supporting this Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009. As I said earlier with respect to some of the small business measures and the coalition’s position, the shadow small business minister, the member for Moncrieff, will be making a contribution a little later.
4405
19:29:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I too rise to address the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009. This bill contains amendments to three areas of tax law. The first amendment concerns PAYG instalments. The bill reduces PAYG instalments for 2009-10 for taxpayers who pay quarterly instalments. It also allows eligible taxpayers who have voluntarily registered for GST and who choose to remit GST annually to make their PAYG instalments annually. Secondly, the bill makes minor amendments to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to reduce compliance costs for taxpayers. Thirdly, the bill lists a couple of new organisations as deductible gift recipients. I know that such a listing is always eagerly looked forward to by people who do good work in our community.
I will speak firstly to the amendments concerning PAYG instalments, which are the most significant measures in this bill, as discussed by the previous speaker. These changes will deliver direct benefits to small business. Under current arrangements, the GDP adjustment factor calculated under the present income tax law would be around nine per cent. Taxpayers earning business or investment income pay quarterly instalments during the year towards their final tax liability so they do not have an unmanageable tax bill at the end of the year. These instalments are calculated based on the GDP adjustment method. It is based on the taxpayer’s taxable income from the previous year adjusted by the GDP factor, which reflects GDP growth over the previous two years. In simple terms, as I understand it, the instalments are based on last year’s taxable income plus expected profit growth.
However, these are unusual days and the GDP factor—which, as I said, would be at nine per cent—is an exaggeration of the kind of profit growth that most small businesses can expect at the moment. That might be different, perhaps, for some of those businesses that have thrived over the last three or six months—receivers, perhaps. I note that some of the major supermarket chains have also thrived. Obviously people are eating in.
HVO
Neumann, Shayne, MP
Mr Neumann
—Liquidating.
HVP
Perrett, Graham, MP
Mr PERRETT
—People are liquidating, as is suggested by the member for Blair. Video hire stores are also doing very well. People are obviously staying home and cooking their own meals, although I am told—not by the hairdressers that I frequent but by the hairdressers that I talk to in my electorate; I, of course, go to a barber—people are not necessarily scrimping on their hair. People are still prepared to spend their money on looking good, even if they do not have anywhere to go. They are all dressed up with nowhere to go. Apart from those specific niche businesses, most businesses have not been growing at nine per cent.
Cash flow is the lifeblood of small businesses, as we on this side of the House well know. The Rudd government does not want businesses paying instalments far above their actual tax liability. In these tough times, it is more important than ever for small businesses to retain cash flow and ensure they can continue to invest in their businesses. That is why this bill will set the GDP adjustment for the 2009-10 year at not nine per cent but two per cent.
This amendment will generate around $720 million in cash flow for small businesses. Small businesses in the electorate of Blair, small businesses in the electorate of Moreton and small businesses in the electorate of Port Adelaide will benefit from this government adjustment. Self-funded retirees and other eligible taxpayers will obviously also benefit. Most importantly, this measure will ensure that $720 million is not lying around in the coffers of the tax department but instead continuing to stimulate business investment, which means more jobs for Australia. Obviously, we on this side of the House understand that the current climate is all about jobs, jobs, jobs.
This bill also introduces some flexibility regarding PAYG instalments. It amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow taxpayers who are voluntarily registered for GST and who choose to pay GST annually to also make their PAYG instalments annually. This will eliminate unnecessary compliance costs for taxpayers.
These measures build on the Rudd government’s significant efforts to support small business during these tough economic times—times that almost every person in this room tonight has never seen in their lifetime. These are tough economic times. It is funny—we do not feel like we are in a flickering black-and-white newsreel, but I guess in 75 years time people will look back at this time and say this was a significant economic downturn. That is the reality.
Obviously, we on this side of the House understand that small business is the backbone of the Australian economy. We have some 1.9 million small businesses, employing almost four million Australians. I think the member for Blair was one of those small business people. I think of the many small businesses in my electorate, which provide employment and stimulate economic growth. There are successful businesses like MiniMovers, which was set up by Michael O’Hagan; Michael’s Oriental Restaurant at Eight Mile Plains, where I seem to have had every second meal over the last couple of weeks; the Framing Corner at Sunnybank, which does so much work; the Inn Florist at Moorooka, which always looks after me on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and on my wedding anniversary, when I remember it; Chaotech, which was set up by Rex Manderson at Rocklea and which produces precision steel machine parts and is also developing a plant to produce soil carbon that will hopefully take advantage of the green vegetation in our environment and plough it back into the farms in the surrounding area; the Sunni Bakery and Sunnybank Plaza News at Sunnybank; 3E at Salisbury, which looks after the printing of my newsletters; the Mu’Ooz African restaurant at the heart of Moorooka in the little strip of Africa; the Sunnybank Oriental Restaurant; the Landmark Restaurant; any of Danny Yo’s many restaurants; and my dentist, Ken Martin, at Graceville. All these small businesses will benefit from the improvements we are bringing in tonight.
The Rudd Labor government is doing whatever it can to support businesses such as these. We are increasing and extending the small business and general business tax break. We are lifting the tax break from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and extending it to apply to eligible assets acquired between 13 December 2008 and 31 December 2009. Businesses need to make sure they take advantage of this wonderful opportunity. The 50 per cent rate applies to new tangible assets over $1,000 acquired by small businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million a year. It includes items like computers, electric tools, furniture and motor vehicles, to name but a few. We are also establishing a small business support line to assist small businesses during the global recession. Sometimes a bit of helpful advice might make the difference between a business surviving or getting into difficulties.
We are providing $10 million over two years to help small businesses go online and to open up to new markets through e-commerce. We are introducing a new research and development tax credit at 45 per cent for companies with an annual turnover of less than $20 million. I am proud of all these measures because I know that for some small businesses in Moreton it will be the difference between survival and bankruptcy. For some employees it will be the difference between a solid job and unemployment. These are good things to do because they are good for jobs and good for the economy.
This bill also makes some minor changes to the petroleum resources rent tax. Among a range of minor amendments the bill allows taxpayers with petroleum projects offshore to calculate their petroleum resource rent tax liability in a foreign currency. This will simplify tax compliance for taxpayers who operate in a foreign currency.
Finally, this bill welcomes three new organisations to the list of deductible gift recipients. Taxpayers will be able to claim income tax deductions for gifts to Diplomacy Training Program Ltd, which provides training for staff and representatives of NGOs in the Asia-Pacific region to help promote good governance and human rights. Obviously, it makes good sense to help where we can with our neighbour’s yard because that makes our yard that much safer. Also included is the Royal Institution of Australia Inc., an Adelaide based science research centre. I am sure the member for Port Adelaide would support this. The third included is the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation. This great organisation gives young people the experience of life on the tall ship Leeuwin. They learn skills in sailing and navigating but, more importantly, develop teamwork, confidence, responsibility and community spirit. This bill ensures that these organisations will be able to collect tax deductible gifts.
This legislation demonstrates how the Rudd government continues to respond to the dynamic global economy and the challenges that brings for Australian businesses. It shows that we are prepared to listen and respond with practical measures to help meet the emerging needs of business. I commend the bill to the House.
4408
19:39:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009. This bill, as happens so often, amends by schedule a number of provisions in relation to tax and a variety of different pieces of legislation. Schedule 4 talks about three new organisations for deductibility for the purpose of gifts. Schedule 3 amends the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act, implementing four minor measures to reduce compliance costs and provide a number of concessions for interested taxpayers. Schedule 2 allows taxpayers who are voluntarily registered for GST and who choose to pay their GST annually to also make their PAYG instalments annually if they satisfy other sorts of tests for the purpose of eligibility for annual PAYG instalments, and it has the consequence of reducing compliance costs and regulation for business, and that is a good thing.
