The SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 14:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Speaker
The SPEAKER (14:01): Honourable members will know that some allegations have been made in relation to me by James Ashby including a claim under civil law and a claim of criminal behaviour. This is the first opportunity that I have had to affirm to the House that I deny allegations that have been made. I believe I am entitled, like any other person, to have the presumption of innocence. I am also entitled to have these matters dealt with by proper process. It is unfortunate that trial by media seems to have become the order of the day in this country.
As Speaker I have sought to improve the standing of the House by introducing reforms which have been supported by all sides and to ensure the House works in the way intended by the practices and procedures of the House. My understanding is that there is general appreciation in the broader community of what I am seeking to achieve as Speaker.
As honourable members would understand I place great importance on the institution of parliament. I propose to ask the Deputy Speaker as Deputy Speaker and members of the Speaker's panel to assist in chairing the proceedings of the House. There is much more to be done and I look forward to completing what I have begun. I present a copy of my statement and invite the Deputy Speaker to take the chair.
CONDOLENCES
Bowen, Hon. Lionel Frost, AC
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:03): I move:
That the House express its deep regret at the death on 1 April 2012 of the Honourable Lionel Frost Bowen AC, a Minister and Member of this House for the Division of Kingsford-Smith from 1969 to 1990, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Lionel Bowen's death in April robbed Australia of one of its greatest Labor men. He was famous for his remarkable humility and grace, and when he died this was widely and rightly remembered. We must not forget that Lionel Bowen was a man of remarkable high achievement too. Dennis Atkins, writing in the Courier-Mail, captured this rather well when he observed:
He revelled in being an everyman but he knew he was special.
Lionel Bowen was born to poverty and left school at 14 to help his mother pay the bills. Yet he continued his education, matriculated from night school, completed a law degree and decades later became Attorney-General of Australia. He served his country in uniform and decades later served his country as Deputy Prime Minister. He never forgot his humble beginnings but his horizon was never limited by them either.
Lionel Bowen's place in our history is assured not only for his own achievements but for paving the way for so many of us who are here now. He walked a path through life so many of us follow today. He was first in his family to go to university and was active in politics from his youth. He was a mayor in his 20s, a state member and then federal MP in his 40s and a minister in his 50s. His was a life dedicated to serving working people through politics. It is a life shared by many members of my government and this parliament today.
Lionel Bowen was a school cleaner's son. His mother gave him to the Labor movement, the Labor movement gave him to the nation. In death we remember him as we knew him in life—as a patriot, a man of party, both passionate and unpretentious. We have lost a very great Australian and we know his family has lost much more.
On behalf of the government I offer my condolences to his wife, Claire, their children, many grandchildren and extended family.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): I rise to support the Prime Minister's words of condolence for the late Lionel Bowen. Lionel Bowen was the kind of Labor man people could disagree with but not fail to respect. He served his country with distinction in all three tiers of government ending up as the Deputy Prime Minister of our country. He was a man of great capability, but a man of great humility as well who was never full of himself, never flashy and never had ideas above his station. He lived in the same house for 73 of his 89 years, firstly, with his deserted mother and, then, with his wife, Claire, and eight children. Family, neighbourhood, church and political party were the hallmarks of his life. It is tempting to say that people like Lionel Bowen are an endangered species, but I hope that that is not the case. Certainly it should not be the case, because people like Lionel Bowen improve everything they touch and they add lustre to our public life. Lionel Bowen was a great Australian, he was a great Labor man and he is much missed by all Australians.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:07): by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence relating to the death of the Honourable Lionel Frost Bowen AC be referred to the Federation Chamber.
I associate myself with the generous comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about a man I greatly admired.
Question agreed to.
Adams, Senator Judith Anne
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 31 March 2012, of Senator Judith Anne Adams, Senator for Western Australia, and place on record its appreciation of her public service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Senator Judith Adams was a woman of rare courage. She was elected to the Senate in 2004 and again in 2010, and spent seven years in the service of her party and her state in that place.
What made her public service all the more remarkable is that Judith Adams was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998. Senator Kroger's moving obituary to her colleague and friend described Judith Adams's life in recent years as:
… a decade of battling, managing and living with cancer …
In every sense these were years spent living, not dying. Sadly, those years finally ended on 31 March, in the company of her family.
Senator Adams had friends across the aisle, and her loss is keenly felt by her colleagues of all political persuasions. Others in the House knew her much more closely than I did and will speak with great feeling today, as they should. But I speak for the government of Australia when I say to Judith's friends here and elsewhere that we are sorry for your loss.
Judith Adams was a midwife and she was a nurse; a wife and mother; a woman of the land and advocate for the regions; and a senator for the West. And she was a brave Australian woman who battled, managed and lived with cancer, and whose contribution to public life through all those years must inspire the tens of thousands of other Australian women who are living with breast cancer today.
It was reported that at Judith Adams's funeral, former MP Wilson Tuckey delivered a eulogy saying that she had arrived in the O'Connor electorate with such little fanfare that he could not exactly recall when it was. Perhaps that is so, but the hundreds of mourners who honoured Judith Adams will certainly remember when she left them, and so will all members of this House. On behalf of the government I offer my condolences to Judith's sons, Stuart and Robert, her wider family and her friends.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): I rise to support the words of the Prime Minister; and, yes, our former colleague, and friend to many of us, Wilson Tuckey did make an extraordinary speech at Judith's funeral. I suspect it was one of the finest speeches he has ever given. It was certainly heartfelt, but it was scripted—and it was short! But he meant every word of it.
Judith had a varied and a full life. She was born in New Zealand, she served in the New Zealand Territorial Army and she served as a civilian nurse in Vietnam during the war. She then came to Western Australia and worked as a nurse throughout that vast state. It was while working as a nurse in Western Australia that she met Gordon, a pilot with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, who was to become her husband in 1970.
Judith and Gordon lived in Kojonup, where they farmed for 36 years. But she did not confine herself to farming and her family. She served as the president of the Country Hospital Boards Council, she served on the Kojonup Hospital Board and she was a member of the Metropolitan Health Services Board. She was extremely active in every aspect of civic life.
She was elected as a Liberal senator for Western Australia in 2004. She was 62 at the time, but as she said in her maiden speech:
Life experience cannot be bought or traded.
She brought the experience of a full life to the service of this parliament.
I have to say that when I was health minister she was a constant presence in my office. She never left me alone when it came to campaigning for better health services for country people, particularly for people living in the remote parts of her own state. She did not just talk about their experiences, she lived their experiences; she had not just studied the problems that people grappled with, she had felt them at firsthand for herself. That gave her a tremendous insight which very few of her colleagues could quite match. The parliament needs people who are representative of our society at large and the man and the woman in the street. Judith was not the most academic member of this parliament, but she was certainly amongst the most passionate. She was the voice of the country people who might otherwise not have been heard in the councils of our nation. Yes, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned, she struggled with breast cancer. She suffered from much ill health, but she never complained. She soldiered on. She was an embodiment of that grit and stoicism that we like to think are characteristic of Australian people. She was a great lady, and we will miss her. On behalf of the coalition I give my condolences to her sons, Stuart and Robert; their partners, Anne and Tammy; and her grandchildren, Taylor and Maelle.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:15): by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Senator Judith Anne Adams be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Little, Mr James Oswald (Jimmy), AO
Rose, Mr Iain Murray, AM
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:16): We have just expressed our condolences on the loss of two great Australians, but on indulgence I seek to mention two more. Since parliament rose in March we have lost two other great and remarkable Australians: Murray Rose and Jimmy Little. They came from vastly different backgrounds: Jimmy Little came from a family that had been in this land for millennia, and Murray Rose was born in Britain and his family came here, as many of us did, seeking a better life. Both men found opportunity in those far-off postwar days, when our nation was finding a new and wider sense of itself.
Murray Rose found his destiny in the swimming pool, winning three gold medals at the Melbourne games that instantly converted him into a national hero. Three more medals at Rome in 1960 completed the haul, along with 15 world records across the span of his career. He spent the years after swimming working in television and movies, but mainly he dedicated himself to helping young people with disabilities. He was very appropriately selected as an Olympic flag bearer at the Sydney games in 2000, and that recognised his status as one of the immortals of world sport.
Jimmy Little's destiny was sealed when he was given a guitar at the age of 13. He never looked back, signing his first record deal just six years later. He had a sweet and gentle voice and a sweet and gentle manner to go with it. His effortless grace and dignity were a living argument for Indigenous rights, and I do not think the 1967 referendum result would have been so decisive without his example and the bridge he built to ordinary Australians.
From those very different careers and backgrounds, they both passed away last month within days of each other—two brilliant, generous lives; two gentlemen who enriched the life of our nation not only through their accomplishments but also through their characters. They leave us honoured, loved and very greatly missed. The condolences of this House and, I believe, the whole nation go to their families and their many supporters and friends.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:19): I rise to echo the words of the Prime Minister in respect of both Jimmy Little and Murray Rose. Both of them were wholly embraced by their fellow Australians—Murray for his triumphs in the pool and Jimmy for the marvellous songs and the tremendous entertainment that he gave us. Murray was not the first sportsman to be widely embraced by Australians, but Jimmy may well have been the first Aboriginal person to be widely embraced by all Australians. Murray, as we know, won four Olympic gold medals, including three at the Melbourne games, which in their own way were a bit of a coming of age for modern Australia.
Jimmy was the first Indigenous recording artist ever to make the top 10, and his famous song Royal Telephone became a No. 1 hit, selling 75,000 copies. In 1964 he was Everybody's magazine's Australian pop star of the year. He was absolutely one of us. He was proudly Aboriginal, but he was proudly Australian. He experienced the discrimination that Australians of Aboriginal background all too often experienced in those days. He said, 'Don't mistake kindness and gentleness'—that is to say his own kindness and gentleness—'for weakness.'
Both Murray's and Jimmy's later lives were characterised by their charitable work. Again, this is a characteristic that we like to think is part of our Australian nature. Murray gave many, many hours of his time to the Rainbow Club, which teaches disabled children how to swim, and in 2006 Jimmy established the Jimmy Little Foundation, which amongst many other things has brought mobile renal dialysis to the Aboriginal communities and townships of the outback. Both of them were gentlemen, both of them were great Australians and both of them have left an enduring legacy.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:21): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence in relation to the death of Iain Murray Rose AM be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence in relation to the death of James Oswald (Jimmy) Little AO be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:22): I table for the information of the House a revised ministry list dated 8 May 2012.
The document read as follows—
SECOND GILLARD MINISTRY
8 May 2011
Title |
Minister |
Other Chamber |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Julia Gillard MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
|
Minister for Social Inclusion |
The Hon Mark Butler MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform |
The Hon Mark Butler MP |
|
Minister for the Public Service and Integrity |
The Hon Gary Gray AO MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
|
Cabinet Secretary |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister |
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas |
|
Treasurer (Deputy Prime Minister) |
The Hon Wayne Swan MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon David Bradbury MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer |
The Hon Bernie Ripoll MP |
|
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP |
Minister for Industry and Innovation |
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
Minister for Small Business |
The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills |
The Hon Sharon Bird MP |
|
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government |
The Hon Simon Crean MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Minister for the Arts |
The Hon Simon Crean MP |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
The Hon Simon Crean MP |
Minister for Defence (Deputy Leader of the House) |
The Hon Stephen Smith MP |
Senator the Hon Bob Carr |
Minister for Defence Materiel |
The Hon Jason Clare MP |
Senator the Hon Bob Carr |
Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator the Hon Bob Carr |
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator the Hon Bob Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence |
The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence |
Senator the Hon David Feeney |
|
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship |
The Hon Chris Bowen MP |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
Minister for Multicultural Affairs |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
The Hon Chris Bowen MP |
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (Leader of the House) |
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
|
Attorney-General |
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Emergency Management |
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
|
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Jason Clare MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Justice |
The Hon Jason Clare MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs |
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Disability Reform |
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Housing |
The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Homelessness |
The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Community Services |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for the Status of Women |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers |
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas |
|
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon Bob Carr |
The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP |
Minister for Trade and Competitiveness |
The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP |
Senator the Hon Bob Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade |
The Hon Justine Elliot MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs |
The Hon Richard Marles MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs |
The Hon Richard Marles MP |
|
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Vice-President of the Executive Council) |
The Hon Tony Burke MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
|
Minister for Finance and Deregulation |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
The Hon Wayne Swan MP |
Special Minister of State |
The Hon Gary Gray AO MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister Assisting for Deregulation |
The Hon David Bradbury MP |
|
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth |
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare |
The Hon Kate Ellis MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Minister for Employment Participation |
The Hon Kate Ellis MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
|
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
The Hon Tony Burke MP |
Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
The Hon Sid Sidebottom MP |
|
Minister for Resources and Energy |
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Tourism |
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency |
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
|
Minister for Health |
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing |
The Hon Mark Butler MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Indigenous Health |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
|
Minister for Human Services |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP |
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases.
Ms GILLARD: I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today—I think everybody can guess why—and the Assistant Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Speaker
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:23): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That:
(1) the House notes the statement that has been made by the Speaker and:
(a) suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent the Honourable Member for Scullin from performing the duties of the Speaker in the House until the House agrees otherwise; and
(b) resolves to appoint the Honourable Member for Scullin to perform the duties of the Speaker in the House when the Speaker is absent from the House.
Leave not granted.
Mr PYNE: In the absence of leave not being granted, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Sturt from moving the following motion forthwith:
(1) That the House notes the statement that has been made by the Speaker; and
(2) Suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent the honourable member for Scullin from performing the duties of the Speaker in the House until the House otherwise agrees; and
(3) Resolves to appoint the honourable member for Scullin to perform the duties of the Speaker in the House when the Speaker is absent from the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion is not a reflection on you. The opposition believes that the clock should be restarted and that the period from 24 November to today should be repaired for the good of the parliament and the Australian people's confidence in our federal democracy. The coalition is moving this motion because we believe the integrity and standing of the parliament has been seriously damaged since former Speaker Jenkins resigned on 24 November last year and, in spite of the coalition nominating nine government members to take the chair, the member for Fisher was appointed over the objections of the opposition.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister did not want to make any comment at all on the Speaker's statement to the House on this day, one of the most unprecedented days in Australia's Commonwealth history. It is because she does not want to be seen to be associated any more with the Speaker that she chose over the member for Scullin and nine other government members. She wants to be as far away from the member for Fisher as she can be, and yet five short months ago the Prime Minister chose the member for Fisher over the member for Scullin and nine members of her own caucus. This motion gives her the opportunity to explain herself to the House, to speak following me in the chamber.
The standing of parliament and of politicians has never been lower in the eyes of the Australian public, starting with the backroom deals in late 2010 by the Prime Minister to secure government, the alliance with the Greens and the breach of faith with the Australian people over the promise not to introduce a carbon tax. This was followed by the Prime Minister's failure to require the member for Dobell to make a full explanation to the parliament over the scandal that has engulfed him over his time as National Secretary of the Health Services Union. It took the Prime Minister until 10 days ago to take action over the member for Dobell and she still intends to accept his vote in the chamber. The member for Dobell will continue to prop up her government. The member for Dobell is not good enough for the ALP caucus but is good enough for the Australian parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business is straying from his own motion and I would ask him to return to it.
Mr PYNE: I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reason I am pointing these matters out is because it is very important for the public to know why the opposition believes that the standing of parliament is now so low that we want to see the clock restarted back to 24 November last year when this whole sorry period began. More recently the Prime Minister's choice to replace Speaker Jenkins—that is, the member for Fisher—has been required to stand down as Speaker while allegations of fraud against the Commonwealth are investigated by the AFP and civil claims of sexual harassment involving him are tested in the Federal Court.
What the parliament needs right now is a Speaker who has demonstrated fairness, honour and the respect for the House before. That man is sitting in the House right now. Without reflecting on you at all, Madam Deputy Speaker—as the member for Chisholm and the Deputy Speaker you have been thrust into this unhappy mess, this unedifying circus, through no fault of your own—that man is the member for Scullin. This motion reflects the orthodox reading of the Australian Constitution and our responsibilities as members of parliament.
While the standing orders allow for the Deputy Speaker to take the chair if asked to do so by the Speaker or in the absence of the Speaker, they also provide for the Deputy Speaker to be Acting Speaker and that is not the case in the arrangement is being contemplated here. The arrangement contemplated here is that the member for Fisher remains Speaker, continuing to hold the office with its salary and emoluments for an indeterminate period, while the Deputy Speaker is not officially the Acting Speaker but is simply filling in for an indeterminate absence. This is not good enough for the opposition and it should not be good enough or satisfactory for the government or the crossbench members of the House. This arrangement does nothing to repair the standing of the House of Representatives or all of us as members of it. Section 36 of the Constitution requires the House to choose a member to perform the Speaker's duties should he be absent. The motion I am moving today fulfils our responsibilities and demonstrates to the Australian people that we here are taking the necessary first steps to restore the integrity and standing of the parliament. All members should want to support it. No-one in the House could be deaf to the feelings of revulsion and horror in our electorates over the current low standing of this parliament. The cause of this low standing has been the single-minded determination of this Prime Minister to gain and hold power at any cost, which reached its nadir with the despatching of Speaker Jenkins and the suborning of a coalition MP, the member for Fisher, to be Speaker. Do not take just my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; the former longstanding Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, wrote in the Financial Review:
The Slipper affair, consisting of his elevation to the speakership of the House of Representatives as a manoeuvre to improve the government's numbers, followed by his standing aside under the cloud of serious allegations of illegality and impropriety, is rightly regarded as a low point in partisan politics.
Then we have this statement:
When I resigned the party's leadership in 2005, I was convinced its core values—
those of the Labor Party—
were being corroded by the growth of factionalism and union control.
… … …
Unhappily, my 2005 prophecy has been fulfilled. The erosion of Labor's moral core now has a public face: its association with Thomson and Slipper. I cannot imagine anything more gut-wrenching for the party faithful, the salt-of-the-earth types who grew up with the legends of working class decency under Ben Chifley and John Curtin.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will return to the suspension before the chair.
Mr PYNE: Those were the statements of Mark Latham, the former member of the once great Labor Party. Then we have Michelle Grattan, not always known to be a supporter of the coalition—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business needs to refer to why a suspension is required.
Mr PYNE: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the most urgent matter before the House and that is why standing orders must be suspended, because the integrity of the parliament has been so damaged and traduced, and I am pointing out to the House why it is that this matter should take precedence over all other matters today until it is resolved. Michelle Grattan, writing in the Age, said:
When Peter Slipper's alleged behaviour has the community's hair standing on end, the PM cut to the core. 'Having Mr Slipper be Speaker has enabled the government to do some important things on behalf of Australian families,' she declared. In other words, Slipper has strengthened the government's numbers. Never mind the means. Think of the ends.
Michelle Grattan went on to say:
The government has entered a sort of no man's land. The atmosphere is reminiscent of those weeks in 1975, under the Whitlam government, when no-one was sure of what would happen.
This morass is entirely of this Prime Minister's making. There was absolutely no necessity for the Prime Minister to despatch Speaker Jenkins on 24 November last year and put the member for Fisher into the speakership except for one motivating reason: her desire to hang on to power at all costs. And we are paying the price. Now is the time for ALP members of good conscience—and they do exist—to search their consciences and realise that the best hope for the Labor Party's future is to turn their faces against the politics of sleaze and greed and power at all costs and to vote to restore—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has completely strayed from the suspension.
Mr PYNE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pointing out why the suspension should be carried, because this is the opportunity to restore the integrity of the parliament by voting for this motion, and I call on any member of good conscience on the Labor side who are hanging their heads rather than facing this suspension motion today to put the parliament first and to protect the interests of the Labor Party's future by supporting this motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. It is vital that standing and sessional orders be suspended so that procedures can be put in place in order that the honourable member for Scullin resume the duties of Speaker until the House otherwise agrees. The standing orders need to be suspended because the House of Representatives risks a crisis, and this crisis has at its heart an act of betrayal and dishonesty.
The Prime Minister needed to break her written agreement with the member for Denison and sought a dishonourable way of manipulating the numbers on the floor of the parliament. It is this dishonourable act that has brought us to this extraordinary position today, where for the first time in our history the Speaker has stood down in such unprecedented circumstances, leaving a vacuum at the heart of parliamentary democracy in this country. It was remarkable that the Prime Minister made no statement in the House in response to the Speaker's statement at two o'clock today. These are unprecedented events. In the past Speakers have been absent from their duties due to illness or parliamentary travel overseas. I am not aware of any circumstance where a Speaker has stood down pending a civil trial and a criminal investigation. We have a situation where the Speaker cannot perform his duties and cannot participate on the floor of the House as a consequence. We need to suspend standing orders because it is unseemly to leave this House in such limbo. This is the consequence of the squalid manoeuvre engineered by the Prime Minister to cling to power in a hung parliament. If there is an honourable way and a dishonourable way, this Prime Minister's instinct is to choose the dishonourable path.
The integrity of the role of the Speaker, the Speaker's role to uphold the dignity of the House, has been trashed by a desperate Prime Minister's concern about her job and the numbers she needs on the floor of the House—first to break her agreement with the member for Denison and then to cling to office. The House needs to suspend standing orders to find a way to bring back the dignity of the office to restore some semblance of respect and regard for an office that has been misused and abused by the Prime Minister and this government, and that way is best exemplified by the honourable member for Scullin, who conducted himself at a high standard when he was the Speaker and who carried out his duties responsibly and professionally until he was manoeuvred out of his elected position.
It is well known that the coalition did not wish to see the honourable member for Scullin move from the position of Speaker. Indeed, when the member for Scullin, as Speaker, faced a crisis over the naming of a certain member of the House, it was the Leader of the Opposition who could have taken advantage of the chaotic situation but who instead acted promptly by moving a motion of confidence in the honourable member for Scullin as Speaker. I note that it was not the Prime Minister—a member of the same political party—who did that but the Leader of the Opposition, who understands the traditions of the chamber and the importance of protecting the dignity of the House of Representatives and the office of Speaker.
We need to suspend standing orders to debate this motion because the people of Australia are right royally sick of the trashing of our national institutions that they are seeing on a weekly basis under this government. The trashing of the proper processes of the House is only one in a long list of the government's calamitous destruction of the integrity of government tender processes, like that of the Australian Network, the interference in so-called independent inquiries by Fair Work Australia, the use of the National Broadband Network for political advertising and political favouritism—the list goes on.
Standing orders need to be suspended so that the honourable member for Scullin, one of the people in the parliament who commands widespread support for doing the job of Speaker, can once again resume the duties that should never have been stripped away from him by a manipulating Prime Minister. We regret that the member for Scullin was forced to resign his position by this scheming Prime Minister. Standing orders need to be suspended, for not to do so will leave a chaotic, unprecedented mess that raises major procedural questions when the House hangs on a knife's edge.
I have one final word: we ask that the crossbenchers support us in this call. For the crossbenchers to not support this call will be to prop up a squalid, manipulative arrangement that trashes the dignity of the House. I call on the members for New England, Lyne, Denison and Melbourne to think of their own integrity and their own standing as much as that of the House of Representatives. I second this motion. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (14:39): I call on the Manager of Government Business.
Opposition members: The Prime Minister!
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:39): The Leader of the Opposition, who does not have the ticker to move this motion, is in no position to declare who should speak on this motion. I will answer the Manager of Opposition Business, Mr Pyne, and this absurd, pathetic attempt to suspend standing orders, and I will do it in a way in which every word is not written down, unlike the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The Manager of Opposition Business said that this motion is in accordance with an orthodox reading of the Constitution. The Constitution, the standing orders and the House of Representatives Practice provide for a method of election of the Speaker and of the Deputy Speakers of the House of Representatives. They absolutely do not provide for resolutions to be moved at any time suspending standing orders so a person—any other member—can be appointed to a position to which they have not been elected above the person who has been elected, that is, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. The implementation of this motion is not even possible because it is against the standing orders, it is against the House of Representatives Practice and it is against the provisions of the Australian Constitution that provide a legal basis for the running of this parliament. Well done, those opposite. We know they have contempt for proper procedure, but to come in here and suggest that the Deputy Speaker should be deposed—the person who they moved should be the Speaker of the House of Representatives just months ago—shows the hypocrisy which is there.
They do this for the 51st time in the 43rd Parliament, and they do it on the budget day. They do it on the most important day that occurs in parliament every year, the day on which a government puts forward its economic program, its social program, its education program, its health program and its plan for infrastructure investment. Yet what do we see from those opposite? They abandon question time without a single question about the economy on budget day—an extraordinary proposition from those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition's priority is to come in here, have a suspension of standing orders and then retreat into the budget lock-up without having any debate whatsoever about the processes.
The Manager of Opposition Business went to a range of issues in his statement. The fact is this, as the Speaker as indicated: there are allegations which have been made against the Speaker. If they are true they are completely unacceptable. But there is a proper process to hear that and we here are not the courts; we here are the parliament of Australia. And when the courts consider that matter I look forward to when the Manager of Opposition Business is called to talk about what he knew about these circumstances. I look forward to Mal Brough's evidence before that proper judicial process. I look forward to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knew about the process, what the shadow Treasurer knew about the process and what the Leader of the Opposition knew about the process.
What we have seen over the last couple of weeks, day by day, is the information coming out bit by bit. Remember, the Manager of Opposition Business could not quite recall the conversation. Then he knew there was a conversation. Then he could not quite recall the nature of it. Then he knew it was extensive, in the Speaker's office without the Speaker there. He said this is normal practice. I say this: there are former Liberal Speakers in Hawker and Andrew, as well as former Speaker Jenkins and Speaker Slipper, whom I have served as Manager of Opposition Business and as Leader of the House, but I have never sat down in private without the presiding officer present and had a chat over a drink for a couple of hours. I have never done that, ever. The Manager of Opposition Business would have it believed that this is normal practice. It is not normal practice, nor have I emailed the Speaker's office trying to get the private phone number, email and details of a staffer of the Speaker—not any one of them, Liberal or Labor. But it all came out bit by bit. We know from the way the same language was used. They all said they had 'no specific knowledge'. They all came out with exactly the same words for what they knew about these issues. There was Mal Brough who said, when it was raised, that the suggestion was nonsense. Then we found out that he did not have one meeting, he did not have two meetings; he had three meetings and he brought a lawyer along to some of the meetings. But he had dismissed it as nonsense just a week before. We look forward to this coming out, but the appropriate place for it to come out is under the appropriate judicial processes. As I said, I am of a firm view that if any of the allegations are right and if people have engaged in criminal behaviour then that is completely unacceptable and any member of this House would dissociate themselves from those actions; it is a simple case. But people are entitled to a presumption of innocence and people are entitled to have proper processes and assessments of any charges made.
Those opposite would have you think that what the Speaker, the member for Fisher, has done today is inappropriate. It is what they asked to happen! They asked that he step aside as the Speaker whilst these issues were being investigated. That is what they asked to happen. So it has happened but they cannot say yes; they have to say no. They have to find a reason to disagree with any action, even when it is completely consistent with what they asked for.
Today of all days—the day of the budget—the opposition have exposed themselves. They simply are not interested in policy. It is all about the politics. It is always the low road, always about attacking individuals, always about trying to present themselves as judge and jury. Let me say this: if every rumour in this place about the behaviour of individuals were accepted as being absolutely correct and acted on, then it would be a pretty empty chamber, because there are a range of rumours about people on that side of the chamber that we understand should not be taken to be correct because they are made.
The reason that standing orders should not be suspended is that, on budget day of all days, we should be having a debate about the economy. I know that there is a very fine matter of public importance today from the member for Fraser about the economy—about getting the budget back into surplus, about jobs, about education and about health. I know the member for Fraser will be advancing that matter before the parliament, and there will be an opportunity for the opposition to engage in that economic debate. But if this suspension is carried we will be throwing out the Constitution, House of Representatives Practice and standing orders as if 'it's just the vibe'—Dennis Denuto over here—and can just be dismissed and anyone can be replaced. We need proper process and we also need to be engaged in the economic debate. Those opposite run away from the economic debate because they have nothing to say about the economic future of this country and they are embarrassed by the fact that this government has delivered the strongest economy in the advanced world. Right throughout the world people are saying, 'There is no place we would rather be than Australia,' and tonight we will be delivering a budget surplus.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion by the member for Sturt be agreed to.
