2010-06-01
42
1
8
REPS
0
0
2010-06-01
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.00 pm and read prayers.
CONDOLENCES
4739
Condolences
Mr Urquhart Edward ‘Ted’ Innes
4739
4739
14:01:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House of the death on Friday, 28 May 2010 of Urquhart Edward ‘Ted’ Innes, a member of this House for the division of Melbourne from 1972 to 1983. As a mark of respect to the memory of Ted Innes, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the House.
PRIME MINISTER
4739
Motions
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
4739
4739
14:02:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving the following motion forthwith:
“That this House suspend proceedings forthwith so that the Prime Minister can be called and speak (for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, to be followed by the Leader of the Opposition for the same time) to allow the Prime Minister to defend himself against the serious charge of misleading the House. In particular, for the Prime Minister’s claim that the great big new tax on mining has not impacted the financial markets and that his taxpayer funded ad campaign is a counter measure to mining industry misinformation when:
-
a secret Cabinet letter from the Treasurer dated almost three weeks ago and released overnight reveals that “the government’s tax reforms…impact on financial markets, particularly the financial returns of mining companies, in a number of ways”; and
-
the fact that the Prime Minister’s decision to spend 38 million dollars on a taxpayer funded ad campaign was signed off by his own Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee on 20 April, well before the Henry Review was released and weeks before the mining industry rolled out their first ads.”
We are now on day 5 of—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
Government members interjecting—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—They are not trying to hide the Prime Minister. They are not trying to protect him from this motion, surely.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:04:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
14:08:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
81
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.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
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.
McMullan, R.F.
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.
Zappia, A.
62
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
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.
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.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the original motion seconded?
4740
14:09:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I second the motion. The Prime Minister is running away from his own promises and he does not want to face—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:10:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
14:11:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
81
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.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
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.
McMullan, R.F.
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.
Zappia, A.
62
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
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.
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.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to.
14:13:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
61
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
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.
Neville, P.C.
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.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
81
NOES
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.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
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.
McMullan, R.F.
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.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
4742
14:16:00
Questions Without Notice
Budget
4742
14:16:00
4742
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to correspondence released last night between the Treasurer and the Special Minister of State which shows that the Prime Minister and his senior ministers were planning an advertising ambush of the resources sector well before the announcement of its great big new tax on mining. I ask: how can the government claim last Friday that we are in a national emergency when its $38 million advertising campaign has been planned for months? How can the Prime Minister assert that the tax has not impacted on the finance markets when the Treasurer says that it has? And how can he assert that he was truthful in the parliament last week when he has been contradicted by his own ministers?
4742
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who was one of the greatest users and abusers of public advertising in his period in government, I find this set of questions remarkable. There was the use and abuse of the Work Choices campaign, not to mention rock-solid, ironclad guarantees concerning Medicare. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked a question about remarks made in this place yesterday. Firstly, I was very clear about the fact, in response to a question from the member for Farrer, that the government, from the early part of this year, had been intending to conduct a public information campaign in support of the changes to the proposed tax system. Secondly, I further indicated that the government also then used the guidelines which enabled that campaign to be brought forward, given the campaign of disinformation which has been mounted by the mining industry, not entirely unassisted by the Leader of the Opposition himself.
This campaign is necessary for the following reasons: (1) the government will not stand idly by while the mining industry runs the opposition’s line of attack in this parliament (2) the government will not stand idly by while misinformation is placed in the Australian community by elements of the mining industry who simply do not want to pay more tax and (3) this government will act in the national interest in order to make sure that it can deliver better super, tax cuts for all companies and tax cuts also for Australian small business. The government stands by its actions—every single one of them.
Middle East
4743
4743
14:19:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of the Australian government’s response to the incident yesterday between the Israeli navy and a flotilla of vessels attempting to make its way to Gaza?
4743
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I thank the member for her question, and I know that all members of the House will be both interested and concerned about this matter. This is a terrible and shocking incident, a terrible and shocking event, and I think many Australians will be shocked by it. I will deal firstly with the safety and welfare of Australian citizens and an Australian permanent resident who have been caught up in this matter. I deal firstly with the Sydney Morning Herald photographer and journalist, Kate Geraghty and Paul McGeough. Kate Geraghty is an Australian citizen; Paul McGeough is a permanent resident of Australia but is understood to be an Irish citizen and travelling on an Irish passport. I make that point, which I would not normally make public, because it is important as it goes to contra assistance and access.
I indicate that both Ms Geraghty and Mr McGeough are to be transferred from the city of Ashdod to the Beersheba detention centre. Australian officials have been advised that, in the case of Ms Geraghty, consular access will be granted in the course of today, Tel Aviv time. In the case of Mr McGeough, Australian officials have been advised that Irish officials will be granted the same consular access. Australian officials have taken the opportunity, as you would expect, of underlining with Irish officials our very keen interest in the wellbeing of this Australian permanent resident, who would be, as he is to me, well known to many members of the House. So we expect that in the case of Ms Geraghty, so far as Australian officials are concerned, and the case of Mr McGeough, so far as Irish officials are concerned, consular access will be given in the course of the day, Tel Aviv time. In the meantime, I am advised that the welfare of Ms Geraghty and Mr McGeough has been confirmed.
I made public this morning that there is an Australian citizen, an Australian man, who has been injured through a gunshot wound to the leg. He has undergone surgery and is currently in hospital. He has been visited by Australian officials in hospital, and Australian officials will continue to provide consular assistance to him. I can advise the House that two Australian women, who were also on board one of the flotilla vessels, are being detained at the Beersheba detention centre. As is the case with detained Australian nationals, Australian officials will be granted consular access to these two women in the course of today, Tel Aviv time.
I indicate to the House that Australian officials are working assiduously with Israeli officials in Canberra, Tel Aviv and New York—working assiduously not just on the matter generally but also to seek to ascertain whether there are any other Australians who have been caught up in this incident. I can advise the House that to date Australian officials have received no information or evidence which would suggest that any other Australians have been killed or injured in this terrible matter. Our officials continue to work very closely with Israeli officials in that respect.
That deals with consular matters. Can I make some remarks in the House so far as this terrible and shocking event is concerned. The Australian government very strongly believes that the onus is now on Israel to conduct a credible and transparent investigation into this matter. That investigation should of course be subject to the scrutiny of the international community. The Security Council, as we speak, is dealing with this matter and may well later in the night, New York time, issue a statement in respect of these matters. What is required is a transparent and credible investigation by Israel which will be the subject of, obviously, the international community’s scrutiny and which, in Australia’s view, should appropriately be the subject of Security Council consideration.
The Australian government’s policy position on the blockade of aid or humanitarian assistance to Gaza is well known. We believe there should be an easing of the blockade to enable aid and humanitarian assistance to be delivered to Gaza. We have made that point both to Israel and also in the most recent open session of the Security Council on this matter in October of last year. Australian officials will continue to work closely with Israeli officials on consular matters. We will of course continue to put our view to Israel at officials level in Canberra, Tel Aviv and New York. We await the deliberations of the Security Council.
While it may well be the case that an easing of the blockade would help prevent such terrible events occurring in the future, I think all members of the House would have the view that the only long-term, enduring solution to such matters is a long-term, enduring peace in the Middle-East. Such a peace can only be based, can only be predicated, on a two-state solution. That is why not just this Australian government but Australian governments of both political persuasions consistently have been very strong supporters of the peace process and very strong supporters of a two-state solution, and the Australia government urges all of the parties to engage as quickly as possible in the proposed proximity talks.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a brief indulgence.
4744
14:25:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—The coalition is deeply concerned by the reports of the events that occurred off the coast of Israel, and particularly by the reports of a number of deaths. We are greatly concerned about the welfare of an Australian man who was injured in this conflict, and we are relieved to learn that the two Australian media representatives are apparently unharmed. There have been many claims and counterclaims in relation to this event, and it is essential that the facts be established. We believe it is in the interests of all sides that there be restraint to enable the facts to be fully investigated.
Budget
4744
4744
14:26:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his letter of 10 May to the Special Minister of State, where he advised:
Since the government’s tax reforms involve changes to the value of some capital assets, they impact on financial markets.
Treasurer, will you now detail, in full view of the Australian people, all the data and numbers that underpin that statement?
4744
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I certainly thank the shadow Treasurer for that question. When big changes are made to the tax system, there is always a need for a public information campaign. We have in place some very big changes to the Australian taxation system—not just the modernisation of our taxation of minerals but also cuts to the company tax rate, accelerated cuts to the company tax rate for small businesses and changes to the treatment of interest income, with a 50 per cent tax discount and a standard deduction. There are a whole set of very complex changes which are a very big economic reform for Australia, and the only responsible thing to do in preparing for that change is in fact to put in place a public information campaign.
Of course, we funded this public information campaign in the budget. I do not recall anyone from the opposition, either at budget time and/or subsequently in estimates, being remotely concerned about the fact that there was going to be a public information campaign, because it is entirely legitimate to have a public information campaign in these circumstances. And it is entirely legitimate to do it without legislation, because those opposite know they have done that as well—they have put in place public information campaigns when big and complex changes have been in prospect. The government, as the Prime Minister said before, was contemplating a public information campaign from early this year, as we came to the decision to put in place these very big changes to our tax system.
Now, of course, that brings us through to the period when we launched these proposals. I launched them in Parliament House with the Prime Minister and other ministers on 2 May and just prior to that we had the beginnings of the scare campaign, from the likes of Clive Palmer and all of the mates of those opposite, about the prospect of us having a superprofits tax in the mining industry. But even I was shocked by how brazen some of these people in the mining industry were, because after we launched—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that does go to relevance. I asked the Treasurer to release all the information that underpinned his statement, not Clive Palmer’s or anyone else’s, so his statement—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney has made his point of order. The Treasurer will relate his material to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The government announced these tax changes on 2 May. And what did we see happen through that week from 2 May? There was one miner that said his company was in trouble, said he was going to close his operations in Australia and then turned around the next day and bought a million shares. But that is not misconduct; that is nothing, given what is going on in the markets when it comes to those opposite. There was also a report that week from one of our largest companies that said they were going to shelve projects worth billions of dollars, and they were forced the next morning to make a clarification at the stock exchange.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was very specific. It quoted the Treasurer’s own letter and then asked him for the basis upon which his claims were made, the data. It did not ask him anything to do with any of these—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Shortland can do her job and I will try to do my job. On the point of order, the Treasurer knows his responsibility to relate his remarks to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Also during this week the mining council went to press with paid advertising—once again misleading paid advertising. So there are three examples which have the potential to impact on the market. But this is all irrelevant to those opposite because they are in bed with some mining companies campaigning against this tax. They are nothing but a tool of the mining companies in this debate. It was events like those that had me write to Senator Ludwig asking to bring the information campaign forward, and in those circumstances that was entirely legitimate.
Interest Rates
4746
4746
14:32:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
1
Mr BEVIS
—My question is to the Treasurer. What has been the outcome of today’s meeting of the Reserve Bank of Australia board?
4746
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. Today’s Reserve Bank board meeting left the official cash rate unchanged at 4.5 per cent. This news will be welcome relief for many Australian families and businesses around the country who are of course doing it tough. Today’s decision means a family with a $300,000 mortgage is still paying around $450 less a month than they were prior to the onset of the global financial crisis. That is around $5,400 less a year.
When interest rates rise certainly everybody on this side of the House understands the impacts that that has on families, on businesses and on budgets. That is why our budget is so firmly focused on responsible economic management, bringing the budget back into surplus three years early. That is why we are concentrating so much on building the economic capacity in our economy. That is why we are focusing so much on investing in infrastructure, investing in skills and making sure that our economy is that much more competitive. That is why we are modernising our tax system to make our economy more competitive, to make our economy one in which we build our economic capacity so we can take the pressure off inflation—so we can have sustainable growth with lower inflation. That is the whole point of the budget that we have brought down. That is the whole point of this government from the very beginning: investing in capacity. That is why our modernisation of the tax system is so important. We have got to continue with that reform. This is something that those opposite simply do not understand, because we all recall their failure to heed the warnings from the Reserve Bank about all of the capacity constraints in the economy. They still do not understand the importance of economic reform to building capacity and to making growth sustainable. They simply do not understand why we must move forward to make our economy much more competitive.
Tomorrow we do have the national accounts, and I have every confidence that with the right policies in place our economy can continue to be one of the best in the world over coming years. But to continue to do that we have to keep this momentum for reform; we certainly need to do that. I can see the disappointment on the faces of those opposite that rates did not go up today. They certainly would never admit that the official interest rate is still 2.25 percentage points lower today than when the Liberals were last in office. But, from our perspective on this side of the House, we will do everything to reform our economy to build economic capacity and to keep the pressure off inflation so we can grow sustainably.
Budget
4746
4746
14:35:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the $38 million advertising campaign on the current mining tax policy. Given that the government is, in its own words, ‘consulting on the tax’, will the government, when it changes the tax, feel the need to declare a further national emergency to spend more money to buy more ads to correct its current ads? Prime Minister, when will this reckless spending stop?
4746
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for North Sydney for his question, because I notice that those opposite are quite happy to ride on the coat-tails of a campaign, of up to $100 million based on reports, from the mining industry representing companies who do not want to pay another dollar’s worth of tax to the Australian people. Second point: these resources are owned by the Australian people and the Australian people deserve their fair share.
Furthermore, if you look at the overall take of tax through royalties over the last 10 years, it has gone from $1 in $3 in profits to $1 in $7 in profits. The Australian people are demanding a fair share. We make no apology whatsoever for engaging in a public advertising campaign to establish the facts of the government’s new proposed RSPT and the reforms which it is capable of bringing about—namely, better super for working families, which they would cut; company tax cuts, which they would raise; and tax breaks for small business, which they would rip away. That is the government’s reform plan. We intend to get on with the business of putting out the facts to the Australian community.
Economy
4747
4747
14:38:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
Mr SYMON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain the importance of responsible economic management to secure economic growth and prosperity for all Australians?
4747
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I draw the attention of the House to the decision by Fitch Ratings agency on Friday which downgraded Spain’s credit grading to AA plus, triggering renewed global concerns about sovereign debt. This is a matter of concern to financial markets and governments around the world. There were also sharp falls on global stock markets over the course of the last month. The US market was down by nearly 10 per cent and the Dow Jones Industrial had its worst performance for the month of May in 60 years.
This underlines the fragility of the global economic recovery. The IMF is forecasting that in fact we will have a fragile and protracted recovery for the global economy and, therefore, the world is by no means out of the woods yet. The IMF expects the global economy will grow by 3.9 per cent in 2010. On current IMF projections, real potential output for the global economy is not expected to return to precrisis levels until 2014. This puts in absolute stark contrast the importance of responsible economic management. This puts into absolute relief the responsible economic management policies of the Australian government.
During the global financial crisis, 31 of the 33 IMF advanced economies went into recession; Australia did not. Eight of Australia’s top 10 trading partners went into recession; Australia did not. Australia is the only one of the major advanced economies not to go into recession. Australia, as a result, has had the fastest growth, the lowest debt, the lowest deficit and the second lowest unemployment of all the major advanced economies. Without stimulus the Australian economy would have shrunk 0.7 per cent in 2009 and we would have had 200,000 more Australians out of work. Had we followed the Leader of the Opposition’s prescription for responsible economic management and gone down the New Zealand road, we would have had hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work on top of those who had lost their jobs already.
When the national accounts are revealed tomorrow, Wednesday, our fiscal position will be underlined again as being the envy of the developed world, given the fact that so much of the rest of the world has barely begun the trajectory to economic recovery. The success of our strategy is reflected in the point made just before by the Treasurer—that is, through prudent financial management the government will return the budget to surplus in three years time, three years ahead of time, and will also halve net peak debt. This is a critical achievement given the concerns about sovereign debt levels around the world and across OECD economies.
This is not the time to follow the prescription of those opposite to pull the rug from under economic recovery by the abolition of stimulus. That would be absolutely the wrong call now and it is the call made by the Leader of the Opposition, who says repeatedly he has no interest in economics and who the former Treasurer said he would never have as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. But go to the specifics of the cuts proposed by those opposite and it becomes even more concerning. It would be the wrong time, for example, to be slashing training programs—cuts that will deny training to nearly 400,000 Australians. It is the wrong time to be denying tax cuts to 2.4 million Australian small businesses, the wrong time to be jacking up the company tax rate as opposed to bringing the company tax rate down and the wrong time to be cutting and slashing trade training centres across Australia. These centres are necessary in order to build up the skilled workforce of the future.
These are fundamental reforms for the future, all aimed at underpinning the skills needs of our economy for the future. The alternative approach by them is to abolish stimulus and to slash and burn—cuts in schools, cuts in training, cuts in computers, cuts in trade training centres, cuts in health, on top of the billion dollar gouge out of health he took last time. On the question of reform and keeping the economy strong, we have had a debate today and yesterday about tax reform. In fact, those opposite have abandoned the real debate. They have now gone onto a debate purely about advertising. Can I say one of the reasons they have abandoned the debate on tax reform is the Leader of the Opposition does not even understand what tax is being debated. Today the Leader of the Opposition was asked a very simple question. Journalist: ‘If I point to that product over there, can you explain to me how that tax would interact with it and how?’ Abbott’s answer: ‘Well, the tax falls on everything which is extracted.’ That is not right, Leader of the Opposition. But it goes on.
Opposition members—Why not?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Why not? Come in spinner. Journalist: ‘But can you explain the detail of how like if I point to that product over there, can you explain to me how that tax would interact with it?’ Abbott replied: ‘Well, well, the tax falls on everything which is extracted from the ground.’ That is the point, Leader of the Opposition. This is not an extraction tax. It is not a production tax. It is a tax on profits. On the first principle of tax reform, he does not get it. He says it is a royalty tax based on extraction as opposed to a tax on profit. The Leader of the Opposition, we know from the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, does not actually think economics is interesting. We know from the former Treasurer that he would never have appointed him as Treasurer of Australia, but not to even understand that the RSPT is a tax on profits and not on volume and extraction and production fails Economics 101.
Government Advertising
4748
14:45:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
Ms LEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer’s letter dated 10 May about the government’s advertising campaign decision made on 20 April asking for it to be exempted from the usual guidelines. Between 20 April and 10 May, were the government’s mining ads referred to the government’s Independent Communications Committee? If not, why not? Prime Minister, if the ads were referred, why were they rejected and, if they were not rejected, why was an exemption necessary?
4748
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for her question. As I said in response to one of her questions yesterday, the government in the early part of last year decided internally we would be embarking upon an advertising campaign to support fundamental tax reform. Secondly, on the question of expediting that campaign, we took that decision on the basis of the information which was contained in the correspondence between the Treasurer and the Special Minister of State.
In terms of the internal deliberations of the committee in relation to this matter, I cannot enlighten the minister in response to her question. I can say to her, though, that when the previous government was looking at a $256 million advertising campaign—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister has answered the question, and now all he needs to do is tell us if he will come back to the House today and tell us the 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
—When the previous government was doing its $256 million, or thereabouts, public advertising in 2007, guess who was on the ministerial communications committee—the member for Farrer.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great respect, the question was very specific, as you have asked us to make them. The Prime Minister has indicated that he does not know the full answer, but will he report back to the House before the end of question time, rather than—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his place. He cannot add an addendum to the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I should ignore interjections, but the first part of the previous point of order was a statement that the Prime Minister had answered the question. So we have to get a bit of consistency. The Prime Minister understands the responsibility that he has to be relevant to the question, and he relates his material to the question. I will listen carefully to where he is headed now.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The only point I was seeking to add to my answer was that the member for Farrer is well qualified in these matters as she was a member of the ministerial advisory group of the previous government which approved $256 million worth of advertising in 2007, including more than $50 million on a Work Choices campaign. I understand where her priorities really lie.
Budget
4749
4749
14:49:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is it important to counter misrepresentations regarding the government’s tax reform package?
4749
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I thank the member for Kingston for her question. It is very important to counter misrepresentations regarding the government’s tax reform package, and there are an awful lot of misrepresentations going around, both from the opposition and from sections of the mining industry. I mentioned a couple yesterday and I have a few more to mention today. The Minerals Council have had ads on radio recently, and they feature a self-funded retiree saying that the government’s tax plan:
… may be good for paying off the Government’s debt, but it’s not good for me.
Well, there is one problem with this assertion, one big problem: the proceeds from the resource super profits tax are being dedicated to cut company tax, to cut taxes on small business, to cut taxes on superannuation, to invest in infrastructure and to ensure that people who have deductions of up to $1,000 do not have to put tax returns in.
If you want some evidence of this, I have a very reliable source to support the government’s assertion, and that is in fact the opposition. When the opposition announced its purported savings package a week or two ago it put out a table headed ‘Coalition savings’. This is a double-sided table, and it has a list of savings that are specified as being linked to the RSPT. Guess what they are:
Early start to company tax rate cut for small business
Lowering the company tax rate
Small business instant asset write-off …
Resource exploration refundable tax offset
State Infrastructure Fund—
et cetera. There is a total of the savings that are involved in not proceeding with these tax reform proposals, and guess what that adds up to. It adds up to almost $12 billion—the amount the resource super profits tax is proposed to raise over that time. So the opposition nail their own misrepresentation in their own savings announcement.
The second example is a statement made by the head of the Minerals Council, Mr Mitch Hooke, last week, with respect to resources that are in the ground, minerals and resources that are owned by the Australian people. He said that they are ‘only dirt’ when they are in the ground. I have to say, it is great to see the noble and ancient art of alchemy making a comeback—because, according to the head of the Minerals Council, the process of digging this ‘dirt’ out of the ground magically transforms it into gold, or nickel or some other precious metal, but with a twist, because traditionally alchemy was about transforming base metals into gold but, according to the head of the Minerals Council, he can transform dirt into gold. That is some misrepresentation.
Finally, we have the ever-present fifth shadow minister for finance in this parliamentary term, the member for Goldstein. On Sky News yesterday he claimed ‘there are people already losing jobs because of the RSPT’. He was then asked to provide examples. He said:
Ah, yes, there is people, um, I can’t cite them here but they’ve been told to me.
What that does indicate is that there is a giant misrepresentation campaign going on here, both by sections of the mining industry and by the opposition.
The government is concerned to ensure that there is a balanced debate about these very important tax reform proposals and there are constructive negotiations with the mining industry about the details of the proposals, because at the bottom of all this is a simple proposition: to ensure that the Australian community gets full value for its resources that are dug up and sold by the mining industry for prices that are way higher than they have traditionally been, and that that value can be transformed into value for Australian businesses that create jobs and generate wealth all around the country across all sectors. That is what this tax reform proposal is about. That is what the government is committed to doing. And that is what the opposition is committed to tearing down.
Budget
4750
4750
14:54:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the case of an industrial engraving business in my electorate of Groom, Lazertek Australia, which has secured significant supply contracts with a dozen resource and energy companies. Lazertek have advised me via this email that, since the news broke of the government’s great big new tax on mining, the turnover from these contracts has fallen by 90 per cent. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Lazertek and all the other small businesses which have been hurt by this great big new tax on mining?
4750
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Can I say to the member for Groom that one of the reasons it is important to have facts in the debate about the RSPT is so that misinformation does not create unnecessary uncertainty in the Australian economy. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has just gone through one example after another of how the existing campaign by the MCA fundamentally misleads in so many aspects of this tax debate—the reason, therefore, why the government has brought forward an advertising campaign on this question to settle the facts in the minds of the Australian public.
Those opposite trade constantly in fear, they trade constantly in misrepresentation—not just in relation to an RSPT; they have done it in practically every other area of public policy as well. That is because the Leader of the Opposition has no positive plan of his own, only fear and loathing in relation to anything positive that we plan or propose for the future. One after another, whether it is a proposal in relation to the economy, whether it is a proposal in relation to how we invest in skills or infrastructure, whether it is a proposal for climate change or whether it is a proposal in relation to an RSPT, what the Leader of the Opposition does is say: ‘(1) I have no policy; (2) you should be very frightened of that policy.’ That is his standard stock in trade. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: he needs to get real with the Australian public and level with them about his own actual policies.
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table this email from David Williams of Lazertek Australia so the Prime Minister can ring him and explain to him why he is wrecking his business.
Leave not granted.
Work and Family
4751
4751
14:56:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
Mr CHAMPION
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government providing support to Australian families?
4751
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I very much thank the member for Wakefield for his question because, as he knows, the government values the hard work of all parents, whether they are in the paid workforce or whether they are at home. What we do on this side of the House is support families to make their own work and family choices. That is why the government supports families through the baby bonus and family tax benefits parts A and Bill, and that is why, from 1 January next year, we will be delivering Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme. This will give mums and dads extra support so that they can spend more time at home with their newborn babies.
Our scheme is fair to families and fair to businesses. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and individual employers have all welcomed our scheme. Employers are now embracing the opportunity to work with the government to make sure we give parents more work and family choices. Just today we have seen Westpac and their new collective agreement offering 13 weeks of paid parental leave. This makes Westpac a paid parental leave pacesetter in the financial sector. Westpac, like many other companies, clearly recognises the value of being an employer of choice and the value of family friendly working conditions for attracting and retaining their staff. I know the Deputy Prime Minister, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, has a very keen interest in this agreement. Westpac is providing employees with the flexibility to decide on the work and family conditions that suit them and their families. The important thing is that Westpac’s scheme will be in addition to the government’s paid parental leave scheme. This means that Westpac employees will be entitled to up to 31 weeks of paid parental leave.
Instead of supporting and encouraging companies like Westpac, this Leader of the Opposition, of course, is not supporting those companies; what he wants to do is impose a great big new tax on all of these businesses. We know that for 12 years when he was in government, this Leader of the Opposition opposed paid parental leave. All of us know that this Leader of the Opposition in fact famously said that paid parental leave would be introduced over his dead body. Now of course, after a staggering back flip, he has come up with a sham scheme that will impose this great big new tax and see prices go up both for families and for pensioners. If ever it was the case that his scheme was introduced, we would see very substantial amounts of money going to high-income earners. High-income families—high-income parents—would be getting around $75,000 under the scheme of this Leader of the Opposition.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I hear the member for O’Connor up the back there. He has tried to sum it up this way today. The member for O’Connor said: ‘Well, look, brighter people have brighter children. I mean, and, um, you know, I make the sporting analogy: faster racehorses get faster racehorses.’ Well, according to the member for O’Connor, their great contribution to family policy in Australia—the great contribution from the member for O’Connor—is to compare mothers to horses. Thank you so much! What a bunch of absolute dinosaurs opposite. Australian families have been waiting decades for paid parental leave, and this government will deliver it to them.
Budget
4752
4752
15:02:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to this email from Mr Max Mawhinney, who is a beef producer in New South Wales. He states:
Now we have the Rudd resource tax, which will make Ag-lime extremely expensive and significantly reduce the use of this product, in turn reducing the ability of farmers to apply sound management practices to enhance carbon sequestration. Indirectly, it will impact on the cost of food.
Will the Prime Minister apologise to farmers, who will find environmental best practice more difficult to achieve and force up the price of food to consumers as a result of his great big new tax on mining?
4752
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question and I go back to my answer to the previous question which was asked. My answer was that those opposite engage in one thing and one thing alone when it comes to tax reform, and that is a fear campaign. It is a fear campaign in the absence of any form of fact. The Leader of the National Party, if he bothered to read the government’s report, through the Treasury, on the economic modelling for the introduction of the RSPT, would know, from its conclusions, the impact on consumer prices. He would know the impact on employment; he would know the impact on overall economic growth; he would know the impact on the expansion of activity within the mining industry and also on the expansion of investment in the mining industry.
But as he has raised the general question of resource rent tax can I also, for the benefit of the House, refer to an article which has recently been published in the editorial of the Financial Times of London—a leading left-wing journal! It is coloured pink; be very suspicious! It says this in the first paragraph or two:
Miners, like oil men, are a tough lot. They are fighting tooth and nail to derail the Australian government’s plan for a “super profit tax”. But just as oil and gas companies survived when a similar tax was imposed on them, the mining industry has broad enough shoulders to bear the new burden.
It goes on to say:
It will be a long-overdue update of the medieval practice of levying royalties on gross production. Being regressive, royalties squeeze marginal producers while letting those with the most abundant mines keep the largest share of their loot.
Furthermore, the article goes on to say, in response to an observation by Rio:
The charge that it turns Australia into the “number one sovereign risk issue”, made by Tom Albanese, chief executive of Rio Tinto, is absurd.
So says the editorial of the Financial Times yesterday. The Financial Times, I would suggest, is not necessarily a subunit of the Australian Labor Party! It is not a branch of the Australian government; it is the premier financial journal in the world. Its editorial recognises that a resource rent tax is the most effective way of taxing profit rather than volume, profit rather than production.
But then again the Leader of the Opposition does not understand what this tax is about in the first place, because in answer to a question this morning—a very simple and basic question to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘Tony, how does this tax actually apply to this product?’ he could not answer. He could not answer in one sentence, two sentences or three sentences. In fact he said it was just like a royalties tax.
The Leader of the Opposition does not know the first thing about tax policy, nor the first thing about economic policy. The one thing he does know about tax policy is how to jack up the tax rate by bringing in a great big new tax across all Australian businesses that have an over-$5 million turnover—a thought bubble he had one morning without consultation with anyone in his joint party room. This government has the plan for reform; those opposite have a fear campaign—one and all.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—I seek leave to table the email from Max Mawhinney, which is about food prices and—
Leave not granted.
Productivity
4753
4753
15:06:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
Mr RIPOLL
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the importance of ensuring fairness in the workplace in securing productivity? Are there any risks to this enhanced productivity?
4753
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 Oxley for his question; I know that he is passionate about ensuring that people in his electorate have decent working conditions and fairness at work. Of course on this side of the House we are always very happy to talk about respecting fairness in people’s workplaces, and we are always very happy, too, to point out the alternative: a return to Work Choices, under the Leader of the Opposition—Work Choices mark 2. One of the reasons that we introduced the Fair Work Act was to put focus on productivity growth because of the stalling in productivity growth under the Howard government.
If we look at the Intergenerational report about Australia to 2050, we see it confirms that productivity growth was averaging 1.4 per cent during the decade to 2010, after reaching 2.1 per cent in the 1990s. Lifting this productivity rate is a key objective of the Fair Work Act. It needs to be taken into account in every decision taken by Fair Work Australia. With a focus on collective agreement making, that focus is of course about productivity enhancing enterprise agreements, and research has shown that collective bargaining is good for productivity growth. We have also reduced a massive regulatory burden on workplaces through the simplification of awards. We have reduced almost 4,000 federal and state awards to 122 modern, simple awards—that is, 197,000 pages of regulation reduced to 5,753 pages, a massive reduction of 95 per cent in the red-tape and regular burden.
Access Economics has modelled that the benefit of this to our economy and the benefit of moving to a uniform system of workplace relations for the private sector, as delivered by the fair work system, is $4.83 billion over 10 years. That story has a positive impact on economic growth and employment. Access Economics estimates the reform will boost national output by 0.05 per cent and increase employment by some 5,000 jobs at the peak of its beneficial impact in 2011-12.
I am asked, too, about threats to the fair work system and its ability to enhance productivity. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is a Work Choices supporter and is absolutely unrepentant about it. On 19 March 2008, the Leader of the Opposition said Work Choices was ‘good for wages, good for jobs and good for workers, and let’s never forget that’. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. So maybe the Leader of the Opposition might like to explain this: how is it that when 63 per cent of Australian workplace agreements cut penalty rates that was good for workers? How is it that when 52 per cent of AWAs cut shift loading that was good for workers? How is it that when AWAs—51 per cent of them—cut overtime loadings that was good for workers? How is it that when 48 per cent of AWAs cut public holiday pay that was good for workers? The view of the Leader of the Opposition—pay cuts, loss of basic conditions, penalty rates, shift loading, overtime and public holiday pay—is somehow that all of that was good for workers.
Mr Speaker, you might believe that it is a little bit mysterious how the Leader of the Opposition could ever have come to such an irrational view. But I have a theory. My theory is that the Leader of the Opposition was actually indoctrinated by the $121 million of advertising that the Howard government and the Leader of the Opposition engaged in in relation to Work Choices advertising. This was a 24/7 campaign. The Leader of the Opposition would get up in the morning, make a cup of coffee, walk over to the fridge to get the milk out and there would be a Work Choices fridge magnet. He would get himself ready for work, he would get into the office and the first thing he would do when he was in the office was pick up his Work Choices pen. And then when he was starting to work on Battlelines, having his first preliminary thoughts, they were not very big thoughts so he could have got out his Work Choices pad and written them down. And then, as he was more ready to bring out Battlelines, he would have been working away on the computer looking at his mouse pad every day—24/7 indoctrination has obviously got to the Leader of the Opposition.
Fortunately, my department apparently rejected his request for Work Choices budgie-smugglers because the thought was too hideous to contemplate. But I have a standing offer to the Leader of the Opposition and I am waiting for his response. I still have five pallets of Work Choices propaganda. I have done my best. They have gone to Ethiopia. They have gone to East Timor. They have gone around the world. I have done my best to get rid of them, but I have five pallets of Work Choices propaganda. I have 34,000 individual items—Work Choices pens, mousepads and all the rest of it—ready to go. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition, so I do not have to table 34,000 items at some point, whether he can take these items off my hands. They will be very good for his next campaign, because we know that his slogan is going to be ‘Work Choices—good for workers’. Tony, you will really need these on the campaign trail.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Deputy Prime Minister, you will refer to members by their titles.
Budget
4755
4755
15:13:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
0
Mr HAASE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his answer yesterday when, in defence of his great big new tax on mining, he said, ‘Whichever way you cut the cake the return to the Australian people via the taxation system is infinitely less than it was a decade ago.’ How does the Prime Minister reconcile that statement with data compiled by Access Economics, the Treasury, the ATO and the ABS, which show that the total tax take from mining over the last decade has increased from $2.6 billion to $21.9 billion? Will the Prime Minister explain how he can describe tax revenues, which have increased by more than eight times, as ‘infinitely less’?
4755
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank very much the member for Kalgoorlie, who has already made a very strong contribution to the tax reform debate for the mining industry, for his question. The bottom line is that only the Leader of the Opposition in this place says that the mining companies are paying too much tax—only the Leader of the Opposition.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Ah, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, she of national security credentials, interjects and says that in fact there is someone else. But I thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that they were paying just enough tax, whereas the shadow minister for infrastructure—good old Senator Barnaby Joyce—said that they could be paying more tax. The member for Kalgoorlie entered with the fourth position, which was that everyone in the opposition should be able to have their own tax policy. That was a great intervention on the doors the other day. Only the Leader of the Opposition says that the mining companies of Australia are paying too much tax. We know that the member for Kalgoorlie is out there trying to back him up.
The bottom line is that they can pay more tax. The government stands by the data that it has presented. I would suggest to those opposite that they engage in their own independent analysis as opposed to simply running out one piece of propaganda after another put out by the MCA. This government stands for tax reform to deliver better super for working families, better tax cuts for small business, reducing the company tax rate and better infrastructure for Australia’s regions for the future. That is what we stand for; that is what you stand opposed to.
Child Care
4755
4755
15:15:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
Mr SULLIVAN
—My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport, who I know is delighted with the Matildas. How is the government ensuring the stability of the childcare market for Australian families?
4755
15:16:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I take this opportunity to thank the member for Longman for the question. I know that he recognises what a momentous week this has been for the Australian childcare sector. With some 570 childcare centres transferred from ABC Learning to GoodStart, this is a momentous occasion for Australian child care. In the member for Longman’s electorate alone, this covers some 14 centres, which are providing care for some 900 children. We know that the families that are relying upon those services and those centres will be very relieved to know that there will be security and quality delivered through those centres going forward.
We on this side of the House know that when ABC Learning collapsed in late 2008 it sent unprecedented shockwaves through the childcare market in Australia. At risk of closing without a moment’s notice were some 1,000 centres that were providing care for 62,000 families and that were employing thousands of dedicated staff.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming
—What about the double drop-off?
HWT
Robert, Stuart, MP
Mr Robert
—What about the double drop-off?
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I know that those opposite might not want to hear about how we cleaned up the mess that they helped create, but if they wanted to ask a question on child care we would be delighted to compare our record with theirs and delighted to point out how we have been delivering on affordability and quality.
At the moment, we are talking about the collapse of ABC Learning after the market was left to rip under the previous government and what we on this side of the House have done to avert the most negative consequences of that. It has been quick action by this government and particularly by the Deputy Prime Minister and the member for Bennelong, who ensured that the worst potential consequences of this were averted. In fact, we now have a remarkable position, with some 90 per cent of these ABC Learning centres continuing to operate today after the threat of a sudden and immediate collapse. That is something that we should all be very grateful for.
This week, 570 of these childcare centres have been transferred from ABC Learning to GoodStart, assisted by a $15 million loan from our government. This heralds a new way forward for the Australian childcare market, a way forward that is based on high-quality, affordable and stable care. One thing that is very important for the stability of the market going forward is the mix of private and not-for-profit providers. The transfer yesterday to GoodStart increases the share that not-for-profit providers have from 22 per cent to some 34 per cent of the market. This announcement is very good news for parents, who can now go to work assured that their childcare centre has a new owner that is in it for the long haul. It is very good news for children, who know that the centre that they are attending has a key focus on quality and on making sure that they get the absolute best in early care. Importantly, it is also very good news for staff, because GoodStart has announced that the accrued entitlements of these workers will all be acknowledged, including their long service leave.
While this is all a very positive and exciting step forward, we on this side of the House know that it is much better to prevent these collapses from ever taking place than it is to come along and pick up the pieces afterwards. That is why our government has put in place new measures to prevent a collapse like that of ABC Learning from ever taking place in our childcare market again. In this year’s budget, we announced that all large childcare providers will have much more thorough financial viability checks before they are approved for government subsidies and will face ongoing checks going forward.
Before being approved, all of these new childcare centre operators must demonstrate that they are suitable to operate a childcare centre. That includes providing information about their financial background and about whether they or any person involved in the managing of their organisation have been associated with an insolvency in the sector before. The government will also have new powers to commission an independent investigation or audit of any particular provider if we believe that there are any concerns about their viability. We are determined to not allow another ABC style crisis to occur on our watch. We have worked very hard to restore stability to the Australian childcare market. The entry of GoodStart into it is very good news for Australian families and Australian children. Our government is very much looking forward to working with GoodStart to continue to deliver affordable and quality child care in this nation.
Budget
4757
4757
15:21:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is again to the Prime Minister. This morning I visited a landscape supplier in Queanbeyan which provides road base, limestone, sand and granite to other businesses and currently employs 10 people. The workers there are concerned that the Prime Minister’s great big new tax on mining and all extractive industries that make a profit will damage the business, increase its costs and force them to pass higher prices on to customers. Will he apologise to Mr Murray Flakelar and the staff of his business for making their lives so much more difficult?
4757
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition again for his question on economics. It goes down to the economics of small business. I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of the firm he describes, but let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition about what has kept many Australian small businesses alive over the past 18 months. No. 1: we stimulated the Australian economy. No. 2: we kept more than 200,000 people in jobs who would otherwise have lost their jobs. No.3: we provided tax concessions for small business during the course of the global recession so that they could actually bring forward their capital acquisition in order to keep themselves afloat. The small business tax benefit which was delivered was a huge success for small businesses right across the country. I would be interested to know whether in fact the business in question made utilisation of that particular tax measure, which we used in the course of our response to the global financial crisis.
The Leader of the Opposition is bored by these sorts of facts. These facts go to what kept hundreds of thousands of people in work, tens of thousands of small businesses with their doors open. Instead, what he proposes is to pull the rug from stimulus, notwithstanding the fact that the global economic recovery is tenuous, and thereby place at risk and at jeopardy the future of the Australian economy. His only response to the company in question is to send them a big warning bell: whatever you do, do not go from being a small business to a medium business which might have a turnover of some $5 million, because then you would be up for another two per cent tax if the business is incorporated. That is what the Leader of the Opposition stands for. What we stand for is bringing down the taxes on Australian business. What he stands for is jacking up the taxes on Australian business. We stand for increasing the super for the workers employed in that particular industry. He stands for ripping that super away from those workers. He stands also for reintroducing Work Choices. This government has withdrawn Work Choices. He stands for increasing the job insecurity of workers by ensuring that he repeals the government’s current arrangements concerning unfair dismissal. He stands for job insecurity. He stands for cuts to jobs, cuts to education and cuts to health as well as the reintroduction of Work Choices, all of which would be of passing relevance to the workers in the firm which he just described.
PRIME MINISTER
4758
Motions
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
4758
4758
15:25:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the Prime Minister be called and address the House, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes to be followed by the Leader of the Opposition for the same time, to allow the Prime Minister to defend himself—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, a point of order: this motion has already been dealt with by the House.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—We will listen carefully to the motion from the Leader of the Opposition. This came to light in the past, and I am sure people around here learn lessons.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business is not assisting. I understand, but he is not assisting. I will listen carefully to the wording of the motion.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the Prime Minister be called and address the House, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes to be followed by the Leader of the Opposition for the same time, to allow the Prime Minister to defend himself against the serious charge that he has broken yet another promise to the Australian people in relation to government advertising, and in particular:
-
for declaring government advertising a “cancer on democracy” in 2007 but now, with an election looming, amassing a $126 million advertising war-chest funded by the taxpayer;
-
for shutting down the previous ad approval process overseen by the Auditor-General, replacing it with a committee and then exempting himself from his own committee’s rules on “national emergency” grounds; and
-
for trying to re-write the sequence of events to claim that the government’s advertising blitz is only necessary to counter mining industry ads when in fact, we know from the Treasurer’s secret letter that the government planned their $38 million PR war months before the great big new tax on mining was even announced.
This Prime Minister is a fraud and he has been found out.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, a point of order: this is substantively the same motion that was dealt with before.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Fortunately, I now have before me the previous motion. I listened carefully to the motion as proposed by the Leader of the House, and I believe it is substantially different.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:27:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:32:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
81
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.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
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.
McMullan, R.F.
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.
Zappia, A.
60
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
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.
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.
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
—Is the motion seconded?
4759
15:33:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I second the motion. He is too gutless to defend himself in the parliament—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:33:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:34:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
81
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.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
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.
McMullan, R.F.
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.
Zappia, A.
60
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
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.
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.
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.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to.
15:37:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
59
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
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.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
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.
81
NOES
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.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
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.
McMullan, R.F.
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.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
4761
Personal Explanations
4761
15:39:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—Grievously.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—During question time, the member for Jagajaga misrepresented me by omission by deliberately excluding my other remarks in the radio interview to which she referred, such as my celebration of the modern-day success of women such as Gail Kelly at Westpac.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for O’Connor needs to show where he was misrepresented and not debate the question.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—I am stating the facts of the misrepresentation by omission. In other words, if you leave out half the story, you tell a lie.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor has made his point. By the way he has phrased it, he is starting to indicate that he is going to debate the question—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—I am not going to debate it. I am too old for that.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—By the use of certain expressions he is widening it. Unless he has anything else to add to address his alleged misrepresentation, I will have to sit him down.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—Yes. The member for Jagajaja omitted my reference to gene transfer in the Ablett family in the arena of human sport, and of course the circumstances where the female partner is the principal breadwinner in a family, and there is the resulting negative financial effect of parenthood that the Abbott scheme has an answer to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor has made his point.
4761
15:41:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I do—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—repeatedly by the Prime Minister, who is a serial offender in this matter. He claimed in parliament today that the opposition’s paid parental leave proposal involved a levy on businesses with a $5 million turnover. This is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is completely wrong. It is a lie, and he should be—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and ask that the comment be withdrawn.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There was nothing in the first part which I could hear. When I was speaking over the Leader of the Opposition I do not know whether anything unparliamentary was said, but I did not think so. I am not sure whether it was at the start of the contribution or at the end of the contribution.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—That was not a personal explanation. We are seeing an abuse of personal explanations by those opposite. The opposition leader indicated it at the beginning of his contribution. He then went on to use unparliamentary language—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. As I said to him, the only thing that I heard was at the start, where there was an unnecessary addition. But, regarding the explanation, I asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat because I thought that there might be trouble coming and I thought that he had had the opportunity to at least get his point on the record. There was nothing that I could hear at that point that needed to be withdrawn. Unfortunately, because there are no papers, I do not have the opportunity to review the situation.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
4762
Matters of Public Importance
Budget
4762
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cowper proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The adverse effect of the government’s Resource Super Profits Tax on superannuants, self-funded retirees and senior Australians.
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—
4762
15:44:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I welcome the opportunity to raise this matter of public importance as the Rudd government has deceived the Australian people about the adverse effect of their great big new tax on mining and the effect that this tax is having on superannuants, self-funded retirees and senior Australians. But all those Australians building and relying on superannuation are not being fooled by this fraudulent Prime Minister and this desperate, debt-ridden government. They know the impact of Labor’s great new tax. They know the impact that that tax is having on their retirement savings—not in 10 years, but right here and right now. Yet we have a government in denial. While the rest of the country knows that the uncertainty this government is creating has jeopardised investments, jobs, future dividends and wealth creation, our Prime Minister has his head firmly stuck in the sand about what this great big new tax on mining is going to do to our nation.
The Prime Minister told the House only on Thursday that the opposition was, in his words, ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’ for suggesting that this mining tax had any effect on financial markets and superannuation balances. Let us look at the facts. The facts are that Australian superannuation funds are big holders of mining shares. It is estimated that around 9.2 per cent of all investments made by superannuation funds are in resources stocks. In fact, the biggest industry superannuation fund, AustralianSuper, holds 11.71 per cent of its shareholdings in BHP Billiton, a further 3.12 per cent in Rio Tinto and around one per cent in Newcrest Mining. All superannuation funds have similar holdings.
Since Prime Minister Rudd’s great big new tax was leaked to the media on 13 April, more than $20 billion has been stripped from the mining investments of these superannuation funds and super balances have lost around two per cent in value. But still this Prime Minister chooses to mislead the public and deny that his great big new tax is affecting share value. On Wednesday last week, the member for Pearce asked the Prime Minister about the analysis undertaken by the government on how its mining tax would affect investments of self-funded retirees and their standard of living. The Prime Minister refused to answer the question. He insulted all self-funded retirees by referring to the proposed superannuation guarantee increase as how the government would boost retirement income. But retirees are just that: retirees—they have already retired. As a result of that, they are relying on their investments, much of which is invested in the resource sector. What an insult to ignore their concerns and refer to a policy that does not even affect them.
In fact, he denied the impacts a day later. He said the opposition were ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’ for suggesting that a $9 billion new tax on mining profits would impact on the profits, dividends and share prices of mining companies. The Prime Minister’s comments follow those by the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, who said on Monday last week that any suggestion of an adverse impact on resource investments was nothing more than a scare campaign. Information from the Treasurer last Friday confirmed that the government was aware of the adverse impacts of this great big new tax on mining stocks. As justification for Labor’s emergency advertising campaign on the proposed tax—a waste of taxpayers’ money to the tune of $38 million—the Treasurer stated that ‘the tax reforms involve changes and they impact on financial markets’. But it gets worse. Cabinet documents released yesterday by the Rudd government show that it had planned the advertising two weeks before the Prime Minister announced that great big new tax on mining.
The Treasurer and the Special Minister of State were corresponding about the effect that the tax would have on financial markets well before it was announced. So the Prime Minister has known for months that this new tax would impact on the investments and portfolios of superannuants, self-funded retirees and senior Australians, but he has decided to mislead the Australian public. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either his government was deliberately misleading shareholders and superannuants in Australia about the adverse impact of Labor’s great big new tax or he deliberately ignored the advice issued by the Treasurer as justification for the government’s $38 million advertising campaign. This is nothing but a tax grab. The government knew in advance what damage it would do to financial markets. It knew it would impact on the shareholdings of self-funded retirees and it knew what it would do to superannuants.
And the Treasurer refuses to apologise for the ads. He told Radio National yesterday that he thinks:
… it’s very important that the public has an accurate view of what the government is planning.