I want to talk mainly about schedule 1 and the other measures that the Rudd Labor government is undertaking both nationally and locally to help small business. We are in the most difficult times for 75 years, and it is for all business, whether in the area of real estate, car sales, dentistry, floristry, banking, food outlets or recreational facilities. All those types of outlets, all those types of small businesses who are in my electorate, in small communities such as Kalbar, Boonah, Laidley and Gatton, are facing the challenges of the downturn—not just in Ipswich, which forms the heart of my seat. But it is important that we provide for small business to give them confidence for our nation’s future. We need to be able to support small business at this very difficult time.
There is a great myth in Australian politics that the coalition somehow is the great saviour or advocate of small business. That is simply nonsense. The truth of the matter is that during their long tenure under Menzies they installed a Hansonite protectionist system supported by Black Jack McEwen, supported by the likes of Gorton, McMahon, Menzies and Holt, which served to straightjacket Australian business, profitability and the economic development of Australian business. They did not support small business. It was the Whitlam Labor government that brought in the Trade Practices Act and started the internationalisation of the Australian economy. It was the case that the Hawke and Keating governments internationalised our economy; made us internationally competitive; brought in superannuation, which helped so many people in this country; floated the dollar; reduced tariff barriers; and opened up the banking system—all of which was good for this country. It is the reality of Australian politics, rather than the myth, that Labor governments are the governments which are pro free enterprise, pro free trade and pro free market. It is a myth because those opposite support, invariably by their policies, big business and oligarchs.
You can see it in their opposition on many occasions. They are in opposition, simply, to our stimulus package—that is quite clear—because our stimulus package helps small business. What we are doing for small business, for the many small businesses in my electorate and for the four million people that are employed by the 1.9 small businesses across the country, is to support them in this hour of need. Those opposite, the coalition—the great saviours, the great advocates, of small business—oppose the stimulus package which simply was there to support and help small business, to give them a helping hand. They opposed it.
They oppose every person employed, for example, at the RAAF base at Amberley in my electorate, with the $60 million that we put in there; everyone who benefits from the Defence Housing Authority’s 133 new homes; everyone who benefits from the $30 million in the BER funding in my electorate; the tradesmen, the electricians, the plumbers, the carpenters and all those people who are employed by the Rudd Labor government. That is the reality of political life in this country. Us supporting small business, supporting free enterprise, supporting economic welfare and development in local communities across the country—that is the reality of political life, not the mythology perpetrated and perpetuated by those who sit on the coalition benches. That is the reality of Australian political life, the polity of this country and the economy of this country. We are the ones who have done what we need to do to support small business. It is clear: in our budget we support it. We support consumption. Our stimulus packages helped the businesses in our area.
When I went around the various shopping centres doing mobile offices in places like Riverlink in Ipswich, the Brassall Shopping Centre, Yamanto Shopping Village and Winston Glades, I spoke to many small business operators in those shopping centres which are so important in my area. I spoke to the management there. You can see how important helping small business is and how appreciative they were in relation to that. The legislation that we have before the chamber tonight is yet another example of the Rudd Labor government supporting small business, supporting free enterprise and helping businesses to maintain employment and to give people a chance.
We are the ones who support family values. How can it not be a family value to make sure that you can feed and clothe your children, to have a roof over your head? That is family values. That is being pro-family. That is being pro-free-enterprise as well, because business operators are not just members of our community but consumers. They purchase goods and services in our community, which supports small business. So the people who sit on the opposite side of the chamber should have a good look at themselves and at what they do and say in this regard.
I was in business for 20 years before I came to this place. I looked after my business. I built it up with the support of Matthew Turnour, the brother of the member for Leichhardt. Neumann and Turnour Lawyers employed many people. We had many staff. It was a multimillion-dollar operation. So, for those opposite who criticise those of us on this side of the House without business experience, I am not one that they can criticise because I know what it is like to have to meet the payroll, to pay the rent, to deal with telecommunications companies, to pay GST—to pay all these sorts of things, the challenges of small business. I know what it is like. I know it from personal experience.
Schedule 1 of this legislation helps small business in many, many ways. It is basically allowing small business to have $720 million in cash flow, to their benefit, simply from this change. What we are doing here is amending the GDP adjustment factor, which clearly does not represent the true rate of growth in income and profitability in businesses today. We are reducing it from nine per cent down to two per cent, and that means there will be more money in the kitty and the coffers of small business. It ensures that those businesses have more ready cash flow to meet their overdraft and other business requirements. It gives them a chance to invest, it gives them a chance to employ more staff and it gives them a chance to retain staff in the circumstances. The last thing you want to do when you are in business is to put staff off. That is the last thing you want to do. You want to keep your skilled staff, because when the recovery comes it means that you have the people who will return you to profitability, and they are the ones who can increase their productivity all the more readily.
The Rudd government is doing a lot to help small business. We are committed to ensuring small business remains viable and vibrant in all the circumstances. If we did not do what we are doing in terms of our budget and our stimulus packages, we would have 210,000 people out of work, according to Treasury estimates. That is 210,000 people effectively on unemployment benefits who cannot get access to the kind of cash which is necessary to purchase goods and services in small business, and that results in reduced profitability, retrenchment, liquidation, administration and lower corporate and PAYG tax receipts for the federal government. It is a spiral. So it is necessary to support small business. We are committed to that. We are providing more than $500 million in small business incentives and support.
One of the things which has been most readily hailed in my electorate has been the small business tax break. Last Saturday night I was at the Ipswich Art Gallery speaking to a number of small business people. There was the head of the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce, Martin Corkery, and James Sturges, who is one of the leading businessmen in Ipswich and the manager of Ross Llewellyn Motors—a great place. I have bought a car or two from them over the years. They were telling me how important the Rudd government’s commitment is to Ipswich and to the economic development of the area but also to business.
James waxed lyrical about the 50 per cent tax deductibility for assets costing more than $1,000, acquired after 13 December 2008 until 31 December 2009 and installed ready to use by 31 December 2010. James told me that they will sell more cars, and have been selling more cars, as a result of the 30 per cent increase. But now he thinks that the 50 per cent is a great thing for the local economy, as businesses purchase vehicles and a local car dealer in the area employs local staff and local people. This tax break will benefit small businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million per annum.
But other things are really important too. Our Small Business Support Line is important and our Small Business Online initiative is also important.
In my local area the Rudd Labor government is committed to small business in a practical way. We have funded for a period of four years the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre. This helps local business in terms of mentoring, getting access to information and government services, access to finance, and access to the kind of information which will help small business to be profitable, to employ staff and to get started. I know a number of small businesses that have benefited. I spoke to Cindy Baker, who told me fairly recently in a meeting I had at the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre how enthusiastic she was and how enthusiastic has been the response locally in Ipswich and also the rural areas outside. It is interesting that the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre was launched in the Lockyer Valley. It is important that we have representation from various chambers of commerce on the board that runs it. So I am pleased that the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre is up and running effectively now and providing help for small business in the area.
