The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Farm Household Support Bill 2014
Assent
The SPEAKER (12:01): I inform the parliament that on 28 March 2014 I presented to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House the Farm Household Support Bill 2014 for assent, this being the first bill ready for presentation following the swearing in of His Excellency. The Governor-General, in the name of Her Majesty, was pleased to assent to the bill which is now act No. 12 of 2014.
Farm Household Support (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014
Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2014
Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2014
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (12:02): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Ruston has been discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
Economics Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (12:02): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into foreign investment in residential real estate.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (12:03): by leave—I move:
That Mr Thistlethwaite be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into foreign investment in residential real estate.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (12:03): by leave—It is with great pleasure that I table the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA) and accompanying national interest analysis for parliament's consideration. I signed the agreement with my Korean counterpart in Seoul on 8 April, during the Prime Minister's historic and very successful visit to North Asia.
As with all proposed treaties, the parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will now review KAFTA and, in due course, provide its report. A parallel inquiry is being conducted by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. Importantly, the tabling today of KAFTA will also give the public the opportunity to scrutinise in detail the provisions of the treaty.
On a day when we will turn our attention to addressing the nation's budget, it is timely to point out some of the most important features of KAFTA and the contribution it will make to Australia's economic future. The signing of KAFTA is a significant milestone for the government's economic diplomacy agenda. KAFTA is a world-class, comprehensive agreement that substantially liberalises our existing and growing trade with Korea: our third largest export market, our fourth largest trading partner, and an economy with an above average growth outlook. It is a liberalising agreement with one of Australia's most important trading partners. Over an implementation period of 15 years, from 2015 to 2030, KAFTA is expected to create 15,000 jobs and add $5 billion to our economy.
KAFTA is the first of a series of bilateral trade agreements we are committed to concluding with major trading partners. These agreements, when they enter into force, will translate to more jobs and higher economic growth for Australia, and demonstrate definitively that Australia is open for business. To this end we concluded negotiations with Japan during the Prime Minister's visit to Japan on 7 April and have re-energised our negotiations with China. These agreements will add a new dimension to our bilateral relationship with each country, part of a deepening engagement with our North Asian partners.
KAFTA gives Australian exporters significantly improved market access in goods and services. It eliminates very high tariffs on a wide range of Australian goods exports, including beef, wheat, sugar, dairy, wine, horticulture and seafood, and it creates new market openings for services. KAFTA will substantially improve investment protections and further integrate Korea with Australia's open and stable economy.
Importantly, KAFTA also protects our competitive position in the Korean market. Today, Korea is giving preferential access to our major competitors, including the United States, European Union, Chile and ASEAN countries. But immediately on KAFTA's entry into force, Korea's tariffs will drop to zero for 84 per cent of its imports (by value) from Australia, and most other tariffs will be phased out quickly. Ninety nine point eight per cent of Australian goods exports will enter Korea duty free on full implementation of the agreement.
For agriculture, Korea will eliminate tariffs immediately on entry into force for raw sugar, wheat, wine and some horticulture. Tariffs on most other agricultural products will be eliminated within short time frames thereafter. Importantly, Korea will eliminate its 40 per cent tariff on beef products progressively over 15 years, and will help to level the playing field for Australian beef exporters, particularly relative to the United States. Korea will also eliminate all tariffs on manufacturing, energy and resources within 10 years. This will particularly benefit our resources, pharmaceutical, energy and automotive parts exporters.
As part of our own commitments, Australia will remove its remaining tariffs on Korean goods on entry into force or over several years. Removing our remaining tariffs on Korean goods will benefit Australian consumers and industries which rely on imported Korean products. Tariffs relevant to local sectors which compete against Korean products, including some vehicles, automotive parts, steel and textiles, footwear and clothing, will be phased out in staging periods to allow industry to adjust.
KAFTA will provide Australian services exporters with outcomes equivalent to the best treatment Korea has agreed with any trading partner, on par with its agreements with the United States and Europe. This includes new market access for suppliers of legal, accounting and telecommunications services, and guaranteed open access across a broad range of other services, including financial and education services.
KAFTA improves opportunities and protections for Australian investors and investments in Korea. It will also attract more direct investment from Korea into Australia and promote investor confidence and certainty in both countries.
KAFTA includes an investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism, consistent with the government's policy of considering ISDS on a case-by-case basis. The government has ensured inclusion of appropriate carve-outs and safeguards in important areas such as public health and environmental measures.
KAFTA creates opportunities for closer collaboration between Australian and Korean businesses, including in professional services and agricultural and resources research and training. An audiovisual co-production agreement will deliver new commercial opportunities for the Australian film and television industry.
With one in five Australian jobs linked to trade, this agreement will provide an important boost to Australia's economy. Economic modelling estimates goods liberalisation alone to be worth nearly $5 billion in additional GDP to Australia between 2015 and 2030, resulting in an annual boost to the economy of around $650 million after 15 years of operation. Our agriculture exports are modelled to increase by 73 per cent and manufacturing exports by 53 per cent by 2030 as a result of this free trade agreement.
Ultimately, Australia's objective in pursuing free trade agreements is to increase the prosperity of Australians. We achieve this by negotiating liberalising agreements that eliminate or substantially reduce barriers to trade and help to minimise red tape, to the benefit of both parties. KAFTA meets this objective.
The economic benefits of this free trade agreement to our businesses and consumers—and to the Australian economy more broadly—will start to flow once KAFTA enters into force. We aim to ensure this important agreement can enter into force by the end of 2014 to allow Australians to reap the benefits from this agreement as early as possible.
Implementation of KAFTA will require a number of legislative amendments and I urge members and senators to give favourable consideration to these amendments when they are introduced. This is an agreement that took a long time to negotiate, and I commend the achievement of officials from various agencies led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I also acknowledge the contribution of colleagues opposite and the former trade minister, Craig Emerson.
I commend this agreement to parliament, and hereby table the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement with its national interest analysis.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Sydney to speak for 8½ minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr ROBB: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Plibersek (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding eight and a half minutes.
Question agreed to.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:12): I thank the minister. On behalf of the opposition, I welcome the tabling of the signed Korean-Australian Free Trade Agreement and the related national interest analysis. The former Labor government commenced negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement with the Republic of Korea in 2009 and substantially progressed the negotiations during our term. Those negotiations were part of Labor's embrace of our region. In our Australia in the Asian century white paper we mapped out significant opportunities—and some challenges—for Australia in our region. Increased trade in goods and services is one of those key opportunities.
The Republic of Korea and Australia have a good, strong and stable relationship. Post defence assistance in the Korean War in the 1950s and the establishment of formal diplomatic relations in 1963, the trade relationship between our two countries has developed rapidly. Korea is now our fourth largest trading partner in terms of two-way trade, accounting for over $30 billion per annum of trade between our countries. There is much more capacity to deepen our trading relationship with Korea. A key test of the agreement signed by the government is how much of that capacity will be realised.
2
Labor has a strong and well-founded concern about the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in this treaty. The minister has provided the House with some assurances today about the operation of so-called carve-outs of that that investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. I assure him and the Australian people that we will test those assurances. We will also examine the decision to include certain safeguards in the agreement in favour of Korean industry and the decision to exclude some agricultural industries from the terms of the agreement. All Australians have a stake in our trading relationship with the world. The Senate committee has already called for public submissions and I would encourage industry stakeholders and citizens to inform the parliament's consideration by sharing their views.
On behalf of the shadow minister for trade, Senator Wong, and the opposition, I acknowledge the work of the minister and I congratulate him and his officials in reaching agreement on the terms of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I also welcome the minister's generous acknowledgement of the contribution of the former trade minister, Dr Emerson.
Parliamentary consideration of proposed treaties is a fundamental element of our democratic processes. While we are about to embark on our parliamentary consideration of this treaty proposal I note that equivalent domestic processes are underway in Korea. Labor is committed to working with the government constructively but not uncritically in ensuring the proposed treaty before the House is in our national interest.
BILLS
G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:17): It is well known that an important event is due to take place in November in Brisbane and that is the G20 forum. A two-day leaders summit will see Australia's presidency on display. It will provide us with the opportunity to help craft a better future for not just the peoples of G20 countries but everyone in the world. This is the chance to address economic issues and advance the opportunities for everyone.
To ensure that the Commonwealth and Queensland governments can keep this forum safe and effective, this legislation, the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014, is required and I therefore endorse the bill. The key themes for the gathering will be stronger economic growth and therefore more jobs. More jobs mean better standards of living. The other theme is to put in place measures that will make the global economy more resilient to enable more nations to be able to cope with the challenges of the future. Stronger economies give nations the ability to fulfil their primary responsibility of helping the people in their countries to live a better life. Strong economies in G20 countries encourage greater trade and will help to lift other nations as well. Stronger economies also enable better development assistance to non-G20 nations and help to build better capacities around the world. The G20 is therefore a positive organisation with a positive agenda.
In spite of the value it adds for billions of people, there is no doubt that the G20 is a target for extremist groups and extreme left-wing groups both locally and internationally. I was thinking about naming some of these groups that have already apparently committed to protesting as it is easy to look them up on the internet. I was thinking about it but decided that, just like graffiti tags, they add no value to the world and the aftermath of their effect is a cost to the taxpayers. They therefore do not need to be given any credibility by being named here.
The history of the G20 and other forums, including those in Toronto in 2010, London in 2009 and Melbourne in 2006, shows that there is a very small but violent and destructive element that wants to destroy property and recklessly endanger lives. Ultimately the cost is borne by taxpayers or insurance companies and, no doubt, the livelihood of many of those responsible is even provided for by taxpayers. There is therefore a need for laws such as these to counter dangerous and violent extremists who emerge at these events. There is also an opportunity for the Department of Immigration to watch out for those international troublemakers who will seek visas to come to Brisbane. Basically this bill is about ensuring that the security arrangements that apply to the security area in Brisbane will also have application at Brisbane Airport and on Commonwealth land.
As I said before, there is a history of protests and an unfortunate willingness to make those protests destructive and even violent. We must therefore have security arrangements in place to counter, or at least handle, the threats expected. From my research there is a theme for those readying themselves to protest. It would be fair to say that those against the G20 are those who proclaim themselves socialists or even communists. They are those who have not yet realised that collectivism has always failed. It has failed because the rhetoric of class struggle has not been realised by a new ruling class replacing the last one or it has failed because its systems strangle innovation and entrepreneurial spirit due to there being no incentive for hard work or for coming up with new ideas. It is a system of inertia where the only progress made is towards ever-increasing poverty. The reality is elevation of the population of developing countries is achieved through trade and economic development, not through endless aid. Although I am no fan of one-party states, China, a G20 country, is an example of a country that is elevating itself through increasing levels of economic development. More and more private enterprise and a willingness to demonstrate capitalistic tendencies, even within government enterprises, is helping to lift the population. It was not through foreign aid or collectivism that things changed, but through increasing amounts of business freedom. Of course, a full multiparty democracy would lift the remaining shackles.
The G20 represents about 85 per cent of global GDP and 75 per cent of global trade. This is seen by the lunatic Left as some sort of attack on the majority of the world's population, suggesting that this has come at the direct cost to the poor in the developing world. This is obviously not true, because the G20 represents two-thirds of the world's population. So many of these socialists and communists criticise the G20 by talking about the usual scapegoats such as the USA and the United Kingdom, and maybe throw in France, Germany and Australia to make their case for the evils of capitalism. But the G20 is not an English-speaking forum or even a Western Hemisphere club. Yes, it is the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia. Western European members are France, Germany, Italy and the EU itself. But members are also Argentina, Brazil and Mexico—populous countries keen to make decisions to lift their populations to better standards of living, and yet still attacked by those small and terrible left-wing groups.
Yes, there are other countries with big economies whose membership is probably not surprising, like Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea, Japan and China. I do not think that the destructive and often violent protesters should protest when the G20 also includes India, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey. This general protest, seen by the Left as being almost fashionable in a grotesque way, is an attack on the poor of those countries as well.