Very important indeed! Well, the public now have an accurate view. What the government has planned is what is already happening: a significant loss in the value of mining stocks. As I have said, superannuants and investors already know this. They only need to look at their super balance to see what this government is doing for them and their retirement plans.
Now the government is further spending their money; it is blowing more dough to convince superannuants and investors that this tax is a good thing. Despite the Prime Minister promising time and time again to abolish government advertising, he is spending another $38 million on his own propaganda campaign. We have the farcical situation where the government is using taxpayer money to convince taxpayers that miners are not paying their fair share of tax. While taxpayers are losing their share of proceeds in their mining stocks being held in their superannuation, they are also paying for it through their tax dollars. This is a government that has already spent money beyond what it is taking from ordinary taxpayers and placed Australia’s budget into historical levels of debt—a debt that is going to peak at $94 billion in 2012-13—and now this Prime Minister and this government are ruining the superannuation balances of taxpayers as a consequence of their tax grab on mining.
And that is what this is really about. A tax on mining is nothing but a tax grab so that this government can fund policies and waste more money on poorly implemented programs. The government want this tax because of blow-outs the Deputy Prime Minister has caused in the Building the Education Revolution program. They want this tax because of the Prime Minister’s home insulation debacle. And why were there blow-outs in these programs? There were blow-outs because this great big new tax on mining was needed to fund their own incompetent programs they could not implement. They were big on promises and very small on delivering.
Let us look at the Home Insulation Program for just a moment. The Prime Minister admitted last Thursday after a question from the member for Flinders that he was warned on three occasions between August and October last year about safety concerns with the insulation scheme. These concerns were expressed by the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, who fell on the Prime Minister’s sword as a result of the bungled scheme, which caused four deaths and over 146 house fires as a result of Labor’s $2.4 billion debacle. These safety concerns could have been addressed by the Prime Minister and could have been avoided if he did not choose to ignore the advice given to him by the minister for the environment.
There is a dangerous pattern of deceit and incompetence from this government. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation admitted to Sky News in February that this government simply does not ‘dot the i’s and cross the t’s’. As we have seen, it is the Australian public who suffer as a result of the government’s deliberate oversights and incredible incompetence. With the pink batts scheme, it was homeowners who suffered. Now, with the mining tax, it is superannuants and investors who are suffering because the Prime Minister has refused to listen to experts and his own colleagues about the impact that his great big new mining tax will have on financial markets and Australia’s sovereign risk profile. But, if the Prime Minister and the gang of four do not want to believe me about the impact of this mining tax, they should at least start listening to some of their state Labor colleagues—hardly advocates for the conservative side of politics. They are out there in numbers—lining up, expressing genuine concern about what this tax means for jobs and investment and our economy and what impact a weaker economy will have on the wealth of our nation.
I would like to take the opportunity to note in this House some of those concerns. The Rudd government needs to understand that state Labor governments are pleading with the Prime Minister to change the design of his tax, and in fact scrap it altogether. In early May, for example, the Labor Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, expressed her concern that the tax would hit investment. The Premier said:
You can’t expect international companies to make those investment decisions unless they’ve got absolute certainty about the costs of doing business.
In Victoria Premier Brumby said just last week:
The two areas that are put to me as needing some fine tuning are firstly in relation to any element of retrospectivity and, secondly, if the 6 per cent rate is the right rate or should it be a higher rate.
These are pretty big and fundamental changes demanded by the Labor Premier of Victoria. The Labor Treasurer of South Australia also said on 11 May:
It is the architecture, the design, the implementation that needs to be fixed, rearranged, readjusted.
If the architecture is no good, the design is no good and the implementation is no good, what else is there? In other words, the whole policy needs to be scrapped. The Prime Minister has accused any critics of this tax as being mouthpieces for the mining industry and involved in a scare campaign. By that measure, the state Labor governments and the state premiers are mouthpieces for the mining industry and involved in a scare campaign.
This Labor government refuses to take criticism. It denies criticism even exists unless it can be used to justify its agenda at some stage in the future. The hypocrisy of this government is breathtaking. On the one hand it proclaims that it is conducting ‘meaningful consultations’ with the mining sector and in the next breath it is out there rejecting everything the sector is saying. The reality is that as far as the Prime Minister is concerned it is his way or the highway. If you do not agree with him he just will not listen. That is what he is like on climate change, and now that is exactly how he and his ministerial colleagues are behaving on this tax. The arrogance of this government is a disgrace and is not in the national interest.
Mining executives are the people who are actually involved in investing in Australia and providing returns to investors and superannuants. Does the government actually believe that mining companies putting investments on hold will be good for superannuation funds? For the government’s sake let me quote what a few of our mining executives think about this great new tax. What does Marius Kloppers say about this tax? He says:
I think that what one can safely say is that if you pay twice the tax in one country that you pay in another for the same product then relatively speaking that other country will become more attractive.
He went on to say:
What I can say though is that there will be an impact on investment, jobs and growth if the tax is implemented in an unchanged form.
These are comments from the CEO of one of the biggest investors in Australia’s prosperity. But do not take Mr Kloppers’s word; why not speak to one of his competitors, Mr ‘Twiggy’ Forrest over at Fortescue Metals. Fortescue has announced that it will put the $10.5 billion Solomon Hub and the $7 billion Western Hub projects, which were set to employ 30,000 people, on hold. I quote Mr Forrest himself:
The uncertainty in the financial markets caused by the proposed tax and the cash impost RSPT payments will place on future business revenue has necessitated an urgent review of the economics surrounding the development of Fortescue’s major projects.
There are numerous other examples across the nation. Mining executives and analysts are forecasting a trail of destruction as a result of this tax. Credit Suisse, for example, says the Whyalla steelworks would be unprofitable because of this tax. Citigroup says that this tax will wipe off one-third of the incremental value of new projects in the Pilbara. What a service to Australia’s future prosperity—taking a third of the value off projects in the Pilbara!
The Prime Minister is ignoring the industry, but superannuants are not. As I said before, superannuation balances have plunged due to a plunge in the value of resource stocks. The superannuants of this country are fully aware of what the Prime Minister refuses to recognise. The superannuants of this country know that this great big new mining tax is decimating their hard-earned savings. The superannuants of this country know, and the self-funded retirees of this country know, just how hard they had to work to build a nest egg for their future prosperity, just how hard they had to work to sustain themselves in retirement, and at one minute to midnight this Prime Minister comes along and rips them off. The superannuants and the self-funded retirees and Australia’s seniors know they are being ripped off by this government, not once but twice—firstly by their resource stocks being decimated as a result of this great big new tax, and secondly as a result of their being ripped off by $38 million in advertising to try to justify the Prime Minister’s sham tax, this absolute blight on investment in Australia.
4766
15:59:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I am very pleased, as the Leader of the House, to respond to this matter of public importance today on behalf of the government and to defend the rights of all Australians to get their fair share of the resources that they own. As for those opposite, the Leader of the National Party once again throws around the phrase ‘slush fund’. It is always the Nats. You love it when the Nats talk about a ‘slush fund’. You just love the sense of irony from the National Party, who established the Regional Partnerships program. The resource super profits tax is a tax that is simply moving from taxing volume to taxing profits. What is more, it is a tax which moves away from a tax on production to one on superprofits. Therefore by definition this is an efficient tax, which is why it has been backed by all serious economists right around the country and indeed internationally, as the Prime Minister indicated today with the Financial Times editorial of this week. The resource super profits tax is also a part of our national tax reform agenda.
It is somewhat ironical also that in today’s MPI debate the issue of the interests of superannuants is raised. This resource super profits tax will allow the next step in the Labor agenda of providing for national savings in the national economic interest and personal savings in the interest of working families retiring in some comfort. The increase from nine per cent to 12 per cent is the next step that would have occurred had the Keating government been re-elected in 1996. Those opposite have never understood superannuation. Those opposite have always opposed superannuation. We now have over $1 trillion in national savings as a result of the vision of the Hawke-Keating government, now followed by that of the Rudd government, and Minister Bowen, who is at the table, has played a critical role in ensuring the next step in this reform agenda. This is why when I attended with Minister Bowen the superannuation industry breakfast after this was announced we found it was so warmly received. It is interesting that the member for Cowper, in order to attack the government’s reform agenda, simply quotes big miners. There was not a single quote from the industry which he has a responsibility to represent and advocate for within the opposition and within this parliament.
But, of course, there is also the reform of company tax. We on this side of the chamber believe it should be reduced by two per cent. Those on the other side of the chamber want to increase it by two per cent. But there is another agenda as well, one that comes in my portfolio of infrastructure. We know that in spite of the tremendous mining boom when you go to regional Australia—whether it is Karratha, Port Hedland, Dampier, Newman, Mackay or Gladstone—you see there is a considerable infrastructure deficit, an infrastructure deficit that the former government was warned about by the Reserve Bank of Australia on 27 separate occasions. This is the infrastructure and skills deficit left by the former government which has been a handbrake on our economic productivity. We on this side of the House are addressing the issues. The member for Cowper spoke about projects being put on hold as a result of the resource super profits tax. Indeed, as a result of his political party’s position in the coalition, what is really under threat are infrastructure projects right around the nation. Firstly under threat is the infrastructure fund that would fix the issues that are raised in these communities. These communities, with their fly-in fly-out workforces, with their lack of housing and with their lack of export infrastructure through ports, roads and rail, all say, ‘How is it that we’ve gone through this enormous boom but we still don’t have enough infrastructure?’ Absolutely extraordinary!
What we know is that the opposition would put under threat not just that infrastructure investment but all infrastructure spending. We know of the shadow minister for finance and debt reduction’s statement on 20 May about the opposition’s commitments that had been made on road and rail infrastructure. He said any other past commitments had been discontinued. In his statement the only new commitment that was honoured by the coalition was the Toowoomba bypass, which has become a footpath because they funded a small amount of the $1.75 billion that is required for that. It took just seven days for this approach to collapse into complete confusion. The shadow finance minister, when asked by the Geelong Advertiser and the Colac Herald how the coalition would fund roads in the area, said they would use Roads to Recovery funding. So every local government area in the country now knows that their future funding is under threat. On the same day the Leader of the National Party, when asked by Australian Transport News, said, ‘We’re standing by all our promises.’ He said that they would take funding from the existing Nation Building Program, that somehow they would squeeze it in. What he ignored was the fact that the Nation Building Program is fully allocated until 2013-14. The $37 billion is the subject of memorandums of understanding with the states—all signed and agreed with work progressing and proper planning of infrastructure development.
When they came into government in 1996, the opposition cut the roads budget by $2 billion over their first eight budgets. The office of the shadow finance minister responded to the Australian Transport News about the Nation Building Program:
You would reprioritise … We would obviously consider all the programs as a whole.
When asked specifically if this review extended to projects due to start this year, the answer was, ‘Yeah, of course.’ So there is no doubt with that statement that the coalition has a hit list. We need to know what is on the hit list. Is it section 4B of the Geelong Ring Road? Construction is due to commence this year of the Kempsey bypass. Perhaps that is on the coalition’s hit list. It was never funded by them. There was no work done by them. Perhaps that is on the hit list. The member for Cowper perhaps is aware that that is the case. Perhaps the upgrade from Woolgoolga to Arawarra on the Pacific Highway is on the hit list. The Hunter Expressway is perhaps on the hit list.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—They have form.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—We know that they do have form because in 1996 the Howard government cancelled the Belford Bends project even though construction was about to begin. We know that it was on the hit list then. Perhaps the whole Hunter Expressway is on the hit list. Perhaps the Seaford to Noarlunga rail extension in the electorate of Kingston in South Australia is on it. We know that this is a vital project. We know that we can only trust the opposition when there are carefully prepared and scripted remarks that can be taken as gospel truth. But the fact is that this project has never been supported by those opposite, so perhaps that is on their hit list. The sinking of the rail line at Northbridge in Perth is a project where we have announced a contract is being called. Perhaps that is on the hit list of those opposite.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming
—Because you ran out of funding.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—The clown opposite says, ‘Because we ran out of funding.’ This is a joint project.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: he should withdraw that.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I withdraw.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The minister has withdrawn. The minister has the call.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—The member for Bowman confirms with his interjection that there is a hit list. He says they have run out of money. That is their excuse already for making this hit list. I thank the member for Bowman for his honesty, and we will be reminding people of that. The Dampier Highway in Western Australia, the Great Eastern Highway and the Roe Highway are all funded by this government and construction of all are scheduled to commence. Are they on the hit list? They are all important infrastructure. The Great Eastern Highway and the Dampier Highway are important for developing our productivity agenda. The new Isis River bridge in the electorate of Hinkler is perhaps on the hit list. Construction is due to commence in September 2010. The upgrade of the southern approach to Cairns is perhaps on the hit list—$150 million allocated, construction expected to commence in 2011. For Calliope Crossroads near Gladstone, the upgrading of the southern approaches to Gin Gin, planning is under way and construction expected to commence in mid-2011. All of these projects are under threat because of what the opposition has said.
We know that the opposition needs to come clean about its secret infrastructure hit list. We know that important infrastructure is occurring in Darwin—$50 million for the port of Darwin, vital infrastructure development—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order: it would be very interesting if the speaker opposite could return to the topic.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. A matter of public importance is always a far-ranging debate. The member for Cowper had fair licence. The minister has the call.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—The fact is that they do not want to hear about this agenda. They do not want Australians to know. They will not get through an election campaign saying that they are opposed to the resource super profits tax. They are opposed to every initiative that this government has done. They are going to make cuts, but they will not say where the money will come from. They make promises in their electorate that simply do not stack up when it comes to the nation-building agenda of this government.
The member for Cowper has ignored the fact that the Rudd government has committed $3.1 billion to the Pacific Highway. That compares with $1.3 billion during their entire 12 years in office. Almost three times as much in half the time is our commitment. He is opposed to infrastructure spending in his own electorate. It is no wonder that his own electorate is so hostile to his activity. They need to come clean about where these cuts will be, as they have been caught out. They have been caught out trying to say one thing in their electorates and another thing here in Canberra and the different statements of the shadow finance minister make that clear. (Time expired)
4769
16:14:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
0
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—In listening to that diatribe of nothingness, I cannot help but think that the government has given up even trying to defend its great big supertax on mining. In fact—dare I say it—the great big ‘super’ tax is well named because it is indeed a tax on people’s super. The government’s contrivance is to say that taxing our most important export earning sector is somehow going to help employers find an additional three per cent for the superannuation guarantee charge—which is in fact going be borne by employees, who will have to forego an increase in take-home pay. It is an absolute nonsense. What are they trying to say—that they are going to hypothecate the tax, that it is going to be absolutely dedicated to some purpose? Of course it is not. It is going to consolidated revenue, just like any other tax that they impose.
This tax is simply designed to try and make up for the fact that they have plunged this country into debt and deficit. They were left an inheritance by the previous government of no debt—we paid off their last $96 billion. We had money in the bank. We left them with no deficit—we left them with a surplus. That was the situation when the great financial crisis came upon us from overseas. That is what saved us from going into two quarters of negative growth, a technical—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—And the mining industry.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—I am coming to that. That saved us from going into two quarters of negative growth and going into technical recession.
The fact is that this government has done nothing but accrue debt, accrue deficit, and embark upon a great gouging of taxation to back up its profligate spending. If the real answer to solving an economic crisis was debt and spending then Greece would be in great shape. The bottom line is: you never learn. Every time we get a Labor government we get debt and deficit, and we have to come back in and fix it up. Then, because we have made it look relatively easy, it looks like a good opportunity for a change. So Mr Rudd was given a go. Well, he has had his go—now it is time for him to go. This country deserves better.
If we look at the way in which this great big new tax on the mining sector is going to impact upon seniors, upon superannuants and upon retirees generally, we will see the attitude that this government has to senior Australians. They use words like ‘burden’, ‘problem’ and ‘challenge’. They want to find a solution—’How dare they grow old!’ They are taxpayers. They are the people who built this country, and all you want to do is insult them. Here they are—
HWD
Hale, Damian, MP
Mr Hale
—We are looking after their pensions—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—I hear the word ‘pension’ mentioned. Which party insisted that there be an increase in pensions for single pensioners? It was the opposition; we forced the hand of the government. We were the people who made MTAWE the index factor, not the government who, before that, had been in for 13 years. Do not give me that tired old argument. The fact is that we put the pensions on 25 per cent of MTAWE, when it is higher than the CPI. We are the people who have looked after people’s retirement incomes—not you. You simply regard them as a burden and you disparage them. That is the difference between us.
HWD
Hale, Damian, MP
Mr Hale interjecting—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Solomon might be better off outside the chamber.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—This great big tax that is imploding upon our superannuation means that people who are receiving their superannuation right now have had their investment devalued, their stream of income lessened. Yet this is a tax that you have said you will not implement for how many years? Well past the next election. Furthermore, when are all the other bits and pieces that you say are tied up with it to come in? A couple of years after the next election?
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—In 2020—some of them.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—In 2020. At the same time, they ask taxpayers to fork out $38 million to pay for an advertising campaign to try and convince good, sensible Australians—who may have more sense than the government, I suspect—that somehow this new tax is good for them.
It is no wonder that this government has succeeded in exempting itself from its own guidelines. First of all, I would point out that under both governments there were guidelines for how advertising campaigns had to be conducted. The department of finance oversaw all three sets of guidelines—the MCGC set, the Auditor-General set, and the watered down Allan Hawke set. All of those are written by the department of finance, and the department’s opening words are the same for all three sets. But what is different is that under the MCGC guidelines, under the previous government, there was no get-out clause. Any advertising campaign—it did not matter what it was—had to go through the system in order to go to air. But even under the Auditor-General’s so-called guidelines there was a get-out clause. It is no wonder that you wanted to get out of complying with the guidelines as set down, because they say:
Campaign materials must be presented in objective language and be free of political argument.
I do not think you have met that guideline. The guidelines state:
Campaign materials must not try to foster a positive impression of a particular political party or promote party political interests.
The guidelines say campaign materials must not:
… directly attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others such as the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups;
Goodness me—are we not disparaging and scorning mining companies? That would not comply with these guidelines. They then say campaign materials must not:
… be designed to influence public support for a political party, a candidate for election, a Minister or a Member of Parliament …
My gosh—no wonder you needed a get-out clause. When you should ask—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar needs to remember the use of the word ‘you’ is inappropriate and she needs to speak through the chair.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that the bottom line is simply that their campaign could never have got through the guidelines as set down by the Auditor-General and then watered down under Allan Hawke.
As I said, the bottom line at every turn is that this big new supertax is adverse to the interests of senior Australians. It is a tax on super. If you tax something, you get less of it. Every dollar that goes into Mr Rudd’s pocket is one dollar less in superannuation recipients’ pockets—
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming
—Like the mining families.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Of course, and mining families. But if you look at Mr Henry’s performance in estimates, his statement was that it really would not make any difference whether the tax was 50, 70 or 80 per cent—it would still be the same outcome; investment would still go on in this country. When he was asked how it would go at 100 per cent he backed off a tiny bit, but not entirely. He even pointed out that a totally government owned company in Norway was happy to pay out 95 per cent of its earnings to the government—that is, the government paying itself.
What we have to recognise with the impact of this tax is that any deferral in investment is what is important here. If a company has to make the decision about whether or not to go ahead with a mining development in this country, which was profitable when the tax was predictable—as it had been over the usual time frame—as against an investment in another country, which will come in and make more profits in light of the proposed tax here in Australia, then in fact we get a deferred investment and it goes off to another country, and we are the poorer for it.
During the recession our mining and minerals companies underpinned our economy—not in terms of the so-called employment factor but in terms of the actual value of the exports. These are the things that the government wishes to sweep under the carpet, but these are the things that the Australian people, and particularly senior Australians, are a lot smarter about. They will see through the subterfuge of the government and they will be—(Time expired)
4771
16:24:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—One month after this government announced the biggest reforms to superannuation since the introduction of compulsory superannuation in Australia, we finally have the opposition talking about superannuation—not talking about the reforms, not outlining their position, not responding; but at least they are mentioning the word ‘superannuation’. We have had two contributions from those opposite. We had the member for Cowper, the shadow minister against superannuation, and I welcome him back to the debate. He has been in the witness protection program for a month: not a word from the shadow minister against superannuation about the reforms, not a word about their plans for superannuation. Then we had the member for Mackellar, a symbol of all that is wrong with the opposition, a symbol of all that is wrong in relation to superannuation—a member of the other place and of this House who opposed the introduction of superannuation tooth and nail in this country, who railed against giving working Australians and working families a chance to save for their own retirement, who railed against giving them tax concessions so they could have a dignified and comfortable retirement and who is still opposed to superannuation so many years later. So we had the shadow minister against superannuation, and the shadow minister for seniors, who is meant to actually care about Australians retiring for their own incomes, and all they did was rail against superannuation.
What we have is an opposition not willing to talk about the serious reforms to superannuation. Well, we will talk about them, and we will also talk about the scare campaign that the opposition is so grievously running. Superannuation, for the record, despite the opposition of the shadow minister for seniors, despite the opposition of the Leader of the Opposition and everybody who sits opposite, has been a good thing for Australia. It has been a very good thing for Australia. It was introduced by a Labor government against vociferous opposition from those opposite. Its benefits have been many. It has created a pool of funds for infrastructure investment. It has created a pool of funds at the disposal of the economy, which was very important in terms of getting through the global financial crisis. But, most importantly of all, it has improved the capacity of Australians to save for their retirement.
When Australians put money into superannuation, it gets invested. And since compulsory superannuation was introduced we have had returns of 7½ per cent a year, as opposed to an average inflation rate of four per cent a year—so Australians having the chance to become self-funded retirees, with the support of the Australian tax concessions. This was a visionary plan, but not all saw the vision of the Labor government introducing superannuation. The member for Warringah told the House on 25 September 1995:
Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.
And he has not changed his spots. He went on to say:
I say to the voters of Australia—
you can just hear him saying this, can’t you—
‘Beware! There is no pot of gold at the end of the superannuation rainbow. Any money you put in is your money and you are certain to get back less than you put in.’
Now, I know the Leader of the Opposition is bored by economics. We know he does not understand economics. But I would have thought he would at least understand the principle of compound interest and return on investment, and understand that if you put money into superannuation and invest it over your working life you have a chance of a dignified and comfortable retirement—something he opposed, but something I do not think he even understood.
But it is time to rejuvenate the financial system. It is time to rejuvenate superannuation and make it even better, to build on the reforms of the previous Labor government, to deal with the savings gap, which has been assessed by the Investment and Financial Services Association at $690 billion. It is time to deal with that by increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, by dealing with the equity of taxation treatment of superannuation.
As I said in the House yesterday, superannuation is taxed at a flat rate of 15 per cent. That is very attractive if you are on the top marginal tax rate. It is quite attractive if you are on the second-top marginal tax rate. It is even very attractive if you are on the next marginal tax rate. But it is not attractive if you are on the lowest marginal tax rate in Australia. If you are one of the lowest paid workers in Australia, if your income is under $37,000, there is no incentive for superannuation—and the opposition just do not care. They rail on behalf of mining companies. They are a lion when it comes to defending mining companies. They are a mouse when it comes to defending low- and middle-income earners in Australia, with not a word to be said—and, worse, they actively oppose our plans to introduce more equity into superannuation in Australia. They rail against it and they actively oppose it. They will vote against it, they will campaign against it, and that shows their true colours.
The other thing we have done is improve the tax concessions for people over 50—something I thought the member for Mackellar, as the shadow minister for seniors, would have supported. It was something the shadow minister for superannuation did support before he got rolled. On 19 April, to a great fanfare, he announced opposition policy, which would be to allow people over 50 to make more tax concessional contributions to their superannuation accounts. It was a written speech, carefully scripted—gospel truth. It lasted a month. It lasted a month before the shadow minister for finance announced it had been discontinued.
The shadow minister for superannuation got rolled and he should hang his head in shame that he has let down, and his party has let down, people aged over 50 who are trying to save for the future. What the opposition has instead done—in this MPI and in so many other places—is engage in a scare campaign. They do it so well. I say you have to stick with what you are good at in politics—and they do it so well. They did it on the petroleum resource rent tax. They did it on national superannuation. They did it on Mabo. They did it on the CPRS and now they are doing it on this. They love a good scare campaign.
I know many in the community want to know about what is happening with share prices in Australia. They want to know about what is happening to the impact on share prices. So let us just go through it for the benefit of the House. From 30 April this year the Australian Stock Exchange 200 Materials Index that covers mining companies has fallen by 6.3 per cent. That is what enables the shadow minister for superannuation to get up here and say, ‘$20 billion has been wiped off the value of Australian mining stocks, and it’s all due to the resource super profits tax.’ Well how about the Standard and Poor’s 500 materials index, which covers the United States: a 9.7 per cent reduction. In Brazil—the home of Vale, one of the world’s biggest miners—the materials index showed an 11.2 per cent reduction. Clearly they are very worried about the resource super profits tax in Rio!
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke
—They are reading the Australian!
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—They probably read the Australian in Brazil; I am sure it has a very wide readership! In South Africa the mining index has fallen by seven per cent. They are all indices which have fallen by more than the Australian materials index between 30 April and 1 pm today.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming
—They’re investing in Australia, as well.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—The member for Bowman says that it is because these companies invest in Australia, as well. That’s a good one! Well done, and thanks for coming, the member for Bowman!
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! The member for Bowman will have his chance in a few minutes; otherwise he will not have a chance.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—Please explain why the South African, Brazilian and American mining indices have all fallen. He says it is because those countries invest in Australia. Well, maybe that would explain why the Nikkei index has fallen by 12.1 per cent, why the Standard and Poor’s 500 has fallen by 8.2 per cent and why the UK FTSE has fallen by 6.6 per cent, compared, in Australia, to the ASX 200 falling by 8.6 per cent.
So let us have less of the scare campaigns from the opposition. I welcome the opposition debating superannuation in Australia. I would welcome their response to our plans for superannuation. I welcome the member for Goldstein, who rolled the shadow minister for superannuation and discontinued his policy to support people over 50. But why don’t they start by saying what their plan is? They could start by disavowing the Leader of Opposition’s plan in Battlelines. In the Leader of the Opposition’s book—carefully written, scripted, gospel truth—he laid out his plans for superannuation. He wants fewer self-funded retirees. He wants fewer superannuants. He wants to abolish the tax concessions on superannuation. Now, a 30-year-old in the workforce today, under current arrangements, would have a retirement lump sum of $456,000.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The minister still has some time.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—We would add $108,000 to that. The Leader of the Opposition would take away $211,000. (Time expired)
4774
16:34:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—There are few things more dangerous than a government in hegemony with a ton full of cash inherited from a previous Treasurer. In fact, there is only one thing more dangerous, and that is a government on the skids, with ashen faced government MPs watching as their popularity plummets, with no money left in the kitty to continue the spin. I, for a moment, want to acknowledge the staff in the Prime Minister’s office watching this debate today, with a far more difficult job to do. They have no money left and they are still trying to maintain their boss’s desperate spin.
We have had two government speakers. The first of them was reading out a stump speech about investment in major infrastructure. The second was this member of the government talking about compulsory superannuation when the debate today is about superannuants—a slightly different suffix. Superannuants are mostly individuals, in this country, who are self reliant and hardworking. They have had a career of saving and they are watching it being wiped out by a Prime Minister desperate to cling to some flotsam to protect his political career.
All this Prime Minister wants is an exit strategy and I feel for those on the other side of this chamber—intelligent, hardworking MPs—hoping to be able to see their policies become reality but watching those policies erode in front of them. We just need a little bit of factoid here, don’t we, because what we are talking about is a mineral tax that is wiping out the wealth of superannuants in this country. What we are talking about is a mining sector that knows full well that it is an internationalised sector. They rely on the investments of large companies that Ian Harper from the Melbourne Business School will tell you are subject to internal price transfer. And the tougher you make it for them here in Australia the more they will invest in their mines in Chile or Africa.
There has been a distortion in the debate that these are somewhat non-renewable resources slipping through our fingers like sand and that we have to grab a few dollars for our labour base before it all disappears. The argument is complete froth and bubble, because these minerals are going to be there for decades to come. What we need is some form of security and sovereign knowledge that there is security to invest in Australia. That has been eroded in weeks, and that is shown in the stock market—through shares, dividends and superannuation values—and it is shown in the attitude of ordinary Australians towards our Prime Minister.
In areas with little to do with the mining sector, Australians will tell you they are nervous about this supertax grab. And they are nervous because they know deep down there are superannuants who invested in a block of land at Emerald in the hope that they might be able to build there and solve the housing crisis, but they have had contracts fail. They are nervous because they have invested in this sector and just hope for a stable return that the coalition offered them over 12 years, a stable fiscal base—not this ridiculous policy plinth that is simply a grab at tax, as if it is the only way to fund this government’s foolish spending.
It is this government that wasted so much debating time in this chamber saying that in some way this is funding the superannuation increase from nine to 12 per cent. Let us be honest. It is a $9 billion tax grab to fund $200 million of tax concessions, and the rest just feeds its spending addiction. It is a spending addiction on that side of the House that must be stopped somehow. What we have is a denial about reality. There is no willingness on that side of the chamber to talk about company tax. There is a simple rule in business: if you make more money as an entity you pay more company tax. You cannot get away from the fact that mining taxes have gone from $2.6 billion to $21.9 billion over the past decade.
This is not a debate about whether mining companies can pay more tax or not. This is a debate about confidence in this government to run our economy, and that is why it is in so much trouble. The pure fact is Australians do not trust a government advertising campaign that cannot even be honest that these mining companies pay company tax. I would be deeply disturbed if I were an Iluka shareholder being misrepresented on Q&A by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, that they will somehow be better off under this tax. I would be concerned about companies like Fortescue, if I held shares in them, predominantly Australian based which has little option to do what large multinationals do and that is shift effort internationally. And I would be worried about Mount Gibson and Atlas and other firms that thought they had sovereign stability but instead have Rudd sovereign risk.
Australians were yearning in 2007 for some form of spin instead of substance, for some promises without delivery, and of course for rhetoric without action, because they had not had that for 12 years. They have had two years of that now and look where it has left us. It has left us with uncontrollable, unaccountable spending and a Rudd government on the slide. (Time expired)
4775
16:39:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I certainly welcome the opportunity in this matter of public importance debate to talk on the resource super profits tax and superannuation, especially following the member for Bowman. Let us talk about some ‘factoids’, shall we, that the member for Bowman referred to. The fact is that the Rudd government’s tax reforms will broaden and strengthen the economy, ensuring all sectors grow in a sustainable way that benefits all Australians. The proceeds will be invested in superannuation savings, new infrastructure and tax cuts that will create jobs and help small businesses grow and thrive, and this will add 0.7 per cent to GDP and boost wages by 1.1 per cent. But I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI for another reason, and that is to debunk the misleading campaign that we hear from those opposite and from the mining sector.
Let us talk about the Liberals’ campaign—this latest scare campaign. If we go back a bit, the opposition opposed the petroleum resource rent tax. This was going to destroy the resource sector. They opposed national superannuation, and the Leader of the Opposition has said in the past that compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people. This is how serious he is about protecting those most senior in our community. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that the state mining industry is paying its fair share of tax. The opposition leader is now saying that the mining industry is paying more than its fair share of tax. Now we have Senator Barnaby Joyce, the shadow infrastructure spokesperson, saying the mining industry could pay more tax. The member for Bowman has just said that it is a distortion to say they are not renewable resources. I am looking forward to hearing further explanation of how the mineral resources in this country are renewable—because somehow it is a distortion, according to the member for Bowman. So I look forward to hearing that into the future.
Let us look at the mining industry’s campaign. I think we have heard it before. The opposition said that the country would collapse if Work Choices was ripped up, yet here we are still standing with the economy still thriving. The mining industry is claiming that it is putting on hold all new investments and it will walk away from existing investments. Let us look at this claim, shall we. In Queensland, a consortium of coal-mining firms has put in a bid of $4.85 billion through the Queensland Coal Industry Rail Group, which comprises 13 coal producers, to purchase the Queensland coal track network. Does this sound like the actions of an industry that says it is no longer going to proceed with investments and is going to pull out of current investments? Let us look at these companies. Are we talking about small companies that are wanting to make these investments? No. Let us look at some these 11 coal producers: BHP Billiton, Ensham Resources, Macarthur Coal, Peabody Energy, Rio Tinto Coal, Xstrata Coal, Wesfarmers Resources. These are big mining companies. Why have they put this bid forward? Because, as the Queensland Coal Industry Rail Group has said, the offer would encourage fair and open access, optimise network performances, enable early system expansions and encourage rail haulage competition. This is not what an industry does if it is about to walk away and go overseas to Africa, as we have just heard, or Chile or wherever else the member for Bowman tries to claim.
Let us have a look at the alternative that the Rudd government is putting forward. Australians will get a fair share of their non-renewable resources. They are owned by the Australian people. This is a tax on profits, not production—a concept the Leader of the Opposition appears yet to grasp. It is a fairer tax for all. It ensures that we restore what this country was getting from the resources sector a decade ago. Ten years ago, Australia was getting $1 for every $3 of mining profit from royalties and charges. Now it is getting $1 in $7.
We deserve our fair share. That is what this resource super profits tax will do. It will provide company tax cuts, small business company tax cuts, small business instant write-offs, an increase in the super guarantee to 12 per cent, super for low-income earners, more generous super caps, a rise in the superannuation guarantee age from 70 to 75, 50 per cent interest deductions up to a $1,000 limit and optional standard deductions. These are the some of the things that will eventuate from this tax. (Time expired)
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE BILL 2010
4777
Bills
R4347
Cognate bills:
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2010
4777
Bills
R4373
Second Reading
4777
Debate resumed from 31 May.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE BILL 2010
4777
Bills
R4347
Consideration in Detail
4777
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
4777
16:45:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—by leave—I move amendments 1 to 58 as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 15), omit “either the person’s employer or”.
(2) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 18 and 19), omit “, whether the person’s employer or the Secretary must pay them”.
(3) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 20 to 31), omit the box text, substitute: “Part 3-3 sets out when the Secretary must pay instalments to the person.”
(4) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 4 to 8), omit the box text.
(5) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 14 to 19), omit the box text.
(6) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 29 to 31), omit “, and an employer to seek internal review of certain types of decisions that affect employers”
(7) Clause 6, page 11 (lines 3 to 5), omit the definitions.
(8) Clause 6, page 14 (lines 25 to 28), omit the definition.
(9) Clause 6, page 17, (line 11), omit the definition.
(10) Clause 6, page 17, (lines 17 to 24), omit the definition.
(11) Clause 7, page 19 (line 29), omit “person’s employer or the”.
(12) Clause 62, page 61 (lines 9 and 10), omit “either a person’s employer (see Part 3-2) or”.
(13) Clause 63, page 62 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause 63(2), substitute:
(2) An instalment is payable to a person by the Secretary in accordance with section 84.
(14) Clause 64, page 62 (line 22) to page 63 (line 18), omit subclauses 64(2) to 64(4), substitute:
(2) The person’s instalment period is the period of 14 days starting on a day the Secretary considers appropriate for the person (or a class of person in which the person is included) and each successive 14 day period.
(3) The payday for the instalment is a day that the Secretary considers appropriate that occurs after the instalment period to which the instalment relates.
(15) Clause 67, page 64 (line 22), omit “An employer or the”, substitute “The”.
(16) Clause 67, page 64 (lines 26 to 31), omit the note.
(17) Clause 68, page 65 (line 13), omit “An employer or the Secretary”, substitute “The Secretary”.
(18) Clause 69, page 65 (lines 18 to 21), omit subclause 69(1).
(19) Clause 70, page 66 (lines 5 and 6), omit subclause 70(2).
(20) Clause 71, page 67 (line 1), to clause 82, page 75 (line 10), omit Part 3-2.
(21) Clause 83, page 76 (lines 6 to 16), omit the box text.
(22) Clause 84, page 77, line 2, to page 78, line 26, omit the clause, substitute:
84
Secretary required to pay instalment
If a person is eligible to receive an instalment, the Secretary must pay the instalment to the person on the payday for the instalment.
Note: See section 96 for when the Secretary is taken to have complied with this requirement.
(23) Clause 85, page 78 (line 27), to clause 87, page 80 (line 18), omit the clauses.
(24) Clause 90, page 82 (lines 6 and 7), omit “, whether by the person’s employer or the Secretary”
(25) Clause 90, page 82 (lines 12 and 13), omit “Other rules deal with the effect on a person’s instalment periods of changing who is required to pay instalments to the person.”
(26) Clause 91, page 83 (line 2), omit “or employer”.
(27) Clause 91, page 83 (line 5), omit “or a person’s employer”.
(28) Clause 91, page 83 (lines 8 and 9), omit “neither the Secretary nor the employer is otherwise required to pay an earlier instalment to the person”, substitute “the Secretary is not otherwise required to pay an earlier instalment to the person”.
(29) Clause 92, page 83 (line 16) to clause 94, page 85 (line 1), omit the clauses.
(30) Clause 95, page 85 (line 5), omit “or a person’s employer”.
(31) Clause 96, page 85 (line 13), omit “or a person’s employer”.
(32) Clause 100, page 87 (line 1) to clause 115, page 101, (line 9), omit Part 3-5.
(33) Clause 117, page 103 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph 117(c).
(34) Clause 117, page 103 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph 117(e).
(35) Clause 117, page 103 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph 117(g).
(36) Clause 140, page 115, (line 1) to clause 163, page 129 (line 26), omit Part 4-2.
(37) Clause 164, page 130 (lines 14 and 15), omit “Division 3 allows an employee to recover, as a debt, parental leave pay from his or her employer.”
(38) Clause 166, page 132 (line 16) to page 133 (line 20), omit the clause.
(39) Clause 169, page 135 (line 18), omit “or an employer”.
(40) Clause 169, page 135 (line 29), omit subparagraph 169(2)(b).
(41) Clause 169, page 135 (line 31), omit “or the employer”.
(42) Clause 172, page 137 (lines 1 to 20), omit Division 3.
(43) Clause 202, page 160 (lines 13 to 18), omit the box text.
(44) Clause 203, page 161 (lines 6 to 11), omit subclause 203(2).
(45) Clause 206, page 162 (lines 19 to 23), omit paragraphs 206(1)(a) to 206(1)(c).
(46) Clause 207, page 163 (line 11) to clause 208, page 165 (line 25), omit the clauses.
(47) Clause 209, page 165 (line 30) to page 166 (line 1), omit “, other than an application under section 207 (which deals with application for review of employer determination decisions),”.
(48) Clause 212, page 167 (line 30) to page 168 (line 25), omit the clause.
(49) Clause 213, page 169 (lines 11 to 13), omit the box text.
(50) Clause 215, page 170 (lines 24 and 25), omit subparagraphs 215(2)(vi) and 215(2)(vii).
(51) Clause 223, page 175 (line 1) to clause 230, page 178 (line 18), omit Division 3.
(52) Clause 231, page 180 (lines 1 to 4), omit the box text.
(53) Clause 252, page 196 (line 7), omit “or an employer”.
(54) Clause 257, page 199 (lines 5 to 6), omit “or an SSAT reviewable employer decision”.
(55) Clause 257, page 200 (lines 8 to 9), omit “or an SSAT reviewable employer decision”.
(56) Clause 259, page 202 (line 1) to page 203 (line 24), omit Division 11.
(57) Clause 299, page 232 (lines 10 to 13), omit subclause 299(1), substitute:
(1) The PPL rules or the regulations may make arrangements for the Secretary to make payments to persons who have a role similar to an employee.
(58) Clause 307, page 236 (lines 18 and 19), omit “(other than payments of instalments by employers under Division 2 of Part 3-2)”.
In moving these amendments, I am taking up my remarks of the other evening. There may be very good and altruistic reasons why women undertake a career. Unfortunately, most women in Australia are stewing on having children because of the economic hardship that would fall upon not only them but also their children. I emphasise that point. These amendments are about who should undertake the administration of this money.
I state again that while the emphasis is on career women all the time in our society, as it is in this bill, there is no emphasis at all on the stay-at-home mums. One woman who is on $140,000 is going to get $140,000 when she has a baby. The stay-at-home mum will get nothing at all. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs is shaking her head. I would take an interjection from her and let her explain to us what she is saying. All the speakers in this place that are backing you, Minister, have got up and said how wonderful it is that people will be able to get the same amount of money when they take time off to have their babies. I am not against that; I am quite happy to go along with that. I am just asking: what about the other women? Numerous women in that category have rung me up and bitterly complained. I will be moving a resolution in the House on the substantive issue, because it is a money bill and I cannot do that this evening.
Getting back to the amendments, they are simply to take the employer out of administering this payment to these mothers and putting the government in their place. The GST and the BAS were colossal impositions upon small business. I remember that I was at a meeting where one of the ladies there, when the Leader of the National Party was saying what a good thing it would be for all of us, spontaneously burst out crying. A couple of blokes put their arms around her and took her out of the room. She was a good friend, so I went over and saw her the next morning. She is a hardware store owner. She said: ‘Bob, I just simply couldn’t take any more work. We get up at seven o’clock because of all the builders. Then I have to rush back over and get the kids breakfast. A lot of these blokes work late. Then I have to get the kids dinner. Then I have got to do all the bookwork for the business late into the evening. I couldn’t face up to another bit of work.’
We would ask the government to consider that they have made an error here in placing the responsibility upon the employers. This burden should not be borne by the owner operators. If you want to differentiate it out and say that Woolworths and Coles have to do it, that is fine by me—the corporates. But for owner-operator businesses to have another huge burden of responsibility placed upon them is wrong. If they lose a good and key employee because a mother has to go off and have a baby and she needs time off to raise that baby through that early period, the business has obviously lost a very valuable employee. On top of that, they have the burden of administering these payments as well. So I recommend these amendments to the House. I would have liked the opposition to have backed the amendments, but there seems to be an element of hypocrisy there because they have informed me that they are not backing these amendments—amendments that they actually moved in this place.
4780
16:50:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution to the debate. Just to clarify one of the issues that the member for Kennedy has just raised about a woman who may be earning $140,00 before she goes off on parental leave, under the government’s scheme she will only be entitled to exactly the same amount as a woman who is a casual worker or a seasonal worker, the federal minimum wage of just over $540 a week. I make that clarification for the member for Kennedy. By contrast—and maybe this is where the misunderstanding arose—the opposition has put forward a different scheme. As the member for Kennedy would be aware, the opposition is proposing a new tax on larger businesses, a new tax expected to raise around $3 billion a year. That tax will be imposed on most things that Australians buy. From the revenue derived from that tax, the opposition proposes that if a woman is earning—and to take the figure that the member for Kennedy has raised—$140,000 before she had her baby then, under the opposition’s scheme, she would be entitled to six months of maternity leave paid at her full wage; she would get $70,000.
16:51:58
That is the opposition’s proposal: a high-income woman earning $140,000 a year would get $70,000 over a six-month period, paid for by this new tax. That is the opposition’s scheme; it is not the government’s scheme. The government is very clear that we think we should have a government funded scheme, which is what this bill is about, and that we will pay it to women for 18 weeks at the federal minimum wage no matter what her income is. There is a work test and there is an income test, but—to go to your point—that is the relevant proposition of the bill.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Minister, can we get yourself and the government to look at stay-at-home mums?
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Member for Kennedy, the minister has the call. You can have another call, but not at the moment.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—If the Deputy Speaker will allow me, I will take the interjection, because it is a very important one. I do want to indicate to the member for Kennedy and to all the mothers who are at home—and increasingly we are having dads at home as well—that we certainly respect the hard work that they undertake at home caring for their newborn babies and their children. We want to make sure that we do give people a choice, and that is why we are continuing to support the payment of the baby bonus and family tax benefit parts A and B. If a mother or a father is entitled to paid parental leave, they will not be entitled to the baby bonus or family tax benefit part B, and it will be taxable, whereas a mother at home will be entitled to both the baby bonus and family tax benefit parts A and B. So we certainly do want to support mums at home, and I absolutely respect the hard work that they do.
Mr Katter interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Kennedy will have another chance if he wishes.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I will go to the member for Kennedy’s amendments which he has just moved. The primary purpose of his amendments, as he has just outlined, is to remove the role of employers in providing parental leave pay to their long-term employees. The first thing I would like the member for Kennedy to be aware of is that we are requiring that this role be undertaken for long-term employees only—that means employees of more than 12 months. That is the first thing. It will not apply to shorter term employees. To give the member for Kennedy an idea of how many people we expect this to apply to, we understand that only nine per cent of all businesses will be a paymaster in any given year. (Extension of time granted) I understand the member for Kennedy’s concerns about small businesses, and I think his points are well made, but I inform him that we expect only three per cent of small businesses to be the paymaster in any one year. So we expect a very small number of small businesses to have to undertake this task.
The other remark I would make is that the member for Kennedy’s amendments are really contrary to the whole objective that the government has. We do want to see employers having a role in the whole Paid Parental Leave scheme. We want to see that paid parental leave is delivered as an entitlement for women participating in the workforce. That is one of the reasons we are having employers be the paymaster to their eligible long-term employees, in exactly the same way that they currently pay them.
There are a couple of other things that I think might help the member for Kennedy. We certainly understand, as many employers do, that paid parental leave really does return benefits to employers. Many employers understand that, and that is of course why they offer their own paid parental leave schemes. One of the things we have done in this legislation is delay the requirement on employers to be the paymaster, so they will not have to start being the paymaster for their long-term employees until after 1 July next year. This recognises that they need a little bit of time to get used to the new scheme and also ties it in with the beginning of the financial year. If employers do not want to start that on 1 January, when the scheme begins next year, the Family Assistance Office will make the payments for the first six months.
We also will be providing employers with the necessary funds to pay parental leave pay in advance. We certainly do not want to have any adverse impact on their cash flow. Employers will not be making superannuation contributions during the paid parental leave period. They will not accrue any additional leave entitlements during a period of parental leave pay. Also, employers will not have to change the normal pay cycle. They will not have to set up any special accounts or report back to the Family Assistance Office. They will just have to do what they normally do, which is pay the parental leave pay to their employees with the usual tax deducted. The estimated transitional costs are in fact very small and, based on Productivity Commission analysis, will be far outweighed by the benefits that employers will receive through retention of any skilled staff.
Finally, I say to the member for Kennedy that any reasonable costs incurred by employers will of course be tax deductible. As a result, we will not be supporting these amendments.
4781
16:59:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—I will be very brief. I think the points that Tempe Harvey has continually made should be listened to by the government. I accept that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is not giving us any joy on the wider issue of looking after the stay-at-home mums. But she is clearly not hostile to them either, and we appreciate that. We would also appreciate the government’s seriously considering the very reasonable and sensible points being brought forward by Tempe Harvey and her group. Originally, I very strongly supported the minister and the government as well as the opposition on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. I apologise to the House for my slight confusion of the policies of the opposition and the government on this, but then again there is so much confusion on that issue that I can be excused for making such a mistake.
I would also like the minister to consider the stories she is getting about only three per cent and nine per cent and so on. Minister, you should have been in your position long enough to know that you do not always get the straight line from people in the Public Service and you really have to do a lot of the homework yourself on these issues.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
4782
Ms MACKLIN
(Jagajaga
—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)
17:01:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2010
4782
Bills
R4373
Second Reading
4782
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
4782
Ms MACKLIN
(Jagajaga
—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)
17:02:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2010
4782
Bills
R4350
Second Reading
4782
Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Dr Emerson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4782
17:03:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I am pleased to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. This bill was introduced on 13 May 2010 and increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge in line with increases in the consumer price index for the 2009-10 income year. This bill maintains the intention of the low-income thresholds by ensuring that individuals and families on low incomes remain exempt from the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge according to changes in the CPI. So this is an annual event and, I have to say, a quite unremarkable one.
The low-income threshold for the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge has been increased in line with the CPI since 1996-97. Similar bills have been introduced into this House by the previous coalition government and the current government in every year since 1996-97, with the exception of 1998-99, when the CPI was a negative figure. The increases to the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge will apply from the 2009-10 income year. I commend the bill to the House.