The House divided. [14:53]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)]
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (14:55): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Ambassador for Japan, Ambassador Sato; the Hon. Judy Maddigan, former Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly; Alan Ferguson, former Deputy President of the Senate; and Kevin Foley, former Treasurer of South Australia. I thank you for joining us on this auspicious day.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr SYMON ( Deakin ) ( 14:59 ): My question is to the Prime Minister.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet to seek the call, and the opposition has not yet had a question. There has been no question from this side of the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Sturt was the first to seek the call after I asked for any questions to be put, and I gave it to the opposition. I am now, in turn, giving it to the government. The member for Deakin has the call.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, while I do not wish to clash with you so early in your tenure in the chair—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: After your last motion, I am beginning to have my doubts.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not seek the call for a question. I, within my rights, sought the call to seek leave to move a motion and then moved a suspension when that was not granted. Therefore, the call remains with the opposition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Whilst I appreciate that, I gave him the call on that basis and on that basis I am now giving the call to the member for Deakin.
Mr SYMON: My question is to the Prime Minister. How will tonight's budget lay out a practical plan for Australians and their families to return to surplus and deliver on Labor values?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:00): I thank the member for Deakin for his question, and I thank him for his deep interest in the economy, knowing that it offers jobs and prosperity to working Australians. I thank him for his deep interest in the budget, knowing that it matters to working Australians that tonight's budget responds to the needs of our economy, bringing the budget to surplus whilst of course protecting front-line services for families and building the things that our nation will need for the future, like a National Disability Insurance Scheme, like a better aged-care system and like a better way of looking after the dental needs of Australians who most need our care and concern for their dental care.
There is no clearer sign of a strong economy than a surplus, and in tonight's budget we will bring the budget to surplus. We have achieved that despite the global financial crisis and despite continued uncertainty in the global economy. Bringing the budget to surplus is the right economic measure now. It will give us a buffer should the global economy take a downturn in the future and it offers the Reserve Bank the maximum room to move on interest rates should it choose to do so. Members in this parliament—or at least on this side of the chamber—would have recognised the relief that many Australians felt when interest rates were reduced by the Reserve Bank in their recent decision, helping people pay the mortgage because of the pressure of the mortgage on Australian family budgets.
I understand, and the government understands, that Australians are concerned about cost-of-living pressures, and we will continue to work with families to help them make ends meet. That is why we are investing more money in child care than ever before. That is why we instituted a paid parental leave scheme. That is why we have worked to ensure that the tax-free threshold will be tripled so people can see more of the benefits of work in their hands. And that is why we are also introducing a schoolkids bonus, so families can get the benefits of dollars in their hands as they pay for the costs of kids going to school. We know that those school bills, whether they are for excursions or uniforms, can put a lot of pressure on working families.
Tonight's budget will be a practical plan for Australia to return to surplus and to deliver on Labor values. It will be a truly Labor budget that goes in to bat for millions of Australians on low and middle incomes. They are the people that we have been concerned about as we have put the budget together. It is a budget that goes in to bat for them whilst delivering a budget surplus, the right choice for our economy now.
Budget
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out an increase in Australia's debt ceiling beyond the current $250 billion limit in tonight's budget? How can the government claim to have the budget in surplus when debt continues to rise and rise and rise?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:04): I am moderately surprised to get a question from the Leader of the Opposition on the economy. I cannot recall the last time the Leader of the Opposition ever asked me anything about the economy. So in these very unusual circumstances let me address the Leader of the Opposition's question. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is going into the budget lockup. When he does so, I suggest that he does look at that part of the budget that talks about the questions that he raises with me, and then he can come back tomorrow with a rephrased question. That is what I would say to the Leader of the Opposition first and foremost, because the image he has tried to create in people's minds is a wrong image.
As usual, the Leader of the Opposition comes into this place making wild and inaccurate claims about the Australian economy. We know, of course, that this follows a long stream of inaccurate claims about the Australian economy and particularly about Australian debt. We have had opposition spokespeople going around claiming that our nation is like one of the nations in Europe. They have been going around trying to spread fear in Australia about the circumstances of our economy. That is, the opposition have believed it is their mission to talk our economy down. The Leader of the Opposition should know, if he knew anything about economics, that in this country we will see net debt peak at less than 10 per cent. That is compared to economies in Europe where net debt is in the order of 80 and 90 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition knows that.
On questions of what will be in the budget, we will have plenty of time to address that. But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that when we do work through the budget details revealed tonight he ought to come to this debate acknowledging that the Australian economy is strong in its fundamentals. He should stop talking the Australian economy down. He should acknowledge we came out of the global financial crisis strong because we supported the jobs of working Australians, the government working with responsible employers and trade unions to save 200,000 jobs. He should acknowledge that as a result we have an unemployment rate that is the envy of the world and is half of the unemployment rate being experienced by many in Europe and is well below the unemployment rate of the US. He should acknowledge that our economy has strong fundamentals. That does not mean that there are not Australian businesses facing stress and strain with a strong dollar, but talking our economy down will not help those businesses. And for the first time ever the Leader of the Opposition should walk in here on Thursday with an economic plan, not a load of old rhetoric.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. How can the Prime Minister claim that the budget is in surplus when tonight's document will show that the government plans to increase the debt ceiling from $250 billion unless, yet again, this government is cooking the books?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The last part of the question was out of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:07): Can I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that in an area that concerns the economy, rather than just coming in here and pretending he knows, why doesn't he try this: why doesn't he try walking into the budget lock-up and reading the budget documents? It might well be a first. He might never have put his hands on a budget document before. He might never have had to worry his pretty little head about all of the figures in the budget but, just for once, he might want to go into the budget lock-up, get out the budget documents, study the tables, study what he said about the strength of the Australian economy, study the words that are said about questions like surplus, analyse them—
Mr Abbott: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on direct relevance. Is there going to be an increase in the debt ceiling in tonight's budget?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a time for argument.
Ms GILLARD: I am inviting the Leader of the Opposition to study the budget, to study what it says on questions of surplus, to study what it says on the fundamentals of the Australian economy, and to study too what it says on questions of debt and the debt cap. The Leader of the Opposition ought to do that, ought to think about it and ought to actually deal with these facts instead of coming into this parliament and trying to create in the Australian community concern about the Australian economy and fear, which he has been peddling since the first day that he sat in the chair of the Leader of the Opposition. No-one will take him seriously unless he comes into this parliament on Thursday with an alternative fully-costed economic plan.
With those words I do note, because of the time-wasting of the opposition, we are at the end of question time. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
MOTIONS
Member for Dobell
Censure
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:10): I seek leave to move a motion:
That in the view of the grave findings made against him by Fair Work Australia, the Honourable Member for Dobell be suspended from the service of the House for 14 sitting days, and that after that the Honourable Member make a statement for the consideration of the House in response to the findings made against him so that the House can consider whether a further period of suspension is warranted.
Leave not granted.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:10): By leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt moving the following motion immediately—
That in the view of the grave findings made against him by Fair Work Australia, the Honourable Member for Dobell be suspended from the service of the House for 14 sitting days, and that after that the Honourable Member make a statement for the consideration of the House in response to the findings made against him so that the House can consider whether a further period of suspension is warranted.
This is the most serious motion that the parliament can consider. I do not move it lightly and it is not without precedent. In fact, the precedents for this are threefold in this parliament. In 1913 a member of the House Mr McGrath was suspended for a period of time from the service of the House because of reflections he made on the Speaker. In 1987 the former member for O'Connor was suspended for seven sitting days following remarks he made that were critical of the Speaker outside the parliament. Ken Aldred, a member of this House for a number of seats, in 1989 was suspended for two sitting days for statements he made that he refused to retract.
We do move this motion in this parliament because the allegations surrounding the member for Dobell are very serious ones, the most serious that can be made: that he engaged in corruption and that he misused union funds to the tune of almost half a million dollars. The Fair Work inquiry into the Health Services Union has made very serious findings against the member for Dobell. It found, amongst other things, that he used the union funds of his members to the tune of $6,000 on escort services. It found that he used $196,421 on staff of the Health Services Union for his campaign in Dobell, and that he used $71,300 of HSU funds directly in his campaign in Dobell.
Mr Albanese: This is a suspension motion. The Manager of Opposition Business must speak to the suspension and is not able to do what he is currently engaged in unless the suspension motion is carried.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will refer to the motion of suspension of standing orders before the chair.
Mr PYNE: I will. I am very mindful of the seriousness and importance of this particular motion. The reason standing orders should be suspended is because the gravest matters are before the House, matters of the integrity of the parliament, matters of our reputations as members of parliament, as well as the entire confidence of the Australian people in this House, in this federal democracy. For too long this matter has been allowed to sap the confidence of the Australian people in their parliament. It has taken the opposition to move this motion today to highlight the fact that we believe it is time for the members of parliament in this place to take control of our own destiny, to recover and repair our reputations. Because I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, out in the public they view the 43rd Parliament with sheer horror and revulsion. The allegations that have been made against the member for Dobell—allegations so serious that he has been suspended from the Labor caucus and now sits on the crossbenches—are so serious that I believe this motion is worthy of consideration and that is why standing orders must be suspended.
Fair Work Australia also found that the member for Dobell took $103,000 in cash withdrawals from the membership of the Health Services Union—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will not test my patience by going over this ground!
Mr PYNE: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Quite apart from the gross expenditure of the 77,000 Health Services Union members' money on personal items, the member for Dobell has to answer serious questions about whether the expenditure on his election campaign in Dobell to the tune of $267,000 was in breach of the Electoral Act. That is why standing orders need to be suspended so the House can properly consider whether a case has been created for a 14-day suspension of the member for Dobell. The parliament has to protect itself. We have to protect our reputations and our integrity, because the government has allowed this matter, this open sore, to fester for too long.
The Prime Minister has defended the member for Dobell in this House over and over again. On eight occasions she has expressed her confidence in the member for Dobell. In fact, she went so far as to say on one occasion, 'I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.' That is why standing orders need to be suspended, so we can test the Prime Minister's confidence in the member for Dobell in this place, so we can discuss and debate whether the member for Dobell has so breached what we regard as acceptable behaviour that therefore he warrants a suspension.
Ten days ago the Prime Minister felt so strongly on this matter that she ejected him from the caucus—she accepted his suspension from the caucus. She still accepts his vote in the parliament. Of course, standing orders should be suspended because if the original motion is carried his vote will not be accepted in this parliament for the next 14 sitting days. If the member for Dobell is not good enough for the caucus then how could he be good enough for the Prime Minister to rely on his vote in this parliament? This whole sorry affair has damaged the parliament and its reputation. It has damaged the standing of the parliament in the eyes of the Australian people. It is time for the Australian parliament to protect its reputation.
In my previous speech I referred to the comments of the former Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans; journalists in the press gallery of very high standing like Michelle Grattan, who nobody could accuse of being involved in partisan politics; and even a former member of the Labor Party. They have all bemoaned the state that the Labor Party finds itself in. For three years in this House the opposition has tried to hold the member for Dobell to account. We have asked on many occasions for him to make a statement in this parliament. This motion gives him the opportunity, right now, to make a statement to the parliament. It gives him the opportunity to do what he promised he would do some time ago, which was to make a statement to the parliament. This motion allows him the opportunity to do that, because he can now follow the seconder to this motion and speak against it should he choose to do so. Or will a member of the Labor Party seek to defend the member for Dobell, and what arguments will they put as to why the member for Dobell should not be suspended from his duties in the House for 14 days?
It is time for the parliament to restore the confidence that the Australian people want to have in their elected members. But, most importantly, let us remember who the crime has been committed against in the allegations that have been made against the member for Dobell, and that is the 77,000 members of the Health Services Union who have seen half a million of their membership dues spent on personal items—the escort services, the campaigning in Dobell, fine dining, overseas travel—that Fair Work Australia has found were actions taken by the member for Dobell when he was the national secretary of the Health Services Union. While it took Fair Work Australia three years to reach the conclusions that they published yesterday, the conclusions were utterly damning and so serious that they will now take action in the Federal Court to defend the interests of the 77,000 members of the HSU.
It is passing strange—perhaps it is not these days—that it is the opposition, it is the coalition, standing up for members of the union movement around Australia. Menzies used to refer to them as part of the forgotten people when he founded our great party. So many unionists sit on the other side of the House and yet not one of them has stood up and defended the interests of the members of the Health Services Union; in fact, they have traduced the reputation of Kathy Jackson, who was one of the few who had the courage to stand up.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt has completely gone off track!
Mr PYNE: The reason standing orders should be suspended is so the House can debate whether the actions of the member for Dobell warrant him being suspended from the House for 14 days. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): Madam Deputy Speaker, I second this motion. Standing and sessional orders must be suspended because the scandal that has engulfed the member for Dobell is a stain on the Prime Minister, on the government and on the parliament. That stain will remain while ever the member for Dobell remains in the parliament voting in support of this sordid government.
After three years of investigation into that e activities of the member for Dobell, after the Prime Minister expressed her total confidence in the member for Dobell, belatedly there was the spectacle of the member for Dobell being suspended from the Labor Party. The Prime Minister claimed in her press conference at the time that it was her decision to stand him down and that she had acted decisively. Well, as we now know, that was contradicted by the member for Dobell who claimed that it was his idea and that he initiated the call. Standing orders must be suspended to debate this motion, as the member for Dobell has since reportedly said that he offered to be suspended from the Labor Party at least six months ago but this Prime Minister rejected his offers. It is clear that both the member for Dobell and the Prime Minister knew the extent and the seriousness of the allegations against the member for Dobell well before the Fair Work Australia report was released yesterday. The reason for last year's charade is that the Prime Minister has known for at least three years of the seriousness of these allegations. That is why standing orders must be suspended. We must debate why the Prime Minister did not act earlier to suspend the member and why she continues to accept his vote.
In fact, there was a report in the Sydney Morning Herald by one Mark Davis on 10 April 2009 which set out in detail the allegations against the member for Dobell, which have now been confirmed three years later by the Fair Work Australia report released last night. Mark Davis said at the time:
Backed by the Health Services Union, the now member for Dobell started his own cash splash in the Central Coast electorate of Dobell just after he moved into the area at the end of 2005.
Standing orders need to be suspended so that a procedure can be put in place for the member for Dobell to answer these allegations. He has offered to make a statement in the past. We are giving him that opportunity. Mark Davis went on:
The funds continued to flow all the way to election night in November 2007 when Mr Thomson and his supporters celebrated his 6430-vote thumping of the Liberal Ken Ticehurst.
Union money was pumped into Dobell to buy the recently arrived HSU national secretary a profile and to curry favour both with ALP preselectors and the wider community.
That is why standing orders must be suspended, so the member for Dobell can make a statement to explain how it is that Mark Davis could write in the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2009:
HSU national office funds were used to:
Put a local Labor activist … on the payroll to work for two years organising the electorate.
Establish a supposedly independent community group, Coastal Voice, to letter-box glossy newsletters featuring Mr Thomson throughout the electorate.
Enter a $100,000 sponsorship deal with Central Coast Division Rugby League, allowing Mr Thomson to hand out the trophies at the grand final.
Donate $10,000 to the Dads in Education group …
It was in fact $267,000 of HSU members' money that was used by the Labor Party to buy votes in the Dobell electorate in 2007. Mark Davis was able to go on and say in 2009:
The latest details of the HSU spending spree follow claims Mr Thomson's union credit card was used to make payments to Sydney escort services and to withdraw more than $100,000 in cash over a five-year period.
Standing orders must be suspended so that the Prime Minister, who has left the chamber, can come back and answer these allegations and debate the motion as to why the member for Dobell should not be suspended from this House and explain why she should continue to accept his vote.
The investigation report by Fair Work Australia does contain far more details and raises many more allegations. The Prime Minister must have been aware of the serious nature of these allegations so why did she not act sooner? Why did she not suspend the member for Dobell from the caucus? Why is she still accepting his vote? Well, if you believe the member for Dobell, she has not acted at all in relation to these allegations. The answer lies in the judgment and instincts of the Prime Minister. She fails to understand the seriousness of the allegations that hundreds of thousands of dollars in union fees collected from people around the country have been used for the personal gain of the member for Dobell. The motion should be supported. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:26): 'He's a backbench member of parliament and I think he's entitled to stay in the parliament until these bodies have come to their conclusions.' Those are not my words but the words of the Leader of the Opposition. They are the words of the Leader of the Opposition about the member for Bowman and his colleague the member for Bonner when they were before the police and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. That is what the then Leader of the House had to say at that time.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: If I were the member for Indi I would just keep quiet. We have not gone after you but, if you want to go down this road, we can.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Indi is warned!
Mr ALBANESE: He also said this:
The matter is really now before the police … and perhaps a Criminal and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. And let's let those authorities make their investigations and come to any conclusion.
That is what the now Leader of the Opposition had to stay. And I am not surprised that he would have some respect for judicial processes. Has been in the dock—I have not—at North Sydney court. He respected those judicial processes and they were gone through. Indeed, while the Leader of the Opposition was in parliament there were two court appearances for the Leader of the Opposition. One offence was proven but no conviction was recorded. I have never been in the dock and I have never been charged by the police with anything.
In terms of proper processes, this is one of the most dangerous resolutions that could possibly come before this parliament. Every three years we put ourselves before the people in our electorates to face their judgment about whether we should represent them or not. What this motion attempts to do is suspend standing orders so that we can suspend a member from parliament for 14 days. Think about the implications if this is carried.
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: The interjection is 'the parliament would be better'. Well, were there circumstances where there was majority government and whatever allegations were made against a member of either side—but particularly against a member of the opposition—if this resolution is carried, a future government could come in here at any time and just decide it is the jury and suspend members on the basis of a majority vote of this parliament. That is an extraordinary proposition. There are allegations against the member for Dobell. If they are true, he deserves to face the full force of the law, but he is also entitled to the presumption of innocence and entitled to defend himself through proper processes. That is the system of government we have.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Bradfield!
Mr ALBANESE: People stand in front of tanks to get that system of government. It is called democracy. It is called a separation of the state from the judicial system. It is called a separation of politics and number crunching from proper judicial processes. I make no judgment. It is up to someone else to make judgment and it is not for this parliament. This is an extraordinary proposition that has been put forward.
There is hypocrisy from those opposite who relied upon the votes of the member for Bowman and the member for Bonner for the passage of 12 health bills while the Leader of the Opposition was health minister and the Manager of Opposition Business was ageing minister. They voted in 14 legislative divisions and 19 non-legislative divisions while they were being investigated for entitlement misuse in 2007. The Howard government did not disown the votes of Mr Laming and Mr Vasta. They continued to vote and participate in the parliament. I tell you what, we did not ask them not to vote either. We did not ask them not to vote because we understood that this opportunism is very dangerous indeed in what it means for the functioning of our democracy, for the functioning of our judicial system and for proper processes.
The opposition did not require Senator Mary Jo Fisher to stand aside or refuse to accept her vote while she was under a cloud of criminality. The Leader of the Opposition accepted Senator Fisher's vote 95 times including on the clean energy bills. And she was found guilty. According to the coalition that, of course, is very different. Well, there is one difference: Senator Fisher was charged, whereas the member for Dobell has not been charged with anything, let alone findings found. So let processes take their course, but let's not go down the road—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bradfield will remove himself from the chamber under 94(a); he has been warned previously.
Mr ALBANESE: Let's not go down the road of setting up this chamber as a replacement for judicial processes. We should also not support this suspension of standing orders because, on the day of the budget, we should be debating the economy. The member for Fraser's MPI—
Mr Abbott interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Let question time go on.' This is the bloke who authorised not one but two suspensions of question time on the same day. It is a new record for the Leader of the Opposition. The MPI is for:
The urgent need to return the budget to surplus, to invest in boosting productivity, and to provide open and transparent costings to the Australian people.
There you have a fundamental issue which should be debated before this parliament on the day in which the budget comes down. Yet those opposite say: 'No, we shouldn't do that. We should debate us becoming judge and jury and replacing proper processes, like a star chamber.' These are circumstances where there is not a shred of credibility because there is not a shred of consistency.
We have the member for Bowman and the member for Bonner, and we have Senator Fisher. We have statements from the Leader of the Opposition, and we do not have to go back very far for them. On 22 April 2012 the Leader of the Opposition said:
Well, as I said, she was a backbench Member of Parliament. My recollection is that she did not take part in the committees of the Parliament, she didn’t attend the Parliament while these matters were being dealt with and I’m saying that the Speaker should stand aside from the chair while these matters are being dealt with.
That quote shows two things. One is that he did not check any of his facts, because the facts do not matter—like in the ridiculous economic question he tried to ask earlier. The facts do not matter and there is no research done. Ninety-five times Senator Fisher voted while her charges were being dealt with, including on the clean energy legislation on 8 November 2011. It shows hypocrisy, again, with the previous motion because he said on that day:
… the Speaker should stand aside from the chair while these matters are being dealt with.
Well, the Speaker did that, and they still came in here and moved the motion, showing what cheapjack opportunism this is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will return to the motion before the chair.
Mr ALBANESE: This is a pathetic stunt, but it is worse than that. This is a very dangerous proposition that has been moved before this House by those opposite.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells beingrung—
Mr Pyne: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would ask you if it is within standing orders for the member for Dobell to vote on a motion in his own case?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): I believe that the member for Dobell has the right to vote and that nothing would exclude a member from voting, but that is without reference to the House of RepresentativesPractice and so I will check that and come back. But I cannot see in any circumstances where a member cannot vote in a suspension. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt may wish to refer to the House of Representatives Practice, page 271, and I stand by my original decision that the member has an entitlement to vote.
[The House divided [15:40]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:44): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Digital television transmission and reception—Report, April 2012.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Campaign advertising by Australian Government departments and agencies—Half yearly report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011.
Gambling Reform—Joint Select Committee—The design and implementation of a mandatory pre-commitment system for electronic gambling machines (First report)—Government response.
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—Review of the rollout of the National Broadband Network (Second report)—Government response.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 57—Economic regulation of airport services—
Report, 14 December 2011.
Government response.
Debate adjourned.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:45): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2011-12 entitled Audit report No. 28, Quality on line control for Centrelink payments, Audit report No. 29, Administration of the Australia Network tender process, Audit report No. 30, Fighting terrorism at its source, Audit report No. 31, Establishment and use of procurement panels and Audit report No. 32, Management of complaints and other feedback by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:45): I inform the House that the Speaker has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory on 28 March 2012 relating to 2013 Canberra centenary funding and tourism. I do not propose to read the resolution to the House. Copies are being circulated to members in the chamber and the full text will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.
The resolution read as follows—
That this Assembly:
(1) notes:
(a) the national significance of celebrating the foundation of the centenary of Australia’s capital city;
(b) that the 2013 Canberra Centenary provides an excellent opportunity to boost the ACT economy through increased interstate and international visitors;
(c) that the ACT Government has released a brochure giving a sneak peak of the 2013 Canberra Centenary program;
(d) that the program includes a number of opportunities for tourists to experience historic, cultural, sports and entertainment events and exhibitions throughout the 2013 calendar year;
(e) that tourism opportunities are best realised through collaborative efforts of the ACT Government, business and tourism industry;
(f) that the ACT Government has recently set up a taskforce to coordinate the ACT’s efforts to secure international flights to Canberra Airport and the group will comprise of Government, Canberra Airport, business and tourism industry representatives;
(g) the $6 million commitment from the Federal Government for programs planned for the centenary celebrations in 2013;
(h) the Federal Government’s commitment of $20 million in capital funding for the arboretum; and
(i) the $24 million commitment from the ACT Government since 2006-2007 for programs planned for the centenary celebrations in 2013;
(2) calls on:
(a) the ACT Government to work with the business and tourism industries to leverage opportunities to bring interstate and international visitors to the ACT during the centenary year;
(b) the ACT Government to work with the Canberra Airport, local business and tourism industries to secure international flights to Canberra Airport;
(c) the Federal Government to continue to at least match on a dollar-for-dollar basis the funds committed by the ACT Government to programs planned for the centenary celebrations in 2013;
(d) the Federal Government to ensure adequate funding to the National Capital Authority to enable this agency to contribute effectively to the centenary celebrations in 2013; and
(e) all Members of the Federal Parliament to provide support for actions the Federal Government undertakes to achieve (2)(c) and (d);
(3) supports budget measures that enhance and promote our tourism opportunities for the 2013 Canberra Centenary; and
(4) calls on the Speaker to write to the leaders of all political parties and to all independents in the Federal Parliament advising them of the terms of this motion”.
STATEMENTS
Budget
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:46): I wish to make a short statement in respect of budget night. I would like to remind members that the usual arrangements will apply for the budget speech tonight and on Thursday for the speech in reply by the Leader of the Opposition. As with any other proceedings of the House, the member with the call is entitled to speak without interruption. I will take the necessary action to ensure that this is the case for both speeches. Where appropriate I will take action under standing order 94(a) and will advise any offending member by written note. Any further action that I consider warranted will be initiated at the commencement of the next sitting day.
I ask members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in time to undertake the security clearance and be seated in the galleries in a way that ensures the smooth operation of the House. I trust that there will be cooperation from members and from their guests in the galleries and that budget night and budget reply night will proceed smoothly for the benefit of the House and for those watching and listening to the proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Budget
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:47): Mr Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Fraser and the honourable member for Casey proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), Mr Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Fraser, namely:
The urgent need to return the budget to surplus, to invest in boosting productivity, and to provide open and transparent costings to the Australian people.
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—
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (15:48): In February of this year I held a mobile office at the National Multicultural Festival in Canberra. I was standing there talking to many of my constituents when Greg, a wardsman at the Canberra Hospital, came up to me and said something to me that has stuck in my mind ever since. He said, 'You guys want to keep at it with that economic reform, because it really matters for the long-term future of Australia.' He cast his hand around, looked at the people around us and said: 'You know, in 50 years time the adults we can all see around us won't be here anymore. In 100 years time neither will the kids; none of us will be here anymore. But the reforms we put in place will endure. So keep at it. Keep looking to the future and don't get caught up in that other bloke's negativity. Don't get caught up with his short-termism. Don't get up with his point-scoring, because what you're doing matters to us and matters to our kids.'
Tonight the Treasurer will deliver a true Labor budget. It will be a budget that will return us to surplus. It will be a budget that spreads the benefits of the mining boom and looks after the most vulnerable. It will be a budget that goes in to bat for millions of low- and middle-income Australians. It will help with the cost of raising kids through the schoolkids bonus, which I was pleased to be with the Prime Minister to announce in my electorate at a Big W at Majura Park on Sunday. It will be a budget that will put in place long-term reform—aged-care reform, a National Disability Insurance Scheme and dental reform. That fiscal strategy has been given a strong endorsement by the IMF. Yesterday the IMF said:
… we welcome the authorities’ commitment to return to a budget surplus by 2012-13 to rebuild fiscal buffers, putting Commonwealth government finances in a stronger position to deal with shocks and long-term pressures from an ageing population and rising health-care costs.
The IMF said:
… tighter fiscal policy combined with an easier monetary policy stance is an appropriate policy mix.
It is often forgotten that the tax-to-GDP ratio under Labor is substantially lower than it was under those opposite. Under those opposite, on average the tax-GDP ratio was 24 per cent: 24c in every dollar of output was taken in tax. Under Labor that is now 22 per cent. We are a lower taxing government than the coalition government that preceded us. We have made real spending cuts when circumstances demanded it, something those opposite never did in 11½ years, and we have increased fiscal stimulus when circumstances demanded it, something those opposite would not have dared to do. When the global financial crisis hit, those opposite would have taken the Herbert Hoover approach: they would have cut back on government spending and sent the Australian economy into deep, deep recession.
So on Thursday night the Leader of the Opposition is going to face a serious question: is he going to give us another stand-up performance like the one he gave us last year where he runs out some sort of dog and pony show, or is he actually going to come clean with the Australian people? Is he going to support the savings that we are putting in place to return the budget to surplus and support assistance for millions of Australian families? Or will he stand in the way of a budget surplus?