Why is that important? Ipswich is growing faster than any other area in Queensland. The ABS data in the last 12 months shows that Ipswich is growing at four per cent. The federal electorate of Blair and its neighbour, Oxley, are just simply booming in population. The Ipswich part of my electorate will grow from about 64,000 voters to about 78,000 in the next couple of years. That is just the Ipswich part alone. In neighbouring Oxley it will grow from about 28,000 to 43,000 voters, and that is not counting children and other residents who are not Australian citizens entitled to vote. The truth is that we need a new classroom in Ipswich every week, such is the growth in population. So the commitment of the Rudd Labor government to small business in our community is simply stark. It is real, it is accessible to people, and it is very open and honest.
When I talk to the principals at various schools I can see that the BER funding is also having a big impact in terms of local businesses, and they are very enthusiastic about what it can do for local businesses.
The RAAF Base at Amberley, with a $1.1 billion injection of funds—$600 million in this particular year as part of our stage 3—is building new infrastructure in the local area and local jobs are being created.
When you drive along the Ipswich Motorway—again, another great project funded by the Rudd Labor government—you cannot help but notice that thousands of jobs are being created and supported by an $884 million injection this year. Driving back from Brisbane to Ipswich you see so many people travelling to Ipswich to work these days from Brisbane. There are almost as many vehicles on the road coming back to Brisbane of an evening as there are returning to Ipswich from work in Brisbane. That is not what it was years ago. Business in Ipswich is booming. The unemployment rate actually went down 2.1 per cent in the last 12 months because of what is happening. So helping business in my local community is simply vital in all the circumstances.
I think that this is a great bill which helps my local businesses. It is having a practical impact. I know from personal experience that this sort of PAYG cash flow relief will help lots of businesses that I was involved in as a lawyer acting for them years ago. But it is important also that we give not just to businesses in Ipswich or Brisbane or Sydney or Melbourne, but also to businesses in rural areas.
So the 12-month extension of exceptional circumstances for farm dependent small businesses is warmly welcome. This will continue $20,000 non-business salary and wages exemption for exceptional circumstance relief payments, and $750,000 for non-business asset exemption for exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidies. That is really important because, as I have said on many occasions, Queensland is very different from other states. We are very regionally based. We have large rural communities and lots of small towns. Many people work on farms. They also work in these small communities in the towns. For example, we saw many types of businesses helped by the last stimulus package: 119 farming families received it. I want to thank the government for their commitment, thank the government for their help for small business and thank the government for the legislative changes in relation to tax which will help small business in my community.
4411
19:56:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I, too, rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009. This bill, firstly, reduces the GDP adjustments for the 2009-10 financial year from around nine per cent to two per cent for taxpayers who pay quarterly PAYG instalments on the basis of the GDP adjusted notional tax method. Secondly, the bill allows taxpayers who are voluntarily registered for goods and services tax and who choose to remit GST annually to also choose to make their PAYG instalments annually. Thirdly, the bill amends the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to implement four minor measures to reduce compliance costs and provide certain concessions for affected taxpayers. Fourthly, the bill specifically lists three new organisations—namely, Diplomacy Training Program Ltd, the Royal Institution of Australia Inc. and Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation Ltd—as deductible tax receipts.
I want to take a moment to speak about the Royal Institution of Australia Inc., which is based in my home state of South Australia. In October 2009 the Royal Institution of Australia will open its new premises in the converted former stock exchange building in Adelaide’s CBD. The institution’s mission is to bring science to the people. It will bring the findings of science to society and aims to foster informed debate about science and technology within the community. The Royal Institution of Australia in Adelaide will be the first international satellite of the world renowned Royal Institution of Great Britain, which has been the flagship of science communication in the UK for over 200 years. Partnered with the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and any future affiliated organisations, the new Royal Institution of Australia will be an internationally linked hub that will bring science from around the world to the community. The current director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain is Baroness Susan Greenfield, who was a South Australian government Thinker in Residence in 2004-05 and who played a major role in the establishment of the Royal Institution of Australia.
There is another Adelaide connection with the Royal Institution of Great Britain. William Henry Bragg and his son William Lawrence Bragg were Adelaide physicists who, after returning to the UK, were both subsequently directors of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, the role currently held by Baroness Greenfield. The Braggs hold a unique place in Australia and world history as the only father and son ever to be awarded a Nobel Prize. Lawrence was just 25 years old when they were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1915, making him the youngest ever Nobel recipient. The Braggs’ contribution to science worldwide is celebrated in their home state of South Australia in many ways, including laboratories at the University of Adelaide and a state electorate both being named in their honour. South Australia has a strong scientific heritage through the contribution of people such as the Braggs, Howard Florey and Sir Douglas Mawson. The new Royal Institution of Australia will provide a permanent location to showcase this heritage and will display artifacts related to the Braggs and other items of relevance to the scientific heritage and contemporary achievements of scientists in South Australia and Australia. Science education and awareness is an area of need within our community, and I welcome the tax deductible status this bill delivers to the Royal Institution of Australia.
We face the most severe global economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. We have seen over 30 banks around the world collapse or bailed out by governments. We have seen major Western economies such as the US, UK, Germany and Japan fall into recession. We have seen economies around the world fall into negative growth and we are seeing governments around the world go into substantial debt as they inject money into their economies in order to support jobs and prevent their economies from plunging into deeper recession or further productivity losses.
Australia was not immune from the impacts of the global financial crisis and nor is it immune from the global economic downturn, because Australia is part of and operates in a global economy. What the Rudd government has done is to act quickly and decisively with measures that will cushion Australia from the full impacts of the global economic downturn. An article in today’s Advertiser shows how those measures are working in the restaurant business in South Australia:
South Australians spent a record $100 million in restaurants and cafes in March as diners defied the economic downturn.
The $100 million figure was $15.1 million more than March last year and almost $20 million more than we spent in each of the preceding two months, latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show.
Overall, in the six months to April, spending increased 3.8 per cent to $536.6 million compared with the same period last year ...
It is good news for the South Australian hospitality sector, which employs about 32,500 people, including 15,000 in restaurants and cafes.
That is clear evidence that the stimulus package which this government has embarked upon is having the desired effect of cushioning Australia against the global economic downturn. This bill is another in a series of measures the government has taken in order to support Australian jobs and the Australian economy—measures which are working and which have the support of most industry organisations and economic analysts.
The measures in this bill are particularly beneficial to Australia’s 1.9 million small businesses, which in turn employ nearly four million Australians and, as I have said on previous occasions, will be critical to Australia’s economic recovery and future prosperity. Many of these businesses are finding it tough right now. Their turnover has dropped and, whereas in the past they may have turned to their bank for temporary increases in their business overdraft, even that option has become more difficult because of the global credit squeeze. In fact, had the government not introduced the bank guarantee measures early on in the downturn, the situation for many Australian businesses would today be much more dire. It was another example of the Rudd government acting early and acting decisively.
Reducing the pay-as-you-go tax adjustment from around nine per cent to two per cent will assist businesses with much needed cash flow at a time when every bit of assistance helps. Pay-as-you-go provisions ensure that businesses pay income tax on a regular basis throughout the year. This is somewhat consistent—although not entirely consistent—with the requirement for wage earners to pay income tax as they earn their income throughout the year. The fundamental difference is that pay-as-you-go tax payments are based on the previous year’s income. In contrast to wage earners, business income can vary substantially from one year to the next. Particularly during this period of economic downturn, it is both realistic and fair to reduce the pay-as-you-go tax payments they are expected to make.
Businesses are not the only taxpayers who pay PAYG tax. Many self-funded retirees who derive an income from their investments are also required to pay PAYG tax. As a result of the global economic downturn, the income of self-funded retirees has also been savagely cut, in many cases by more than that of many businesses. Reducing the adjustment to two per cent will also provide some relief to them. In a similar vein, taxpayers who choose to remit GST payments annually will also be provided with a boost to their cash flow if they choose to make their PAYG payments annually.