4782
17:05:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. I come from a working-class family in Ipswich, and we thought when I was growing up that the provision of both education and decent health care was absolutely vital. My local member of federal parliament during most of the time that I was growing up was Bill Hayden, who brought in Medibank over the objections of doctors and the Fraser coalition government. He brought in many reforms. Medibank gave working-class people, people on low incomes, pensioners and others their first opportunity to access a decent healthcare system in this country. It was long overdue. Medibank was a great initiative, but it was gutted and effectively neutered by the Fraser government. Medicare, which was brought in by again a Labor government in the 1980s during the Hawke-Keating years, was absolutely vital.
We want to make sure that people on low incomes who cannot achieve financial security and are in a position where they need decent health care but cannot afford it are provided with quality care in our health and hospital system. I am pleased with what we are doing in the budget both nationally and in my area, which I will talk about very briefly. I am also pleased that this housekeeping bill, which makes a difference to people’s lives financially, has been brought forward once again this year. The Medicare levy is imposed at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent on a resident’s entire taxable income. We want to make provision—and I think there has been a bipartisan approach to this—for people on low incomes not to be liable for the Medicare levy.
We have a progressive tax system in this country. It is not a regressive tax system when it comes to income tax. We want to make sure that people who have what economists would call low economic status are provided for in terms of their costs for health and hospital care. Medicare is a great Labor initiative. I am pleased that the previous, coalition government undertook the adjustments every year, except, as the member for Farrer said, in 1998-99, when there was a negative movement in the CPI. The legislation proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families, lining them up with movements in the consumer price index. The legislation also proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below the age of eligibility for the age pension to make sure that this group of individuals will not have a Medicare levy liability when they do not have an income tax liability. As the legislation makes plain, increases apply to this income year—that is, 2009-10—and future income years.
This is an important change because it means that people do not have to pay the levy if they are low-income earners and there will be more money in their pockets. It means that they will be in a position to afford to pay for the necessities of life, such as food and clothing for themselves and their children. It is important to make sure that they have extra income in their hands to do those sorts of things. The provision of health care and making sure that Medicare operates successfully, efficiently and effectively is crucial to people not just nationally but locally in my area. As federal members of parliament, I am sure that all of us have had people come to us from time to time in relation to Medicare and, certainly, in relation to private health insurance and other issues. How we treat people on low incomes in a decent way, by providing adequate services in terms of primary health care and hospitals, says a lot about where we are at as a country, in the states and in our communities.
What the government is trying to do with respect to building the National Health and Hospitals Network for the future adds to a lot of the legislation that we deal with every day in this place, including this legislation. Creating the National Health and Hospitals Network, which the Prime Minister often says is funded nationally but run locally, will be important. Making sure that Medicare is strengthened is also critical for our health and hospitals system.
Each year we see budgets in this place and money is rolled out. The Rudd government is delivering an additional $2.2 billion over four years for better access to more doctors and GPs. Those GPs engage with Medicare every day in their practices. This unprecedented amount of support for Medicare is critical in my community, which has a shortage of doctors. We have had that shortage for quite some time. The provision in the budget will help my community. Additional doctors, more subacute hospital beds and additional aged-care beds will also make a difference.
The legislation before the House is quite minor, but, like so much legislation, it will make a difference to people’s lives. It will make a difference to low-income earners and pensioners, and they are the ones we should care for the most. As a Labor representative I always believe that we should care for those in need, those on low incomes and those who are struggling. That is because of the experiences that I had in my household when I was growing up, and certainly many others on this side of the House had those experiences as well. I dare say that some on the opposite side of the chamber had those experiences as well. This important legislation might be housekeeping legislation, but it will make a real difference in people’s lives by putting money back in their pockets, and that will make a difference to my community. I support the legislation.
4784
17:13:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010 has been represented as a simple measure. It is a measure that has occurred in all years bar one. It proposes to address two issues related to the Medicare levy per se and the Medicare charges, which were altered during the years of the Howard government for good reason. Of course, that has been sustained by this government in its desperation to find any amount of money possible to fund its failed health policies. Quite properly, the levy and the thresholds involved do not call upon low-income earners to make a contribution to the health budget of Australia if they earn income below the level referred to in the legislation.
There may be a reason that the parliament deals each year with those amounts of money when it is openly admitted that they are adjusted to the consumer price index. The consumer price index is, of course, known. Often the adjusted amounts in this circumstance are increases in real terms. The parliament continues to make this adjustment and records it in the Hansard on an annual basis. As I said, there was no adjustment in only one year, and, of course, that was a year in which the CPI demonstrated a negative movement.
It is interesting to note in that regard, and as a consequence of that period under the Howard government when inflation, with all of its debilitating effects, was just about wiped out of the Australian economy, that it became apparent that pensioners, for instance, needed a new index, which became known as MTAWE, which is, as I recollect, a 25 per cent proportion of male total average weekly earnings. This is an arrangement that is of importance because it adjusted people’s pensions to a figure more commensurate with the huge increase that was occurring in real wages under that disgraceful scheme known as Work Choices—so blackguarded in this place. But the real increase in wages for workers, and of course their employment opportunities, were huge during that period and it was appropriate consequently to ensure that pensioners could better meet the cost of living that arose in those circumstances by being given a percentage of male total average weekly earnings.
This legislation deals firstly with the circumstances of pensioners, and, of course, even fully-fledged age pensioners have additional income from time to time. It sets out in the tables to be found in the explanatory memorandum the threshold after which persons must pay the Medicare levy at a rate of 10c in the dollar for every dollar they earn over and above the threshold until such time as they pay the full rates applicable.
Nevertheless, the surcharge is of much more interest to me inasmuch as it was an initiative of the Howard government which I had argued for in 1998 with a policy that, in the first instance, recognised the foolishness of the argument of community rating, where a young and healthy person was obliged, and is still obliged, to pay the same private health insurance premium as a more elderly person. Of course, when it comes to the business of health and the cost of delivering health services, age is a major contributing factor where the costs increase rapidly.
The first point was that it became patently obvious that people had worked out the system and the system was this: while you were young and healthy and unlikely to be affected, other than if you had a car crash or some sporting injury or fell under a bus, to use a common term, then in fact you had to pay the levy unless you were one of these people we are dealing with today whose income was lower than that. The threshold is quite low—an income that does not exceed $18,488 in the adjusted schedule for taxable income or family income. Until then the levy does not apply. But you paid it, as you had to, and you took the risk on ever having to get in the queue for a public hospital.
Usually the form of injuries that people suffered in their youth guaranteed them access to a public hospital, even if it were, for instance, a premature heart attack that might be visited upon someone in their 30s or 40s. Under that community rating principle, and at a time when you turn, say, 50 or 60 and your knees or hip joints were starting to give you some pain and suffering or you required other treatment, which was termed elective surgery, you went and joined a private health fund. Of course, the private health sector under the Hawke-Keating government was getting loaded up with people for whom they could not increase the premiums above the community rated premium, which was set by government, and the government faced massive payouts for people needing elective surgery.
And the Howard government, in recognising this, but not as I proposed in 1998 by having a three-tier insurance premium structure with an entirely different approach to support the people who could not afford it, said that if you had not entered into an agreement with the private health insurers at an age which I recollect was 30—it is not mentioned in the second reading speech or elsewhere—then in fact an additional one per cent would be added to your Medicare levy. Then there was a further surcharge that applied to people whose income exceeded another level, which meant they were high-income earners and, as such, they could and should pay more if they failed to purchase private health insurance. These measures deal with those matters, and they are the traditional arrangements that apply in setting these particular requirements.
Another measure the Howard government introduced, which had some relationship to my 1988 policy, was a rebate on all private health insurance policies. During the Hawke-Keating government, and I think quite deliberately so, there was huge pressure being put on the private health funds to service all of the high-risk sector in the health services industry. They were on the verge of collapse. It has to be remembered that the Australian Constitution forbids the commercial conscription of medical practitioners and dentists and people of that nature. I think that was put in in 1946—included in the referendum question that for the first time ever gave the Australian government the right to participate in health services. I could never understand why at one stage the Prime Minister was threatening the states with some form of referendum when such a referendum was conducted in 1946 and he has all the powers he needs if he wants to accommodate the cost.
The whole purpose of the rebate was to give 30 per cent of the premium cost by way of a rebate to all persons who participated in private health, and to increase that to 35 per cent and 40 per cent as people passed age thresholds, which I think were 70 and 75—though it might have been 65 and 70. That has seen a massive escalation in private health insurance participation. On the one hand there is a stick that says you will pay additional surcharges, as mentioned in this legislation, if you do not join a private health fund at a certain age and/or when your income exceeds a fairly substantial amount of money—around $130,000, as I recollect—and, on the other hand there is a carrot whereby if you join voluntarily not only are you protected from those surcharges but also the government gives you a rebate. At the last election, the Rudd opposition promised faithfully, one of these cross your heart promises, that they would never revisit that rebate and attempt to alter it. But, surprise surprise, we have been through that exercise in this House—another broken promise; they attempted to means test it.
You can raise all sorts of socialist philosophy about when a rebate of that nature should be paid, but if you consider the commercial arrangements the government is getting a very good deal by convincing people they should pay two-thirds of their own hospital costs through a private health insurance scheme. That is what it does—it is no gift to those people any more than some government contribution to private schools is a gift to the parents. They pick up the other probably 80 per cent of the cost of educating their children in a private school. If all those schools were to close down—and the private health system was on the threshold of that at the end of the Hawke-Keating government—one would wonder where the state and federal governments would find the money to educate all those kids. I think attendance now at private secondary schools for years 11 and 12 is over 50 per cent—and it could be higher than that.
The reality is that we are still dealing here with a system that in these circumstances, outside of the stick, gives no incentive for more people to participate in the private health industry. Yet, were everybody to be in the private health industry, and were people subsidised up to 100 per cent of the relevant premium cost, the cost to the Australian taxpayer would be less. A very generous premium rebate/subsidy scheme up to 100 per cent could be provided and it would cost less than the present system. But, oh no, we are now being managed by a government that believes it knows best. It believes it can manage the corner store much better than can a small business couple; it can manage public hospitals better than a state administration, and the federal Minister for Health and Ageing will be more available to 21 million Australians seeking health services than a state minister for health—or for that matter a local shire president or mayor in smaller communities where the administration of local hospitals should reside. It would be less expensive and they would have the responsibility of appointing a director of nursing who would have the qualifications to run the hospital, just as they appoint an engineer to design and oversee the construction of their roads or a chief executive to manage the financial affairs of their council. It could be done quite easily and would be less expensive than even these regional boards that are now proposed for a health scheme that nobody seems to understand.
The other fact of life is that when this money is collected and these particular rates and surcharges are collected it will not all go within a bull’s roar, to use an old saying, of the cost of running public health services—exactly the same as we see with the Building the Education Revolution costs. In fact you get a situation that you can see advertised in last week’s Sunday Times in Perth. You can get an air-conditioned, four-bedroom, brick and tile house with a home theatre, an office, two bathrooms and all the trimmings which can be built for $160,000 as advertised. Yet this government, as it manages to shop with its $16 billion expenditure for adding buildings to schools around Australia, needs nearly $1 million to build a tuckshop or, for instance, a covered assembly area which a typical farmer would buy for $50,000 or $60,000 and put all of his expensive and very large plant under. So we have this issue that we should be raising taxes from the Australian people for the purpose of empowering governments and member of parliaments who pride themselves on their ability to run a business, yet they cannot get within 400 per cent of the cost of construction of a building when compared to the private sector—and day after day after day the private education people are demonstrating what happens when people make these decisions at the grassroots. So it is a much bigger deal than the matters we deal with today.
As the financial impact documentation relevant to these measures points out and advises, if we do nothing then, based on that, in 2010-11 government revenues will drop by $90 million, in 2011-12 by $45 million, in 2012-13 by $45 million and in 2013-14 by $45 million. But considering we are going to change those figures each year I think those forecasts might be as good as some of the other forecasts that we have been hearing in recent times. The reality is that this an additional tax system that still applies, but it will be reduced somewhat by relieving certain people on very low incomes—and $18,000 in this day and age is a very low income—from the levy and it will also adjust the surcharge entry point to $31,000 or $36,000 depending on whether it is family income or personal income. That will provide some relief to people, but in fact they should be taking out private health insurance. They should accept their responsibility to do so and they should make sure, by so doing, that they do not crowd out the very needy and deserving who are dependent on—(Time expired)
4787
17:33:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. This bill proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles and families in line with movements in the consumer price index, or CPI. This will be welcome news for many of my constituents in the electorate of Hindmarsh who are on low or fixed incomes. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below age pension age will also be increased to ensure that individuals in this cohort will not incur a Medicare levy liability when they do not have an income tax liability. The increases will apply to the 2009-10 year of income and later income years. The government understands that cost of living increases hit low-income and fixed income Australians the hardest, so these threshold increases will ensure that the Medicare levy does not add to those cost pressures.
The Medicare levy is imposed at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent on a resident’s entire taxable income. However, low-income earners are not liable for the Medicare levy, consistent with the progressive nature of income tax. The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions will also be increased to come into line with increases in the CPI so that a low-income family member will continue to not be subject to the Medicare levy surcharge. For example, in 2009-10 a couple where one partner had an income of $140,000 and the other had an income of $18,488—which had increased from $17,794 in 2008-09 in line with the movements in the CPI—would be above the Medicare levy surcharge threshold of $143,000. However, the low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions would ensure that the partner on $18,488, whose income increased in line with movements in the CPI, would not have to pay the surcharge assuming the couple did not have appropriate private patient hospital cover. The higher income partner would still be liable to pay the surcharge.
In my electorate of Hindmarsh there are more than 20,000 people aged over 65. To many of them the cost of living and the cost of health care are key concerns. For them it will be welcome news indeed that the government will continue to support them and continue to respond to the needs of people who have less capacity to pay but no less a right to access quality health services and health care in Australia. I note that similar amendments have been announced in previous budgets and have been supported by both sides of the House. I hope that that will be the case this time around as well. It is important to note that if the bill is not passed by 30 June 2010 affected taxpayers might have their tax refunds delayed or might need to have their assessments amended once it has been passed.
This amendment complements the Rudd Labor government’s historic health and hospital reform program, which is the most significant reform since the introduction of Medicare. To begin with, the government is investing $1.2 billion in training and supporting more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals as part of building a national health and hospitals network. This includes an additional $523 million investment in Australia’s nurses and these investments will ensure that our health workforce meets the needs of Australians today and the growing demand for health services into the future.
The Rudd Labor government is also investing $390.3 million to support almost the equivalent of 4,600 full-time practice nurses in general practice in a major boost to primary care never seen before. For the first time, GPs in urban areas will be eligible for funding to help employ practice nurses. More practice nurses will help take the pressure off GPs by providing clinical support in areas such as wound care and immunisation, managing recall and reminder systems and patient education in areas such as reducing alcohol consumption and quitting smoking et cetera.
The Australian General Practice Network has found that practices employing a practice nurse see more than 800 extra patients each year. With GPs then able to see an extra 3.8 million patients each year across Australia, patients will find it easier to get an appointment and easier to have access to these services. Annual incentive payments of $25,000 per full-time GP for a registered nurse and $12,500 per full-time GP for an enrolled nurse will be made available to eligible accredited general practices. By 2013-14, an estimated 4,537 GP practices will receive more funding, worth $31,500 per year on average, to make better use of highly skilled practice nurses.
The government will invest $103.1 million to better support nurses working in aged-care settings and to better support the current aged-care nursing workforce. These are just some of the things. The government will provide $59.9 million in incentive payments for existing aged-care workers to upgrade their qualifications and remain working in the aged-care sector. There will be $21 million to fund an additional 600 enrolled nurse training places and 300 registered nurse scholarships over four years for aged-care nurses to upgrade their skills in recognition of the increasing frailty of older Australians in aged care. There will be $18.7 million to trial new models of care to expand and improve the role of nurse practitioners in aged care. That will be building on the 2009 budget changes to provide access to Medicare and PBS for nurse practitioners. This investment will support greater access to primary health and care services for aged-care residents. There will be $3.5 million to explore regulation of personal care workers and assistants in nursing in aged care. This will assist in considering the inclusion of personal care workers in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions.
To better plan for the aged-care workforce needs into the future, the government will also provide $500,000 to conduct a research study of staffing levels, skills mix and resident care needs in Australian residential aged-care facilities and, as part of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into aged care, examine future workforce requirements—which are very important—including the influences of supply and demand, and come up with the options to ensure the sector continues to have a suitably qualified workforce to provide the best possible care.
These measures, together with those announced in the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill, will assist in building our workforce, including the need to continue to provide high-quality care to our ageing population and the need for our allied health professionals in rural and regional areas, which have not been forgotten either. The government will provide $34.1 million for two new rural locum programs to give around 3,000 nurses and 400 allied health professionals the time to take leave. The government will also invest $6.5 million in providing 400 additional clinical training scholarships over four years for allied health students in rural and regional areas to provide more opportunities for those interested in working in the bush. Mental health is another area that the government is looking at as a priority in this budget. In the health and hospital reforms the government has committed to supporting and expanding the number of specialist mental health nurses. These are very vital changes and additional investment in Australia’s health workforce. They are an absolute necessity, together with the changes that we are making to the legislation. These will ensure that people have better access and better services all in place through this legislation.
I also mention an announcement made the other day through the Medicare offices that are around Australia. It was quite welcomed in my electorate where we are going to co-locate services in a particular shopping centre where there is a Medicare office. We are going to include the agency of Centrelink together with Medicare in an office in West Lakes. This is part of the Rudd government’s service delivery reform plan where more offices will have Medicare working side by side with Centrelink under one roof. Many shoppers at West Lakes shopping centre and residents from around the area in my electorate will benefit from the new co-location service which will give them better access to a whole range of government health and social welfare services from one convenient location, including their local Medicare office to deal with their Medicare issues.
I suppose adding a Centrelink service to the existing Medicare service will simplify people’s dealings with government by giving them more control and better support and assistance when they feel that they need it. Importantly, there will be no job loss announcements as a result of this co-location. The site I am talking about currently offers Medicare services, which will be now joined with Centrelink services, and the number of staff is expected to increase to cater for the Centrelink services. More than 140,000 people in Adelaide’s north-western suburbs use Medicare office services. This is just another example of the Rudd Labor government delivering better health services for the people of Hindmarsh and better access to health services in and around Australia and especially in the electorate of Hindmarsh.
4790
17:44:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—Firstly, before turning to the substance of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010, I would like to link in to what the member for Hindmarsh was saying about the collocated Medicare office that has just been announced for his electorate. I would like to put on the record that we have a collocated Medicare and Centrelink office in the Shortland electorate. It replaced the Belmont Medicare office, which the Howard government closed holus-bolus in 1997. The Belmont Medicare office had been one of the best patronised Medicare offices in the area, but there was one problem with it, and that was that it was located in a Labor-held electorate.
In the 1998 and subsequent elections Labor promised to reopen the Belmont Medicare office. I made representations to the previous government about the need for it, especially for elderly residents. While public transport was good going north, it still took elderly residents quite a while to travel to Charlestown, where the Medicare office was. Alternatively, they could travel to Lake Haven on the Central Coast, but it was quite difficult for residents to travel in that direction if they did not have a car. It took Labor getting into government to deliver that vital service, that Medicare office, that the people of Shortland electorate—people living in the Belmont, Swansea, Ballantyne, Redhead and surrounding areas—had longed for. That Medicare office was snatched away from them by the Howard government. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, when the Medicare and Centrelink office is operating in your electorate, you will find that your constituents benefit from it. The residents are finding the Medicare office at Belmont very useful. It is all about delivering services to people in the area that they live, recognising that older people need to have the services close to them and making government services user-friendly. It is about delivering to people, not about people delivering to government.
Before I go to the substance of my contribution to this debate, there is another issue that I am very disappointed to have to raise. I have to make an apology to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. An arrangement was made between the government and the opposition for you to speak before the member for O’Connor because you needed to be in the chair. Unfortunately, the member for O’Connor did not honour that agreement. In his contribution to this debate, the member for O’Connor was quite scathing of the Rudd government’s honouring of commitments. Well, the member for O’Connor could not even honour a simple commitment made between the government and the opposition to allow the member for Hindmarsh to speak before him so he could make his contribution to the debate. This place operates on the goodwill of all parties. On many occasions, we allow members of the opposition to come on to the speakers’ list when they had not been on it. We are mindful of the fact that members of the opposition also undertake chair duty, and we need to be flexible in that. On many occasions, two government members will speak or we will let two opposition members speak, just so this House can function. Unfortunately, on this occasion the member for O’Connor did not honour the commitment. When I pointed out to him that you needed to be in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, his comment was it was your problem. Well, I do not see it as your problem; I see it as a problem for the House. I was extremely disappointed by the member for O’Connor’s actions. I thank you and I thank the member for Braddon for filling in for you and sitting in the chair to allow you to make your very valuable contribution to this important debate.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010 is consistent with what has happened in previous years. It proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles and families and to increase the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold in line with movements in the consumer price index. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below aged pension age will also be increased to ensure that individuals in this cohort will not incur a Medicare levy liability when they do not have an income tax liability. The increase will apply to the 2009-10 income year and later income years. Similar legislation to this has been through the House on many occasions. In fact, there has been a threshold adjustment for every year since 1996-97. There was not an income adjustment in 1998-99 because there was a negative movement in the CPI.
I believe this legislation will be non-controversial. I look to the opposition to support this legislation, because it is legislation that helps Medicare function in the way it is intended to. Medicare has been looked upon as being the greatest reform in the history of the Australian health system. It provides universal health care to all Australians and it ensures that, if somebody is sick, they will be able to see a doctor; and, if somebody needs hospital treatment, they will be able to enter a hospital. That is vitally important to all Australians.
I have to say that there has been a new reform that I think will come up to the mark as far as being one of the most important health reforms in Australia’s history—that is, the national health and hospital reform that was agreed to at COAG on 20 April. This replaces eight separate health systems with a single national health and hospital network, combining all public hospitals, all GP services and related services. It dedicates one-third of the GST revenue currently paid to the states and territories so that the Commonwealth can take majority financial control of the entire network and invest this revenue directly in health and hospitals. It puts small local hospital networks in charge and makes sure that the networks meet national standards and publish accurate performance reports. Medicare was a landmark reform. The national hospital network will be landmark legislation when it passes through this parliament.
The Rudd government has delivered on health for the Australian people. Labor has always delivered in the area of health for the Australian people, be it Medicare or the hospital network reform. I have to say that this is in stark contrast to the years of the Howard government, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the then health minister. He used to stand up in this place with rolled gold, rock-solid, ironclad guarantees that Medicare would be looked after on his watch—and he failed. He failed to look after public hospitals. He ripped $1 billion out of public hospitals. His response to the Rudd government’s budget this year is to rip another $1 billion out of hospitals. He is the $2 billion man, constantly ripping money out of health. He used to stand up in this place and say that he and the Howard government were the best friends Medicare ever had. Bulk-billing reached record low levels when he was the health minister, and the cost of healthcare became more and more expensive. The real win for the Australian people was when the Rudd government won and he was no longer health minister. Just as he is lazy and does not like economics, I remember him saying he did not like health, he was not interested in health, he found health rather boring, he had been health minister for too long and he wanted to do something different. That was obvious, and his contempt for health is obvious now, with his plan to rip another $1 billion out of health.
The Leader of the Opposition is a real risk to health. He is a real risk to the Australian people. And he is a risk that, quite frankly, the Australian people cannot afford. Contrast that to the Rudd government’s performance in the area of health, where you have a $64 billion agreement for health and hospital funding over a five-year period; $600 million in an elective surgery waiting list reduction plan—and that was for 36 superclinics. But in this year’s budget there was funding for an additional 23 superclinics. I know members on this side of the House are all competing to get funding for those superclinics. There has been $872 million in investment in preventative health; $1.6 billion to close the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; $134 million in investment for the rural and remote workforce; $3.2 billion for 35 health infrastructure projects; $300 million in low real interest rate loans for residential aged care facilities; $293 million for 23 transitional care facilities—and this was agreed to all before the budget.
In the budget there was more money for health. It is phenomenal that one government can commit so much to health when the previous government ripped so much out of health. What it does is show that the Rudd government has a real commitment to the Australian people, the Rudd government recognises how important health is, the Rudd government recognises how important Medicare is and the Rudd government recognises how important it is to invest in hospitals and health services and in the training of doctors. The Rudd government also realised how important it was to respond to The blame game report that was conducted by the previous parliament and brought down in November 2006—a report, I might add, that the Howard government could not even respond to. The now Leader of the Opposition was the health minister at the time, and he did not even sit down, read the recommendations and come back with an answer to the recommendations that were included in that report. That is very different to the approach of the Rudd government, which has made health a priority. In this year’s budget the government is investing $7.3 billion over five years. There will be $470 million invested to improve after-hours access to GPs and primary care services, and that will be supported locally by Medicare.
In the Hunter we have after-hours GP access that operates out of the local hospital. It is a wonderful service. It is a service that has looked after the people of the Hunter for a very long period of time and will continue to flourish. There are also some after-hours GP practices that provide care for people in the Lake Macquarie part of the Shortland electorate. But on the Central Coast these initiatives will really be welcome because they do not have the same level of after-hours care that is available in the Lake Macquarie part of the Shortland electorate. I welcome it with open arms.
As I said, there is $355 million in the budget for 23 new GP superclinics. I might add that that is one of the areas that the opposition intends to rip money out of. The opposition does not have a grasp of on-the-ground services needed for people living in our communities. I know that the member for Paterson was delighted to see the GP superclinic open in his electorate recently, so they are welcome.
There will be $523 million invested in training support for nurses. That will be very welcome. That includes nurses working in general practice. I know that the doctor’s surgery that I attend has two practice nurses. They are very valuable members of the team operating out of that practice, and I know that the extra money will be welcomed, not only by the GP practice that I attend but by all GP practices in my electorate and, I am sure, throughout Australia.
There will be $467 million to modernise our health and hospital system, through electronic records. This is something that has been pursued for a long time. When in government the Leader of the Opposition was very supportive of electronic health records. Now that he is in opposition he is planning to ‘discontinue’—I think that is the word—the plan to introduce electronic health records. Having electronic health records is really good health practice; it is a way of ensuring standardisation across the health system. Once again, it is something that the Leader of the Opposition will discontinue and rip out of the health system.
I might stop going through all the wonderful initiatives that have been put in place by the Rudd government. They are initiatives that really take health care to a new level and will be great for the Australian people. They have been welcomed in the Shortland electorate.
I conclude by saying that I am extremely disappointed by the performance of the opposition. I have been extremely disappointed by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly when he was health minister. He was the minister who actually gave the terms of reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to undertake the inquiry into health funding. It issued The blame game report, which identified chronic problems within our health system and chronic workforce shortages and made some very strong recommendations on how to address the problems that existed in the health system. The report was ignored by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government.
The Rudd government did not ignore the report. We read it. The minister and the Prime Minister took on board the recommendations that were included in this report and went about reforming our health system—reforms that compare with the major reform of Medicare. I commend this bill to the House. I hope that the opposition will support it. It is a very important bill for those people who depend on it, and it must pass through the House by 30 June.
4793
18:04:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—I would like to thank those members who have taken part in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. This bill increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the consumer price index. The individual threshold amount is to be increased from $17,794 to $18,488. The level of the family income threshold is to be increased from $30,025 to $31,196.
The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below age pension age is also increased so that individuals in this cohort do not pay the Medicare levy when they do not have a tax liability. This will also ensure that these pensioners receive the full benefit of the increase in the pension announced by the government in the 2009-10 budget. The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions is similarly increased. This change ensures that a low-income member of a family will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2009-10 year of income and later income years.
The annual adjustments to the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge low-income thresholds have enjoyed bipartisan support for more than a decade. I would again like to thank those who have participated in this debate and commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
4794
Dr EMERSON
(Rankin
—Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs)
18:06:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO) BILL 2010
4794
Bills
R4345
Cognate bills:
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO) BILL 2010
4794
Bills
R4344
Second Reading
4794
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4794
18:07:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
0
Mr DUTTON
—This legislation—the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010—is proposed as one of the recommendations of the Preventative Health Taskforce, which handed down its findings last September, and also of Australia’s Future Tax System Review. This will see a 25 per cent increase in the cost of cigarettes and tobacco products, aimed at producing the number of people who smoke. This is the first increase above inflation in the taxation on tobacco in over a decade. The expectation of the government is that this measure will increase revenue by $5 billion over four years. According to the World Health Organisation, tobacco is the second-highest cause of death in the world. It is responsible for about one in 10 adult deaths or five million deaths each year.
According to data in 2007 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia had one of the lowest smoking rates in the OECD with around 17 per cent of people aged 15 years and over smoking every day. However, Indigenous Australians are far more likely to smoke, with those in remote communities even more likely to do so. One in five Indigenous deaths is attributed to smoking—that is, 20 per cent of the Indigenous population. Higher rates of smoking can also be observed within lower socioeconomic communities and in other disadvantaged groups. The Taking preventative action report of the National Preventative Health Taskforce has identified that around 41 per cent of pregnant teenagers, 38 per cent of unemployed people, 34 per cent of people unable to work, 32 per cent of people with a mental illness, 78 per cent of male prisoners and 83 per cent of female prisoners are smokers. These are all groups where price increases for tobacco should have a real impact. As awareness of the negative impacts of smoking tobacco has increased, the proportion of people who smoke has inclined. Yet tobacco contains an addictive stimulant in the form of nicotine, which does mean that quitting smoking can be very difficult.
The decline in smoking rates in Australia, a fall of 40 per cent for men and 44 per cent for women, between 1989 and 2007 was among the biggest in the OECD. But, given that the total cost to Australian society of tobacco is estimated at $31½ billion each year, reducing the number of people who smoke and the quantities people smoke is vital. There has been a lot of discussion about what is the proudest part of Tony Abbott’s very successful record during his time in the health portfolio as part of the Howard government. This must rank as one of the most significant achievements of Tony Abbott as Minister for Health and Ageing. There were many other achievements: the increase from about $19½ billion a year that was spent on health when we came into government in 1996 to about $52 billion a year by 2007 and the record investment in public hospitals. Increasing the private health coverage from the low-30s per cent up to the mid-40s was I think one of Tony Abbott’s most successful achievements as health minister. Immunisation rates increased from 52 per cent up to 90 per cent—an amazing outcome for Tony Abbott as health minister. Tony Abbott increased PBS expenditure over that period and introduced reforms which put the PBS onto a sustainable path into the future, which was incredibly important with an ageing population. They are all significant events that Tony Abbott can be very proud of. People can understand that Tony Abbott, as opposition leader, has a proud track record not just as a health minister but also as a cabinet minister for about eight years in the Howard government. He is a person with experience. The fall in smoking rates over his term as health minister must rank as one of the highest of his achievements in that portfolio.
However, smoking is still the leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in our country, so considerably more work is needed to further reduce the rate of smoking. Australia does have a moderate tobacco price by international standards. Therefore, increases in the cost of cigarettes and tobacco products to bring Australia more in line with international pricing are not unreasonable. That is the reason the coalition first called on the government to increase the tobacco excise rate more than 12 months ago—not in reply to this budget but in reply to the one before that. We saw it as a legitimate means of trying to reduce the rate of smoking. Although it took the government some time to catch up, we have supported the measure proposed in this bill.
Increasing the cost of cigarettes and tobacco has proved to provide financial incentive for people to quit smoking, thereby reducing the long-term strain on the hospital and healthcare system. This coalition, when elected at the next election, will continue that commitment to the Australian people. We are genuine in our resolve to improve services in public hospitals and to improve the coverage of private health insurance beyond even the 10 million people who have private health insurance now in our country, because we want to ease the burden on our public system. We want to make sure that mums and dads who are waiting long periods of time in emergency departments in the early hours have better and faster access to health professionals. We want to make sure that we continue the great work of Tony Abbott when he was health minister so that we can improve health outcomes. We have some amazing statistics in this country when you contrast us to similar countries. We have something to be very proud of. We have a great number of graduating doctors coming through the system at the moment and I know, while some medical students have expressed concern about where they will be trained and where they will be doing their internships, these people have not just popped out at the two-year mark of the Rudd government. These are people who went to university because of new places created by Tony Abbott when he was health minister. So we want to make sure that, when the coalition is elected at the next election, we fix some of the mistakes that Labor has made in health.
There has been a waste of money in some areas in health. Putting GP superclinics alongside existing practices has caused great distress among doctors and practice nurses operating in those existing practices. What sense does it make to put millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into a GP superclinic which sits alongside an existing practice, a practice that might be trying to help young people give up the habit of smoking or addressing the chronic disease that they might present with? Why would we put those surgeries under pressure and potentially have them close if a flood of those doctors go into the new GP superclinic when already there exists a viable practice?
There is a lot to be rectified. A lot of damage has been done not just to the health system but to the Australian economy in a very short period of time. This government has thrust our country into enormous debt. We started with $20 billion in the bank. This is a government that, instead of spending some of that money on health and instead of spending some of the stimulus package on health, decided to waste that money. That will make it more difficult for the coalition and indeed the next government to make the decisions about health that we want to, because we will have billions of dollars in interest each year to pay off Labor’s debt.
This is always the legacy of a Labor government. It always makes it hard to invest in health and the sorts of programs that we want to when we succeed a Labor government, because always Labor thrusts this country into debt. That is the Achilles heel that Labor brings to government. It is a burden that has now been thrust upon generations to come. It will take generations to pay Labor’s debt back, but the coalition is committed to doing it. We want to invest further in health at the same time as we manage the Australian economy responsibly. We support the bills. There is a lot more work that needs to be done in health. There needs to be a redirection of the investment in health. The coalition is the only party at this election that stands to serve the Australian people in getting better health outcomes for all Australians.
4796
18:16:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and the related bill, which increase the rate of excise on cigarettes and tobacco by 25 per cent. Just before I get on to my remarks, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Dickson just a moment ago. I begin by saying that he may well wish that he could rewrite history in respect of the track record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing. But the cold, hard reality is that he cannot. The opposition leader, during his time as minister for health, slashed a billion dollars from the health budget of this nation. People well remember that it was during his time that hospital waiting lists increased and there was a shortage of doctors and nurses. The health system was in absolute crisis—so much so that I can recall that in the lead-up to the 2007 election his own Prime Minister, in a mercy dash to Tasmania, said that they would take over the Mersey hospital as part of their attempt to restore their credibility on the management of the health system of Australia. For all their protestations and all the attempts by the member for Dickson to try and change that record, the fact of the matter is that the Australian people well recall what it was like trying to get a doctor and trying to get into hospitals during the term of the last government.
Getting back to the essence of these bills, in money terms the raising of the excise on tobacco cigarettes by 25 per cent means that on each cigarette there will be a price rise from 26.22c to 32.775c. For a kilogram of tobacco, the price will increase from $327.77 to $409.71. The measures raise the percentage of tax in the retail price of a packet of 25 cigarettes from around 62 per cent to around 67 per cent, which is still considerably lower than in France, where the tax percentage on a packet of cigarettes is around 80 per cent, and in the UK, where the percentage is around 77 per cent.
As the minister has made clear, all the additional revenue raised will be invested in the National Health and Hospitals Network fund. This is the fund that the Prime Minister and the health minister have announced and which has been agreed to by seven states and territories. It is intended to reform Australia’s health and hospital system. It is a reform that is absolutely necessary following the administration of hospitals and the health system in this country by the previous government. This reform will ensure that the federal government will take responsibility for 60 per cent of the funding of all public hospitals.
The Commonwealth government will also take full responsibility for GP and related services provided outside hospitals. It will replace separate health systems with a National Health and Hospitals Network. It will dedicate one-third of GST revenue to health and hospitals and will put local hospital networks in charge of hospitals. Furthermore, local hospital networks will be funded for each service that they deliver. Importantly, national health standards will be set, cost shifting will be avoided and funding will be better targeted. The reforms start from 1 July 2010. We will then begin to deliver 1,300 new hospital beds, more than 6,000 new doctors and an additional 2,500 age care beds through the Commonwealth takeover of primary and age care.
In addition to that, in the recent budget it was announced that a further $2.2 billion will be committed to building a modern health system for all Australians. That $2.2 billion will be used to provide an additional 23 GP superclinics around the country at a cost of $355 million, $417 million to enhance after-hours services, $523 million to train more nurses and $467 million for individual electronic health records.
I want to spend a moment on that further $2.2 billion of expenditure, because most of it will be cut by the opposition if they win government. We heard a moment ago the member for Dickson criticising the government’s investment in GP superclinics around the country. There is a GP superclinic already under construction in my electorate of Makin, and I welcome that investment. It was a total investment of $25 million, jointly funded by the federal government and the state Labor government. It is an investment that will see a GP superclinic provided, with all the ancillary services that go with it. I know that will ensure that better health services are provided to the people I represent. Yet I see the opposition saying that they would cut that funding and that they would not proceed with the GP superclinics that this government has committed to.
In one of the other cuts they have mentioned, they would not proceed with the individual electronic health records commitment of $467 million. I have spoken in this place on another occasion in support of an electronic health system for this country and the importance of it. The ability of doctors in hospitals to have at their fingertips accurate information about the patients they are treating will undoubtedly ensure that we have a much more efficient health system and a much more accurate health system, which can only be good for those people who are being treated. I know that is a policy supported by the medical fraternity generally. I am surprised to see that the opposition is now suggesting that they would cut it, given that when they were in government they had said they would support an electronic health system for Australia. They have clearly now done a backflip, again highlighting that in reality they are not committed to a better health system for Australia and that if elected they will go back to their old stance of making cuts to the health system, as they did when the current Leader of the Opposition was the health minister.
It is expected that this measure will result in a reduction of tobacco consumption of about six per cent and a reduction of two to three per cent in the number of daily smokers in Australia—around 87,000 Australians will probably give up the habit of smoking. In introducing these measures the minister for health outlined the serious health effects and costs to the Australian community of tobacco related illness, and I want to reiterate some of the facts. Each year around 15,000 Australians die of tobacco related illness and 750,000 hospital bed days are taken up by patients with tobacco related illness. The total financial costs to Australia associated with tobacco use are in the order of $31.5 billion each year. Through a range of strategies—including health warnings, tax rises, banning smoking in workplaces and other venues, advertising bans and other measures—smoking rates in Australia over the last two decades have been almost halved, from 30.5 per cent in 1988 to 16.6 per cent in 2007.
Across the world, around 5.4 million people die each year from smoking related illness. More concerning to smokers should be the fact that tobacco kills up to half of all users. That is quite a frightening statistic: tobacco kills almost half of all users. Yesterday was World Tobacco Day. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I note that you—as a former smoker who, I understand, gave up some years ago—made a speech in respect of World Tobacco Day, in support of the campaign to reduce the number of people who smoke throughout the world. It is a day which focuses attention on the global disastrous effects of tobacco consumption, and it is one of the international strategies aimed at curbing cigarette smoking. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope other people follow your lead.
Not surprisingly, the increase of the excise on cigarettes has not been received well by smokers. In my own electorate I have been contacted by several of them. Some might say that if smokers do not want to pay the tax they can simply give up or cut back on smoking. For someone who is addicted to smoking, it is simply not that easy. I am sure that most smokers would want to give up if they could. I note that a high proportion of smokers are in the lower socioeconomic status categories of society. In fact, those who can least afford the cigarettes are spending the most on them, and they will therefore contribute most to the increased revenue raised. People who are poorly educated, unemployed, unable to work or on low incomes and Indigenous Australians are more than twice as likely to smoke as other Australians, with smoking rates amongst the unemployed and Indigenous Australians at more than one in three. For example, smoking levels amongst the unemployed are at about 38 per cent, whilst for the most advantaged sector of society smoking rates in Australia are around 14 per cent.
What I would like to see and what I urge the minister to consider is the provision of increased support to smokers for the purchase of nicotine patches or similar aids to help them quit smoking. Increasing the range of items which attract a PBS rebate when prescribed by a GP should be considered, as I know some of the products available can be costly. Of course the costs of tobacco smoking are not borne only by the smokers. The effects of passive smoking on children, other family members, work mates and people in social venues is well documented. It is estimated that around one in 10 tobacco related deaths is due to second-hand smoking. I repeat: one in 10 tobacco related deaths is attributed to second-hand smoking—in other words, people who do not smoke but are in the company of others who do. Over the years we have seen action taken by all three levels of government in Australia to curb the effects of passive smoking on others in the community—for example, bans on smoking in workplaces, in public venues and in vehicles which children are in are now commonplace.
One cost to the community which is difficult to quantify but which is undoubtedly significant is the cost to communities and the environment through damage caused by discarded cigarette butts. Each year about 24 billion cigarettes are sold in Australia. It is estimated that around seven billion of these end up as litter in our streets and waterways. In fact, I have seen a figure that suggests it is higher than 24 billion cigarettes—perhaps up to 32 billion cigarettes. Whichever it is, it is a huge amount of cigarettes that are sold. If a third of those butts end up in our streets and our waterways, they not only create a litter problem but also create additional environmental and health problems. Given that cigarettes contain about 4,000 chemicals, one can only guess the damage they cause to the environment, particularly waterways, once they are discarded. Cigarette butts can take up to 12 months to break down in freshwater and up to five years to break down in seawater.
There is also the cost and risk of fires caused by carelessly discarded cigarette butts. Many house fires and large bushland fires have been attributed to cigarette smoking. Again, the actual costs are impossible to measure—and, of course, you cannot put a price on human life. As recently as six weeks ago a wheelchair-bound resident in my electorate died as a result of a fire which authorities believe was caused by a cigarette.
I said earlier that there has been significant progress over the last two decades in reducing the number of smokers in Australia. Clearly, a sustained campaign of education, advertising restrictions and increasing public places where smoking is prohibited are measures that are working. I therefore welcome the announcement by the government that, as from 1 July 2012, all cigarettes will be sold in plain packaging. In view of the initial reaction to this measure by the tobacco companies, I expect it will be another positive step in reducing the number of smokers in Australia. I wait with interest to see what level of resistance tobacco companies put up to the plain-packaging proposal.
This measure, in conjunction with legislation restricting internet advertising of tobacco products, updating and expanding the graphic health warnings on packets and increasing anti-smoking advertising revenue by $27.8 million over four years to take it to more than $85 million over that period, should make a difference in reducing the level of tobacco use throughout the country.
I welcome the announcement by Minister Snowdon—the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery—made yesterday as part of World Tobacco Day, that a new workforce to tackle Indigenous smoking rates and promote healthy lifestyles would be established in 20 regions across Australia. He said that 82 positions, to start in July, would be created. Almost half of Indigenous Australians smoke, and one in five deaths amongst Indigenous Australians is caused by smoking. Through the employment of regional tobacco coordinators, tobacco action workers and healthy lifestyle workers, and the Quit Smoking and Healthy Lifestyle programs they will be responsible for, it is hoped that smoking rates amongst Indigenous Australians will be reduced. It is only through these kinds of targeted programs that I believe we can make some real inroads in reducing tobacco consumption amongst Indigenous people.
I heard the shadow minister for health speaking on this legislation a few moments ago and I understand the opposition will be supporting these measures. I certainly welcome their support. Unlike what the Leader of the Opposition had proposed, however, the money raised from these measures will go into our health and hospital system. He proposed earlier that it would go into clamping down on people who are welfare recipients.
I believe these measures go a long way towards not only improving the health of our nation but assisting people, through the accompanying health reforms, to quit the smoking habit. While I accept the legislation is not welcome right throughout the community—certainly three million smokers throughout the nation would not be pleased about it—it nevertheless has the support of the medical community, the Cancer Council of Australia and other authorities who have studied the effects of smoking on health across our nation. I commend the bills to the House.
4800
18:33:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—This legislation, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010, has good purpose and the coalition obviously supports it. Let me say, nevertheless, that I am not exactly sure what this had to do with excise on tobacco products but I did hear the member for Makin make some reference to the government’s GP superclinics. My recollection was that there was an ironclad guarantee made at the last election that the government would deliver 36 of these clinics around Australia. Some of us thought they might even turn up where there is a shortage of doctors. The member for Makin tells me he has got one. He must be one of the three members who has. So the government has again failed to keep its promise. We are lectured daily by the Minister for Health and Ageing about how much money she is spending or how much of Australian taxpayers’ money is being given to the states. I refer to that as measuring excellence by expenditure. We also have excellence by promises that are not kept. Furthermore, the coalition has identified this scheme for what it is: (a) it has not happened; and (b) it simply replaces the services that were given by independent members of the medical profession, by general practitioners. It is another attempt to socialise the services of medicine by putting—as they typically do—these facilities in where there are plenty of doctors anyway.
As with the argument that has prevailed in this place when it comes to how you might fund the difficulties that people experience in getting dental services, the idea that you just send away the money and, hey presto, a lot of disadvantaged people get services, ignores completely the availability of dentists who will go and work for wages in the public sector when, as we well know if we are in the habit of visiting a dentist, they can make about 50 times as much in the private sector. There is no purpose. You create GPs superclinics—a fancy name—and put a lot of services under one roof, if you have got a roof. I think we have only got three roofs. And one might even ask why it is necessary to build before you get the people. You can rent premises. If you go into a Bunnings warehouse you will not find too many that are owned by Bunnings. They know that the economic benefit is in renting the premises and conducting their business therein. But this government has to build the structure—no doubt at similar cost to what we are seeing in the Building the Education Revolution—before it provides the service. But, again, if the service is not placed in areas of significant need through the absence of other medical practitioners, then it serves no beneficial purpose.
Another issue that arises out of all of this that I have experienced in my electorate, and more particularly in some of the nicer places to live, is of medical practitioners, maybe with family obligations, who are only working two or three days a week, yet when another practitioner tries to bring in a couple of full-time practitioners from South Africa, the UK or some of the more desirable spots they are told by the socialised Medicare system, ‘You have got enough provider numbers and you do not need any more practitioners.’ But the practitioners are not available. I just thought I would make those points, considering the remarks of the member for Makin.
What we are talking about is something that governments of all political persuasions choose to do—to tax us to save us from ourselves. I am not objecting to that and I note the second reading speech of the Minister for Health and Ageing in which she talked about increasing the charge per stick—in other words, per individual cigarette. That initiative came out of the GST tax reform. It was the Howard government that introduced it because previously the excise related to packets. It was being manipulated by people with larger packets of 30 cigarettes instead of 20. There were all sorts of practices going that the stick proposition, which is accepted by this government at this stage, overcame. It was a good measure. However, notwithstanding all the arguments relevant to the consumption of alcohol, it will not bite the bullet on volumetric taxes for alcohol. There was the farce that was the alcopops issue. Even the revenue that the government predicted from alcopops is now starting to decline. What did it do? It taught kids to buy full bottles of spirits at 40 per cent alcohol instead of the five per cent mixers that looked like a good profit for the government. We will tax you to save you. The kids are not that silly.
I am anxious that the increase in the cost of cigarettes will have the desired reduction which the minister refers to. I think it is something like three per cent or thereabouts. It has already been reported that some people have reduced their discretionary expenditure in other areas. They are addicted. They are buying cigarettes and paying the tax. The media producers will be interested to know that one of the losers has been magazines. That might balance out over a while, but for all the claims, which can only be applauded, the second reading speech tells us:
This action has had a dramatic effect.
That is the various warning labels and things of that nature. It continues:
The number of daily smokers aged 14 and over in Australia has been reduced from approximately 30.5 per cent of Australians in 1988 to 16.6 per cent in 2007.
That is good news. But in that period we are told that there has not been any adjustment in the excise other than by way of the CPI automatic adjustment. What caused that reduction? It was all the things that have been mentioned. It was an extensive advertising campaign—at times almost offensive but I will not complain about it. The second reading speech says:
That is why successive Commonwealth and state governments have taken action to reduce Australia’s smoking rates. This has included action at the Commonwealth level by increasing taxation—
no they did not; the increase has been very modest in that period—
conducting hard-hitting social marketing campaigns—
hooray for that—
banning tobacco advertising and introducing graphic warning labels.