Listen to those that protest against the G20 and you would think it is a protest against the USA and the West, but such protests are against most of the world. The question then becomes: why do these protesters hate the poor people of Soweto in South Africa so much? Why do they hate the poor people on the streets of Mumbai or those in Sao Paolo? It is a sad state of affairs when these protesters are doing their best to hold back the development of so many poor people in the world. But there is an answer to that question, and that answer is that, unlike the vast majority of the people in the world, these small numbers of protesters have not realised that history has moved on. The revelation yet to strike them is that communism and socialism has failed everywhere. There is no example of a success story. Even the one-party states proclaiming themselves the Communist Party have moved away from collectivism and controlled economies because they failed.
I know that talking about socialism may be useful for pre-selection in some parties, even here in the House, but the reality is that there are very few that hold onto the communist ideals. Some may say that talk of communism here in Australia is some sort of 1950s scare campaign, but despite there being hardly any Communist Party members left in Australian society there are some. Ballajura resident Richard, within Cowan, often makes the point to me that he is both a member of the Communist Party and the Greens. The first time I met him at the Marangaroo Primary School polling booth in 2004 he wore a CPA hat and a Greens shirt. I see that he also writes for The Guardian newspaper regularly—by that I mean the Left-leaning one. To clarify: I mean The Guardian is also the Communist Party newspaper.
It is also a point worth making that on the Communist Party website the only link to a political party that I can recognise is actually to the Greens. For this country, they are fellow travellers—no doubt marching in five columns. I have also noted that the Communist Party has website links to the CFMEU, ACTU, UnionsWA, Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation.
So I say again that there is a very small group of people that will protest at the G20 in Brisbane. They are people that mainly have allegiance to the failed political systems of socialism and communism. Ironically, while they have the right and the opportunity to peacefully protest because of the democracy they wish to end, if they lived in a socialist or communist nation, such as those of the past, such a protest would have been brutally dealt with.
I also reiterate that the world has moved on and those that protest are stuck in the past. They are stuck with a belief in the good of a system that failed all but the ruling elites. They are also stuck with the reality that even the massive population countries such as China, India, South Africa and Brazil are all in support of the G20 and the results that the G20 pursues. It is little wonder that Richard of Ballajura is the only person in my electorate that is a self-proclaimed communist; that is probably because he is the only one of 100,000 voters.
The Communist Party, no doubt, will be joined by their fellow travellers in protesting at the G20. The numbers will be small, but the trouble they cause will be dealt with properly under the existing and/or short-term measures provided for in this bill and the Queensland G20 (Safety and Security) Act. I hope that there will be no problems, that no-one will be hurt and there will be no property damage, but the question still remains: why do these anti-G20 groups want to stop developing nations such as Indonesia, India, South Africa and others from lifting their populations to a better future? Why do they want to hold back the residents of Soweto, Sulawesi, Sao Paolo and Mumbai?
The G20 countries know that it is through economic activity that people are lifted up. It is through excellent opportunities, such as the G20 Forum in November in Brisbane, that a better future is planned for and implemented. I endorse this bill and the benefits for the people of the world that will come from the G20 deliberations.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (12:27): The opposition supports the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. It is a bill which will create a new standalone Commonwealth act clarifying the interaction between provisions in the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013—that being a piece of Queensland legislation—and existing Commonwealth legislation at the Brisbane Airport during the G20 Summit in 2014 in Queensland.
As this place well understands, it was former Prime Minister Julia Gillard that secured for Australia the host nation status for the 2014 G20 Leaders Summit. That, of course, was secured by her at the 2011 G20 Leaders Summit held in Cannes.
The 2014 G20 Leaders Summit will be the most important event in the G20 year and will be held on 15 and 16 November in Brisbane. This will be the most significant meeting of world leaders that Australia has ever hosted, with as many as 4,000 delegates and 3,000 media representatives expected to attend.
The G20 is, without doubt, the premier forum for international cooperation on the most important of issues of the global economic and financial agenda. As set out on the G20 website, the objects of the G20 are threefold: firstly, policy coordination between its members in order to achieve global economic stability and sustainable growth; secondly, promoting financial regulations that reduce risks and prevent future financial crises; and thirdly, the modernising international financial architecture.
G20 members account for 85 per cent of the world economy, some 80 per cent of global trade and two-thirds of the world's population. The G20 represents all geographic regions of the world. Hosting a meeting of the significance of the G20 gives Australia a valuable opportunity to influence the economic policies of the major economies of the globe and contribute to a healthy, growing and resilient global economy. Achieving such outcomes will also boost Australian jobs, living standards and long-term prosperity. The G20 summit, of course, is an opportunity to showcase the very best of Australia.
Inevitably, this event will involve a complex security operation—perhaps not the Warsaw Pact versus NATO conflict that the previous speaker seemed to summon into being. Nonetheless, event organisers will need to ensure that appropriate security measures are in place to protect visitors, while minimising disruptions to inner city residents and businesses. As a consequence of Queensland hosting the G20 summit in 2014, the Queensland Police Service will take on the primary responsibility for providing security to G20 delegates and their official parties, security for meeting and accommodation venues, including motorcade routes, and security for other official events associated with the G20 meeting in Queensland. The G20 delegates will include internationally protected persons who require the very highest standards of personal security. In addition to the protection of delegates in G20 events, the Queensland Police Service is also responsible for protecting members of the public, as one would well imagine, together with businesses and property—those things being unrelated to the G20 summit—from any illegal activities that may be planned by persons opposed to the G20 meetings.
With these additional responsibilities falling on the Queensland Police Service for the safe conduct of the G20 meetings, the Queensland Newman LNP government determined it would be appropriate for an additional stand-alone act to be passed by the Queensland parliament granting specific powers to the Queensland Police Service for the G20 event. The powers are broadly similar to those provided for under the New South Wales APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007 and the Western Australian Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011. I think it is worthy for this House to note that that legislation passed the Queensland parliament with the support of both the government and the opposition.
This bill we are considering will create a new stand-alone Commonwealth act clarifying the interaction between provisions found in the Queensland G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and existing Commonwealth legislation at Brisbane Airport during the G20 summit in 2014 in Queensland. The Queensland act provides police officers and appointed persons with special powers for the purposes of the summit. Those powers supplement the powers available under the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and are designed to ensure the security and safety of the G20 summit, events, delegates, members of the public, and public and private property. The powers are exercisable for a limited period and apply only with respect to certain specified locations, including Brisbane Airport, which is the important part for our purposes, because that is a Commonwealth place.
The G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 provides mechanisms for dealing with any overlap between the provisions and the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and existing Commonwealth legislation in their application to the relevant parts, or part, of Brisbane Airport. This will ensure police officers and other authorised persons have a very clear understanding of the powers available to them at Brisbane Airport during the summit. The powers will be exercisable for a limited period and apply only with respect to those limited locations.
The bill would not directly provide for any additional powers; however, to avoid any inconsistency between Commonwealth aviation legislation and the Queensland legislation, the proposed section 8 provides certain provisions which ensure that those functions are able to be exercised with absolute clarity by the responsible authorities. This will prevent there being any concerns about powers being available under the Queensland act not being able to be exercised in Commonwealth places. One can readily appreciate what a nonsense it would be if a regime applying more generally in Brisbane was not able to be exercised in certain particular Commonwealth places.
Members of the AFP will have access to powers found in the Queensland legislation, as that act confers powers on 'non-State police officers', which includes members of the AFP and the police force of another state or New Zealand. This is legislation which is utterly practicable and which ensures that the Commonwealth and the powers and authorities of the Commonwealth are able to work effectively and with jurisdictional clarity with Queensland and the Queensland Police Service.
This is a piece of housekeeping legislation, but, again, let me make very plain the fact that this G20 event is something of enormous significance for this country. It is an opportunity, again, to congratulate former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for securing Australia as the host nation for this very significant event. This is an event that both government and opposition support and demonstrate great support and pride in Australia's hosting. On those bases, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (12:35): I declare that the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the 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 notes the:
(1) program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation given the poor environmental record of the current Government;
(2) bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation;
(3) Government should clarify why participants do not have employee status even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage;
(4) Government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers;
(5) lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and
(6) importance of supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities."
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (12:36): It is great to be back in this place, and today I rise in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. It is my belief that this bill will deliver real, tangible, employment opportunities for young Australians everywhere. It will deliver vital resources aimed at tackling environmental issues and, more importantly, deliver projects entrenched in local communities right across our nation. Since I spoke last in this place, I have held numerous meetings with representatives from local community groups, including Penrith City Council, Muru Mittigar, the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance and the Cumberland Conservation Network, to discuss the Green Army Program. I am pleased to advise members that all are passionate about the local environment of Lindsay and all are excited about the opportunity the Green Army Program will provide for our local environment. I was particularly impressed with the willingness of everyone to work together as a team. We are united by a common goal: to create a legacy for our community and future generations to be proud of and to benefit from. It is the theme of teamwork that I believe resonates with the Green Army Program.
I take a moment to reflect on the success of the Green Corps Program, as I believe it demonstrates why the introduction of this legislation is so vital and why the Green Army will be so successful. Over the life of the Green Corps, from 1996 to 2007, young Australians delivered the following outcomes: they planted over 14 million trees, built more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared over 50,000 hectares of weeds, collected more than 9,500 kilograms of seeds and constructed and maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track and boardwalks.
As stated by the Minister for the Environment, the Abbott government will create and properly resource the Green Army to be a larger and more lasting version of the Green Corps. The Green Army will become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018, and will be capable of delivering 1,500 on-the-ground environmental projects in communities right across Australia. This initiative will recruit young people aged between 17 and 24 who are interested in protecting their local environment while gaining hands-on experience and skills. Under the program participants will be paid an allowance and will undertake accredited training. This will be particularly beneficial to the people I represent in Lindsay, as not only are we the fourth youngest electorate in Australia but we also have a relatively high unemployment rate of about 11.6 per cent in this age bracket.
Another key element of the Green Army Program is that it will support work undertaken by local landcare groups, bushcare groups, foreshore communities, natural resource management groups, local catchment authorities, and councils in their work in restoring and protecting the local environment. This complements the Abbott government's direct action approach to climate change. Direct Action provides Australians with an opportunity for individuals, communities, organisations and companies to work together to address Australia's environmental challenges. The Abbott government's Direct Action Plan will ensure reduction in carbon emissions take place within Australia and eliminate the need for the failed carbon tax. This policy will make a real difference. It is a proactive environmental approach that fosters teamwork, local ownership and community spirit. It will make a positive impact in our backyard and it addresses the broader issues of climate change across the nation.
It is important that we as a government protect our environmental assets, but this should not just mean our natural rainforests and marine parks. We need to recognise the value of the green areas within and around our cities and more urbanised communities, which is why I was pleased to stand with the Minister for the Environment during the election campaign to commit to the people of Lindsay and greater Western Sydney a $15 million Green Army investment in the conservation of the Cumberland Plain Woodlands. This corridor is over 30 kilometres in length and 10,000 hectares in size. This makes it twice the size of the Western Sydney Parklands and essentially the lungs of Western Sydney. This is an important part of what makes greater Western Sydney unique and a better place to live. I am sure, Deputy Speaker Kelly, you understand how unique greater Western Sydney is. This election commitment is a fabulous guarantee to our local communities that this government is focused on maintaining our quality of life.
I take this opportunity to remind the members of the House of the details of the commitment made by the Minister for the Environment during the campaign regarding the funding of the Green Army Program for the conservation of the Cumberland conservation corridor: $7.5 million in direct funding for the acquisition of threatened land in the corridor, $5 million for the planting of one million trees as part of the coalition's 20 million trees policy within the corridor and related areas, and $2.5 million for 15 Green Army teams to work on local conservation corridor projects over the next four years. It goes without saying that this will be a major boost for the conservation of the region and will provide a once-in-a-generation chance to establish a conservation corridor to be preserved for future generations.