I have spoken on other occasions about small businesses and the valuable role they play in job creation, skills training, innovation and economic growth. For most small businesses, it is always tough, even during good times. If business is going well, new competition inevitably springs up, greedy landlords impose steep rent increases or suppliers increase the costs of their products. On Sunday, 24 May 2009, the Australian Retailers Association released a statement relating to steep rent increases:
The Australian Retailers Association has called on the Rudd Government to bring retailers and landlords together at a Retail Tenancy Crisis roundtable to help restore the balance in leasing negotiation and break the retail code of silence.
ARA’s Executive Director Richard Evans said the ARA had called on Federal Ministers Craig Emerson and Chris Bowen to step in and facilitate an environment where retailers, who often remain tight-lipped about unviable leasing conditions, are provided a platform to voice their concerns.
And this is the critical point:
‘Many retailers, particularly smaller retailers, subscribe to an unwritten law to remain silent about spiralling occupancy costs and unfair leasing conditions out of fear they will be penalised by self-serving landlords who can refuse to renew their lease,’ Evans said.
On that very issue, it was only two weeks ago that I was approached by a person who advocates on behalf of small business operators in shopping centres. He spoke to me about that very crisis which tenants in a particular shopping centre were facing—huge hikes in rent, no option but to pay the rent or lose their investment, and being treated in a way which none of us would believe to be fair and reasonable. He was looking for assistance as to how we might be able to help.
Those are some of the issues which small business people currently face. As I said earlier, it does not matter whether it is good times or bad, they are doing it tough. That is what makes them very special. Small business operators are accustomed to doing it tough. They know how to get through hard times. Small business operators endure hardship from the day they set up their businesses. As someone who has been in small business for most of my life, I have associated with small business people and can speak not only from personal experience but from the many conversations and discussions I have had with small business people, particularly in Makin, the area I represent.
These are extraordinarily tough times for small business. The Rudd government recognises that and has responded with a suite of direct and indirect measures that will support businesses throughout the nation. Direct benefits to small business include the 50 per cent tax concession for asset purchases and the extension of that concession until December 2009 for businesses with a turnover of $2 million; $10 million for a small business support line; a further $10 million for an online small business support service; and the cutting of December PAYG instalments by 20 per cent. These measures will directly assist with cash flow to help small business to remain viable during these very difficult times. On top of that, we have seen the funding of small business advisory centres around the country and business enterprise centres. We are also right now considering a proposal to support motor vehicle financing. This again is a proposal which undoubtedly will be a direct benefit for the many small businesses around this country.
All of those measures will make a direct difference to the ability of businesses to remain viable during these very tough times. But the biggest support that the Rudd government has provided to small business around the country is through the budget announced last week and through the stimulus packages announced prior to that. The Rudd government is investing in 20,000 housing units around the country and increasing the First Home Owner Grant to $21,000 for newly constructed homes and $14,000 for other homes. There is the school modernisation program, which affects the 9,540 schools around Australia. There is the home insulation program, where up to 2.7 million homes around the country will be eligible for free insulation. There are all of the national infrastructure projects, in addition to the $22 billion worth of infrastructure projects that were announced in last week’s budget. All of these measures will have a direct stimulus effect on small business because the prime beneficiaries will be locally based businesses here in Australia, the 1.9 million small businesses that I referred to earlier in this speech.
This proposal will provide an additional $720 million of cash flow to the small business sector in this country. It will support up to 1.5 million taxpayers across Australia, 1.3 million of those being small business people. It is the kind of proposal that makes a difference to their viability, it is the kind of proposal that is needed in these tough times and it is the kind of proposal that I have no doubt is welcomed by the small business sector across the country. I commend the bill to the House.
4415
20:10:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009. I will be giving most of my attention to schedule 4 of the bill, which lists three new organisations as deductible gift recipients, or DGRs. I will also make some mention of schedules 1, 2 and 3 because they are very important reforms, particularly for the small business sector. In my electorate of Page there are more than 11,000 registered small business operators—and that is a rough figure; we know there are a lot more than that.
Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the pay as you go tax instalment system. The government will reduce PAYG instalments in 2009-10 for taxpayers who pay quarterly instalments on the basis of the GDP adjusted notional tax method by setting the GDP adjustment at two per cent. This reduction will provide around $720 million of cash-flow benefits to small businesses, self-funded retirees and other eligible taxpayers by ensuring that their PAYG instalments more closely approximate their actual income tax liability for 2009-10. The reduction will also provide a further economic stimulus to support Australian jobs, because taxpayers will have the use of around $720 million that would otherwise be overpaid tax. This is one of the issues that small businesses frequently complain about. So I welcome the change, and it is a good that the government is introducing it.
Schedule 2 relates to annual PAYG instalments when taxpayers are voluntarily registered for GST. The introduction of the annual GST payments in 2004 without a change in the annual PAYG instalment conditions at that time has created a misalignment between the PAYG and GST instalment systems. Some annual GST payers are prevented from making annual PAYG instalments solely because of their voluntary GST registration. This imposes unnecessary compliance costs on these taxpayers—and that is the last thing we want, particularly in these times. These amendments will allow taxpayers to choose to make PAYG instalments annually when they are voluntarily registered for GST and meet the other eligibility test for annual PAYG instalments. This will reduce the compliance costs for eligible taxpayers. The amendments will apply in relation to instalments for income years starting after 30 June 2009.
Schedule 3 introduces a functional currency rule to the petroleum resources rent tax, or PRRT. This will reduce compliance costs for taxpayers, which is again a welcome change. It introduces a modified look-back rule for exploration expenditure related to a production licence derived from an exploration permit and a retention lease. It introduces internal petroleum provisions similar to the external petroleum provisions and provides certainty by establishing rules for internal petroleum. It extends the offshore exploration incentive for designated frontier areas by one year so that it applies to the 2009 annual offshore acreage release. That will help encourage exploration of frontier areas for another year, until the release of the Australia’s Future Tax System review and the energy white paper.
Schedule 4, the deductible gift recipients—the DGR—lists a number of new organisations. One of them that I will talk about in some detail is Diplomacy Training Program Ltd. I declared an interest of support, knowledge and involvement with the DTP over many years—since its inception about 20 years ago—and I advocated the listing of the DTP to the responsible minister. Of course, Diplomacy Training Program Ltd had to pass all the tests because it is the tax office who makes the call on it, and they have deemed it to be eligible. The Diplomacy Training Progam visited our parliament last year and attended a session with the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. They do a number of things and they have an annual training program where they bring people from the Asia-Pacific region—our region—together for a three- or four-week training program. That is what they did. They were here in Canberra and they came and met the committee and the chairs of the respective subcommittees. It was such a success that everybody—that is, the members of parliament who serve on the committee—deemed that they wanted to do it again next year. For some of the program members it was the first time that they had been able to come into a parliament, into a democratic space, and actually meet with members of parliament. Some of them said that it was amazing that they were able to do that.
I will give a brief history of the Diplomacy Training Program. It is an independent, not-for-profit association affiliated with the University of New South Wales. It was founded by Nobel Peace Laureate and President of Timor-Leste, Jose Ramos-Horta, hence some of my involvement and early working with the Diplomacy Training Program. It has a board of directors who are very eminent people in Australian life. I ask to incorporate the list of current board of directors into my speech.
Leave granted.