But in my view the most successful initiative is:
States and territories have also acted by banning smoking inside licensed venues, running Quitline services and hiding cigarettes from view at point of sale.
I think that major cutback has resulted primarily from making the practice of smoking extremely inconvenient. There are so few places you can have a smoke. I am fortunate that I never bothered to take up the habit. My mother smoked from aged 13 to 73. She died at 83 and it was not from smoking. I do not promote that to encourage people to smoke. But there seems to be a lot of reasons to quit. A lot is said about passive smoking. I operated in the hotel industry for nearly 30 years and can well remember walking into some of the venues in my hotel and virtually could not see across the width of the room. I would have to replace the carpet very regularly for all the cigarette burns on it. I did not need anybody else’s help; I was just taking the smoke in and, to date, it has done me no harm. I am not saying that as an excuse. I am just pointing out the vagaries in all these situations. I think that this is a tax grab. It might work, but I do not think it is going to work as well as past campaigns that tried to convince people that it is not smart to smoke.
When we start a campaign on so-called recreational drugs, we will see a decline in the level of violence in entertainment areas and drinking places these days which the police forces in most states, certainly in Western Australia, still want to blame on alcohol. Alcohol should be taken in moderation, and the fact is that it is not when people are drunk that there are those scenes of violence that we are seeing so regularly. In fact, they find some difficulty in fighting at all. There is a period of time after which their belief in their own ability no longer meets that ability. Alcohol tends to generate a bit of courage for a certain amount of time, but of course it is not much good for your reflexes. But it is different with people who take these so-called recreational drugs.
We had a case in Perth the other day where an elite footballer got caught down an alley sniffing cocaine. The standing joke throughout Western Australia was that this bloke was a bit unlucky that the police caught him; if he had been caught by an AFL inspector, nobody would know about it. And, if he had been 17 years old or thereabouts, a recently drafted rookie, and he had a positive test under the AFL regime, not even his parents would be told about it. I said on radio while that was getting publicity—and I will repeat it in this place—that it almost warrants a law being passed in this House that prevents TV and other media broadcasts of elite sports that do not have a zero tolerance and an open and transparent drug policy. The AFL policy is driven by the industrial relations associated with the players association. It is a blight on our TV companies that they have not done something about it. There would be no elite football and there would be no footballers buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis, as some do, if in fact the TV stations did not pay the AFL very substantial amounts of money. I think the last contract was $700 million for about three years. It is up to the TV managers and owners to insist. I think Rugby League has a much more aggressive policy. I cannot comment on union, but they probably have as well.
But the AFL stands out as an elite sporting operation that believes that their players can go to various venues and be seen taking drugs—and it is those drugs that start the fights, I can tell you. I have seen too much of it. In particular, it is those drugs that make a person believe that kicking a man who is on the ground in the head is okay. If that had occurred in any of the establishments I had, the person who did that would have been lucky to get out of the bar alive, because everybody else in the bar would take to them. It is just unacceptable. It is now considered par for the course. Of course, if you have got a flick-knife in your back pocket, you might stick it in someone. Who would have done that in years gone by?
So we have got a problem. We have a government that has a simple solution to any perceived problem: put the taxes up. As the member for Makin mentioned, that might cause considerable hardship to some people. All of these tax increases on alcohol or cigarettes make recreational drugs a cheaper option, and that in itself, I think, is a problem. There is no taxable solution to these drugs, and it is the responsibility of the parliament to do more about it. I was encouraged to read in recent days about some so-called big drug busts.
Let me come back to that footballer. Nobody has asked him where he got the drugs. These people are charged and there is no legal requirement for them to say where they got them from. Okay, it might be from some shifty character down that alley, but in many cases they are going regularly to the same place. As one politician in Western Australia said—I wish I had thought of it myself—on one occasion: if a 14-year-old kid knows where to get drugs, how come the police forces of Australia don’t? Is it a fact that if you are a small dealer it does not matter? To the credit of the Western Australian state government, they have now brought in legislation—and some people very much object to it—that says they can search you on demand, with no reason given. They will mostly do that in entertainment venues. My view is that, if you have got some amphetamine or some ice in your pocket, in the first instance, hopefully, the police will put you in a paddy wagon, take you in, lock you up and call your parents to say, ‘You had better come and get them.’ The reality is that possession is not always for the purpose of sale, but it is illegal.
We do not make cigarettes illegal, and some people say that might be the right thing to do. But there is that tobacco you can buy under the counter. I have forgotten what it is called but it has a name. It is smuggled into the country in large quantities, and apparently a lot of people know where to get that sort of tobacco, which of course does not carry any excise charge whatsoever. But again, obviously, governments usually get a lot more upset about people that smuggle goods that contribute to government revenue. I do not know why, when they should just be concerned with their detrimental effects on people’s health and more particularly, in this day and age, young people’s health.
So the government have put up the price. They say they are going to spend the money on campaigns. I might add, and it is worthy of some note, that I am just not sure how this plain packaging will work or how it will comply with consumer law. Consumer law today just about covers a tin of baked beans with information—in the first instance, information that this is bad for you, in the case of cigarettes. But are people going to know other aspects of it? Are they going to be told all the things that are listed here that could be in the cigarettes, and are they entitled to know whether some brands are safer than others, if they can be? I think there are a few consumer law issues that one might want to address in that part of the legislation.
Anyway, it is typical of this government: if you can tax it you should, and don’t worry where the money goes thereafter. Of course, in this case, as with alcopops, they tell us they are doing it purely to save us from ourselves. I think the evidence is that in a period of reasonably low increases in taxation there was the dramatic reduction of smoking mentioned and that the campaigns are of more value than the tax is a burden. (Time expired)
4804
18:53:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise to speak in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010. These bills seek to increase the excise and excise equivalent customs duty rates for tobacco by 25 per cent. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 in respect of imported tobacco products that are complementary to the amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. These amendments increase the rates of customs duty for tobacco products by 25 per cent, which is the same as the increase in rates of excise duty. The increased rates of customs duty will apply to tobacco products imported from all countries, including those goods imported under any of Australia’s free trade agreements.
These amendments will ensure that the rates for customs duty on imported tobacco products are the same as the rates of excise duty on those goods when produced in Australia under the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and the Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2010. As with the amendments to the excise applying to tobacco products, the amendments to the customs tariff will also take effect from 30 April 2010.
I understand this increase is not welcomed by the tobacco industry, nor is it welcomed by the many people who smoke. The government, however, does have a responsibility to do what it can to reduce Australia’s smoking rates. I know that there will be those who argue that this measure will not reduce the rates of smoking, and it appears that the member for O’Connor may be one of those people, referring to this as simply a tax grab. However, to make this statement is to do so in ignorance of the many calls from various reports and inquiries to increase the cost of tobacco as a measure to tackle the terrible consequences of this choice of lifestyle and also to ignore the evidence of the results of such price increases around the world. In supporting these bills, I do not argue, nor does the federal government, that increasing the cost of tobacco on its own will address all of the health problems associated with smoking. Those calling for action on tobacco certainly argue for a range of measures to be taken.
The member for Makin has talked about the risk of smoking and second-hand smoking. These risks should not be underestimated. The worst examples I have seen in relation to smoking are pregnant women and new mothers. I was amazed when I saw pregnant women with their hospital bands on standing outside maternity hospitals on the footpath smoking. I have seen a mother with a newborn baby in a carry-pouch, with the baby facing her as she smoked and blew smoke into the baby’s face. Clearly we have a long way to go in educating about the harm of cigarette smoking for unborn babies and second-hand smoke around children.
One of the recent comprehensive assessments of tobacco and its effects is the national Preventative Health Taskforce report released on 30 June 2009, entitled National preventative health strategy: the roadmap for action. Chapter 3 of the report, entitled ‘Tobacco: towards world’s best practice in tobacco control’, outlines 11 key action areas. The report outlines the case for prevention. In support of these bills, I will read from the report. The report at page 170 states:
The case for action on tobacco is clear. Since 1950, when the dangers of smoking were recognised, almost one million Australians have died because they smoked.
Trends in recent years have been encouraging, but there is no room for complacency while the death toll from tobacco continues, thousands of young people each year start smoking, nonsmokers are exposed to second-hand smoke, disadvantaged groups are disproportionately affected, the overall cost of smoking to the economy is more than $30 billion each year, and tobacco companies maintain efforts to promote sales of their lethal product.
Australia has been among the global leaders in tobacco control … we have the opportunity to show the way to the rest of the world in terms of what can be achieved through a comprehensive, coordinated, evidence-based, long-term strategy that is conscious of the needs of the entire community.
We know what needs to be done. The strategies set out in this report are based on the best international evidence and research, together with advice from some of the world’s leading experts in tobacco control.
The task force in their report made reference to the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which was the first treaty negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. It was adopted by the World Health Assembly on 21 May 2003 and entered into force on 27 February 2005. The task force report notes that, if the comprehensive approach outlined in the strategy outlined in the report is implemented, modelling suggests that we can achieve a reduction in the prevalence of daily smoking among adult Australians aged 18 plus from 17.4 per cent in 2007 to 10 per cent or lower by 2020.
I am sure that all of us in this parliament would agree that this is a target that we should all do what we can to achieve. The report, in addressing the key action areas, stated:
… to accelerate declines in smoking in Australia it is essential that we step up efforts in:
-
Taxation policy
-
Public education
-
Legislation
-
Health system interventions, particularly those aimed at high-need and
-
High-risk groups.
The report notes that increasing prices is one of the most effective measures that government can take to reduce tobacco consumption and prevalence. Analysis of changes in smoking prevalence in the largest Australian states in response to changes in various interventions found that the costliness of cigarettes has the most powerful impact of all the policies studied and that the effect of price was greatest among those on lowest incomes.
In Australia taxes presently comprise 68 per cent of the total cost of cigarettes. This percentage is considerably higher in other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, countries, for example, 80 per cent in France, 78 per cent in the United Kingdom, and 76 per cent in Canada. Of 19 OECD countries listed in the report for 2003, Australia has the third-lowest taxes on cigarettes. The taskforce report recommendation action 1.1 is to:
Ensure that the average price of a packet of 30 cigarettes is at least $20 (in 2008 $ terms) within three years, with equivalent increases in the price of roll-your-own and other tobacco products.
Of course, the Preventative Health Taskforce report is not the only recent inquiry into the consequences of smoking and the detrimental consequences to people’s health and the increasing costs to the health system of our country. The Australian government’s most comprehensive review of the health system in Australia undertaken by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission during 2008 and 2009 also looked at the cost of chronic illness in Australia and the causes of such illnesses. The Health and Hospitals Reform Commission reported in its A healthier future for all Australians final report in June 2009 that chronic conditions affecting our health are more prevalent than ever before. Over the last century the report states that chronic disease has become more prominent than infectious disease as a cause of death, and this trend is likely to continue. Already, more than 50 per cent of GP consultations are for people with a chronic condition such as heart disease, cancer, neurological illness, mental disorders and diabetes. Expenditure on chronic disease in Australia accounts for nearly 70 per cent of total health expenditure on disease.
We know that many chronic diseases are preventable. Smoking, excessive alcohol, lack of physical activity and low fruit and vegetable consumption are all risk factors which contribute to the burden of chronic disease. The report goes on to state that good health is therefore about more than health care. Governments must take action to nudge people towards health-promoting behaviour.
In addition to the Preventative Health Taskforce report and the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report, the Australian Future Tax System review also looked at the issue of tobacco taxation and concluded:
There is a strong case for a substantial one-off increase in tobacco excise. Australian retail prices for cigarettes are moderate by international standards and taxes constitute a relatively small share of the retail price.
It recommended a substantial increase in taxation depending upon evidence on the costs of harm from tobacco smoking, the indexing of tobacco excise to wages rather than CPI, and the removal of the duty free allowance for tobacco. The increase as a result of these bills is expected to reduce the number of smokers in Australia by two to three per cent, or by approximately 87,000 people. It is also expected to reduce the total consumption of tobacco by around six per cent.
This move has been endorsed by the Australian Medical Association, the National Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council of Australia, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Public Health Association of Australia and Action on Smoking and Health among other public health groups. Tobacco related diseases are responsible for approximately 750,000 bed days in hospitals every year. Cigarettes are toxic and poisonous, containing 4,000 chemicals. Cigarettes are estimated to cause one in five of all cancer deaths.
We also know that cigarettes cause heart disease and strokes, among many other chronic diseases. I was pleased to attend this year’s launch by the Heart Foundation of the Go Red for Women Day at Parliament House today. This campaign is about lifting the awareness that four times more women die of heart disease each year compared to breast cancer. Smoking is one of the factors causing heart disease in women. I hope to lift awareness of this risk in heart disease when I hold my own Go Red for Women day on Friday, 11 June, at a breakfast function in my electorate of Petrie. Many local women will be attending and receiving important information about preventative measures they can take to avoid heart disease.
Many organisations are working hard to lift awareness about the risk of smoking. The Rudd government is ensuring that it is playing its part to address preventative chronic diseases in Australia. I am proud to be part of a government that is tackling this important issue and introducing measures that form part of a comprehensive package against smoking, including a world first—the government will introduce legislation to ensure that cigarettes in Australia are sold in plain packaging by 1 July 2012. I support the move to plain packaging as part of the initiatives to reduce the numbers of people taking up smoking. This was also a recommendation from the Preventative Health Taskforce. Research has shown that industry branding and packaging design reduce the effectiveness of graphic health warnings on tobacco products.
There are those who may seek to argue that increasing the cost of cigarettes will not reduce the number of cigarettes being smoked. The same argument was of course put up when the government sought to increase the excise on alcopops. One year ago the opposition and the distillery industry argued that an increase in the cost of alcopops would not see a reduction in the consumption of such drinks, and of course we have heard the same comments from the member for O’Connor today. Well, one year on the Bureau of Statistics figures show that Australians drank 19 million fewer standard drinks in the 2008-09 financial year compared with the previous year. This is drinks overall—not just a reduction in alcopops, as the member for O’Connor claims, but overall alcohol consumption. In relation to premixed drinks, a 30 per cent drop in consumption, equal to 440 million fewer standard drinks was recorded. This shows that the tax rise was effective in cutting binge drinking. Peter Miller a senior research fellow at Deakin University said:
… for the first time in about five years we have seen a real decrease in alcohol sales across the board. This is incredibly good news for the federal government’s alcopops tax.
What this evidence shows, and what the evidence from the Preventative Health Taskforce report and the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report shows, is that by increasing the cost of products such as alcohol and tobacco in a targeted way, and as part of a broader preventative health strategy, positive results can be achieved.
Yesterday, nations across the world embraced World No Tobacco Day. The Rudd government embraced this day, with the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, announcing that the government will provide $5 million to help support anti-smoking services around Australia. The $5 million for Quitline will help support the increased demand for services. Increased support for Quitline was a recommendation of the National Preventative Health Taskforce. The $5 million in one-off funding will be made available to: address one-off costs from this period of high demand for their services, including increased hours of access where appropriate; develop and deliver counsellor training, including specific training to help high-risk and highly disadvantaged groups quit; develop new and online quit support resources; and improve quality and national consistency across Quitline services.
This funding is in addition to the Rudd government’s comprehensive anti-smoking package, following the landmark COAG agreement that delivered fundamental reform to Australia’s health and hospitals system. Importantly, revenues raised from this measure, and other existing revenues from tobacco, will be directly invested in better health and hospitals through the National Health and Hospitals Network. This government is committed to health and hospitals reform across the country and a key element of that reform is a focus on preventative health. This is an area that in the past has had little recognition or investment.
The Rudd government are taking action to improve preventative health through: a record $872 million investment in preventative health, including programs in schools, workplaces and community settings; $103.5 million under the National Binge Drinking Strategy; the decision to establish the Australian National Preventative Health Agency; and $449 million to improve the quality of care for Australians living with diabetes.
I have mentioned the Australian National Preventative Health Agency. The bill establishing that agency was introduced in the House on 10 September 2009. I was proud to speak in support of that bill at that time and continue to support the establishment of the National Preventative Health Agency. The establishment of the ANPHA has been recommended by both the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the National Preventative Health Taskforce. In fact, the creation of the National Preventative Health Agency was proposed at the 2020 Summit. Unfortunately, that bill has been delayed by the opposition in the Senate since October last year, with no indication that the opposition will be changing its position any time soon.
The member for Dickson, in speaking on the bills now before the House, talked about the opposition’s proud history in health and, more particularly, the Leader of the Opposition’s record as Minister for Health and Ageing in the Howard government. The current shadow health minister may look back at the Leader of the Opposition’s record as health minister with pride, but that is not the reality. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition ripped $1 billion out of the health system when he was health minister. Now, as Leader of the Opposition, he stands in the way of preventative health in opposing the Australian National Preventative Health Agency Bill. He has, in the past, opposed the increase in the excise on alcopops, and the government has had no indication that he will support the broader health and hospitals reform agenda that the Rudd government is putting forward.
The opposition have already indicated that they support an increase in the excise of tobacco. In fact, the opposition leader referred to his support for an increase in his budget reply speech. I would like to think that their support on this bill is a positive step forward for the opposition and that they will stop opposing for the sake of opposing and get behind the government’s health reform agenda, but I suspect that that is not going to be the case.
I support these bills. I believe they are a positive step forward in trying to tackle the costs and the health implications of smoking in this country. I commend the bills to the House.
4808
19:11:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and related bill and to join in the broader debate about harm minimisation and prevention measures to reduce the devastating impacts that cigarettes and other tobacco products have on our community. This is significant legislation because of its social and economic impacts for the broader community. The previous speaker—before she got carried away with all the rhetoric about how life was created around about the time that Kevin Rudd came onto the planet—referred quite seriously to the fact that a million lives have been lost since the 1950s. As someone who has lost a close family member—my father passed away almost three years ago from lung cancer—this is a matter of personal significance to me. I think everyone in this place has lost a loved one to preventable diseases associated with tobacco use.
Smoking is an insidious habit with a deadly outcome. Having said that, tobacco remains a legal product in Australia. Balancing that fact with the fact that people may choose to undertake activities which we know are bad for them is an issue that I think deserves further exploration and consideration in a broader national debate. In her second reading speech, the minister reflected upon the impact of tobacco on our community. The statistics are quite damning. She argued:
Tobacco is perhaps the most deadly legal product available in Australia. It is the leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in Australia.
In 2003 it was estimated that smoking results in approximately 15,000 Australian deaths a year. This is more deaths than murder, illegal drugs, motor vehicle accidents and alcohol combined.
Tobacco related diseases are also responsible for approximately 750,000 bed days in hospitals every year.
The total cost to Australian society to tobacco is estimated at $31.5 billion each year.
The impact on the health sector, because of chronic disease presentation in all forms, is a major issue for our government and our community.
Given the enormous cost of tobacco products to the community, it does make sense for governments at all levels to take steps to reduce the incidence of smoking. There has been some success in that regard over many, many years. Back in 1945, from the figures that I have been able to research, the male smoking rate was 72 per cent. Just think about that: almost three out of four men smoked. It was an accepted practice. It was common. It was just a normal part of growing up, to a large extent. My father was one of those who, as a young 14-year-old fellow, took up smoking. He and his brothers—of which there were many—all took up smoking in their early teens.
By 2007 that figure had fallen to 21 per cent, but most of the big gains, the more dramatic drops, were made prior to the 1990s. Figures have not reduced naturally at the same rate since that time. There have been drops of about four per cent in each of the past two decades. People, I think, are resistant to change in this regard. Some people are resistant to all the messages that have been put forward in various public health campaigns and they are also, I believe, resistant to the fact that the product price has been increasing. I will touch on that a little bit later on. We may get to the stage where, no matter how much we are charging for this product, people will find a way to get their tobacco product in one form or another.
Public campaigns to reduce the incidence of smoking have largely enjoyed a bipartisan approach at state and federal level over many years. I think the previous speaker referred to the fact that Australia has led the world in reducing the incidence of smoking. Some of the past government measures that have been aimed at reducing the number of smokers have included health warning labels, bans on marketing of tobacco products and bans on smoking in public places. Quite recently, even Victoria introduced a ban on smoking in cars when children are present. I am happy to say, as a former chief of staff of the Victorian Nationals, that it was a policy initiative I pushed very hard with the member for Northern Region, Damian Drum. The argument was that young children are basically captives in those cars—they have no choice about how they get themselves around—and should not be exposed to the dangers of passive smoking simply because their parents or friends have the habit. There have also been bans on smoking in public places generally and there have been graphic advertising campaigns and increases in the excises charged by governments.
On this point, it was argued in the House by the Minister for Health and Ageing that the findings from the National Health Preventative Taskforce supported increasing the price of tobacco. I am not arguing with those findings. The report said:
Increasing prices is one of the most effective measures that government can take to reduce tobacco consumption and prevalence.
Australia’s Future Tax System Review also looked at the issue of tobacco taxation and concluded:
There is a strong case for a substantial one-off increase in tobacco excise. Australian retail prices for cigarettes are moderate by international standards and taxes constitute a relatively small share of the retail price.
In her second reading speech, the minister went on to indicate that higher taxation makes a significant contribution to cutting smoking rates and that this has been shown to be particularly effective with young people, whom you would normally expect to have lower disposable income and would be more directly affected by an increase in price. Obviously, a key focus of any campaign to reduce the incidence of cigarette smoking is to target our young people, to target the next generation of addicts.
The measures in the bill add significantly to the cost of tobacco products and will increase government revenue over the budget forecast period. The government’s decision to increase the excise and the excise-equivalent customs duty rate by 25 per cent means that the increased tax on a packet of 30 cigarettes is about $2.16. This will push the price of a packet above $15. The government argues that it is part of a comprehensive package against smoking, including what it bills as a world-first decision to ensure that cigarettes in Australia are sold in plain packaging by 1 July 2012. I note the member for O’Connor raised some concerns about pending legal action from the industry and issues of consumer law.
On the point of the plain packaging, the cigarette industry throughout its history has shown a remarkable resilience and capacity to evolve with the times and to get around whatever legislation it is faced with that is aimed at reducing its marketing. I am sure the clever marketers within the tobacco industry will develop some form of slip-on packet or some sort of slip-on sheath, if you like, to promote their product. You can just imagine the scenario where there will be a black-and-white packet of cigarettes for sale and you happen to get a free container to put the cigarettes in—a container which will have the brand’s material splashed all over it. I am not sure whether the legislation can overcome that issue or whether the drafters of the legislation even considered that point. It seems almost self-defeating, though, if you have a black-and-white packet and the industry is out there giving away free coveralls or sheaths, if you like, to continue to brand their product to the marketplace, particularly to younger smokers who may be attracted to whatever product the industry happens to be giving away at the time.
That concern aside, the issue of the excise and the revenue generated for the government is significant. The total tobacco excise in 2008-09 was $5.6 billion and it is forecast to grow to $6.3 billion by 2013-14. Even though the minister has indicated that she expects the number of smokers in Australia to fall by two or three per cent—the previous speaker referred to an estimate of 87,000 people—the revenue to the government will actually increase over that forecast period.
I believe we need to keep having a broader debate about how we approach this whole issue of prevention and harm minimisation for cigarette smokers and whether we are serious about trying to reduce the actual number of smokers in the community over the longer term. As I said, the decline has been significant over the past 60 years, but the actual rate of decline has reduced in recent times. There are a few facts we need to consider from various pieces of research over the years. During my research on the bill, I found information suggesting that nearly half of smokers under the age of 30 had started smoking by the age of 15. I therefore believe it is critical that, in any public awareness campaigns we undertake, we really target young people and this myth that it is somehow cool to smoke.
The great difficulty we have in that is that the industry is so clever at product placement now. You see it in the movies and you see it in pop culture—it is very difficult to overcome that issue. I do not know how we are going to overcome it when there are Hollywood stars promoting an image of smoking that dates back decades and continues. The industry today has even more reason to engage in product placement and more surreptitious marketing of their products to get young people involved and to get young people hooked on their product.
On that point, tobacco is regarded as being more addictive than heroin or cocaine. People become addicted out of habit or in response to stress or they are physically addicted to the nicotine. I want to touch on that point a little bit later on. Smoking is also more prevalent among lower income groups and Indigenous Australians, with the average person smoking between 100 and 120 cigarettes per week. As previous speakers have indicated, Australia has a relatively low prevalence of smoking. In comparison to the rest of the world, I think we come in third behind Sweden and Canada. The points I want to make about these facts deal specifically with the issue of addiction. We are talking about addicts a lot of the time. We are talking about people who are taking up the habit and staying in the habit over a long period of time and about the fact that smoking addiction is more prevalent among our poorer households.
If you take some really rough figures and say that a smoker may smoke, say, four packets per week of 30 cigarettes each it works out to about $60 a week, which is somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000 a year and about $150,000 over a 50-year smoking career. That is a huge loss of income to a household over that period of time. I do have some degree of sympathy for addicts. As I referred to earlier, I grew up with a father who smoked throughout his whole adult life. He had a great deal of difficulty in kicking the habit. I do have some sympathy for the people who are addicted to nicotine. For some people it is almost impossible for them to break the habit. It is reasonable to question the point of whether increasing the excise is actually well directed to reducing the incidence of smoking in the community. By its nature as a flat tax it does have a higher impact on our poorer families in the community. Obviously a higher percentage of total household income is literally going up in smoke amongst those poorer socioeconomic groups as well as amongst our Indigenous community, which, as we heard previously, has a higher incidence of cigarette smoking.
I understand that cynics could say that the people choose to continue smoking. It is a voluntary tax and you do not have to pay it. If you give up the habit you do not have to pay the tax anymore. For someone who has never smoked that is an easy path for me to take. But, having seen my father and other close friends in great difficulty trying to give up the habit, I have more of an appreciation that these people are addicts. If the research is even close in saying that smoking is more addictive than heroin or cocaine, this is a product which is very difficult for some people to give up even if they want to.
When we are talking about people who are addicted to products like cocaine and heroin we have a whole range of supporting mechanisms in our community to assist them to get off that particular illicit substance. But when it comes to cigarette smoking we seem to take a rather more blunt instrument in the sense that we just keep pumping the prices up and hoping that the smokers will drop off by the pure weight of the financial impact on their lives. I am not convinced that that is the best way to go, particularly when you look at the unintended consequences. Perhaps in some of our poorer socioeconomic households you may have a mum and dad who still manage to find money for the smokes. I am not sure whether the kids in those households are getting the best and fullest opportunities to achieve the potential that they would have if their parents were not using so much of the household disposable income on cigarettes. I do understand that some of the cynics would say that they choose to continue that smoking, but I think we need to recognise how difficult it is for some people to give it up.
I believe if we are determined to reduce the number of smokers we really need to look at the issue of the nicotine patches. I understand they are not on the PBS for everybody—for veterans it costs $5.40 to purchase nicotine transdermal patches that have a dispense price of $54.78. Our Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders pay $33.30 for the same product and, as far as I am aware, other people pay the full price. Nicotine replacement therapies are regarded as one of the best ways to break the habit.
I do accept that the real price increases and reductions in affordability have been regarded in the past as the most significant policy intervention to reduce tobacco consumption, particularly for young people on limited budgets. But some people, as I have referred to, simply cannot give up tobacco products and we continue to hit them harder with this excise. I am not sure when we start trying to be a little bit smarter in how we target those people, the genuine addicts, who, no matter what price we charge, will find a way to get their cigarettes or other tobacco products.
The other consideration I want to raise briefly in the time that is left to me relates to the increased cost of cigarettes and, as a result, the likelihood of an increase in illegal tobacco products. I want to refer to an article which appeared in the Age on 30 April this year by Lindsay Murdoch and Geoff Strong, which I thought was quite a good one in that it referred to the concern that perhaps an increased excise will end up, inevitably, making it more attractive for illegal tobacco products to get on the marketplace along with the consequent influence of organised crime. The article said:
Sydney University professor Renee Bittoun runs Australia’s only dedicated smoking cessation clinics in two of Sydney’s hospitals. She believes illegal tobacco, both locally grown and imported, is widespread and could account for a quarter of all tobacco being smoked in Australia.
I have no figures to back that up. I am just referring to the fact that the professor has given her opinion in that regard. The article continued:
Bittoun fears that the government’s increase in excise will further increase illegal tobacco’s market share, doing even more damage to the lungs of those who inhale its smoke.
That point is relating to the fact that health officials say that there is a dense fungal contamination found in tobacco products, usually because of the way it is cured. They believe that has a toxic response in lungs, liver, kidneys and skin and in allergies including bronchitis and asthma. This is in addition to lung cancer issues relating to the smoking of all tobacco products. It is an interesting point that the professor has raised. In the article she said:
“It is not hard to grow and, given it looks like big spinach, might not normally attract much attention. I have been told the Tax Office loses $400 million a year in excise due to illegal crops. Given the size of government excise, chop chop is very cheap and it is often sold under the counter by weight by unscrupulous tobacconists, grocers and even service stations.”
As I said, I do not have any additional research to add to that opinion but it does seem to make sense that, if you are forcing the price up of the legal product, there would then be more opportunities for illegal operations, and the value of the product is such that it will draw the attention of organised crime. The article went on to say:
Indeed, a 2008 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police identified 105 organised crime groups involved in illicit tobacco trading. Most of the groups were also involved in either drugs or weapons smuggling, or both. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, tobacco smuggling has been linked to organised crime in Australia, including drugs, money laundering, identity fraud and stolen car rackets.
I do not seek to be alarmist or to take away from what I believe are the government’s good intentions in reducing the incidence of tobacco use in the community, but I think the point is well worth considering, particularly the issue of whether the plain packet legislation will actually be effective in the community or whether it will just be subverted by the industry as it comes up with its own way of putting a cover over the top of the plain packet. I am sure that those packets can be easily manufactured and made freely available, particularly to young smokers.
I also have concerns, which I have already raised, about how long we should keep on targeting people who are addicted to cigarettes through tax increases without looking at other ways to assist them if they are genuine in trying to give up. I understand that the government will be providing more funding for public health awareness campaigns, which is one of the few forms of taxpayer funded advertising I agree with. We see a lot of propaganda campaigns run by governments, but I believe that public health campaigns aimed at reducing the incidence of cigarette smoking would be welcome and have bipartisan support now and for many years to come.
I finish on a more optimistic note. The chairman of the Preventative Health Task Force, Rob Moodie, has a different view on the issue of chop-chop use that I referred to earlier. He says:
It is much easier in Australia to manage illegal tobacco than it is in … Europe, for example.
He goes on to say:
… policing illegal tobacco is going to have to be dealt with, but increasing the excise is likely to be a key tool to encourage smokers to give up.
As I said at the outset, I think we are dealing here with a very important social and economic policy area. The impact on the community and also the impacts on the government in terms of the health budget are very significant. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the bill tonight.
4813
19:31:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin. I understand that you will be speaking after me in this debate. When somebody relieves you in the speaker’s chair, I am sure you will make an outstanding contribution to the debate. I rise to support theExcise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010. I acknowledge the fine contributions that have been made to this debate by members on both sides of this House. I understand that the opposition will be supporting this legislation and that the member for Wentworth, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was also very committed to introducing an excise on tobacco.
This legislation puts into practice the government’s announcement of an increase to the excise rate applying to tobacco, cigarettes, cigars and snuff, and the relevant excise-equivalent customs duty rates applying to the equivalent imported products by 25 per cent, applying on and from 30 April 2010. Separate notices were gazetted on 29 April 2010 to give effect to the collection of higher excise and excise-equivalent duty rates. As required by the excise and customs provision that allowed the relevant offices to publish these gazettal notices, these notices specified that it was intended to introduce tariff proposals into parliament within seven sitting days of the sitting of the House of Representatives after publication of the gazetted notices.
As I said, there have been a number of fine contributions to this debate, and I think smoking is an issue that we as a society need to face. I was once a smoker myself, and I must say that I found giving up smoking to be one of the hardest things I have ever done. I appreciate how difficult it is for a person who is smoking to quit, but I have not had a cigarette now for almost 30 years. My father was a very heavy smoker and, as a result of his smoking, he got cancer had to have his voice box removed. I have many acquaintances who have smoking related problems and friends who still smoke, and I understand from their perspective how difficult it is to kick the habit and how addictive cigarette smoking is. But, no matter how we look at it, it poses an incredible risk to our health, and I think it is beholden on governments to look at ways that they can encourage people to stop smoking. This legislation is one tool of the many that need to be introduced by governments to address this issue.
The Preventative Health Taskforce looked at smoking and highlighted in its report that between 1950 and 2008—that is, almost 60 years—more than 900,000 Australians died prematurely because they smoked. That is a significant proportion of our population, and as a society we have lost many, many valuable people. Smoking is not only an enormous cost to our economy but also an enormous social cost, because every one of those 900,000 people had families, contributed through work to our society and during the stages of their illness there was a cost to our society. That really highlights the fact that we need to address the issue of smoking. The social cost of smoking exceeded $31 billion in 2005, but it is impossible to put a dollar value on the grief, suffering and loss of families. I was quite young when my father died, and I found it incredibly difficult to come to terms with it. But there was one and only one reason that he died, and that was the fact that he smoked in excess of 60 cigarettes a day. He was an educated man who knew that smoking was a health hazard, but he continued to smoke, and that is the case with many people.
It is very interesting to note that the Preventative Health Taskforce looked at a number of papers. In their final recommendation they highlighted a couple of things that we as a government and a society need to do to help people move away from smoking, and at the same time they acknowledged that it was going to take quite a considerable amount of time before smoking was eradicated in our society. There are still people taking up smoking. I am particularly concerned about young women and the impact it has on their health. I will talk a little about that in a moment.
The first issue that the Preventative Health Taskforce identified was that we needed to increase the price of tobacco products, invest more money in media campaigns and implement other policies. Increasing the price of tobacco products is seen as highly effective. People react to increases in price. It is one of many tools, but it is not the only answer because, as has been said by other speakers, if a person is truly addicted to smoking they will go without something else. It is one tool but it is an important tool. It is a tool that needs to be taken up by government. The paper also suggested that policies and programs in combination would institutionalise the threat of tobacco. It also talked about plain packaging. The Minister for Health and Ageing has already made an announcement on plain packaging of cigarettes. It is one of many tools that need to be part of a feast of measures introduced by government to address the issue of tobacco smoking.
I note that yesterday was World No Tobacco Day. As part of World No Tobacco Day, Minister Snowden has made an announcement in relation to putting in place more programs to assist Indigenous Australians to stop smoking. One program takes into account regional tobacco coordinators. There is one in the Hunter region, which is part of my electorate. There are also tobacco action workers and healthy lifestyle workers. In all, there are four workers in the Hunter, in the Newcastle-Lake Macquarie area, which most of my electorate covers. I am sure the Central Coast part of the electorate will also receive some coverage.
I would like to just quickly move to an issue that I think is very important and links very closely to not smoking: Go Red for Women. This month, June, the Heart Foundation is conducting its Go Red for Women campaign. I will be organising a special forum in my electorate. I will be inviting people who live within the Shortland electorate to come along to this forum. I will have some expert speakers to talk to the women of the electorate. It is a shocking fact that heart disease is the main cause of death of women in Australia. It is killing an average of 31 women every day and yet 80 per cent of women are unaware of the fact that heart disease is such a risk to their health. I note that 11,221 Australian women died of heart disease and 2,774 women died of breast cancer in 2008. That shows how many women and how many families are affected by heart disease. One of the key factors impacting on heart disease is smoking. The Heart Foundation makes the point that it is very important for women to stop smoking. In Australia 16 per cent of women who are 18 years of age and over smoke daily. One of the facts that I find quite disturbing is that young women are taking up smoking at a faster rate than young men. It increases the risk of heart attack and stroke, as well as cancer, obviously. It affects the arteries that supply blood to the heart and other parts of the body. It also reduces the amount of oxygen in a person’s blood.
Breathing other people’s smoke, second-hand smoke, is also very harmful. There have been a number of court cases that have highlighted this fact. It is also important to note that smoking is becoming a lot less socially acceptable these days. It is something that should be highlighted to women. There are a few key strategies that people can put in place. They can set a date for quitting and begin to change their habits. They have to learn how to handle stress and how to get around the urge of smoking. From my own perspective, I made a number of attempts before I was finally successful at giving up smoking. On a number of occasions I made excuses for starting to smoke again. I would say, ‘I’m stressed.’ There was always a reason.
There comes a time when a person needs to say, ‘This is the day I am going to stop. No more excuses, I am going to learn how to handle stress. I am going to do other things to handle those tough and stressful times’—things like exercise or going outside or doing something that just breaks that urge. It is important. Do not give up. If you have one cigarette, that is not the end. Do not see that as a failure; just say, ‘Okay, I made a mistake. I’m still going to undertake a quit program.’ Consider nicotine replacement products; call the Quitline. Once a person stops smoking, they find that they enjoy their food a lot more.
Overall, one in seven women smoke daily, but it is more common among women aged between 20 and 49. About one in every five women in that age group are daily smokers, and it is most common amongst women aged 40 to 49. As I have said, the proportion of young female smokers has increased, but after one year of stopping smoking, the risk of disease halves compared with those who continue to smoke. Between two and six years after stopping smoking, the risk to the person is reduced even more. Smoking was the fourth largest contributor to the burden of disease amongst females, responsible for six per cent of the total burden of disease in Australia in 2003. I think these are startling figures. I think they speak for themselves. During the month of June, during the Go Red for Women campaign, we need to consider these facts. We need to consider that by stopping smoking you immediately reduce the impact that it has on your health. The longer you refrain from smoking, the better it is for you. As I was saying before, two to six years after stopping smoking, the risk to your health is the same as that for a nonsmoker.
I commend this legislation to the House. I see it as part of a package of measures that is needed to reduce smoking in our community. I see that the Minister for Health and Ageing is in the chamber, and I know that she is committed to reducing the number of people who smoke in Australia. I note that she has a particular interest in young women and would be very supportive of the Go Red for Women campaign and the women with heart disease coalition. I commend the legislation to the House.
4816
19:48:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I rise in strong support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and a cognate bill, and I want to thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for having the policy will to introduce such a measure because, yes, while we are talking about excise and customs bills, we are also talking about health. Health is the issue. And the health issue—the good health of all—has to prevail over all other considerations in this debate. I am pleased to see that people are accepting that.
When this legislation was first announced at the end of April there was a straw poll done in my local area. I came out in strong support of it immediately because of my long concern for the health impacts of smoking, and there was broad support in the community. Some people say that it can impact on those who are the poorest most severely, and I will turn to that in a minute, but just on the health issue: in the minister for health’s second reading speech she focused on a number of issues, and there is one that I just want to quickly reiterate—that is, smoking results in approximately 15,000 Australian deaths a year. That is just unbelievable. We talk about road accidents, we talk about other areas where one death is too many, but 15,000! And we still tolerate that people smoke. We understand it is an addiction and we understand that it has to be dealt with as such, but it is a health issue.
When we were doing the straw poll in my electorate of Page, I was asked if I believed in banning it. I said banning rarely works; we just have to make it so unpalatable and so difficult that people cannot do it. We know that prohibition did not work with alcohol and it does not seem to work with other drugs either. The minister also put some other figures on the record. I have had a background in health over the years, locally in particular, but also broadly—I was on the New South Wales Cancer Council—and I want to mention here Professor Simon Chapman and Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, two people who are very proactive in trying to get smoking stopped in Australia. I just wanted to mention and commend their efforts. I have thought quite a deal about something else the minister said—that smoking is responsible for approximately 750,000 bed days in hospital every year. That is a lot of bed days; that is a lot of bed numbers. We are having a debate right across Australia about health reform. People want changes; they want things to be different. Can you imagine: if we had no-one smoking in Australia, there would be 750,000 bed days available for other people with other illnesses. We can imagine what that would do for our health and we can imagine what that would do for the budget.
I understand the total cost to the Australian society of tobacco is estimated at $31.5 billion each year. That is unbelievable. I know it is not just the 25 per cent excise that is being struck in this; there are a whole range of other measures that go, for example, to plain packaging and to internet advertising, and there is money being injected into hard-hitting anti-smoking campaigns—$27.8 million, as I understand it. On 31 May it was World No Tobacco Day, and that is the day on which the minister announced the $5 million that would go into Quitline. A lot of people in my electorate do want to quit, and they need help. My office manager quit two years ago—she knew I was going to say this, so it is all right!—and good on her. She smoked for a long time, and she smoked a lot. A lot of people here have talked about smoking. When I grew up it was normal—we did not know it was bad for us; we did not have that information. My mother smoked; everybody smoked—we all did; it was seen as normal. We now know the problems it causes, and with that knowledge we have to make changes.
The point I made at the beginning of my contribution is the point I want to finish on. It is frequently said, and I am often asked about this by journalists, that these measures will impact most on the poor. Like a lot of decisions, things can impact on the poor and we all have to be mindful of that. But this is a situation that we do have to change. We do not strike the excises and tariffs in a differential way—that is not how we do excise in Australia. What I can say is that people on low incomes and beneficiaries on government pensions and benefits have been helped in other ways, particularly over the past three years. The Australian government has reduced the tax burden on working Australians, and someone who gets $20,000 a year will have received a tax cut of $750 per year over the three years 2007-08 to 2010-11. If we go up the scale, someone on $30,000 will have received a cut of $750; $40,000, $1,800; $50,000, $1,750; $60,000, $1,350; and $80,000, $1,550. It is to the lower end of that earning scale that I am addressing these remarks.
A raft of other measures have been introduced, such as the Paid Parental Leave scheme that is coming, the education tax refund and changes to the pension. The pension has been increase by $100 a fortnight for singles and $76 for couples, and there is also the abolition of Work Choices and other measures. The government has introduced a range of measures over the last three years that have put more money into the pockets of people, and particularly those people at the lower end of the earning scale. I thought it was important to inject that into the discussion tonight.
In summing up, I strongly support these two bills being debated cognately. I support the health initiative of the 25 per cent increase in excise, and all the other measures that go with it. I support the fact that we are directing a lot of it to our young as well, and particularly to young girls so that it can be totally not cool to smoke. At the moment it can be seen as cool to smoke, and we have to make it uncool. Some of those hard-hitting ads certainly make it uncool. There is enormous pressure to smoke. With those comments I commend these bills to the House, and I also thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, for taking the chair and enabling me to contribute to this debate.
4818
19:56:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Ms ROXON
—in reply—I thank the member for Page and other members who have contributed to this debate on theExcise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and the cognate bill. One thing is for sure—there is very broad support within this House as well as in the community for our taking this step and doing all we can to reduce smoking in the community. It is interesting, when you consider the last two contributions, to note the changing world and the success we have had in Australia in being able to discourage people from smoking. People tell their stories about how all of their friends smoked when they were young, and those of us of different generations, some of us even younger than me, have had an entirely different experience. That is a tribute to the work that has gone before us, but in a way it strengthens our argument that we need to take these next steps to ensure that we can reduce tobacco consumption even further.
As I have already outlined in the House, on 30 April 2010 the excise on tobacco was increased by 25 per cent as part of our government’s anti-smoking reform package. Since that time, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service have been collecting excise and excise-equivalent customs duties at the higher rate, and the legislation we have been debating today will formally confirm that higher rate. Of course, that needs to be passed by the Senate. While the opposition have indicated that they will support this legislation, they have suggested that it represents a tax grab and is not a public health measure. They say this despite the fact that this was a key recommendation of the Preventative Health Taskforce, and they say it despite the fact that this has been endorsed by bodies such as the Cancer Council Australia, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Nursing Federation, the Heart Foundation and the International Union Against Cancer. And they say it despite the fact that every year in Australia over 15,000 Australians die from smoking related illnesses, and smoking is estimated to cause one in five of all cancer deaths.
I am pleased that, despite this criticism, we do now have the opposition on the record as being willing to ‘not oppose’ this legislation and to allow this important measure to proceed. Given how enthusiastically the legislation has been received in the broader community and the very clear public health outcomes, it is a shame that the opposition has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this outcome. I think it is a shame that perhaps some of the members of the opposition were not carefully listening when these announcements were made, because I have seen, from some contributions including the shadow minister’s, that they have been calling for this money to be dedicated to health. We have already agreed to, and committed to, this money being dedicated to health. In fact, we have gone way beyond that. The Prime Minister, in his announcement, made clear that not only the increase in excise on tobacco but the entire amount of excise which is collected from tobacco is dedicated to health through the National Health and Hospitals Network Fund. The sad truth is we spend a lot more than that already on health because of the high demands on our system and because of the growing and ageing population. So I can make clear that those commitments have already been made. We do believe in making sure that you have the public health benefit of dissuading thousands of Australians from taking up this habit or of encouraging many to give up this habit. Also we can actually ensure that the sufferers of tobacco related diseases, who do require approximately 750,000 bed days of treatment in our hospitals every year, can get treatment. All this helps the sustainability of the health system.
I also want to add very briefly for the House’s benefit that when I introduced this bill into the House it preceded World No Tobacco Day, something that the member for Page, who is now in the chair, mentioned. That was yesterday and I used the occasion yesterday to announce another anti-tobacco measure, that the government will provide $5 million to help support Quitline services around Australia. Since the increase in the tobacco excise, there has been an increased demand for Quitline services. I think that has been proving our case that an increase in price does encourage people to give up. That is a good sign. We have had some reports that in some instances Quitline calls have doubled for a period of time. Whilst that is a very good sign about the number of people using this as an opportunity to kick what is a lethal habit, it has put some pressure on Quitline services. This extra funding will assist Quitline to provide their invaluable service, being there for people when they want to quite smoking. Of course, this was one of the other recommendations from the National Preventative Health Taskforce. It means that we have a comprehensive response to the problem of tobacco smoking in Australia. I urge members to consider this as an opportunity to pass that message on even more broadly.
I think some of those remaining few of my colleagues who smoke might be getting a little bit sick of me reminding them of this fact. But, as one of the other speakers in the House mentioned, smoking is a risk factor. Today we launched a report from the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare about the risks of cardiovascular disease to women, a disease previously known very much in the community as a disease of men, perhaps older men in particular. This report shows that it is a very large killer of women as well. One of the biggest risk factors is still smoking. We know we can decrease the burden of many illnesses in this country if we can persuade people not to take up this dangerous and lethal habit, and we hope that our package of measures will help encourage people to do that. I thank members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I thank the opposition for supporting these measures and I urge the House to support this bill and the cognate bill to deliver major preventative health reform in Australia. I hope that I can have the opposition’s support for all this to be treated expeditiously in the Senate. I commend this bill and the other one to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
4819
Ms ROXON
(Gellibrand
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
20:04:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO) BILL 2010
4820
Bills
R4344
Second Reading
4820
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
4820
Ms ROXON
(Gellibrand
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
20:04:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY AND PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) BILL 2010
4820
Bills
R4352
Second Reading
4820
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4820
20:05:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
0
Mr DUTTON
—I should place on the record clarification in relation to some of the comments made by the Minister for Health and Ageing in her summing up of the last debate. She completely misrepresented what I had to say as part of that debate. It is a clear method of operation of this minister to try to misrepresent, but I will let others draw their own conclusions.
The key amendments in the Health Legislation Amendment (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Private Health Insurance) Bill 2010 are the result of the agreed negotiations arising from the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The bill proposes amendments to the National Health Act 1953 relating to these arrangements for approving pharmacists to supply pharmaceutical benefits subsidised by the Commonwealth. It is intended that the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement will commence on 1 July 2010 and expire on 30 June 2015. The National Health Act 1953 currently gives effect to the pharmacy location rules and the operation of the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority only until 30 June 2010, the expiry date of the existing Fourth Community Pharmacy Agreement. These amendments are required to extend the location rules and the operation of the ACPA for the term of the fifth agreement, to end on 30 June 2015. In so doing, they enable the implementation of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, signed on 3 May this year.