As our cities grow we have a responsibility to ensure that valuable conservation areas and bushland are retained and protected. It is also about providing a lifestyle balance and ensuring communities are connected to their environment and create livable cities. There has never been a more important time to take direct action on the environment to preserve our quality of life. I am extremely pleased that Lindsay and its surrounding area will be a direct beneficiary of this government's strategy.
More broadly, the Green Army will make a difference across Australia as this task force works on a range of rejuvenation projects. These include propagation and planting of native seedlings; weed control; revegetation and regeneration of local parks; habitat protection and restoration; improving water quality by cleaning up waterways; revegetation of sand dunes and mangroves; creek-bank regeneration; foreshore and beach restoration; construction of boardwalks and walking tracks, to protect local wildlife; and cultural heritage conservation.
Our Green Army policy will deliver tangible benefits. It will boost workforce training and productivity by providing meaningful, practical and hands-on environmental skills and experience for thousands of Australians. It will see thousands of young Australians gainfully employed. It will strengthen our local community involvement. It will see our creeks and rivers cleaned up and the conservation of cultural heritage places. It will see an unprecedented program to restore and protect the natural habitat. The coalition believes in the importance of caring for the environment both now and for future generations. I am pleased to support this amendment, and I commend this bill to the House.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (12:45): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, but I think the Member for Lindsay and I must be talking about two different bills, because this is not an environmental bill—this is an employment bill. This will have no direct action of any kind in improving our environment or reducing our exposure to mitigate climate change. I feel we have been reading two different bills, or we are talking about two different programs. Whilst there is some benefit in ensuring that people get out there and do everything to maintain and protect our environment, this bill is not going to have the lasting impact in any way, shape, size or form that the member for Lindsay is hoping for.
The government's Green Army policy: even the words—I am bemused that everything is now an army; everything is now a war. We are deploying people. How about protecting, employing? Why all this terminology? I think it actually has fairly draconian and very bad connotations. But if we want to go with 'Green Army', then so be it. The government's Green Army policy has scant detail and was released with more than a three-word slogan—which has defined the coalition's attitude to many things and I think will get many platitudes tonight during the budget as well. Regarding policy towards protecting the environment and mitigating climate change, whilst more details have trickled out since the introduction of this legislation, I think that is a very poor way to introduce legislation. They tabled it in the House with very little information, and over the break we have had more drip feeds. That is no way to implement a rather large change to many programs and to the employment of young people.
The tragedy is that we have come to expect this from this government: you are given one thing, but there is no detail in it, and it slowly filters down. This government was elected on 'no excuses or surprises', but every five minutes there is another excuse or surprise. We have had a little bit more information, but not a great deal. This government has no credibility on the environment whatsoever. After only six months in office this government has proven that its only interest in the environment is in removing any meaningful protection of it. They have disallowed the endangered communities listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea and have had the world's largest marine reserve system reproclaimed to undo the management plans that give them effect. And in my home state of Victoria the minister for the environment has rubber-stamped a ludicrous, faux-scientific trial of cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park—a scheme that will, in fact, assist a mere three or four families. In government, Labor was all that stood between the prestige piece of heritage wilderness and a reckless Liberal state government. This environment minister—who is supposedly protecting the environment—has sold out the Alpine National Park to the mountain cattlemen, who now get to graze their cattle in our national park for free.
For a government that is opposed to using taxpayers' industry assistance resources, this seems a rather hypocritical decision. Perhaps the government has plans for the soon-to-be environmentally destroyed area to become a restoration project for their undertrained and underpaid Green Army. So we are going to let the cattle in and destroy this pristine area—oh, and there's a project for the Green Army to reproclaim! If we did not let the cows in in the first place, we would not have this devastation. I will add it to the very long list of unknown qualities of this sketchy and highly dubious policy.
This is no LEAP—the Landcare and Environment Action Program of the Keating government. As with most policies from the current government, it is a sham. When LEAP was introduced, the program was a 26-week environmental work experience and training program that left participants with training qualifications. Participants undertook work experience and skills development on environment heritage programs with 130 hours of training, leading to a nationally recognised qualification. There is no such standard in this program. And the National Green Jobs Corps program was similar to the original Green Corps program introduced by Labor, which actually gave young people training, skills and a wage. This program does not mirror those in any way.
Members opposite talk of the need for practical action to reduce the effects of climate change and to protect our environment. If we simply observe the face value of these statements, they are right. But practical action to halt climate change actually means reducing carbon emissions. Anybody who has looked at the Sydney newspapers today and has read the alarming statements about the degradation of the sea ice and the sea float would know that this is real—this is happening. Releasing a bunch of young unskilled individuals into our environment is not going to mitigate climate change and reduce carbon emissions. It requires pollution levels to levels to be reduced—significantly reduced. Creating a system that takes people off social security benefits and employs them into an 'army' of very low-paid workers without any workplace safety, proper training or protection measures and getting them to plant some trees or do some weeding is not practical action in terms of emissions reduction. Australia needs environmental solutions. We do not need to tan-bark the country. The best solution to emission reduction remains a price on carbon. But this bill also fails on the grounds of human resources. Green Army volunteers will be paid the minimum wage for 30 hours a week. They will no longer be eligible for Centrelink payments, and they will also lose any entitlements or rent assistance, health care card and pharmaceutical allowances, leaving them no better off than if they did not volunteer.
As I said at the outset, do not be deceived. This is not an environmental program; it is a work program. This is an employment program, and as such it needs to be discussed as an employment program, along with the implications for the young people who participate in this program. Labor believes that environmentally based work and training programs can be effective. A fantastic scheme that was run in my electorate under the last government was the Ashwood College Permaculture Food Garden. It was run by a magnificent woman, Mariette Tuohey, who took on board a group of individuals whom she trained up meticulously. She also invited in the community to be part of the permaculture garden, producing permaculture food. The community have now built their own wood-fired pizza oven and they are making pizzas. They have a market garden. The students who were involved in this program left with a certificate, with jobs to go to. They were not just mucking around and planting trees and hoping above hope that they would somehow be better off and the environment would be better off. They were trained; they were educated; they left with a purpose. They were also within a school environment, and several of them actually returned to school, which was a fantastic outcome all round. But this program, so scant on information, does not give me any confidence that it will lead to the outcomes that I saw at Ashwood College.
Participants in the Green Army scheme will also not be Commonwealth employees and will therefore be denied access to protection provided by the Work Health and Safety Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Fair Work Act. Whilst we have been given assurances that they may have access to state based legislation, we are not sure how this will actually work, and there is still great concern. You can be injured while you are volunteering. This is work in the field, with untrained individuals being given things like chainsaws. I would be concerned about how they are going about things and what protections are in place. Exclusion from these acts means that, if any participant in this scheme is injured at work, they will receive no compensation or support. They will not be covered by the workplace standards that every other employee in Australia takes for granted. This government says that the Green Army participants will be similar to the thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training or education. But, unlike other trainees or apprentices, participants in the Green Army will be under the supervision of the Commonwealth and denied the status of Commonwealth employees. They will be left in no-man's-land, unprotected by the act that protects other trainees and apprentices.
Can we even be guaranteed that Green Army participants will receive decent training and education? Again, there is scant information to say what they will come out with. In the program that I referred to previously, at Ashwood College, even though it was under the Green Corps program the students left with a certificate. They walked out with a certificate in horticulture. I have no idea what these individuals will be leaving with. The Labor Party has always supported training and learning opportunities for young people, to help them find secure and meaningful employment. This program again fails by offering no guarantee that participants will actually receive useful and accredited training to help them secure future employment. In fact, to borrow the words of Ged Kearney, they are more likely to be used as low-paid and unprotected workers in place of well-paid and well-protected workers. Indeed, we have seen that the scheme will allow, say, a council to sack actual staff and employ people under the Green Army scheme. This is another system of getting in cheap labour.
If the government were serious about opening up training opportunities, then it would be facilitating programs in growing areas of the green economy such as auditing and reporting; installing and maintenance of energy-efficient appliances to meet revised building standards; assessment of new and existing buildings against rating systems; and monitoring data output from energy management systems and 'tuning' buildings for peak performance. This is a growth area that businesses are looking at to refigure their buildings so that they are more energy efficient. This is an area where you could employ, train and enhance young people. The government could also be facilitating programs in marketing new and existing buildings, in both the commercial and residential sectors, and drawing up 'green leases'. In the green and energy-efficient skills sector, we have the opportunity to ensure that Australians have the skills to contribute to our response to the challenges of environmental sustainability. There is a fantastic program run at Monash University, through the sustainability centre, that focuses on all these things. It takes university students, who do a traineeship. They are being skilled up in these areas. We could do that for young people—but, no, we are going to go and tanbark the country.
This bill fails young people in need of new skills and future work. There is no guarantee that work will be coming after this. More importantly, though, it fails our environment. This is nothing more than a smokescreen for the government. There is no plan to tackle climate change and no plan to help create jobs for the future. In the same week that the CSIRO produced its State of the climate 2014report, Mr Abbott went to a dinner in the Great Hall and said, 'Let's cut down more trees.' At the time we were being warned that temperatures across Australia were on average almost one degree warmer than they were a century ago, instead of talking about preserving the environment in the best way we can—by preserving old-growth forest, by preserving trees—the Prime Minister was suggesting we chop them down. I did not hear the Minister for the Environment talk once about the CSIRO's report—not once—or its quoting of Rob Vertessy, Bureau of Meteorology chief executive, who said:
Seven of the ten warmest years on record in Australia have occurred since 1998. When we compare the past 15 years to the period 1951 to 1980, we find that the frequency of very warm months has increased five-fold and the frequency of very cold months has decreased by around a third.
The duration, frequency and intensity of heatwaves has increased across large parts of Australia since 1950.
… … …
We have also seen a general trend of declining autumn and winter rainfall, particularly in southwestern and southeastern Australia, while heavy rainfall events are projected to increase. Australian average annual rainfall has increased slightly, largely due to increases in spring and summer rainfall, most markedly in northwestern Australia.
So, while we have seen this marked change in our climate, we are not being given any action on, any way of mitigating, this disaster that is coming.
The member for Lindsay said that this bill was going to protect our environment, protect our future generations. It will do no such thing. We need actual action on climate change. We need to heed the work of the IPCC, instead of condemning and rebuking them. The IPCC report that scientists are 95 to 100 per cent certain that humans have caused the majority of climate change since the 1950s. We also know that, since the 1950s, both the atmosphere and the ocean have warmed. Precipitation patterns are starting to change, and land-based and sea ice are in decline. We have seen this. The information is out there. It is screaming to us to be doing more for our planet, more for our future generations. The Green Army is not going to achieve those outcomes.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (12:59): My support is unconditional for the Green Army initiative, which has been a coalition flagship in the environment area for a number of years now. Finally, with the coalition in government, it is coming to fruition. Regardless of where you come from in Australia, the Green Army is an exceptional option for young Australians—whether they be in a gap year, graduates or currently unemployed—to get involved in local environmental projects of merit. For my area of Bowman, I speak with particular passion because virtually all of my 60 kilometres of waterfront is mangrove. In fact, it is pretty hard to find a patch of Redlands waterfront that is not mangrove. Together with the beautiful North Stradbroke Island, there are seemingly limitless opportunities to protect, preserve and, in fact, enhance some of the environmental assets that we have in Bowman, being a Moreton Bay fringe electorate.
You just have to drive down any major road in a part of Australia where there is a significant nature corridor to know that there is almost limitless work to be done on this great continent when it comes to environmental improvement and enhancement. At the same time, we do not seem to be able to match need with expertise, so many young Australians—hundreds of thousands of them—are at the moment without meaningful work opportunities or a chance to train, a chance to upskill or a chance to work together in small teams and achieve something of worth. The Green Army does that. Building over three years to 15,000 participants, it will be the largest standing environmental army in Australia's history.