The list read as follows:
Current Board of Directors
-
Emeritus Professor Paul Redmond (Chair) BA LLB LLM - Faculty of Law, UNSW
-
Mr Philip Chung BEc LLB—Executive Director, Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII)
-
Associate Professor Andrea Durbach, Director, Australian Human Rights Centre, UNSW
-
Emeritus Professor Garth Nettheim LLB MA AO —Faculty of Law, UNSW
-
Dr John Pace BA LLD —Former Secretary, UN Commision on Human Rights, Geneva
-
Dr Sarah Pritchard BA LLB LLM —Barrister at Law
-
Ms Louise Sylvan BA MPA —Deputy Chair, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
-
Roewen Wishart, Development Manager, Australian Bush Heritage Fund
-
Professor Andrew Byrnes, Associate Dean, Faculty of Law, UNSW
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—I thank the opposition for that. The DTP provides training for representatives of non-government organisations in the Asia-Pacific region on human rights, good governance and the rule of law. Since its inception almost 20 years ago, more than 1,400 people have participated in DTP programs from a range of countries, including East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Burma, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and many more. Several participants have also been elected or appointed to senior government positions in East Timor, Malaysia and Australia since graduating from DTP programs, so it is an organisation well worth supporting. With that contribution, I commend the bill to the House and I thank the responsible minister.
4417
20:18:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
0
Ms PARKE
—I am pleased to rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009. Amongst other measures, this bill provides for the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation to be listed for deductible gift recipient status. The Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation’s ship, the Leeuwin, is a Fremantle icon, and the ship can regularly be seen sailing in and out of Fremantle port and along the beautiful Western Australian coastline. The mission of the foundation is to challenge and inspire young people to realise their personal potential and make a positive contribution to the wider community through the unique medium of a tall sailing ship. It is this dedication to providing a leadership and community building experience for young Western Australians that makes the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation such a worthy recipient of deductible gift recipient status.
The Leeuwin was launched in August 1986 and it is still sailing today. The ship has over 810 square metres of sail and is 55 metres long, which makes it the largest operating vessel of its kind in Australasian waters. Since being built, over 22,000 young people have benefited from participating in the Leeuwin’s sail training voyages. My brother Aaron is one such person who was a grateful participant and I remember well the joyful recounting of his 10-day challenging adventure on the Leeuwin, which included climbing up masts, setting sails and standing watch as part of a team of young people. The Leeuwin foundation provides a window into Fremantle’s vital port history by providing the opportunity for young Australians to sail on an 1850s style sailing ship.
The seed funding to make the Leeuwin foundation a reality came from the Commonwealth, the West Australian state government, businesses and community groups. What is more, many West Australians made personal donations towards its construction. I am pleased that people can now donate tax-free to the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation, which will encourage donations and help maintain the Leeuwin foundation’s donor base during the current global recession. This will be very helpful, for instance, with the Leeuwin foundation’s attempts to obtain funding for a talking compass, an instrument that repeats the compass course via a speaker so that a helmsman with visual limitations can con the ship as well as anyone.
Aside from the support represented by the granting of deductible gift recipient status, the Rudd government has also supported the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation through a volunteer grant in the latest round. The foundation received $20,000 to assist the large volunteer base who help keep the Leeuwin sailing. Specifically this grant will assist in reimbursing volunteers for some of the fuel costs which they incur as a result of their dedication to the Leeuwin.
The community engagement of the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation is evident in all the tasks they undertake. The ship does not just service the metropolitan area; it regularly travels as far south as Esperance and as far north as Darwin and stops along the way at Geraldton, Monkey Mia, Exmouth, Dampier, Port Hedland and Broome. When in these ports the local community are able to participate in voyages, making the Leeuwin an asset for all of Western Australia and even the Northern Territory. One example of how the Leeuwin voyages give back to the community is a voyage by the WA Navy cadets earlier this year, where the cadets stopped at Rottnest Island to participate in revegetation and clean-up projects that help preserve the fragile ecosystem of Rottnest Island.
The work of the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation is similar in spirit to that of other organisations listed in the tax act, including Ian Thorpe’s Fountain for Youth Ltd, the Clontarf Foundation and the Spirit of Australia Foundation. The Young Endeavour Youth Scheme, which does similar work to the Leeuwin foundation, has been listed for many years and I am pleased that the work of the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation and its crew has been similarly recognised. The Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation contributes greatly to the West Australian community through its programs for young Indigenous people from the north of Australia, its programs for school students and its voyages for young people with disabilities. The contribution of the Leeuwin foundation to the broader Australian community includes running programs with schools from other states and even the international community, as demonstrated by their work with the United World College in Singapore.
The Leeuwin youth explorer voyages are recognised by the West Australian Curriculum Council as an endorsed program for the WA certificate of education for students in years 10, 11 and 12. This recognises that students who participate in Leeuwin voyages gain valuable life skills in areas like self-esteem, goal setting, communication and teamwork and a sense of community.
I note the member for Curtin’s ongoing support for the Leeuwin foundation, and I am sure that she and her constituents will be pleased with the government’s support for this listing. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation in earning this listing. In particular I acknowledge the work of Carol Shannon, John Murray, Malcolm Hay, Terry Baker and the captain of the Leeuwin, Chris Blake. I especially want to thank the Assistant Treasurer, Chris Bowen, for his visit to Fremantle last year, where he acknowledged the important contribution the Leeuwin foundation makes to the lives of young Australians, many of whom are disadvantaged, and for his valuable contribution to the decision to grant the Leeuwin foundation deductible gift recipient status. I am pleased to be part of the Rudd Labor government, which has provided such support for this very deserving not-for-profit community foundation.
4418
20:23:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—in reply—I thank all members who participated in this debate. The pay-as-you-go amendment contained in schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 will provide a substantial cash flow benefit to small business, self-funded retirees and other eligible taxpayers. This amendment sets the GDP adjustment for the 2009-10 income year at two per cent for taxpayers who pay quarterly PAYG instalments on the basis of the GDP-adjusted notional tax method. This will be an important initiative in this very difficult time for cash flow for small business in particular and it joins the general and small business tax break that the government has embarked upon as part of the government’s support for small business in these very difficult times.
The amendment in schedule 2 of the bill will allow taxpayers who are voluntarily registered for goods and services tax who choose to remit the GST annually to also choose to make their PAYG income tax instalments annually, provided they satisfy the other eligible tests for annual PAYG instalments. The amendments will reduce the compliance costs for eligible taxpayers by addressing the misalignment between PAYG and GST instalment systems.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to implement four minor measures, on which I will not detain the House. Schedule 4 amends the list of deductible gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Division 30 of the tax act sets out the requirements for organisations to be granted DGR status. Organisations with DGR status can collect tax deductible gifts. Organisations must either fit under one of the existing DGR categories or must be specifically listed under these provisions. This schedule specifically lists the Royal Institution of Australia Inc., the Diplomacy Training Program Ltd and the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation Ltd.
I am very pleased that the members for Page and Fremantle were able to contribute to this debate. The member for Page was instrumental in convincing me of the benefits of the Diplomacy Training initiative, something I am sure the member for Fremantle would also support, given her extensive background in the area. The member for Fremantle, as the honourable member indicated, was very active in lobbying on behalf of the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation and took the opportunity when I visited Fremantle to introduce me to the board of directors and senior management. I had a range of questions about the services that were available to disadvantaged youth in particular and I found their case very compelling. As the honourable member for Fremantle indicated, there are a number of precedents for this listing and I was more than happy to support it through this legislation. She deserves the acknowledgement of the House for her tireless efforts on behalf of the Leeuwin Ocean Adventure Foundation.