Pharmacy services are a key component of primary health care. They are important to all Australians, for there would be few who would not enter a pharmacy at some time every year to have a script filled or as a first point of call for advice on minor injuries or ailments. This Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement will provide spending of more than $15.4 billion over the next five years for delivery of pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services to the Australian community while providing around $1 billion of savings on forecast spending, according to the government. The expenditure will go to more than 5,000 community pharmacies across the country to dispense PBS medicines and provide other professional services and to meet the community service obligation arrangements with pharmaceutical wholesalers to ensure timely delivery of pharmaceutical products to those pharmacies and, in turn, to the consumer.
Medicare Australia’s latest annual report showed that almost 200 million prescriptions were filled in Australia in the 2008-09 financial year—almost 10 for every man, woman and child, a six per cent increase on the previous year and a figure that is sure to continue rising over the years of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. It shows the integral role community pharmacy plays in the nation’s healthcare system. It is one of the foundations of the system. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme could not operate without it.
The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement does not differ greatly from past agreements put in place by the coalition, which shows that the Rudd government realises the efficacy of those past arrangements. Key features of previous agreements have been retained, in particular the retention of the community pharmacy location rules and the prohibition on a community pharmacy being co-located in a supermarket as well as continuation of the wholesaler community service obligation payments. The coalition introduced the location rules in a past agreement to ensure provision of widespread community access to pharmaceutical services. They were later amended to prohibit co-location of pharmacies in supermarkets to maintain that access.
The coalition supports free market principles, and we want to see competition in the pharmacy sector, but we recognise that the supply of pharmaceuticals which include dangerous drugs is very different from the retailing of other products. Retailing is about maximising sales and that is not the culture that suits the supply of pharmaceuticals, which should be provided on a needs basis, professionally supervised and professionally monitored. So, as a government, we were prepared to take the decisions that would keep pharmacy apart from the big supermarkets and their retail chains. We did not then, and do not now, believe that replacing focused, often family oriented, businesses with departments of major retail chains would be an improvement on existing arrangements. Delivery of effective, efficient and professional pharmacy services to consumers through a unique community pharmacy model are arrangements that have served Australians well. They are the pedestal on which community pharmacy rests and are necessary to maintain a system that remains among the very best in the world. In negotiating past agreements, the coalition has sought savings from the Commonwealth, but it has also been prepared to introduce other measures to boost community pharmacy and the quality of service it provides to consumers and to ensure the provision of those services across our geographically dispersed nation.
The third agreement covering the period 2000-05 introduced the location rules but, importantly, it included incentives for the pharmacy networks in rural and remote areas to continue to provide quality services and to expand services. It also provided further recognition of the wider and growing role of the pharmacy sector in the provision of health care. The fourth agreement in 2005 established the community service obligation funding pool to ensure that it was commercially viable for pharmaceutical wholesalers to supply the full range of PBS medicines to pharmacies across Australia regardless of location. It also funded a continuation of a greater role for pharmacists to deliver new programs to improve health outcomes in the community in areas such as asthma, diabetes and communicable diseases, and it provided funding for improved access to community pharmacy services for Indigenous Australians. In the main the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement recently signed by the Minister for Health and Ageing continues to build upon those core measures.
There are two further matters regarding the fifth CPA that I will comment briefly upon tonight. Under the fourth CPA a review of the location rules, among other matters, was carried out. I note that the results of that review are due to be provided to the government and to a consultative committee established under the new agreement in the very near future. As the agreement says, these are ‘complex issues with significant impact on community pharmacy’. Care will be needed in dealing with them. Secondly, there is one change in this agreement that has drawn criticism, and that is a move to allow pharmacists to dispense some medicines without a doctor’s prescription. The coalition notes the agreement allows for such dispensing only under specific circumstances such as a patient not being able to get to their doctor to obtain a timely prescription renewal. The coalition has been informed that further details surrounding this change are yet to be finalised and that appropriate consultations with all stakeholders are still to take place. It is also understood that these changes will require legislative change at a state level and therefore will provide an opportunity for further scrutiny.
The coalition will not oppose the amendment which will bring the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement into operation. It is worth noting, though, that this health minister does not have a proud legislative track record. Her record in bringing health before this parliament is particularly poor, as is this government’s record in actually achieving results with its promises in health like fixing hospitals by mid-last year and having more than a score of so-called GP superclinics opened around the country by next month. Where are we at? The Prime Minister now says he has a plan for hospitals, but he said he had one at the last election. He has promised at the forthcoming election to achieve with that plan what he promised at the last election—that it will fix hospitals, although the word ‘fix’ of course has dropped off his website. No-one will know until some undetermined date in the future exactly when that fix will come, but we know that Mr Rudd’s fix—the one he said that he would complete in 2009—will not be completed now until at least 2020. And what a fix it is: a noodle nation plan of federal and state bureaucracies with money churning around between them before at some point it gets offloaded to a local hospital network where—and I stress this—local clinicians are explicitly barred from serving on governing councils, another broken promise from Mr Rudd who says this plan is all about federal funding and local management.
Mr Rudd told doctors and nurses they would have a say under his plan in the running of local hospital networks, yet clause A10-b-ii on page 14 of the National Health and Hospitals Network agreement signed with the states clearly says that clinical expertise on network-governing councils should be external to the particular network. Our health system is a massive, complex, $100-billion-a-year enterprise, and Kevin Rudd—the Prime Minister who could not even oversee a program to put pink batts into ceilings for free—is going to fix it! I very much doubt that. The Prime Minister’s plan has disaster written all over it.
What of that other big health promise—to deliver superclinics around the country? There are not many of them, and those that do exist are not all that super. After 2½ years in office, just three are open and considered to be fully operational—three out of a promised 31. What a track record this health minister has! Can anyone really believe that this government, this health minister, will deliver the 59 of these clinics now being promised? Mr Rudd and Minister Roxon are good at making promises; they just cannot keep them. They cannot deliver on their promises.
They promised they were not going to change private health insurance. The Prime Minister put it in writing before the last election. But that promise meant nothing. The government tried, twice, to cut rebates to those who choose to take out insurance, to take responsibility for their healthcare costs. The government’s determination to press on and introduce a means test on the rebates remains. There were commitments not to change the Medicare safety net. Those commitments were dumped in a series of callous attacks on patients: a decision to slash Medicare rebates for cataract surgery in half, forcing elderly Australians to abandon treatment or pay hundreds of dollars more for it; a decision to drastically cut rebates for macular degeneration treatment, which left some sufferers with the frightening alternative of blindness; and a decision to cap safety net support for IVF and, likewise, for many obstetric services. The health minister was forced to back down from most of those ill-thought-through attempts to claw back costs at the expense of patients. And now this government want Australians to trust them to spend billions of dollars to ‘reform’ health. It is a so-called ‘reform’ that even the states baulked at until Mr Rudd bought their support with billions of extra dollars. For all that, Victorian Premier John Brumby assessed that under Mr Rudd’s reforms there would be ‘no big changes’.
I turn to the other matter in this bill, amending the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 in relation to the Lifetime Health Cover provisions of that act. The bill amends the legislation to ensure it is consistent for all new migrants to Australia. It removes an anomaly that allowed some migrants extended periods of time—unavailable to Australian citizens and most migrants—before the Lifetime Health Cover provisions applied to them. The change will make the Lifetime Health Cover provisions consistent for all. The Lifetime Health Cover provisions were part of several measures the coalition introduced to strengthen private health after it had been trashed by the Keating Labor government. When the Keating government was thrown from office private health insurance levels had fallen to a calamitous 30 per cent of the population. The introduction of the Medicare levy surcharge for higher income earners who did not take out private health insurance, 30 per cent rebates for those who did take responsibility for their health care by taking out private insurance cover and the lifetime cover provisions, which encourage people to join and maintain health insurance, have seen health insurance coverage levels rise to around 45 per cent of the population. Around 11 million Australians now insure themselves and, in doing so, relieve pressure on our overstretched public hospitals.
Since the Rudd government came to power these important pillars of the health system have been under attack—none more so than the rebates for private health insurance. As I said earlier, this minister and her government appear determined to attack the rebates. Their attacks are ideologically driven with no thought for the consequences. We have warned that the consequences of those attacks, should they succeed, will be serious—a departure from insurance and more people seeking treatment in the public hospital system, with all the attendant problems that will cause. We remain steadfast in our opposition to the government’s attempts to change the rebates for private health insurance. That said, the coalition does not oppose this bill.
4823
20:19:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I start my contribution to this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Private Health Insurance) Bill 2010 by saying that I believe that the Minister for Health and Ageing can and will deliver on health reform and the remaining GP superclinics. I have a lot more confidence in the minister than I would ever have in the shadow minister. He says one thing in parliament and one thing in his electorate. We cannot believe anything members of the opposition say.
History will judge the current Minister for Health and Ageing as one of the best, if not the best, health ministers Australia has ever had. Her impact in the area of health has been outstanding, and I know, from travelling around my electorate, that my constituents in Shortland really appreciate what she has done. If it were not for the minister for health, the people of Belmont would not have their Medicare office. It was her commitment to the people of Shortland electorate that delivered that Medicare office.
I find it quite amazing when I sit here in parliament and listen to the contributions of those on the other side of the House. It was particularly amazing to listen to the contribution of the then health minister, now Leader of the Opposition, when he ripped a billion dollars out of health. He gave these rolled gold, rock-solid, ironclad guarantees that he would deliver on health, but all he did was take money out of health and weaken our health service. He has made another commitment to the Australian people to take another billion dollars out of health if the opposition are elected at the election later this year. I urge people to be very sceptical of what the shadow minister for health and the Leader of the Opposition have to say, because we all know what a great risk they pose to Australia.
HWN
Coulton, Mark, MP
Mr Coulton
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could I ask the member for Shortland to come back to the matter at hand.
10000
Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms JA Saffin)—Would the honourable member for Shortland please proceed. There is no point of order. It is a wide-ranging debate and it was directed to health.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really interesting to see the member jump up on a point of order against me, yet he was quite prepared to let the previous speaker make a very, very wide-ranging contribution to this debate.
I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Private Health Insurance) Bill 2010 today. The purpose of the bill is to arrange the approval of pharmacies to supply pharmaceutical benefits to the community beyond June 2010. I have to say that the process involved in reaching the agreement was a lot smoother than it was in reaching the agreement on the previous occasion. That was the occasion when the Leader of the Opposition’s friend, the then CEO of Woolworths, Roger Corbett, was lobbying very strongly to allow pharmacies to operate in supermarkets. I think it was really touch and go whether or not that happened. It was only after the lobbying of many people that a sensible position was reached and the agreement was finally signed. If my memory serves me correctly, there was actually a delay in the signing of the agreement because of the procrastination of the then Minister for Health and Ageing, who just happens to be the Leader of the Opposition, who just happens to be the person who tells the Australian people to only believe what he says if is written in front of him. He is such a risk to this country. If he were ever to become Prime Minister, I hate to think what would happen.
The other aspect of this legislation deals with Lifetime Health Cover and non-Australian citizens. I think this change to the legislation brings clarity. I know that it has caused confusion for a number of people. I have particularly been dealing with a constituent in my electorate who found that they had a problem relating to the fact that they did not quite understand the legislation. As such, they found themselves disadvantaged.
So this is quite non-controversial legislation which should pass through this parliament without too much trouble, and it is legislation that I am sure both sides of the House will support. I will finish by saying: whatever we do, remember the Leader of the Opposition was once the health minister. He ripped $1 billion out of the health system and he would rip another $1 billion out of the health system were he to be elected Prime Minister. I say to the Australian people: he is far too big a risk—one we cannot afford to take.
4825
20:25:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Ms ROXON
—in reply—I thank the members for their contributions to this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Private Health Insurance) Bill 2010. I think it would be fair to say that both sides of the House seem to have taken the opportunity to have a fairly broad-ranging debate. I must say I found the member for Shortland’s contribution a little more heart-warming than the opposition’s! However, it is good to know that the member for Dickson can support legislation like this, because I think everyone in this place does appreciate the vital role that community pharmacists play. The agreement that is reflected in this legislation is a $15 billion agreement. It is a big Commonwealth investment, and it is an investment to ensure that the community can get the medicines they need and to make sure that pharmacists are available across the country and in fact continue to be very well distributed across the country.
This legislation provides for two things. It makes sure that the Community Pharmacy Authority and the pharmacy location rules continue for the term of the fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, until 30 June 2015. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, the amendments are the result of agreed negotiations with the Pharmacy Guild and the Australian government. There are also some minor amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 that were necessary to correct technical errors in the existing provisions relating to Lifetime Health Cover and new arrivals and ensure that the policy is applied fairly and consistently.
This is a good piece of legislation; it is important. Unlike the assertions made by the opposition that we have a poor legislative record, we in fact have a very strong legislative record. It is true that the coalition in the Senate has opposed many reform initiatives, but despite that we have been able to introduce expansive reforms, ones that are benefiting the community—and I look forward to the time when the member for Dickson provides a contribution after having actually visited the superclinic in his electorate. I know the member for Parkes, who is in the chamber, will be very pleased when his is open. He tells me he will happily stand next to me in a photo when that happens, because it is something that his community campaigned heavily for. We look forward to doing that. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
4825
Ms ROXON
(Gellibrand
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
20:28:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
4825
Adjournment
10000
Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms JA Saffin)—Order! It being approximately 8.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Hume Electorate: Gunning Public School
4826
4826
20:30:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
0
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—I rise to speak on the ongoing Building the Education Revolution and, in particular, inconsistencies regarding the costings in the construction of school halls and libraries. Gunning is a small town in the Hume electorate with a population of around 480, and the Gunning Public School has 56 students. The P&C association contacted me in late April, wanting to alert me to the problems that they have experienced with the whole process involved with the BER program. In February-March of 2009 the Gunning Public School were given a short time frame of only days to nominate their project for BER funding. In consultation with the then staff and the P&C executive, Gunning Public School applied for a new library and the conversion of the back of their existing library into an open-plan office block and sick bay area. For decades the situation has been that any child in the sick bay was stuck out the back of an old administrative building, unsupervised. The only person who is able to check on children in the sick bay is an admin officer who answers the school telephones, but to check on the sick bay the admin officer has to leave her room and walk down a corridor into the sick bay room.
When the plans for the school’s new library and admin block were scoped the school was told that the budget of $850,000 would not build a library and convert the office. The office conversion was then descoped and the school was told they would only be receiving a new library. Whilst the school is not complaining about receiving a new library, which was greatly needed, the members of the P&C, who class themselves as a group of financially responsible parents and citizens, are just asking, ‘Why is the library costing so much money?’ At the heart of the P&C’s confusion is why a single, seven metre by 11 metre new library building is costing taxpayers $850,000 or approximately $11,000 per square metre.
Gunning P&C are a very active and resourceful parents group and are constantly conducting fundraising activities to improve facilities for their children at the school. Between 2005 and 2009 many of them worked on a project to raise funds for, and eventually build, a new long day care centre in Gunning, which I opened last year. The total cost for the construction of this building, which far exceeds the size and scope of the single library at Gunning Public School, was less than $500,000.
The P&C have a unique school fundraiser that they conduct annually and which has been going strong for 13 years. Parents and children all go out in the middle of winter to the numerous shearing sheds in the Gunning area and scrape out sheep poo from under the sheds, bag it and sell it as garden fertiliser. This very successful fundraising initiative is called Gunning Gold. The parents and students of Gunning Public School are about to embark on this annual fundraiser. The money raised from this hard earned fundraising event is very wisely spent on necessary school projects.
I will be outside tomorrow morning joining representatives of the Gunning Public School at the protest rally that has been organised to highlight the growing number of rorts and inconsistencies that are being exposed in the BER program in relation to the blatant waste of taxpayer money. I will stand alongside not only Gunning Public School but all those other schools in attendance and call on Minister Gillard to implement an independent investigation into how and why this program is costing taxpayers so much money.
In closing, I say this: in the words of the president of Gunning Public School’s P&C, $850,000 is a hell of a lot of sheep poo!
Education
4827
4827
20:33:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I certainly welcome a discussion on the Building the Education Revolution program and the Rudd government’s commitment to an education revolution. That is what I wish to speak about tonight. This government, when coming into office, made a commitment to invest in education in this country, at a level that this country has never seen. We are investing in the Digital Education Revolution, the Trade Training Centres Program, the Building the Education Revolution, the Smarter Schools National Partnerships, the national curriculum, more transparency through the My School website and the Local Schools Working Together Program. These are all fantastic initiatives that schools in my electorate are embracing.
I do not intend to go through all of those in detail this evening. I wish to take the House specifically to one of those elements, and that is the computers in schools program. This is a program that has been embraced fully by the secondary schools across my electorate. I was disappointed to read today an article by the LNP candidate in Petrie, Dean Teasdale, who said that the schools in Petrie have been failed. He said that a new computer had been promised for every student from years 9 to 12 but that ‘new figures released today’—not saying where those figures came from—’show that in the federal seat of Petrie, Kevin Rudd has broken his promise, with only 1,407 of the computers actually installed in schools, out of 5,586 student entitled to receive one’.
I am amused by this article because the candidate says that we have failed to deliver but he then goes on in the next paragraph to say, ‘This program has one year to go.’ He acknowledged that the program was still ongoing, so how can he claim that the program has failed to deliver when the time frames are still in place and there is progress in this area? What I can say is that in relation to the schools in Petrie we have delivered computers to secondary schools in rounds 1 and 2. In fact, the schools in Petrie have already reached a two to one ratio of students to computers. This means that the government has already provided funding for 2,136 computers in Petrie schools, and the next round of funding will take this ratio to one to one.
I would like the LNP candidate for Petrie to come out and say to Grace Lutheran College, Mueller College, Australian Trade College North Brisbane, St John Fisher College, Southern Cross Catholic College, Clontarf Beach State High School, Redcliffe State High School, Aspley State High School, Redcliffe Special School, Aspley Special School, Woody Point Special School, Bracken Ridge State High School, Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre, Deception Bay State High School, North Lakes State College and the Lakes College at North Lakes that under an Abbott government those computers will not be delivered. In fact, the whole system is going to be scrapped.
Not only will computers in schools be scrapped but also trade training centres will be scrapped. A whole range of education programs will be scrapped, including the Smarter Schools teacher quality program and the Productivity Places Program. A whole range of programs will be scratched under an Abbott government, because they seem incapable of running programs and bringing a budget back to surplus. They are saying it is too hard and they cannot do it. They can work on a surplus but they cannot work on delivering programs and a surplus.
But this government can deliver the programs that it has committed to. It will deliver the computers to these schools in my electorate. I say to the LNP candidate for Petrie, Dean Teasdale, who is out there on his website proudly saying he went to Grace Lutheran College: go talk to Grace Lutheran College. They were the first school that wrote to me saying how fantastic this program is in delivering these computers to schools and what a successful program it has been. They said that they are extremely pleased with the overall outcome of the rollout. They are very excited and proud of the work done by the team at Grace and of the difference it has made to their students’ learning. Can I suggest that the LNP candidate stop writing articles and get out and talk to the schools in Petrie and he will find out that the parents and the schools are very pleased with this program and do not want it scrapped.
Home Insulation Program
4828
4828
20:38:00
Wood, Jason, MP
E0F
La Trobe
LP
0
0
Mr WOOD
—Jacqui and Alex Qureitem have been trying to get help from the government to fix their roof insulation problem since February this year. Getting nowhere with helplines, Jacqui and Alex approached my office on 3 March with a letter, part of which I will read out:
I’ve been trying to get help or even some information to ease our mind. As you know, since Mr Rudd has announced the free insulation we have been bombarded by people knocking at our door and even ringing us all the time. On the 14 January, two men knocked at our door and insisted that we have to do it because the house is about 15 years old and it is free and the government will pay for it.
I wish I didn’t listen to them and agree to do it. It was a big, big mistake. On Saturday the 16th January they arrive about 11 a.m. to do the work. No mask, no proper clothing, no gloves. I had to give them some disposable gloves so they can work.
I am very worried about the work they have done especially regarding the down light covers. We are scared to put the lights on. We are using table lamps to light the house. We rang the man in charge of the company—no answers. We rang 1800 808 571(the hotline) and we were referred to 131792. We need someone to come and inspect the work so we can relax and make sure everything is safe. Please help us because no one is listening or telling us anything and they don’t know what we are supposed to do. We just need someone to come and check the work that’s all; please .. please.
We are very grateful that at least you are listening and trying to help us.
Regards, Alex QUREITEM
I made representations to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, on the couple’s behalf. At this point, I must also thank Neil Mitchell for giving Jacqui the chance to speak on his show, and I believe this helped very much towards an inspection of the couple’s house being arranged on Tuesday, 23 March. An inspector confirmed that the house is a fire risk—and I have that inspection notice with me. The department then engaged the same company to fix the problem that did the initial job. Jackie and Alex were extremely nervous that the same company was sent to remedy the job that was botched in the first place. My office was advised by the department that there was nothing it could do about it. We were assured by the government that this was the only way to go forward.
Two men arrived on Saturday, 27 March to fix the installation—27 days after Jacqui and Alex had approached my office. The men went up into the roof to fix some of the covers. Jacqui and Alex were anxious. When light bulbs fell on the ground and were breaking on the floor in the family room, Alex asked them to leave because he was afraid that they did not know what they were doing. Eventually, having no other choice, Jacqui and Alex agreed to let the company back in. The company returned to fix the roof in early to mid April. The government thought this was sufficient. It is apparently not normal procedure to get a second inspection. Most houses will get only one inspection.
But we kept on the government’s back to get an independent assessment of the job that was supposed to fix the roof. Through representations again to Minister Combet’s office, we finally got another inspection done on Monday, 24 May. Lo and behold, you wouldn’t believe it but it came back again—the house is still a fire risk. This puts a great question mark over the way the government is handling this matter. What about all the other houses around the country? Are they safe or do they just think they are safe? Do they all need second inspections too? How many houses have been fixed by the original installers?
The other thing is that this family has been living in a house with a fire risk since February. The government has known about the family’s predicament, but the government’s own procedures have failed this family. We still do not have a result. The house sits as much as a fire risk now as it was nearly four months ago. I expect the government to resolve this problem for this family in my electorate on 10 June, as it has organised for another independent inspection—this time to actually fix the problems at the house. A full investigation must be initiated. It is tragic that four people have lost their lives and that there have been 146 house fires, 1,500 electrified roofs and 240,000 dodgy insulations across the country. My electorate of La Trobe is no exception, and the way this program is being managed and implemented is a disgrace. I feel sorry for all those people living in fear, waiting and wondering whether their house will catch fire. I urge the government to make sure a second inspection is carried out of all houses.
Building the Education Revolution Program
4829
4829
20:43:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
0
Ms BURKE
—I rise to do something outrageous tonight: to highlight the great work taking place under the Building the Education Revolution Program. I say outrageous because, from what you would read in the paper, nothing good is happening out there. However, this is not what we are finding on the ground. Overall, this program has supported the construction industry and is improving infrastructure at all our schools. Overall, the BER program has been a tremendous success for schools and communities across Australia.
However it would be easy to assume the program has been a rorted failure based on the way it has been misrepresented in much of the conservative media. News Limited, in particular the Australian, is running an extremely one-sided campaign against this program. They are deploying unprecedented resources to nit pick and find examples to suit their own agenda. In doing so they are completely neglecting many of the real stories out there on the school grounds. The vast majority of school principals and school communities are happy with the government’s investment. I, like all the members in the chamber, have been all to my schools and all of them are exceptionally happy.
The recent ANAO report highlighted this fact with the following statement:
Overall, there are some positive early indicators that the program is making progress toward achieving its intended outcomes.
Lead economic indicators, including construction approvals, show that the introduction of BER P21 contributed to a reversal in the decline in non-residential construction activity that resulted from the global financial crisis.
Education industry stakeholders, including peak bodies, Education Authorities and a substantial majority of school principals have also been positive about the improvement in primary school facilities that will result from the program.
Recently I visited Essex Heights Primary School, one of my great local schools undergoing a massive transformation as a result of the BER and the Victorian government’s Building Futures program. The Essex Heights community—staff, parents and students—are absolutely thrilled with their BER project, a multipurpose facility. Essex Heights is a school that has been crying out for investment for many years and they are delighted that the federal government has stepped in to fund their new hall, which will benefit students, staff and the community well into the future. They also got a double whammy, getting $6 million in the state budget to rebuild the entire school—and, can I tell you, it needs to be done.
The school’s principal invited the Australian along to join with senior staff, the parent’s association, and the project’s builders for a tour of their under-construction hall. Sadly, the Australian showed no interest in taking up this offer to come and visit a good news story about the BER project. But the rest of us were there, and we had a great time.
During my visit I spoke with senior personnel from the construction company working on this project. They are a very large firm and are involved in over 25 BER constructions. They are very supportive of the program and the essential stimulus that it has provided in their sector of the economy. Critically for the company, the stimulus came at a time when private capital was withdrawing from development and construction activity. As a direct result of this program, they have created over 800 new jobs across Australia to handle their increased workload. Many of those jobs are apprentices. This is an apt example of the massive benefits that this program is delivering to the construction industry.
Even more importantly, the program is leaving behind vital infrastructure in our schools that will be enjoyed for many years to come. It was an absolute delight to stand in the middle of this big empty building to see the joy on the PE teacher’s face. He had not been inside, and he was working out where his basketball court was finally going to be. It was a delight to see all the parents, too. These are the stories overlooked by the Australian, which seem content with assessing the overall merits of the program on the basis of a number of isolated examples—and confecting many of those. On Sunday, I opened my first BER program at St Mary Magdalene’s Catholic School in Chadstone, another school delighted with the outcome of their program.
The irrelevant and inapplicable comparisons made between BER projects and commercial fit-outs or private dwellings do little to support the case that the Australian is running. As the ANAO report states:
In many cases, concerns from principals and community members about value-for-money relate to a misunderstanding of the building standards Education Authorities are expected to adhere to in building education infrastructure.
The fact is that the ANAO audit found that the BER program had delivered good value for money. The benefits to our school communities, to our children’s education and to the construction industry as a result of the BER program are unequivocal. The communities in my electorate are all very excited about the projects that we are going to be leaving behind for them.
Transport Infrastructure
4830
4830
20:48:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise tonight to speak on the issue of transport infrastructure in my electorate of Mitchell. It is timely that I raise this matter here tonight in the House, because 2010 was the year that the long-promised north-west rail line for North West Sydney was to commence. Service was to commence in this month, according to the first initial state government promise in 1998. I do not need to remind the House that this promise has been cancelled, re-promised, cancelled and re-promised almost uncannily in sync with every state election. Now we have a timetable that has the completion of the north-west rail link in 2024.
Tonight I want in particular to raise the proposal of Mr Ron Christie. He has written an independent report that calls for an independent agency, Transport for Sydney, to be modelled on the successful Transport for London. It is important that the government, and particularly Infrastructure Australia, take note of this. With the worst government in New South Wales history, people in Sydney and New South Wales have completely lost faith in the ability of government to deliver infrastructure in key parts of our state.
My electorate of Mitchell has the highest rate of car ownership in Australia. That is because of the lack of transport options. It has the second highest proportion of couples with dependent children of any electorate in the country. It was one of the fastest growing corridors in Sydney. It still remains a very fast growth corridor. No government is proposing to put in any transportation options until 2024.
This has led to citizens, independent bodies, newspapers—including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Hill Shire Times—and other agencies, such as the Hill Shire Council, to form their own group, called the Build It Now Coalition. What this represents is a new thrust in New South Wales because government has failed in its job and in its fundamental responsibility. What we see in the Build It Now Coalition is a response to the abject and utter despair of the average citizen in New South Wales because the government will not deliver what it promises—especially in transport infrastructure. Of all the submissions that were put to the independent inquiry by Mr Ron Christie—more than 500 submissions—over 24 per cent were on this issue of the north-west rail line. About a quarter of all submissions to this independent body were on the single item of the north-west rail link. It is a vital and key piece of infrastructure for Sydney.
I want to note that in successive federal budgets since the election of this government and the formation of Infrastructure Australia there has been very little funding of any nature for infrastructure in Sydney. The much vaunted, much claimed and much talked about need to raise taxes, to raise capital and to invest in infrastructure has no application to every single resident of Sydney in every single seat in Sydney because there simply is no infrastructure funding for Sydney.
In last year’s budget we saw a meagre $40 million for a study for a western metro line from the city to Parramatta, which was to go right through the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s electorate, uncannily. But the incompetence of the New South Wales government knows no bounds, and that project has been cancelled as well. So the money had to be returned to the Commonwealth. The money provided in last year’s budget for a study for a western metro line through the minister for infrastructure’s own electorate had to be returned to the Commonwealth by the New South Wales state government.
And of course we all know of the absolute and utter failure of the New South Wales government to put a credible submission for infrastructure funding to the federal government in the first year of Infrastructure Australia. Here is a great new body of the federal government to deliver infrastructure in Australia—money on the table—but the New South Wales government fails to put even a credible submission together for any of that infrastructure money for Sydney.
I praise the work of the Build It Now coalition. The north-west rail link was supposed to open this year. We have a timetable from the Build It Now coalition which says that we can complete this by 2017. I urge the New South Wales government to do so, to get on with the job, to put proper applications in to the federal government and to seek all available funding to get this vital piece of transport infrastructure built for the residents of Sydney, north-west Sydney and my electorate of Mitchell.
Economy
4832
4832
20:53:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise tonight in this adjournment debate to update the House and the people of Solomon on the projects that were committed to before the first election and on how they are going. I have no doubt that the centrepiece of the program that I committed to when I put my hand up to be the member for Solomon was the cancer care unit. It is good to be able to say in this place that the Alan Walker Cancer Care Unit is completed. The first patients began to be treated in April, which is fantastic. The centre now provides a service where people do not have to go interstate; they can actually get cancer treatment in the Northern Territory and in Darwin, which is significant. It was a $28 million commitment delivered by the Rudd Labor government through the hard work of the Prime Minister as well as the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon.
On Saturday I had a great deal of pleasure in opening the first stage of Tiger Brennan Drive. It is a $110 million commitment—$74 million from the Commonwealth and $36 million from the Northern Territory government. This will ease the traffic congestion in the morning from Palmerston into the city and vice versa, giving people time to get home earlier and spend time with their families. We have also opened up more of a seamless access through to our East Arm Port facilities, which will quicken access for semitrailers. The second stage—the southern bridge—will be opened in June and the northern bridge in July, with completion of the project in November. This was a project that drew blame for both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government for a long time, and it is on track to be delivered.
The GP superclinic at Palmerston is a fantastic project. Palmerston has long suffered with inadequate medical services in that area—a rural area—and now has a $10 million commitment from the minister, which was made previous to the last election. The roof is now on. People would be aware that during the wet season we do have problems with building, but the roof is on now. It is being fitted out and we are looking at an August opening. We have been running the after-hours service throughout the night in a facility nearby and have had some 28 representations, on average, each night. That saves people driving into Darwin to go to Darwin Hospital. It has been a fantastic thing for the community and I look forward to opening that with the minister and hopefully the Prime Minister in the near future.
Other projects are in law and order. We committed $2 million towards CCTV cameras in the CBD in the Casuarina area as well as in the Palmerston area, and I am happy to say that they have been rolled out and are now in operation.
When you take on politics you want to make a difference; we all say that. I am happy to be able to stand here tonight and talk about these projects. They were probably the four biggest commitments that we made. In addition to that, as we have gone along we have been very well looked after by the stimulus package—185 houses for Defence, which was fantastic. That kept our tradies working, kept our apprentices in jobs and kept infrastructure rolling along during the global financial crisis. I have a very good announcement to make on Friday with regard to social housing. That is something that as a government we cop criticism about from time to time from those opposite and from the media. We can be very proud of Tanya Plibersek as our Minister for Housing—the first ever—and the job that she has done, especially in that housing affordability and social housing space. I think that is significant.
What are the threats to what we do? I would ask my opponent, as all my colleagues are asking their opponents going forward: what programs are you going to cut? We have fought for a long time to have our doctors trained in the Northern Territory and now have a $30 million commitment. The building has started, but I have real reservations that if Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister we are going to lose that. I need to know: is my opponent going to come out and stand up for the Northern Territory, or is she going to back down to Tony Abbott? One of the great programs that we ran during the global financial crisis was the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. I know that my lord mayors in Darwin and Palmerston are really worried that the money they received and are going to receive into the future from the Rudd Labor government is in jeopardy. I know where the comments by the shadow finance minister point. When you start to use words like ‘discontinued’, that makes me very nervous as a Territorian and as the member for Solomon.
We have also committed $50 million to the expansion of port Darwin. Do we lose that? We need to know; she needs to come out and tell us if she is going to stand up for the Territory. (Time expired)
Building the Education Revolution Program
4833
4833
20:58:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
0
Mr COULTON
—In the final two minutes of this adjournment debate I would like to comment on the remarks from the member for Chisholm and the member for Petrie, who were standing up in here singing the praises of the BER. The member for Chisholm had the audacity to say that this was some sort of orchestrated campaign by the Australian newspaper. I would suggest that all the members of this House step onto the lawn in front of Parliament House tomorrow morning at nine o’clock and speak to some people who are coming from all over Australia and who have real concerns about the blatant waste of money under this BER program. Tomorrow there will be a mock-up of the canteen that is being constructed at Tottenham Central School. I ask all the members of this House and the public in general to decide for themselves: is that good value at $610,000? It is a canteen that will not fit a fridge, will not fit a pie warmer and does not even have enough room for the staff to operate in and serve the children.
This canteen is exactly the same one that was delivered to Toomelah Public School in northern New South Wales in my electorate for $650,000. This is a town that had its CDEP program discontinued in June. It has massive unemployment, huge social problems and high levels of mental health issues. Since the CDEP program was discontinued there have been nine attempted suicides. So I ask all members of the House to come out and speak to the people tomorrow.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
4833
21:01:00
House adjourned at 9.01 pm
NOTICES
4834
Notices
The following notices were given:
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes.
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McClelland
to present a Bill for an Act to establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and for related purposes.
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McClelland
to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters in connection with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2010, and for other purposes.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to claims against corporations, and for related purposes.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1914, and for related purposes.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes.
2010-06-01
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom) took the chair at 4.00 pm.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
4835
Constituency Statements
Greenway Electorate: Cancer Screening
4835
4835
16:01:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
0
0
Mrs MARKUS
—I rise today to draw the House’s attention to the fact that last week in my electorate I was joined by the state shadow minister for health, Jillian Skinner, and the state Liberal candidate for Londonderry, Bart Bassett, to launch a petition to return mobile breast screen vans to the Hawkesbury. Mobile breast screen services to the Hawkesbury quietly stopped in September 2009. Local women are only realising now, after their reminder letter has turned up in the mail, that they must organise to travel for a mammogram.
Mobile services in Richmond and Castle Hill have been replaced by screening units set up in select Myer department stores, with the closest being at Parramatta, Blacktown, Penrith and Lithgow. I am gravely concerned that access to such a vital service has been removed instead of increased and that regional residents are missing out on equitable access yet again.
One in nine New South Wales women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Many of us know someone who has been touched by breast cancer. It is so important to make access to services such as breast screens easier rather than harder. The option of Myer stores for breast screens is helpful to those people who can travel greater distances; however, for many senior women, who do not often visit big department stores, a Myer store is not an easy or accessible option. Some of them prefer not to travel to department stores, whereas others physically cannot. Women from Colo Heights and Kurrajong with health challenges and little access to public transport have told me it is nearly impossible to access these services now that the mobile units have been axed. This is why the mobile units were ideal and helped to ensure such women received regular mammograms.
Access to mobile breast-screening services in small towns around the state of New South Wales has been removed. There still needs to be access to mobile breast-screening units for women who cannot get to a Myer store or hospital easily. It is vital that mobile services be reinstated to those areas of the Hawkesbury along with the rest of greater New South Wales so women in our local communities can have easy and equitable access to screening now and into the future.
That is why I have launched a petition to the federal government, with the help of the New South Wales shadow minister for health, Jillian Skinner, urging the government to bring back mobile breast screen services to New South Wales. Women’s health must be a priority. I will fight to make it a priority. I ask the help of my community to add their voices to this petition, because together we can make a difference.
Millennium Development Goals
4835
4835
16:03:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise to show my strong support for the Millennium Development Goals and those individuals and organisations who, through the Micah Challenge and the Make Poverty History campaign, are working so hard to see the Millennium Development Goals met globally and to ensure Australia is fulfilling its roles in achieving these goals. I know that this parliament will shortly welcome the Micah Challenge Voices for Justice representatives in Canberra. I will certainly be meeting with them and attending their events. Recently, as part of the Make Poverty History breakfast, Brent Marshall and Blake Chapman from the Petrie electorate met with me as part of the roadtrip summit to voice their concerns about the Millennium Development Goals and making sure that Australia continues to fulfil its commitments to these goals.
Last Friday I also had the opportunity to attend a Survive Past Five ceremony at Redcliffe State High School to raise awareness of child mortality rates around the world. The Micah Challenge Survive Past Five fifth birthday campaign is advocating for the 8.8 million children who die every year before reaching their fifth birthday, mostly from preventable diseases like diarrhoea and pneumonia. In front of a cupcake display in the shape of a giant No. 5 students presented me with a giant card signed by all students. The students have asked me to present the card and a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs requesting that the federal government increase aid spending on child and maternal health.
I also had the opportunity to meet David Martin from World Vision, who was also in attendance at the school, and the wonderful student council leaders, Toai Tumaai and Bianca King, who were speaking on behalf of the students at that ceremony. As we spoke in relation to the Millennium Development Goals every three seconds students laid down an egg cup to acknowledge that a child passes away every three seconds from poverty. The tragedy of child poverty is something that we should stop and we should be looking at what we are doing as a nation to address poverty. The 8.8 million children dying is 8.8 million children dying unnecessarily from preventable diseases.
I congratulate the Redcliffe State High School for their initiative and other young people around this country and in the electorate of Petrie who are voicing their concerns and getting involved in the Micah Challenge and the Make Poverty History campaign to see not just the globe but also Australia meeting its commitments on the Millennium Development Goals.
Mitchell Electorate: Military Pensions
4836
4836
16:06:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise today to add my voice to the issue of military superannuation pensions, which is an issue that has been hotly debated in this chamber in recent days and one which many of my constituents from the veterans community of Mitchell have visited me on and raise with me regularly.
I want to acknowledge that defence service is unique and I think it was a poor outcome of the Henry review of taxation which viewed defence service as just another form of Commonwealth employment. I think there is a unique nature to service in the defence forces and I do not think it is appropriate to accept that it is just the same as any other form of employment by the Commonwealth government.
I want to thank my constituents for raising with me matters that apply to military superannuation. Those constituents have been very detailed in their submissions and analysis of how successive governments have failed to act on this important issue. I accept that it is one of the biggest issues affecting the veterans community at the moment.
I also want to acknowledge the motion moved by the member for Lyne about the military superannuation pension and the move to index it twice annually by the greatest divider of either the consumer price index, the pensioner beneficiary living cost index or male total average weekly earnings. While this may not be a motion that was supported by both sides of the House, I know that this issue is going to be an ongoing concern for veterans for some time.
I think that the government, unashamedly, at the last election promised veterans that there would be action in relation to this. Of course, it is yet another broken promise for the veterans community that we have seen. It does seem to me that there is a lot of money for all sorts of projects and all sorts of worthy causes around the country, yet money is being wasted in so many programs. The primary role of government, of course, is the defence of the nation, and looking after men and women who have chosen to serve on an ongoing basis is something that we ought to do first and something that we ought to consider before other important and worthy causes because we have asked those men and women to do something very important and sacrifice something on our behalf.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I consider military service as the highest form of service to the federal government. There is a strong case for action on military superannuation and pensions going forward. If you look at the reviews that have been conducted, such as the Matthews review, which came to the conclusion that there was no need to change the indexation method for military superannuation, or the Podger review, which has been well mentioned in this place, it does appear that superannuation—of course one aspect of the total remuneration package awarded to ADF members—is something that should be looked at again and something that in the future we should consider very seriously.
Melbourne Ports Electorate: Homelessness
4837
4837
16:09:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—Last week during the appropriation bills debate I spoke about how this government is tackling homelessness and congratulated Tanya Plibersek, the federal Minister for Housing, the Victorian Minister for Housing, Local Government and Aboriginal Affairs, Richard Wynne, Commander Carolyn Knaggs and General Eva Burrows from the Salvation Army, and Peter Fox for the private-government partnership on the Upton Road emergency housing for homeless and disadvantaged singles and families in the St Kilda community.
I turn my attention today to the excellent work of the Port Phillip Housing Association, the South Port Community Housing Association and the St Kilda Community Housing group. John Enticott, the general manager of the St Kilda Community Housing group, in a very interesting paper to me, pointed out the untruths of some of the people who said that this government has not fulfilled its promises on homelessness. Certainly in my electorate we have been working very hard with these wonderful voluntary organisations to see that many of the rooming houses and bedsits throughout the electorate have been upgraded and that there are in fact more facilities for people who are in difficult circumstances. The Port Phillip Housing Association has received $9 million, the South Port Community Housing Association has received $15 million and the St Kilda Community Housing group has received $15 million, for a total of $39 million. I am at the opening of nearly all of these projects thanks to people like John Enticott and the Victorian minister.
At Grey Street just the other day I was with my old friend Henry Preston from Momentum Builders. We now have 15 refurbished apartments at the front of 77-79 Grey Street and 17 new apartments. This is the kind of place—Grey Street, St Kilda—where some of the dispossessed of the earth live. It is wonderful to have a mixture of housing in a very expensive area like Melbourne Ports, and St Kilda in particular. At 69 Alma Road the St Kilda housing association has refurbished eight places and has eight new places that will be finished by 30 September. At 79 Blessington Street we have nine refurbished places and three new ones. These projects will be finished by 21 December this year. At 56 Jackson Street, just around the corner from my office, there are 14 refurbished apartments for people in this situation. They will be finished by the end of the year. No. 342 Beaconsfield Parade has had $5.5 million spent on it, with 22 apartments in the front and 14 in the back. Similarly, in Jackson Street and Wellington Street in St Kilda there are more examples of the federal government showing that it really is interested in the issue of homelessness, particularly in a very mixed electorate like Melbourne Ports.
Murray Electorate: Water
4838
4838
16:12:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
0
Dr STONE
—I want to talk about 50 farm families on 10,000 hectares just a few kilometres out of Shepparton. These people, for the last 112 years, have been depending on a stock and domestic water supply system through earthen channels diverted out of the Broken River. This system has served them very well. They have been very viable, productive sheep/cropping farmers. But obviously you cannot have livestock and you cannot sustain critical human needs without water and, unfortunately, they have had their water supply cease as a result of the decommissioning of Lake Mokoan. That means that the water they once used to have through an environmental flow supported supply coming down Broken River no longer serves them. This is also compounded by the drought.
This could be fixed very simply by a pipeline that would come out of the eastern main channel and deliver water to them at a cost of between $5 million and $7 million. That would go to, as I said, 50 families across 10,000 hectares. It does not seem too much, given the pipeline would save a considerable amount of water that could go back to Penny Wong and the Commonwealth. But, no. They have been told: ‘You are not on our list. We are not even thinking about you. You are just people who have to continue to cart your water in tanks on the back of utilities for 15 kilometres to keep your stock alive and to supply your homes with water to flush toilets, wash your clothes and wash your children.’ That is what these people are doing. It is a Third World situation in a so-called developed country. These people have been trying to organise to get themselves a system in place now for about five years. It has caused incredible domestic strife and concern, as you can imagine, with families having to put a lot of money and time into getting this water from the local channel.
Hopefully tomorrow, when this group as a delegation is met by the parliamentary secretary, Dr Kelly, they will be able to explain their plight. They have already been knocked back by the Murray-Darling Basin grants program, which was supposed to be for sustainable development for communities.
I want to thank Dr Kelly for seeing this group, but I want to stress that this is about a critical human need: water—water for livestock and which, when saved, can be returned to the environment. It should be a simple matter of ticking a box and saying: ‘Of course you are deserving. We will build this pipeline for you so that you can continue to be great Australian agricultural food and fibre producers.’ It seems ridiculous that this community has to beg after all these years. I have to repeat that the stress on these families has been too much for some to bear. I absolutely look forward to the deputation meeting with Dr Kelly tomorrow. I hope good will come from it, In the first instance, they need a feasibility study to replenish their old plan and to make sure it is best practice.
Lindsay Electorate: Community Groups
4839
4839
16:15:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—I rise to acknowledge the efforts of three active groups in my local community. Residents of Orchard Hills have formed the group Residents Against Industrial Dump to campaign against a proposed industrial waste facility at the old Erskine Park quarry at Patons Lane, Orchard Hills. The proposal is currently before the New South Wales state government. I am opposed to this proposal because of the adverse impacts it would have on our local community. If this waste facility proceeds it will result in hundreds of additional truck berthings, the possible disturbance of asbestos already on the site and, ultimately, a 30-metre-high bund wall to contain the waste. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of RAID for organising their community to oppose the application, and I would like to thank Mr Dirk Kurver for alerting me to this proposal. RAID are holding a public meeting on 8 June. I will be attending and I encourage all local residents who have concern about the proposal to go along. While the federal government has no direct influence on this process, I know that the local community has the support of the Penrith City Council in opposing this, and I would like to acknowledge the strong advocacy of Councillor Prue Guillame, who has been keeping me updated on this matter.
Last Sunday I was honoured to take part in the 2010 Walk for Autism, organised jointly by the Luke Priddis Foundation and Little by Little Inc., the fundraising arm for Kurrambee Special School. The Walk for Autism raises money for both organisations, which in turn support families who have children with autism and other special needs. Around 400 people participated in the five-kilometre walk around the Sydney International Regatta Centre on Sunday morning on what is now an annual event. I participated in the walk with my family, and it was wonderful to see so many members of the community coming together to support this event. I would like to congratulate all of those at the Luke Priddis Foundation and Little by Little, who worked so hard to raise funds and provide valuable emotional and material support to so many local families.
The Barnardos Western Region Auxiliary recently celebrated its 21st anniversary, and I joined the group for their commemorative dinner at the lakeside restaurant. The auxiliary is composed of dedicated volunteers who work with the staff at Barnardos on their many programs. The volunteers assisted the Barnardos centre at Cranebrook to collect food from donors, distribute emergency parcels to vulnerable families and run some of the social activities that support the local community. It should also be said that their barbecues at the annual Barnardos centre open day are legendary. One of their most important roles has been in raising funds for Barnardos. Over the past 21 years the auxiliary has raised $100,000 for the organisation, and this money has gone to purchase equipment and support the activities of the Barnardos centre. The auxiliary are also out in the community, promoting the fantastic work of Barnardos, and their network of businesses and other community groups has helped them to rally a strong supporter base for Barnardos. I take this opportunity to thank the volunteers involved in the auxiliary. For 21 years they have been working hard to help others and they should be congratulated for their commitment and dedication.
Gippsland Electorate: Aged Care
4839
4839
16:18:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I rise to raise concerns with the government’s failure to adequately plan and provide funding for our ageing population. I refer specifically to the decision this week for a 1.7 per cent rise in care subsidies for the current financial year. As I am sure all MPs are aware, the provision of aged-care services and supporting older people in their homes and our communities are issues of grave concern in our wider community, particularly in regional areas. The decision to increase the subsidies by a sum which is less than the rate of inflation has caused a great deal of angst in my community already. For a sense of perspective, in the Gippsland area, between 2006 and 2026, Gippsland’s population aged over 65 is projected to increase from 41,100 to 85,300. By 2026, 27.9 per cent of the population is projected to be 65 years and over.