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has a few problems in order to get there. His economic team is the one that had an $11 billion black hole in its 2010 election costings. His economic team is the same one that gave us the pass the parcel budget reply: 'Oh no, I won't do the costings. Oh no, he won't do the costings. Oh no, I won't do the costings, but my media advisor will be at the back of the room shaking his head.' It is the same economic team that bungled its attempt to find savings to meet the costs of the summer floods. It is the same economic team that has a $70 billion budget crater that it knows it cannot fund without extreme cuts to basic services. Seventy billion dollars: it is like stopping the pension for two years; it is like stopping Medicare payments for four years.
And if this was not enough, the shadow Treasurer has said that he is going to hide from proper costings. When we had a bipartisan parliamentary committee to look into the Parliamentary Budget Office, it was supported by Senator Joyce and the member for Higgins. But when it came time to actually vote for the legislation, the opposition decided they could not back a Parliamentary Budget Office and they were going back to the approach that they took at the last election.
Let us remember the approach they took at the last election, which I am reminded of in a short article in today's Age. It was WHK Horwath, a Perth based accounting firm, that did a costings audit for the coalition and that was later found to have breached accounting standards. The two accountants involved, Geoff Kidd and Cyrus Patell, were fined $5,000 by the Institute of Chartered Accountants for failing to live up to professional standards. Their mistake, of course, was to say that they had audited the coalition's costings when in fact they did not.
Barrie Cassidy asked the shadow Treasurer about this on Insiders on Sunday. Here is how the exchange went:
BARRIE CASSIDY: Have you yet decided with your costings how you will have those costings audited and authenticated before the next election?
JOE HOCKEY: Yes, we have.
BARRIE CASSIDY: And how will you do it?
JOE HOCKEY: You'll see.
A government member: Don't you worry about that.
Dr LEIGH: Don't you worry about that. And the exchange continued:
BARRIE CASSIDY: But the last time around the accountancy firm you used it was found they were breached professional standards, they were fined and reprimanded. This time will you guarantee it will be a genuine audit?
JOE HOCKEY: Well, an audit is obviously a broad term. In accounting senses you have audits of companies; but audit with a small 'a', which is what I was referring to, is about ensuring we can verify that our numbers are accurate.
I have some news for the member for North Sydney: there is only one definition of the word 'audit' and it has a small 'a'. This is not like 'liberal'. I understand his confusion. There are two ways of spelling 'liberal'. There is big 'l' Liberal, which is the stand in the way of everything, block everything definition, and there is small 'l' liberal, which is the market based, standing up for individual liberties. That is a clear distinction—big 'l', small 'l'—and we all get that. But, member for North Sydney, I am afraid big 'a' and small 'a' audit does not wash. There is no big 'a' and small 'a' audit. There is only an audit, and your costings were not subject to that audit last time.
If we are to believe what is coming out of the opposition at the moment, their costings will not be subjected to an audit next time around. That means the Australian people are going to be denied the right to know what the alternative government would do and how they will pay for their promises. The opposition have a magic pudding fiscal policy. They say they have an audit commission. In fact, their audit commission is not about finding the truth, it is about hiding the truth. You cannot help thinking, when you hear the opposition talking about their costings, of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Mensaying, 'You can't handle the truth.' The opposition think the Australian people cannot handle the truth about their costings. They are going to refuse to come clean about their costings.
Meanwhile we are putting in place a Labor plan for investing in the Australian future. On 1 July we will see a substantial shift in Australian tax policy. That shift will involve increasing taxes on pollution and decreasing taxes on work. It will see Australia for the first time raise the price of a tonne of carbon pollution from zero. It is very strange that those opposite think the right price for a tonne of carbon pollution ought to be zero. They want to cut the price of pollution and they want to raise the price of work. If they have their way, the people who will get tax cuts will be the big polluters and the big miners and the people who will get the tax rises will be working Australians. It will be working Australians who will see their taxes rises because that is how we are assisting households on 1 July. That shift from taxing work to taxing pollution is economics 101. It is the right way of managing a modern economy.
We are investing in productivity. It is absolutely critical that we put in place the productivity boosting reforms like the last wave of productivity-boosting reforms under the Hawke and Keating governments, reforms such as floating the dollar—a reform that was opposed by the current Leader of the Opposition as recently as 1994. In 1994, the Leader of the Opposition described the float of the dollar as an 'exceedingly dubious outcome for Australia'. Of course, that is not the only important economic reform he stood in the way of. He said that compulsory super was one of the greatest confidence tricks of the last decade and his coalition colleagues, when backgrounding, quite happily talked about his genuine innumeracy.
We will be putting in place investments in Australia's future, recognising that productivity does not grow by itself, that governments have to invest in skills and training. We have to improve the systems that underpin Australia's productivity. That means our school reforms, teacher quality reforms and My School, and ensuring schools have the resources they need to do the important job they do. It involves investing in vital infrastructure. The National Broadband Network will drive productivity, it will strengthen our economy. It is extraordinary that, if those opposite have their way, they will cease the NBN and they will go back to their string and tin cans approach. That would be bad for delivery of services, it would be bad for Australian businesses. There are many Australian businesses, I know, in my electorate and in the electorates of all of us that are looking forward to the opportunities that the NBN will bring. I am sure that the member for Bass understands the benefits of super fast broadband for his constituents, and my constituents in Gungahlin and North Watson are looking forward to the opportunities of the National Broadband Network.
But, at the same time, those opposite are talking down the economy. We have unemployment at five per cent compared with eight per cent in the United States and 11 per cent in Europe. Our economy continues to grow. It is seven per cent larger now than it was before the global downturn. Meanwhile, the British economy has shrunk; it is three per cent smaller than it was before the downturn and has just gone back into recession.
We have a gold-plated, AAA credit rating from all three ratings agencies, and—I know those opposite hate it—the Treasurer was voted Euromoney Finance Minister of the Year. Of course, Peter Costello would have loved to have received the accolade. I am sure that if he had received that, we would have heard speeches from those opposite about how terrific the Euromoney award was. But of course, with their characteristic lack of grace, as soon as Treasurer Swan received the award, they swept into this place and began saying, 'Well, it's not an award you ever would have wanted.' But, as Treasurer Keating before him did, Treasurer Swan has been voted Euromoney Finance Minister of the Year, and that recognises that the Australian economic circumstances did not happen by accident. They happened by dint of strong investment, most of which occurred under Labor governments, because Labor governments understand the need to invest in the future. They understand, as Greg said to me at the Multicultural Festival, that we are here for a short time on this earth and our job is to invest in making the country just a little bit better than it was before. Our job is to invest in things like super fast broadband and in education. I am reminded by the member for Hindmarsh that it is more than our job—it is our duty. That is why we are here. It is our duty to be here in order to put in place a National Disability Insurance Scheme. For too long, under governments of all stripes, people with a disability have not received the deal to which they are entitled. A National Disability Insurance Scheme is going to change that.
For too long we have had an aged care system that has been patched up with bandaids here and there but has not had the root-and-branch reform that I think all sectors understand it desperately needs. We are an ageing population and we need to get aged care right. We need to think systematically about aged care. In the area of hospital reform it is vital to recognise that we have to have efficiency payments for hospitals. We have to pay hospitals and encourage them to do as good a job as they can.
Those opposite should leave off trash-talking the Australian economy. They should say in Australia what the Leader of the Opposition would say were he in London, where he said: 'Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.' (Time expired)
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:03): Well, here we are on budget day being lectured by the Labor Party in this matter of public importance on the need for surplus budgets and the need for openness and transparency. We are seriously being lectured by the Australian Labor Party on budget day about the need for a surplus, which they have not delivered at all in government, and about the need for openness and transparency, which they have not delivered in any regard on any day that they have been in government.
Tonight, in a few hours time, the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, will hand down his fifth budget. Four years ago, of course, his budget journey began. Whilst it is very difficult, particularly at the moment—you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—to make any predictions about what those opposite may or may not do, I think we can safely say that this Treasurer's budget journey, as far as handing down budgets goes, ends tonight. I think that, in their heart of hearts, those opposite know that. In his heart, the member for Fraser, who moved this matter of public importance, knows that is the case. They know that because not only do the Australian people have no confidence in this Treasurer; some of his own colleagues have no confidence in his capacity as Treasurer. If the Australian public are going to listen to a lecture about the necessity for a budget surplus, which everyone knows is necessary, they are not going to be lectured by the Australian Labor Party.
Let us look at the journey so far. Let us go to budget night four years ago. Four years ago almost to the day, the member for Lilley stood at the dispatch box. He had inherited no net government debt; in fact he had inherited $45 billion cash in the bank and a surplus of $20 billion. And do you know what he essentially said? He said that it was not good enough, that he was going to have a bigger surplus, that the Howard and Costello government had been reckless and irresponsible and that he was going to hand down a larger budget surplus. He went to great lengths to explain why he was a more responsible economic manager. Of course this followed on from the Labor Party's pre-election campaign that they were truly fiscal conservatives, more so than Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello who had paid off all of Labor's net government debt, put $45 billion in the bank and handed down a surplus of $19 billion or $22 billion in 2007. But, no, for the member for Lilley, this was not good enough; he was going to do better.
And then what happened the next year, in 2009, when he gave his budget speech from the dispatch box?
I remember sitting here listening to the speech all the way through. I have worked on a few budgets before, in another capacity. I have seen a few budgets delivered and I have listened to lots of budget speeches, and almost from the first paragraph I thought: there is something missing; there is something big missing; in fact, the whole thing that matters is missing! And what was missing was any mention of a surplus or a deficit. This is Labor Party openness and transparency! It was a deficit, and page after page and line after line as the Treasurer delivered that speech there was not one mention of the projected budget deficit for that year. It was projected at about $57 billion, from memory.
In case anyone thought this was some oversight—and the Treasurer could have it either way; he could say it was an oversight, that he was so incompetent he left the budget outcome out of his speech—that was dispelled pretty quickly. We had those contorted interviews in the days after the budget from both the Treasurer and the then Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, where they would refuse to state the dollar value of the projected net government debt or the budget deficit. It was a figure they were embarrassed about and it was a figure they went to great lengths never to mention. This is the openness and transparency that is so dear to the heart of the member for Fraser, who has moved this matter of public importance.
Let me remind members of this House that tonight there will be lots of budget documents, four of five volumes, and there will be PBS statements across the board. But in the end it all comes down to one figure, doesn't it? It all comes down to the outcome. In 2009 the Treasurer did not mention his budget outcome. Such is the commitment to openness and transparency of those opposite. Then, in 2010, even the Treasurer, delivering his third budget, thought, 'I don't think I'll get away with that again,' and he did for once mention his projected deficit. Then he said the deficit would be $40.8 billion. As it turned out, the real figure was not $40.8 billion. It was not less; it was more. It was nearly $48 billion.
Then we come to this year. We have had much fanfare from those opposite about how they will deliver a surplus tonight. What they will deliver, of course, is their projection. I predict that, following the shame of 2009, the Treasurer will actually state what the outcome of the budget is, but it will be his projection for the coming year just as it was back when he projected a $40 billion deficit in 2010 that turned out to be $48 billion. With this Treasurer, the moving numbers are surely something to behold. In this financial year, which still has a little over six weeks to run, his initial projection was that the budget deficit for this year would be around $12 billion. This time a year ago at that dispatch box he said it would be about $22 billion. Then, in his MYEFO, the regular six-monthly update that updates all of the budget figures thanks to the Charter of Budget Honesty delivered by the previous government, it had grown from $22 billion to $37 billion. All predictions are that it will be in the 40s tonight, and it ain't over yet—there are still six weeks to run. We will find out, as we do with all budgets, the final outcome towards the end of September. We know where he started: at about $12 billion. We know he has gone past $37 billion. We know there has been a threefold increase in his projected budget deficit for this year.
Mr John Cobb: So far.
Mr TONY SMITH: So far, as my friend and colleague next to me says. The Treasurer will stand up tonight, deliver a budget surplus and say: 'Believe I will hit the target. Believe me that, for once, I'll hit the target.' Maybe he will say, 'Believe me, I'll get near the target.'
As some of you know, the History Channel on Foxtel is a great source of knowledge and inspiration if you ever get home after a function. There was a great show a while ago on the precision needed for the first moon landing. The maths and all the work had to be spot on. Too fast and there would be a huge problem. The wrong calculation and the astronauts, instead of going into orbit around the moon so that they could land on it, would bounce off and fly into outer space never to be recovered. In fact, if they had got it wrong they would still be out there. I could not help thinking, 'Thank God the Treasurer wasn't working at NASA.' Can you imagine it? 'Near enough's good enough,' I was about to say, but we do not even get near enough with this Treasurer. We have seen in the days leading up to the budget, as the shadow Treasurer rightly pointed out, that he 'doesn't know whether he is Santa Claus or the Christmas Grinch'.
Years and years ago when I had a lot more time on my hands as a teenager, I used to watch most test cricket matches. There was an opening batsmen for Australia, who I am sure was a great bloke, called Graeme Wood.
Opposition members: Western Australian.
Mr TONY SMITH: A West Australian; there you go. He went through a bad patch where he ran out most guys at the other end. He would play a shot and he would have a combination of yes, no and wait, in rapid succession, and it always ended the same way—with the opposing batsman standing next to him at the other end of the pitch. That is what we have seen with this Treasurer. He says it is going to be a tough budget; that is his script. The problem with his script is: it is the same script he uses every single year. On 1 April 2008 he said, 'It's going to be a tough budget.' Before the 2009 budget, in an interview on radio 2UE, he said, 'This is going to be a tough budget.' In 2010 the government said, through Senator Sherry, 'It's going to be a tough budget.' Again this week we have heard the Treasurer say, 'It's going to be a tough budget,' as he has handed out cash in one direction and clawed it back from another. Yes, no, wait.
The other thing we are going to see in this budget is fiddles galore. We have seen that already in some of their predictions. As the shadow minister for finance pointed out a few weeks back, in March, if you look at the spending pattern over the forward estimates there is a desperate desire to drag spending forward into this year and to push it back beyond the next financial year so that the Treasurer can stand here tonight and say, 'I am projecting a surplus.' One example is the Energy Security Fund. Here is the pattern of spending over the forward estimates: $1,000 million in 2013-14, the same in 2014-15, but apparently—for reasons that are not obvious—the purpose of the Energy Security Fund almost evaporates in the year 2012-13. It goes from $1,000 million to $1 million. Just for one year: a dip down and a dip back up. And that is only what we know to date.
What Australians can be sure of, unfortunately, is that whatever this Treasurer says tonight it will not be the outcome. Whatever he says tonight, in a little over three hours, it will not be the outcome. The unfortunate fact about the economic management of this government is that incompetence in the ministry and incompetence across the government is leading to a lack of confidence throughout the Australian economy. There is only one way to restore economic responsibility to Australia and that is with a change of government.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:18): Once again I follow the member for Casey. I think the last time I spoke on a matter of public importance I did the same thing, and I think I said the same thing then. The member for Casey has an extraordinary ability to ignore the fact that there was a global financial crisis.
Mr John Cobb: You created it.
Ms OWENS: I think the member sitting opposite said we created the global financial crisis. That is one of the most amazing statements I have heard in a long while. That deserves to go down on the list of 'silliest statements of all time'—that the Labor government created the global financial crisis. Thank you for your interjection.
This is an interesting MPI to have on budget day, because most people—particularly in the media area—who know a great deal about economics are actually off in a lockup. In this House we have Dr Emerson, the member for Rankin; he certainly knows about economics. We have a few members of the opposition who, from what I have heard so far, do not know much about economics. But I am going to take this opportunity, while all the economists are not listening—excuse me, Dr Emerson, you can give me notes later—to try to talk about the economy and the issue of surplus in non-economic language. I am going to try not to use the word 'fiscal' more than once, because I have just used it.
Governments have a major role to play in keeping our community functioning and keeping us in a place where families and individuals can live the lives that they want to live. One of the things governments have to achieve in order to do that is growth. But it is not growth for its own sake. It is not growth because growth per se is good; it is growth because growth allows us, as a community, to do certain things. It allows us to provide employment for people who are entering the workforce. That is one of the most important things that it does, and that is why this government is so focused on jobs. There are more people in the workforce now than there ever have been at any time in Australia's history. Growth allows a government—particularly a Labor government—to support the weakest and the most vulnerable. I am really pleased to see that tonight there will be some announcements on payments to families to assist with education expenses. This reflects our commitment to supporting the weakest. Our commitment is also reflected in our substantial investment in struggling schools in past budgets, in the substantial increase to pensions—the largest one in 100 years—in the increase in the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent, and in the amazing work that has gone on in the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We will be launching sites for that scheme next year, one year earlier than the Productivity Commission recommended. We are also giving additional assistance to parents of children with disabilities, and paid parental leave. All of those Labor reforms indicate our understanding that one of government's roles, and one of the purposes of growth, is to support people at times in their lives when they are weakest and most vulnerable.
You also want to grow because it allows a government to encourage and enable the strongest people in the community to contribute to society—the most creative, the most entrepreneurial. That is why we invested so substantially in R&D and that is why when things got tough we came to the aid of small business with instant tax write-offs during the global financial crisis, why we have announced instant tax write-offs again from 1 July and why there will be more announcements tonight that will provide tax relief to business—an extremely important role of government.
But also one of the roles of government and one of the purposes of growth is to make sure that you can do these things for future generations, that you are not just using what you have now but that you are putting in place the structures that will provide all those things for the future. That is why you will see this government commit to the MRRT—known as the mining tax—which uses some of the profits of today for the future through increases in superannuation. It is why we have put such extraordinary investment into training, why we have made reforms to health with much more focus on preventative health, and why we have invested so substantially in the NBN. All of these things are about making sure that the growth that our economy shows is invested for the things that matter—to keep people employed as they enter the workforce, to support the weakest, to encourage and enable the most creative and the strongest, and to make sure that we can keep doing these things for the future.
One of the things that governments do right around the world in order to keep economies moving in this way is to step in when there are shocks to the economy. When the global economy suffered a severe crash a couple of years ago—it is actually more years ago than you realise; it has been going on for quite some time—we did step in and we stepped in quickly and effectively. The results if you do not step in are really easy to see. When the economy turns down, when you get what I think at the time was an estimate of $250 billion over the forward estimates ripped from your tax base—and that is what we were talking about back then—what happens is individuals lose their jobs. Someone pays when the economy has a downturn of that size.
You can as a government stand back and say, 'Okay, the individuals who will lose their jobs can pay for it'—as happened in many countries of the world where the action was not fast enough. The US, for example, has 8.3 per cent unemployment and Europe has over 10 per cent now; whereas we are sitting on just over five per cent. You can stand back as a government and watch that happen or you can step in and take up the slack as business withdraws—and that is what we did as a government. What that means in times of great global financial shock is that countries actually go into deficit. They go into deficit when they need to step in and, as business recovers, they pull back again—and they pull back for very good reasons. They pull back to make space for business. As business starts to recover, it needs the employees and it needs to build things for itself. Whereas during the global financial crisis we were building things for the community, if we continued to do that in a major way as business started to build for itself, there would be a competition for investment dollars and a competition for skilled labour. So as the economy slows down government steps in to provide employment for a range of people.
In my community we built school halls, libraries and public housing, and three per cent of my workforce was employed on those projects. Three per cent of Parramatta's workforce was employed on those projects, and they were employed for up to two years. We all know that the construction industry is still quite soft. They would still be unemployed. They would have sold their trucks, they would have sold their tools, they would have lost their houses and they would have had all the mental health and other health issues that come with a shock in a person's life—and the family stress and the family break-up. And, as the economy improved, they would not have had their truck, they would not have had their tools and they would not have been in the position necessarily to move back into the workforce quickly. So we stepped in and we as a nation, by spending that stimulus money, took the weight of the global financial crisis as a community. We took it rather than allowing it to be borne by individuals—by that individual and that individual, depending which field you were in and depending where you were at the time. We did that and it was the right thing to do.
But it is equally the right thing to do as the economy recovers for us to withdraw and push the budget back into surplus. You do that for a number of reasons. You do it to get out of the way, for a start. You do it to get out of the way and to give the Reserve Bank more space on monetary policy. You do it for that reason but you also do it because, given the circumstances that this government has seen since we came to government—with global financial crises and the ebb and wane of the argument about whether it was going to get better or whether it was going to get worse—it is just sensible to put this country in a position where we have the capacity to respond to what comes in the future.
In the last two years we have lived through some of the worst natural disasters that we have seen come one after the other. Every time it happened there was a hit to our GDP, there was a loss of work opportunities and we saw the economy slow—and each time we responded. It is sensible when you have the spare capacity to move back into surplus so that if things get rocky again you have the capacity to respond. This is a sensible thing to do. It was sensible to go into deficit and it is sensible to bring the budget back to surplus as early as you can—and that is what we are doing. I am really looking forward to tonight's budget because I know it is going to be a Labor budget that continues on that commitment to growing the economy, to supporting the weakest, to enabling the strongest and to ensuring a future for future generations.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:28): It is T minus three hours and counting, as Vice-Captain Wayne M Swan of the starship Laborites prepares to make a new entry in the captain's log. What this government is trying to achieve is almost a direct lift from the introduction of every episode of that great science fiction TV series, Star Trek: 'Surplus: the final frontier of these voyages of the starship Laborites, now in the sixth year of their mission to introduce strange new policies, to eek out new taxes and new regulations and to boldly go where no Labor Treasurer has gone before'—well, at least not in the member for Longman's lifetime. Rightly or wrongly, the Treasurer wants us to believe he can cross that final frontier tonight and boldly go where he has never been before—to a budget surplus.
The member for Fraser—who could be Mr Spock if he had pointy ears—talks about the need for a surplus, and not just the need for a surplus but also the need for transparency. Anyone can get up here and say they are going to deliver a surplus. You can say it as much as you like, but just saying it does not make it so. To deliver a surplus, you actually have to deliver a surplus. Sometimes there can be a difference—as we know so often with this Labor government—between what is being promised on budget day and what is proven to be delivered 16 months later. Sometimes there is a very big difference in facts and sometimes an epic difference, like the deficit that is currently in progress this financial year.
Let us not look at the wild forecasts of a desperate government. Let us look at reality, because we can actually do that. Let us go back to the captain's log from this time last year and look at what was forecast then. According to the 2010-11 MYEFO forecast there was going to be a deficit of $12 billion. At the time, that sounded like a pretty bad budget. But it actually got worse. Six months later, the budget forecast was a deficit of $23 billion. Then another six months later there was a forecast of a $37 billion deficit. And they reckon it is going to head lower. The Labor Party loves to come into this place and talk about this fictitious black hole from our side. What we have here is not a fictitious black hole; it is a very real one that is unfolding before our very eyes. At the rate that this blow-out is growing, it is not just a black hole; it is going to be a complete rip in the space-time continuum, like the one that Mr Spock sailed through in the last Star Trek movie.
If we want to talk about transparency, let us be transparent here and talk about the difference between the science fiction that the Labor Party would give you and reality. In reality this government has not got a clue about how to deliver a surplus or how to manage an economy. It is pure science fiction to think that these guys can actually deliver a surplus. This is the government that thrusts an economy-wide tax on the population, the carbon tax—and it brings in how much money exactly? How much money? Last time the government told us, it was none. It was actually going to cost more than it raised. That is because the tax will not actually achieve the goal that it sets out to do—lowering carbon dioxide emissions—so the government has to go offshore and buy some.
The Treasurer is just blindly firing out taxes like they are photon torpedoes, hoping he can bag himself a surplus. He is firing everything he has got: the carbon tax, a mining tax, 'We'll take away the rebate on your private health insurance.' But back in the engineering section, where all the productivity happens, the business sector is actually reeling. All the firepower is sapping the energy out of the ship called Australia. Manufacturers and small business exporters are all screaming at the government like Scotty: 'She cannot take it anymore, Captain. She's gonna blow.' We have the mining industry entering unchartered territory, where mines like Norwich Park in Central Queensland are closing down. We have the tourism industry on its knees, reeling from a downturn in international tourist numbers. We have manufacturing going belly up because of government neglect. And now we have a carbon tax coming in to give them all the Vulcan nerve pinch.
But the government just is not listening. They are just sailing the nation straight into oblivion, and they are doing it at warp speed. The government have driven us into debt and deficits. The Labor Party and their Klingon mates—the Greens, the so-called Independents and now the member for Dobell—led us into this mire. And now they are trying to tell us that they can lead us out. But they just keep on moving forward, telling us how to follow them. They have not turned around. They are still leading us into oblivion. That is because the Labor Party only knows one direction: a direction of reckless spending, waste, and more and more tax. And that is not how you deliver a surplus.
I want to see a surplus as much as anyone else, and I do believe it is imperative to get the budget back to surplus. But using smoke and mirrors will not do that. Pulling spending out of next year and putting it into this year does not achieve anything, except blowing out this year's budget even further. When people look at the cash for kids program that was announced this week, their first reaction might be to think of how they are going to spend that money. But when they think about it for a minute—and people will; the voters are not stupid—they will realise that they will actually need that money to pay the taxes needed to pay for the program itself. It is not just robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Peter to pay Peter. It is giving with the left hand and taking with the same left hand. For the hard-core Trekkies out there, it is like Ferengi economics. That is not creating a surplus; it is just pushing expenditure around. You cannot put this week's rent on the credit card then pay next week's rent in advance on the same credit card and tell everyone how you will not be paying rent next week. It is nonsense.
And what do you get for all of this? A flimsy $1.5 billion alleged surplus. Well, that is a surplus, Wayne, but not as we know it. That is as close to transparency as this government is going to get: forecasting a surplus that is so wafer-thin that you can see right through it. Put that figure into context. Compare it with the size of the actual blow-out in the current budget. If this Labor government turns a forecast of a $12 billion deficit into somewhere south of $40 billion, how long will the $1.5 billion surplus that is forecast stand up? I think it will be gone by the morning.
I said earlier that I would like to see a budget surplus. But we have to understand what the point of the surplus is. It is to pay off debt and put aside money for a rainy day. We have plenty of debt that needs to be paid off. But is it actually going to be paid off? Not on Labor's watch, because on their watch this parliament is going to be asked again tonight to raise the debt ceiling to record levels. And today we know that because when the Prime Minister was asked whether they would seek to raise the debt ceiling even higher we could not get an answer. If you think a surplus can be delivered by raising the debt ceiling then, again to quote from Star Trek, you are out of your Vulcan mind.
I want to see a budget surplus—a real budget surplus—because it is what a responsible government delivers for a rainy day. This Labor government inherited a $20 billion surplus and $70 billion of net worth. The coalition saved for a rainy day. We had a rainy day. We had a literal rainy day. We had the global financial crisis, but we also had the floods in Queensland and the cyclone. But the cupboard was already bare so they had to dig up more debt, and they had to dig around and put in new taxes. So what if we have another rainy day, with this wafer-thin so-called surplus? What if there is widespread flooding and cyclone damage? How is that surplus going to fare then? I have to tell you: set phasers to stun because it will be all gone. Unless that rainy day happens in the next 12 hours, it will be too late because this Treasurer's surplus will be blown out before he finishes his cornflakes in the morning.
Four times the government has come to this place and told us that we are going to have a record huge deficit. They actually came in here and said that. It turned out the reality was much worse. One thing we can be sure of is that whatever the Treasurer announces tonight it will be worse than that when it comes to the crunch. No amount of smoke and mirrors can save this incompetent government. No amount of cooking the books will stop a country from plunging into a real black hole, a worm hole you could say, that it itself has created. And when the good hard-working Australians look up from the bottom of that big black hole where Labor has put them—and it will be sometime soon—they are going to say one thing, 'Beam me up, Scotty'. We need to get this country back to reality and the budget needs to get back to a real surplus, not Labor's science fiction one.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (16:38): I thank the member for Dawson for his contribution. I think he does well as a star trekker and perhaps that is the standard of debate those opposite want to bring to this House. With respect to something as serious as the federal budget, no wonder he wants to be beamed up.