Taxpayers can of course claim income tax deductions for certain gifts to organisations with DGR status. DGR status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities. Again, in these very difficult times where donations are drying up, DGR status is of vital importance to many instrumentalities and I am glad we have been able to extend it to these three organisations. 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.
4419
20:28:00
Main Committee adjourned at 8.28 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
4420
Questions in Writing
Commonwealth Department: Operating Loss
4420
4420
445
4420
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr Hockey
asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in writing, on 1 December 2008:
-
Did he approve any departments and agencies to budget for an operating loss in the 2007-08 financial year; if so,
-
which departments and agencies, and
-
what reasons did each provide for the operating loss?
-
Did any departments and agencies have an operating loss in the 2007-08 financial year that was not approved to budget by the (then) Minister for Finance and Administration; if so,
-
which departments and agencies, and
-
what reasons did each provide for the operating loss?
-
Has he approved any departments and agencies to budget for an operating loss in the 2008-09 financial year; if so,
-
which departments and agencies, and
-
what reasons did each provide for needing to budget for an operating loss during this period?
-
Has he not approved any requests from departments and agencies to budget for an operating loss in the 2008-09 financial year; if so,
-
which departments and agencies, and
-
what were his reasons for not approving each request to operate at a loss during this period?
-
For every Government portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year, what sum of money was returned to budget following underspends in programs?
-
From December 2007 to June 2008, what sum of depreciation funding was used for recurrent spending by departments and agencies?
-
For the 2008-09 Budget, how many policy proposals were costed by the Budget Group of his department; and what was the average length of time spent by Budget Group officers on costing each policy proposal for this period?
-
From 1 January to 30 June 2008, how much time off in lieu was accrued by staff in the Budget Group of his department?
-
In the 2007-08 financial year, what sum of non-taxation revenue was collected from outside the general government sector, and then subsequently spent by departments and agencies under section 31 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act)?
-
What decisions were too late for inclusion in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008-09 (MYEFO) individual agency estimates and were instead included in the Contingency Reserve (MYEFO 2008-09, page 68)?
-
What is the effect on the Budget and Forward Estimates of economic parameter revisions received late in the preparation of the MYEFO 2008-09; and which were not available to be allocated to individual agencies or functions (Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008-09, page 68)?
-
What provision has been made in the Contingency Reserve of the MYEFO 2008-09 for future increases in Australia’s official development assistance?
-
Which events that were reasonably expected to affect the Budget Estimates were included in the Contingency Reserve in the MYEFO 2008-09 instead of being allocated to individual programs (Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008-09, page 68); and what sum of money was allocated for each of these events?
-
Is there any provision in the Contingency Reserve for any expenditure for the Commonwealth in relation to the emissions trading scheme; if so, what sum of money has been made available?
4421
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr Tanner
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
I approved 34 entities to budget for an operating loss in 2007-08 compared to 15 entities in 2006-07. The reasons for the approvals in 2007-08 were (see explanations of reasons* below):
Department/Agency
Reason for Loss
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Other
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Other
Export Wheat Commission
Other
Land and Water Australia
Timing
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Higher net expenditure, Accounting
Federal Court of Australia
One-off costs, Accounting
Australian Crime Commission
Timing
Australian Federal Police
Accounting, Timing
Attorney-General's Department
Timing
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
One-off costs
Australian War Memorial
Accounting
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
One-off costs
Film Australia
Accounting
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Higher net expenditure
Director of National Parks
Timing
Australian Film Commission
Timing, Other
Australia Council
Timing
Indigenous Land Corporation
Timing
Office of Commonwealth Ombudsman
Timing
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency
Timing
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Timing
Cancer Australia
Higher net expenditure
Australian Sports Commission
One-off costs
Private Health Insurance Administration Council
Timing
Department of Health and Ageing
Higher net expenditure
Centrelink
Other
Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services Australia
Other
Department of Human Services
Timing
Medicare Australia
Other
Australian National Audit Office
Timing
Australian Public Service Commission
Accounting
Australian Taxation Office
One-off costs
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Accounting
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Higher net expenditure
* Explanation of reasons:
Timing - Losses usually resulting from differences in timing between revenue and expenses - for example, an agency may have been asked to perform additional duties to be funded in another financial year.
Accounting - Adjustments to non-cash expenses due to accounting treatments such as revaluations, write-downs or recalculation of accrued employee entitlements or depreciation are classified under this category.
One-Off Costs – These are losses resulting from one-off factors, such as the spending of cash reserves to fund new systems or office relocation costs.
Higher net expenditure (financial health) – These losses may be due to a number of factors and are likely to be an indicator that the erosion of equity will continue in the future.
Other – Losses that do not fit into the above four categories. This may include reasons such as lower than budgeted income (eg a reduction in the total amount of levies collected from industry as a result of the drought), or higher than expected costs.
-
Yes. The following departments and agencies incurred operating losses in 2007-08 without my prior approval for the following reasons:
Department/Agency
Reason for Loss
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Higher net expenditure
Austrade
Higher net expenditure
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Other
Child Support Agency
Higher net expenditure
General Practice Education and Training Limited
Other
-
Yes. As at 18 March 2008, I had approved the following departments and agencies to budget for operating losses in the 2008-09 financial year for the following reasons:
Department/Agency
Reason for Loss
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Other
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Other
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
One-off costs
Australian Transactions Report and Analysis Centre
One-off costs
Federal Court of Australia
One-off costs, Accounting
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Timing
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
Timing, accounting
Geoscience Australia
Timing
Department of Transport and Regional Services
Other
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Accounting
Australia Council
Timing
National Museum of Australia
Timing
Australian Public Service Commission
Accounting
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Other
-
Yes. I did not approve requests from two agencies to budget for operating losses for the following reasons:
Agency
Reason
Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC)
As approval would have locked in higher than sustainable expenses, it was suggested that a more appropriate funding structure be sought.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)
As a large percentage of AIHW's revenue comes from the provision of services to predominantly government agencies, it was suggested that a reassessment of cost of services and levels of services provided be undertaken.
-
For the 2007-08 financial year, I have adjusted the appropriations available to agencies pursuant to section 8 (1) of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2007-08 and have withheld the issuing of a total amount of $3.2 billion, spread among various agencies. This amount represents annual administered appropriations which remained unexpensed at the end of the 2007-08 financial year and has effectively been returned to the budget.
-
It is generally not possible for a department or agency to use depreciation funding to increase other operating expenses above budgeted levels without incurring an operating loss. One of the key controls in the budget framework is the limits on the capacity of agencies to budget for, and incur, operating losses. The framework does not allow an agency to budget for a loss without seeking the approval of the Finance Minister. This process is one of the ways that the Department and the Finance Minister are able to examine an agency’s financial situation, including any indication that agencies are not overspending on the amount of recurrent funding they have received.
In terms of expenditure, agencies are currently funded for depreciation as well as other operating costs and such funding is appropriated as a single amount for each entity. Each dollar of funding is not, however, separately tracked to determine the specific accounting line to which it relates. Nevertheless, as part of the accountability and transparency of their operations, agencies are required to prepare financial statements on an annual basis and include detailed data such as cash flow by item as well as a breakdown of depreciation expenses.
-
Neither the number of policy proposals costed by Budget Group nor the average length of time spent by relevant officers on costing each policy proposal for the 2008-09 Budget are statistics that are recorded by my Department.
-
Budget Group staff accrued a total of 5,056 hours of formal Time Off In Lieu (TOIL) from 1 January to 30 June 2008. Formal TOIL reflects those additional hours of work which are formally approved by managers and entered into a central Finance records system. Managers may also provide informal TOIL but Finance holds no central records of informal TOIL hours.