The service providers are regularly raising their concerns with me and I get the opportunity to visit many facilities in my electorate to meet with the staff and the volunteer boards. I want to make special mention of the volunteer board members in our not-for-profit sector who do a remarkable job in our community. In May 2009, the CEO of Latrobe Community Health Service, Ben Leigh, brought to my attention a review of the aged-care sector undertaken by consultant Grant Thornton, which I have spoken about before in the House. Mr Thornton’s report raised significant concerns in the aged-care sector, including rising interest rates; escalating pressure for care staff; increasing demand for high-care services, which generally generate a lower return compared to low-care services; the growing cost of buildings; and operating modern aged-care facilities to achieve regulation standards. None of these things have diminished in the days since I have spoken about the aged-care sector.
Sale Elderly Citizens Village is another facility in my electorate which has raised significant concerns with me. Just today I received an email from the deputy chairperson of the village, Alan Wyatt, who noted the government’s increase of 1.7 per cent and went on to point out that:
Given that CPI is running at 2.9%, one would wonder how any government could see fit to provide such a paltry sum, when clearly Aged Care is in need of substantial increased funding to even remain viable, much less provide for future growth.
Our staff at the village will receive a pay increase of 3% on the same day as we receive this 1.7% funding increase. With material costs increasing at an alarming rate, it is evident that the road ahead for organisations such as ours, is fraught with danger and shows little evidence of providing the wherewithal to maintain and increase the facilities we provide.
Given the growing waiting lists at villages such as ours, one must be concerned at how our aged are going to be provided for.
My comments are not meant to be a case of blaming the current government. I recognise that these are long-term trends. But as a nation we need to battle with this very large problem of providing for our older communities and giving our older residents the dignity of a quality retirement and the opportunity to either remain in their homes and be well supported or move into the aged-care sector and also be well supported and well looked after in their later years.
Lyons Electorate: Building the Education Revolution
4840
4840
16:21:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—I would like to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues on both sides of the House how well the Building the Education Revolution program has gone down in the electorate of Lyons. I have been visiting a number of projects as they progress along and are finished, and I have found that the teachers, the children and the families have become highly motivated in using their schools now. Children are wanting to go to school to use the new buildings, the new technology and the new places to play. The extra spaces that this program has provided have also allowed the local community greater access to the schools so that they are getting past students coming back for special occasions and saying how good it is to see the school still there and being renewed. The designs are good and are well suited to the areas. They include covered outdoor exercise places to cope with our weather, which means our children can get out in the fresh air all year round.
Some of our schools in the country have been open continuously for 80 years or more. Some have had their centenaries and some have even gone through to their 150-year celebrations. I was up in Wilmot the other day and one of the families there has been associated with the school for the full time that it has been open. We had mum, at 83, and then we had her son and her nephew. I think the latter is now president of the school council. Their children will come along and the grandkids will also attend that school in the future. In the area in which I grew up, a state school was built in 1900. My aunt Lenna Hodgetts taught at the Saundridge school for 45 years, from 1900 to 1945. When that school was moved down to Cressy, it was where I went to school. Along with all the people that Aunt Lenna would have taught were the kids off the farms and the children of the convicts who had been assigned to the large estates in those regions over the years.
I believe this program has allowed our country schools to be renewed and I am sure that, in another 50 years, some of the same families that are associated with those schools now will still be attending them. The current technology may have been worn out by then, but new technology will have been introduced. I think this is a fantastic program and I am concerned that the criticism made by the opposition demeans each community that they attack for the money that is going into them. I am appalled by it. I congratulate those involved and I congratulate the minister.
Herbert Electorate: Economy
4841
4841
16:24:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—Today, as every day, the Rudd government borrowed another $100 million. It goes on day after day after day, and my kids and my kids’ kids will end up trying to pay it back. That is symptomatic of what the Rudd government, in its first term, has done to Australia. All we have got from the Prime Minister is ‘blah, blah, blah’, and that is why Australian voters are turning off. But there is an alternative: the leader of the alternative government stands for real action, and that is the difference between the current government and the alternative government. Voters want clarity and the resolution of problems, not spin and policy backflips.
If we look at the economy, what has the Rudd government done? The cost of living is going through the roof, and public debt is forcing interest rates through the roof. There is no relief in sight—no relief on petrol prices, no relief on grocery prices and no relief on rents. There is nothing for my electorate; everything just keeps going up and up and up. Voters certainly thought they would get an increase in wages under the Rudd government but nothing of the sort has happened. But, boy, have they had increases in prices and costs, and the budgets of families are under enormous stress.
What has the government done for Townsville? This is a key test for me. The answer is: all talk and no action. Let us look at health. The Townsville Hospital is in the same state today as it was three years ago. There has been no federal takeover, as the Prime Minister promised. The waiting lists are still where they were, and the GP superclinic will not actually be up and running until next year—four years after it was promised. The government have been all talk and no action. But what they have done is to deliver a great big new tax on our mining economy, which Townsville relies on. Townsville is the support base for the north-west mineral province. Not only the big miners but all the little miners and all the support industries—which supply the cranes, the trucks, the engineering, the paintwork and all that sort of stuff—rely on the mining industry, and they are going to be hit hard. In relation to the wasteful school halls program, what people in my electorate want to see are more teachers and more resources going to students, and that is a pretty fair requirement from people in Townsville.
My message to the people of Townsville is that you have to change the government. That is what will deliver real action for the capital city of Northern Australia, and I will certainly be working as hard as I can to make sure that Townsville returns a coalition member.
Shortland Electorate: Schools
4842
4842
16:27:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I would like to share with the House the excitement and pleasure of the people of the Shortland electorate at the wonderful cash injection into the schools in the Shortland electorate. Since the Rudd government has been elected, there has been not only a massive school infrastructure building program—which has seen many new classrooms and the refurbishment of classrooms, school halls, school gymnasiums and school libraries, just to name some of the new infrastructure that has been built in schools—but also the launching of the Trade Training Centres in Schools program, and I will talk about that later this week.
Today I want to share with the House the excitement that the schools in my electorate felt when they received their computers under the computer program that was brought in by the Rudd government after the election. A lot of people who live in the Shortland electorate cannot afford to buy computers for their children; computers are a luxury. Not having access to computer technology means that many of the students attending schools within the electorate do not have access to the same learning tools that students in higher socioeconomic areas do. Under the Rudd Labor government’s computers in schools program, 4,832 computers will be delivered to the students in the Shortland electorate. I think that is phenomenal. I think it is absolutely fantastic, and I know that both the schools and the students appreciate it.
To date, the schools in the Shortland electorate that have received computers are: Belmont Christian College, St Mary’s High School, Gorokan High School, Northlakes High School, Swansea High School, Belmont High School, Lakeside Special School, Warners Bay High School, Hunter Sports High School, Whitebridge High School, Glendon Special School and Lake Munmorah High School. Each and every one of those schools has received computers and they think it is fantastic. But if an Abbott government were elected at the next election, the schools in the Shortland electorate would miss out on computers. The numbers so far are: Belmont Christian College, 29; St Mary’s, 43; Gorokan, 69; Northlakes, 70; Swansea, 51; Belmont High, 80; Lakeside, three, Warners Bay High, 99, Hunter Sports High, 60; Whitebridge, 75—and the list goes on. I think it is absolutely appalling that the Leader of the Opposition has so much disregard for the students not only of the Shortland electorate but of Australia as a whole.
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.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2010-2011
4843
Bills
R4361
Cognate bills:
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2010-2011
4843
Bills
R4360
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2010-2011
4843
Bills
R4359
Second Reading
4843
Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4843
16:31:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
0
0
Mrs HULL
—To continue my discussion from last evening on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills, I would like to again alert the House to the fact that the changes the Minister for Health and Ageing is proposing and has deferred for nine months will have a marked and disproportionate impact on regional people. I was speaking last night about the Wagga Wagga community and how health and mental health services currently operate and would operate in most of the major communities across Australia. I have been advised that if you take away the Medicare rebate, the people in community mental health teams will not be able to refer the low-risk clients that I spoke about because they know that those clients will not be able to afford the treatment. Those clients will stay on the books of the community mental health teams but they will be put down as a low priority. The high-priority clients will always receive first preference and the low-priority clients will be put to the bottom of the pile. If the low-priority clients are not given appropriate care, then I think you can assume that many of them will turn into high-priority cases simply because they have not been accessing the appropriate treatment. This, of course, is a vicious circle. The budget paper says, on page 320:
From 1 July 2010, support for allied health workers, such as occupational therapists and social workers, will transfer from the Better Access initiative to the new ATAPS service stream. The new arrangements will provide a more flexible funding pool for care packages, and increase the role of allied health workers in the provision of new care packages for people with severe—
I repeat, severe—
mental illness.
This is where the problem lies. The budget paper goes on to say:
Patients receiving treatment from these providers as at 1 July 2010, will be eligible to complete that course of treatment under ‘no disadvantage’ arrangements.
It talks about using the workforce to ‘support individuals with severe mental illness’, who it says ‘often receive inadequate or fragmented care’. But the early intervention service that had been used for this has obviously been shelved. So those who could benefit greatly from early intervention will certainly now just be part of the new statistics of mental health.
The point is that this will disadvantage rural areas because we have minimal clinical and registered psychologists. People rely on the social workers for the early intervention services. But it appears that, with the changes that the minister has made, the social workers will now be relied on for the acute treatment. This is a difficult and major problem that is confronting us in regional Australia.
I am going to refer to some comments that I have received out of my electorate on this. I will quote from an email without naming the sender, but it is a local provider of service. The provider of the service says:
This is in relation to the proposed cuts to the Better Access to Mental Health Services Medicare rebates.
As of 1 July 2010, Medicare rebates for new clients accessing accredited mental health workers with social work qualifications (and occupational therapy qualifications) will cease. This will severely restrict people’s access to mental health counsellors—particularly rural and regional people. Please could you advocate for current levels of Medicare support to be retained in the interests of all people but particularly for those outside of metropolitan areas? Social workers, as opposed to psychologists, are much more likely to be based in regional/rural areas and your local university is a major player in the education of social workers in Australia as we have one of the largest and most respected social work degrees. Social workers provide high quality, holistic and effective mental health services and it is not sensible to restrict clients access to high quality professionals.
The next letter, again from a person in my local community, says:
As a Social Worker in Wagga Wagga, I ask you consider in the budget estimates the point of retaining the funding of Mental Health Social Workers and Occupational Therapists under the Medicare Better Access scheme as it stands as of today.
Better Access was designed as an early intervention measure to avoid the high ongoing and cyclical cost of mental illness as it worsens. Mental illness also affects family and friends of the individual sufferer and this creates a snowball effect of service provision (e.g. GP, emergency departments, counselling, Centrelink, welfare, education, legal—family law—etc). Under the scheme, people were encouraged to seek help for mental health issues if they were in the early-mid stages of the illness, or if they didn’t fit the current mental health system, if they were not able to access the mental health system due to distance or for financial reasons.
This system was also intended to stop people ending up in hospitals and GP’s and thus draining resources that did not necessarily fix them. Thus, we had persons being provided with inappropriate and inconsistent services. This was also a ‘market driven’ approach in many respects because people sought help when needed and private social workers only got paid upon use of service. This was designed to be targeted and flexible but most importantly early.
I think that is the clear issue here: the early intervention that is required. The letter goes on:
Mental Health social workers undergo a rigorous screening process to ensure that they are able to provide mental health services. It is not a system by which poorly trained people can make lots of money by rorting the system—far from it. Many of the social workers in practice have taken income cuts to practice privately, don’t charge gaps and have many years of clinical experience.
It is painfully clear Nicola Roxon has missed the point when she says: “we must deliver these monies to services for the severely ill” and her way of doing this is to remove social workers out of the early intervention model and put them in situations where they manage severely ill peoples cases.
This does not make sense economically as these people use many resources before they are considered “severely ill” and then become in the revolving door of crisis driven mental health care. It makes sense to retain well trained, private providers who are providing market driven early intervention services to avoid the devastation that occurs when people do become severely mentally ill.
With this in mind I ask you to say no to the proposed changes that will become effective in April 2011, and that you vote in favour of Mental Health Social Workers and Occupational Therapists under the Medicare Better Access scheme as it stands as of today.
That is a cry from providers, but there will also be a cry from the people.
I would like to raise another issue that was in the budget: the cut of $4.5 million overall from the counselling services provided within family relationship centres. Family relationship centres provide family counselling to assist people to resolve their family relationship issues. Sometimes this keeps families together. This service prevents family breakdown and reduces family conflicts, particularly where couples go on to separation. It also helps families to adjust to separation with their children and it does it in the most sensible way to try to give the best outcome for the children of Australia. To cut $4.5 million from this essential program represents a lack of understanding of what is provided and what is required to support families through the trauma of partnership breakdown and to support the children who are the casualties of partnership breakdown. But this is like Tim Shaw: there is more; there is a set of steak knives as well. Not only is there a cut of $4.5 million from this essential program but, in briefings that the sector had with the Attorney-General’s Department, they found out that future cuts of more than $40 million in the next year are flagged. But these cuts do not appear in the 2010 federal budget papers.
I am really concerned that there is a clear lack of understanding of how family relationship centres help deliver better outcomes for the children of Australia. Before they were available in rural and regional Australia we had to contend with many different systems. That leads me to the next problem we have, and that is the Attorney-General’s determination to remove family law from the Federal Magistrates Court. When the former coalition government introduced the Federal Magistrates Court, we were receiving no Family Court circuits in regional Australia—maybe we had one here and one there, but they were very few and far between. For regional Australia it was a most costly process to try and resolve your partnership breakdown issues. We introduced the Federal Magistrates Court, which has been a roaring and raging success. It has 33 regional lists in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Tasmania.
What you get in the Federal Magistrates Court that you do not get in the Family Court is that, once you have commenced with a judicial officer, you usually stay with that one officer until the finish. What we have is a user friendly, less adversarial and less legalistic process for families. The protocol of the Family Magistrates Court to deal with family law is a trial within six months and judgment within three months of trial. We have over 86 per cent of our family law cases being resolved within six months of filing. People get access outside court circuit time for recovery orders, injunctions and urgent relocation orders, and there is a customised service to deal with the various issues that arise as a result of partnership breakdown.
The FMC currently does more than 80 per cent of the work of family law. Here we have a very successful process with the ability for regional people to access it. It is much less adversarial and it is much less costly. But this is what the Attorney-General has decided will happen: he will allow the Family Magistrates Court to be retained but he will remove all family law from the Magistrates Court and put it into a Family Court structure. It will be a single court that will deal with all the family law matters. He will have a restructured Family Court, which will have two divisions. There will be a superior division, which will hear all the complex cases, which are about five per cent of cases. They will get 90 per cent of the funding to do about five per cent of the cases—the Family Court is currently the most expensive court. There will also be a general division, which will hear the other 95 per cent of cases—the high volume, less complex family law and child support cases.
The Attorney-General is saying that the federal magistrates who are currently in the Federal Magistrates Court would perhaps come across and do some of this and accept commissions. I say to you that is not what the federal magistrates want. They do not want to come across to the Family Court system; they do not want to come under the administration of the Family Court. We should not have a Federal Magistrates Court just left there to get dual commissions with the Federal Court and the military court—because we will have a military court established now in accordance with chapter III of the Constitution.
Now, this is a travesty. This is devastating for regional families. This is devastating for people who can currently resolve their issues without costly battles. This is devastating for the children of those families who will go on to partnership breakdowns, because they will be stuck in a revolving system that will see mums and dads fighting each other in court for three and four years before decisions are made.
Seriously, when the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs of which I was chair did the child custody report Every picture tells a story, where we ended up with a bipartisan report, we agreed that the Family Court should be disbanded. The Family Court should be gone. The Family Court is an indictment of the people of Australia. The Family Court does not offer sensible solutions for the Australian children who find themselves caught up in a mess not of their making.
I would urge the Attorney-General to seriously reconsider this. It is the Federal Magistrates Court that should be hearing the family law cases. You should turn it into a district court that enables regional Australia to have access to the most appropriate resolution of partnership breakdowns that will see the least damage done to the children of today and the children of the future. Thank you.
4846
16:47:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and cognate bills. This budget is a responsible budget which will see us back in surplus in three years time—that is three years early. This is also a budget that further strengthens our economy. It helps families and small businesses and it certainly helps to strengthen the economy. In my electorate of Hindmarsh, it helps the families of Hindmarsh and it helps the small businesses in the electorate of Hindmarsh and all of Australia. It also makes the tax system fairer and simpler and it continues to provide the much-needed health and hospital reforms. It invests in skills training and infrastructure, areas that we saw neglected before this government came in. It invests in a Renewable Energy Future Fund to help tackle climate change. It provides more money to protect our troops and borders, all the while delivering a return to surplus three years ahead of schedule.
This budget carries on much of the vital work begun previously when Australia was going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and which, without early and decisive action by the Rudd Labor government, would have cost many of my constituents in Hindmarsh their jobs. Only the other day I was at the opening of the Glandore Community Centre’s training facility—they were lucky to receive some funding from the Rudd Labor government—and I happened to speak to the builders and the project managers who were there. They were saying how grateful they were for the infrastructure projects which ensured that they took on more employees over the last 18 months. They explained the position they would be in if we had not injected money into the economy, compared to where they are today. They were very grateful that they had been able to continue to win contracts, continue to work and put people into work.
If we look at what was facing us 18 months ago, we would have seen unemployment surge with close to an extra 200,000 jobs lost. In my electorate I have the AAMI Stadium—Football Park—which holds 50,000 people, and I told my constituents that it would have been the AAMI Stadium filled four times with unemployed people. You could see the devastation that would have caused around Australia, the families that would have been hurting, and where we would have been today. But the opposition of course opposed it and continues to oppose it.
There is a stark contrast between our responsible budget and the risky policies of the opposition. Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey opposed, as I said, our actions to support jobs during the global financial crisis and now they will oppose our actions to keep government finances strong. The opposition talks tough about government spending but their blocking of our measures would only make the deficit worse. Despite this display, the Rudd Labor government continues to exercise its fiscal responsibility wisely with high regard for the wellbeing of our whole nation, not just the top end of town and mining companies.
This budget contains a raft of measures which will make Australia more competitive on the world stage and which will provide Australia with a strong foundation on which to grow and prosper over many years. This budget will boost rail productivity, support the growth of responsible aviation, improve safety standards within the region and continue the overhaul of transport regulations including the implementation of an aircraft noise ombudsman, something for which I have been campaigning for a very long time and on which I presented two private member’s bills to this House while in opposition. I am very glad that the minister has seen them having value and has now endorsed them as policy.
In the electorate of Hindmarsh there are many projects which the Rudd Labor government has delivered on since the last budget, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of those projects. I would like to ask the opposition: which of these projects will they cut or not go ahead with if they are elected to government? These are the questions that my constituents are asking.
For example, there is the King Street Bridge in my electorate, perhaps one of the most important election commitments which I am very proud to have delivered on. The King Street Bridge is a vital link for the traffic route that parallels Tapleys Hill Road, passing through West Lakes, Grange, Henley Beach, West Beach, along Adelaide’s coastline west of Adelaide airport, connecting the arterial roads and suburbs to the south. The King Street Bridge is a significant piece of infrastructure not only for the people of Glenelg but also for the many thousands of people in South Australia who visit the area. The bridge has been in worsening condition for some time. It has been closed and there have been weight limits imposed on traffic, which have affected the movement of public transport. Last year we also saw buses being stopped from going over the bridge because it was so dangerous. This has of course caused a substantial degree of distress among many local residents of Glenelg and Glenelg North who rely on the bridge to connect them not only to most areas in their own suburb but to the local community, to shopping, transport facilities and other services.
Local residents led by John and Peter Bijok and many other locals in the area campaigned strongly on the need for the bridge and to get the funding it needs to remain open. I recall writing many letters to the former minister for transport asking what funding was available and whether they could please take it into their hearts to feel for the people who live on this peninsula who, without the bridge, would not be able to cross and do their shopping and who would have to divert miles to get to the main centre of Glenelg. Yet it fell on deaf ears continuously whilst we were in opposition and the other lot were in government.
The Rudd government, I am pleased to say, is providing $1.5 million towards this $3 million project to replace the bridge, with the local council providing a matching $1.5 million through the Roads to Recovery program. Today we hear that the opposition, if elected, would look at all the projects including under Roads to Recovery, and I would like to ask: will they prevent the King Street Bridge from being built if they win government? That is a really serious question that needs to be answered. As I said, the $1.5 million in funding will be provided to the City of Holdfast Bay through the Rudd Labor government’s Roads to Recovery program. In 2010-11 in fact, $11.2 million was provided to councils in my electorate of Hindmarsh for Roads to Recovery projects, which has easily eclipsed the $9.9 million spent from 2005-06 to 2008-09. I think that the residents of Hindmarsh deserve to know what the opposition will do if they come to government and whether these projects will be cut.
Another project in my electorate has been the Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands pipeline. South Australians have been desperate for improvements in the coastal waters of Gulf St Vincent, in the diversity of the supply of fresh water to metropolitan Adelaide and in the supply of fresh water to the ecological jewels of the Murray River and adjacent wetlands for a long time—not just for the last couple of years but for many years. This summer we have seen fairly good progress in and around my electorate of Hindmarsh, which we have not seen for many years. I had the pleasure of attending the turning of the tap with the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Penny Wong, in Adelaide in early January. We opened the Glenelg Waste Water Treatment Plant and turned on the tap to the Adelaide Parklands pipeline. It was funded to the tune of $30 million by the Rudd Labor government, which was matched by the state government.
This will supply billions of litres of recycled water for use between the bay at Glenelg in my electorate and the city. Along the way it will feed water to many of the parks, schools and ovals, including Richmond Oval, which is the great ground of the famous West Adelaide Football Club in my electorate. It will feed off into other areas as well. This is another project I wrote to the former government about many times, asking and pleading with them to look into it and fund it. Again, it fell on deaf ears. It took the Rudd Labor government to fund it, and we have now seen it come to fruition.
Living on the coast, you become acutely aware of both the diversity and importance of our marine life. The Star of the Sea Marine Discovery Centre is an important teaching and learning facility where students can get up close to look at our marine life and learn about ecosystems and the importance of protecting our environment. The last budget delivered $10,000 of additional funding on top of $287,000 which was provided in 2007-08. This enabled the Marine Discovery Centre to upgrade its facilities, which were officially opened just a few months ago by the minister for climate change, Penny Wong, and me.
It was fantastic to see the kids at the school and the joy on their faces. They had clearly put so much effort into the opening and they were so proud of the Marine Discovery Centre. They were dressed in marine creature costumes and they put on a fantastic live performance for the crowd. The Marine Discovery Centre will allow groups of visitors and children from other schools to experience the wonder of our native marine life in the electorate of Hindmarsh and to learn about the importance of protecting our oceans and the marine environment.
The Marine Discovery Centre is situated in one of my local schools, the Star of the Sea School. On top of this funding they have also received $200,000 from the National School Pride Program, under Building the Education Revolution, for refurbishments, a shade structure, an upgraded playground and outdoor areas. Also, they received $3 million from the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program under the Building the Education Revolution program to construct a new library and resource centre. This has commenced and will be completed very soon. On the day I was there I spoke to the parents, the teachers and the principal, and they were all looking forward to these new facilities and the resource centre that they never had before.
The lighting at Richmond Oval is something else that I am very proud of. You may have heard me mention the West Adelaide Football Club earlier. As the No. 1 ticket holder of the West Adelaide Football Club it was a privilege to be able to deliver $92,000 in funding under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program for the installation of lights at Richmond Oval. I was very proud to attend the very first game under lights just recently at the club—which we won against Norwood. Now we have the ability to host more SANFL games and to see some night football, which makes it more accessible for families who want to attend a footy match on a Friday or Saturday night. I also have the Glenelg Football Club in my electorate at the Glenelg Oval. They also received $70,000 under the program for the upgrade of a stone wall surrounding the oval.
In just over a year, the Rudd Labor government’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has delivered $1 billion to build and renew community facilities across Australia, making it the largest single investment in local infrastructure in this nation’s history. Most importantly, it has created thousands of jobs around the country that kept the economy going and ensured that we did not go into recession.
There are other projects. For example, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, which I chair, recently conducted an inquiry into obesity. I see that the member for Parkes is here. He was part of our group at the time. One of the most interesting things we discovered is that people are getting bigger because our cities are being designed around cars and not around walkers or bicycle riders et cetera. The government has recognised the importance of both physical activity and sustainable transport and has, in this budget, provided my electorate with $169,000 in new funding for the development of new bike pathways in Hindmarsh, including on Grange Road, Henley Beach Road, Holbrooks Road, Richmond Road, Diagonal Road and Marion Road. This is in addition to funding previously provided by the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which has already delivered $94,000 for construction of a dual use cyclist and pedestrian pathway in West Lakes.
I spoke briefly about the Building the Education Revolution. Of all the initiatives of the Rudd Labor government’s Nation Building Program, the Building The Education Revolution is the one on which, as I said earlier, teachers, parents, students and principals in Hindmarsh continually congratulate me and the government. Hindmarsh has 112 different projects being funded at a total cost of $80 million as of 11 May 2010. I will mention just some of them here. These are schools that did not previously have any infrastructure that now have infrastructure that was much sought after, that they needed and wanted.
Many of the schools in my electorate held their assemblies in the school quadrangle. They desperately needed this infrastructure. For example, Ascot Park Primary School obtained funding of $125,000 for refurbishment of buildings. That project has been completed. The same school, Ascot Park Primary School, obtained funding of $1.7 million for construction of a new multipurpose hall. That project has commenced. Here is a school which has a large population of close to 800 or 900 students. It is one of the largest schools in the electorate and it had nowhere to have its assemblies. It had a small area where the staff and students would meet for school assemblies, many of which I attended. The assemblies were very crowded and, when the school wanted to put on special days and invite guests, it got extremely crowded. This is something that Ascot Park Primary School desperately needed and I am pleased that it has received the $1.7 million for the construction of the new multipurpose hall. I believe that will be completed soon.
Community and neighbourhood houses and centres in my electorate received funding for a teaching and learning capital fund and for vocational education and training. As I mentioned earlier, I recently attended the Glandore Community Centre, which received $249,845 to enable it to train and educate people so they can gain the skills they need for employment. It was very interesting, as I said, to speak to the builders who completed this project. They were telling me where they were two years ago and where they are today and how they had had to take on extra staff, extra builders, extra bricklayers et cetera because of the projects they had won in and around the electorate of Hindmarsh.
Cowandilla Primary School, the school that I attended many years ago, was successful in gaining $150,000 for refurbishment and building an ICT facility, a shade structure, fencing et cetera and $630,000 for the construction of a new outdoor learning area. It also got $1.8 million for a multipurpose hall through Primary Schools for the 21st Century, part of Building the Education Revolution. Here is another school, an inner western suburbs school in Adelaide with a huge migrant population and special English learning facilities for kids et cetera, that did not have enough room to have its assemblies. It did not have the room to invite parents and have special days. Now it will have the infrastructure in place to be able to do all of that.
Forbes Primary School is another area where $1.5 million was spent on refurbishment of classrooms and construction of a covered outdoor learning area. I can go on and on about the projects in my electorate. We have listed them and there are many. We think of the jobs that were created and then think of the unemployment if we had not gone through with these projects. Of course the schools have gained infrastructure and buildings that will be used well into the future. They will be used well after we are gone and well after most of the people in this place are gone. There will be proper facilities and children will feel absolutely proud about those learning facilities.
Small business tax breaks is another area that I am very proud to speak about. There are no less than 5,340 small businesses in Hindmarsh, many of which are family operations running through several generations. This budget delivers tax cuts to them which will help them compete with larger stores that have the advantage of national distribution networks and enormous marketing budgets. Sole traders, partnerships and incorporated small businesses will be able to instantly deduct the cost of assets valued at up to $5,000. They will also benefit from a reduction in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent from 1 July 2012.
Another area I am very proud of is pension reform. Being the member for an electorate with one of the highest number of people aged over 65 years in Australia—over 20 per cent of my constituents—I have been advocating long and hard for an improvement to the income for pensioners. I know that living on a single age pension is very, very tough. How do I know this? Because my constituents have been telling me this at street corner meetings, at forums, at shopping centres and when I am out and about. They also tell me this at functions and at meetings in my office. They have not been telling me this just since Labor have been in government, they have been telling me this for a long time, way before we were in government. This is not something which has just happened. It has been around for a long time.
I was extremely proud last year when the budget delivered a meaningful increase for the pensioners; the biggest reforms to the pension since it was introduced 100 years ago. All 3.3 million age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers, wife pensioners and veteran income support recipients benefited from these increases in their pension payments. The increase brought the single rate of pension up to two-thirds of the combined couple rate. (Time expired)
4851
17:07:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
0
Mr COULTON
—As I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills, following my good friend the member for Hindmarsh, sometimes I think that in this place we wander in parallel universes and only clash when we meet in these halls. The member for Hindmarsh spoke about the wonderful largesse and infrastructure in his electorate, and I think there is a technical term for it—it is known as pork-barrelling. It is important for the member for Hindmarsh and others on the other side of the chamber to know that the funding for this infrastructure came from the folding of the Roads to Recovery fund. Any telecommunications funding came from the folding of the rural telecommunications fund and from the growing regions fund of which over 90 per cent was spent in Labor electorates funding election promises.
Before I get onto what I really want to speak about I think it is important that we acknowledge the massive amount of pork-barrelling that has gone on by this government. It is unprecedented in the history of the Australian parliament. This budget has confirmed what many Australians already suspected—that this government is the most hapless and maladministered since the days of Gough Whitlam, and it is quickly surpassing Gough I would suspect. Its leader Kevin Rudd no longer stands for anything.
The last budget was a big-spending budget to counter the recession we never had. This one is even bigger. This one is an even bigger spending budget, fuelled by taxes on cigarettes and mining. Labor failed to control their spending after the global financial crisis and, as a result, we are now borrowing $100 million a day to fund their reckless spending. While Labor members have been speaking about the wonderful benefits of the stimulus spending in their electorates, it is important to note that in years to come their children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt from the spending spree that was instigated by one quarter of negative growth. That is important. When the member for Solomon is sitting back on the veranda overlooking the crocs gliding into the sunset, or whatever they do in Darwin, his grandchild will ask, ‘Grandad, how come we haven’t got that new road out the front?’ He will say, ‘It’s all about the debt. When we pay off the debt, we will get that road fixed.’ That is the reality of what has happened.
In the response to the stimulus spending, probably the first disastrous message that came through—certainly in my office—was about the Home Insulation Program. I wrote to Minister Garrett in July or August last year when I first started getting representations from people in my electorate about it. The sad reality is that the people who were stung by the Home Insulation Program, to a large degree, were the elderly. They were the ones who were a target for the shonks who hit this business. They did not have the ability to get up into their roof spaces and thoroughly inspect the insulation. Quite often I would be made aware of a problem because a visiting family member or neighbour would get up there and find that less than a quarter of the space had been filled or, worse, recycled paper products had been sprayed over exhaust fans and downlights, creating a huge problem. We have seen this across Australia. Unfortunately, we have had some deaths, house fires and massive rorting. This scheme was not managed. It was money shovelled out the door and it preyed on the very base nature of some people who took advantage of this. And, because of the lack of guidelines, it cost billions of dollars. It is a textbook example of what not to do and how not to run a government program.
However, I do not think the worst example is the Home Insulation Program. It definitely has to be the Building the Education Revolution. I will say on record here that I am not opposed to infrastructure spending in schools. If you go back to my maiden speech you will find that I said that education is the one gift that we can give people not only in Australia but across the world that will remedy a whole range of problems. Education will help remedy poverty, ignorance, conflict and create harmony amongst communities. Education empowers people to take control of their lives and it empowers people who are disadvantaged to know that they are being exploited. Education is the one thing we can give them. We do need to have appropriate infrastructure for this to take place.
My problem with this program, once again, is how it was managed. This government seems to have the idea that everything has to be managed centrally. I was not here during the last government but I was a mayor in a local shire and I saw the great work that was done with the Investing in our Schools Program where a little bit of money coupled with a bit of local knowledge and elbow grease from the local P&C meant they cobbled together from all sorts of things really great value-for-money pieces of infrastructure that they wanted, that they fought for and that they delivered to their local schools for a fraction of the money spent under this BER.
The first alarm bells that sounded for me in my electorate were when the first announcement came of the $1.7 billion overspend. I had been hearing rumours that things were not going very well, but there was intimidation of local school principles. It was made blatantly clear that if they spoke out against this program their jobs were in danger and any chance of advancement through the system would come to a halt. What was the first—in fact, only—running back of this scheme that Minister Gillard did? She cancelled the infrastructure for the central schools. Twenty-three central schools in my electorate had their projects removed. Collarenebri Central School has an Indigenous school population of 87 per cent. It is identified as the third-most disadvantaged school in New South Wales. They have a demountable that is 34 years old for a science lab. It leaks. It is out of date. They had the pegs in the ground for their new science lab. They were very excited to be getting it. Guess what. They came out and pulled the pegs out, saying: ‘Sorry, we’ve had an overspend of 1.7. We’re having cutbacks.’
The large schools in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth are still getting their multipurpose centres, their concert halls, their heated swimming pools or whatever, but Collarenebri, Galagenbone and Binnaway are not getting their science labs. Those were the first alarm bells. But then we started to get reports of what schools were being told they had to have that they did not really want. I went to a wonderful school with three students the other day. They have a whole new classroom. They moved into the new classroom and the other one is a storeroom. Is that a great use of money? But the real heart of this is that the buildings that came on the back of a truck and that with the greatest stretch of imagination may have cost $150,000 were charged out at $300,000 or $400,000. A COLA that would be identical to one the school fundraised for three years ago for $70,000 would then be delivered for $250,000. That is what has people upset. The minister does not seem to realise as she grins and nods, saying, ‘The schools I talked to are happy because they are getting infrastructure.’ Of course they are happy they are getting infrastructure. What they are not happy about is the waste of money.
I do not want to sound like Tim the Tool Man or the Demtel ad, but it gets worse. Several weeks ago I had a phone call from a contractor in Dubbo: Jarrod Kennedy. Jarrod Kennedy, by way of explanation, is a young chap—I am not sure of his age, but he would be in his mid-to-late 30s. Jarrod started his own business, Jarrod Kennedy Welding, with his wife Sandra 15 years ago. He has now built up to where he employs 15 people in Dubbo. He took a contract under the BER program to manufacture and erect the steel frame for a COLA over a playground at a little school called Marra Creek Public School. He also undertook to construct and erect the steelwork for a covered walkway at another little school in my electorate called Corinda State School. Due to a local construction firm in Dubbo going broke—I blame the minister and her department for not having proper scrutiny over the contractors who were allowed to do this program—Jarrod Kennedy was told that he was not going to get paid. So on a Sunday afternoon he took six of his staff and a crane, went out to the school and demolished it. He pulled it down, pulled it apart, put it on the back of a semitrailer and brought it home. He was owed $30,000 for the job at Marra Creek. For the one at Corinda he was also owed $30,000. So here is this young fellow having a go. He is what I presume the Prime Minister at the last election would have called a ‘working Australian’. He is owed $60,000.
Contractors around Dubbo are collectively owed $1.7 million, and the minister is washing her hands of this. Chris McMaster, who owns a farm supplies business in the town of Coolah, supplied $20,000 to the foundations of the classroom at Coolah. He is also showing no signs of getting his money. I understand that some of these contractors have debts of up to $140,000. They are facing severe financial hardship and in some cases bankruptcy. The minister is wiping her hands of this, and grins across the chamber. The people in my electorate who are watching what goes on in this place are seething.
But, in the words of the tool man, there is more. Tottenham school has a wonderful canteen. The canteen at Tottenham is a little old, but it is large and functional. It has a large, fully enclosed veranda so that in hot weather and on the rare occasions that it rains at Tottenham the kids have got somewhere to have their lunch. But the BER program decided they needed a new tuckshop. They constructed an eight-metre by three-metre canteen, which is the size of the average dog kennel that most people have in their backyard. There is no room for a pie warmer and no room for the freezers or the fridge—$610,000. If you want to see what this looks like, on the front lawn of this place tomorrow morning at nine o’clock they will be erecting a replica frame that is the same size as the tuckshop at Tottenham that cost $610,000.
The minister cannot understand what the problem is, but it gets worse. Exactly the same canteen that was built at Tottenham was put in the village of Toomelah. For those of you who do not know, Toomelah is an Aboriginal community on the Queensland border in the northern part of my electorate. In June this year, this government removed the CDEP program. So the only form of employment in the village of Toomelah was removed. The only chance of any dignity that these people had, of having some sort of purposeful working life, was removed. What did they get in response? The same eight-metre by three-metre tuckshop, but by the time it got to Toomelah it was valued $650,000. The elders at Toomelah tell me that that amount of money would have created an employment program for 10 people for a year. They have got a tuckshop that they will probably never use for $650,000. Since June, the elders at Toomelah tell me that there have been more than nine suicide attempts. The level of incarceration has increased. On my numerous visits to Toomelah there has just been a feeling of despair, but my representations to this government have fallen on deaf ears.
This government seems to focus on central control. What has made this country great in the past is giving people control of their own communities. I suspect the best value for money from the whole stimulus program was gained from the money that went to local government for community infrastructure. There was real value for money for the local community. I suggest to the government that, if they had given the management of the Home Insulation Program or even the BER to local government, maybe there would have been value for money and we could have got the same level of stimulus for a fraction of the money.
When a community feels that they have control of their destiny and they are confident about their future, they can actually plan for the future and grow and prosper. What has not been addressed in this budget are real and meaningful pieces of nation-building infrastructure. We talk about population and we now have a minister who is so disinterested in agriculture that they have given him another portfolio in charge of population. But the focus is all about managing the population in the cities. What would it have done to the economy of western New South Wales if just the wastage of the BER had gone to construct a freeway over the Blue Mountains to relieve the pressure from Western Sydney and to grow central western New South Wales?
What if the money wasted on the home insulation had been used to build a railway line from Melbourne to Brisbane? We would have a ‘steel Mississippi’ running down the east coast of Australia and ultimately on to Gladstone, Darwin and Perth. We would be able to build the economies of regional Australia. If we are looking at growing our population, we could put people where they can create decent lives for themselves and contribute to the economy. They could become members of small, vibrant communities and help them to grow. Where is the vision for that?
Where is the vision that would return the control of health to local communities? Where has that gone? We have a plan now that looks like building a federal bureaucracy for health to oversee the state bureaucracies for health—and somewhere down the line a patient might get some of the dollars. Where is the vision that would mean an Aboriginal girl of 17 or 18 years of age living in Bourke would not have to travel five hours to have her baby in Dubbo because there is a lack of midwives? Where is the vision to overcome that?
The frustrating thing about this budget is not so much what it has done as what it has not done. We have a responsibility in this place to empower our constituents to have enough confidence in the future that they will actually get up and do things for themselves. In the last six months, the government has reinforced the stereotype of useless government. In the last six months, the Australian people’s confidence that they will have a government that will look after them, nurture them, encourage them and give them an opportunity to do something for themselves has been lost. That is the real tragedy of what we are seeing here now. While the argy-bargy of question time in this place might be a nice piece of theatre, the people out in my electorate are telling me that they are disgusted with this government for squandering their resources and for not having enough trust in them to manage their own future. They want all of us down here to just get on with the job. So this budget was expected but it is extremely disappointing.
4855
17:27:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills. The Member of Parkes is a man I have a lot of respect for—because he has been able to drop weight quicker than I have!—and I certainly value his contribution. I agree with him on education but I think we have once again seen a member of the opposition miss an opportunity to talk their electorate up instead of talking it down. Unfortunately, I think we will have a standard type of speech from those opposite for the rest of the year. They will get in the party room and pick out all the bad things. But we have a standard speech in which we talk about the positives, and I am pretty happy to be able to talk about the positives to the good people of Solomon. I have been around and visited probably 25 schools and I have a heap of testimonials that the BER money has been very good. I acknowledge the contribution that the small business community has made. In particular, the builders have been fantastic in what they have delivered for our schools. We even had a father of a student at the Larrakeyah Primary School who is an architect and he did all the drawings for nothing to make sure that the school could stretch their money further. We have had some really good stories.
The member for Parkes also touched on the Indigenous community in his electorate. I am sure that Minister Macklin and Minister Snowdon would be more than happy to discuss those types of issues. The member mentioned suicide and dysfunction. I would encourage him to make contact immediately with the offices of those two ministers and I am sure that they will be more than happy to talk to him.
As a former mayor, the member for Parkes must be absolutely gutted about the position of the Leader of the Opposition on the community infrastructure program. That program has been fantastic in delivering federal money down to the community infrastructure level, basically through working with councils. The member for Parkes would have appreciated in the last 2½ years, as lord mayors in my electorate have, the infrastructure money that has come into communities. He is absolutely right—often we can bypass the state and territory level of bureaucracy and put the money into the community at the grassroots level, at the council level. I know my mayors have been very receptive to being able to get that extra funding. However, I will be pointing out to my mayors in the next three to four months that the sort of money they have received in the past would certainly be under threat from the opposition, should it become the government. There have been significant amounts of money, up around $8 million, for things like streetscapes, bicycle paths, revitalisation of the CBD area of Darwin and Palmerston and for Litchfield Shire Council roads. Councils have benefited for all sorts of stuff under this government and that is all under threat. I know that the member for Parkes would be very disappointed, in his former roles as a mayor and councillor, at that loss.
That brings me to update the House on some of the great stuff we were given in my electorate from the budget last year and that is now on track. I was happy to open the first stage of Tiger Brennan Drive on Saturday, so that is up and going. That is a $74 million commitment from the Commonwealth to end the blame game between the Territory government and the former Howard government about who was going to fund that project. It is now heading in the right direction. The two bridges will be completed by the end of July, and by November we will have a fantastic road that not only relieves the morning peak hour but lets families get home more quickly to their loved ones during the afternoon. It gives a seamless passage from the rural area into the port facilities, and that is all heading nicely in the right direction.
The GP superclinic that was long overdue in Palmerston is all but finished. It is being fitted out and by the end of July will be operational. The cancer care unit that Territorians have waited for for 10 years is now operational, fully staffed and working. People in the Territory are able to stay in the Territory and get cancer treatment and not have to travel interstate. I had the great pleasure of opening it with the Prime Minister. There have been a lot of other projects, as I alluded to, with the city council. We also have a number of defence projects, including major work that has been approved at Robertson Barracks. The member for Groom, who has just entered the chamber, was with me when we approved works for Robertson Barracks, the RAAF base and Tindal. They are all major pieces of infrastructure that we got out of the last budget.
Before I go on to talk about the budget this year, can I say it surprises me when the opposition talks about how poorly the economy is doing and talks about debt and deficit. When you look at what has happened around the world, our fiscal position is the envy of the rest of the world. I have graphs here that show that. One graph shows that our debt compared to GDP is the lowest. When you look at the net debt overall, this graph shows that ours is dramatically lower than that of any other country in the world. And of course our unemployment figures are the envy of the rest of the world. When you look at the figures and how we have come through the global financial crisis, Australia should be very proud of where we are placed. Obviously, as a result of our Treasury working with the government and with the Reserve Bank, we have been able to guide ourselves through a very turbulent time. We came into government with a lot of expectation placed on us and in October 2008 the global financial crisis hit. Other countries sat and waited. We moved quickly and, consequently, we have got through the global financial crisis in better condition than everyone else. When you look at what is happening in southern Europe, that is certainly the case.
We have also moved on in the last couple of weeks in the debate regarding the resource super profits tax. I will briefly touch on that because in my electorate of Solomon and in regional areas right around Australia and as the member for Parkes alluded to, regional Australia is crying out for infrastructure. I am very nervous about the fact that the mining companies are running a big scare campaign against the government and it will be regional and remote parts of Australia that will suffer. It will be us that will suffer if the tax does not go through because we have waited so long. The Tiger Brennan Drive extension, for instance, cost only $74 million and it waited 10 years. An oncology unit waited 10 years. The GP superclinic and the toing and froing between health services in Palmerston went on for eight or nine years.
I worry for the people in my electorate of Solomon because we contribute a fair bit through uranium mining by ERA and the mines that Xstrata have got down in the Borroloola area. We contribute a fair bit to this economy and yet we have not benefited one bit from it in terms of infrastructure. We have a port that needs about $300 million spent on it; we have an airport that needs to be upgraded. We have been able to give schools much needed infrastructure through the stimulus packages.
But I am really worried that should we be removed from office, it is already being made very clear by the shadow finance minister that there will be cuts. The Leader of the Opposition says exactly the same thing that there will be cuts. There will not be cuts in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or South-East Queensland; there will be cuts to the regional parts of Australia where there are fewer votes, fewer people and less political clout. They are going to be the ones that will suffer at the hands of a Liberal coalition. We suffered for 12 years in the Northern Territory. I cannot think of one project that my predecessor actually delivered for the people in the Northern Territory. I cannot think of one.
YW4
Macdonald, Sen Ian
Senator Ian Macdonald
—Try a LNG plant.
HWD
Hale, Damian, MP
Mr HALE
—That is in Lingiari; I am talking about Solomon. There is not one bit of infrastructure. It is that sort of worry that I have: you are out of sight, you are out of mind and you are up in the Top End. I have worked really hard at getting us on the map. I have been able to get us out there and get the projects that I have committed to. But we have others that are in doubt. The people in my electorate need to know that there is $30 million dedicated to a doctor’s college—a medical school—so that we can actually train our doctors and it is in doubt if the Liberal Party happen to win the next election. There are 50 accommodation units at Royal Darwin Hospital for outpatients in doubt. They are the sorts of things, major pieces of infrastructure, that will not occur under the coalition government.
The other thing obviously is the third round of the BER money—some $20 million—that will be scrapped. The shadow minister for education has already said that the BER will be wound back and the third round will not be funded. For me, as a person from Darwin who is passionate about the Northern Territory, I want to live in the Northern Territory, I want to live in Darwin and Palmerston and I want to enjoy the benefits of what Darwin and Palmerston have to offer.
When it comes to the supertax, all Australians have a stake in that mineral wealth and so it is our right to have a share of that. We have a duty to ourselves and to our children to make sure that we benefit from it. I am really worried that if we do not happen to cash in now with the supertax, we are going to miss our opportunity in this country. After 16 years of a mining boom, really, we have not got enough to show for it. The first thing that happened when we came to government was everyone screamed ‘infrastructure’.
We even heard from the member for Parkes. He stood up and had some great ideas, we will put a railway line here, we will put one over the top of the Blue Mountains and we will shoot a road up there. They were all great ideas but he should have been in this place 10 years ago and he could have put those ideas forward to the former government. Unfortunately he was not here.
I thank the small-to-medium sized businesses in my electorate for their dedication and their courage during the GFC. During that time we put stimulus into the economy. We certainly put more money into training and more money into apprenticeships with the Kickstart program and that has been well received. But small-to-medium sized businesses have really carried us through. Through the mining tax we want to reward them by bringing down the company tax level. We want to reward them for their perseverance and dedication during very tough times.
I think the opposition are still in denial about how tough the times are right around the world. We have been lucky. We are the lucky country, as people say. We are lucky that we have been able to come through the tough times. There are other countries that are looking at 20 per cent unemployment. We have seen what is happening in southern Europe. There is absolute carnage in the economies there and that leads to social carnage such as we have seen in Greece.
This budget invests $661 million to help young people in the Territory get skilled jobs. That is really important. So many of our young people, our best and brightest, leave the Territory to go and look for job opportunities. We have a big focus on Indigenous employment, but we certainly need employment right across the board. We put a lot of money into Indigenous areas, as we do for all Territorians. Those sorts of programs, which are really beneficial, are all at risk. Over the next three months, if I do nothing else, I will make sure the people of Solomon know what a risk a coalition government would be. The people of Solomon need to know that Tony Abbott is not on their side. The Leader of the Opposition does not care about how the Northern Territory progresses. I am going to make sure that the people in my electorate understand that Tony Abbott is not a friend of the Northern Territory.