Tonight is very serious. Tonight we are going to bring down a budget. Tonight it is very important for Australian people that this budget moves back into surplus. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker D'Ath, you know my electorate of Fowler. I have the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. I also have a very disadvantaged electorate. My electorate is well and truly in the mortgage belt. The thing that matters to my constituents is putting downward pressure on interest rates, not watching Star Trek. Maybe they cannot afford to get the reruns put on their satellite systems, unlike the member for Dawson. Bringing the budget to surplus will put downward pressure on interest rates.
It is all very well to be lectured by this mob opposite who presided over eight consecutive increases in interest rates. They were there and they saw the interest rates go through the roof. They were there when people in my electorate were losing their houses. This is the mob that presided over the mortgage stress in this country. They want to lecture us on fiscal discipline. Tonight's budget will also, in addition to going back into surplus, make landmark reforms, particularly in aged care.
When we first came to power we were the first government in 12 years to increase the age pension and the disability support pension. They did not just not do it; they took a decision against their minister to not increase pensions over the 10-year period they were in government. So do not lecture us on looking after older Australians or on looking after Australians on disability pensions. We will bring the National Disability Insurance Scheme forward, which will be revolutionary. I am sure members opposite that represent people, as I do, with disabilities will know the significance of that. In electorates such as mine, people have been have been left behind with acute dental issues leading to health issues. This is very big and something those opposite had the opportunity to fix and never did.
Mr Neumann: They abolished it.
Mr HAYES: Good point. We will be bringing down the school kids bonus. That is going to be pretty significant. For parents in my electorate it will mean that twice a year they will get money when they need it most to pay for their kids' access to computer technology, school uniforms, books, pencils, papers, sports uniforms and football boots. That is something very important to any of us that represent families. Do not forget, this budget will also provide the vehicle by which the first paid maternity leave scheme will be introduced in this country.
Ms O'Neill: It is about time.
Mr HAYES: It is about time. This is not the Rolls-Royce model proposed that those opposite were going to use a discount out of the mining tax for. This will actually do something for people who need it most, families that need it now, and we are going to do it. So they can whinge and bleat as much as they like but the facts remain: we are presiding over a $1.4 trillion economy, an economy which is the envy of most of the developed world. It is also the economy that best withstood the challenges of the global financial crisis. Have you ever heard that mob opposite talk about the global financial crisis?
Mr Neumann: Never! They slept through it.
Mr HAYES: They did not actually sleep through it. That is being unjust to them. The alternate government over there, when the challenge of the global financial crisis hit, voted no to investing in our schools, they voted no to investing in social housing, and they voted no to investment in regional and local infrastructure. All those conservative councils that they represent got money from us, yet they voted no to it. This is the same mob that went to the last election with an $11-billion black hole.
We get lectured by the member for Dawson about transparency. They made an effort on transparency. Firstly, they refused to use the Parliamentary Budget Office—an independent body—to scrutinise their costings. They appointed their own auditor. I guess at a stretch you could understand it. They gave the auditor such instructions that the auditor was found to be in gross breach of professional accounting standards. This is the mob that wants to lecture us on fiscal discipline. The people they get to oversee their costings could not come out and verify their costings without breaching professional accounting standards.
The mob opposite also get on aeroplanes occasionally, fly around the world and give a few speeches. One time, not all that long back, the Leader of the Opposition was over in London. He was asked about the Australian economy. What did the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, say? He said:
On the face of this comparative performance, Australia has serious bragging rights … Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.
He said that this year. These people want to jump up and down—fire and brimstone—and find holes in everything yet go overseas and speak the truth.
Another person who has some economic credibility is the member for Wentworth. He has been around for some time and had a pretty senior role in some accounting firm, they tell me. What did the member for Wentworth say? He compared 'the current success and strength of our economy against the troubles of so many others'. I think he is pretty accurate. We should give credit where credit is due. He got that call right.
When it comes to an economic debate, this mob are not in the game. They are the people who for over a decade presided over the failure to invest in Australian infrastructure. They might want to talk about the $20 billion surplus they had—and it is on the record, it is true—but they failed to invest in the economic infrastructure so necessary for this country.
Mr Perrett: Bottlenecks everywhere!
Mr Neumann: They didn't vote for the roads in Queensland!
Mr HAYES: They presided over the establishment of bottlenecks. I am glad all those members from Queensland are here. They know how much was not put into Queensland. They failed to invest in economic, productive infrastructure. It is the same mob that when they had the chance at the Treasury benches ripped $1 billion out of public health. We are rebuilding that system. As a matter of fact, it was under the watch of the current Leader of the Opposition when he was health minister. He took $1 billion out of health.
They also managed to strip almost $1 billion out of public and vocational education. They ensured that where they could they stripped money out of that. That is what went into their surplus. They failed to spend on those things that are so necessary to put our economy on a competitive footing for the future.
We just got lectured to by the member for Dawson about the problems in Queensland after the flood. As I recall, it was this side of the House that decided it was a priority, a commitment that we should work for the restoration of flood damage in Queensland.
Mr Perrett: Hear, hear!
Mr HAYES: Who voted against it?
Mr Perrett: The member for Forde.
Mr Neumann: Who voted against it? All of you.
Mr HAYES: All those people over there from Queensland, whose electorates were very much damaged, sat here on a party basis and voted against the efforts of the Australian Labor Party to rebuild Queensland. Those members have got to hang their heads in shame.
It was only yesterday you had the International Monetary Fund coming out and paying credit to this government for bringing the budget back to surplus as quickly as we have. You have also got Standard and Poor's coming out and congratulating the government. One simple thing that those opposite should be able to understand is that this is also the first time in Australian history that all three rating agencies have given this country AAA status. It does not matter how far they want to go back, they cannot find that at any time they have occupied the Treasury benches, because it has only happened now.
We will be working to deliver for working families. We will not be taking care of mining magnates who are seeking preselection for the Liberal Party; we will work to look after working families. (Time expired)
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (16:48): That was the third contribution from our colleagues opposite that has been full of froth and bubble but, as usual for this government, with absolutely no substance. The member for Fowler has tried to say that we have not been able to produce a coherent economic strategy. Well, I give you 11 years of coherent economic strategy under the former Howard government that left you guys with $20 billion in the bank and $70 billion of net assets. And what have you done with it? Absolutely nothing. You have just frittered it away.
Mr Neumann: What about the roads in Queensland?
Mr VAN MANEN: We never voted against the repair of roads in Queensland; we voted against you introducing a new tax. Because of your economic incompetence you had to introduce a new tax to fund the fixing of the flood damage in Queensland—just one of 20-odd different taxes you have introduced.
It is important that we return our budget to surplus but it has got to be done in an orderly and sensible manner. This budget surplus is only a promise. The IMF is a bit early in its call to congratulate the government on returning the budget to surplus, because it is a promise that we will not know about until September 2013.
Labor's record of budget surpluses does not bear spending much time on, because they have not produced one in 20-odd years. We have got to a stage where we now have the highest debt in the nation's history. This Labor government has lived in the red, spending up big at the taxpayers' expense. It is building up quite a credit reference, borrowing up to $100 million every day and paying up to $100 million a week in interest. Net debt is forecast to peak at about $136 billion in 2013-14, with about $7 billion a year in interest. Last time I checked that would probably fund the NDIS. It is just one of many examples of the profligate spending of this government. Programs that could have been implemented if they had spent their money more wisely cannot be implemented, or have had to be delayed.
In all of this the average Australian is yet to see real value for money. They have not benefited at all from the $4 billion blow-out in the cost of border protection. They certainly did not benefit from the nearly $2 billion blow-out for the Building the Education Revolution.
Dr Emerson: You came to the school openings!
Mr VAN MANEN: We have not benefited from the Pink Batts program that cost four lives. I was talking about the blow-out, Craig. Just listen to what I am saying. You do not want to listen to anything else we are saying.
Australians cannot see the sense in the blow-out from the set-top box scheme. I have had seniors call my office wondering why, when they can get a cheap set-top box from Harvey Norman for $150, it cost several hundred dollars to install it under the government's program. The spending spree just continues.
The NBN is another classic example: extra funds being spent on the NBN without a proper business plan, without a cost-benefit analysis. How much money is in there that could be redirected to other programs to solve some of the problems we have in our community?
Dr Emerson: I will let the people of Forde know about that too!
Mr VAN MANEN: I am not getting any NBN in Forde, anyway, Craig. Check your facts!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would remind the member for Forde to refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr VAN MANEN: Business and taxpayers alike will be contributing to the blow-out in costs associated with the rollout of the NBN. Locals are also complaining about an upgrade to the M1—if funds were redirected from the NBN, maybe we could get finished some of infrastructure in Queensland the member for Oxley was talking about. Where is the value for money? How are Australians expected to believe that this government is looking out for their best interests? Bribing everyday Australians with handouts and compensation is not looking after their best interests, and the old pea and thimble trick of taking with one hand and giving with the other is not going to work either.
I sometimes wonder whether those opposite are wearing green tights under their clothes. It seems to be an inspiration gained from acting out their own roles in a new kind of Robin Hood drama where the Labor government continues to rob from the rich to give to the poor. What they do not seem to appreciate is that most of their economic policies for the past four years have actually done more damage to the people they purport to seek to assist than they have done to the rich. We saw this with the changes to the private health insurance rebate, and we saw it with the carbon tax and its evil twin, the mining tax.
The centrepiece of this year's budget in the past 12 months has been the world's biggest carbon tax. No accounting trick or bribe can hide the strength of the carbon tax and its deleterious effect on the Australian economy and confidence in our nation. The carbon tax is socialism dressed up as environmentalism. It is just one of the vehicles Labor is hoping to drive from red town to black town. But it is all based on a promise, on a wing and a prayer, in 18 months time. Given this government's track record, I am not holding my breath.
The world's biggest carbon tax is based on a lie. It will destroy jobs and do damage to household budgets and our economy in general. It is another example of this government's solution to every problem, which is to tax it, increase the cost for Australians and then give back with the other hand. The urgent need to see the budget return to surplus comes as the level of net debt soars to its highest level in our history. The guilt of Labor's spending spree is starting to set in, and now the government are desperate to get the budget back into surplus. They realise the urgency of it now, before interest on the Labor government's debt reaches the $7 billion mark. What a waste. This $7 billion could have been used to pay for a National Disability Scheme.
As I said earlier, Labor are right at home in the red. They have not delivered a surplus since 1989-90. Labor have not delivered a surplus, as the member for Dawson touched on earlier, in the member for Longman's lifetime. At this stage this surplus is a promise only—and, given Labor's interpretation of a promise, I really have to question whether we will see that surplus in September 2013. We are more likely to see the Disney blockbuster sequel to Pinocchio before then. This is a budget that will be based on cooked books, with the Treasurer being the master chef. The forecast surplus will be based on fiddled figures with spending brought forward or pushed back. For example, the bulk of the NBN expenditure is not even in the budget documents—it is mostly for standard spending like digging trenches and laying cable—just by treating it as an equity injection.
Today's MPI stresses the urgent need to return the budget to surplus, invest in boosting productivity and provide open and transparent costings to the Australian people. Improving productivity and innovation is going to come about through lower taxes and lower regulation, not increased taxes and increased regulation—both of which this government have been absolutely consummate professionals at. It was noted that, if the government were being honest with the Australian people, the real starting point would be a $8.5 billion deficit not a $1.5 billion surplus. Labor have an appalling record in forecasting budget and economic numbers. It is this that makes me rest quite comfortably that they will not produce a surplus in 18-months time.
It is the coalition that has a proven ability to manage the economy. The urgent need to return the budget to surplus, invest in boosting productivity and provide open and transparent costings to the Australian people will not be achieved by this current government but through a coalition government that will bring reward, hope and opportunity to the people of Australia.
BILLS
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2012
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2012
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2012
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2012
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2012
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio) Bill 2011
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 [2012]
Excise Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
Indirect Tax Laws Amendment (Assessment) Bill 2012
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2011
Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2012
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012
Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2012
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General and Administrator reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Wright has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (16:59): I ask leave of the House to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to family assistance, veterans' entitlements and other purposes.
Leave not granted.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (16:59): I ask leave of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 2012-13, and also for leave to present a copy of my statement.
Leave granted.
Mr OAKESHOTT: The Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act requires the committee to consider draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office with the chair making a statement to the House on budget day on whether, in the committee's opinion, the Auditor-General has been given sufficient funding to carry out his duties. In support of this process, the Auditor-General is empowered to disclose their budget estimates to the committee, which we will then consider in making representations to government as necessary.
This process reflects both the committee's status as the parliament's audit committee and the Auditor-General's status as an independent officer of the parliament. The committee met with the Auditor-General in March to review the Audit Office's draft estimates for the coming financial year. The Auditor-General advised that, while not seeking additional budget supplementation at this time, the Audit Office is facing a number of cost pressures. These pressures include the cumulative effect of efficiency dividends, increased employee costs and contractor rate pressures. In addition, the ANAO continues to absorb the costs of the increased requirements as a result of changes to the Australian Auditing Standards. Furthermore, recent changes to the Auditor-General Act 1997 gave the ANAO new and welcome powers to undertake audits of key performance indicators and Commonwealth partners such as state governments. These important expansions of the Auditor-General's mandate add further pressure to the ANAO's budget outlook. The committee recognises the essential role the Auditor-General plays in scrutinising government processes and expenditure and therefore endeavours to ensure the ANAO remains adequately resourced. In this light and although the Auditor-General has not requested additional funds in this budget, the committee does not want to see the ANAO's new powers underutilised or their discretionary work, such as the performance audit program, negatively impacted due to future budget constraints. The committee appreciates the efforts of the Auditor-General and his staff in maintaining a strong working relationship with the committee. They have made themselves available to brief the committee regularly and have been responsive to our requests for information on a variety of topics. The committee looks forward to continuing a productive relationship with the Audit Office into the future. The Audit Office's total revenue from government is $74.306 million in 2012-13. The Auditor-General has advised that this appropriation is sufficient for him to discharge his statutory obligations and his work program for the year ahead. On this basis, the committee endorses the proposed budget for the Audit Office in 2012-13 but notes that any reduction in the draft estimates or additional pressure placed on the Audit Office without corresponding additional funds would be of concern. I present a copy of my statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (17:03): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ) (17:03): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr OAKESHOTT: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I rise due to continued public questioning about a personal philanthropic trust, named the Mid-North Coast Youth Trust, which was established in 2003 as an act of personal giving to young people on the Mid-North Coast, primarily set up to disburse post-parliamentary entitlements when they become available. The trust was established with $5,000 of my personal salary, thereby establishing me as settlor to the trust. A further $200 is the only other contribution to the trust. Not one cent of public funding has been involved in any aspect of this trust.
The recent public questioning about this trust has sent me and others into files of 10 years ago and it has therefore taken time to reconcile as many aspects of the trust as possible. In auditing the past decade of the trust, we have come across several reporting errors that are now in the process of being corrected. As an example, I have been reporting on my register of parliamentary interests that I am a trustee of the Mid-North Coast Youth Trust, when the correct reporting would have me as the settlor of the Mid-North Coast Youth Trust, with the trust established with $5,000 of my personal salary as the initial and only significant contribution. All issues in regard to this trust are being reconciled and where any gaps in reconciliations, reporting or processes emerge, it is my further personal commitment to make sure it is at my personal expense that the trust is able to resolve them if necessary.
This trust is fundamentally an act of giving, not taking. In light of the recent political campaign against this trust, sadly I cannot guarantee the future of the trust, with trustees expected to meet shortly to consider this issue.
Regardless of decisions made by trustees in regard to the future of it, I stand by the intent of the trust when first established in 2003—that is, to make a substantial personal commitment to young people on the Mid-North Coast when post-parliamentary entitlements become available.
BILLS
Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (17:05): I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures Bill) 2012, which replaces the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill 2011. This is a government bill which seeks to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, and to clarify provisions relating to 'keeping in touch' days, debt recovery, notices and delegation of the secretary's powers.
This bill also seeks to make amendments to the Fair Work Act to clarify arrangements relating to unpaid parental leave in the event of a stillbirth or infant death, to enable early commencement of unpaid parental leave and to enable employees who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible paid work for short periods. The bill seeks to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme by effectively delivering a two-week paternity leave payment. Despite being promised at the 2010 election by the Labor government, this payment will not be realised until 2013. The payment will be available for eligible working fathers and partners. Subject to the passage of this bill, the new payment will be incorporated into the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. Eligible fathers and partners will be able to receive two weeks dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, the same weekly rate as for the existing parental leave pay—currently $590 a week before tax.
Labor has burdened small business by making them the government's paid parental leave paymaster. We have a ridiculous situation. The government geared up the Family Assistance Office to pay paid parental leave, and for six months the Family Assistance Office did that, largely without incident or issue. So what do Labor do when something is working well, as the Family Assistance Office payments were as set up under this system? They force small business to take over the burdensome paymaster requirements and shut down the system they paid to set up in the first place. The coalition remains opposed to small business carrying this burden, and we will again seek to amend this bill to ensure this ridiculous burden is removed from the thousands of small businesses across our country. I foreshadow an amendment to that effect.
Here and now, we see just how hypocritical the government is. They have got businesses paying the paid parental leave, but they are now happy to pay the paid parental leave for dad and partner payments through the Family Assistance Office. The coalition thinks that is a good move. As I foreshadowed earlier, we think that as the Family Assistance Office is going to pay dads and partners it should pay the mainstream paid parental leave payments as well. The member for Dunkley will have more to say on that later in the debate.
Other amendments originally introduced on 3 November 2011 in the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill are being reintroduced as part of this bill to streamline the consideration of current amendments to the legislation underpinning the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill also amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to clarify unpaid parental leave arrangements where there is a stillborn or infant death, to enable early commencement of unpaid parental leave and to enable employees who are on unpaid parental leave to perform permissible paid work for short periods for the purposes of 'keeping in touch'.
The reality is that the scheme Labor is legislating for is second rate. Labor's scheme provides 18 weeks to the coalition's proposed 26 weeks of leave. Labor's scheme pays paid parental leave at the minimum wage; our policy would see paid parental leave paid to mothers at their real wage. Their scheme does not cover the payment of superannuation; the coalition's proposal does. Unlike Labor's scheme, our scheme would pay for up to two weeks leave out of the 26 weeks at the father's real wage, capped at $150,000 a year. This leave can be taken concurrently with or separately from the mother's leave.
Unlike Labor, the coalition has a proud record of supporting parents and supporting families. Labor governments have embarked on an antifamily agenda that has seen funding to family and relationship services slashed and that has seen them attack youth allowance. Our approach on paid parental leave is about providing real support to parents and families. We believe in helping hardworking families and small businesses to get ahead and build a better life for themselves and their families. It is time Labor adopted similar mainstream thinking. We on this side are dismayed that Labor seems to have spent more time devising ways and spin to protect the member for Dobell and the Speaker rather than spending that precious time planning a first-rate paid parental leave scheme. Our scheme is first-class; the reality is that Labor's is second rate. Our scheme is well thought out and will help families and promote productivity; Labor's proposal burdens business. Our scheme delivers real reform; Labor's is, in the end, tokenistic. I therefore move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that the Government’s paid parental leave scheme is too short, does not provide superannuation and does not maintain the income of the majority of Australian mothers; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately adopt the Coalition’s better, fairer paid parental leave scheme.”
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Ramsey: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:07): I am pleased to speak on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill, but I must add it is a great shame that the time allotted for this debate could not instead have been allotted for the government to introduce into this House a bill which would have provided much needed assistance for families by helping with schoolkid expenses. Whatever led those opposite to object to our bringing that legislation into the House is probably best known to them, but it does speak very loudly about their priorities.
The bill before the House is a good one. Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme began on 1 January 2011. It was a historic reform and a major win for working families, who had been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme. Before then, Australia was one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme. Quite simply, we have caught up with the rest of the world.
I was interested to hear the member for Menzies say that the coalition has had a long and proud history of supporting measures such as this. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that from my own experience, representing women in employment who have suffered attacks from those on the other side of the House when the previous government was attempting to take away their entitlements to paid maternity leave in areas of government employment. They stand here and say that our scheme is not as good as theirs and that they have a long and proud history, but nothing could be further from the truth. One of the more memorable contributions of the Leader of the Opposition to this debate, when he was the minister for workplace relations, was that paid parental leave would occur over his dead body. Unkind people might say that that was a win-win outcome, but apparently the Leader of the Opposition has done an about-face on this issue for reasons best known to himself.
I think the best way to judge a party's commitment is to look at their track record. The track record of the Labor Party is nothing short of exceptional. We were the party which, during the Whitlam government, first introduced paid parental leave into law in this country. We believed then that it would create the incentive for paid parental leave to spread throughout the rest of the workforce. Sadly, 30 years of history has shown that that spread has been very slow. The current Labor government therefore introduced paid parental leave legislation into the House, making it law from 1 January 2011. We did that for a very simple reason, a reason that has informed so much of our approach to workplace relations and so much of our approach to the relationship between government, family and work—we on this side of the House understand that a worker is not just a pair of hands, or a brain, that turns up to work five, six or seven days a week disassociated from the rest of the body, but that a worker has another life. We understand that a worker is generally part of a family and that the workplace needs to make adjustments and needs to be designed in a way that accommodates that part of the worker's life which is outside the workplace. Paid parental leave is just such an adjustment, an appropriate adjustment, and the bill before the House is another such adjustment.
The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill recognises that a worker is not just a pair of hands, that they come with a whole other life attached to them. This legislation will give one parent the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during the vital early months of their baby's life. It supports women in maintaining their connection with the workforce—in this regard, it boosts productivity and boosts workforce participation. The scheme also lets families make their own work and family choices. Parents can transfer the leave so that mums and dads have more options for balancing work and family.
Since its inception, around 2,500 families in my own electorate, covering the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands, have taken advantage of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Already, since the scheme began, around 126,000 expectant and new parents have applied for the payment. Half of the mothers—and this goes to the heart of the values which underlie the Paid Parental Leave scheme—who have received the payments, earned less than $43,000 in the year before their baby was either born or adopted. This shows that paid parental leave is particularly important for women on low incomes, many of whom do not have access to paid parental leave through their employer. Paid parental leave is an initiative which has done much to help families and it is a measure which Labor members are rightly proud of.
In the last 2½ years, the government has delivered many reforms driven by the abiding Labor values of fairness, compassion and responsibility. These values are reflected in our approach to family tax benefits and to education expenses, about which the Treasurer will have more to say when he stands in this place later this evening. Labor believes in giving parents work and family choices, Labor believes in the dignity that comes with people taking responsibility for themselves and their family and Labor believes in making Australia a fairer place and a stronger place.
Employers, I am pleased to say, have also embraced the scheme. Far from the horror story told by the member for Menzies in his frantic contribution to this debate, employers are embracing the scheme because they can see it adds value to their workforce. They actually believe in paid parental leave and they can see that it is good for them and good for their workers. That is why over 22,000 employers have registered to provide government funded parental leave pay to their eligible employees through their usual pay cycle.
All of this is underscored by a very important principle—that paid parental leave should not be seen as a welfare benefit but as something that is an integral workplace right. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say exactly the same thing and yet his spokesman, the member for Menzies, has come in here today moving amendments which seem to deny that fundamental proposition—that paid parental leave should be and is a fundamental workplace right and not something to be seen as social welfare.
The government recognises the new dynamics of Australian families, particularly the approach that families take in the first year of a child's life. Gone are the days when a father's role in the arrival of any child was to be down the pub with his mates, wetting the baby's head. These days fathers are there in the birthing centre, in the hospital—there with their partners, with their wives, supporting them through that important milestone in a child's life. Now more than ever they want to be a part of those early days and weeks when their new child is brought into the world. We recognise that fathers want a more hands-on role in raising their children. We also recognise that the national economy will benefit from the boost to participation and productivity that these measures underpin. These are the values which are reflected in this legislation—an understanding that families have changed and an understanding that the father's role, or the partner's role, in the birth experience and those early weeks of a child's life has changed. We are responding to that.
This new dedicated payment delivers on a 2010 election commitment to give dads and other partners the chance to have two weeks off to support new mums at home and to be involved in the care of the baby right from the very start. This is good for the new dads, it is good for mums and it gives newborns the best possible start in life. Dad and partner pay will give eligible fathers and partners two weeks pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, the same weekly rate as parental leave pay, which is currently $590 a week before tax. This will be available to all eligible fathers and partners, including adoptive parents, who care for a child born on or after 1 January 2013. This means that, from next year, eligible families welcoming a new child into the world will be able to receive up to 20 weeks parental leave pay and dad and partner pay from this Labor government.
Dad and partner pay will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers. The income test, work test and residentiary requirements for dad and partner pay will be consistent with those for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Eligible fathers and partners must be caring for the child either as a primary carer or jointly with the other parent. They must not be working or on paid leave during the period in which dad and partner pay is paid because that would defeat the purpose, of course. Like parental leave pay, this new payment will be available during the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. Claims for dad and partner pay will be able to be lodged from 1 October 2012, allowing families to get in early, as it were, to make those claims ahead of time, so there is no gap in payment.
Dad and partner pay also recognises the challenges faced by families who find it difficult to balance the family budget when a baby is born, including casual employees without annual leave entitlements and self-employed people such as tradespeople, small business owners and those working in a family business or farm. So the design of dad and partner pay is based on an understanding of these factors, and builds upon the independent expert recommendations of the Productivity Commission. Consistent with those recommendations, the payment will be available in addition to any employer funded paid leave but will not be able to be taken at the same time as paid leave—that is to say, if the employee has an entitlement through their workplace, enterprise agreement, contract or award to paid dad or partner leave, then what we are proposing to introduce through this bill will be in addition to that, provided that it is not taken at the same time as that. It extends their entitlement.
On Father's Day last year, the government invited employer and employee groups, small business groups, family and community groups and individuals to provide some feedback on the dad and partner pay proposal. These consultations and the feedback from the Paid Parental Leave Implementation Group have informed the development of the payment arrangements. Employers will have an important role in supporting their employees in accessing their unpaid leave entitlements so that they can receive dad and partner pay. However, employers will not have a role in providing dad and partner pay to their employees. That is essentially because it is a short-term payment. The government funded dad and partner pay will be provided in addition to employer funded entitlements, as I have said, and the government expects that employers will retain their existing parental and paternity leave provisions, continuing to set themselves apart as employers of choice—that is, family friendly employers—for prospective employees.
The bill also makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme by making amendments to improve clarity and consistency, and making consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act.
The contrast between the policies of this government and the empty rhetoric of those opposite could not be more stark. What we see from those opposite, and what we heard repeated by the member for Menzies earlier, is that they have a scheme, at a grand cost of $4.5 billion a year, that needs a new tax from the Leader of the Opposition to pay for it. We heard recently, from members contributing to the debate on the matter of public importance, attacks on the government for introducing the minerals resource rent tax to fund superannuation and tax cuts for small businesses and important infrastructure initiatives—a proposal which is supported by all right-thinking Australians, but not by those opposite it would seem; they would rather give a tax break to the largest and wealthiest mining companies in this country and slug ordinary workers and struggling businesses with tax increases to pay for their scheme. That is not the right way to go.
The proposals that we have put before the House have the right balance between providing a fair and decent payment to mums, dads and their partners, ensuring that we do it in a responsible way, providing a benefit out of government revenues and, at the same time, transforming the way that workplaces, the government and the whole country think about these issues. So it is good legislation. I commend it to the House, and I commend those opposite who get behind it.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (17:27): I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Essentially, it adds the dad and partner pay provisions that the members opposite have talked about to an earlier amending bill which was introduced into this chamber late last calendar year.
It was interesting listening to the member for Throsby, who was urging us to best look at what a party has done when judging its claims, and he was trying to relate that to the paid parental leave. I thought it was rather ominous, on budget night, when we consider what the government's budget forecast might be, to be told we have to suspend all appreciation of what has happened up till now. But it was a very interesting contribution from the member for Throsby at that level.
What this bill seeks to do is to implement that dad and partner pay arrangement and put in place the eligibility criteria and the responsibilities of employers and Centrelink's Family Assistance Office in administering the new payment, having regard also to the way in which an employer may already have some eligibility for paid parental leave or unpaid parental leave through their workplace arrangements. That is the new measure that the minister focused her thoughts on in introducing this bill, given that the other amendments that are part of this bill were canvassed in the original explanatory memorandum and the minister's speech when it was introduced late last year.