I am excited about it for a few reasons. The first one is that this is very much locally driven. Sure, there will be a service provider responsible for organising projects, as well as a group that will typically identify the projects—commonly, councils and the like. But what is really important is that communities can get together, actually rank the environmental tasks into some form of priority and start working on them in a limited time frame—over a number of weeks—and ensure that those jobs are done. What we do not have is a tailing-off of this program into an extended Work for the Dole arrangement, because this is very different to that and I need to emphasise that.
The Green Army needs to be one of a number of options that young Australians have. It will never be compulsory. It is obviously going to grow quickly each year up to 2018. I commend the minister for having gained the extra resources to ensure that the Green Army continues. The challenge, and I put it out to every electorate, is to find the highest quality projects that you can.
Critics of this program will be saying that there is no point just mobilising people if they are not doing something of environmental benefit, but there is plenty of environmental potential in every electorate, even urban ones, where of course the environment is most under threat. In my electorate, there will be revegetation of sand dunes on North Stradbroke Island. There will be enhancements in our mangrove and intertidal areas. There are problems with noxious weeds and non-local flora all throughout the Redlands. All of these are perfectly suited to being Green Army projects.
To young Australians contemplating doing this: it does not have to be for a year. As I have said, these are medium-term projects where you are working in a small team with a supervisor who is paid the horticultural award for that role. Councils have told me some of their concerns are around transport. Many participants will not be able to get to remote locations in my electorate easily, where public transport is limited, so there will have to be a little bit of ingenuity and flexibility to make sure that these projects run without a hitch and, obviously, that people can be attending regularly. If you talk to young Australians, many of them say, 'I am interested in doing this kind of work and I would love to give it a go.' So these projects have to be flexible enough to allow people to move in and out of them, short enough that they can actually see some kind of gain and benefit over the time that they are engaged and variable enough so that they are not just doing one thing—the same thing—for months on end.
My objective for these Green Army projects is that young locals will come out of them with a new skill and a new qualification. In many cases at the moment, they are sent down to employment network providers. Their eyes glaze over as they search on computers for the next training program to do. The Green Army changes that because there is real, practical application. There will be a real sense of, 'Not only did I gain a skill but it actually made a difference here.' Be that building a walkway, repairing some erosion or getting a better understanding of how some of these waterways work, that has to be all upside, doesn't it?
In a nation where labour is so valuable—we are a small-population economy with a very high average GDP and a large, natural expanse that is often very, very rain deprived and vulnerable—there is no better place to apply Green Army initiatives than right here in Australia. I am speaking for South-East Queensland, where we have incredibly fast population growth, probably only rivalled by parts of outer Sydney. At the same time, we have these environmental belts that locals have fought hard to protect, only to see them effectively fenced off but not being maintained. They become a bushfire risk, they are covered in lantana and other noxious weeds, and they are not a place where you would want to take your family to go bushwalking or for a picnic. The Green Army can change that.
So, on North Stradbroke Island, where 3,000 of my locals live, for the first time there are additional employment opportunities outside of mining and the very good work being done by Straddie Camping. Here is a chance for young Australians falling out of interest with formal education to have this cadetship, this environmental connection and these time-limited projects that they can really make their own. That is what is really exciting. And, because they are teams of 10, you can run one or two of them instead of building one up so that it becomes so large that either it is unmanageable or the human resources are not well deployed.
Make no mistake: it will be challenging all over this nation to be running over 1,000 of these tiny projects, but I have faith in the local people, local employment providers and local councils to come up with the best possible projects and see them through to fruition. I know that there has been some nitpicking from the other side about workplace health and safety, and it is an important issue. But the programs are to be supervised predominantly by councils, who are already well aware of those limitations and those concerns.
In conclusion, please do not mix up the Green Army with Work for the Dole programs. They are very, very different. I believe there is a great deal of pride around Work for the Dole, but in essence it is a hard-stop measure that is a requirement if you have been unemployed for more than a certain period of time. The Green Army is very different to that. I would love to see university graduates, university students and even people studying for a trade taking a few weeks to be involved in a Green Army project. I will be encouraging all of my young Australians between the ages of 17 to 24 to get involved. I look forward to the day, once these projects are up and running, when older Australians—those over the age of 24—will also get involved.
It is an exciting moment, seeing Green Army projects rolling out. For a long time, Green Corps projects set up by the Howard government delivered significant environmental benefits but never really achieved the scale that we are attempting here. It is a real feather in the cap of the coalition that, rather than going out on our own on climate schemes that in the end leave us cold and broke, there is a real sense of practical action in local communities. If you really care about your environment, there is no better way of getting involved than by encouraging people you know who are eligible to get involved in one of these projects as part of a team of 10. It makes perfect sense. They should be available.
I have made the point about matching need with expertise. We pay income replacement to between 360,000 and 400,000 young Australians who are not involved in full-time work, study or training. It is inconceivable that billions of dollars are paid every year more as an entitlement than as a mutual-respect arrangement, where that transfer purchases a social outcome. If we can move to the point where young Australians are actually earning that money by being involved in the development of public good, which is a cleaner environment, that would be a great step in and of itself. If there is one thing that this government achieves in the next election term, I would like it to be the removal of the 'do nothing and have no chance' option. That is the notion that payments are purely entitlements and that nothing comes back the other way—that the payment is your pay. But that is not what it is. When we pay welfare to look after those who are in the greatest need, we want it to be a hand up, to give people the chance of a future career.
Keep in mind that it is easy to look down on 18- to 24-year-olds and say they are not doing enough or that they are not active enough, but many of them are transitioning through life, having lost interest in formal education, prior to having a family. That is the perfect time to give these young Australians every chance of acquiring skills, developing confidence and having a capability. It is only through these things that opportunity comes. If we deprive young Australians of opportunity, then we will carry them as a welfare burden for life, and that is not what we want. What we want is to give them the best possible opportunity as soon as they disengage from formal education and training to get them back into something practical that they love and enjoy.
Without going into too much detail or digressing too far from Green Army projects, what I am hoping is that there is flexibility in the program. I do not want to see two or three projects that are exactly the same—picking up sticks and pulling weeds, for example. We need projects within a reasonable geographic spread that provide a range of skills. They could involve learning how to use small plants or some basic carpentry skills or concreting skills, as well as the obvious skills in environmental rehabilitation. That may mean spending a little bit more on good training and supervision and making sure that our trainers can actually impart those skills. If we do that, and people leave the Green Army with a formal qualification, then we have only made life and opportunity far better, not just for them but for their families, and a better life for their young children who in turn one day will become adults and income earners themselves. I commend this bill strongly.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:10): I take the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 and acknowledge that its purpose is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration Act 1999 for three specific purposes: firstly, that recipients of Green Army allowance are not also able to receive a social security benefit or pension, with the exception of family assistance and childcare payments where participants are eligible; secondly, that income-testing arrangements that will apply to the social security pension for the partners of Green Army participants; and thirdly, that participants in the Green Army program who are not Green Army team supervisors are not to be treated as workers or employees for the purposes of certain Commonwealth laws.
I acknowledge that the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, has moved an amendment to the bill. It does not decline to give the bill a second reading, but it seeks that the House note a number of matters. I indicate that I support the amendment put by the shadow minister. The amendment requires that the House note, firstly, that the program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation, given the poor environmental record of the current government; secondly, that the bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation; thirdly, that the government should clarify why participants do not have employee status, even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage; fourthly, that the government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers; fifthly, that there is a lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited and recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and, finally, that it is important to support young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities.
I would like to take the opportunity today to outline why the amendment is worth supporting, as it raises a series of very important issues about the program that need to be debated. Whilst this bill deals only with the social security elements of the Green Army Program, it is clear that this is as much an employment program as it is claimed to be an environmental one. I will not go specifically to the issues about the total inadequacy of this initiative, as it sits forlornly in an environmental framework that has torn apart action on and protection of our natural environment by this government. The shadow minister for the environment addressed this extensively in his speech during the second reading debate. I would in particular draw the House's attention to the article referenced by the shadow minister in that speech that was published in TheIndependent in the United Kingdom and entitled 'Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?' It is a harsh assessment but, I would suggest, one that is pretty accurate.
In considering the merits of this particular program, I would acknowledge that the concept of combining action on environmental challenges with commitment to training and lifting the skills of the population is neither new nor a concept that this side of the House is opposed to in and of itself. In fact, we believe that environment based work and training programs can be an effective opportunity for job seekers who have an interest in, and a capacity for, this type of work—an opportunity to gain some real skills, knowledge and experience in a sector that should see growing job opportunities in the future.
I refer members to the May 2011 report of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, AWPA, on emerging and future skills needs in the green and energy efficiency sector. In its report, the agency identified a call for jobs and skills in a range of sectors and courses. It is of course likely that many of the emerging industries and jobs that were discussed in the report have been very negatively impacted by the decisions of the Abbott government to walk away from responsible environmental action in this country.
I take this opportunity to put on the record my personal appreciation of the excellent work that has been done by AWPA and to express my great regret at the decision by this government to disband this agency. AWPA was established in 2012 by the former Labor government, replacing Skills Australia, to provide expert, independent advice to government on current, emerging and future skills and workforce development needs. It brings together—it has not quite been disbanded yet but soon will be—the peak national bodies, such as ACCI, the Australian Industry Group and the ACTU, to achieve industry leadership on these matters. Disbanding the key national policy and research body on skills while we have jobs being lost across the country is nonsensical.
Clearly there is a real opportunity to provide, and a sound basis for providing, work based and training opportunities in this industry sector. However, the bill before us does not lay out the detail that is required for a full analysis and discussion of its efficacy. The questions raised in the shadow minister's amendment must be addressed. I acknowledge that some of these issues have been the subject of an inquiry in the other place and that, since this bill was introduced, further information on how the Green Army will operate has been released, although this information has only slowly emerged piece by piece—and only as it has been requested.
From the perspective of my own shadow portfolio, it is the nature and the quality of the training that is intended to be provided that is of significant interest and importance. Many members of this place will be well aware, sadly, that pushing people through round after round of training that is not relevant, targeted or of quality actually has a negative impact on the job seekers who are involved. There is nothing more disheartening, or discouraging of a positive view of lifelong learning, than to have continual negative experiences of training. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the statement of requirements as an optional component of the program to be negotiated with each participant. This gives me no confidence that participants will actually get relevant, quality training.
We now know that participants will, at the bare minimum, be provided with first aid and work safety training. If it is deemed appropriate, they will be given cultural awareness training as well. However, no more than this basic training is guaranteed. There is no explicit obligation for any further training to be provided to job seekers. At Senate estimates, I asked the Department of Industry, within which my shadow portfolio sits, about further training to be provided. Their response was that they were working with the Department of the Environment and they also said:
… we understand the Green Army program Service Provider(s) will negotiate an individual training plan with each participant they recruit as part of the Participant Agreement, which will consider the individuals' skills needs and the skills required to fulfil the project. The Service Provider(s) will then identify which RTOs in the local region are available to provide this training.
This response leaves more questions than it answers, as this sort of individual skills assessment, individualised learning program and course enrolment by one-off students is one of the most expensive training models—if it is done properly. I seriously doubt that the government has actually provided for such an extensive training opportunity.
It should also be noted that a significant number of the job seekers likely to participate will no doubt require literacy and numeracy support, as well as work readiness training, before they have the capacity to do specific skills training. None of these issues are clearly addressed in the Green Army information made available to date. I strongly argue that it is cruel to hold it out as a real pathway to employment for people if it does not provide them with industry recognised and valued qualifications at the end of the program.
As the shadow minister for the environment also outlined, we on this side of the House have some serious concerns about the workplace protections to be put in place for participants. We remain concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protection for these participants, most specifically in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. We have been assured that participants will be covered by relevant state legislation and by insurance held by service providers and the Commonwealth, and that work safety will also be subject to auditing by the department. We accept that these measures may protect participants to a certain level, but the price of safety will indeed be constant vigilance. As with everything, Australians are right to be suspicious and uncertain of the commitment and motives of the government. The government has made it clear that health and safety is not a top priority.