The value of apprenticeships cannot be underestimated. There will be around 22,500 new apprenticeships through the Kickstart program, which is excellent. As a former Australian Apprentice of the Year, I value apprenticeships. Apprenticeships survive the boom and bust cycle of the mining industry. Tradesmen put something back into the community through training. I think I have trained around 10 apprentices myself. You build communities, social engagement and self-esteem.
I have always been worried about the fly in, fly out mentality of the mining industry. I have quite a few friends who fly in from different places. I have a mate who lives in Geelong and works at Borroloola. I have a mate who lives in Perth and works offshore for Conoco Philips—and he has done it for a long time. A lot of social dysfunction is caused by fly in, fly out. What impact is that having on society going into the future? Do the mining companies have a social responsibility to build infrastructure in towns? My worry is that we will put in a lot of money. What people did not know about is the 40 per cent underwriting of infrastructure for mining projects—and I fully support that. I think the tax gives mining companies a real buy-in in Australia’s future. They will say we need better roads on which to cart materials and we need better and safer ports. All those things give the mining companies a big buy-in.
I acknowledge Andrew Forrest and his efforts on Indigenous employment—the Indigenous covenant. It is a fantastic initiative. He is putting something back into the community. I am gobsmacked. They have made such profits that they should surely know that some of that money now has to come back to build vital infrastructure. Once it is gone it is gone, and it will be regional and remote parts of Australia that will suffer, not Sydney and Melbourne. The pie will not get any smaller for Sydney and Melbourne, because they have their own problems within the western suburbs in particular, where people are spreading out into the urban areas. It will be the people of Solomon, whom I represent, who will suffer. It will be the people of Far North Queensland, the Kimberley and even Perth who will suffer if we do not get this right.
Our commitment to health in this budget is something I am very proud of. We hear the cynical view from those opposite. It is easy to sit back and be cynical about health, but it is such an important part of our whole social fabric, just having the opportunity to live a long and happy life. We see there are problems, but let us be honest about it: everywhere you go, there are problems. There are 770 hospitals; of course there are going to be problems. There are fewer people in private health insurance, because they cannot afford it. More people are dropping out of it, putting more pressure on the public system. We need to train more doctors, and we have made a commitment to do so. The number was capped under the previous government. So we are putting in around $7.3 billion.
Sure, there are often interjections from the other side—I would not expect it from the two gentlemen here but from others sometimes—saying it is just adding another layer of bureaucracy to it. If that is happening, we need to get through that bureaucracy, because health is about getting services on the ground, at the grassroots level, to the people who need them the most.
We have put a lot of time and effort also into preventative health. There will be 5,500 GPs and 680 more specialists. We are looking at 800 allied health professionals. I know that that has been well received by a lot of people, because there are long waiting lists for those types of services. There will also be 4,600 additional nurses.
These are all really positive programs that need to be supported. If the coalition happened to come to power at the next election, I can see that all those programs would be in doubt. So I think that as a hardworking local member I need to make it clear to the people in my electorate of Solomon and to the people in the Northern Territory, where my kids live, that voting the Liberal Party in at the ballot box will jeopardise a lot of the good things that regional Australia—all of regional Australia, not just my area—have been able to enjoy over the last couple of years.
In conclusion, I think that this budget is a budget for its time, one that was needed. Obviously, we have had three years of uncertainty; let us be honest about that. When you see what has happened on the global stage, around the world, we have had uncertainty. It was a difficult time to come into power. The good days of big surpluses are certainly behind us. I doubt that even Peter Costello, who is held in pretty high esteem, or Paul Keating, who is probably the greatest Treasurer we have ever had, could have seen it through as well as Wayne Swan has. He has grown into the job very well. If you look at the figures and the graphs, you cannot argue with how we have come through the global financial crisis. This is a very good budget. I have done very well out of it and I will make sure that the people of Solomon know that this is a good budget for them. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)
4859
17:47:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—It is quite an extraordinary budget, as the member for Solomon just said. It is budget like we have never seen before! It is a budget with a $57.1 billion deficit. It is a budget that highlights the fact that this is a tax-spend-borrow, tax-spend-borrow government. They cannot control their spending. They cannot make the decisions that have to be made. They cannot stop the waste in a whole range of programs that are going on. They cannot deliver the programs that they have in front of them. But they have delivered to this country the biggest deficit since World War II. And the member for Solomon has the audacity to say that the Treasurer has done a better job than Peter Costello would have. Let me tell the member for Solomon—
HWD
Hale, Damian, MP
Mr Hale
—Paul Keating.
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—There is no argument about Paul Keating! Paul Keating as Treasurer managed to rack up $96 billion worth of debt. But Paul Keating at least had the courage of his convictions. He at least understood what reform was. He at least was prepared to do the things that had to be done for this country, and—for the member for Solomon’s benefit, because I know he is only new to this House—the coalition in opposition supported those reforms. What we are seeing from this Treasurer, arguably the worst Treasurer we have seen in this country, although there were some in the Whitlam years that would rival him, is a continuation of the socialist philosophy of spend, spend, spend. As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend. So then we go into a borrow, borrow, borrow program—$700 million a week. I bet that would fund a few projects in the member for Solomon’s seat.
HWD
Hale, Damian, MP
Mr Hale
—Bring them on!
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—We are not going to bring them on, because we are in opposition to that, as we were in government. We are a responsible money manager, so we are not going to borrow $700 million a week. We are going to make the tough decisions that have to be made. What we are seeing from those who sit opposite is a reckless regard for Australia’s fiscal position, a reckless regard for what wild spending by government will do to interest rates. We have seen a succession of interest rate rises. Thankfully, today we did not see another, but if you talk to economists they will predict that interest rates will continue to rise.
The thing that disturbs me most about the government is that they have no plan on how they are going to rein in their spending. They have no plan on how they are going to reduce the burden that they place on the taxpayers of Australia other than to introduce another tax, a new tax, a $9 billion and growing tax, a tax on the jobs of everyday Australians, a tax on the superannuation of everyday Australians, a tax on the returns of the shareholdings of everyday Australians, a tax on the confidence of the business community, and a tax on the small businesses like the one I named in question time today, Laser-Tech in Toowoomba.
Laser-Tech have had a 90 per cent fall in their income from the mining industry in the last three weeks. I could give the figure but the proprietor has asked me not to. I know the figure. I know the investment that he made in the expectation that the mining industry would lead Australia out into recovery. I know that his business is already feeling the pain of a tax that has been introduced by a government that no longer believes in anything but being re-elected. It is a government that has no core values with a Prime Minister who has no belief in anything. He is someone who will say anything and do anything to maintain his position as Prime Minister. I just say to the Prime Minister: keep looking over your shoulder because your deputy, the minister for education and everything else, is looking at your job very closely. I doubt she wants it right at the moment. I think she thinks that the Prime Minister is getting himself into so much trouble that she will just walk into the job at some point later. But the Prime Minister had better start believing in something.
The member for Solomon, who has now left the chamber, talked about the previous Prime Minister Paul Keating. I knew Paul Keating. I had some time with him when I was the leader of the grain industry in Australia. One thing that Paul Keating did was believe. He believed in what had to be done. He was not right, but he believed in it. He went out after it. He was a true believer.
What we see from this government is that they have nothing to believe in. Their policies are knee-jerk reactions. Their reckless economic mismanagement of this economy is hurting all Australians and Australian families, and this budget reveals the high price all Australians will pay for their spending spree over the past 18 months.
When we left office we left $40 billion in the Future Fund and $20 billion in the university fund, and we left $20 billion in surplus. What a turnaround—a debt in excess of $100 billion! Even I could not believe that they could spend so much money so quickly. We are seeing money wasted in the BER program. It is now estimated that $5 billion will be wasted on the hall program, the school building program. We are seeing private schools, particularly Catholic education schools, producing buildings four times the size of those being produced under the BER in the state school system. This government cannot manage a program properly. This government has no idea how to run a program. So there is $5 billion. Let us go to the insulation program.
The government has not only wasted money but also tragically killed people. There are more at risk. Almost every day we learn of another house fire or another warning from a fire authority about the risks of the insulation program for people who are still waiting as we speak to have their houses assessed for safety. What a tragedy to see four Australian lives lost. What a tragedy to see the wastage that has gone on under that program.
The Minister for Education has failed to deliver on computers in schools. She has delivered about a quarter of the computers that the government promised in its election campaign. This government always promises but it never delivers. It talks the talk but it cannot walk the walk. If we look at its promise to deliver childcare centres, the Minister for Education has wiped that off the list as well. There is a pattern here of waste and mismanagement. It is a pattern of spending, borrowing, spending, borrowing, taxing, spending and borrowing. It goes on and on.
The member for Solomon—I must admit I admire his front—spoke about the new super tax on the mining industry in Australia. One of the states and territories of Australia that requires the mining industry to continue to grow is the Northern Territory, and his seat makes up a fair part of Darwin where a lot of these people live. Yet he does not seem to have any concept of the damage this tax is doing to the mining industry in Australia, to the extent that he quoted Andrew Forrest, the head of Fortescue. Andrew Forrest has cancelled three projects as a result of this tax. Why doesn’t the member for Solomon ask Mr Forrest what he thinks of this super tax? Why doesn’t the member ask Mr Forrest how many Indigenous Australians will lose their jobs as a result of this tax or how many Indigenous Australians will not get a job in regional Australia as a result of this tax? The member should ask Andrew Forrest. Andrew is one of the scathing critics of this scheme because he knows that this tax is going to kill the development of the mining industry in Australia.
The mining industry in Australia has underpinned our economy for decades. Yet this government, in its lust for money and in its desperation to plunder the Treasury, has put a tax on the industry which will make it uncompetitive with the rest of the world. It will tax the mining industry in Australia to a point where future investment will go elsewhere. They are not my words. They are the words of the financial institutions—the banks, the ratings assessment agencies such as Moody’s, and the Citibanks—that have been analysing what this tax is going to do to the Australian mining industry. It is going to destroy its future. Yet those who sit opposite say that this is a good thing.
The member for Solomon also mentioned the 40 per cent rebate on capital investment if a project fails. I know those on that side aim for failure in their projects, and they have got a very good track record in that regard: most of the projects they start fail. I have just mentioned some in the education minister’s portfolio and the environment minister’s portfolio, but there is a whole string of them. You can go across to the Assistant Treasurer and the Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch programs which failed. There is just one after the other—promises that could not be kept and programs that could not be run.
The mining sector does not do projects with the goal of failing. They are not interested in a 40 per cent rebate. They cannot borrow or finance their project if they go to the bank and say, ‘By the way, if I fail the taxpayers are going to cough up 40 per cent of my capital expenditure’. The banks will just put a red line through that application. No-one in the mining industry supports this 40 per cent rebate—not the big miners, not the little miners, not the mid-caps, not the juniors. Not one person has come forward and said this is a good idea. Yet we have the member for Solomon saying that this is a good thing for the Northern Territory.
It would be good for the Northern Territory if this government were not returned and this tax were then rescinded by a Tony Abbott government. That is what would be good for mining development in Australia. That is what would be good for the jobs of Australians. That is what would be good for the superannuation and shareholder returns of the self-funded retirees. That is what would be good for small business in Australia. That is what would be good for the future jobs of young Australians. What would be good would be getting rid of this tax.
The other thing I will talk about on this budget is what is not in this budget. What is not in this budget is a new road across the range at Toowoomba in Queensland to open up the economy of south-east and western Queensland to further development. That range crossing was funded in the 2007 budget with $700 million to start it. It is probably a $1.8 billion to $2 billion project. But in true style and in its city-centric thinking, this government has decided to walk away from that commitment. The people of Toowoomba will not forget them.
There was no money of any significance for any road in my electorate. There was no money of any significance for the electorate of Blair, held by the Labor Party. The road between Toowoomba and Ipswich is a disgrace, and one of the reasons it is a disgrace is because this government will not spend money in regional areas on roads. We have committed ourselves to fund that range crossing. It is in the forward estimates in the out years. We have made a commitment that, if elected to government at the coming election, we will commence that road within 12 months and we will complete it by late 2017. That road would have already been in progress for three years had this government kept its commitment, but, along with all its other failed programs, the government has failed to keep that commitment to the people of Groom.
We need to see a government that cares about all Australians. We need to see a government that cares about ensuring economic development in Australia. We cannot afford to have a continuation of a government that just wastes money and accumulates debt and then has to borrow more money to accumulate more debt. To have a debt that has, in three years, exceeded the debt that was accumulated under the Hawke and Keating governments is an extraordinary effort. It will require an extraordinary effort by the governments that come after this one, by the taxpayers of Australia and by the future generations of Australia to repay that debt.
What we want to see is a government that stops wasting money. Not only do they waste money on their major programs but they waste money in advertising. They are spending $126 million in political print, radio and television advertising. They are spending $30 million on climate change. The last time I looked, this government, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time, had completely abandoned action on climate change. If you talk to the Greens they will say, quite openly, that the only party that has a policy to address the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions is the coalition.
The Labor Party have no policy. They have a policy that they have deferred until 2013. They did not have the guts to take it up in the Senate. They decided to run away from it and make a stream of misleading statements about how they are going to address it in other ways. There are no other ways. You have to have a program. We have set aside billions of dollars to lower greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. All they have done is set aside $30 million to spend on advertising.
Now there is this latest revelation that $38.5 million was allocated a month, we think, before anyone was told about this new supertax on the mining industry. It is $38 million to attack the mining companies that have built Australia. They will be vilified by those who sit opposite as ‘dirty multinationals’. Go and say that to Woodside, a company started in South Australia. Go and say that to Santos—South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search. Ring a bell? They are an Australian company that is going to be hit for six by this tax. They are looking at whether or not they can proceed with their coal seam methane LNG plant in Queensland simply because this government does not understand what it is doing and does not understand the damage it is doing in regard to that industry.
Because the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and the finance minister are not able to sell their own new tax, they have to borrow some more money, another $38.5 million, to try and sell their idea. We know it is a bad tax. The world knows it is a bad tax. Shareholders know it is a bad tax. If you look at the dip in the value of shares in Australia compared to the dip in the value of shares in Canada, there is a marked difference and that marked difference is due to the new tax. If you look at the fall of the Australian dollar compared to the fall of the Canadian dollar, there is a significantly larger fall in the Australian dollar. That is because of the super tax. It is not just me saying that; it is the rating agencies and the financial institutions. All this government can do is lie about when they decided they were going to have an advertising campaign against the mining industry, an industry that supports people all over Australia.
In the northern part of Tasmania there are companies whose livelihoods depend on the mining sector, yet I wonder if the member for Franklin is going to be standing up for them. Is she going to be standing up for the Caterpillar Elphinstone plant? Is she going to be standing up for the iron ore, nickel, gold and copper mines in Tasmania, or is she just going to say to them: ‘It was nice knowing you. You made a huge contribution but we don’t want you anymore’? This is a budget from a government who have no idea on economic management. This is a government who spend constantly. This is a government who cannot control their addiction to spending money. This is a government who have delivered the biggest peacetime deficit of all time. This is a government who deserve not to be re-elected at the next election.
4864
18:07:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I rise this evening in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011. What we do know about this budget is that it shows the responsible economic management of this government. We will be halving the peak debt and getting the budget back into the black in three years, which is three years early. We have been talking about our early and decisive action in light of the global financial crisis, which has put us in this position where we are able to get the budget back in the black in three years. Our budget also includes the following really important initiatives: new investments in health and hospitals; new investments in skills, training and infrastructure; the Renewable Energy Future Fund to help tackle climate change; tax cuts and less red tape for small business; better superannuation; tax breaks on interest and a boost to national savings; a standard deduction to make tax time easier for working families; a third round of tax cuts for low-income earners, families and seniors; more money to protect our troops and our borders; as well as returning the budget to surplus three years ahead of schedule.
These tax cuts are really important and the superannuation changes are important. We need to not lose sight of the impact the tax breaks we have delivered for the third year in a row—on time every time—are having on ordinary working men and women, seniors and low-income earners in our electorates. We committed to them in the 2007 election and I certainly know that people in my electorate are looking forward to getting their tax cuts on 1 July. We also have our tax cut of two per cent for small businesses, which is what we need, we believe, to allow small businesses to thrive and create more employment opportunities for people in our local communities. The superannuation guarantee, which 8.4 million workers are expected to benefit from—that is, 90 per cent of all full-time workers—will increase the nine per cent to 12 per cent over time. That will increase Australia’s superannuation savings by over $85 billion in 10 years. That is a very significant boost to retirement savings for Australian working families. We have all heard the example of someone aged 30 who will have an extra $100,000 on retirement due to these changes in superannuation.
I want to talk particularly about health because health has certainly been a big issue in my home state of Tasmania. This budget has the government investing around $7.3 billion over five years to create the National Health and Hospitals Network, which is going to provide $417 million for improved after-hours access to GP and primary care services, supported by Medicare Locals; and $355 million to deliver 23 new GP superclinics. I was fortunate enough to get a GP superclinic in my electorate in the first round. Just last Saturday the tenderer for the construction phase of that GP superclinic was announced. It is being built in conjunction with the state government as an integrated care centre. It will mean over $18 million in new, better facilities in the local community near my electorate office, and I know that the local community is very pleased about that investment. That $355 million will also go towards upgrading around 425 GP and primary healthcare clinics across the country. There will be a competitive bid process for existing GP services to upgrade their facilities and technology.
This budget includes a $523 million investment to train and support Australia’s nurses. We all know the vital role that nurses play in our health and hospital system. From travelling around and visiting hospitals that service my electorate and talking to nurses, I know that they are very pleased about this. We all know that the ANF, the Australian Nursing Federation, is very pleased with this investment and has said that it is long overdue.
The budget also includes $467 million to modernise our health and hospital system through personally controlled individual electronic health records for every Australian from 1 July 2012. We have heard that this commitment will be scrapped should the coalition get elected to government. It is really important that this particular measure is not scrapped. We have heard GPs and medical professionals around the country saying that it will save money and improve efficiency in our health system. How can people say that cutting this out of the budget is going to save money when it will improve efficiency and improve savings into the future? I really think it shows short-sightedness and a lack of understanding of our health system to think that cutting this money out is going to be beneficial to the health system.
Medicare Locals is about allowing people access to after-hours GP services. As a parent of small children, I know that children can often require medical attention after hours. When you have to go to the local hospital after hours, you can wait for quite some time. It is really important that families and older people, who may have minor injuries or ailments, are able to access a GP after hours.
We are investing heavily in health. We are investing in more GP training places, more junior doctors and more specialists. This will take some time to come on board but it shows that we are looking at the whole health system as an integrated system. We are looking at funding the infrastructure now. We are looking at funding the nurses, the doctors and the specialists that are required to fix the system after 12 years of neglect. When Tony Abbott was health minister, he ripped a billion dollars out of the health system. We have heard that, in his alternative budget, he intends to cut $800 million out of what we have committed to health. As I said before, that shows a complete lack of understanding of the health system and how it works.
This government is also investing in skills and training, with a $661 million investment to increase our skills base in our workforce and ensure that the training system is responsive to the needs of our local communities. Under Skills for Recovery there will be 39,000 training places. There will also be an extension of the Kickstart initiative. I was pleased to see in my electorate a large increase in the number of apprentices under the Apprentice Kickstart program. I am certainly talking to small businesses and local communities in my electorate about that extension, and I know that some of those businesses are keen to put on apprentices under the extension. Under A Training System for the Future, $242 million will be provided over four years to work with the states to deliver the national entitlement to a training place for young people under the age of 25. That will be a very important initiative to ensure our younger Australians are able to find training places and improve their work skills into the future.
We have seen a lot of commitment from this government. I talked earlier about small business and the small-business tax break. But we are doing more for small business. Sole traders, partnerships and incorporated small businesses will be able to instantly deduct the cost of assets valued at up to $5,000. For example, a restaurant or a cafe that purchases something new at a cost of $4,000 can get an immediate tax deduction of that $4,000 rather than the usual $600 in the first year and so on. We saw how quickly small businesses took up the small-business tax rebate during the global financial crisis and the government’s initiatives there, so I am sure small businesses will also be keen to take up this tax break. We have also talked about cutting the company tax rate.
When those opposite talk about the budget and about the deficit, they seem to have forgotten that the global financial crisis ever happened. It is like they are in a cocoon and nobody mentions it. Last year in this place I spoke on the budget bills and even then they tried to pretend that the global financial crisis had not occurred. We all know that it actually did occur and we all know that Europe is still in trouble when it comes to issues of sovereign debt. We know that Australia has outperformed most of the other OECD countries. In fact, the OECD just last week revised Australia’s growth forecast and expects our GDP to grow by 3.2 per cent in 2010 and by up to 3.6 per cent in 2011. Australia is one of the strongest economies of all the OECD countries, and it is something that those opposite need to accept is due to our stimulus package and our early and decisive action in the face of the global financial crisis.
The OECD also expects Australia’s unemployment rate to fall to 4.8 per cent by the end of 2011. To me it is good news that Australia’s unemployment rate will fall. To me it is good news that the stimulus package saved 200,000 Australians from being unemployed. But those opposite seem to have forgotten that this happened. They seem to be unhappy with the fact that our stimulus packages were successful and what we did with the economy. Australia has one of the lowest levels of net debt. I would like to table a graph—
HWO
Hawke, Alex, MP
Mr Hawke
—Which government delivered that?
HWM
Collins, Julie, MP
Ms COLLINS
—It was our government, the Rudd Labor government that delivered that.
10000
Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms S Bird)—Are you seeking leave to table that?
HWM
Collins, Julie, MP
Ms COLLINS
—I seek leave to table that graph?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
HWM
Collins, Julie, MP
Ms COLLINS
—Okay, I will keep going. I also have a graph that shows the financial position of the Australian economy compared to other economies in terms of the percentage of GDP. I seek leave to table that graph.
Leave granted.
HWM
Collins, Julie, MP
Ms COLLINS
—Thank you. That stimulus package certainly worked. As I go around my electorate and talk to small and large businesses and to contractors that are building the social housing in my electorate, they are all saying that the stimulus funding was really important in helping them keep their workers on and in providing ongoing work for them. We need to continue to roll out this stimulus to its completion. The stimulus was designed to peak and then to taper off and that is what it is doing. It is working well in local communities.
I want to touch on some of the things that are happening in my electorate that are in this budget and also some which were funded through the stimulus. It is quite an extensive list. The Kingston bypass is underway in my electorate. Major construction is underway now as we speak. I know that the local community and the Kingston bypass action group are really pleased to see that construction, after 12 years of inaction from those on the other side. It was promised by the Howard government late in the 2007 election and was also committed to by Labor. But it is the Rudd Labor government that have actually gotten on with building this bypass. Those opposite kept promising but we are the ones actually delivering on the ground. I think that is really an important distinction.
We have the Huon Valley regional water scheme, which we hope to be launching in just a few weeks. We have the South East Tasmania Recycled Water Scheme, which is well and truly underway. We have my GP superclinic, which I talked about earlier. We have our green TEA environmental audit program, which has been successful. It was a pilot program for a year and they are looking at extending that now and making it self-sustaining—that is a fantastic program. We have the redevelopment of the Dennes Point community centre, the Cygnet gymnasium, the Kingborough Lions United Soccer Club, the installation of some nets at the Rokeby Cricket Club and the Port Huon Sports Centre, which I visited just recently to see how the $10,000 worth of sports equipment is being used. They all received funds. We have, obviously, the community infrastructure program, which is supporting a lot of smaller community local government sporting facilities and recreational facilities.
Just a few weeks ago I opened the Lymington Walkway at Cygnet in my electorate. We have some defence housing, some social housing and of course the Building the Education Revolution projects in my electorate. I have already been to quite a few openings, and we have some coming up. One which I am particularly looking forward to in just a few weeks is at my children’s school, where they have had an extension to their GP room and library. My son is actually being educated in one of the new classrooms, and I can certainly tell you that the parents at that school do not believe it has been a waste of money at all and are very pleased with their new facilities.
As you can see, there has been a lot of investment and activity in local communities in my electorate of Franklin, as there has been in other electorates around the country. Certainly we have had our fair share of these projects and they are really going down well with the local businesses. The construction industry in my electorate has been doing a great job of delivering these projects on the ground.
One of the things that I am hearing from local businesses is that they are concerned about the economic unrest in Europe and about what might happen should the stimulus funding be withdrawn. They are also concerned about what might happen should an Abbott government get elected. One of the things that they are particularly concerned about in Tasmania is the national broadband rollout. Minister Conroy was in Tasmania today at Midway Point with an announcement in relation to the National Broadband Network rollout. We have people in Tasmania who are extraordinarily concerned that the National Broadband Network rollout will be ceased under an Abbott government. The local community in the 10 suburbs in my electorate that are expecting to get the rollout in stage 3 of the project in Tasmania are very concerned indeed about the National Broadband Network rollout.
The rollout is currently supporting quite a few jobs in Tasmania, and in the next few years it is expected to support thousands more. It is really critical for the Tasmanian economy in terms of jobs now, and obviously in terms of technology and jobs for the future it is really important for Tasmania. I know that Tasmanian businesses, schools, hospitals and mums and dads are concerned about whether or not the National Broadband Network will reach them under an Abbott government, should they get in. It is causing a great lot of concern in my local community.
We also have great unrest in my local community about Abbott’s proposed cuts to the trade training centres. My local community in Huonville and the Huon Valley is down for a round 2 trade training centre of $6.5 million. I talked to people in my local community and to the principal of the school last week and they are very concerned about their trade training centre. They are very concerned that those opposite do not understand how important the trade training centre is to their local community, and they are particularly concerned because this trade training centre was going to incorporate aquaculture. In Tasmania at present there are no students training in aquaculture. In my electorate we have two of the largest aquaculture businesses in Tasmania with Huon Aquaculture and Tassal, who are two very large salmon producers and salmon growers. To not have local young people in the community train in this trade is quite a significant impediment to future workforce needs of those large companies.
I think it is short sighted of those opposite to say that they are going to cut the trade training centres. I would particularly ask them to reconsider cutting the trade training centre in the Huon Valley. I know that the Huon Valley community are very concerned about their trade training centre and they have asked me what they can do about it. I am looking into that to see what we can do for the Huon Valley community to ensure that their trade training centre will be built no matter what, because that is what they are after and that is what they deserve.
I put a lot of time and effort into supporting this application, talking to the local community and talking to the schools in that community about why this trade training centre was needed. I know that the state government also did a lot of work putting together the submission for this trade training centre facility. It is much needed by the local community.
I also want to talk briefly about the computers in schools rollout. In schools that I have visited in my electorate, the computers in schools program has been very well received, although some schools are yet to receive their full complement. They are saying: ‘What will happen? Won’t we get our computers? The schools next to us have all their computers. Won’t we get our fair share of computers?’ I think that those opposite need to revisit their desire to cut this program. It is very popular in schools. The students want those computers and they need them to deal with current technologies and to keep up with what is happening in society. Having access to that type of technology is really important for some of these students.
We heard in the House just yesterday from Minister Gillard about the importance of computers to some students in particular who require them to be able to produce work. I think it is really important and those opposite are completely underestimating the value of the computers in schools program. We also heard about the cuts to the Productivity Places Programs. The cuts just go on and on. They want to cut the Renewable Energy Future Fund and Green Start. They want to cancel the smarter schools teacher quality program. I talked about the GP superclinics and e-health. There is just so much that they want to cut, and it is all because they want to support the mining companies rather than wanting to support Australians getting a fairer share of superprofits from mining companies. I think we really should be explaining to all Australians why they deserve their fairer share. I think that those opposite are again underestimating Australians and their views on whether or not mining companies can afford to contribute more to Australian society and whether it is fairer that they should. I think we need to start having a truthful debate from those opposite about what is actually going on here. These campaigns, particularly some of the comments from the other side, are not completely honest. (Time expired)
4869
18:27:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
0
Dr STONE
—I also rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011. You always hope that in a parliamentary democracy like ours governments of all persuasions will have proper regard for the wellbeing of the people and the country. You hope that a new government will learn from their previous mistakes or inadequacies in office and build on the legacy of the previous government to guide the nation lightly to a better place. Unfortunately, this Rudd Labor government has shown itself to be not fit for office. From the coalition, it inherited a strong economy, with a well-regulated banking sector, with people confident of their futures and investing, with some of the highest workforce participation rates ever and with more women than ever in the workplace being paid more than ever. There were surpluses and future funds designed to ensure the next generation was not made to pay for the profligacy of their parents.
Under Labor we have seen some of the most profoundly and universally held Australian values ignored. These values include the belief that where you are born in this country should not constrain your rights to a decent job, an education, a fair return for a fair days work, access to adequate health services and personal safety. These values include intergenerational caring for the environment and a recognition of the intense and close interrelationship between a healthy viable community and a sustainable environment which the community manages as part of their own lives and the future of their families.
Labor have shifted policy settings and reassigned resources, resulting in an undermining of the viability of too many communities and families, particularly those in rural and remote communities in Australia. They have made it less likely that we will have food security in the future. They have depressed a whole sector of our society whose livelihood depends on their being able to grow food or fibre. They have made it less likely that people can remain independent and live a dignified old age from the earnings of their working lives. I will come back to address the issues which relate in particular to rural and regional families—the sorts of families that I represent as the member for Murray.
Labor has failed to understand that working families need affordable and accessible childcare services if both parents—or a single parent managing a household—are to participate in the workforce. A welfare-dependent family is not a family that can look forward to a life with all the opportunities of others. We know that children who grow up in welfare-dependent households are more likely to be welfare dependent themselves, to have mental health issues, to have law-and-order problems in the future, and to certainly not have the advantages in life that all of us aspire to for our children and grandchildren. When the coalition was in power we were striving to make sure that as many individuals and families as possible were able to be in work, to enjoy the fruit of their labours, and to save for their futures. And we were trying to make sure that there was adequate superannuation for people to use and to be independent in their older age.
One of the critical and key elements for individuals, particularly women, to be able to remain in the workforce or to move in and out of the workforce has been an attitude of acceptance that they need to balance both a career and parenting. This requires affordable, accessible, good-quality child care. The days of having a mother-in-law or a mother next door to look after your children are long gone; although, under Labor’s new regime, there are more grandparents being asked to leave their own employment to look after children, because Labor has systematically reduced the affordability of child care—in particular for regional families but also for families in suburbia and inner metropolitan regions. This is for families with very young or older school-age children as well.
You cannot believe the long list of slashing and cutting of childcare support that Labor has done. Labor has slashed the child care rebate by reducing the cap and indexing for four years. They claimed that they would improve cash flow by paying the childcare rebate fortnightly to parents, but, like so many of Labor’s promises, nothing has happened there. In reducing the childcare rebate they claimed that they were simply attacking ‘rich’ families—a three per cent who had far too much money. Middle-class welfare is one of their favourite mantras. We know that if you have a younger child in child care for more than two or three days per week, you very quickly hit that $7,500 or—what it was—the $7,700 cap and then you are in great strife if you are not earning more than the minimum wage or, indeed, the average wage in Australia.
Labor has taken away the $1,500 family day care start-up grant and the $5,000 start-up grant for remote family day care. This directly attacks the capacity of women to start up professional care in their homes for children, because they often need to modify their home and pay to have their household made appropriate for child care. Labor has refused to give any certainty to the part-time long day care centres in remote or small communities, like Darkan and Corrigin in Western Australia. They are now to receive only six months accreditation, because the minister thinks that since they are smaller and do not have enough children to be open seven days or five days week, they are at higher risk of closing. Hence they receive accreditation for just six months at a time. No-one can employ professional staff on that basis. One thing is for sure: these places will close without ongoing accreditation, or with the stop-start, piecemeal attention the minister is paying to them. They must have access to federal support through accreditation. Doesn’t Labor realise that small communities also need professional, accessible, affordable child care? In our drought stressed country, or our flood stressed country today, too many farms can only survive with off-farm income from either the mother or the father. Mothers and mothers-in-law, as I said before, do not live next door any more often in a remote or rural community than they do in suburbia.
There is also the issue of isolation of children, which is very often the case in remoter parts of Western Australia, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland. Those children are now to be denied access to playgroups because occasional care funding has been slashed by $12.6 million over four years, a slashing by Labor. This means that a woman needing to have her child experience some playgroup activity or a woman needing to attend a medical appointment or to deal with some other emergency will no longer have that occasional care option in her community. In Victoria, for example, there were 97 of these occasional care programs, and they were 48 per cent funded by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth have said: ‘No, we’re not interested. We’re not going to fund this anymore.’
Labor has also defunded the Active After-school Communities program, which served 150,000 children in 3,250 programs right across the country. Where are these families now to go for their after-school care for their children? Where else will these children have safe, active, interactive team-building activities after school? I do not think Labor knows; it has simply defunded them, but I also suspect that Labor does not care.
The Labor government said they would build 260 multipurpose childcare centres on school campuses to stop the need for the double drop-off. That promise went like the rest. They are now down to just funding 38, and we will see them if we are lucky, I would suggest.
We also have their shameful Paid Parental Leave scheme now on the table. It does not offer superannuation to those taking the leave. It is only paid at the minimum wage. There is a very strong likelihood that the majority of mothers will be better off staying on the baby bonus in terms of their financial support, but that denies them the special leave they need to recover from a pregnancy and to bond with their newborn. It is a shameful Paid Parental Leave scheme. Of course, we have committed to changing it to world best practice when we are in government.
Then there is the gender pay gap in Australia. It has been around for quite a while, but who would be surprised that the pay differences for men and women doing the same work or work of equal value have actually got bigger under Labor? Why? Because Labor has paid no attention to the workforce needs, particularly in the industry sectors where most women work. Labor has locked into the future age-old practices where women in hospitality, in tourism, in part-time work and in casual employment are now struggling even harder to get decent employment. The three-hour-minimum rule that has now been inflicted on a lot of sectors where women mostly work means that women in particular are being put off. Where before they enjoyed having a two-hour work stint either before or after their schoolchildren’s hours or perhaps at a time that they could fit in with their caring responsibilities, they no longer have those options. Take, for example, the milking work that women often did in my dairy sector. Women—and men—can no longer be employed in those sectors because it is not a three-hour shift; it is a two-hour shift, and those farmers cannot afford to pay someone for three hours when they have worked only two.
This is the sort of thing that Labor have done to this economy, and I think it is a disgrace and a shame when they get up, as they did in parliament yesterday, and ask us to celebrate the improvement of the economic circumstances of women under Labor. I thought that was the most extraordinary invitation for us to debate such a topic.
In the area of early childhood education, we had the promise from Labor of universal access for 15 hours of early childhood education with a qualified teacher in an accredited centre each week. The average Australian citizen would presume that ‘universal access’ meant free, mandated education and a place for every preschool-age child—in other words, a child in the year before they commence primary schooling. No, sadly it does not mean that at all. There are numbers of early childhood centres—often called kindergartens—in the state of Victoria, in the rural areas in particular, which have now closed because parents cannot afford the fees. Those parents, of course, are drought stressed or they are working in sectors—for example, the dairying or fruit-growing sectors—where they have been paid for too long below the cost of production.
Where those small towns have lost the capacity to fund their kindergartens, or early childhood education centres, have Labor marched up and said, ‘That’s okay; we’ll fund those places for those students; we’ll keep your centre open because we’ve promised universal access to every child in the year before they go to school’? No, Labor are not doing that. Labor have walked away. Universal access does not mean mandated, free, early childhood education for every child. It is a disgrace and it is a con, and everybody knows it.
Obviously there are so many families in Australia now who cannot wait until there is a change of government so that they can once again have their children experience the early childhood education they know they need if they are to have a flying start in their primary school days. Already, what we call in Victoria preparatory school grade teachers are telling me that in some places 30 per cent of their children have not had preschooling, so they begin way behind the eight ball. That is not fair to a four- or five-year-old, but that is what this government has ushered in as the experience of too many families who have been too financially stressed and cannot afford the preschool fees.
Let me turn to irrigated agriculture. I am, of course, the member for Murray and proud to be that. My area used to be called ‘the food bowl of Australia’. We have experienced nine or 10 years of drought now, but it is not the drought that is the problem for irrigated agricultural production or even dryland production in my electorate. The problem is federal government policy—policy which, if it were designed by madmen, could not have been worse in terms of the destruction of accessible or reliable water supply, or water security, for irrigated agriculture. And that is combined with the state Labor Party’s policies. They have piped the irrigation water supply out of the Murray-Darling Basin from the Goulburn River system to Melbourne, across the Great Dividing Range—where of course they need to use fossil fuel produced energy to do that pumping. They are taking 75 gigalitres of water out of the Goulburn River, which once served the food bowl. That water is going to a city which does not recycle water, which does not have stormwater harvesting and which is still wondering about its desalinisation works. Therefore we are now beggared in terms of our capacity to grow food sustainably and with security in the Murray and Goulburn valleys. We are seeing our dairy industry and our factories, close. We are seeing our fruit production contract because we do not have the water. Melbourne has options, but it was a cheap and politically easy option for the Brumby Labor government to join with the Rudd Labor government federally to raid our water supply.
How cruel to put over $3 billion on the table and say to my drought stressed farmers, ‘If you’re willing, sell your water.’ I am sorry; my farmers have never been willing because they know that selling their water is the same as selling their dairy cows, if they are in the dairy sector: you are selling your means of production. When you have sold your water, you have still remaining on your dried-off property things like a water delivery share, for which you have to pay thousands of dollars each year to the state owned Goulburn-Murray Water authority. That is a completely inefficient authority now. It has been put under the charge of the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project, whose mandate is to shut down and transfer 60 per cent of the water management to the main channels. That is code for: ‘Let’s take 60 per cent of the irrigation system out of future water-carrying capacity.’
What other country that has been able to feed itself would have such a policy of shutting down an irrigation system and doing it in such an ad hoc way that you have stranded assets right across your thousands of hectares? This was once a thriving economy dependent at the base on food production, moving through to food manufacturing, the transport sector, the food-marketing sector, innovation and research—all of that was there. It has now been destroyed by the Victorian state government, which is desperate to get out of the business of irrigation management but not aware of how to do it. It is simply waiting till farmers are forced to sell their water and so it can then say: ‘Well, you’ve sold two, three or four farms worth of water off that six-farm spur. It’s all over for you. Here’s a few thousand dollars. We’ll shut down your water spur. Why don’t you relax and look at the burrs out the window, look at the dust blowing and think to yourself that you’re in retirement?’
That is not the way we want to live in northern Victoria. We are proud to be food and fibre producers. We were the food bowl of Australia and we can still be that. But we need a government that understands the connection between the economy and water policy, that understands how efficient irrigation systems can run—like those at Coleambally or at Harvey in Western Australia. If state governments cannot manage irrigation systems they should get out of that business.
This, of course, was what was agreed by COAG back in 1994. Unfortunately, the Victorian government changed the Victorian state constitution in 2004-05, saying that only they, the state, could ever run irrigation water supply systems into the future. Don’t we all regret that! We have to come up with alternatives for northern Victoria, because it is not just that communities are being destroyed, lives are being lost and whole generations are seeing investment blow away. It is not just all of that that is breaking the hearts of communities and families in northern Victoria; it is the cost to the economy. Surely that must be a concern. Two point five million hectares of Australia, 0.5 per cent of arable land, is under irrigation. It produces 30 per cent of the farm gate value of agriculture, and 50 per cent of the economic value of agricultural production comes out of irrigated agriculture. This government seems more than happy to let it literally blow away.
Good farmers manage the environment very effectively. It is in their commercial interests to do so. We now have more water from our area given back to the environment through good farming practice than Penny Wong will ever see through simply trying to buy off drought stressed and bank pressed farmers. I beg Penny Wong to come and look carefully at what she and the Rudd Labor government have done to northern Victoria. She will be shocked and saddened, I am sure, but she needs to spend more time there than she does now, when she rushes past saying: ‘No, I won’t answer questions; I won’t talk to the media. Just show me a state public servant.’ We are disgusted and dismayed—and afraid. We are afraid about our future. Too much has gone into our more than 100 years of irrigated agriculture in northern Victoria to see it all blown away by a government that either does not care or does not know how to do things properly. It is time for the Rudd Labor government to move on so that the coalition can get back into business and literally save the country. (Time expired)
4873
18:47:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services
1
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—The background to this budget, which the opposition would seek to forget or to deny, is the reality of the economic crisis the world has faced over the last two years, created of course by subprime lending, housing speculation, inflow of credit in the United States, exploitative lending, easy credit and the complexity of financial products. That was the environment internationally. That was the situation that had impacts on this country. That is what the opposition would like to pretend to the Australian electorate never occurred. That is what they would try to persuade people the government did not have to correct and act upon.
We can make various comparisons at various points in time during that period as to the unemployment situation. If we look at the point at which Australia’s unemployment rate was 5.8 per cent—and this figure has not been plucked deliberately; the same pattern can be found at many stages—in Spain it was 9.3 per cent, in the United States it was 10.2 per cent, in Ireland it was 12.8 per cent, in Germany it was 7.5 per cent and in France it was 10.1 per cent. That was what was happening internationally.
We can obviously say that a significant part of Australia’s success relates to the continued demand from China and, to a lesser extent, from India for raw materials. There is no denying that—though, equally, we would ask that the opposition, when they talk about the state in which they had left the Australian economy when Labor came to power, admit the key, fundamental contribution of raw materials sales in the period of the Howard government. That was the international environment that was impacting on this country. Even though China, through a major injection of capital in its own economy and through wider government measures, managed to limit the crisis and thereby help Australia, the fact is that we faced the threat of significant unemployment in this country.
My electorate would be particularly interested in this because, with the presence of a lot of brick kilns from the 19th century and the fact that it is on the western fringe of Sydney, there was massive land redevelopment in the 1950s, particularly housing commission constructions in Granville, Guildford, Wentworthville et cetera. For all of those reasons the building sector is especially crucial in my electorate and a few surrounding seats. It is also an electorate with a high presence of Lebanese Maronites, who essentially dominate the flat development sector in Sydney.
For those reasons, housing is crucial. Construction is important. What we saw was a significant effort by this government to make sure that those companies were kept afloat—that they could pay bills, keep employees on and continue to train people; that the building supplies sector would survive; and that companies such as Hardies and Australian Gypsum, and the paint industry, the timber sector, hardware et cetera could basically sustain their existence through that crisis. This is something that was renowned around the world. This is a policy position that has been commented upon favourably by international financial institutions. It has been commented upon by the US government. To say that all is not perfect in this budget is to basically try to ignore this reality.
We know that the member for North Sydney had a very unfortunate experience down at the National Press Club a week or two ago, but let us put that to one side. Let us look at his other comments. Last year we had histrionics from him in this parliament about the government’s predictions of what would occur in the Australian economic climate over the approaching year. He said that we were far too optimistic, that we were cooking the books and that the projections were not going to occur. Now that most of those predictions have eventuated in an even more positive fashion, he says this year that we were too pessimistic—we should not have had those projections last year.
This is the same person who goes on national television trying to put a major hurdle there—a major barrier, to his mind—that we could hit the surplus in three years. He said he would like the government to try and accomplish that, feeling that it would not happen. Now we find, in half the expected time, that has occurred. It will occur in three years. So the man who said it was so difficult, that it was beyond this government, now knows that in reality it has occurred. He should give credit where it is due, that this has been the reality.
An article in the Canberra Times of 27 May reported the OECD’s comments on the experience in this country. The article states that the OECD:
… was optimistic about Australia’s future, upgrading its forecasts for economic growth to 3.25 per cent this year and 3.6 per cent next year.
More importantly, as far as I am concerned, the OECD is reported as saying:
The unemployment rate is expected to fall below 5 per cent by the end of 2011, in a context of moderate inflation.
Managing the exit strategy from the crisis is less problematic in Australia than in most OECD countries. The current tightening of monetary and fiscal policy is welcome given the rebound in activity.
So there we have the OECD congratulating the government of this country—the Rudd Labor government—for actually weathering the storm, not by sitting on its backside, not by going for a holiday, but by acting in regard to construction.
In the electorate of Reid we have seen very worthwhile projects occurring as a result of this initiative. There is a school across the road from me at Granville East. I hear that the Deputy Prime Minister has not gone to some school in South Australia, that she did not make sure that a few trees were not chopped down, or that a building was a few metres out of line at Drummoyne et cetera. We know that there is a multitude of attempts by the opposition to come up with every problem in the construction scheme. Come election day, I have a distinct feeling that those people who will be more affected by this debate will not be the people who are going to listen to speculation about the overall mistakes in the system; they will be the people who have got kids in schools and they will be the parents who have seen what has been accomplished. I have had teachers—not Teachers Federation activists—and people in the school system who are not even on my side of politics say that it is the best thing that has happened in four decades in New South Wales. It is worth while for the kids in schools, it is worthwhile for education, and, as I say, it has been crucially important in regard to keeping the Australian economy going and keeping people employed.
Through this government’s measures I have also seen a number of significant projects coming into Reid. There was the massive reconstruction on South Street in Granville which has essentially rejuvenated that shopping centre. There was the upgrade of the Harris Park town centre and the construction of an off-road dual-use pathway in Granville. The funding for the Granville Youth and Recreation Centre is something which I am very proud of as a member of the local resident committee. It provides a lot of activities and is a meeting place for young people in particular. You see them to all hours of the night playing basketball, particularly the local African youth. That has been helped by this government.
Similarly, in Auburn there was a major refit of the former Auburn Bowling Club as a community centre and, once again, it involved widespread consultation with the people in the electorate. Similarly, a few railway stations away at Regents Park, we saw a major facility being introduced which is available to a large number of local organisations. From recollection, there are about 15 local groups that are going to have access to meeting rooms there. As I say, we are seeing very worthwhile initiatives that have the dual outcomes of keeping people employed and bringing in worthwhile ventures.
One thing I was very pleased with in this budget was the money going to community legal centres. Of course, the Macquarie Legal Centre is based in my region and the region of the member for Parramatta, Julie Owens. The Women’s Legal Centre is also based in our region. Although it is not connected with those two existing services, I also commend the very enthusiastic committee around Susai Benjamin which established the Toongabbie Legal Centre from scratch in the last two years. They are an up-and-coming organisation in our region. I am hopeful that the federal government will be extremely positive about their funding in future years and I hope that they are accepted into the state organisation of legal centres.
Whilst we have moved to counter this international phenomenon, it is not to say that there are not regions of our country which have a higher than average unemployment rate. I refer to a number of them in my region. The last available small district figures are, unfortunately, only those from the December quarter. They noted that, whilst Australia had a 5.3 per cent unemployment rate, Campbelltown’s two subregions had rates of 8.5 and 8.7 per cent. Holroyd, currently in my electorate of Reid, had a 9.5 per cent rate. The two Liverpool subdistricts were roughly at the national average. Parramatta south, which is basically Gilford and South Granville, had a 14.7 per cent rate and Auburn had a 12.4 per cent rate. That is related to a high NESB, newly arrived migrant population, but in parts of Werriwa it is related to the distance from the city and transport issues. The cross-city transport patterns of Sydney, under Labor or Liberal, have been a significant factor against employment for decades.
Whilst I am very proud of this government’s action in construction and in injecting money into the economy, it is also especially pleasing in the context of those figures about higher than average unemployment in Western Sydney that the government in this budget is taking initiatives in skills and training. We see the investment of $660 million in training, apprenticeships and adult literacy and numeracy to ensure that we have the skills we need for a growing economy. That consists of 39,000 additional training places in sectors facing high skill demands through a $200 million investment in a new critical skills investment fund, support for 22,500 new apprenticeship commencements and the offer to states and territories to provide a guaranteed entitlement to a training place for all Australians under the age of 25. There is better training for the 1.7 million people in vocational training and, importantly, there are numeracy, literacy and language courses for up to 140,000 Australians to improve their quality of life.
On that front, I was very impressed by the paper produced by the local employment coordinator for our region, because it mentions issues such as the numeracy problems in the region which includes Reid. It notes that in the 2006 census over 60 per cent of residents within a priority employment area had not undertaken any tertiary studies; that people are concentrated in part-time employment, working a large number of casual jobs to support their families; and that a large proportion of the students going to the University of Western Sydney are the first in their families to attend tertiary studies. On this last point, an Australian Industry Group survey of members who are employers in the region suggests that as much as 40 per cent of the manufacturing workforce has relatively low levels of literacy and numeracy.