-
The amount of revenue spent by agencies pursuant to section 31 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 is not collected centrally. However, this information is available for each agency in their financial statements.
-
The Contingency Reserve (CR) includes Government decisions if they occur late in the process, and are reasonably expected to affect the budget estimates but cannot be reliably allocated to individual programs. Such estimates are included in the CR but are not published separately. This reflects the fact that disclosure of specific amounts could jeopardise the integrity of commercial-in-confidence or national security-in-confidence items included in the CR.
-
The CR includes economic parameter revisions if they occur late in the process, and are reasonably expected to affect the budget estimates but cannot be reliably allocated to individual programs. Such estimates are included in the CR but are not published separately. This reflects the fact that disclosure of specific amounts could jeopardise the integrity of commercial-in-confidence or national security-in-confidence items included in the CR.
-
The provisions in the CR for Official Development Assistance (ODA) are consistent with the Government target of achieving its target of ODA being 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income by 2015-16. The proportions relating to each of the forward estimates were published on pages 6-7 and 6-8 of Budget Paper No. 1 2008-09. Relevant amounts will be transferred from the CR into agency estimates following Government decisions to provide new funding to implement ODA eligible measures.
-
The CR makes provision for events that are reasonably expected to affect the budget estimates but cannot be reliably allocated to individual programs. Amounts allocated to those items in the CR are not typically published individually. This reflects the fact that disclosure of specific amounts could jeopardise the integrity of commercial-in-confidence or national security-in-confidence items included in the CR.
As indicated on page 68 of MYEFO 2008-09, an example of an event reasonably expected to affect the budget estimates is the continuation of the Government’s support for the Northern Territory Emergency Response beyond 2008-09.
-
No. As at 1 December 2008, there was no provision in the CR for any expenditure relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Attorney-General’s: Moncrieff Electorate
4424
4424
582
4424
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 February 2009:
In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009:
-
which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from his Department;
-
what some of funding did each organisation and project receive; and
-
for what purpose was each funding commitment made.
4424
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McClelland
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details of organisations and projects that were funded by the Attorney-General’s Department in the Moncrieff Electorate between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009 are set out in the below table;
Project and/or Organisation
Total Funding
Purpose of Funding
Gold Coast Legal Service (and Citizens Advice Bureau) *
$409,312
Community Legal Services Program. To provide legal assistance services to disadvantaged members of the community, including those with disabilities.
Gold Coast City Council
$32,000
Natural Disaster Mitigation Program, Storm Tide Decision Support System. For the development of a visually-based, adaptable software tool to assist in emergency management planning for, and identification and evacuation of at-risk populations during, storm tide events.
Benowa State High School P&C Association **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project installs security mesh window screens to the business education building of the Benowa State High School. This crime prevention measure will act as a deterrent and protect the investment in technology.
Broadbeach Junior AFL Football Club **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project will provide a CCTV system to deter vandalism of Broadbeach Junior AFL club facilities and deter petty crime during games.
Broadbeach Kindergarten **
$4,026
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project will install a CCTV system at the Broadbeach Kindergarten to deter and record crime at the site.
Broadbeach State School P&C Association **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. The project will install a CCTV system to monitor the boundaries of Broadbeach State School.
Broadbeach Surf Life Saving Club Inc. **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project purchases lockers to store valuables to keep club members' property safe whilst they do beach and water patrols.
Chevron Island Village Incorporating Cronin Island **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project procures equipment to provide the means to initiate and complete a consultative study, with educational materials and electronic seminars between out community and authorities, on feasible, effective and efficient crime prevention measures for the community.
Combined Martial Arts Academy Social Club **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project purchases a microphone and speakers, a laptop, kick shields and wave masters. The equipment will be used to conduct self defence seminars and workshops for the community.
Croatian Sports Centre Gold Coast Inc **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project installs a security system to the Croatian Sports Centre. This crime prevention measure is aimed at discouraging criminal and unruly behaviour.
Gold Coast Pistol Club LTD **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project provides a reliable and consistent power source to the security system that will overcome nuisance tripping and power outages. The aim of the project is to prevent the number of occurrences of security system failures.
Southport Pony & Hack Club **
$2,500
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project installs sensor lighting to illuminate the Southport Pony & Hack Club car parking area, where there have been thefts from vehicles. Secondly the project allows for a qualified self defence coach to facilitate an educational self defence workshop on Club grounds for the participation of the Club's women and children to equip them with basic self defence skills.
Transformation Ministries International Limited **
$2,045
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. The organisation would like to incorporate recreational activities such as camping, boating and fishing into the Transformational Ministries Rehabilitation program, to help divert individuals from drug taking and crime. This project purchases an outboard motor to enable these activities.
Centacare Brisbane ***
$2.85 million
Family Relationship Centre. The centre is a source of information and confidential advice for families at all stages in their life. Where families separate, the centre provides information, advice and dispute resolution (such as mediation) to help people reach agreement on parenting arrangements without going to court.
Centacare Brisbane ***
$0.14 million
Supporting Children after Separation. The program assists children from separating families to deal with issues arising from the breakdown in their parents’ relationship and to participate in decisions that impact on them.
Foundations Child and Family Support Ltd. ***
$0.47 million
Children’s Contact Centre. The centre assists children of separated parents to have contact, establish and maintain a relationship, with their other parent and family members. The services provide a safe place to assist parents with the change over of children and supervised contact where appropriate.
Foundations Child and Family Support Ltd. ***
$0.66 million
Parenting Orders Program. The program assists separating families in high conflict over parenting arrangements. It involves a case worker intensively managing parents and getting them to understand the effect their conflict is having on their children. Family members, including children, can receive a range of services such as counselling, mediation and group work education as part of this program.
Relationships Australia Queensland (RAQ) ***
$3.89 million for Qld ****
Family Dispute Resolution. This is a process conducted by an independent practitioner/s to assist members of families, including separated families, to resolve their disputes. Examples of family dispute resolution processes are mediation and conciliation. Family dispute resolution services can help separating families resolve disputes as an alternative to going to court.
Relationships Australia Queensland (RAQ) ***
Centacare Brisbane ***
$2.95 million for Qld ****
$0.55 million for Qld ****
Family Counselling. Professional counsellors assist individuals, couples and families, including separating families, to resolve relationship issues that arise at various stages of their relationships.
* The Community Legal Services Program provides funding on a financial year basis. The figure above includes financial year funding for 2007–08, 2008–09 and for one-off funding provided in June 2008.
** Grants were announced by the then Minister for Justice and Customs on 5 September 2007. Contracts were then formed with the Organisations over the next three months, with payments being finalised soon after.
*** Funding for organisations is the total over the two full financial years.
**** RAQ and Centacare Brisbane are funded under Family Relationship Services Program to provide a range of family services. In the Moncrieff electorate, RAQ has an outlet at Mermaid Beach, Centacare Brisbane has an outlet at Clear Island Waters. There is no information available to determine the attribution of funding allocation directly to the electorate for family dispute resolution as funding is provided for the whole of Queensland.
Attorney-General’s: Moncrieff Electorate
4427
4427
589
4427
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 10 February 2009:
In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009:
-
which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from the Minister’s department;
-
what some of funding did each organisation and project receive; and
-
for what purpose was each funding commitment made.