I indicate to the House that these are legitimate and serious questions that have been raised by the shadow minister in his amendment to the bill. He has indicated that it is our intention to support the second reading, so I hope it is taken that, in this process, the effort is to ensure that those people who participate in the program have an experience that has value and meaning for them and that it actually then puts them on a pathway to employment. This is so that when people come out of the program they would have, as many members on the other side have indicated, not only some good environmental outcomes for particular places in their electorates but also work experience of value to employers and qualifications and training that are recognised by employers. Therefore, they will have honestly been provided with an increased opportunity to gain employment out of it. There is nothing worse than putting people through round after round of these sorts of programs only to have them feel that, at the end of the day, they have gained nothing that has value in their local community's workplaces and that has simply left them back where they started.
I commend the amendments to the House. I look forward to, piece by piece, slowly getting more answers to the significant issues and questions that the shadow minister has raised.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (13:23): I am very pleased today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. A little later in my speech, I will talk about some of the proposals in the Parkes electorate.
Firstly, I would like to comment on some of the statements made by members of the opposition here today. Why is it that every environmental program has to be discussed through the prism of climate change and every employment program has to be seen as some sort of assault on the union movement? In particular, the member for Chisholm, in her presentation here a little while ago, was speaking about the cattle in the high country. We have been through this before here. The member for Gippsland, who is sitting at the table, is well aware of this issue. The member for Chisholm spoke about the nice little garden in her electorate. They have a pizza oven and are doing all that sort of stuff. It always amazes me that the members in this place who represent completely concreted-over parts of Australia seem to be the experts in environmental programs! She spoke about grazing cattle in the high country and what an assault it was on the environment, but she did not mention the snow-skiing up there. She did not mention the highway going up to the top or the sewage that comes out of those lodges. So perhaps some sort of environmental degradation in the high country is acceptable to her constituents and some of it is not. Those cattle have been grazing there for 150 years and they have done a mighty job in controlling the vegetation and reducing the damage by high-intensity bushfires.
The Green Army project, to my way of thinking, will have two results: one is genuine environmental outcomes and the other is employment outcomes. The shadow minister, who is sitting at the table now, will be well aware of the communities of Boggabilla and Toomelah in my electorate. The Moree Plains Shire Council, in anticipation of the Green Army project, has been working with the communities there, as have I. The residents of Toomelah went through the absolutely gut-wrenching experience of having the shadow minister remove the CDEP program and replace it with nothing else. So, while we have heard members of the opposition speak about this being some sort of assault on the union movement and question whether workers will be treated fairly, I can tell you that the people at Toomelah just want something to do. They want something to do that is worthwhile. They want a reason to get out of bed in the morning. They want to learn a skill that will enable them, after this program, to gain occupations of a permanent nature and they want something that means something to them.
I have been in negotiations with the community up there for some time now in anticipation of this program. I have spoken with the traditional owners of the land up there. I have been out with the traditional owners to Boobera Lagoon. For those of you who may not know, Boobera Lagoon is the resting place of the rainbow serpent. The member is well aware from the work that he does up there of the significance of Boobera Lagoon. The Green Army project will look at restoring some of that area. The powerboats were removed some years ago out of respect for the wishes of the Aboriginal people. Rehabilitation work, weed control, fencing and bank stabilisation—a whole range of things like that—have taken place at Boobera Lagoon. The program will not only have an environmental outcome but also have real significance for the people who will be undertaking these projects. The Green Army program will have an impact on long-term unemployment.
I would like to mention the work of Moree Plains council. There has been some talk from the opposition today about training. I can tell you that the people who will be working on the Green Army projects in my electorate will have proper training. They will do inductions into workplaces through the local council. They will undertake certificate training for chemical accreditation and other genuine workplace issues. They will be given skills that will carry them well beyond the six months that they will be in this program. But what it will really do is give these young people a bit of structure and reason to get out of bed in the morning.
This is a community that the rest of society has largely moved on from. This is a community that has been labelled a hard luck place—a place of no hope. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that that label does that community no justice. The young people up there whom I have been speaking to, and that Kylie Benge and Debby Baxter-Tomkins have been talking to, are waiting with anticipation for this program to start. They are looking to get back into something that is meaningful. They are ready to show the rest of their community that they are capable of real and meaningful work. This Green Army program will fit the bill. There will be a continuation of this program for some time. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Parkes will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Nigeria
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:30): Australians have been horrified at the kidnapping of more than 250 schoolgirls in Nigeria. I know every member in this place wishes to see them returned safely to their families as soon as possible. The essence of this crime is the calculated denial of education to girls and women. It is a form of oppression that consigns women to lives of unrealised potential, to mistreatment and to powerlessness. It is a form of discrimination and tyranny that consigns whole nations to poverty and suffering. It comes from the same instinct that motivated the Taliban attack on 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai, who had the courage to openly advocate for the education of girls in Pakistan.
I draw members' attention to the piece by Ian Wishart, the CEO of Plan International, in TheAustralian today on the transformative impact of education for girls. He notes:
Each extra year of secondary school increases a girl’s potential income by up to 25 per cent while cutting infant mortality as much as 10 per cent.
Unfortunately, as Mr Wishart says, it takes the abduction of hundreds of terrified young girls to remind us that the right to education is a daily battle for millions of girls.
Australia makes a critical contribution to supporting the education of girls in developing countries. In the context of the Nigerian kidnapping, we should recognise that practical and effective foreign aid prevents terrorism, creates opportunities and builds resilience in developing countries. Foreign aid has never been more important and it must be shielded from further cuts in the budget.
Western Australia Senate Election
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (13:31): A little over five weeks ago Western Australians went back to the polls for the second time in the re-run of the Senate election. Firstly, thank you to all volunteers who manned booths across Hasluck. I am so proud of the effort and enthusiasm displayed by all of our supporters. You are tremendous.
I want to pay tribute to and congratulate the woman who is deemed to be the unluckiest person in politics prior to the election. Senator elect Linda Reynolds is an outstanding local Hasluck woman who was again re-elected as the third Liberal senator for Western Australia. Linda was elected in September 2013 in the federal election and then had to go back to the polls after the infamous loss of ballot papers by the AEC. What people in this House may not know is that Linda lives in my electorate of Hasluck, went to school at St Brigid's College in Lesmurdie and grew up in the hills area of Hasluck.
Linda has become a good friend over the past couple of years and she will make a fine senator. Her contribution to the Senate will be of great benefit to the people of Western Australia, who have gained an effective and enthusiastic advocate for their interests and needs. In particular, her contribution to Australia in the Defence Force matches her drive and commitment to the things that she aspires to. Congratulations, Linda. I look forward to welcoming you to the parliament in July.
Budget
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:33): Last week I received over 100 letters from clients of the Bendigo family and financial counselling services asking for support to retain their funding. The Bendigo family and financial counselling services fear that they could lose their federal government funding in tonight's budget. They are concerned that their program will be axed, like many other vital programs in the Abbott government's first budget. This amazing grassroots organisation provides financial assistance to thousands of people in my electorate and has done so since 2006. General Manager Jenny said that the proposed cuts would mean the future of the organisation was uncertain. They first got wind of the cuts when the government released its Commission of Audit, which recommended 100 per cent of funding to financial counselling services across the country be cut.
These programs help families in need. They provide counselling, emergency relief, small loans and financial management training to those who are struggling because of loss of hours at work, sickness or unmanageable debt. These are people who have fallen on hardened times who need a small helping hand up. These are people who need our help and should not have to face such savage cuts. I call on the government to reverse the cuts and not proceed with them tonight.
Forde Electorate
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:34): On 3 April the Albert and Logan News described Phoebe Martin, Vienna Johnson and Matilda Martin from the Greek Myth Robotics team as three of Logan's brightest minds. These girls whose ages range from 10 through to 12 have been busy raising funds for a trip to Brazil to compete in the International RoboCup in July this year. The Kimberley Park State School students won the 2013 state and national championships, putting them in a great position to take out the international title. I look forward to hearing of their terrific experiences on their return and I wish them all the best of luck in Brazil.
I would also like to congratulate the Tudor Park PCYC for the great work they are doing. Each day of the week classes are held to cater for a large number of local youth in the area. All the money raised goes back into local programs working with young people which are designed to encourage leadership in our local community.
Finally, I would like to make an honourable mention of Leanne Riley for encouraging the use of Facebookfor a great cause. Leanne has been using the page to source items for care packages and as a result has delivered some 2,000 care packages to the homeless in our community.
Budget
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:36): I rise because I am concerned about the effect on my electorate of tonight's budget. I have been contacted by pensioners who are worried sick about what is going to happen to them after tonight's budget. I have been contacted by people who are worried about how changes to the indexation arrangements will affect their pension.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bass! The member for Jagajaga! The member will be heard in silence.
Ms BUTLER: We know that there is no budget emergency. I am sick to death of a confected budget emergency being used to justify a tax on pensioners and a tax on those on the disability support pension. I have had people who rely on that disability support pension sitting at home, worried about what is going to happen to them after tonight's budget. This government ought to be embarrassed about the commitment that was made prior to the federal election that there would be no changes to pensions. Why do pensioners in my electorate have to be worried about changes to indexation and what might happen to the income? Why do those on the disability support pension have to be concerned about whether they are going to be able to live after this budget? Why have we seen $68 billion added to the deficit by Mr Hockey, the Treasurer, since the pre-election financial outlook? The government ought to be embarrassed.
Solomon Electorate: Families of the Fallen Walk
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:37): On Tuesday, 22 April I had the enormous privilege of walking the final stages of an incredible trek that honoured the contribution of our service personnel in Afghanistan. Organised by the parents of sons who died in Afghanistan, the 400-kilometre Families of the Fallen Walk saw 80 or so people trek for 400 kilometres from Mataranka to Robertson Barracks over a 10-day period. One of the organisers, Ray Palmer, a man from my electorate, is an absolute inspiration. Ray and his wonderful wife, Pam, lost their son, Scott, in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan in 2010.
The epic walk was held to honour the 40 servicemen who were killed during the Afghan conflict, but it was also about raising awareness for post-traumatic stress disorder as well as raising funds for returned soldiers to walk the Kokoda Track. As the group approached the entrance of Robertson Barracks, we passed through an honour guard consisting of local diggers and the US Marines who are currently based in Darwin. As a civilian in an electorate with a strong presence of Defence Force personnel, I found this heartfelt gesture extremely touching and a small acknowledgement of the sacrifice that Scott and the 39 others have made in the service of our great country. I look forward to seeing similar walks around the country in honouring these wonderful men.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:39): A key target in Closing the Gap and ending Indigenous disadvantage is access to early childhood education for Indigenous children, whether they live in the city—Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane—in regional areas like Ipswich, Townsville, Logan or Newcastle, or, indeed, in remote communities like Utopia homelands, Fitzroy Crossing, Alice Springs or Halls Creek. We, when we were in government and the member for Jagajaga was the responsible minister, negotiated our National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Childhood Development. That was about making sure that $565 million was provided, including $75 million from the states and territories, to establish 38 of these centres around the country. I have visited a number of them. I visited Kambu Medical Centre and Kambu early childhood education centre in Ipswich in my electorate, as well as in Fitzroy Crossing, where Baya Gawiy is an important employer.
What do these organisations do? They provide op shops, maternal and childhood welfare, sexual health advice and other services. On 30 June the national partnership expires. If tonight there is not funding for this particular program in the budget, 38 of them will close. That is the risk. Tonight I call upon the Prime Minister not to cut the program. You cannot close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage by cuts, and tonight is D-day for all these centres.