So I am indeed pleased that the government is still acting in regard to apprenticeships, employment and retraining. The budget as a whole provided $53½ million for the National Entitlement to a Quality Training Place program. Thereby, all Australians under 25 will have guaranteed access to a course to gain a qualification or increase their skills. This is of great importance. I note that the member for Werriwa has also been extremely interested in this, because his electorate and mine are affected by similar issues. We note that this will assist 364,000 young people who lack year 12 or certificate II qualifications. So there is action there to make sure that people are trained. People are getting numeracy skills.
I also note comments by the Deputy Prime Minister on another front in regard to measures that are being speculated upon and pushed by the opposition. I note the article in the Australian Financial Review of 27 May which talks about a KPMG Econtech study suggesting that the current government’s policy to create half a million jobs a year and boost annual growth to $100 billion by 2040 would occur because of measures such as the devotion of funds to school based trade training centres. We know that one of the announcements of the opposition has been that they would scrap them—they would abolish them. They would ignore that independent survey by KPMG Econtech, which says that there is great value in this. The Deputy Prime Minister went on to release a list of school based training centres by electorate, saying that 181 schools, several of which are in marginal coalition seats, would be denied a trade training centre under a coalition government.
On another front, she was equally correct in her point about the threat to 21st century education in this country from the coalition proposal to essentially scrap the computers in schools process. We know that under this government over 30 per cent of machines have made it into students’ hands already, with about 260,000 delivered, as the Australian reported on 25 May. The article commented:
Cutting the program, should the Coalition win the next federal election, would create serious inequity among high-school students.
That is, between those that have had them delivered and those that will not receive them. Of course, the situation is that we are facing a very serious deterioration of availability of those computers to people, particularly in more socially and economically deprived areas, if the coalition get away with abolishing this system.
Talking more broadly, we have the budget proposal that small businesses will have a tax reduction from 30 to 28 per cent, in advance of the rest of the corporate sector. We have the instant write-off for assets under $5,000; a 50 per cent tax discount for the first $1,000 of interest deposits, whether in banks, credit unions or building societies; and the introduction of a standard tax deduction scheme to make it more simple for the average taxpayer. Most importantly, there is a significant improvement in superannuation earnings in the long term for Australians, with estimates that a 30-year-old will gain an extra $100,000 by this change. These measures, of course, cannot be funded unless there is the successful introduction of the proposed resources tax.
It is 30 years since the courts in this country decided that offshore property belonged to the Commonwealth and not to the states. That court case is a reminder to us that these materials belong to the Australian people, the Australian taxpayers. It is also a reminder to us that these mining companies will exploit the most available resources in the first period. Those that are less available will be looked at later. We are now in the most productive and profitable time for some of these mines. The time is now for the Australian people to claim a reasonable return with regard to the extraction of this resource that is owned by them.
I want, finally, to turn to the question of health. It is worth noting another initiative by the opposition—the abolition of e-health. It was very interesting to note on 25 May the response of the Minister for Health and Ageing in the House noting that the current Leader of the Opposition as far back as 2003 made the monumentally heroic comment that it would be an indictment against everyone in the health system, including the then existing coalition government, if e-health systems were not introduced in this country. Back in 2007, he thought it would be an indictment if it were not accomplished; now he seeks to abolish it. In the interim, the then health minister made a comment in August 2007:
… my first scripted speech—
I do not know if ‘scripted’ is actually gospel or whether it falls in the middle—
as Health Minister concerned e-health. I stated that an electronic health record, communicated electronically among health care providers, would mean safer, better, more convenient and more efficient health care.
He noted that it was fundamentally important. He said it would be an indictment if it did not happen under his watch. It has not happened. It did not matter, again, that his replacement from the opposition in that portfolio had given the government a commitment that he was in accord and on board to promote the same program. The replacement initially said that it was a very poor reflection on the previous decade—and that included Mr Abbott’s reign—that it had not been accomplished then. Now we see it being abolished despite the fact that it is estimated that two per cent to three per cent of hospital admissions in Australia are linked to medication errors, equating to 190,000 admissions each year, as the minister noted, and costing the Australian taxpayer—when people are so worried about them—in the area of $660 million a year. I commend the budget both on the national front and in regard to what has been accomplished in the electorate of Reid.
4878
19:07:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
0
0
Mrs MARKUS
—I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011. The assumptions and hopes in these bills are built, you might say, on a house of cards. They fail to invest for the future of Australia, proposing new taxes that will be spent on locking Australia into borrowing $100 million a day to meet the cost of Labor’s reckless spending. Despite the rhetoric, false promises and hope that the Prime Minister and his Labor government have put into this document, all Australians know that this Rudd Labor government is a high-taxing, high-spending, highly reckless Labor government. Their efforts would put the Whitlam government to shame. Today I would like to speak about the impact of this year’s budget on my community—the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains. I will also address some of the key issues in the budget facing Australia’s veteran community in my capacity as shadow minister for veterans’ affairs.
Firstly, can I say how disappointed I am by some of the measures in the budget. The resource super profits tax is a huge imposition on the industry and the sector which kept Australia out of recession. Whilst the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would have you believe that this new tax is aimed squarely at the big end of town, it is not. In my own community, small quarry operators will feel the effects of the tax on their profits. Small family businesses employing local people will have to pay the price for Mr Rudd’s attack on miners. I fully support the Leader of the Opposition’s promise to oppose this tax now or, if necessary, to repeal it when in government.
This tax will affect the everyday cost of living for all Australians. In my community, the increased cost of living is already being felt. Electricity prices continue to rise and gas and petrol prices are up. Despite the Prime Minister’s hollow call to reduce the cost of living at the last election, Australians are now feeling the pinch from higher interest rates, reduced growth in real wages and, in some cases, reduced working hours, combined with increasing inflation as a result of higher government borrowing. The people in my community are wondering just what the Prime Minister really meant before the last election.
Because of Labor’s reckless spending, local Landcare operators will face a further funding cut. This government, which promised big things on the environment, has cut $10.9 million from the Landcare program. In my local community, an area of exceptional environmental diversity and sensitivity, local Landcare volunteers and workers are being told to do more with less by the Rudd Labor government. Their Caring for our Country program has not delivered since it was introduced after the election. Landcare funding is provided through that vehicle. Despite all the loud rhetoric on the environment before the election, there has been little action since.
This also goes for the Hawkesbury River, which is an area of extreme environmental sensitivity. Whilst we have had a wet autumn in the region, the river continues to be choked by weeds. The Hawkesbury is a natural icon for my region and for Sydney as a whole. The good health of the river is critical to the health of farmers, small family business operators and tourist providers in the region.
What strikes me as odd is the $18 million environmental bureaucracy that the Prime Minister is creating in this budget. Now it seems that the government is more concerned with collecting data to work out what it should be doing, but there will not be any money for direct action—again: spin, no action. When it comes to waste and mismanagement I have spoken previously in this place about projects in my electorate which have pushed the credibility test, from the failed BER program, with an example which made page 3 of the Australian earlier this year, to the failures in health and hospitals by the combined effort of 15 years of state Labor and three years of Rudd Labor. This government’s enormous failings have touched every corner of this nation.
While road funding across the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury has maintained parity with the record spending under the previous coalition government, the $650,000 in Roads to Recovery funding for this year for the Blue Mountains City Council is a drop in the ocean. As we all know, Labor’s reckless spending is jeopardising the ability of future governments to meet infrastructure challenges.
In our region, of course, the geography of the Blue Mountains presents a very real challenge to the movement of people and goods from the central western plains to the ports of Sydney. This year, of course, marks 200 years since the arrival of Lachlan Macquarie in Sydney as New South Wales Governor. Macquarie dispatched explorers Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth to find a suitable crossing of the mountains. Their track remains largely the route of the highway today. I am very mindful of the need to balance all the interests in planning for improved roads across the mountains. Equally, I want to fully explore all options, including the increased use of rail instead of overcongested roads.
The coalition is of the view that an efficient freight route from the west to the port is an important way to encourage economic growth outside the Sydney Basin, and that it is a piece of infrastructure that is needed in the long term. Across Sydney, and particularly in our region, protecting our way of life by reducing time stuck in traffic and enabling more time to be spent with family is critical. Spending two hours a day in a car to travel 50 kilometres is not a good use of time. We cannot undo the mistakes of poor planning over 200 hundred years in an instant. We have to deal with these challenges now, and learn the lessons for the future. Planning for roads and for infrastructure does not simply mean bigger roads; it means improved road safety, integration with rail and other public transport and investigating new ways to move freight efficiently. I will continue to fight for improved road safety for the Great Western Highway, for Richmond Road and the river crossing to North Richmond—critical infrastructure projects for the future of our region.
Turning to my responsibility as shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, I would like to comment on some of the initiatives in the budget. The budget finally responded to the Clarke review with—you guessed it—another review. Veterans of British nuclear testing in the Australian outback will welcome the adoption of the initial recommendations of the Clarke review, which will now reclassify their service to equivalent hazardous non-warlike service. Submariners involved in special operations missions will also welcome the reclassification of their service and the potential for them to gain access to entitlements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
RAAF personnel who served at RAAF Ubon in Thailand between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 have also had their service reclassified, potentially opening the way for access to further entitlements. But 2,700 veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces, BCOF, are incredibly disappointed, and will have to wait for further review into their service to see whether they will be able to access anything. After all, it was the Rudd Labor government which promised action in this area at the last election. After 30 months of waiting, BCOF veterans have every right to feel betrayed by this Rudd Labor government. As the daughter of a late BCOF veteran, I understand their frustration.
The Rudd Labor government also used the budget to reply formally to the findings of a parliamentary inquiry into the F111 reseal-deseal program. The package of some $55 million will provide further assistance to personnel affected by this program operated by the RAAF between 1973 and 2000. Recently, I met with the F111 Deseal/Reseal Support Group, known amongst other things as the Goop Troop. They feel incredibly let down by the response to the review. They have asked me to make further inquiries with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs about a number of the initiatives proposed. They are concerned that there was no compensation as part of the scheme and are disappointed that the strong rhetoric from the Rudd Labor government before the election has not been followed through in the response to the issues raised in the inquiry. Whilst the coalition is pleased that the parliament’s inquiry has finally been responded to after nearly 12 months of inaction and delay, we are determined to ensure the response is as comprehensive as the government’s spin would have us believe.
The Rudd Labor government proposes the removal of an entitlement from Australia’s war widows, which the government says is about closing a loophole. I plan to speak in greater detail about this measure when it is debated in another bill later this week. However, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 May, the day after the budget, journalist Damien Murphy wrote:
This year the government has turned its hardened eye on merry war widows, widowers and the partner swapping that we understand is apparently rife in retirement homes.
It plans to remove eligibility for some pensions if war widows or widowers enter de facto relationships following the death of their veteran partners.
This change in entitlements will affect future war widows—the spouses of current serving personnel—from conflicts like the Gulf War and East Timor.
Another measure in the budget is the Preventable Admissions and Improved Community Care Program. Whilst it is not clear whether this is new money or reallocated funds shifted around between different programs and departments, it is nevertheless a step in the direction of improving access to care for our veterans and their families. I have stated elsewhere that, notwithstanding initiatives such as this, the best outcome for veterans and their families must always be put first. This program must allow the veteran and their doctor the necessary flexibility to tailor medical treatment to suit the needs of the veteran as well as those of their family.
Beyond the initiatives mentioned in the budget, the document is otherwise remarkable for what it does not say. There is no mention, for example, of the review of DVA funded ESO advocacy and welfare services, despite the review having been completed and sitting on the minister’s desk. There is no indication of a timetable for the completion of the review of military compensation arrangements, which was initially due for completion in March. This is an important review. We need to get it right, but it surely cannot be completely open-ended. The veteran and ex-service community needs some indication of when it can expect to be discussing changes to the system.
The other phantom item in this year’s budget is the long-awaited and still not quite delivered review of war caused disabilities and pharmaceutical costs. Whilst the minister released a 14-page discussion paper on 7 May, the document contained no detailed costings or statistics. The budget gives no clearer indication of this either. Will the costs of the options listed in the minister’s paper be met with new funds or from existing funding? If the latter, where will the funds be taken from? What will veterans lose on one hand to possibly gain with the other? Moreover, the discussion paper deals only with disabled veterans with qualifying service. This immediately discounts thousands of peacekeepers whose service does not carry the qualifying service declaration. Despite some 800 of them currently accessing disability pensions, they would not be eligible for assistance under the minister’s two options, which require a disability pensioner also to have qualifying service in order to access the out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenses refund. I intend also to ask further questions about this scheme when the opportunity arises. I have already been consulting with the ex-service community on this discussion paper and encourage further feedback from other stakeholders.
We are currently engaged in RSL congress season, and I have already spoken at the congresses of the Tasmanian and the New South Wales branches of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. At these events I am taking the opportunity to flag five principles for veterans affairs under a coalition government. These principles have guided the development of policy in the area of veterans affairs by the coalition. They are not an end in themselves but they are a solid foundation upon which the coalition will develop credible alternative policies for the next election.
The first principle is to build a stronger economy to provide the assistance our veterans and their families deserve. The second principle is to improve the way we provide support, advice and assistance to veterans’ families. The third principle is to reduce the number of reviews of primary claims by improving the processing of claims—getting it right the first time. The fourth principle is to enhance service delivery for our younger veterans and ensure our older veterans have help when they need it. The fifth principle is to increase Australia’s understanding of the service of defence personnel in humanitarian and peacekeeping roles. I look forward to expanding on these points further in coming weeks and months.
For my community in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains this budget is a disappointing final step in Labor’s path to economic wrack and ruin. My community has watched this government spend money, stunned at the waste and mismanagement in programs like Building the Education Revolution and the pink batts scheme. Labor will spend $1 billion fixing up their border protection failures, yet the Rudd Labor government expects us to believe that their $1 billion surplus—a surplus that might appear in three years time—is a panacea to the debt crisis they have left Australia in.
My community understands that, when a government borrows money, it is directly competing with mums and dads wanting to borrow money to buy a house, to provide a stable, secure environment to raise their family in. This government borrowing $100 million a day is pushing interest rates and inflation even higher. This can only stop by changing the government at the next election. This house-of-cards budget is a final straw for many working families in my community who believed that Labor would do a better job. They have been proved wrong. Labor has failed the test of economic responsibility, and this budget only proves this point. This budget affects too many people and relies on too many assumptions to be a reliable document for our future.
4882
19:22:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
0
Mr MELHAM
—I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011. This is the 21st budget that I have had the opportunity to witness in this place since I was first elected on 24 March 1990. Indeed, my first speech in this place was on an appropriation bill and was given on 11 September 1990.
I am pleased to rise in support of the budget, because I think it is a responsible budget and it is a budget that shows that the government has been acting in a responsible way both economically and for the safety and protection of our community. We now know that during the global financial crisis this government created some 225,000 jobs. The prediction at the beginning of the crisis was that 200,000 jobs would be lost. That has not happened. We are the best-performing economy in the Western world. That means that many hundreds of thousands of families—many hundreds of thousands of people—are better off. We have protected our human capital.
Those opposite were arguing at the beginning of the economic crisis to do nothing or to give tax cuts to the rich. The only criticism I have of this government is that we have not gone out and told the electorate often enough and loud enough what we have achieved. The average punter in the street does not believe it, or does not think that it was going to be as bad as what was predicted. But they only have to look at the rest of the world—or just in England and America—to see what happened.
I know what the stimulus did in my community, where some $90 million has been committed to skills. I was at a function on Friday night with a number of builders, and they told me that, for their firms, it meant the continuation of work, the retention of existing employees and the putting on of new employees. We should not take that for granted.
Both sides of the House should be looking after our human capital. I can understand why those opposite want higher unemployment: it means that they can push the price of wages down and attack conditions. We now know that we are going to get a reintroduction of Work Choices should the opposition win the next election.
In relation to this budget, there have been a couple of measures that the government has announced for which there is a campaign, and it is a campaign that I do not think we should be giving in to. Last Thursday in a doorstop, when asked about the resource super profits tax, I said that there was ‘no doubt the tax would be sorted, even if it took some time,’ and I also said: ‘What you need is a proper compromise for the Australian people. I don’t want a quick-fix—I want a solution that is in the interests of Australia.’ That is what we should be looking for. I note that the Prime Minister, in his press conference today with the Treasurer and the Minister for Resources and Energy, had this to say:
… we do not expect to land any agreement with the mining industry any time soon. Anyone out there expecting that there’ll be some magic deal at midnight tomorrow night is wrong. That’s not how it’s going to be. Furthermore, this is going to be quite a long and protracted negotiation over quite a long period of time. And there I speak of weeks, at least, if not beyond.
The Minister for Resources and Energy reminded us that it was a tax on profits; it was not a tax on extraction. The Prime Minister also said:
… the Government is entirely prepared for the sorts of scare campaigns that we’ve seen in times past. We saw it with the introduction of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, we saw it over Mabo, we’ve seen it in relation to industrial relations …
I was here when we saw the initial scare campaign by the mining industry over Mabo. You would have thought that the sky was going to fall in. It did not. The then government was confronted with a High Court decision and we took the view that we would respect that High Court decision and attempt to create certainty in the marketplace. There were many that wanted the government to extinguish native title and acquire the property rights of Indigenous Australians. They argued that it would be the end of the world as we know it. The government at the time came up with a balanced act. The land rights act—which was initially an act of the former Whitlam government but which did not get through prior to the dismissal in ‘75—was enacted by the Fraser government and has a veto. The Native Title Act has a right to negotiate, a right to be consulted. There is no right to veto. The Native Title Act was an alternative to common-law litigation. It was an act that was to help miners to sit down and talk with Aboriginal people.
To their credit, when the Wik decision was handed down the mining community did not go berserk. It was the farming community, because they had expected that a lease would extinguish native title. But the miners acted responsibly. I myself dealt with Rio Tinto, as they then were, in relation to what they wanted to do with the proposed Century Zinc mine. The reason I refer to that is that it is an example of how you reach an agreement that becomes a long-term agreement. Originally Rio Tinto were asking for the state government and the federal government to introduce special legislation, because they had been negotiating outside the Native Title Act. They had some time lines in relation to that mine under which they needed an agreement.
When we were approached as an opposition I met with the then Managing Director of Rio Tinto, Ian Williams, who said, ‘Our commitment is to work with the community to create opportunities to spend money on training.’ That is a quote from an AIATSIS document. My advice to the company back then was: ‘Withdraw your request for special legislation and operate within the Native Title Act and you will have a title within 12 months.’ The company did that, and the state and federal government were not all that impressed. As it turned out there was an agreement reached within 11 months. As a result of that agreement, there was a $60 million compensation package, with $45 million dedicated to creating job opportunities. Out of what the company perceived was a crisis came a long-term arrangement with Aboriginal people that turned into a win-win situation. The government at the time was left floundering because they did not want an agreement; they actually wanted to heighten tensions over the Century Zinc mine. The benefit that Rio Tinto had was that every other Aboriginal community in the country wanted to deal with them in relation to mining because they had shown respect for Aboriginal people in the Century Zinc project.
I think the same thing needs to happen here in terms of some of the government’s initiatives, particularly the resources super profits tax in this budget. If the opposition are saying that mining companies can basically blackmail the government through $100 million of advertising and force concessions out of the government that are not in the national interest, then they are kidding themselves. That is no way to do business. I do not have expertise in all the intricacies of mining tax and all that. I leave that to others. All I will say is that it is not appropriate for this stoush to be going on in a public forum when $100 million or more of company advertising is being used to try to suborn the government into submission. That is not the way to do business.
It is not the intention of this government to stop mining in this nation. The history of this government and of key individuals in this government has been one of assistance to the mining sector. And we know from the submissions to the Henry review that such a tax was contemplated. But can you really say it is good public policy when the loudest section of the community can run advertising campaigns to basically drive the government into concessions that are not in the national interest? It is madness.
I can understand why Mr Palmer is putting the boot in—because he is a member of the Liberal-National Party. He sees that it is in his political interests and probably in his financial interests to undermine the government’s position. My problem is that, at the same time that these companies might be doing this, they are the ones that are creating a problem on the Stock Exchange for their shareholders, yet they are blaming the government for it. And we know that some of the problems in relation to the Stock Exchange have to do with Europe and Greece.
But what does the government want to do through the resources tax? It is a tax on profits. If it needs to be rejigged in some respects, I am not here to argue—other than what is on the public record—the niceties of that particular formula or what concessions should be or need to be taken into consideration. What I have heard is that one in three dollars was being paid by mining companies 10 years ago and it is now one in seven. This is a national resource that is owned by the people, so what the budget is attempting to do—and I heard the minister for resources in the press conference—is come forward with a position that in effect sees us through good times and bad times.
I think the opposition are not doing themselves any favours by just jumping on the miners’ bandwagon. That is why I talked about native title and those other matters in the past where we were told by the mining sector that the sky was going to fall in. It is not going to fall in. If it were going to fall in and you could demonstrate it to the government during detailed negotiations, I am sure that the government would make the necessary adjustments. I do not believe that the government is acting in bad faith or wants to see mining companies fail. There might be some in the opposition who, in the lead-up to an election, would like to run that argument. Is that how we are going to run, in effect, a tax policy? This is different from the GST. The GST was an ideological argument about whether you have a tax on consumption, and I note that even in relation to that tax the former government made concessions to the Democrats to get their legislation through. Their initial, pure position in terms of food was not maintained.
I think the average member of the electorate will agree that the resource super profits tax, when it is explained to them, is a fair thing. What are the offsets? We have a superannuation guarantee increase from nine per cent to 12 per cent. We have some other superannuation measures. Small business has simpler, lower tax. There is a two per cent cut in company tax. There is an infrastructure fund. All of these things are offsets. I am quite amazed that the Minerals Council of Australia, having first submitted to the Henry review their support to such a concept, have now gone feral. The other thing that is staggering is that this tax is not due to come in until 1 July 2012. There is no legislation before the parliament. The government has allowed time for consultation, for the necessary discussions to take place and for the legislation to be formulated for a start-up date on 1 July 2012, yet we have the opposition wanting to abandon the proposition without even following it through. I think that is bad public policy on the part of the opposition. It will not augur well for them if the community has to reach a judgment on it.
My own personal view, as I said earlier, is that there should be a proper compromise for the Australian people. The government, in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders, should sit down, work it through and seek to reach agreement. If the mining companies think that it is a good thing to take the government on during an election, that might be right—if you have got blinkers on. What happens if you lose the election? What if the government, in conjunction with the Greens, has control of the new Senate from 1 July 2011? What does that do for your investors? If there is no agreement, it is not something I am frightened to go to an election with. I am quite prepared to go to an election with it and get a mandate from the people. I am sure the opposition are prepared to go to an election with it, too, because they think it will help them in Queensland and Western Australia. But is that the way to run a tax policy for a sector of the community that is vital to the Australian economy?
My advice to the mining companies when I was shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs was not to rely on politicians to deliver you certainty but to go out and achieve it with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders. The smart mining companies did that after Mabo. I pay tribute to the leaders of the mining sector because not just in Australia do they have to negotiate with Indigenous people but they have to do it around the world. Rio Tinto has arrangements around the world with Indigenous people. There is an example where the mining companies learnt from being burnt in the Mabo situation where they were not at the table. In the end they were hostile to the government and they lost, and it did not get picked up after Wik. I say to the mining sector that the way to sort this out is not to have it as the subject of an election between us and the opposition. What you want is long-term certainty. If you have got a case, then argue the case at the appropriate table. What precedent is it for those of us in political life if we are going to decide policy on the size of a public relations campaign that a section of the community is prepared to run? I know what my view is. I am prepared to lose on it. I am prepared to lose on it because that is not the way to do business. In the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, the resources sector has a champion. I know it and they know it. They can get in his door any time they want to put their case. It should be the same with the Treasury on this.
As I said, it is the principles I am interested in here. I am not going to have an argument on the detail, because that is not my area of expertise. My area of expertise is settling disputes as a lawyer. When I was a lawyer I learnt very early on to cut a deal with the prosecution if you could; that you only relied on a tribunal when it was a hopeless case.
In this budget—and no-one has run through these figures and exposed them as being faulty—we are bringing the budget back into the black three years earlier. That is another demonstration of the responsibility of this government. At the end of the day, since the budget was delivered till now, I have not heard anyone say, on the assumptions that we have made—which are conservative assumptions—that what we have said will not happen.
I know the opposition are wounded and they are looking for a fight, but this is not the sort of fight—
HWO
Hawke, Alex, MP
Mr Hawke
—Wounded?
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—They are wounded because they lost the last election. I am not particularly worried about the polls because the body language of a lot of people in the opposition is not that of people who think they are going to win the next election—but that is a matter for the punters to decide. I will say that if you were a shareholder and your shares relied on the result of an election that even on the current polls will be tight, then it would be pretty dumb if your directors relied on an election to sort out the problem rather than on negotiation with the government. That is jeopardising shareholders’ money, if you ask me. That is playing games with shareholders, if you ask me. That is playing games with good public policy.
I have great pleasure in rising to support this budget. I think it is a good budget. It is a budget that exposes the opposition, because I am still looking for something positive from them. All I have heard in two-and-a-bit years is negative, negative, negative. They are a bunch of knockers. What do they stand for? We will soon see. This budget stands for a better Australia and I commend it to the House. (Time expired)
4886
19:42:00
Fletcher, Paul, MP
L6B
Bradfield
LP
1
0
Mr FLETCHER
—This budget is a debt and deficits budget. It is a window-dressing budget which is presented in a deeply misleading way. It is a budget from a government which has misdiagnosed the economic challenges facing Australia and is consequently following the wrong strategy. And it is a budget of missed opportunities.
It is, first of all, a debt and deficit budget. It continues the tawdry pattern of deficit that we have seen for the last three years: a $27 billion deficit in 2008-09, a $57 billion deficit in 2009-10, and now $41 billion in 2010-11. It is the second biggest in dollar terms ever. We are borrowing $700 million a week, $100 million a day, just to keep the doors of the operation opened, just to engage in business as usual. And, of course, it stands in very stark contrast to the pattern of surplus after surplus after surplus that we saw under the Howard government. Even worse, it is a budget which maintains the debt until 2018. Net public debt will peak at $94 billion in 2012-13—$9,000 for each of Australia’s 10 million households, and that is before the $26 billion which is to be borrowed to fund the National Broadband Network. That debt burden will of itself generate an interest expenditure at its peak of around $7 billion a year.
This is a budget which shows absolutely no spending discipline. We have seen increase after increase after increase from this government. In four years we have gone from an expenditure of $253 billion to an expenditure of $352 billion. That is an increase of almost $100 billion in just four years. And it is not about to stop. In fact, over the next four years spending will increase by another $51 billion.
The spending increases are actually getting worse. On a quick calculation, this year’s budget is a 1.8 per cent increase on last year’s; the following year it is expected to be a 2.9 per cent increase; and the year after that, a 5.3 per cent increase. So the growth is actually increasing. We are not seeing the kind of discipline that Australians have the right to expect from a government facing the challenges that Australia presently faces.
What is more, we have heard an enormous amount about returning to surplus within three years. But, frankly, this is a window-dressing budget, because to talk about what will happen in three years is a complete red herring. ‘What is happening this year?’ is the question we need to ask. If you turn up at home one day and say to your wife, ‘I know it’s our anniversary but I’m not getting you a present this year; I’m giving you a present in three years time,’ you will get very short shrift. Equally, the Australian people ought to give very short shrift to a government that says, ‘Don’t worry about this year because we will be back in balance in three years time.’ That forecast about being in balance in three years time is essentially meaningless, as Ross Gittins argued in the Sydney Morning Herald. He points out quite correctly that Treasury has great difficulty forecasting what will happen in a month, let alone in three years. That is no criticism of them; it is simply a recognition of the state of economic science. So to forecast that in three years you will have a surplus of $1 billion against a total forecast expenditure of $378 billion is essentially meaningless. It erroneously claims a degree of precision in forecasting which is 10 times or 100 times greater than can actually be achieved.
There is, I am sorry to say, another reason why this is a window-dressing budget. There is a highly misleading chart on page 2-23 of Budget Paper No. 1 which purports to show that countries with big stimuluses, including Australia, had much larger variations on the budget outcome which the IMF forecast for them than countries which did not have big stimuluses—in other words, attempting to substantiate this argument that the stimulus spending is what has delivered the goods over the past few years. Treasury comments, in its narrative on this chart:
The relationship shown is highly statistically significant, with a t-statistic on the slope coefficient of 3.3.
The independent work which has been done to assess this chart makes the point that it purports to compare countries in the OECD but in fact it does not take the full sample of 19 observations, the 19 countries excluding the EU which are included. When you rerun the work with all 19, you find out that the statistical relationship is essentially non-existent. The t-statistic is only 0.5. For those of you who did not fritter away their university years studying economics, that is, as Professor Sinclair Davidson, who did this work, has commented:
… well below the generally accepted levels for a t-stat to indicate statistical significance.
So the statistical work in the charts which Treasury is trying to use to argue that there is some statistical support for the purported relationship between the size of the stimulus and the result in terms of growth, unfortunately, on close analysis, simply does not stand up.
The other point about this being a window-dressing budget is a very fundamental one. Even the claimed return to surplus in three years is to be achieved in a very disappointing way. It is to be achieved by gaining extra revenue through imposing new taxes rather than by taking tough, necessary decisions. This Labor government has taken the easy way out by introducing new taxes rather than by getting control of spending and introducing discipline.
This budget is one framed by a government which has misdiagnosed the economic challenge facing Australia and which is consequently responding in the wrong way. There was a financial crisis in the North Atlantic and the Rudd Labor government panicked and overreacted. Certainly the coalition agreed that some response was necessary and we supported the first stimulus package of around $10 billion. But it was quite clear early on that Australia was going to be significantly quarantined from what was occurring in the North Atlantic and, even so, the Labor government could not resist splashing the cash around and going for a $42 billion stimulus in February 2009. I just note parenthetically that there seems to be something about numbers in the $40 billion range which particularly attracts the most irresponsible instincts of this government. This year we have got a deficit of $41 billion; we had a stimulus of $42 billion early last year; and of course we have got the National Broadband Network, which is $43 billion. There is something about that magic range of $40 billion which really gets those native spending instincts fired up.
Who could forget the analysis written by our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, about 18 months ago, in which he said:
From time to time in human history there occur events of a truly seismic significance, events that mark a turning point between one epoch and the next, when one orthodoxy is overthrown and another takes its place.
Even by his standards it is remarkably hyperbolic language. But it is an insight into why this government has misdiagnosed the present economic situation of Australia. Anybody who sees what is occurring as a massive turning point in history is naturally going to be tempted to spend furiously. But when you engage in even the briefest analysis of the thesis that was put forward in that article you quickly see that it is riddled with logical errors and inconsistencies.
It is unclear, for example, whether Mr Rudd thinks that expansionary monetary policy is a good thing or a bad thing. At one point in this article he criticises the Reagan administration and its response to the stagflation of the seventies. That response, of course, was centred on the tight monetary policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker. Later on in his piece he criticises the loose monetary policies of a subsequent Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, and later on again he lauds his own government’s monetary stimulus, saying:
To encourage liquidity, the government legislated to increase by $25 billion the maximum value of government bonds that can be issued at any one time.
In other words, he presents a fundamental premise which is confused and incorrect, a fundamental premise which seeks to force-feed Australian history into a framework which asserts that there has been a neoliberal consensus around the world, a thesis which attempts to argue, for example, that Australian banking regulation is identical to that in other advanced nations when, as we well know, thanks to the prescient work of Treasurer Costello and Prime Minister Howard, Australian banking regulation stood this country in very good stead in responding to the financial crisis.
The relevance of all of this for the present budget is that today we have the wrong settings in this budget. The budget papers themselves say that we are approaching full employment and the implication of that quite clearly is that we are potentially facing inflationary pressures. Yet we have a highly stimulatory budget spending without restraint.
An even more significant consequence of this spending without restraint is that we have a government which is continuing to wantonly pile on debt when the biggest challenge facing advanced economies around the world is the sovereign debt crisis. Budget Paper No. 1 makes this very point on pages 2-12 and 2-14. It is very instructive to have a look at what another Labour government did in a jurisdiction that we often look to, the UK. In 1997, at the time that the Blair government took office, the debt to GDP ratio in the UK was 43 per cent. Today it is 62 per cent. Over a decade of Labour has seen spending discipline go out the window, deficit year after year and, as a consequence, a country which has its strategic economic options severely limited. This year, in fact, the deficit to GDP ratio in the UK is 13 per cent, worse even than Greece, the country which is on the brink of a financial precipice.
The important point for Australia is that it is clearly accepted that, as your debt to GDP ratio rises, you constrain your national economic options and you expose yourself to very serious threat. Studies by the IMF and by the US economist Kenneth Rogoff, amongst others, show that once a country’s debt to GDP ratio reaches the range above 60 per cent there is a tipping point. You are paying so much interest on your debt and taxes are so high that it is virtually impossible to get out of that black hole.
The Labor government would no doubt make the point that our debt to GDP ratio is well below these levels. We are very fortunate that it is, because of the wise stewardship of the Howard government for over 10 years. But the only way you get your debt to GDP ratio under control is by year after year of discipline, year after year of hard work. Let me read the deficit to GDP ratios in Australia from 1997 to 2007. In 1997 there was deficit of minus 0.7 per cent. Following that it was 1.6 per cent, two per cent and 0.9 per cent. There was a slight dip in 2001 to minus 0.1 per cent, but then it was 1.3 per cent, 1.8 per cent, 1.1 per cent, 1.5 per cent, 1.5 per cent and 1.6 per cent—every one of those positive. That is a roll of honour, a decade of fiscal discipline. It is because of that decade that we are as well positioned as we are today.
But that discipline has been shredded under the Rudd government. We are now in their third year of exceptionally high deficits, and the debt is starting to mount. The debt train has left the station. It is now projected to peak at $94 billion, and that is only if the government show discipline after this year. We have been told, ‘We’re not quite ready to be disciplined this year, but believe us—after this year it is going to get better.’ I do not believe them. The opposition does not believe them. The Australian people do not believe them. There is one thing we know from painful experience about Labor: they love spending money and they just cannot exercise fiscal discipline. Time after time one thing has to happen—that is, the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, need to get back in power so that we can get the economy back on track, we can get the spending discipline in place and we can get out of the mess of debt that Labor inevitably run up.
The final point I wish to make about this budget is that it is a budget of tragically missed opportunities. It is a complacent budget which fails to take hard decisions. It is a budget which assumes that ‘she’ll be right’. It is a budget which continues to rack up deficit and debt. It is a missed opportunity to reduce the stimulus spending much more quickly than the Labor government has chosen to do. The only responsible party here is the coalition. We have put forward a series of spending cuts. That takes political courage. It takes discipline. It takes determination. We have been prepared to do that because we know that is the responsible course. The government is asleep at the wheel, not prepared to take any responsible decisions.
This budget is a missed opportunity to wind back taxation levels. Instead we have seen new taxes: the cigarette excise and a new tax on the mining industry, the so-called resource super profits tax. We hear constantly this argument that, because the company tax rate is going to be reduced somewhat, that more than compensates for the increased taxes from the resource super profits tax and the cigarettes tax excise. That is just a ludicrously innumerate claim, as the quickest look at the budget papers reveals. The total amount that will be raised from those two taxes, once they are in full swing, is around $10 billion a year. What is being given back under the company tax reduction is $4 billion a year, once in full swing. So the claim that one makes up for the other just makes no sense at all. And, of course, it just means more complexity and going in the direction opposite to that of simplicity and tax reduction, which is what we ought to see.
This budget is also a failed opportunity for reform. There was so much promise about the Henry tax review. It was going to be the root and branch reform. And then, of the 138 recommendations, we saw just two accepted. We have a government that loves to talk about spending and loves to increase taxes. Here on this side of the House, we stand for discipline and responsibility and we know that everything that is spent has to be paid for.
In my electorate of Bradfield, tax office statistics show that we make up 0.8 per cent of the population but we pay 1.8 per cent of personal income tax. So, in my electorate of Bradfield and in electorates around the country, Australians are rightly concerned about their tax burden and they are rightly concerned about the amount of money this government is spending. They know that the only way to get the tax they pay under control is to get government spending under control. They also know that the only way to get government spending under control is to get a government in place which has a track record of, and a commitment to, fiscal discipline and which does not measure its success based upon being able to quote massive expenditure dollars. They know we need a government which measures its success based upon a responsible and measured approach to expenditure and government revenue and which seeks to achieve budget settings which make the structural and strategic changes that Australia needs to be competitive, efficient and productive in this very large and not necessarily friendly world that we live in.
This budget is, at base, a debt and deficit budget. It is a window-dressing budget which does not do what it claims. It is a budget from a government which has misdiagnosed Australia’s economic challenges and it is a budget of tragically missed opportunities. All Australians will be the poorer for the decisions this government has failed to take.
4890
20:02:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I rise to speak in favour of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011 and related budget bills. It is not possible to speak on these budget bills as a Western Australian and not address the resource super profits tax. There has been too much anger, too much self-interest and too much overblown rhetoric about this tax. We have heard too much self-interest masquerading as concern for the national interest. At a time when we want apprentices and workers to look to the mining sector for careers, we hear rhetoric that destroys public, employee and investor confidence in the sector. That is irresponsible.
It has been claimed that this tax is a 70 per cent tax on company earnings. It is not. It has been said that every element of this tax is set in stone. It is not. It has been said that this tax will be imposed on top of royalties. It will not. And it has been said that it will be imposed on top of company tax. It will not. Royalties will be refunded, and the resource tax will be deductible against company tax. It is the case that a project earning less than the uplift factor, the long-term bond rate, will pay significantly less tax. The tax will replace royalties and, where royalty payments are greater than the tax, firms will get a rebate for the difference. The tax will replace multiple royalty regimes which do not optimise investment. Mining companies will not pay the proposed tax on top of royalties. They will pay it instead on royalties and then only when they make above threshold profits. It has been said that every dollar of return above the long-term bond rate, currently about six per cent, will be taxed. It will not be.
For 40 or 50 years, Australia’s mining towns have been company towns. In the 1960s, concessional royalty rates were created recognising the cost of provision of social infrastructure. Companies did not pay local government rates but they did pay for local social infrastructure such as power and housing in mining towns. Swimming pools, cinemas, community halls and even hospitals in the Pilbara were provided by miners, and miners benefited from concessional royalties. In their own tax returns, mining companies wrote off the social investments as depreciating assets.
However, by the 1990s, without local government rates being paid and with dwindling social investment by miners, our mining towns were being strangled. Mining towns can be hard places to live in, hard places to get houses in and hard places to raise families and children in. They are hard places because by the 1990s mining companies were banking the concessional royalties and sending the cost directly to mining families. Mining companies stepped down support for mining communities. The Pilbara Regional Council reflected on this practice five years ago by referring to it as a form of cost shifting from the large companies to local governments and families in remote and regional communities. The Pilbara Regional Council at that time made the observation that they genuinely felt companies should either be subject to increased royalties or pay local government rates. The new tax will change this. It will fund community infrastructure in regional resource communities.
I know the importance of this. I grew up in a company mining town—Whyalla in South Australia. This debate is not trivial and its purpose is not to be ignored. We can have a better tax for miners. We can have better sustainable returns for Australians living in regional mining communities. We can have better mining communities with infrastructure funded by these tax measures. Think about the benefit to regional Australia in years to come. We can and we will get this tax right. The process of diligent engagement by the mining community with the resource tax consultation panel is a good one. It is one that will better shape and inform the implementation of this tax. Although the principles of this tax are set in stone, the detail of this tax is not set in stone. Australia’s resource sector deserves the best tax, the best environment, the best occupational health and safety, and the best regulatory framework in the world. That is what I am committed to. It is what the government is committed to. The ultimate detail of this tax is currently being built through the process of engagement with the resource companies, directed by the Treasurer. Revenues from the tax will cut company tax rates for all businesses and fund community infrastructure, providing amenities for years to come.
It has been said that the announcement of this tax caused the stock market to fall, superannuation accounts to collapse and the dollar to crash. It is true that the value of stocks in Australia have fallen since early April, it is true that the value of the Australian dollar relative to the US dollar has fallen and it is true that the prices of mining stocks have fallen, as have all stocks and shares around the world. It is too great a logical leap to blame all of the international and domestic share activity on the RSPT. The falling domestic share market has many drivers.
In recent weeks, tensions on the Korean peninsula have dominated regional geopolitics. Instability in Greece has seen financial shock waves travel around the world, pushing up the US dollar and depressing the euro. These factors have combined to cause disruption to world currency markets, and yet today the Australian dollar is trading at around 83c against the US dollar, similar to what it was two years ago, at about 85c. The fact remains that stock and currency markets do move up and down. That is why Peter Dutton, a Liberal MP, bought BHP shares—and good on him. It shows confidence in our mining sector. Revenues from this tax will go to sustainable investments like the superannuation accounts of 8.4 million Australians, lifting contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent on average weekly earnings.
The opposition says that the RSPT is a damaging tax for superannuation returns; however, the superannuation industry does not support these claims. David Whiteley, chief executive of the Industry Super Network, has said:
Asserting mining stocks have plunged as a direct result of the RSPT when all stocks have fallen to a similar if not greater degree is plainly deceitful.
The former leader of the New South Wales Liberals, John Brogden, has also refuted the claims of the opposition. He does not think the argument that the mining tax has erased superannuation is correct and that the argument does not hold up:
It doesn’t hold up in the short term; it won’t hold up in the long term.
Those opposite are claiming that low-margin commodities like limestone, clay, aggregates, quarry materials and gravel will have to put prices up because of the RSPT. They have said that it will add an additional $20,000 to the cost of building a house. This is simply unsustainable logic. In fact, low-value commodities like limestone, clay, aggregates, quarry materials, sand and gravel may benefit from the RSPT. They will have low RSPT liabilities, whilst their royalties will be refunded under the proposed model.
Those opposite are also claiming that the cost of living will increase for Australian families. This does not stand scrutiny either. Details of this tax are not set in stone, but we can be definitive about a few things. The modelling done by KPMG estimates that prices will fall, including transportation costs down by 1.7 per cent, footwear costs down by 1.3 per cent, household contents and services down by 1.1 per cent and food costs down by almost one per cent. Why? Because cuts to the corporate tax rate from 30 to 28 per cent flow into lower prices for domestically produced goods and services.
I have worked in the resources industry, and I have great respect for the long-term commitment to resource issues. I respect friends and people who have accomplished great deeds through mining; they built great businesses and employed hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of people. Miners like Andrew Forrest, Reg Howard-Smith of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy in Western Australia, Michael Roche of the Queensland Resources Council, David Flanagan at Atlas Iron, George Jones at Gindalbie, Barry Cusack, Alan Cransberg, Neil Hamilton, Sam Walsh at Rio Tinto and, of course, my old mates John Akehurst, formerly of Woodside Petroleum, Don Voelte, currently at Woodside Petroleum and Keith Spence, formerly of Woodside Petroleum. They are all friends whom I know and value. But for a month my door has been open to dozens of Western Australia’s finest business leaders and entrepreneurs. We must keep talking to ensure that we get the tax implementation right. I know that this has been a hard time, but we will get the tax right—we have to.
Earlier this year I spoke about the East Kimberley Development Package, and I would like to update the House on the progress of the package. It is an excellent example of all levels of government working together to benefit communities in northern Australia. To date we have partnered with the Western Australian government, the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley and Indigenous bodies to increase housing, employment and health services in the East Kimberley. The East Kimberley Development Package has been rephased, and $78 million will now be spent in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years. The change is testimony to the benefit the projects are delivering to the north. Let me remind the House that the East Kimberley Development Package commits $195 million through to 2001-12 by investing $50 million in health, $64 million in education and training, $50 million in housing, $15.4 million in transport and $15.6 million in community infrastructure.
The investment is significant. Direct investment in the Kimberley is the right thing to do. It will mean long-term benefits in the East Kimberley region. So far we have approved 29 project plans worth $95.6 million, and transferred the funds to the Western Australian government, the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley and two Indigenous corporations. From sound community based consultation and engagement the projects are progressing quickly. The people of Wyndham are already benefiting from the completed community swimming pool, hospital refurbishment and an expanded residential rehabilitation facility.
In Kununurra on the weekend, I saw that the patient transfer facility at the airport is now well advanced. Soon, and for the first time, there will be a place to care for sick patients before they are moved by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to a larger hospital in Perth or Darwin. This is an important development for residents and visitors to the region, who are the mainstay of the local economy. Twenty-three of the hundred dwellings funded by the package are currently under construction in Wyndham and Kununurra. The rest will be completed by December 2011. This will mean more housing for the region for mums, dads and their children who are currently doing it tough due to overcrowding.
The WA government is currently assessing tenders for work on the larger, more complex health and education projects which will start later this year. Delivering a package of this dimension in a location as remote as the East Kimberley was always going to be challenging, but it is being done. It is only with hard work at all levels of government and the close involvement of the community that the East Kimberley Development Package can be a success. It is to be applauded. While we are keen to see projects completed as quickly as possible, there are social outcomes, like community engagement, training and jobs, which also need to be met. We are working towards these, and I congratulate community leaders and the government for their hard work.
During the development of these project plans, I worked closely with WA Minister for Regional Development Brendon Grylls; Minister for Health Kim Hames; Minister for Education Liz Constable; Fred Mills, mayor of the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley; and Jeff Gooding of the Kimberley Development Commission. We worked together to make sure the project outcomes meet community needs. I thank them for the spirit in which they have engaged on these projects. The Office of Northern Australia and the Western Australian Department of State Development have engaged community members and organisations to deliver services while the projects are fleshed out. We now have detailed plans, with a demanding work program that matches what the region really needs. Scheduling the work, and finding the people to do it, taking into account the weather, the need to keep schools and hospitals open and the need to keep the Wyndham port and Kununurra airport operating has not been easy.
The delivery of the package will rely on local businesses and local workers, as well as bringing in major contractors who have experience in the East Kimberley. There is a focus on maximising employment for Indigenous people, including an apprenticeship program established in partnership with the Western Australian government. Working with local businesses and contractors gives us the best chance of efficiently completing our projects and to increase training and job opportunities for local people. To support the Indigenous employment effort, the Commonwealth and the state of Western Australia are appointing local employment coordinators to work with job service agencies, trainer groups, Indigenous organisations and employers to link job seekers with real jobs and to make sure that the support is there to keep locals working.
Long-term benefit is a key principle of the East Kimberley Development Package. The development of transitional housing is a great example of the government working with East Kimberly organisations like the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, the Wunan Foundation and local Indigenous traditional owner groups Mirrawong Gadjurong and the Gelganyem Trust to look at different ways to engage Indigenous people in training and employment and to keep them working.
Of the 100 houses to be constructed under the East Kimberley Development Package, 50 will be earmarked for transitional housing. This is for Indigenous people who no longer qualify for social housing because they are working but who will still need support before entering the private rental market. Over the past year, all levels of government have looked at different ways to manage social housing. We have looked, and we are still looking, at how we can do things better. The Western Australian government has specifically examined different models for social housing management in the region, which include greater community participation in decision-making through a full community management model. I must acknowledge Peter Stubbs and former Western Australian Treasurer Troy Buswell for their cooperation and support and, in the case of Peter, inspiration with this work.
We are listening to the people in communities in Northern Australia and working in partnership to deliver on their expectations and to achieve common goals. This way of doing business in Northern Australia provides a model that could be extended to other communities, and no doubt we will continue to learn from this experience about how to do it better. I will continue to work with the Office of Northern Australia and my Western Australian government colleagues to see that the project is complete and that the benefits of the package continue. I commend the bills to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hawke) adjourned.
4895
20:19:00
Main Committee adjourned at 8.19 pm