For those who have been following this closely, as I have, those amendments went to some administrative insights that have been gained in relation to the operation of the scheme since its commencement, also taking into account a slightly wider window within which the mother of a newborn could not be expected to come in to the workplace under the keeping-in-touch provisions. If I recall correctly, I think that was a 12-day window from the birth of a child and, from my own observations of my own children's births, not everybody is particularly enthusiastic about going back into the workplace 12 days after a birth. It is, I think, a sensible and quite unobjectionable measure to extend that to at least six weeks. That is a very thoughtful measure that is in this bill. There is also some discussion around what happens if the employee wishes to commence the period of parental leave early and also around what systems and procedures would be put in place to accommodate a family tragedy such as a stillbirth or an infant death. It also seeks to provide the departmental secretary with some additional powers where, as I recall the bill, an employer becomes insolvent and there is a need to recover or to take over the making of those payments to an eligible employee.
The coalition finds these measures quite unobjectionable but, as the shadow minister outlined and as is reflected in our second reading amendment, they still do not overcome the glaring deficiencies that are a part of the government's scheme. There is the fact that the period of leave is too short, based on most of the considered evidence, particularly from those involved in maternal and child health, and the fact that the government's scheme does not include superannuation. Another glaring shortcoming in the government's scheme is in retirement income security, particularly for women who have had time away from work because of breaks in superannuation contributions. That can create additional financial pressures down the track, a reality which is not addressed at all in the government's scheme.
There is also the rate of payment which sees the financial support available default to the minimum wage. I have not met any new family or new parent that has their financial responsibilities default back to the minimum wage upon the birth of a child. The mortgage all of a sudden does not look 'minimum wagey', and the expenses of running a household and the additional expenses involved in preparing for the arrival of the microhuman all add to the expenses that the household faces. Yet the government's scheme is insensitive to that very real life reality. We saw reports just today where considerations about the cost of raising children are having an enormous bearing on people considering adding to their family, and some research was quoted in relation to the cost of child care as just one example of those expenses.
The second reading amendment notes those ongoing deficiencies in the government's scheme and calls on the government to get real about paid parental leave. To get real, we believe that a better, fairer paid parental leave scheme has been devised and articulated by the coalition. It is real money in real time that responds to real household financial pressures, and it supports people making that difficult decision about whether to add to the family or not. The coalition offers genuine support for those family members.
In going to the specifics of the provisions of the bill, they are unobjectionable notwithstanding the ongoing glaring deficiencies of the government's scheme. When we get to consideration in detail, the third reading phase, I foreshadow that I will be moving some amendments on behalf of the coalition. These should come as no surprise to the parliament. This will be, I think, my third go at it. The first was when the bill was originally introduced, and our amendments earned strong support in the Senate. As I recall, we missed by one vote in the House having those amendments embraced. Support for a private member's bill followed a similar trajectory. I am hopeful that all of the talk and concern about red tape, compliance costs and burdens, particularly on smaller employers, will actually see people vote in a way that is consistent with the rhetoric around these important issues and impositions on particularly the small business community.
The amendments will seek to preserve the current arrangements for administering the Paid Parental Leave scheme so far as they relate to employers and employees that are both happy with those arrangements. When previously advocating the reforms I was putting forward I think the government—I do not know whether they thought they were being clever or not—rolled out Sony as their mouthpiece, as their case study. That is no corner store, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sony is a multinational corporation with a range of workplace entitlements that are very generous, including paid parental leave support. Sony were saying, 'No, we're happy to handle this money on behalf of the Commonwealth; we'll just bolt it onto our current arrangements.' I say good luck to them if they have the organisational infrastructure and capacity to carry out that role of paid parental leave pay clerk on behalf of the Commonwealth for a scheme that the Commonwealth has determined, that the Commonwealth funds and that the Commonwealth verifies eligibility for, and where the Commonwealth steps in to make the payments where the employer is no longer able to carry out that responsibility or, ironically under this bill, where the Commonwealth is paying the dad's and partner's pay. All of those arrangements, all of that machinery that is in place, is denied to employers, particularly small business employers, who frankly do not need an unnecessary and unjustified additional imposition on their scarce time and on their stretched organisational resources.
For the first six months of this scheme, a period within which the government boasted about the success of the scheme, the Family Assistance Office of Centrelink made those payments. So an employer had to acknowledge and verify the work tests and the like for eligible employees and then the Commonwealth went around paying that money directly. For the first six months that is the way that the scheme operated, and the Labor government boasted about the success of the scheme.
After that six months, a new impost was forced on all employers to carry out that responsibility on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth still had to go through the process of verifying eligibility by liaising with employers and putting in place the funds and the payment systems to make those payments, but they were simply then passed on to an employer, who had to go and reconfigure all of their workplace, industrial relations, pay office and accounting systems to receive that money on behalf of the Commonwealth. They had to pay it through their pay systems but not have it actually in the pay system because it is not supposed to influence workers compensation liabilities, payroll tax obligations and other expenses. It was supposed to be paid through that system but not to actually be part of it. It was supposed to be received from the Commonwealth, often in instalments, and then those payments were to be on-made. That was an administrative burden that was imposed upon employers, particularly small business, with the threat of very substantial fines if they did not do what the Commonwealth said.
You can imagine my surprise when I heard the member for Throsby boast about how employers have embraced the scheme. He said that 22,000 have registered to make payments through their pay cycle. Member for Throsby, they had no choice. That is why they registered, because they would be fined if they did not. It was a legal obligation to participate, and shame on you for trying to misrepresent that level of employer engagement, because they had no choice—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order!
Mr BILLSON: but to carry out that responsibility.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dunkley will resume his seat.
Mr BILLSON: So I hope the member for Throsby—
Mr Bowen: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apart from the honourable member ignoring your ruling that he should sit down for this point of order, he also reflected on you by saying, 'Shame on you'—either that, or he was not putting his comments through the chair. Either way, he was in breach of standing orders.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Dunkley should be cautious of the wording that he uses. All comments are through the Speaker.
Mr BILLSON: I invite you to check the Hansard. I apologise to the member opposite for actually having syntax in my sentences. I will make sure they are one long sentence—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dunkley will debate the bill.
Mr BILLSON: following the member for Throsby. I will make sure that is the case. But thank you for pointing that out. It was a valuable contribution, my colleague!
Those are the arrangements in place. They are legally obliged to participate; that is why employers are there. To say that that represents an 'embracing' that extends to the administrative systems, the red-tape obligations, the compliance costs and the risk of fines is an absolute nonsense and a blatant misrepresentation of employer attitudes towards these issues. Let me go to some of the views that the employers have expressed. I hope that the crossbenchers take some of these views into account, particularly the member for Lyne, whom, I must say, I was extremely disappointed in for not supporting this measure last time it was debated when he then fronted up at the National Press Club on 4 March to say:
… I am currently urging both the Government and Opposition to start thinking about a small business compliance strategy.
He went on to talk about the additional compliance challenges imposed by the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That was just days after he voted against reducing the compliance burden on small business. I hope he is serious about that particular initiative. Even the government itself as recently as early March was talking about the meeting it had with business leaders regarding cutting red tape being a key priority for the Gillard government. This was in the communique, which says:
… as excessive regulation lowers business costs—
no, it actually increases business costs—
and hinders productivity.
That statement from the Prime Minister goes on to say:
Small business will also be directly represented on the Forum, given smaller firms often disproportionately feel the impact of regulatory burdens.
These are all honourable objectives, but do something about it, I urge the government. Actually follow through on those fine words by embracing the amendments when we get the opportunity to detail them, when consideration in detail arises.
For those who are under any doubt about why these changes need to take place, about why the red-tape burden should be reduced by the measures that we will be advocating in more detail later, have a look at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's contribution. It says:
The industrial relations system is already complex enough … without the government adding an unnecessary level of red tape on parental leave.
It goes on to talk about how the system operates well through the Family Assistance Office. That is how it operates in New Zealand. Why doesn't the government do it here? The Western Australian chamber of commerce and industry called for reimbursement from the Commonwealth for this paymaster role, criticising it as an unnecessary imposition on employers. The NSW Business Chamber similarly made the point that Paid Parental Leave should not incorporate costs that need to be carried by small business. There were also contributions from the Retailers Association, pointing out the way the government has designed the administration of the scheme is a 'costly, time consuming administrative nightmare.' VECCI echoed those remarks. COSBOA are supportive of these measures. Even the former Queensland government was urging the federal government to change its mind. It conveyed, through the then parliamentary secretary Jan Jarratt, that Queensland Small Business Advisory Council members were urging the government to change its way and not mandate these pay clerk requirements on the Commonwealth.
When announcing this policy before the 2007 election, the Prime Minister herself said there would be no new imposts on small business. When these detailed amendments come forward to give smaller employers and all employers not in a position to or disinclined to carry out this unnecessary administrative burden, it is time to back up the talk with action. I urge the House to do the right thing: cut the red tape and support those amendments— (Time expired)
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (17:42): Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say it is fortuitous that the member for Dunkley concluded his remarks by referring to statements by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, because they have had a few other things to say, most notably about the opposition's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has been much lauded in the contributions of both the member for Menzies and the member for Dunkley this afternoon. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive, Peter Anderson, said earlier this year that he believed their policy was a 'mistake', when it was announced by Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, two years ago, and he said, 'We still continue to hold that view.' If the member for Dunkley cares to reflect on the views of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regularly, he might choose to consider those wise words in the context of a paid parental leave scheme, which I suspect even he is not inclined to support. But he has made a valiant effort this afternoon and I commend him for that.
The other matter that I was astonished to hear raised by the shadow minister, the member for Menzies, earlier this afternoon was that of the coalition as, seemingly, the party supporting families and business. The hypocrisy that enables those kinds of contributions to be made is extraordinary in the context of a coalition which is poised to oppose the most recent announcement for families in relation to the federal budget—namely, the Schoolkids Bonus. What an extraordinary thing to do, when you are lauding yourselves as the party that is seemingly here to support families! Mr Deputy Speaker, we certainly know that the opposition has form when it comes to calling itself the party of families and the party of business, because we know that they are vehemently opposed to payments being made to families and to tax relief being given to families and to individuals under the clean energy future package. Indeed, at every turn in relation to every reform that we wish to make, we find the coalition critiquing our policies from the point of view of fiscal rectitude and from their point of view that they represent families. In actual fact, we find that they oppose benefits going to families and that they oppose practical measures to respond to the pressing needs of families and their cost-of-living concerns. It is similar whenever they talk about their role as the party of small business, because we know that they have opposed tax breaks for small business. It was extraordinary to hear the shadow minister speaking in this afternoon's debate about the things that they are doing for families.
We know that, through the Paid Parental Leave scheme that this government introduced in 2011, we have made one of the most significant commitments to families that this nation has seen. The commitment has been made as a result of the continued and sustained campaign by activists around this country for a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. They have certainly got it, under this government. This bill is the next step in that scheme.
We know that paid parental leave, which was introduced in 2011, has given eligible working parents up to 18 weeks paid parental leave at the national minimum wage, which is currently around $590 a week before tax. It gives those parents flexibility and opportunity to stay at home with their new child at a critical stage in its development. For many who are working part-time or who are casual employees—and there are many women in those circumstances—this has been an extraordinary benefit. Indeed, more than 150,000 families across the country have benefited or are benefiting from this change to policy, historically delivered by Labor in this term.
I mentioned that this bill is the next step in that arrangement. It extends the Paid Parental Leave scheme by introducing the dad and partner pay for eligible working fathers and for other eligible partners. This includes parents who adopt and parents in same-sex couples. The dad and partner pay arrangements will start on 1 January next year. I am pleased to say that the payment delivers on a commitment that Labor took to the last election to give dads and other partners the opportunity to have two weeks off to support new mums at home and to be involved in the care of their child right from the beginning of their lives.
Dad and partner pay will give eligible fathers and partners two weeks pay at the rate of the national minimum wage, so it is consistent with the existing Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is going to be available to all eligible fathers and partners, including adopting parents and parents in same-sex couples who care for a child born or adopted from 1 January 2013. It is an extraordinary commitment being made by this government and is building on an existing commitment to families right around the country. It means that, effectively, eligible families welcoming a new child will be able to receive up to 20 weeks' paid parental leave and dad and partner pay from this government.
Dad and partner pay will be available to eligible full-time, part-time, casual, seasonal, contract and self-employed workers. Eligible fathers and partners must be caring for the child either as the primary carer or jointly caring with the other parent. To be eligible they must not be working or on paid leave during the period they receive dad and partner pay. Like parental leave pay, this new payment will be available during the first 12 months after the birth or adoption of a child. Claims for the payment will be able to be lodged from 1 October 2012.
This is a great opportunity for people who are planning to have children. I know there are people in my electorate, the growth corridor of Melbourne, who are planning to have children. I have many young families moving into my electorate pretty regularly. There are people who are planning to have a child or future children and the commitment made by this government will be a really practical and meaningful commitment to assist them with the cost of living at a time when they want to be available to their new child and to their partners for support at home.
Dad and partner pay will recognise the challenges faced by families who find it really difficult to balance the family budget when their child is born. In particular, this is likely to be the case for casual employees, who may not have annual leave entitlements accrued, and for self-employed people such as tradespeople, small business owners and those working in a family business or farm. Coincidentally, a number of those categories of person are often mentioned by the coalition as being people that they represent but, needless to say, they are not likely to support these arrangements applying to them.
The design of dad and partner pay has been based on independent expert recommendations made by the Productivity Commission together with community consultation on the policy. It is consistent with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. The payment will be available in addition to any employer funded paid leave, but it cannot be taken at the same time as paid leave. This will encourage fathers and partners to take more time off to care for their child in the important early months of their lives.
It was of note that, on Fathers' Day last year, the government invited employer and employee groups, small business groups, family and community groups and individuals throughout the community to provide feedback on the Productivity Commission's recommendations and on the dad and partner pay arrangements. These consultations and feedback from the Paid Parental Leave Implementation Group have informed the development of the payment that is included in the bill before us today.
The government-funded dad and partner pay will be provided in addition to employer funded entitlements. The government expects that employers will retain their existing parental and paternity leave provisions, continuing to set themselves apart, we hope, as employers of choice for parents, and providing fathers with the maximum opportunity to take some time off work at a critical time in the development of their child and at a critical time for their additional family members. Families eligible for dad and partner pay may also continue to receive other family assistance payments such as baby bonus and Family Tax Benefit payments. The bill also makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme by making some amendments to improve clarity and consistency and by making amendments in other areas of legislation. I know, in terms of the practical realities of this bill, that young families in my electorate will certainly stand to benefit, and that this will certainly be welcome news for fathers and partners in many of those families that are planning to have a child in the near future. I am sure they will be relieved to know that not only has this government implemented a fully funded paid parental leave scheme which is not opposed by the business community, unlike that proposed by those opposite, but that there will be additional financial support for fathers and partners under these new arrangements.
When we speak about parties that are here to support families, there is only one party in this place that has put its money where its mouth is, and which has committed itself to providing families with practical financial relief in a range of policy areas. It has factored it into its clean energy future package; it has included significant reforms, such as this; and it has moved to ensure that parents have better access to child care by increasing the childcare rebate. We have made practical moves to ensure that families are able to respond to cost-of-living pressures and we are doing this in the context of ensuring that our economy remains robust in an increasingly difficult global economic climate. And we are doing all of this while at the same time pursuing a surplus.
I certainly commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 17:53 to 19:30
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (19:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Strong economy and fair Australia
The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy, resilience of our people, and success of our policies.
In an uncertain and fast changing world, we walk tall—as a nation confidently living within its means.
This budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.
It funds new cost of living relief for Australian families.
It helps businesses invest, compete and adapt to an economy in transition.
And it finances bold new policies to help Australians with a disability, the aged, and those who cannot afford dental care.
It does these things for a core Labor purpose:
To share the tremendous benefits of the mining boom with more Australians.
To create more wealth, prosperity, and jobs; spread more opportunity; and advance the living standards of millions of families and pensioners on modest incomes.
Tonight we make a forceful statement that ours is one of the world's strongest economies and fairest communities.
Not even a sovereign debt crisis in Europe or unprecedented natural disasters here at home could deny Australia this substantial achievement.
The deficit years of the global recession are behind us. The surplus years are here.
Surpluses built on some difficult savings, which avoid vulnerable Australians and front-line services, and don't compromise our investments in productivity.
Surpluses that provide a buffer against global uncertainty, and continue to give the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates for families like it did just last week.
This budget is about discipline and restraint but also about priorities; ensuring precious funds are redirected to the purposes and people that need them most.
Across the budget, by saving and redirecting $33.6 billion, we're balancing the books.
Making room for $5 billion in new payments to households.
Finding an extra $714 million to help companies compete, on top of the $3.7 billion in small business tax breaks.
Funding the historic first stage of a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Investing in dental services for those who can least afford them.
Strengthening the aged-care system.
Investing in productivity and competitiveness by building on key improvements in health, education, infrastructure and clean energy.
Staying true to our Labor ideals and to the promise of a fair go, converting economic success into real benefits for the majority of Australians.
Economic and fiscal strength
Since this government came to office we have stared down a global financial crisis and created over three quarters of a million jobs, while weaker economies shed millions of jobs.
Every Australian can be proud we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world; half what we see across Europe and dramatically lower than in the United States.
Proud that economic growth is expected to be stronger than every single major advanced economy over the coming two years.
With solid growth in real GDP of 3¼ per cent in 2012-13 and three per cent in 2013-14.
By mid-2014, our economy is expected to be over 16 per cent bigger than it was before the global financial crisis, again outstripping the major advanced economies.
Unemployment is forecast to remain low at 5½ per cent in the next two years; official interest rates are lower now than at any time under our predecessors; and we have an investment pipeline of over $450 billion in the resources sector alone.
Our budget strategy is custom built for this combination of strengths, and for an economy returning to more normal rates of growth.
A surplus provides our best defence against dramatic changes in the global economy.
A moderate recovery in the US still has a long and difficult road ahead, and Europe continues to cast a shadow over the global outlook. We are closer than ever to the epicentre of global growth, as the weight of activity moves towards Asia.
This transformation on our doorstep brings new opportunities—not just in mining, but in services, manufacturing, and in our rural economy, where the outlook is bright.
And because of our economic success over four difficult years just past, we face the transformations of the Asian century from a position of strength.
Of course these forces are also making for uneven conditions across our patchwork economy.
We understand that the sustained high dollar weighs heavily on parts of the economy, and global uncertainty has bred consumer caution.
This has ripped billions from our revenue base, with tax receipts as a share of GDP not expected to recover to pre-crisis levels for some years.
In the coming year, tax as a proportion of the economy is just 22.1 per cent, compared to the 23.7 per cent we inherited from our predecessors—that is $24 billion less tax.
In total, this year and next, taxes are down a further $12 billion since the last update, taking the total write-down since the crisis to around $150 billion.
This has contributed to a deficit in 201l-12 of $44 billion, and means net debt will now peak at 9.6 per cent of GDP, just a tenth of the level of the major advanced economies.
Delivering surpluses when we have less tax revenue means we need to make substantial savings to pay for new initiatives.
It is these responsible decisions which return the budget to a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13, and growing every year after that.
This delivers on our commitment to the Australian people on time, as promised, and ahead of every major advanced economy.
SPREADING THE BENEFITS OF THE BOOM
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Labor government knows that for too many Australians it feels like someone else's mining boom, someone else's prosperity.
So tonight, from the firm foundations of a surplus budget, we announce new policies to spread the benefits of the boom.
These new measures are good for low- and middle-income families because they help them make ends meet and to get ahead.
And good for our economy because they will help struggling manufacturers, retailers and other businesses that risk being left behind because of the high dollar.
Cost of living
We understand the pressures Australians face, paying for electricity, housing, groceries, petrol or even a simple family outing.
That is why we have gone into bat for working families, by providing help with the cost of raising children through our Paid Parental Leave scheme and our child care rebate.
It is why we have delivered $47 billion in personal income tax cuts and it is why we are tripling the tax free threshold to benefit low- and middle-income earners so that all taxpayers with incomes of up to $80,000 will get a further modest tax cut this year.
It is why we have provided an annual increase of up to $4,208 per child in Family Tax Benefit Part A for parents of schoolchildren aged 16 to 19 from the start of the year.
It is why we increased the maximum rate of the pension by a record $154 per fortnight for singles and $156 for couples since September 2009.
And it is why families and pensioners are receiving further assistance through higher payments and tax cuts to help transition to a clean energy future.
And tonight we go further.
I am proud to announce a new Spreading the Benefits of the Boom package: $3.6 billion to share the proceeds of the mining tax with families and small business.
The government has always been committed to sharing fairly the benefits of the resources boom. And every step of the way we have been opposed by the coalition.
For example, our company tax cut has been rejected in full by the Liberals and Nationals, and in part by the Greens.
We will not allow this parliamentary gridlock to deny Australians the benefits they deserve. So in this budget the funds for company tax cuts have been redirected to families in a way that also helps the economy, including small business.
At the core of this package is $1.8 billion in extra support for families through more generous family payments from July next year.
More than 1.5 million families will benefit from increases to Family Tax Benefit Part A, with nearly half taking home an extra $600 a year.
We will also invest $1.1 billion in a supplement of up to $210 a year for students, jobseekers and parents with young children and on income support.
On top of the new measures funded from the mining tax, we are also giving parents more help with the cost of schooling their kids.
From next year we will deliver a new Schoolkids Bonus.
This will replace the Education Tax Refund and will provide an extra $2.1 billion in more timely relief to 1.3 million families.
They will no longer need to keep their receipts and wait until tax time to claim the refund.
By making it automatic, we ensure families get the full assistance they deserve, and we reach out to the parents of half a million children who are currently missing out.
All eligible families will receive a lump sum payment next month, then $820 for secondary school students and $410 for primary school students next year.
Superannuation
Madam Deputy Speaker, the super reforms funded by the mining tax will help more Australians secure a better retirement, and give those on low incomes a better deal.
By raising the superannuation guarantee rate to 12 per cent, we will boost the retirement savings of 8.4 million workers and increase our pool of national savings.
As a result of this reform, a 30-year-old worker on average full-time earnings will retire at age 67 with an additional $118,000 in super.
We are providing a higher concessional contributions cap for older Australians with balances below $500,000, with a revised start date of 1 July 2014.
We are improving the fairness of concessions for contributing to superannuation, by ensuring around 3.6 million low-income Australians effectively pay no tax on their super guarantee contributions.
And we are reducing the tax break on concessional contributions for the top one per cent of earners, to bring it more into line with the concession for average wage earners. Businesses
Our multispeed economy is putting pressure on business that is not in the fast lane.
Our $714 million loss carry back scheme will support businesses in need, to help them compete.
We will encourage companies to invest and innovate by offsetting a current year tax loss of up to $1 million against tax paid in previous years; a refund of up to $300,000.
This will support businesses when they need it—providing an injection of funds to invest in new ideas, equipments and markets.
So a cafe on a tourist strip can get the funds they need to refurbish or keep on valuable staff, so they are ready when conditions pick up.
Or a small manufacturer can get the funds they need to retool, so they can get through the tough times and make the most of opportunities sitting just over the horizon.
We estimate this will help around 110,000 businesses over the first four years, providing cash flow when it is needed most, rather than down the track.
As well, from 1 July this year all small businesses can immediately write off every eligible asset they buy for up to less than $6,500, and up to $5,000 for cars or utes.
These new measures will drive investment, improve productivity, and make life easier for up to 2.7 million small businesses.
We wanted to do more for business with a company tax cut but the opposition's negative tactics have prevented that tax cut occurring.
So my message tonight to businesses large and small is that we are providing help now through the measures I have just described.
And we will keep working with you to seek consensus on proposals from the Business Tax Working Group later this year.
Building for the future
This budget redirects and prioritises spending to convert a more productive economy into a fairer community as well.
NDIS
Tonight I am proud to announce funding for the historic first stage of a national disability insurance scheme—the most fundamental social policy reform since Medicare.
A national disability insurance scheme will ensure people with disabilities get the individual care and support they need.
Over 400,000 Australians live with a significant and permanent disability and are among the most deserving of our support.
Under this government, they will start to receive it.
This budget commits $1 billion over four years to roll out the first stage of a national disability insurance scheme, which is expected to cover 10,000 people from 2013-14 and 20,000 people from 2014-15.
This will inform our discussions with the states on how and when we roll out the full scheme.
Dental care
This budget also provides $515 million in funding to address immediate dental care needs.
We know that many low-income earners face long waiting lists for public dental services.
Three hundred and forty-six million dollars over three years will fund a blitz on public dental waiting lists and get care to people who need it most but can least afford it.
We are also boosting the public system with $78 million to help dentists relocate to regional, rural and remote areas; $81 million to boost training for graduate dentists and therapists; and $10.5 million to promote better oral health.
Aged care
Those who built modern Australia after the Second World War deserve a twenty-first century aged care system that honours their contribution.
With smarter use of public and private funding, this budget delivers a $3.7 billion package to address pressing areas of need, and lays the foundations for future reform.
We know older Australians want to remain in their own homes as long as possible, so we will provide 40,000 more home care packages over the next five years.
We are also providing $660 million over five years for incentives to invest in quality services for those who do need to enter residential care, and $1.2 billion over five years to build a better trained and better paid aged care workforce.
Health and hospitals
We are making vital investments right across the health system and right across the country.
Our historic national health reforms will provide an additional $19.8 billion in Commonwealth funding for public hospitals by 2019-20.
This budget delivers 76 new health infrastructure projects to upgrade regional hospitals and support training where doctors are needed most, costing $475 million.
This is part of a $5 billion allocation from the Health and Hospitals Fund, with new hospitals and clinics creating better services in regions where previously they had little coverage.
We are also spending $50 million over four years to fund a phased expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.
And our national e-health agenda gets a boost of $234 million, so people can have digital, accessible, and consistent health records for their whole lives.
Education and training
We know that the best way for Australians to make ends meet is to ensure they can seize the opportunity to work.
This government's job creation record and workforce building initiatives are among our proudest achievements.
Removing barriers to work and lifting skills boosts productivity and creates wealth.
The Prime Minister recently secured $1.75 billion for the national partnership on skills reform and that delivers greater access to quality training.
The budget provides another $101 million to support the government's skills agenda.
Building on the jobs bonus to encourage employment of older workers, this budget provides $61 million to improve their training and employment services.
It provides an additional $225 million for the highly successful Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program, which helps remove barriers for people with young children who want to get back into study or work.
And we are investing $1.5 billion over five years on a new Remote Jobs and Community program that will provide new employment services for remote Australia. This Labor government has also almost doubled investment in our schools since coming to office.
And following the Review of Funding for Schooling Final Report, the government is working with stakeholders on future arrangements, starting from 2014.
We are also delivering in this budget $54 million to encourage maths and science studies at school and university.
And over the next four years we will be investing $38.8 billion in higher education, with extra support for students from poorer backgrounds.
Infrastructure
As well as investments in education and training, building a stronger, more competitive and more productive economy requires investments in critical infrastructure.
The National Broadband Network is transforming our economy, and our $36 billion Nation Building programs are improving our road, rail and port networks.
Like $3.6 billion to duplicate the Pacific Highway, meeting our commitment to fund half the project, provided the New South Wales Government also contributes its half.
Or joining with the private sector to develop the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, to help freight flow in Sydney and take the equivalent of 3,300 trucks off busy roads.
And $232 million towards the Torrens and Goodwood rail project to help ease congestion on Adelaide's suburban and east-west freight rail networks.
Clean Energy Future
In coming years no first world, first-rate economy will succeed without cleaner sources of energy.
So part of the broader transformation of our economy involves moving to a clean energy future, and helping Australian businesses and households make the change.
The price on carbon pollution that begins this year will only be paid by Australia's biggest emitters. It will not be levied on families.
But to help with any price increases, we are cutting income tax and increasing payments to pensioners, families and recipients of allowances beginning this month.