Ryan Electorate: Moggill Koala Hospital
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:40): I recently visited the koala hospital at Moggill, which has rescued more than 70,000 koalas in its two decades of operation. I had the honour and privilege of presenting two Ryan Community Service Awards. These awards were granted to two outstanding members of the Ryan electorate for their exceptional work in assisting koalas in Queensland. Recipient Dr Allan McKinnon works as a veterinarian for the state government's Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, where he not only treats and operates on ill koalas but also conducts research regarding the current threats to koala survival and how this can be minimised—for example, by tissue sampling for genetic disease. Dr McKinnon's research, coupled with his knowledge of and devotion for koalas, has helped the hospital to become world renowned amongst the wildlife community.
Also working at the Moggill Koala Hospital is the second award recipient, wildlife ranger Peter Theilemann. Peter has contributed immensely to the rehabilitation of sick koalas and wildlife at the hospital, where he monitors the koalas' health conditions daily. In 30 years of working with wildlife, Peter has devoted and developed exceptional nurturing husbandry skills concerning marsupials and monotremes. The highlight was, however, when Peter reared the smallest ever orphaned koala, at just 78 grams, to adulthood, being the first Australian to do so.
Also, I take this opportunity in National Volunteer Week to pay tribute not only to the volunteers at the Moggill Koala Hospital but also to the tens of thousands of volunteers around Australia who contribute day in and day out for the betterment of our community.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Medicare
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:42): On behalf of low-income families and pensioners in my electorate of Kingsford Smith, I implore the Abbott government to abandon its proposal to introduce a Medicare co-payment in the budget this evening. Over the last month 1,600 constituents in my community have signed a petition opposing the Medicare co-payment. This will not only undermine the universality of the Medicare system; it is also a broken election commitment by the Abbott government. It hurts those who are most vulnerable in our community—the pensioner with a crook hip or a dodgy knee, the young girl with a mental illness that requires regular trips to the GP for prescription medication. These are the people who will be hurt by this government tonight if it proceeds with a Medicare co-payment.
I recently met a pensioner in Pagewood who implored me to fight this proposal. He said that he has a fixed income for each two weeks. Making a couple of trips to the doctor and having to pay for that could blow his budget. These are the people who will suffer under a Medicare co-payment. Not only is it a broken election promise but also it is also bad public policy because it will see people delay going to the GP and wait till they are sicker and sicker until they require crisis care. That will push up our public health costs. It is bad policy. It is a broken election commitment under the guise of Australians doing their bit under a confected budget emergency, and I implore the government not to introduce a Medicare co-payment.
National Police Service Medal
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:44): Last week I was pleased to catch up with a number of retired police officers in my electorate for a coffee down by the Woronora River. The catch-up was prompted by the government's recent changes in the eligibility criteria for the National Police Service Medal. Previously, police officers whose service had concluded between 14 February 1975 and 30 October 2008 were ineligible for this distinguished medal. But I am proud that our government has changed that. An estimated 20,000 retired police officers across the nation are now eligible for this most prestigious honour, which recognises 15 years of ethical and diligent service as an Australian police officer. I am glad to be part of the government that fixed this historical oversight, and I look forward to this process being moved forward quickly.
I would like to say how important this medal is. I was contacted by a retired police officer who told me the story of how he had been shot at and how he had been stabbed. He is currently undergoing some quite heavy-duty chemotherapy. The message he gave to me asked whether we as a government could ensure, just in case something went wrong with the treatment, that he could get that medal before he passed away. That is how important that medal is to those 20,000 police officers. I am very proud that our government has fixed this so that they will all be eligible to receive this most prestigious medal. (Time expired)
Medicare
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:45): In the last couple of weeks over 450 people have contacted my office in support of Medicare. They were frightened by the changes that the Abbott government proposes to make. In a community like mine, where 95 per cent of visits to doctors are bulk-billed, Medicare matters. If a GP tax of $7.50 is introduced it will cost my electorate almost $9 million a year. That is $9 million per year ripped out of the pockets of families in Parramatta, ripped out of the businesses where that money might have been spent each year and placed into the coffers of the federal government.
Because I know the current government has not been listening to my community on this, I am going to read some of the statements that my community have made. Dixit said 'I strongly oppose extra fees to visit GPs. It's so unfair.' Maria said 'Yes, basic healthcare needs to be free and accessible for everyone.' Ann commented 'Everyone needs access to basic health not just those who are wealthy.' Margaret said 'There are too few bulk-billing services as it stands. Don't take this safety net away.' Edmund suggested 'The proposal to have co-payments for GP visits is retrograde.' Tejas said 'We want a bulk-billing facility.' Diane said 'Please have compassion on the citizens of Australia. Their best interests would be to keep Medicare.' I will give the final word to Christine, who said 'Tony Abbott leave Medicare alone.' (Time expired)
Budget
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:47): The great British wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, often said, 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' I agree with him. That is why I worked on a book about how Australia came to have a broken budget, a damaged economy and a serious debt mess to fix. It is entitled Labor's Mess. It tells the story of the last six years of Labor chaos; it busts Labor's economic myths; and it contains the facts on spending, deficits and debt, as put by independent third parties. It can be downloaded from my website.
The key things to note are: without policy change, spending will continue to exponentially increase from around $400 billion today to around $700 billion within the decade; without policy change, the budget will be in deficit for the next 10 years, the longest stretch of deficits since World War II; and, without change, the debt will blow out to more than $667 billion over the next decade.
There is a real cost to such budget incompetence. This year alone Labor's debt will cost taxpayers over $12 billion in interest payments, which is about the amount the Commonwealth currently spends on schools. We need to get spending under control—we need to get the debt under control, we need to live within our means and we must all play our part. Tonight the Treasurer will do that by delivering the central plank in our economic action plan, the budget. The question remains: will Labor stand in the way of cleaning up the mess they created? (Time expired)
Food Allergy Awareness Week
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (13:48): I am glad I had the chance on Q&A to rectify the inadmissible evidence of the Leader of the House, who did not know who the Deputy Speaker was. I rise to draw the House's attention to Food Allergy Awareness Week, which began yesterday, 12 May, and runs until Sunday, 18 May. Food Allergy Awareness Week is about raising awareness of the life-threating risks of severe food allergies and anaphylaxis which are rapidly increasing in Australia. Australia has one of the highest incidences of food allergy in the world. One in every 10 Australian babies aged 12 months have a food allergy and over the last 10 years the number of reported life-threatening reactions due to a food allergy has doubled.
While there is currently no cure for food allergy and anaphylaxis, they are manageable and most deaths are avoidable. But avoiding deaths requires being aware of just how serious the risks are, particularly to young children and teenagers in school and social environments. To help raise awareness, Allergy and Anaphylaxis Australia are asking people to paint one nail to represent the one in 10 people with a food allergy or adopt a food allergy for a day and see what it is like to manage a diet with a food allergy. One of the other important things in this area is obviously funding—funding of research into this important issue of concern. As a mother with a child with anaphylaxis I know all too well the issues of concern here. We need certainty around the funding. We need to ensure the budget gives certainty to funding so great programs like these can go on and no more children need die.(Time expired)
Bass Electorate: St Giles Society
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:50): I rise to congratulate the St Giles community organisation on the inaugural Launceston Balfour Burn which was held on Sunday, 16 March. The Balfour Burn is a run, walk, cycle, or stagger up Balfour Street, reputedly Launceston's steepest street, with a 320 metre incline. This unique family-friendly event attracted 824 people and 64 dogs. Most importantly, it raised over $15,000 to help continue the work of St Giles. St Giles is a community organisation that was founded in 1937 amidst a terrible polio epidemic in Tasmania. It continues to provide services to children who have special needs and their families.
I acknowledge especially the work of St Giles's fundraising manager, Danielle Blewett, for her creativity in coming up with the idea, and the race director, Rick Fontyn, and his small but dedicated committee of Craig Boon, Jess Sattler, Madeline Gordon, Sam Ralph and Brett Smith. I also thank the 100-plus volunteers who supported the event, the Launceston City Council and the Tasmanian police. Furthermore I acknowledge the event sponsors. The major sponsor was the Launceston Eye Institute, and other sponsors were Harrison Humphreys, Motors, McDonalds, Launceston Sport and Surf, Elaia Cafe, Tasmanian Alkaloids, Aromas Cafe, Sporties Hotel and Landfall Farm Fresh. I am delighted to say that the Balfour Burn looks like becoming an annual fundraising event for St Giles.
Budget
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:51): This morning I joined the Leader of the Opposition at Griffith shops to meet a constituent of mine, Jacqui, and her son Zac. Jacqui is a single mother and former public servant. Five years ago she was diagnosed with MS. As a result, Jacqui suffers mobility issues and finds it difficult to leave the house without the support of Zac. Try as she may Jacqui has been unable to find a job that she can do entirely from home and so she is unable to work.
Jacqui, like thousands of other Australians, lives on the income of her disability support pension and receives a family tax benefit. Jacqui is terrified about what tonight's budget will mean for her. The Prime Minister promised no changes to DSP, yet tonight, we know, it will change. The Prime Minister promised to ease cost-of-living pressures, yet tonight we know that petrol prices will go up and new taxes will be introduced. Jacqui is terrified about how she will afford her ongoing health costs now that she will have to pay a GP co-payment, even though the Prime Minister promised no cuts to health. Jacqui is also concerned about her son's education. The Prime Minister promised he was on a unity ticket with Labor when it came to education, but tonight we know that Gonski will be no more.
Tonight we will see a budget of broken promises, a budget that is going to hurt those Australians and those Canberrans who can least afford it—people like Jacqui.
Small Business
Ms SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:53): In Gilmore the construction industry is the catalyst for our marginal employment increase. We cheer when projects are announced, particularly when government-initiated, creating jobs, income and growth. The government pays very large contractors, they pay the next level contractor and so on until we get to the subcontractors. A local subcontractor could be a family man or woman driving a truck for a living and perhaps employing a couple of others.
But last week we had the devastating repeat of all that has happened before: a mid-level company has gone well beyond the 45 days from end-of-month payment. The roll down of payment did not reach our local subbies; the debts are unpaid. Instead there is an announcement: the company is under administration and, 'sorry for any inconvenience'.
This has happened before. Why don't we hear more about this appalling practice? Often there is an inference, or a 'read between the lines', that if the subbie speaks up they will not get work again. This is immoral—it is economic blackmail. One local subcontractor has said, 'enough is enough and others are affected as well'.
This payment default has occurred on the watch of all governments, but rarely have we had a subbie who is prepared to speak out. We are their voice in government, and each of us must now take up the challenge and work on a resolution to this dreadful process.
In a regional area, such losses affect more than the contractor and his family. It is the shops, suppliers, services—the whole community. We must stop this happening again. If there has been wrongdoing, that has to be addressed with significant consequences, establishing a prevention mechanism for nonpayment to our hardworking subcontractors. (Time expired)
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:54): Last year in this place there was a strong commitment to the Australian people from all sides of politics to implement a national disability insurance scheme. The then Labor government understood the need for fiscal discipline and took over $180 billion in responsible savings to invest in hospitals, schools and vital national programs like the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Ongoing funding for the NDIS was assured through the increase in the Medicare levy. That increase was not an easy decision to make but it was the right one and Labor made it.
In terms of equity, there is no question that the NDIS delivers. People with disability have been disadvantaged for far too long by funding systems based on borders and programs based on mass delivery rather than need and choice. Economically, the scheme will also deliver, with an increase in productivity and employment participation delivering an increase of approximately one per cent to Australia's GDP. To not roll out the scheme in full as scheduled would be a betrayal of people with disability, their carers and their families across the nation.
Some 1,800 people in Newcastle are already benefitting from the scheme, but I would like to finish with the words of one, James Bailey, who made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Newcastle last week. He said:
Every morning I wake up and smile because I know my life is better now, I get to choose what I want to do and that makes me feel responsible … I am happy NDIS funding supports me to live a happy and full life.
Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:56): On 7 May I had the privilege of attending the launch of Kaitie the Courageous, a book that tells the story of a brave nine-year-old girl, who was born with the incurable mucopolysaccharidosis type I, commonly referred to as Hurler's syndrome.