4427
Debus, Bob, MP
8IS
Macquarie
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
Mr Debus
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details of organisations and projects that were funded by the Attorney-General’s Department in the Moncrieff Electorate between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009 are set out in the below table;
Project and/or Organisation
Total Funding
Purpose of Funding
Gold Coast Legal Service (and Citizens Advice Bureau) *
$409,312
Community Legal Services Program. To provide legal assistance services to disadvantaged members of the community, including those with disabilities.
Gold Coast City Council
$32,000
Natural Disaster Mitigation Program, Storm Tide Decision Support System. For the development of a visually-based, adaptable software tool to assist in emergency management planning for, and identification and evacuation of at-risk populations during, storm tide events.
Benowa State High School P&C Association **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project installs security mesh window screens to the business education building of the Benowa State High School. This crime prevention measure will act as a deterrent and protect the investment in technology.
Broadbeach Junior AFL Football Club **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project will provide a CCTV system to deter vandalism of Broadbeach Junior AFL club facilities and deter petty crime during games.
Broadbeach Kindergarten **
$4,026
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project will install a CCTV system at the Broadbeach Kindergarten to deter and record crime at the site.
Broadbeach State School P&C Association **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. The project will install a CCTV system to monitor the boundaries of Broadbeach State School.
Broadbeach Surf Life Saving Club Inc. **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project purchases lockers to store valuables to keep club members' property safe whilst they do beach and water patrols.
Chevron Island Village Incorporating Cronin Island **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project procures equipment to provide the means to initiate and complete a consultative study, with educational materials and electronic seminars between out community and authorities, on feasible, effective and efficient crime prevention measures for the community.
Combined Martial Arts Academy Social Club **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project purchases a microphone and speakers, a laptop, kick shields and wave masters. The equipment will be used to conduct self defence seminars and workshops for the community.
Croatian Sports Centre Gold Coast Inc **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project installs a security system to the Croatian Sports Centre. This crime prevention measure is aimed at discouraging criminal and unruly behaviour.
Gold Coast Pistol Club LTD **
$5,000
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project provides a reliable and consistent power source to the security system that will overcome nuisance tripping and power outages. The aim of the project is to prevent the number of occurrences of security system failures.
Southport Pony & Hack Club **
$2,500
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. This project installs sensor lighting to illuminate the Southport Pony & Hack Club car parking area, where there have been thefts from vehicles. Secondly the project allows for a qualified self defence coach to facilitate an educational self defence workshop on Club grounds for the participation of the Club's women and children to equip them with basic self defence skills.
Transformation Ministries International Limited **
$2,045
National Community Crime Prevention Programme Small Grant. The organisation would like to incorporate recreational activities such as camping, boating and fishing into the Transformational Ministries Rehabilitation program, to help divert individuals from drug taking and crime. This project purchases an outboard motor to enable these activities.
Centacare Brisbane ***
$2.85 million
Family Relationship Centre. The centre is a source of information and confidential advice for families at all stages in their life. Where families separate, the centre provides information, advice and dispute resolution (such as mediation) to help people reach agreement on parenting arrangements without going to court.
Centacare Brisbane ***
$0.14 million
Supporting Children after Separation. The program assists children from separating families to deal with issues arising from the breakdown in their parents’ relationship and to participate in decisions that impact on them.
Foundations Child and Family Support Ltd. ***
$0.47 million
Children’s Contact Centre. The centre assists children of separated parents to have contact, establish and maintain a relationship, with their other parent and family members. The services provide a safe place to assist parents with the change over of children and supervised contact where appropriate.
Foundations Child and Family Support Ltd. ***
$0.66 million
Parenting Orders Program. The program assists separating families in high conflict over parenting arrangements. It involves a case worker intensively managing parents and getting them to understand the effect their conflict is having on their children. Family members, including children, can receive a range of services such as counselling, mediation and group work education as part of this program.
Relationships Australia Queensland (RAQ) ***
$3.89 million for Qld ****
Family Dispute Resolution. This is a process conducted by an independent practitioner/s to assist members of families, including separated families, to resolve their disputes. Examples of family dispute resolution processes are mediation and conciliation. Family dispute resolution services can help separating families resolve disputes as an alternative to going to court.
Relationships Australia Queensland (RAQ) ***
Centacare Brisbane ***
$2.95 million for Qld ****
$0.55 million for Qld ****
Family Counselling. Professional counsellors assist individuals, couples and families, including separating families, to resolve relationship issues that arise at various stages of their relationships.
* The Community Legal Services Program provides funding on a financial year basis. The figure above includes financial year funding for 2007–08, 2008–09 and for one-off funding provided in June 2008.
** Grants were announced by the then Minister for Justice and Customs on 5 September 2007. Contracts were then formed with the Organisations over the next three months, with payments being finalised soon after.
*** Funding for organisations is the total over the two full financial years.
**** RAQ and Centacare Brisbane are funded under Family Relationship Services Program to provide a range of family services. In the Moncrieff electorate, RAQ has an outlet at Mermaid Beach, Centacare Brisbane has an outlet at Clear Island Waters. There is no information available to determine the attribution of funding allocation directly to the electorate for family dispute resolution as funding is provided for the whole of Queensland.
Small Business
4431
4431
659, 660 and 661
4431
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion, in writing, on 19 March 2009:
-
From 3 December 2007 to 19 March 2009:
-
how many and what percentage of payments made by the Minister's department to small businesses were not made within
-
30 and;
-
60 days of receipt of the goods or services and an invoice; and
-
what was the average time lapsed between invoice received and payments made by the Minister's department to small businesses.
4431
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms Gillard
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations does not separately identify payments to small business. The data in the table provided below reflects payments to all departmental suppliers, including those made to small business for invoices valued up to and including $5 million.
For the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008, the Department paid 47,550 invoices (97.34 per cent of invoices) within 30 days of receipt.
For the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008, the Department paid 810 invoices (2.11 per cent of invoices) within 30 – 60 days.
For the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008, the Department paid 270 invoices (0.55 per cent of invoices) after 60 days.
Paid within 30 days
Paid within 31-44 days
Paid within 45-60 days
Not paid within 60 days
Total
1 July 2007 - 30 June 2008
(paid on time)
(up to 14 days late)
(up to 30 days late)
(30 days late)
Number of invoices (‘000)*
47.55
0.81
0.22
0.27
48.85
% of invoices by number
97.34
1.66
0.45
0.55
100%
Value of invoices ($ '000)*
434,319.5
6,665.29
1,355.65
2,375.36
444,715.80
% invoices by value
97.66
1.50
0.30
0.53
100%
Small Business
4431
4431
665 and 666
4431
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 19 March 2009:
-
From 3 December 2007 to 19 March 2009:
-
how many and what percentage of payments made by the Minister’s department to small businesses were not made within
-
30, and
-
60 days of receipt of the goods or services and an invoice; and
(b) what was the average time lapsed between invoice received and payments made by the Minister’s department to small businesses.
4432
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Stephen Smith
—on behalf of the Minister for Trade and me, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The period covered in the response to part (a) is the period of the last survey ie. 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008:
-
620 payments (4.57% of payments made to small businesses) were not made within 30 days; and of these
-
120 payments (0.88% of payments made to small businesses) were not made within 60 days.
-
the average time lapsed between invoice received and payments made to small businesses was 18 days.
Attorney-General’s: Moncrieff Electorate
4432
4432
688
4432
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 12 May 2009:
In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009:
-
which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from the Minister’s department;
-
what sum of funding did each organisation and project receive; and (c) for what purpose was each funding commitment made.
4432
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McClelland
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in response to Question in Writing No 582 and the Minister for Home Affairs’ response to Question in Writing No 592.