Balanced Budget
As well as spreading the benefits of the boom, this budget makes targeted savings to get back to surplus and make room for our priorities.
Of $33.6 billion of savings, about half are reductions in spending:
like targeting Family Tax Benefit Part A to children under 18 or in secondary school;
or decreasing Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme spending by negotiating lower prices;
or deferring some defence expenditure while prioritising support for current overseas operations;
or meeting our commitment to lift spending on foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income a year later.
We are also taking further steps to improve the fairness and sustainability of the tax system while keeping tax as a share of the economy lower than what we inherited:
For example, limiting tax concessions for golden handshakes and living away from home benefits, which typically accrue to high income earners.
And not proceeding with the standard deduction because our reforms to the tax free threshold will free over 1 million taxpayers from needing to lodge a tax return.
Making the tax system more sustainable not only achieves savings now, but benefits the budget bottom line for decades to come.
It is this fiscal discipline that has earned us a AAA rating from all three major ratings agencies for the very first time in our history.
The Fair Go
This Labor government believes the tremendous opportunities of the mining boom should be shared fairly with all Australians.
Ours is a country where people who work hard should get fairly rewarded, where there is an optimism that comes with economic and social mobility.
In a global economy marked by anxiety and uncertainty, our nation is a beacon of resilience, stability and success.
Not just for the strengthening surpluses we will build years ahead of our peers.
Not just for growth rates outpacing the major advanced economies over coming years.
But for the resilience of our people, and the value we attach to the fair go.
And now, amidst great change, new challenges lie ahead.
That is why this budget supports workers and parents and helps businesses prosper.
It is why we are boosting super and skills; aged care and dental care; and building an insurance scheme for the most vulnerable.
All good Labor policies—with one purpose:
To create more wealth, and turn our remarkable economic success into a stronger, fairer community as well.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Abbott) adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Budget Documents 2012-13
Presentation
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (19:58): I present for the information of honourable members the following documents in connection with the budget for 2012-13:
Budget Strategy and Outlook 2012-13
Budget Measures 2012-13
Australia's Federal Relations 2012-13
Agency Resourcing 2012-13
Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (19:58): I present ministerial statements as listed in the document now being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Details of the statements will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (19:59): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, is one of the principal pieces of legislation underpinning the government's budget.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013 proposes appropriation for agencies to meet:
payments direct to local government, and some national partnership payments through the states, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory;
requirements for departmental equity injections; and
requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $7.2 billion.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-13 also provides for amendments to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911.
The amendments will provide for the government's financing requirements, particularly normal within-year financing fluctuations, and will ensure flexibility in meeting the government's objective of maintaining a deep and liquid CGS market.
CGS on issue subject to the current legislative limit is projected to be below $250 billion at the end of each financial year across the forward estimates.
However, fluctuations in cash requirements within a financial year are a normal feature of the government's annual financing task. It is these requirements that determine the level of CGS that needs to be on issue at any particular time during the year.
These fluctuations mean that at certain points during the year the level of CGS on issue will exceed the current legislative limit.
The two key drivers of within-year fluctuations in CGS on issue are: the timing difference between government revenue collections and expenditure outlays throughout the financial year, and the timing of bond maturities.
While government expenditure outlays occur relatively evenly across the financial year, revenue collections tend to be higher toward the end of the financial year. As a consequence of this timing mismatch, expenditure tends to exceed receipts for the majority of the financial year.
In advance of the maturity of a bond line it is necessary to increase the volume of Treasury notes on issue in order to fund the maturity of a bond line.
This means that in the lead-up to a bond line maturing, there is a temporary increase in the total amount of CGS on issue owing to the combined value of the Treasury notes and the maturing bond line. The amount of CGS on issue falls, on the maturity date of the bond, by the face value of that bond. It is critical that the government maintains a clear and unambiguous message that debt market operations will not be impeded, for example by short-term borrowing constraints such as the legislative debt limit.
An increase in the legislative debt limit will enable the government to provide certainty to financial markets that the Australian Office of Financial Management will be able to undertake normal debt management operations.
To ensure flexibility in meeting the government's objective of maintaining a deep and liquid CGS market, and to most efficiently manage the normal within-year financing task, an amendment will be sought to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to increase the legislative limit on CGS to $300 billion.
Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer earlier this evening.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (20:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 is to provide funding for the operations of the four parliamentary departments.
The total appropriation sought through this bill is $174.5 million. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill.
This bill provides appropriation for the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, and the Department of Parliamentary Services, as well as the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, which has been established to assist parliament in its scrutiny of the budget and fiscal policy.
Last year the government passed legislation to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office, marking a new era of parliamentary scrutiny of the budget process.
The PBO will be an important new institution to improve the transparency of Australia's already strong fiscal and budgetary frameworks.
Members and senators will have access to an independent and confidential costing service outside of a general election period.
They will also be able to use a fully transparent policy costing service during election periods.
The PBO will ensure the Australian community is better informed about the fiscal impacts of policy proposals, and will allow a more accurate and informed debate on economic policy in this country.
As to be expected, this is a body that is independent of the government, and therefore the establishment of the PBO is a matter for the parliamentary departments.
With the PBO soon to be operational, I'd call on those opposite to make the most of this body and submit their policies for costing.
We know from statements by their economic team that the opposition need to make $70 billion in savage cuts to balance their books.
They need to come clean with the Australian people and give the details of these cuts, and where they will come from.
The PBO will enhance the transparency and accountability of our democracy, and I look forward to it being up and operational shortly.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (20:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There are two supplementary additional estimates bills this year: Appropriation Bill No. 5 and Appropriation Bill No. 6.
The supplementary additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These funds are sought in order to meet requirements that have arisen since additional estimates. The total appropriation being sought through the supplementary additional estimates bills this year is a little over $390 million.
Turning now to Appropriation Bill No. 5, the total appropriation being sought in this bill is $250.3 million. This proposed appropriation arises from: changes in the estimates of program expenditure; variations in the timing of payments; forecast increases in program take-up; reclassifications; and from policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget.
I now outline the major appropriations proposed in the bill.
The government will provide $34.7 million to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. This includes funding to support the government's commitment to assisting commercial and national broadcasters to vacate the 700 MHz spectrum (the digital dividend spectrum) by replacing and retuning existing transmission equipment so that this spectrum can be cleared for new uses as soon as possible after the switch-off of analog services on 31 December 2013.
The government will provide the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs with $112.6 million. This will provide funding for the Family Support Program and will give organisations earlier access to funds essential to the continued delivery of services under this program.
The government will provide the Department of Health and Ageing with $44.1 million. This will support increasing payments in 2011-2012 for Primary Care Financing, Quality and Access, and for Rural Health Services.
The government will provide the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport with $43.7 million. This includes grant payments to support 'The Wolverine', Western Sydney Football, the Jim Stynes Achievement Scholarship and a contribution to the Olympic Park Precinct Community Sports Centre.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill No. 5 relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bradbury.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (20:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill No. 6 provides additional funding to agencies for:
requirements for departmental equity injections; and
requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities.
The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012 is $140.5 million, the more significant amount of which I will now outline.
The Department of Health and Ageing will receive $119.9 million in this bill. This relates to a re-appropriation of operating appropriation as capital appropriations for IT infrastructure for the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record initiative. The bill also provides funding to support replenishment of the National Medical Stockpile.
The remaining amounts that appear in bill 6 relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
I would like to turn now to the General Drawing Rights Limit for the nation-building funds, which specify the maximum limit on payments from the funds in a financial year exclusive of GST. The General Drawing Rights Limit for the Building Australia Fund proposed in this bill will increase the limit declared in Appropriation Act (No. 4) 2011-12. The change recognises adjustments in the timing of payments to better reflect project milestones and previously announced funding.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (20:12): I ask leave of the House to move a motion relating to arranging a cognate debate on the appropriation bills.
Leave granted.
Mr BRADBURY: I move:
That:
(1) the provisions of standing order 143(b) be suspended in respect of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012, and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012;
(2) so much of the standing and sessional orders also be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(a) when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 is called on, for a cognate debate to take place with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012, and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012;
(b) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, including a Minister speaking in reply, and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question, or questions, necessary to complete the second reading stage to be put, and when resolved Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 then being considered in detail and then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without amendment or debate; and
(c) at the conclusion of the proceedings on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, separate questions to be put without further debate on the motions for the second readings and any further motions necessary to conclude consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012‑2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012, and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012 as required; and
(3) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 20:14
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr Garrett: to present a Bill for an Act to protect the environmental values and Aboriginal cultural heritage of the Malabar headland, and for related purposes (Malabar Headland Protection Bill 2012).
Ms Plibersek: to present a Bill for an Act to validate certain actions under Part VAA, VB or VII of the Health Insurance Act 1973, and to amend that Act, and for related purposes (Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012).
Ms Macklin: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance and veterans' entitlements, and for other purposes (Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012).
Mr Gray: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed development and construction of housing for Defence members and families at Weston Creek, Australian Capital Territory.
Mr Gray: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed development and construction of housing for Defence members and their families at Lindfield, New South Wales.
Mr Gray: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at the site known as 913 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, Victoria.
Mr Oakeshott: to move:
That this House instructs the Attorney-General to, as soon as practicable, draft and introduce legislation to curb the facility for creditor litigation in Australia against those countries who have been deemed by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, eligible for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, with similar effect to the United Kingdom's Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 which received tripartite support in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Ms A. E. Burke: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) due to the significant increase in offshoring, whereby businesses are relocating their operations overseas, there is a concern for the privacy protection of transferable personal information;
(b) the Government has responded to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report 108, and has indicated its intentions to strengthen privacy protection; and
(c) the recommendations and proposals to improve the current legislation need to be further progressed;
(2) recognises that being part of the global economy can improve costs for local consumers and companies but at all times there must be transparency and accountability;
(3) acknowledges that privacy laws in Australia that operate extra-territorially must not contravene privacy protections overseas;
(4) calls on the Government to
(a) adopt a model of Unified Privacy Principles which includes a principle relating to 'Cross-border Data Flows', as per the ALRC recommendation; and
(b) amend the Privacy Act 1988 sections pertaining to the extra-territorial operation of the Act:
(i) to ensure adequate privacy protection for all consumers;
(ii) to ensure small businesses are not exempt from being included in the Act in the provisions relating to the offshore transfer of personal information;
(iii) so that section 5B extends to government agencies, as per the ALRC proposal; and
(iv) to provide consumers with a 'right to know' so that service providers disclose the country of origin which provides their services, equivalent to country of origin product labelling.
Ms A. E. Burke: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) food allergy affects approximately 1 in 10 children and 2 in 100 adults, and anaphylaxis is the most severe form of an allergic reaction, most commonly food associated anaphylaxis; and
(b) the number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis has doubled in the last 15 years and there have been increased incidences of anaphylaxis predominantly in infants less than 5 years of age, with studies indicating that increases have been up to five-fold;
(2) recognises that current State and Territory policies related to food allergy management in schools are not properly legislated, except in Victoria;
(3) acknowledges that an anaphylactic reaction should be treated as a medical emergency and a simple medical procedure is all that is needed to treat it, prevent loss of life and provide the necessary time to transport the victim to hospital for further medical attention;
(4) calls on the Government to introduce legislation, devised through COAG, to ensure all preschools, primary and secondary schools:
(a) utilise programs that aim to help educate school children on the cause, effects and treatments of anaphylaxis;
(b) have necessary policies and procedures to provide effective response to a student who experiences an anaphylactic reaction, such as the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy action plan;
(c) ensure staff members are appropriately trained to support life in the event of an anaphylactic reaction; and
(d) have an anaphylaxis management program for each student developed in consultation with the student's parent/carer and physician;
(5) recognises the great work of Murdoch Children's Research Institute and Asthma Victoria in the 'Schoolnuts' study which aims to determine the prevalence of true food allergies in children and provide educational seminars to schools following research; and
(6) recognises there is further need for coordinated studies of food allergy in Australia to ascertain risk factors and help guide public policy.
Mr Bandt: to move:
That this House:
(1) reaffirms its commitment to increase Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to at least 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2015; and
(2) calls on the Government to implement a timetable for raising ODA to 0.7 per cent of GNI, the international aid target called for by the United Nations.
Ms Hall: to move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, and Minister for Social Inclusion, on the Aged Care Reform Package he announced Living Longer, Living Better Age Care Reform;
(2) acknowledges that the reforms will make it easier for older Australians to stay in their own home and that the package will improve safety, security and quality of aged care, and simplify aged care for older Australians and their families; and
(3) calls on all Members to support the reforms.
Mr Hayes: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are increasing reports of gross human rights violations in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) including evidence of continued house detention and imprisonment of notable human rights activists including: the Nobel Peace Prize nominee the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Reverend Nguyen Van Ly from the Vietnamese Catholic Church, Dr Nguyen Dan Que, Jurist Dr Cu Huy Ha Vu and the latest jailing without trial of Vo Minh Tri known as Viet Khang, a popular young peace songwriter; and
(b) since 2002, Australia and the SRV have had eight rounds of Dialogue on Human Rights with no apparent results; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) establish and supervise a Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue Group that would involve Members of Parliament, Senators, as well as the wider community;
(b) consider the issues of human rights in the SRV when allocating funding under Australia's overseas development aid program; and
(c) encourage a more 'whole of government' approach on bilateral and multilateral bases with the SRV, particularly where the issue of human rights is concerned.
Mr Pyne: to move:
That this House resolves that in the view of the grave findings made against him by Fair work Australia, the Honourable Member for Dobell be suspended from the service of the House for fourteen sitting days, and that after that the Honourable Member make a statement for the consideration of the House in response to the findings made against him so that the House can consider whether a further period of suspension is warranted.
Mr L. D. T. Ferguson: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on 15 February 2012, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, called for a genuine, all-inclusive and meaningful dialogue that meets the legitimate aspirations of all Bahrainis as the only way to promote peace and stability in the country, and he noted the harsh sentences given to 21 political activists, human rights defenders and opposition leaders;
(b) on 23 November 2011, His Majesty Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa announced his acceptance of a report from the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry headed by Professor M Cherif Bassiouni where, systematic violation of basic human rights were established;
(c) major international human rights organisations such Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and Physician of Human Right expressed their disappointment that the Bahraini Regime did not stop the ongoing violation nor stop the impunity given to senior officials responsible, and the United States and European governments are calling for the regime to apply real political reform; and
(d) on 21 of December 2011, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay released a call to Bahraini authorities to address the 'deepening mistrust' between the Government and civil society, advocating the release of people detained for participating in peaceful protests and calling for confidence-building measures, including unconditionally releasing those convicted in military tribunals awaiting trial for merely exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly, also stating that Bahrain trials bear marks of 'political persecution'; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to raise these human rights abuses in international fora.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australia Network
(Question No. 330)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 24 March 2011:
(1) What is the target audience for the Australia Network, and was it determined by market research; if so, is this research publicly available.
(2) Has his department undertaken any studies to determine whether the Australia Network is reaching this audience; if so, when were they undertaken and what were the results.
(3) Did his department undertake a study of the Australian Network's effectiveness before the Government announced it would put out to tender a new 10 year contract.
(4) Does his department believe that television remains the best medium for reaching this target audience; if so, why.
Dr Emerson: The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The target audience comprises:
(a) decision-makers;
(b) emerging middle class;
(c) young aspirants;
(d) students; and
(e) regional nationals who are Australian alumni.
DFAT selected the target audience as the demographic sectors which would most likely form a dedicated and influential viewership, and achieve the overarching Commonwealth Objectives for the service, in particular the Objective of "providing a credible, impartial and independent voice, delivered to an international audience via innovative as well as conventional multimedia platforms". The selected target audience are also the priority demographic sectors to attract to viewership of Australia Network in terms of the Commonwealth's Objectives to:
promote an image of Australia as a dynamic and culturally diverse nation of the Asia-Pacific region and raise awareness of Australia's strengths and achievements across a range of fields;
present Australian perspectives on the world and foster public understanding of Australia's global and regional role; and
increase awareness of the close links between Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.
(2) In accordance with the previous contract dated 4 August 2006 ('ABC Contract'), DFAT undertook a review of the performance of the ABC, including its reach to the target audience, in June 2010
the Network was available at that time in 31 million homes across 45 markets, through 640 rebroadcast partners (up from 460 in 2009).
This information was sourced from surveys Australia Network has subscribed to (as required under the terms of the ABC Contract). These surveys measure 'elite' viewership across markets (the target audience).
(3) Yes
The ABC contract set out detailed performance standards which were reported on annually and addressed the reach and appeal of the service, and the quality, relevance and credibility of programming, including of news, current affairs and business programs
the ABC Contract also required DFAT to undertake a detailed review of the performance of the ABC after three years of the term of the contract
this review was completed in June 2010.
(4) Television remains a key medium. DFAT anticipates that the rapid evolution of digital media services and technologies will continue. The Statement of Requirement, which formed part of the Request For Tender, therefore emphasised the Government's expectation of a modern up-to-date service, which is not limited to television, and which keeps pace with technological developments over the life of the contract.
The Statement of Requirement anticipated that greater efficiency and effectiveness would be delivered through increasing the Australia Network's online presence, increased use of social media and employment of new digital media technologies as alternative means to the television service of providing audio-visual content to target audiences.
Maranoa Electorate: Analog Television Services
(Question No. 408)
Mr Bruce Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 1 June 2011:
(1) How many communities in the remote television licence area in the electorate of Maranoa are receiving their analogue television services via a local government-operated self-help rebroadcast facility.
(2) What would be the cost of converting these self-help analogue facilities in the same electorate to an
(a) MPEG-2, and (b) MPEG-4, data format with the digital signal received via satellite.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) There are 19 towns in the remote central and eastern Australia licence area in the Commonwealth electorate of Maranoa that receive television via analog retransmission. Of these towns, five are council funded self-help retransmission sites (Adavale, Eromanga, Eulo, Wyandra and Yowah).
(2) It is not the Australian government's policy to provide digital television retransmission services at remote analog self-help sites. The Department has not assessed the cost of conversion to digital at these sites. This would require a competitive tender process approved for this purpose. Factors that would need to be taken into account at each site include the range and extent of capital works required and the ongoing maintenance costs involved.
Minister Conroy informed Councils in March 2010 that local councils who wish to pursue a retransmission option must do so at their own expense. This includes costs associated with going to market to attract potential tenderers or costs incurred in seeking independent commercial advice about the provision of the necessary services.
Passport Fees
(Question No. 543)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 18 August 2011:
Was the Government's revenue from passport fees in 2009-10 equal to or greater than the cost of providing consular assistance.
Dr Emerson: The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Revenue received from passport fees was greater than the cost of providing consular assistance in 2009-10.
NBN Co. Ltd
(Question No. 699)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 31 October 2011:
In respect of the operations of Tasmania NBN Co. Limited, (a) what are the names of the directors, (b) on how many occasions in the last 12 months has the board met, (c) what sum in directorship fees is paid to each director, (d) does the company have any employees; if so, how many, and (e) what are the (i) annual employment costs, and (ii) activities of the company.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) As at 31 October 2011, directors sitting on the board of NBN Tasmania Limited (NBN Tasmania) were Mr Greg McCann (Chair), Ms Alison Terry, Mr Jody Fassina, Mr Darren Alexander, and Mr Jean-Pascal Beaufret (who since resigned on 25 November 2011). Mr Kieren Cooney was appointed to the NBN Tasmania board by the NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) board on 10 February 2012.
(b) The board of NBN Tasmania met approximately every six weeks in 2011, with seven meetings held from December 2010 to December 2011. In 2012, NBN Tasmania board meetings are held monthly.
(c) Directors on the board of NBN Tasmania are paid $40,000 per annum, with the exception of Mr Cooney, who as an executive of NBN Co, is not remunerated for holding a position on a subsidiary board. In addition, Mr Beaufret was not remunerated while holding a position on the NBN Tasmania board. As Chair of NBN Tasmania, Mr McCann is paid $75,000 per annum.
(d) The company has no employees.
(e) (i) Nil.
(ii) The role of NBN Tasmania as per its current charter is "to promote the successful rollout of the NBN in Tasmania and identify and showcase the benefits of the NBN so as to stimulate innovation, new means of delivering health, education and community services and the generation of business activity."
Broadband
(Question No. 700)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 31 October 2011:
In respect of each first release site for the National Broadband Network (ie, Scottsdale, Midway Point, Smithton, Brunswick, Townsville, Kiama, Armidale, Willunga), (a) how many premises were connected (i) overhead, and (ii) below ground, (b) of the premises connected below ground, (i) how many were connected via an existing Telstra duct, and (ii) in how many was new ducting or new underground trenching or boring required, (c) how many pits, if any, were required to be repaired or remediated, (d) in how many instances was it necessary to repair or remediate the Telstra copper connection after the installation of fibre, and (e) what was the cost of building the network (i) in total, (ii) per premises passed, and (iii) per premises connected.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The first release sites for the NBN were chosen and designed to test the variety of locations and operational conditions likely to be encountered in the overall rollout of the NBN.
The pattern of connection methodologies employed was varied to enable an assessment of performance in these trials. The lessons from these trials are now being incorporated in the design of the volume rollout. Accordingly, the particular characteristics of these trials cannot be considered indicative of the likely experience in the rollout overall.
Broadband
(Question No. 741)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 November 2011:
In respect of the connection by NBN Co. Limited of its fibre network to Australian households,
(a) what is the average power in watts that an average household connection will utilise, and
(b) how does this compare to the power used with existing. (i) voice telephone, and (ii) Digital Subscriber Line modem with a personal computer.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The power consumed by NBN Co's fibre network termination device (NTD) depends upon the services being utilised at the time. The average power consumed by an indoor type fibre NTD serving one 100 Mbps data service and one PS TN -equivalent UNI -V service which is utilised 10% of the time is approximately 6.8 Watt.
In comparison the measured average power consumption of a DECT cordless phone on its base station (a Panasonic Range 900) was 6.1 Watt, with the telephone line idle, no calls in progress, and the cordless phone resting in its cradle. In addition, the average power consumption of a personal computer varies from approximately 30 Watt for a laptop to between 200 and 1000 Watt for desktops, including the monitor. A connected ADSL modem to the computer has been measured at 7.2 Watt.
NBN Co. Ltd
(Question No. 742)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 November 2011:
What proportion of NBN Co. Limited's assets are leased as opposed to owned.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The table below provides details of NBN Co Limited's leased assets and the proportion of leased assets versus owned assets as of 29 February 2012:
Measures |
Operating Leases |
Finance Leases |
Total |
Operating Lease and Finance Lease liabilities |
$3,457,033 |
$17,087,984 |
$20,545,017 |
Operating Lease and Finance Lease liabilities as a proportion of Total Assets Owned as at 29 February 2012 |
0% |
2% |
2% |
Notes:
Leased assets relate to both operating and finance lease arrangements as defined under Australia Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standard 117.
Estimated market value is predominantly based on a return of rental formula, rather than a formal valuation.
The lease value disclosed relates to the initial contractual term of the agreement, not the financial result as at 29 February 2012.
Leases of property are the most common arrangements as at 29 February 2012.
Licences have been excluded from these results.
Broadband
(Question No. 745)
Mr Robb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in writing, on 21 November 2011:
As of 17 November 2011, what sum had the Government borrowed for financing the National Broadband Network project.
Mr Swan: The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
As of November 17, 2011, the Government has borrowed $800 million to contribute as equity to the NBN. The Government estimates that it will borrow a total of $2.7 billion to contribute as equity to the NBN in the 2011-12 financial year. As of 17 November 2011, the Government has contributed a total of $2.2 billion worth of equity to the NBN, of which $1.4 billion was sourced from the Building Australia Fund.
Home Insulation Program
(Question No. 790)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
Before, during or after the implementation of the Home Insulation Program, did the Government request any legal advice concerning the legality of the scheme, including whether the scheme was constitutional; if so, in each case, when, by whom, and from whom was the advice requested, and can he indicate the general nature of the advice that was sought.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Advice was received in 2009 from the Attorney-General’s Department regarding the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers in relation to the expenditure of funds.
Coalmining
(Question No. 792)
Ms Marino asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
Has the Government had, or sought to have, the (a) Australian Federal Police, (b) a private contractor, or (c) any other Government body, monitor opponents of coal mining in the Margaret River; if so, can he provide the nature of the information obtained, and indicate to whom that information was distributed.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) No. The AFP has not been involved in monitoring opponents monitoring of coal mining in the Margaret River region.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) In accordance with longstanding practice, for security reasons, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) does not comment on whether a specific matter is, or is not, the subject of an ASIO investigation.
However, it should be emphasised that ASIO's interest is only in protest activity that is relevant to ASIO's remit of 'security' as defined in the ASIO Act – that is, protest activity that is, or has the potential to be, violent for the purposes of achieving a political objective.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 specifically states that ASIO shall not 'limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent' and that 'the exercise of that right shall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security'.
Climate Change
(Question No. 793)
Mr Simpkins asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
Can he explain the Government's position on the Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory (SGET) of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi,
Can he indicate what the Government has done to disprove or prove the SGET.
Has the Government directed the CSIRO to investigate the SGET.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Government does not accept the findings of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi on the Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has reviewed Dr Miskolczi's findings that the Earth's greenhouse effect is constant, is naturally controlled by a balance between water vapour and other greenhouse gases, and that currently accepted rules significantly overestimate the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing.
Dr Miskolczi's findings have not been published in a mainstream science journal that is open to the process of peer-review.
The Government has not directed the CSIRO to investigate the Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory.
There is clear evidence that our climate is changing, largely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The Fourth Assessment Report, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, states global warming is 'unequivocal' and 'most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'.
There are multiple lines of evidence in the report showing that the Earth's climate system is warming. These include increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The report represents the international consensus on climate change science in literature that has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. The report can be found at www.ipcc.ch.
The findings of the IPCC have been strongly supported by recent publications that synthesise the peer reviewed literature including, the American National Academies (www.dels.nas.edu), the Royal Society in the United Kingdom (www.royalsociety.org) and the Australian Academy of Science (www.science.org.au).
The consensus within the mainstream science community is that climate change is real, currently being observed and will have significant future impacts if no action is taken to reduce global carbon pollution.
Prime Minister and Cabinet: Portfolio Entities
(Question No. 796)
Mr Fletcher asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Ministers portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many full-time equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Ms Gillard: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The only agency in the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) Portfolio that has been created since 24 November 2007 is the National Mental Health Commission (NMHC). The NMHC was established on 1 January 2012 as an executive agency. As the entity was not established until 2012, the entity did not have any full-time equivalent employees to report at the end of 2011.
The Department of Climate Change and its related entity, the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, were established in the PM&C Portfolio on 3 December 2007. The department has since been renamed the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and both agencies transferred to a separate portfolio, the Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio, on 8 March 2010. As this department is not part of the Prime Minister's Portfolio, questions regarding staffing levels at the end of 2011 should be addressed to the relevant Portfolio Minister.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government was established in the PM&C Portfolio on 14 September 2010. The department has since been renamed the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport and transferred to a separate portfolio, the Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport Portfolio, on 14 December 2011. As this department is not part of the Prime Minister's Portfolio, questions regarding staffing levels at the end of 2011 should be addressed to the relevant Portfolio Minister.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner was established in the PM&C Portfolio on 1 November 2010. The agency has since transferred to the Attorney-General's Portfolio on 19 October 2011. As this agency is not part of the Prime Minister's Portfolio, questions regarding staffing levels at the end of 2011 should be addressed to the relevant Portfolio Minister.
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education: Portfolio Entities
(Question No. 798)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many fulltime equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Mr Combet: The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The following bodies have been created within the Minister's Portfolio since 24 November 2007.
Name of body |
FTE at end of 2011 |
Australian Qualifications Framework Council |
3 |
Australian Skills Quality Authority |
112 |
National Skills Standards Council |
8.8 |
Skills Australia |
28 |
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency |
40.35 |
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: Portfolio Entities
(Question No. 799)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many full-time equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy had one entity that fits the criteria of the question:
NBN Co
As at 31 December 2011 NBN Co had a total of 1317 employees. NBN Co's business systems do not currently report on a full time equivalent employee basis.