The mucopolysaccharidoses, MPSs, are a group of rare genetic disorders affecting both children and adults. These diseases involve an abnormal cellular storage of sugars called mucopolysaccharides, caused by the absence of a specific enzyme.
There are currently 11 recognised MPS disorders affecting 25,000 Australians. MPS is a potentially fatal condition that causes intellectual impairment, eye and hearing problems, bone and joint malformation and heart and breathing difficulties. There is unfortunately no cure for MPS, which is a progressive and life-limiting disease.
Kaitie is a remarkable nine year old, and although Kaitie the Courageous unveils the challenges those with rare diseases are confronted with it also showcases the inspirational way in which brave Australians such as Kaitie live life to the full, notwithstanding that in Kaitie's case she was diagnosed at the age of two, is currently cared for by 17 specialist medical teams and has endured close to 40 operations.
The launch of Kaitie the Courageous came ahead of MPS Awareness Day on 15 May. For MPS Awareness Day Australians will be asked to showcase their support for MPS by doing something brave, so I will end with an offer to colleagues: if you have a suggestion for how I can courageously show my support for MPS, please contact my office.
Budget
Ms KING (Ballarat) (13:58): To quote our current Prime Minister: 'We will be a no surprises, no excuses government. We are about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We are about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.' Yet tonight the Prime Minister is going to introduce a GP tax ending bulk-billing in this country and ending universal access to Medicare. I will be delighted to see those proud members opposite ending universal access, ending Medicare!
At no stage did this Prime Minister say to the electorate before the election that he would introduce a GP tax every time you go to visit a doctor, that it was part of this government's plan to end Medicare. It is lazy policy, policy that will deter people from seeking the health care that they need. It would mean that your credit card would be more important than your Medicare card. It will lead to greater complications, poorer health outcomes, increasing hospitalisation and increasing emergency department presentations, costing taxpayers and patients much more in out-of-pocket expenses for their health. The only people advocating this are the Abbott government, the Commission of Audit and one of the Abbott government's previous advisers. The Australian Medical Association, the College of General Practitioners, the Public Health Association and the Consumer's Health Forum all know this is dumb policy. Why doesn't the government?
Fashion Industry
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:59): I urge the fashion industry, after recent controversies around body image, to consider a stronger community code of conduct about the average BMI of models that they are using. Moving to the extreme end, we need to be mindful of the impact that it has on primary school children. Up to 80 per cent of girls at that age and teenagers have considered dieting. That distortion of body image needs to be— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The time for members' statements has expired.
CONDOLENCES
Harradine, Mr Richard William Brian
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I rise on indulgence to acknowledge the passing of former Senator Brian Harradine. He was a Tasmanian senator for almost three decades. He was a staunch unionist, a committed Catholic and, at the time he retired, the Father of the Senate.
At the time of his retirement, the Hobart Mercury said about Brian Harradine:
His values were firm, his organisation superb and his negotiating style maddening.
I discovered this myself when I came to negotiate with Brian Harradine over the extended Medicare safety net back in 2004. Brian never did deals and he never did horse-trading. But if there was something in it for Tasmania it was amazing how the merits of the issue always improved.
In a long and distinguished career, Brian Harradine was deeply respected for his values and for his principles. He was deeply respected as a man of honour and integrity. He engaged in many fights, but it was never about him; it was always about the cause.
For Brian Harradine, faith and family were everything. So I say to Brian's family, on behalf of the government, to his wife, Marian, to their 13 children, to their 38 grandchildren and to their family and friends: he was a good man. He made a contribution to this country and will be missed.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): I rise today to support the motion of condolence for Brian Harradine.
Mr Harradine was born in South Australia, but it was in Tasmania that he really made his mark. He worked in Tasmania as a trade union official. He led the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council and was elected into the Australian Senate in 1975 as an Independent.
Brian Harradine is the longest serving Independent senator in our history. He was both a fiercely proud Independent and a principled senator but, perhaps more so, a fiercely proud Tasmanian. He represented the island state with strength and conviction for three decades, before retiring in 2005. I wish to pass the opposition's condolences onto his wife and his large extended family. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect to the memory of Brian Harradine, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:03): by leave—I move:
That further statements by indulgence in relation to the death of Brian Harradine be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Wran, Hon. Neville Kenneth, AC, QC
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:03): I wish to acknowledge on indulgence the passing of the Hon. Neville Wran AC, QC, former Premier of New South Wales and a former national president of the Australian Labor Party.
Neville Wran was one of the political giants of his generation. He assumed the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales at a time when the Labor Party was at a low ebb, but he was a magnificently commanding figure in that state and he totally dominated the politics of New South Wales for well over a decade. In that time, he oversaw major redevelopments, such as Darling Harbour and the Entertainment Centre. But while he was an urbane man about town he was also someone who appreciated the importance of Western Sydney. He shifted much of the focus of government and governmental institutions to Western Sydney and was responsible, above all else, for the massive development of Westmead Hospital.
He was a fierce parliamentarian—there was none fiercer. He asked for no quarter and he gave no quarter. It is said that when his chief parliamentary rival, and Country Party leader, the late Leon Punch, was speaking in parliament one day, Neville Wran let his displeasure be known by turning to his colleague and saying, 'If I die before that guy, and he starts talking on my condolence motion, you are to move that the member be no further heard.'
I am pleased to say that Neville Wran did mellow somewhat in later life, even to the point of being civil to young Liberal members of parliament with whom he was engaging in constitutional debate in the late 1990s. It was always a pleasure to share a platform with him or to share the studio with him, even though we were on the other side.
He was a giant. He did make a mark. He will be missed. On behalf of the government, I offer condolences to his wife, Jill, his children, his grandchildren, his family and his friends.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): Two weeks ago, I was among the thousands paying their respects at Neville Wran's state funeral. It was a grand celebration for a man who lived his life for others. There were generous and funny tributes from many, including Paul Keating, Bob Carr, Rodney Cavalier and Justice Michael Kirby. There were moving words from his wife, Jill, and his children, Kim, Hugo and Harriet. Today our parliament too pauses to pay its respects to a great Premier of New South Wales and a giant of the Australian Labor Party.
Few men are made as smart, as tough and as honourable as Neville Wran. After the bitterness and disappointment of 1975, it was Neville's landslide wins that helped rebuild Labor in New South Wales and, indeed, nationally. When Labor's spirits were at their lowest, it was the Wran government who kept the light on the hill burning.
In many ways the Wran government was the template for the progressive ethos of the Hawke and Keating governments. The Wran government shaped modern New South Wales: Australia's first antidiscrimination board, the first ethnic affairs commission, the first New South Wales review of public administration, and the first office for women were all fine achievements. Neville Wran transformed New South Wales Labor and remade New South Wales, but he never lost sight of the values that inspired him: helping the vulnerable and making his state a more caring and fairer place.
When Frank Forde spoke to the parliament on the death of John Curtin, he described Curtin as a man who was always a common man, a man for the masses—that Curtin strived and strolled among them, and even when he came to the highest place in the land he was still one of them. Today we can say the same for Neville Wran. From barrister, to Premier, to the business world, he never forgot where he came from. He was a Balmain boy to the end.
Neville was loved on this side of the House and I also note that he was well known and a friend to the member for Wentworth. All of us in Labor offer our most heartfelt condolences to everyone Neville Wran loved and everyone who loved him. After a life dedicated to the service of others, may he now rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect to the memory of Neville Wran AC, QC, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:09): by leave—I move:
That further statements by indulgence in relation to the death of the Honourable Neville Kenneth Wran AC QC be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Ramsay, Mr Paul Joseph, AO
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:09): Madam Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to acknowledge the passing of Paul Ramsay, the founder of the Ramsay Healthcare Group. Paul Ramsay founded a mighty business empire, but he never lost his soul. Fifty years ago, Paul Ramsay bought a small hospital in Mossman, in my electorate. Today the Ramsay Healthcare Group employs some 30,000 people in five countries and it treats almost 1½ million patients a year. Paul Ramsay was, in the words of our former Prime Minister John Howard at his funeral last week, was the very embodiment of ethical capitalism. He tried never to do a deal such that the person on the other side of the table would not want to come back for another one.
I was lucky enough to meet Paul Ramsay some 41 years ago. He was a friend of mine and a friend to many in this House on both sides of the chamber. Paul Ramsay was generous to many good causes, some very dear to my heart. But above all else he was generous to this nation of ours. His bequest of his shares in the Ramsay group to a charitable foundation is by far the biggest charitable gift in our country's history—almost $3½ billion given in perpetuity for good causes. This is philanthropy on an epic scale. I hope we see more of it in the years and the decades ahead.
To his brother, Peter, to his twin sister, Anne, to his brother-in-law, Brian, and to their families, on behalf of the government I offer deepest condolences. He will be missed, but the good that he did will live on, and I hope that his example will live on as an inspiration to many others.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:12): On indulgence, I wish to place on record the condolences of this side of the House to the friends and members of the family of Paul Ramsay AO, who passed away earlier this month. Mr Ramsay was born in Sydney. In 1964 he founded one of Sydney's first private psychiatric hospitals. Fifty years later, as the founder of Ramsay Healthcare, his name is synonymous with health care in Australia.
Mr Ramsay's contribution to Australia was not solely focused on health care. He served as the chairman of the Prime media group for 30 years and later in life was the chairman of the Sydney Football Club. Friends of Mr Ramsay talk about his huge heart. This is evident by his long relationship with charitable organisations. It was indeed his philanthropic work that played a major part in his being made an Officer of the Order of Australia, in 2002. Paul Ramsay was a great Australian businessman, a philanthropist and a member of our community. He will be missed by many. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER (14:13): In respect of the memory of Paul Ramsay, I would like to associate my own remarks with those of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Paul Ramsay is a man I knew for many decades, a man who was always a man of grace, a gentleman, and someone who genuinely cared about his fellow citizens. As a mark of respect to the memory of Paul Ramsay AO, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:14): I inform the House that the Treasurer is in the budget lockup and will be absent from question time today. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised the Australian people on the night before the last election: no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to the pension, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Will the Prime Minister repeat that promise now, and if not how can the Australian people trust anything this Prime Minister has to say?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:14): As everyone in this chamber and everyone viewing here and around the country knows, tonight we have a budget. It is a very, very important budget, which obviously represents the values of this government and the necessity for this government to repair the debt and deficit disaster that we were left by members opposite—by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, and his colleagues.
I want to assure the Labor Party and all the people of Australia that we will fix the debt and deficit disaster that we were left by the Labor Party, and we will do it in ways which are faithful to the commitments we made pre-election. Let me remind members opposite that every day during the election campaign I expressed the objectives of this coalition should we be a government—we would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax, we would build the roads of the 21st century and, above all else, we would bring the budget back under control. That is what this nation needs, and that is what we will deliver.
Budget
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government keeping its commitment to get the budget back under control?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:16): I thank the Member for Solomon for her question, and I can assure her and all members of this parliament that this is a government that will keep its commitments. The commitments we endlessly repeated before the election were to stop the boats, to scrap the carbon tax, to build the roads of the 21st century and to bring the budget back under control. These are the commitments we made, and these are the commitments we will honour. And isn't it so necessary that we get the budget back under control? What the Labor Party and members opposite did was to leave us a legacy of debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. It was inter-generational theft. That is what they left us—$123 billion in cumulative budget deficit and $667 billion in projected debt. This is the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. And members opposite knew they had a problem. That is why they went to the election promising $5 billion in spending cuts that they have walked away from. They have walked away from their own scant commitments to budget responsibility. The people of Australia did not elect us to make easy decisions; they elected us to make the tough decisions. They did not elect us to be cheapskate populists; they elected us to do what is necessary for our country, and we will.
Government members interjecting—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, a point of order: there is far too much cheering from those behind the Prime Minister, and it is difficult to hear.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business knows that that is not a point of order. The Prime Minister has the call, and we will not have a repeat performance.