Infrastructure and Transport: Portfolio Entities
(Question No. 805)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many fulltime equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), as a consequence of the passing of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Act 2009 (TSIA Act) on 11 March 2009, was established as an independent Statutory Agency with a Commission structure on 1 July 2009. The ATSB was previously a division of the then Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Infrastructure Australia (IA) was established as a statutory body under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 which came into effect on 9 April 2008.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: Portfolio Entities
(Question Nos 807, 808, 813 and 814)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for Disability Reform, the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many fulltime equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Ms Macklin: The Minister for Housing, the Minister for Homelessness and I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question:
For the period 24 November 2007 to 7 February 2012, no new entities had been created in the portfolio.
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Industry and Innovation, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Ministers portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many fulltime equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to the answer provided to House of Representatives Question in Writing No. 798.
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: Portfolio Entities
(Question No. 820)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many full time equivalent employees did each such entity have at end of 2011.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies that have been created within my portfolio since 24 November 2007 are as follows:
(1) Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency;
(2) Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator; and
(3) Low Carbon Australia Limited.
The number of full time equivalent employees each entity listed above had at end of 2011 is as follows:
(1) Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: 1,067.78 full time equivalent employees (including active and inactive APS employees);
(2) Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator: 49.08 full time equivalent employees; and
(3) Low Carbon Australia Limited: 23 full time equivalent employees.
Prime Minister and Cabinet: Portfolio Entities
(Question No. 824)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Social Inclusion, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Ministers portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many full-time equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Mr Butler: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to the answer for Parliamentary Question on Notice No.796 for agencies created within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Home Insulation Program
(Question No. 827)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
Has the Government sought or been provided with legal advice that deals with the constitutionality of the Home Insulation Program; if so, on what date(s), and in what context.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Advice was received in 2009 from the Attorney-General's Department regarding the Commonwealth's constitutional powers in relation to the expenditure of funds.
High Speed Rail
(Question No. 828)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 8 February 2012:
Can he (a) provide an update on the Very Fast Train proposal between Sydney and Brisbane, and (b) confirm he has received a submission from the community of Taree for a dedicated Very Fast Train station.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Government's strategic study on the implementation of the High Speed Rail network on the east of Australia between Brisbane and Melbourne is well underway. The first phase of the study, released, on 4 August 2011, showed that constructing an eastern seaboard network connecting Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra would cost between $61 billion and $108 billion in $2011. On the basis of population forecasts, assumed fares and operational characteristics, up to 54 million passengers could be using the high speed rail by 2036. The full phase one report is available at <http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/>.
Phase two of the study is currently in progress and due for completion at the end of 2012. It will analyse the phase one findings in much greater detail and will identify a preferred corridor alignment and station locations, including regional stations. It will also refine cost estimates, passenger and revenue forecasts, assess financial and economic viability and provide options for staging, financing and governance.
My Department has not received a submission from the community of Taree regarding a dedicated high speed rail station.
Roads: Pacific Highway
(Question No. 829)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 8 February 2012:
Can he provide complete details of costings and work schedules for the full completion of the Pacific Highway dual carriageway works between Hexham and the Tweed.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I recently released a work schedule for the full completion of the Pacific Highway developed by my Department in consultation with the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (NSW RMS) at Attachment A.
An estimate provided by the NSW RMS in late 2011 indicated that the cost to duplicate the remaining sections of the Pacific Highway is in the vicinity of $7 billion. Individual project estimates are being prepared using the Australian Government Best Practice Cost Estimation Standards. These estimates will be refined and further developed as the planning, environmental and geotechnical works progress on the remaining unduplicated sections of the Pacific Highway.
Duplication of the Pacific Highway by 2016
Highway Sections |
Esti- mated Length km |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
|||||||||||||||
Bulahdelah Bypass |
8.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herons Creek to Stills Road |
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oxley Highway to Kundabung |
23 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kundabung to Kempsy |
14 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kempsy Bypass |
14.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frederickton to Eungai |
27 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrell Creek to Nambucca |
20 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nambucca to Urunga |
22 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sapphire to Woolgoolga |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arrawarra to Halfway Creek |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Halfway Creek to Glenugie |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glenugie Upgrade |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glenugie to Tyndale |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyndale to Devils Pulpit |
43 |
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devils Pulpit Upgrade |
7.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devils Pulpit to Woodburn |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodburn to Ballina Bypass |
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ballina Bypass |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tintenbar to Ewingsdale |
17.3 |
• |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banora Point |
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitment Made |
|
|
|
Pre-construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Yet to be committed |
|
|
|
• Award construction tenders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Broadband
(Question No. 833)
Mr Truss asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 9 February 2012:
In respect of the Minister's answer to question in writing No. 45 (House Hansard, 10 May 2011, page 3480), in each of the following localities in the electorate division of Wide Bay: (a) Bauple, (b) Cherbourg, (c) Cooloola Cove, (d) Cooran, (e) Cooroy, (f) Goomeri, (g) Gunalda, (h) Gympie, (i) Imbil, (j) Kandanga, (l) Maryborough, (m) Murgon, (n) Noosa, (o) Peregian Beach, (p) Pomona, (q) Rainbow Beach, (r) Tewantin, (s) Tiaro, (t) Tin Can Bay and (u) Widgee, will the Minister provide an update on (i) the planning undertaken for the rollout for the National Broadband Network (NBN), (ii) whether fibre optic services will be available through the NBN to residents and businesses, (iii) the number of houses and businesses that will be offered NBN fibre optic broadband, (iv) the expected actual cost of providing a NBN connection to each household and business, and (v) when the NBN services will be turned on.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Planning and construction of the NBN is well underway including in the Wide Bay electorate. Indicative coverage maps published by NBN Co suggest that Cooran, Cooroy, Goomeri, Gympie, Maryborough, Murgon, Pomona, Rainbow Beach and Tin Can Bay are likely to be served by fibre to the premises (FTTP) technology capable of providing speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second.
Tiaro, Kilkivan, Imbil and Cherbourg are likely to be served by next-generation fixed wireless technology which will provide peak download speeds of 12 megabits per second. NBN Co expects higher speeds will become available as technologies improve. All remaining premises will be served by next-generation satellite technologies providing peak download speeds of 12 megabits per second. Current indicative coverage information for Queensland is available at www.nbnco.com.au/our-network. It is important to note that coverage information is indicative only and subject to change.
(ii) Premises covered by the NBN fibre, fixed wireless and satellite technologies include residential and business premises as well as schools and hospitals.
(iii) The precise optic fibre footprint will only be known when NBN Co completes its detailed region by region designs of the network.
(iv) NBN Co will offer a free connection to the network when the NBN is rolled out in each suburb. This includes the standard installation of a network termination device (NTD)––the box which provides connection to the NBN––at the premises of all consenting customers. In some cases charges may apply for non-standard installations.
(v) NBN Co is moving as quickly as practical to roll out the network, including to Wide Bay. However, consistent with any major project of this size and complexity, it is necessary that the planning and design phases are undertaken to ensure that the rollout occurs as efficiently as possible.
As outlined in the 2011-2013 Corporate Plan NBN Co forecasts it will take approximately 9.5 years to build the NBN.
NBN Co has not yet indicated dates for the fibre network rollout in the electorate of Wide Bay. However, on 18 October 2011 NBN Co released its first 12 month national rollout schedule. The schedule was subsequently updated on 15 February 2012 and will be further updated each quarter to include new locations. You can visit the NBN Co website at www.nbnco.com.au for more information on the network rollout.
NBN Co plans to complete the rollout of its fixed-wireless network, including some communities in the Wide Bay electorate, by 2015.
On 1 July 2011, NBN Co launched its Interim Satellite Service (ISS) which offers improved broadband services to homes and small businesses unable to access a metro-comparable broadband service, ahead of the introduction of a long term satellite service solution in 2015.
Australia Post: Loss of Mail
(Question No. 837)
Ms Marino asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 14 February 2012:
In respect of the Australia Post truck that was carrying letters and parcels from WA when it burst into flames in NSW on 18 December 2011:
(a) Can the Minister indicate what liability Australia Post has accepted for the loss of this mail;
(b) Will compensation be made available for people who can prove (i) that in all probability their parcels were on that truck, and (ii) the value of those parcels; and
(c) What information is Australia Post giving to people who call in relation to losses on that truck, and is the Minister aware of reports that such people are being given inconsistent information.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) Australia Post apologises for the disappointment and inconvenience caused by the loss of mail in the truck fire in December 2011. Parcels posted around 14 December 2011 from Western Australia to Queensland may have been impacted.
Compensation is payable in accordance with the type of service chosen by the sender. For customers who chose services such as "Registered Post" and/or
"Extra Cover", Australia Post is offering compensation and a refund of postage.
Customers who sent a parcel that may have been impacted by the fire can lodge their claims via the Australia Post website www.auspost.com.au, in person at a corporate post office or by calling its Customer Contact Centre (CCC) on 13 13 18.
(b) Customers that used Australia Post products such as Express Post, Express Post Platinum, Registered Post and eParcel with transit cover may be entitled to compensation if proof of value and proof of posting can be provided.
(c) All CCC staff have access to the same database that details information about the truck fire including which parcels may have been impacted and what customers need to do in order to lodge a claim for compensation.
Australia Post is not aware of complaints about "inconsistent information" and is more than happy to investigate any such complaints if Ms Marino is able to provide specific details.
Medicare Benefits
(Question No. 838)
Mr Crook asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 16 February 2012:
For the calendar years 2010 and 2011, what was the average Medicare benefit payment per capita in each federal electoral division.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The average Medicare benefits paid per capita (1) in Federal electoral divisions, based on patient Medicare enrolment postcodes for 2010 & 2011, by year of processing of claims, is presented in the table below:
|
|
Calendar year(2) |
|
State/Territory (4) |
Commonwealth Electoral Division(5) |
2010 Average Medicare benefits paid per capita(1) (3) $ |
2011 Average Medicare benefits paid per capita(1) (3) $ |
NSW |
Banks |
892 |
938 |
|
Barton |
921 |
981 |
|
Bennelong |
790 |
854 |
|
Berowra |
829 |
880 |
|
Blaxland |
905 |
954 |
|
Bradfield |
857 |
911 |
|
Calare |
635 |
692 |
|
Charlton |
744 |
809 |
|
Chifley |
803 |
863 |
|
Cook |
934 |
994 |
|
Cowper |
788 |
880 |
|
Cunningham |
827 |
868 |
|
Dobell |
846 |
912 |
|
Eden-Monaro |
559 |
602 |
|
Farrer |
635 |
694 |
|
Fowler |
857 |
883 |
|
Gilmore |
850 |
913 |
|
Grayndler |
846 |
874 |
|
Greenway |
799 |
862 |
|
Hughes |
843 |
890 |
|
Hume |
666 |
704 |
|
Hunter |
647 |
686 |
|
Kingsford Smith |
854 |
903 |
|
Lindsay |
800 |
867 |
|
Lyne |
845 |
925 |
|
Macarthur |
822 |
878 |
|
Mackellar |
825 |
883 |
|
Macquarie |
776 |
828 |
|
McMahon |
898 |
943 |
|
Mitchell |
853 |
916 |
|
New England |
561 |
603 |
|
Newcastle |
694 |
738 |
|
North Sydney |
795 |
845 |
|
Page |
739 |
816 |
|
Parkes |
639 |
702 |
|
Parramatta |
836 |
897 |
|
Paterson |
792 |
859 |
|
Reid |
809 |
863 |
|
Richmond |
839 |
918 |
|
Riverina |
678 |
722 |
|
Robertson |
908 |
958 |
|
Shortland |
804 |
868 |
|
Sydney |
698 |
735 |
|
Throsby |
858 |
906 |
|
Warringah |
800 |
856 |
|
Watson |
915 |
949 |
|
Wentworth |
908 |
951 |
|
Werriwa |
827 |
873 |
VIC |
Aston |
748 |
806 |
|
Ballarat |
660 |
718 |
|
Batman |
809 |
847 |
|
Bendigo |
667 |
712 |
|
Bruce |
787 |
835 |
|
Calwell |
769 |
843 |
|
Casey |
688 |
755 |
|
Chisholm |
751 |
790 |
|
Corangamite |
658 |
708 |
|
Corio |
666 |
713 |
|
Deakin |
790 |
839 |
|
Dunkley |
766 |
830 |
|
Flinders |
743 |
817 |
|
Gellibrand |
692 |
735 |
|
Gippsland |
649 |
687 |
|
Goldstein |
835 |
872 |
|
Gorton |
677 |
731 |
|
Higgins |
791 |
826 |
|
Holt |
696 |
762 |
|
Hotham |
776 |
816 |
|
Indi |
631 |
690 |
|
Isaacs |
708 |
759 |
|
Jagajaga |
787 |
827 |
|
Kooyong |
749 |
784 |
|
LaTrobe |
678 |
735 |
|
Lalor |
627 |
715 |
|
Mallee |
624 |
681 |
|
Maribyrnong |
803 |
850 |
|
McEwen |
662 |
732 |
|
McMillan |
698 |
759 |
|
Melbourne |
640 |
684 |
|
Melbourne Ports |
779 |
805 |
|
Menzies |
842 |
902 |
|
Murray |
652 |
703 |
|
Scullin |
826 |
881 |
|
Wannon |
588 |
628 |
|
Wills |
819 |
873 |
QLD |
Blair |
678 |
750 |
|
Bonner |
730 |
783 |
|
Bowman |
727 |
783 |
|
Brisbane |
681 |
715 |
|
Capricornia |
556 |
603 |
|
Dawson |
540 |
592 |
|
Dickson |
670 |
738 |
|
Fadden |
740 |
821 |
|
Fairfax |
807 |
875 |
|
Fisher |
827 |
895 |
|
Flynn |
554 |
592 |
|
Forde |
669 |
750 |
|
Griffith |
670 |
720 |
|
Groom |
654 |
705 |
|
Herbert |
553 |
605 |
|
Hinkler |
727 |
810 |
|
Kennedy |
523 |
553 |
|
Leichhardt |
540 |
603 |
|
Lilley |
741 |
803 |
|
Longman |
649 |
743 |
|
Maranoa |
586 |
632 |
|
McPherson |
792 |
864 |
|
Moncrieff |
751 |
836 |
|
Moreton |
689 |
741 |
|
Oxley |
648 |
709 |
|
Petrie |
695 |
788 |
|
Rankin |
642 |
700 |
|
Ryan |
680 |
723 |
|
Wide Bay |
741 |
804 |
|
Wright |
672 |
741 |
SA |
Adelaide |
698 |
746 |
|
Barker |
572 |
613 |
|
Boothby |
790 |
836 |
|
Grey |
616 |
650 |
|
Hindmarsh |
833 |
880 |
|
Kingston |
712 |
767 |
|
Makin |
705 |
755 |
|
Mayo |
712 |
754 |
|
Port Adelaide |
748 |
802 |
|
Sturt |
801 |
847 |
|
Wakefield |
706 |
769 |
WA |
Brand |
540 |
588 |
|
Canning |
592 |
631 |
|
Cowan |
569 |
610 |
|
Curtin |
644 |
672 |
|
Durack |
416 |
439 |
|
Forrest |
526 |
570 |
|
Fremantle |
606 |
639 |
|
Hasluck |
569 |
595 |
|
Moore |
575 |
619 |
|
O'Connor |
462 |
490 |
|
Pearce |
542 |
588 |
|
Perth |
609 |
646 |
|
Stirling |
629 |
659 |
|
Swan |
536 |
560 |
|
Tangney |
604 |
635 |
Tas |
Bass |
584 |
614 |
|
Braddon |
567 |
611 |
|
Denison |
729 |
763 |
|
Franklin |
721 |
760 |
|
Lyons |
602 |
633 |
NT |
Lingiari |
295 |
314 |
|
Solomon |
426 |
453 |
ACT |
Canberra |
575 |
605 |
|
Fraser |
514 |
557 |
NOTES:
(1) Populations for Commonwealth Electoral Division (CED) are calculated on a financial year basis. The 2010 table uses the estimated resident population (ERP) at 30 June 2010. The ERP at 30 June 2011 is not yet available for Federal electoral divisions. Therefore the 2011 table also uses the ERP as at 30 June 2010.
(2) Calendar year of processing is the year in which the claim was processed by Medicare Australia. For example, a service rendered by a Medicare provider to a patient in December 2009 and having the claim processed by Medicare in January 2010, will appear in 2010 data.
(3) Only health services receiving a Medicare benefit appear in Medicare data sets.
(4) In compiling Medicare statistics by state/territory, each postcode is usually allocated to only one state. In contrast, the electorate concordance file allocates fractions of particular postcodes across states. Some postcodes are not represented on the concordance file. As a consequence, data coverage for state/territory in electorate data, may differ slightly from the coverage of state/territory data reported elsewhere.
(5) Medicare benefits have been allocated to electoral divisions on the basis of each patient's Medicare enrolment postcode at the time of service. Patients may change enrolment postcode in a period, and as a consequence have services in more than one electorate. Patients may also have changed their postcode of residence and not yet updated their Medicare enrolment postcode.
Where possible, PO Box postcodes have been allocated to an electorate using geospatial programs and a PO Box/delivery area postcode file from Australia Post. Where a postcode boundary overlaps different electorate boundaries, the postcode data is allocated to the respective electorates using a postcode to CED concordance file, built by the Department of Health and Ageing, using Australian Bureau of Statistics population data. This assumes that Medicare postcode data is geographically distributed in the same proportions as the population was distributed for these split postcodes. This may result in some postcode-based service and funding data being allocated to an electorate different to that of the address of the service provider or user.
Local Government: Financial Challenges
(Question No. 840)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 16 February 2012:
What work has the Government undertaken or commissioned into the financial challenges facing local government in Australia, and can the Minister indicate the extent to which the Government has given consideration to the creation of a municipal bond market in Australia.
Mr Crean: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Government has commissioned two studies relating to the financial challenges facing local government:
The Department has commissioned Ernst & Young to conduct an analysis of prioritisation and financing of local government infrastructure. Ernst & Young is expected to deliver a final report for the Government's consideration in late April 2012.
The Government is reviewing the equity and efficiency of the total current funding provided for local government through the Financial Assistance Grants program. The review is expected to be completed in 2012-13.
Visas
(Question No. 871)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 16 February 2012:
In respect of his Department's discussion paper Simpler visas: Creating a simpler framework for temporary and permanent entry to Australia (June 2010), (a) what is the status of the review of Australia's visa framework, (b) have any recommendations been made, or has further work been done or commissioned, as a result of the review, and (c) has a report been completed, if so, has it been made available to him, and will it be made public.
Mr Bowen: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership on Working Visa Simplification managed between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and Department of Finance and Deregulation is being progressed.
After the release of the initial Simpler Visas public discussion paper in June 2010, a second public discussion paper outlining proposals for Temporary Work visas was released in December 2010, and a third public discussion paper outlining proposals for Visitor visas was released in April 2011. All three public discussion papers are available on the Department's website.
Following public response to the second and third papers my Department and I are considering final proposals for Temporary Work and Visitor visas.
It is also proposed that simplification and deregulation outcomes will be delivered across the General Skilled Migration, Business Skills and Employer Nomination and Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa programs in conjunction with the proposed SkillSelect model reforms on 1 July 2012.
International English Language Testing Systems
(Question No. 891)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 28 February 2012:
(1) In respect of the requirement for applicants of certain subclass visas to complete the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), what identity checks or verification evidence does his department require from the agencies contracted to conduct the IELTS tests, to ensure that the actual applicant is the person sitting the test.
(2) How many times has a visa applicant been asked to provide evidence to refute his department's suspicion that their IELTS certificate was fraudulent.
(3) How many visa applications have been refused because the IELTS certificate provided by the applicant was fraudulent.
(4) How many facial image comparison specialists does his department employ.
(5) What proportion (as a percentage) of visa applications that were refused by his department because the IELTS certificate provided by the applicant was fraudulent, has been overturned by the Migration Review Tribunal.
Mr Bowen: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) To ensure the integrity of our migration and visa systems the department takes any allegation of migration fraud very seriously. The integrity of English language testing across program areas is important as English language results are a key component in certain visa application requirements.
IELTS is an independent commercial enterprise and the department does not have a contract with IELTS or any agency contracted to conduct the IELTS test. Issues relating to identity/verification checks undertaken as part of IELTS testing are a matter for IDP International as administrators of the IELTS test.
A Deed of Agreement for the provision of access to online test score verification services exists between the DIAC and IDP International English Language Test System (IELTS) Pty Ltd for the provision of English language test results for Student visa purposes. This agreement describes intellectual property rights, security arrangements, protection of personal information and described required services to enable the department to verify IELTS test score results.
The Deed of Agreement also includes a number of integrity standards that IELTS is expected to conform to, including measures to minimise the risk of identity substitution and ensure appropriate document fraud prevention measures are in place.
The department works closely with IDP International to ensure we are promptly notified of all fraud attempts and detection in relation to the IELTS test, and takes action as appropriate.
Specification of English language tests accepted for the purposes of Australian visas is at the sole discretion of the Minister for Immigration of Citizenship. English language test providers are aware that their specification may be reviewed should they be found not to have robust practices in place to identify and address possible instances of fraud.
(2) The department does not maintain statistical information at this level therefore is unable to provide this information.
(3) The department does not maintain statistical information at this level therefore is unable to provide this information.
(4) The department currently employs five facial image comparison specialists. In addition to the facial image comparison specialists, the department is developing four staff in-house as facial image comparison trainees.
(5) The Migration Review Tribunal does not maintain statistical information at this level therefore is unable to provide this information.
Medicare
(Question No. 898)
Ms Marino asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 14 March 2012:
(1) How many staff are employed in the Medicare Bunbury Office in the Stirling Centre, WA?
(2) Is it a fact that there are plans to collocate the Medicare Bunbury Office to the Centrelink Bunbury Office on Wittenoom Street; if so,
(i) why,
(ii) what is the estimated timeframe for the collocation,
(iii) what consultation with Bunbury Medicare customers has been conducted to gauge their views about this collocation,
(iv) how many Medicare specific staff workers will be in the collocated office,
(v) will the current level of customer service in the Medicare Bunbury office be maintained in the Centrelink office, and
(vi) after collocation, will the number of parking bays outside the Centrelink offices be increased, if so, by how many.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Eleven staff (equating to 8.09 full-time equivalent), including one manager and ten customer-service staff members are employed in the Department of Human Services (DHS) Service Centre offering Medicare services in the Stirling Centre, Bunbury, WA.
(2) The consolidation of the DHS service centres in Bunbury, which currently offer Medicare and Centrelink services in separate locations, is currently under consideration for co-location.
(i) The consolidation of the service centres is being considered as part of the government's service delivery reform to significantly improve service delivery to customers, especially in key life stages such as bereavement, separation or birth of a new child. It would create a one-stop shop for Bunbury residents, allowing them to access all Medicare and Centrelink services in one location.
(ii) The consolidation is under consideration. At this point, no timeframe has been decided.
(iii) DHS experience of previous colocations is that customers value the change and support the integrated approach to service delivery. Consolidation of DHS services in any community is assessed carefully to ensure that customers continue to experience a high level of service and accessibility. Assessments include property and security considerations, and advice from local DHS staff who are aware of community preferences. The community is engaged through a range of channels to ensure they are aware of any changes to services in their community.
(iv) If co-location occurred in Bunbury, the existing customer-service staff members would continue to provide Medicare services at the consolidated service centre.
(v) Yes
(vi) The provision of customer parking is a consideration of the property and accessibility assessment of all consolidating sites, to ensure that customers continue to enjoy convenient access to DHS services.
Deposit Guarantee Scheme
(Question No. 899)
Mr Christensen asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 15 March 2012:
Can he indicate whether funds frozen as a result of the Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits will now be paid out on request by the account holders.
Mr Swan: The answer to the Honourable Members question is as follows:
The decision to freeze redemptions is a commercial decision made by the individual fund and not a decision taken by Government. Funds are required under the law to freeze redemptions if they do not have sufficient liquid assets and cash reserves to be able to pay out redemption requests. It is important to note that funds, particularly mortgage funds, had been under liquidity pressure for some time before the announcement of the Government's deposit guarantee in October 2008, as a result of the property downturn and the general turmoil in financial markets.
As its liquidity improves a fund can offer its members an equal opportunity to redeem some or all of their investments. In addition, funds can provide a special hardship measure to members in certain circumstances.
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 907)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Credit card transactions that were at variance with the Department’s guidelines for Departmental credit card use are detailed in the table below:
|
|
(i) |
(ii) |
(ii) |
(iii) |
|
Financial Year |
Number |
Dollar Value |
Dollar Value Repaid |
Disciplinary action |
(a) |
2008 - 2009 |
2 |
$624.00 |
$624.00 |
On each occasion cardholders were counselled on the correct usage of the Departmental credit card. |
$34.00 |
$34.00 |
||||
(b) |
2009 - 2010 |
3 |
$7, 232.52 |
$0.00* |
|
$150.00 |
$150.00 |
||||
$203.90 |
$203.90 |
||||
(c) |
2010 - 2011 |
14 |
$26.50 |
$26.50 |
|
$108.00 |
$108.00 |
||||
$193.75 |
$193.75 |
||||
$70.20 |
$70.20 |
||||
$196.50 |
$196.50 |
||||
$2.99 |
$2.99 |
||||
$40.00 |
$40.00 |
||||
$53.35 |
$53.35 |
||||
$64.75 |
$64.75 |
||||
$14.99 |
$14.99 |
||||
$280.00 |
$280.00 |
||||
$369.00 |
$369.00 |
||||
$64.75 |
64.75 |
||||
$19,530.00 |
$0.00* |
||||
*Note: These two transactions, albeit outside the Department’s guidelines, were valid transactions, rather than inadvertent use of the card. No money was, therefore, required to be repaid.
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 908)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Crean: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
As part of the machinery of government changes, the Department was established on 14 September 2010 and does not have any credit card use in 2008-09.
As part of the machinery of government changes, the Department was established on 14 September 2010 and does not have any credit card use in 2009-10.
In 2010-11:
There were three instances where the use of credit cards inadvertently breached departmental guidelines.
Instance |
$ value |
$ repaid |
1 |
60.21 |
60.21 |
2 |
121.60 |
121.60 |
3 |
20.90 |
20.90 |
Total |
202.71 |
202.71 |
No findings of fraud were found as a result of these three transactions and as such no employees were disciplined for the inadvertent breaches.
Defence: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 911)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in:
(a) 2008-09,
(b) 2009-10, and
(c) 2010-11:
(i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines,
(ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and
(iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Stephen Smith: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Defence's departmental guidelines state that 'an official must only use a Defence Credit Card to obtain cash, goods or services for official business of the Commonwealth'.
The Department of Defence investigates all credit card misuse, including accidental and intentional. In all cases appropriate disciplinary action such as counselling, issuing fines or formal sanctions are undertaken. In a small number of cases the employee resigned before action could be taken. The Department of Defence attempts to recover all funds.
Some data relating to debt recovery is unavailable, particularly in earlier years. This is due to a previous departmental process whereby the area undertaking the investigation, was not responsible for actual recovery. Since February 2011, the fraud recovery function has been centralised with Defence's Audit and Fraud Control Division. This new arrangement has seen an improvement in both the rate of recovery and the accuracy of recovery data.
The controls and detection strategies applicable to card misuse are effective and are becoming increasingly so with evidence that card misuse is being detected faster, with the number and dollar value of individual cases decreasing over time.
In 2008-09, the guidelines were breached 51 times, with a total value of $89,718.49.
dollar value of each breach |
sum repaid |
were any employees disciplined for such breaches |
$9,320.00 |
^ |
yes |
$275.91 |
^ |
yes |
$13,500.00 |
^ |
yes |
$4,080.00 |
$4,080.00 |
yes |
$200.00 |
^ |
yes |
$775.20 |
^ |
yes |
$5,100.00 |
$5,100.00 |
yes |
$816.00 |
$816.00 |
yes |
$2,269.77 |
$2,269.77 |
employee resigned |
$75.23 |
^ |
yes |
$2,000.00 |
$2,000.00 |
yes |
$400.00 |
^ |
yes |
$122.10 |
$122.10 |
yes |
$99.92 |
$99.92 |
yes |
$816.00 |
$816.00 |
yes |
$728.83 |
$728.83 |
employee resigned |
$1,020.00 |
$1,020.00 |
yes |
$2,304.14 |
^ |
no(1) |
$632.37 |
^ |
no(2) |
$1,828.00 |
^ |
yes |
$123.66 |
$123.66 |
yes |
$136.36 |
$136.36 |
yes |
$147.18 |
$147.18 |
yes |
$19.67 |
$19.67 |
yes |
$90.65 |
$90.65 |
yes |
$8.20 |
$8.20 |
yes |
$8.20 |
$8.20 |
yes |
$14.23 |
$14.23 |
yes |
$94.02 |
$94.02 |
yes |
$63.90 |
$63.90 |
yes |
$1,000.00 |
$1,000.00 |
yes |
$685.00 |
$685.00 |
yes |
$1,674.00 |
$1,674.00 |
yes |
$123.66 |
$123.66 |
yes |
$400.00(3) |
$400.00 |
yes |
$50.00 |
$50.00 |
yes |
$4,470.17(4) |
$4,470.17 |
yes |
$4,450.00(5) |
^ |
yes |
$3,799.49(6) |
^ |
yes |
$200.00 |
$200.00 |
yes |
$3,100.00 |
$3,100.00 |
yes |
$2,170.00 |
$2,170.00 |
yes |
$7,950.00 |
$7,950.00 |
yes |
$1,913.45 |
$1,913.45 |
yes |
$306.18 |
$306.18 |
yes |
$2,300.00 |
$2,300.00 |
yes |
$2,276.00(7) |
$2,276.00 |
yes |
$3,955.00 |
$3,955.00 |
yes |
$1,426.00 |
$1,426.00 |
yes |
$400.00 |
$408.00 |
yes |
$89,718.49 |
$52,166.15 |
|
(1) Insufficient evidence to determine liability
(2) Insufficient evidence to determine liability
(3) Includes 2 instances of misuse committed by one individual
(4) Includes 11 instances of misuse committed by one individual
(5) Includes 15 instances of misuse committed by one individual
(6) Includes 35 instances of misuse committed by one individual
(7) Includes 9 instances of misuse committed by one individual
(^) Information on amount recovered is unavailable
In 2009-10, the guidelines were breached 83 times, with a total value of $32,314.85.
dollar value of each breach |
sum repaid |
were any employees disciplined for such breaches |
$547.96 |
$548.00 |
yes |
$1,734.00 |
$2,000.00 |
yes |
$1,800.00 |
^ |
yes |
$600.00 |
$600.00 |
yes |
$80.00 |
^ |
yes |
$29.42 |
$29.42 |
yes |
$2,728.06 |
^ |
yes |
$1,275.36 |
$1,275.36 |
yes |
$2,919.96 |
$2,950.00 |
yes |
$300.00 |
$300.00 |
yes |
$1,000.00 |
$1,020.00 |
yes |
$193.00 |
$193.00 |
yes |
$800.00 |
$818.00 |
yes |
$306.00 |
$306.00 |
yes |
$600.00 |
$600.00 |
yes |
$16.93 |
$16.93 |
yes |
$29.40 |
$29.40 |
yes |
$24.70 |
$24.70 |
yes |
$1.65 |
$1.65 |
yes |
$226.35 |
$226.35 |
yes |
$227.46 |
$227.46 |
yes |
$30.83 |
$30.83 |
yes |
$320.55 |
$320.55 |
yes |
$14.20 |
$14.20 |
yes |
$53.30 |
$60.00 |
yes |
$118.86 |
$118.86 |
yes |
$261.45 |
$261.45 |
yes |
$130.00 |
$130.00 |
yes |
$453.62 |
$453.62 |
yes |
$12.00 |
$12.00 |
yes |
$81.00 |
$81.00 |
yes |
$307.16 |
$307.16 |
yes |
$252.96 |
$252.96 |
yes |
$41.50 |
$41.50 |
yes |
$0.50 |
$0.50 |
yes |
$1.50 |
$1.50 |
yes |
$284.07 |
$284.07 |
yes |
$193.00 |
$193.00 |
yes |
$3.60 |
$3.60 |
yes |
$50.80 |
$50.80 |
yes |
$40.00 |
$40.00 |
yes |
$40.00 |
$40.00 |
yes |
$57.74 |
$57.74 |
yes |
$131.70 |
$131.70 |
yes |
$11.70 |
$11.70 |
yes |
$0.75 |
$0.75 |
yes |
$16.50 |
$16.50 |
yes |
$139.00 |
$139.00 |
yes |
$270.00 |
$270.00 |
yes |
$108.00 |
$108.00 |
yes |
$10.00 |
$10.00 |
yes |
$104.00 |
$104.00 |
yes |
$275.00 |
$275.00 |
yes |
$81.00 |
$81.00 |
yes |
$348.00 |
$348.00 |
yes |
$60.00 |
$60.00 |
yes |
$30.00 |
$30.00 |
yes |
$7,000.00 |
$7,000.00 |
yes |
$17.54 |
$17.54 |
yes |
$233.00 |
$233.00 |
yes |
$105.05 |
$105.05 |
yes |
$128.00 |
$128.00 |
yes |
$355.00 |
$355.00 |
yes |
$739.00 |
$739.00 |
yes |
$33.99 |
$33.99 |
yes |
$200.00 |
$200.00 |
yes |
$2,112.00 |
$2,112.00 |
yes |
$30.00 |
$30.00 |
yes |
$185.00 |
$185.00 |
yes |
$294.65 |
$294.65 |
yes |
$45.35 |
$45.35 |
yes |
$142.73 |
$142.73 |
yes |
$450.00 |
$450.00 |
yes |
$85.70 |
$85.70 |
yes |
$75.50 |
$75.50 |
yes |
$34.30 |
$34.30 |
yes |
$124.95 |
$124.95 |
yes |
$42.85 |
$42.85 |
yes |
$66.80 |
$66.80 |
yes |
$38.90 |
$38.90 |
yes |
SGD166 |
SGD166 |
yes |
USD46.4 |
USD46.4 |
yes |
USD111.79 |
US111.79 |
yes |
$32,314.85* |
$28,047.57* |
|
(*) Total does not include foreign currency
(^) Information on amount recovered is unavailable
In 2010-11, the guidelines were breached 91 times, with a total value of $37,138.10.
dollar value of each breach |
sum repaid |
were any employees disciplined for such breaches |
$614.00 |
^(1) |
yes |
$4,382.50 |
$4,382.50 |
yes |
$2,500.00 |
$2,549.75 |
yes |
$240.24 |
$284.07 |
yes |
$204.57 |
$204.57 |
yes |
$310.00 |
$310.00 |
yes |
$382.44 |
$382.44 |
yes |
$20.00 |
^ |
yes |
$275.00 |
$275.00 |
yes |
$1,941.50 |
$1,941.50 |
yes |
$3,236.36 |
$3,236.36 |
yes |
$3,700.00 |
$3,700.00 |
yes |
$303.35 |
^ |
yes |
$1,000.00 |
$1,000.00 |
yes |
$1,000.00 |
^ |
yes |
$13.00 |
$13.00 |
yes |
$35.62 |
$35.62 |
yes |
$126.37 |
$126.37 |
yes |
$38.74 |
$38.74 |
yes |
$84.48 |
$84.48 |
yes |
$15.97 |
$15.97 |
yes |
$13.23 |
$13.23 |
yes |
$64.05 |
$64.05 |
yes |
$20.61 |
$20.61 |
yes |
$175.85 |
$175.85 |
yes |
$562.30 |
$562.30 |
yes |
$40.00 |
$40.00 |
yes |
$110.00 |
$110.00 |
yes |
$46.31 |
$46.31 |
yes |
$4.00 |
$4.00 |
yes |
$19.00 |
$19.00 |
yes |
$2.50 |
$2.50 |
yes |
$57.00 |
$57.00 |
yes |
$43.00 |
$43.00 |
yes |
$63.35 |
$63.35 |
yes |
$23.10 |
$23.10 |
yes |
$45.00 |
$45.00 |
yes |
$179.50 |
$179.50 |
yes |
$3,000.00 |
$1,500.00 |
yes |
$300.00 |
$300.00 |
yes |
$884.27 |
$884.27 |
yes |
$50.99 |
$50.99 |
yes |
$20.00 |
$20.00 |
yes |
$122.78 |
$122.78 |
yes |
$393.55 |
$393.55 |
yes |
$393.55 |
$393.55 |
yes |
$41.50 |
$41.50 |
yes |
$37.15 |
$37.15 |
yes |
$100.00 |
$100.00 |
yes |
$100.00 |
$100.00 |
yes |
$999.00 |
$999.00 |
yes |
$7.00 |
$7.00 |
yes |
$24.00 |
$24.00 |
yes |
$45.37 |
$45.37 |
yes |
$141.85 |
$141.85 |
yes |
$202.50 |
$202.50 |
yes |
$5.50 |
$5.50 |
yes |
$794.66 |
$794.66 |
yes |
$245.70 |
$245.70 |
yes |
$275.00 |
$275.00 |
yes |
$41.82 |
$41.82 |
yes |
$460.65 |
$460.65 |
yes |
$133.25 |
$133.25 |
yes |
$43.00 |
$43.00 |
yes |
$56.70 |
$56.70 |
yes |
$50.00 |
$50.00 |
yes |
$130.00 |
$130.00 |
yes |
$4.31 |
$4.31 |
yes |
$16.00 |
$16.00 |
yes |
$21.00 |
$21.00 |
yes |
$286.00 |
$286.00 |
yes |
$80.87 |
$80.87 |
yes |
$13.30 |
$13.30 |
yes |
$43.00 |
$43.00 |
yes |
$144.74 |
$144.74 |
yes |
$3,064.00 |
^ |
no(2) |
$44.29 |
$44.29 |
yes |
$30.00 |
$30.00 |
yes |
$53.50 |
$53.50 |
yes |
$155.42 |
$155.42 |
yes |
$15.95 |
$15.95 |
yes |
$30.00 |
$30.00 |
yes |
$40.74 |
$40.74 |
yes |
$43.29 |
$43.29 |
yes |
$97.55 |
^ |
employee resigned |
$93.50 |
$93.50 |
yes |
$78.00 |
$78.00 |
yes |
$193.00 |
$193.00 |
yes |
$1,211.00 |
$1,211.00 |
yes |
$35.00 |
$35.00 |
yes |
$350.91 |
$350.91 |
yes |
$37,138.10 |
$30,632.78 |
|
(1) Property obtained through credit card was recovered
(2) Card was stolen
(^) Information on amount recovered is unavailable
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 917)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Burke: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
|
(a) 2008-09 |
(b) 2009-10 |
(c) 2010-11 |
(i) |
Three |
Five |
Three |
(ii) |
Detailed records of individual breaches were not recorded in departmental systems at this time. |
$5; $50; $52; $132; $200 |
$44; $68; $230 |
|
All amounts were fully repaid. |
The full amount was repaid in each case. |
The full amount was repaid in each case. |
(iii) |
No |
No |
No |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 923)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Burke: The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
For the financial year 2008-09, there were 17 recorded breaches. The breaches were for accidental expenditure on a departmental credit cards totalling $1,531.88. All expenditure was repaid to the department. 11 employees were counselled for breaches in 2008-09. (See attachment for details of individual breaches.)
For the financial year 2009-10, there were 28 recorded breaches. The breaches were for accidental expenditure on a departmental credit cards totalling $3,486.30. All expenditure was repaid to the department. No employees were counselled for breaches in 2009-10. (See attachment for details of individual breaches.)
For the financial year 2010-11, there were 19 recorded breaches. The breaches were for accidental expenditure on a departmental credit cards totalling $2,291.42. All expenditure was repaid to the department. Three employees were counselled for breaches in 2010-11. (See attachment for details of individual breaches.)
Attachment: Total Corporate Credit Card Breaches 2008/09 to 2010/11 |
||
Financial Year |
Expense Amount |
|
2010/11 |
$180.99 |
|
2010/11 |
$11.25 |
|
2010/11 |
$15.00 |
|
2010/11 |
$15.00 |
|
2010/11 |
$31.34 |
|
2010/11 |
$77.22 |
|
2010/11 |
$120.00 |
|
2010/11 |
$29.00 |
|
2010/11 |
$20.60 |
|
2010/11 |
$36.00 |
|
2010/11 |
$5.68 |
|
2010/11 |
$1,286.82 |
|
2010/11 |
$101.98 |
|
2010/11 |
$20.69 |
|
2010/11 |
$85.40 |
|
2010/11 |
$97.74 |
|
2010/11 |
$85.00 |
|
2010/11 |
$36.30 |
|
2010/11 |
$35.41 |
|
Total Number 2010/2011 |
19 |
|
2009/10 |
$42.85 |
|
2009/10 |
$204.40 |
|
2009/10 |
$72.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$34.96 |
|
2009/10 |
$196.60 |
|
2009/10 |
$65.40 |
|
2009/10 |
$97.15 |
|
2009/10 |
$86.85 |
|
2009/10 |
$37.68 |
|
2009/10 |
$35.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$35.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$229.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$35.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$11.95 |
|
2009/10 |
$61.97 |
|
2009/10 |
$150.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$110.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$104.40 |
|
2009/10 |
$90.32 |
|
2009/10 |
$62.45 |
|
2009/10 |
$793.91 |
|
2009/10 |
$34.05 |
|
2009/10 |
$35.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$743.00 |
|
2009/10 |
$16.78 |
|
2009/10 |
$35.90 |
|
2009/10 |
$54.50 |
|
2009/10 |
$10.18 |
|
Total Number 2009/2010 |
28 |
|
2008/09 |
$15.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$30.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$54.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$28.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$36.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$117.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$82.85 |
|
2008/09 |
$17.65 |
|
2008/09 |
$23.98 |
|
2008/09 |
$7.50 |
|
2008/09 |
$23.26 |
|
2008/09 |
$55.72 |
|
2008/09 |
$150.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$48.65 |
|
2008/09 |
$22.32 |
|
2008/09 |
$799.00 |
|
2008/09 |
$20.95 |
|
Total Number 2008/2009 |
17 |
|
Grand Total |
64 |
$ 7,356.60 |
Resources and Energy: Credit Card Breaches
(Question Nos 924 and 925)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism , in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Martin Ferguson: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
||||||
Number |
Value |
Repaid |
Number |
Value |
Repaid |
Number |
Value |
Repaid |
1 |
$479.55 |
$479.55 |
1 |
$375.93 |
$375.93 |
1 |
$58.97 |
$58.97 |
2 |
$271.47 |
$271.47 |
2 * |
$10,514.71 |
$8,072.21 |
2 |
$132.38 |
$132.38 |
3 |
$50.73 |
$50.73 |
3 |
$4.00 |
$4.00 |
3 |
$4.50 |
$4.50 |
4 |
$25.00 |
$25.00 |
4 |
$25.00 |
$25.00 |
4 |
$5.00 |
$5.00 |
5 |
$30.16 |
$30.16 |
5 |
$108.50 |
$108.50 |
5 |
$55.10 |
$55.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
$31.80 |
$31.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
$15.70 |
$15.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
$7.00 |
$7.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
$3.00 |
$3.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
$233.75 |
$233.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
$108.18 |
$108.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
$4.50 |
$4.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
$4.00 |
$4.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
$40.40 |
$40.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
$19.35 |
$19.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
$37.00 |
$37.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
$55.10 |
$55.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
$5.50 |
$5.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
$9.50 |
$9.50 |
5 |
$856.91 |
$856.91 |
5 |
$11,028.14 |
$8,585.64 |
19 |
$830.73 |
$830.73 |
In all instances, the Chief Internal Auditor, Chief Financial Officer and divisional Business Manager were advised of the breach and the cardholder was issued with an official warning. A tax invoice was also issued (where applicable) for recovery of the funds.
* In one instance, the matter was also referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the employee was prosecuted and their employment terminated. Recovery action is ongoing.
Student Visa Program
(Question No. 936)
Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 21 March 2012:
In respect of Recommendation 1 of the 'Knight Review' (Michael Knight and the Australian Government, Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program 2011, 30 June 2011), implemented on 5 November 2011, what number of applications from (a) Dhaka, (b) New Delhi, (c) Islamabad, (d) Colombo, (e) Amman, (f) Cairo, (g) Beirut, (h) Hong Kong, (i) Shanghai, and (j) Beijing, were received for each student visa class (i) between 5 November 2010 and 5 November 2011, and (ii) from 5 November 2011 to date, and of these, what number was accepted and rejected.
Mr Bowen: The answer to the honourable member's question is at Table A and B.
Table A
Student visa applications lodged, granted and refused by visa subclass at specified offshore processing offices.
Processing Office |
Visa Subclass |
5 Nov 2010—4 Nov 2011 |
5 Nov 2011—31 Mar 2012 |
||||
|
|
Lodged |
Granted |
Refused |
Lodged |
Granted |
Refused |
Dhaka |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
388 |
184 |
187 |
75 |
12 |
29 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
1032 |
677 |
315 |
514 |
180 |
109 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
348 |
309 |
< 10 |
189 |
174 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
190 |
178 |
0 |
98 |
87 |
0 |
|
Dhaka Total |
1974 |
1358 |
512 |
877 |
453 |
138 |
New Delhi |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
48 |
21 |
25 |
48 |
< 10 |
31 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
131 |
38 |
90 |
40 |
< 10 |
16 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
2550 |
944 |
1547 |
1126 |
341 |
302 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
5582 |
2630 |
2856 |
3336 |
1470 |
1081 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
238 |
229 |
< 10 |
152 |
127 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
69 |
40 |
24 |
35 |
21 |
< 10 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
294 |
248 |
0 |
115 |
104 |
0 |
|
New Delhi Total |
8912 |
4150 |
4546 |
4852 |
2079 |
1433 |
Islamabad |
571 Schools Sector |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
0 |
0 |
0 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
267 |
248 |
0 |
265 |
199 |
0 |
|
Islamabad Total |
272 |
251 |
0 |
268 |
199 |
0 |
Colombo |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
21 |
14 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
310 |
218 |
85 |
108 |
56 |
39 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
713 |
640 |
58 |
354 |
305 |
30 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
203 |
198 |
0 |
125 |
115 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
129 |
81 |
46 |
14 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
107 |
105 |
0 |
151 |
145 |
0 |
|
Colombo Total |
1489 |
1257 |
199 |
763 |
634 |
81 |
Amman |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
25 |
< 10 |
21 |
13 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
128 |
77 |
50 |
73 |
14 |
38 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
234 |
168 |
58 |
101 |
34 |
13 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
116 |
83 |
27 |
88 |
53 |
< 10 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
15 |
15 |
0 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
Amman Total |
521 |
347 |
156 |
281 |
107 |
61 |
Processing Office |
Visa Subclass |
5 Nov 2010—4 Nov 2011 |
5 Nov 2011—31 Mar 2012 |
||||
|
|
Lodged |
Granted |
Refused |
Lodged |
Granted |
Refused |
Cairo |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
381 |
244 |
136 |
21 |
0 |
19 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
55 |
< 10 |
49 |
23 |
< 10 |
17 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
107 |
61 |
46 |
48 |
< 10 |
23 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
83 |
62 |
19 |
35 |
18 |
12 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
18 |
18 |
0 |
|
Cairo Total |
642 |
385 |
251 |
148 |
45 |
74 |
Beirut |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
245 |
101 |
142 |
67 |
< 10 |
30 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
109 |
81 |
24 |
91 |
21 |
20 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
0 |
0 |
0 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
Beirut Total |
365 |
189 |
170 |
173 |
30 |
58 |
Hong Kong |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
21 |
18 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
200 |
199 |
< 10 |
16 |
15 |
0 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
52 |
47 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
391 |
389 |
< 10 |
63 |
59 |
0 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
12 |
12 |
0 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
49 |
48 |
0 |
16 |
16 |
0 |
|
Hong Kong Total |
725 |
713 |
< 10 |
115 |
108 |
< 10 |
Shanghai |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Shanghai Total |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Beijing |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
115 |
54 |
60 |
46 |
23 |
14 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
40 |
26 |
13 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
91 |
54 |
27 |
25 |
16 |
< 10 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
19 |
15 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
101 |
100 |
< 10 |
48 |
45 |
0 |
|
Beijing Total |
375 |
258 |
102 |
139 |
93 |
26 |
Notes:
Citizens of China and Pakistan residing in their own countries have to lodge their student visa applications directly with the Adelaide Offshore Student Processing Centre (rather than the relevant post) and are not included in this table.
Data is sourced from several departmental visa processing and recording systems. Data can be dynamic and there can be delays in transmission of information from the department's global operations. Due to these issues, data pertaining to the current financial year should always be considered provisional.
The number of applications lodged in a given timeframe is not comparable with the number of visas granted in the same period due to processing times.
Where a number in the table is between 1 and 9, the number has been masked with <10 for privacy reasons.
Table B
Student visa applications lodged, granted and refused for nationals of China and Pakistan who applied when they were offshore and their applications were processed onshore.
Citizenship Country |
Visa Subclass |
5 Nov 10—4 Nov 2011 |
5 Nov 11—31 Mar 2012 |
||||
|
|
Lodged |
Granted |
Refused |
Lodged |
Granted |
Refused |
China, Peoples Republic of |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
1887 |
970 |
886 |
679 |
300 |
275 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
3347 |
2853 |
435 |
789 |
573 |
84 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
942 |
677 |
247 |
264 |
158 |
79 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
17158 |
16527 |
510 |
5643 |
5041 |
160 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
649 |
644 |
< 10 |
193 |
178 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
776 |
722 |
47 |
360 |
332 |
11 |
|
576 AusAID or Defence Sponsored |
43 |
42 |
0 |
40 |
39 |
0 |
|
China, Peoples Republic of Total |
24802 |
22435 |
2126 |
7968 |
6621 |
609 |
Pakistan |
570 Independent ELICOS Sector |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
55 |
< 10 |
45 |
|
571 Schools Sector |
14 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
|
572 Vocational Education and Training Sector |
3671 |
1724 |
1711 |
1855 |
271 |
1176 |
|
573 Higher Education Sector |
1079 |
813 |
204 |
801 |
386 |
233 |
|
574 Postgraduate Research Sector |
120 |
112 |
< 10 |
78 |
58 |
0 |
|
575 Non-Award Sector |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
< 10 |
0 |
< 10 |
|
Pakistan Total |
4902 |
2661 |
1934 |
2800 |
716 |
1461 |
Notes:
Data is sourced from several departmental visa processing and recording systems. Data can be dynamic and there can be delays in transmission of information from the department's global operations. Due to these issues, data pertaining to the current financial year should always be considered provisional.
The number of applications lodged in a given timeframe is not comparable with the number of visas granted in the same period due to processing times.
Where a number in the table is between 1 and 9, the number has been masked with <10 for privacy reasons.
HMAS Sydney
(Question No. 938)
Mr Haase asked Minister for Defence, in writing, on 21 March 2012:
(a) Why was the commemorative service for the seventieth anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Sydney (II), held on 19 November 2011, denied a request for a flypast by the Australian Air Force?
Mr Stephen Smith: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Royal Australian Air Force was unable to support the flypast request for the commemorative service for the seventieth anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Sydney (II) owing to the unavailability of aircraft in Western Australia at the time. The request was considered by both Number 2 Flying Training School and Number 79 Squadron. These two squadrons operate the only two aircraft types in Western Australia – the PC-9/A and the Hawk 127.
Number 2 Flying Training School was extensively committed to the training of two pilot courses. There was no capacity to support other activities outside of course commitments. To conduct rehearsals and the flypast would have impacted significantly on the flying training program.
Number 79 Squadron aircraft availability at the time was limited due to engine maintenance issues. A program had been put in place to conserve flying hours to allow the Squadron to continue to provide essential flying training and support to the operational priorities for Army and Navy.
Use of an aircraft from an Air Force Base outside of Western Australia was also considered. At the time all other likely aircraft were tasked in support of Operation RESOLUTE and were located elsewhere. Given the significant costs involved in providing an aircraft for a single event, the decision was taken that a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft would not be provided.
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service: Staffing
(Question No. 957)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 22 March 2012:
Is it current policy of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) to regularly rotate staff working in front line international (a) mail, (b) air freight, and (c) sea freight/cargo, screening areas? If so (i) how often are staff rotated, and (ii) what is the longest time period that a single AQIS employee has been continually employed on mail/freight/cargo screening duties.
Mr Burke: The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Frontline staff within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry are rotated in accordance with the Department's Regional Rotation Principles.
There are no set periods for rotation. Rotation decisions are made at a regional level taking into account a range of factors such as operational requirements, the need for succession planning and the opportunity for staff development.
For operational reasons, one staff member has worked in the freight/cargo operations area in the South East region for fifteen years, albeit in a number of different operational roles and work units over this period.
AusAID
(Question No. 961)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 March 2012:
(1) Which non-government organisations (NGOs) have received AusAID funding to engage with the Australian people about the effectiveness of the aid program or conduct any other domestic campaign, and what total sum was given to each NGO for this purpose in 2011-12.
(2) What total sum was given to NGOs to engage with the Australian people about the effectiveness of the aid program or conduct any other domestic campaign in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12.
(3) What evaluation criteria are used by AusAID to measure the performance of NGOs that receive funding to engage with the Australian people about the effectiveness of the aid program or for any other domestic campaign.
Dr Emerson: The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Under the AusAID NGO Cooperation Program (ANCP) (which in 2011-12 provides funding of $98.1 million to 43 accredited Australian NGOs to undertake over 600 international development activities across approximately 50 countries), NGOs may use up to ten per cent of their funding to raise awareness of development issues within Australia. AusAID's guidelines (available at http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ngos/pdfs/ancp-awareness-raising-guidelines.pdf) restrict activities to those which meet at least one of three objectives, these are: promoting transparency in the use of public funds; enhancing development effectiveness; and increasing public understanding of development issues.
Development awareness raising activities will not be supported if they include any form of fundraising, promote a particular religious adherence, build public support for increases in aid funding or lobbying for changes in aid policy, or mobilise members of the public to undertake advocacy in relation to the aid program.
Of 43 eligible NGOs, there are 22 who have opted to use ANCP funding to engage in development awareness raising activities in 2011-12. The approximate portion of ANCP funding used for these activities is provided in the table below. AusAID has also provided separate funding of $317,200 to World Vision Australia in 2011-12 to conduct 'One Just World' public discussion forums.
NGO |
Total 2011-12 |
Anglican Board of Mission |
$30,000 |
Adventist Development and Relief Agency |
$13,411 |
Australian Foundation for the Peoples of Asia and the Pacific |
$88,400 |
Australia People for Health, Education and Development Abroad (APHEDA—Union Aid Abroad) |
$10,126 |
CARE Australia |
$205,498 |
Caritas |
$272,000 |
CBM |
$168,492 |
ChildFund |
$330,000 |
Every Home Global Concern |
$10,930 |
Habitat for Humanity Australia |
$10,000 |
International Needs Australia |
$49,510 |
International Nepal Fellowship |
$9,800 |
International Women's Development Agency |
$9,079 |
Marie Stopes International Australia |
$10,000 |
National Council of Churches Australia—Act for Peace |
$100,000 |
Opportunity International Australia |
$63,000 |
Oxfam |
$553,222 |
Plan |
$317,376 |
TEAR |
$15,000 |
The Burnet Institute |
$10,000 |
UnitingWorld |
$75,810 |
World Vision Australia |
$747,288 |
(2) AusAID funding to NGOs to undertake development awareness raising activities between 2008 and 2012 is as follows:
Financial Year |
Total |
2008-09 |
$861,352 |
2009-10 |
$2,895,754 |
2010-11 |
$2,541,742 |
2011-12 |
$3,098,942 |
(3) NGOs which receive grants under the ANCP are required to provide AusAID with annual financial and project plans and reports. Annual plans are required to outline objectives, outputs and targets for all activities, including development awareness activities in Australia. These are assessed against the objectives in AusAID's guidelines and are subject to approval before funding is granted.