Mr ABBOTT: The people of Australia understand that this country's fiscal position is simply unsustainable. Every month, this country is borrowing $1 billion—that is one thousand millions of dollars. Every single month, we are borrowing that just to pay the interest on our debt. We are borrowing to pay the interest on our borrowing. And as every single Australian out there in the real world knows, that is simply unsustainable, so we will tackle the problem. We will do it in ways that are consistent with our pre-election commitments, and we will do it in ways that set up this great country for the long term.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. The night before the last election, the Prime Minister promised, and I quote, 'no change to pensions'. Will the Prime Minister repeat his promise now, and, if not, how can the Australian people trust anything this Prime Minister says?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:20): Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: the most compassionate thing we can do for the pensioners of Australia is to make sure that the pension is sustainable for the long term. There will be no changes to pensions without an election first.
Infrastructure
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:21): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will investment in infrastructure help to achieve the government's goal to improve productivity and expand the economy? What legacy in road funding did the government inherit?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:21): I thank the Member for Flynn for his question. He knows and was part of a coalition campaign in which we committed as a government to deliver the roads for the 21st century. We undertook to build the roads and rail lines that would be necessary to build our nation's productivity and to secure our nation's future.
The legacy we inherited from the previous government was of course pretty disappointing, well short of their rhetoric. Indeed, if you think of the last two Labor budgets, they spent $2.6 billion and $3.5 billion on roads and rail. And, of course, when they left, many projects were behind schedule or had not even started. The reality is: their performance was abysmal. When they had an opportunity to actually do some things to build the infrastructure of the 21st century—the big spend that went into their response to the global financial crisis—they did not put the money into investments that would have generated real, long-term productive benefits. Instead, they built double-priced school halls, which have done nothing to improve education outcomes in our country; they disastrously installed roof insulation, and the royal commission is hearing all about that at the present time; and they engaged in a multitude of wasteful green schemes that did nothing to enhance our economy. They wasted billions. Labor often boasted about what they spent because they did not have much to boast about when it came to delivery. It was not a government of achievement; it was a government of expenditure. Indeed, just 14 per cent of the stimulus package spent in response to the global financial crisis was spent on productivity-enhancing infrastructure—just 14 per cent—and that minor, minor share continued to deteriorate.
Over the next couple of days, the Australian people are going to hear a lot about infrastructure, about plans for the future, about building the infrastructure that our country will need for the next century. Tonight the Treasurer will show how this government will deliver on its commitments to the Australian people to build the infrastructure that we need. That infrastructure will drive economic growth. It will slash travel times in our cities and create thousands of jobs to help build a productive future for our country.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the $20 billion of new infrastructure projects that was in the 2013 budget.
Leave not granted.
Road Infrastructure
Public Transport
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is a dollar invested from the Commonwealth in roads good but a dollar invested from the Commonwealth in public transport bad?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:25): I am delighted to see money being invested in public transport, and money being invested in urban rail systems should be invested by the state governments, which own and operate the urban rail systems. After tonight's budget, we will see far more opportunity for the state governments to invest in the public transport systems that they own and operate, to recycle assets from less productive to more productive assets, according to their choice. What we will see in this budget tonight is a record Commonwealth spend on infrastructure and the opportunity for the states to spend record amounts on infrastructure should they choose to do so. And don't we need it, because, thanks to neglect by state Labor governments and by the recent federal Labor government, there is an $80 billion infrastructure gap in this country. We did not create the problem, but we will take responsibility for fixing it—and the fixing starts tonight.
Budget
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:26): My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, representing the Treasurer. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the bill for interest repayments on the government's debt is around $1 billion a month. What impact does this have on the economy and how does it compare with the legacy that previous governments inherited?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:26): I must thank the honourable member for his question. He draws attention to an appalling statistic that will overhang tonight's budget and indeed our national economy for a decade, and that is the legacy of Labor's debt. The first $1 billion that this government, or future governments, will collect in tax every month will have to be spent on paying the interest on Labor's debt. It is $1 billion that perhaps could have built a major new hospital in every capital city. It would only take six months of this interest payment and we could finish building the whole of the Pacific Highway to four lanes. Indeed, if you go back to 1974, the whole Snowy Mountains scheme cost only $1 billion to build, in 1974 numbers. Now, in today's numbers, Australian people have to pay $1 billion every month just to pay the interest on Labor's debt.
If the Labor Party had their way, it would continue to get worse and worse. There will be savings tonight that some may not like. If we did not have to pay $1 billion in interest every month, then those savings might not have to be made. If we wanted to spend more on things of significance, if we did not have to pay that $1 billion every month on interest then there would be opportunities for us to do so much more. Labor's legacy, from six years in government, is a legacy of debt. They inherited record surpluses and turned them into record deficits, and they did it in their very first year. They took savings in the bank and turned surpluses into deficit. Labor delivered $191 billion worth of deficits in just their six years, and there would be $123 billion more in deficits in store if they were still in government.
Our task in government is to start restoring the national economy so that we can get rid of some of that debt, so that we can spend money on the things that Australians want rather than paying the debts of the disgraceful administration that was cast out of office at the last election. Unless we take action tonight, the gross debt will rise to $667 billion. That is a debt, for every Australian, of almost $25,000 per person. What a legacy Labor has left behind! Now it is our turn to have to correct, once again, the legacy of Labor's debt and deficit and to get our country moving forward once again.
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised the Australian people before the last election:
We are about reducing taxes, not increasing taxes. We are about getting rid of taxes, not imposing new taxes.
Will the Prime Minister repeat his promise now not to increase taxes and not to impose new taxes; and, if he cannot, how can the Australian people trust anything that this Prime Minister says?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:30): I am certainly happy to repeat that we are about getting rid of taxes. We want to start by getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to make keeping commitments his theme; why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to talk about keeping commitments while his senators prevent the government from keeping the most important commitment of all—the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax? Why won't this Leader of the Opposition allow this government to keep its commitment to abolish the carbon tax?
Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to the question of relevance. I asked a straight question: are you going to keep your promise not to increase taxes?
The SPEAKER: I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: We are going to honour our commitments. We are particularly going to honour our commitment to repeal the carbon tax. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he would have a lot more credibility on the subject of keeping commitments if his senators were not standing in the way of the repeal of the carbon tax and a $550 a year benefit to every household in this country. What a fraud this Leader of the Opposition is to talk about keeping commitments when his senators are standing in the way of this government keeping its commitments. Now, the Leader of the Opposition has asked, 'Is this government going to cut taxes?' Yes, this government is going to cut the tax burden. As a result of decisions that this government has taken, the tax burden will be $5.7 billion less—thanks to this government.
Budget
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:33): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Household electricity prices, over nine years of corporatisation, have soared from $860 to $2,100. Petrol prices, following the refusal to mandate ethanol, soar 50 per cent above prices in Brazil and America. Whilst having the world's cheapest land, Australia pays the world's highest housing prices. With farm incomes falling disastrously and food prices rising and rising, can he explain why these real issues are not being addressed in this budget?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:33): I thank the honourable member for Kennedy for his question. I acknowledge that many of the issues he raised in his question are important, they are important to our nation and they will be important in tonight's budget. If he can fit it into his busy schedule to actually be present this evening to hear the budget, he will hear a response to each of the particular issues he has raised.
The first question was in relation to household electricity pricing. In tonight's budget, you may not be surprised to hear, we intend to deliver the end of the carbon tax. The end of the carbon tax means lower electricity prices. It will make a difference to all Australians, and I trust that the member for Kennedy will join the members on this side of the House, when it comes to a vote or when it goes to a vote in the Senate, to make sure that the majority of the people in the House actually deliver those cheaper electricity promises that we will be committing to in tonight's budget.
The member for Kennedy referred also to the role of ethanol in the nation's fuel mix. We have been supportive of the ethanol industry in the past, and the budget tonight will be fair also to the ethanol industry. We are working very closely to ensure that our economy works efficiently, that we deliver better infrastructure—I might add, including in the member for Kennedy's electorate—and that will help to make our economy work better. That will give a better opportunity to our farmers also to be able to get their products to the market in the cheapest and most effective way.
Then the member spoke about the real challenges that farm incomes face. The Minister for Agriculture will be talking tonight about the fulfilment of our election commitments to the agricultural sector which will help build a better future for agriculture. In relation to so many of these issues about farm income, members will also be interested, in tonight's budget, to hear reports of the successful negotiation by the minister for trade of new free trade agreements with some of the best markets in the world—the markets that can deliver the best possible returns to Australian farmers.
So there will be good news in tonight's budget as well. There are some tough decisions that have to be made; but there is good news which will deliver real benefits to people who live in regional Australia and help ensure that our economy grows more strongly in the future.
Education Funding
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the government working to address poor results for Australian school students and what legacy did the minister inherit when coming to government in September last year?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:36): I thank the member for Macarthur for his question. I can tell him that we are addressing the poor results of Australian school students that we inherited from the previous government. We did it, to begin with, by putting the $1.2 billion back into the school funding model that the Leader of the Opposition took out in the dying days of the previous government. So that Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland would be treated fairly, we put $1.2 billion back into the school funding model, which means that we are actually putting more money into school education than Labor would have if they had been re-elected. We are also moving to address the key issues that affect the outcomes for students—parental engagement, teacher quality, a robust curriculum and more autonomy for principals—because the research indicates that they are the most important determinants of good outcomes for our school students, with the most important being teacher quality. I can assure the House that we are listening to the PISA results that were released last December, which showed that under Labor we recorded our worst ever results in all fields of science, maths and reading and that Australia under the previous government was ranked lower than it has ever been ranked for school results.
I was asked what we inherited. We inherited a litany of wasteful programs. The computers in schools program was supposed to cost $1 billion; it cost $2.4 billion—just pin money for the Labor Party and a mere accounting error. It was a $1.4 billion blow-out. It gets worse than that, Madam Speaker: under the Building the Education Revolution—everything under Labor had to have a historic name or be revolutionary and be the biggest ever—$16.4 billion was spent on school halls. There was no research to indicate that spending $16.4 billion on school halls would improve the outcomes for our students and yet the estimate is that between $6 billion and $8 billion of that money was wasted on overpriced school halls. The University of New England said:
The BER program basically ticks all the boxes of what not to do. From mismanaging massive amounts of taxpayers' money, delivering (or not delivering) infrastructure that fails to meet even the most basic tests of quality of usefulness…
That is the legacy of the previous government. We are moving to fix that. We are focusing on things that will improve the outcomes for students in tonight's budget and, best of all, we are putting the money back that Labor ripped out in the dying days of their government.
Education Funding
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. The government promised the Australian people before the election: 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.' Will the Prime Minister repeat his government's promise now? If not, how can the Australian people trust anything that he says?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:40): If it is a broken promise, it is only because we are spending more. We are putting back the $1.2 billion that members opposite, led by the now Leader of the Opposition, ripped out of the forward estimates in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement. There we are: they ripped off $1.2 billion and they ripped off Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will desist!
Mr ABBOTT: They are very touchy, Madam Speaker.
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the question referred not to overall funding but to specific individual schools and whether that promise will be repeated.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: We will end up spending more over the relevant forward estimates period than Labor because we put back in the $1.2 billion that Labor ripped out. This is a government which was elected to fix the debt and deficit disaster that we inherited, and fix it we will. It ill becomes members opposite to complain about the fire brigade when they are the fire. They are the fire; we will put it out.
Asylum Seekers
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I ask: what sustained effect has the government's strong border protection policies produced and what has been the reaction to this result?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:42): I thank the member for Casey for his question. This government is doing what we said we would do on our borders, and we are getting the results that we said we would get—results which those opposite and others said could not be achieved and which those opposite had given up on. We on this side of House knew in our bones that this could be done and that by applying the right policies in the right hands with the right resolve we would get this job done. And we are getting it done sustainably. For the last 20 weeks, 145 days, there has not been a single, successful maritime people-smuggling venture to Australia—not one.
The last two ministers from among those opposite could not manage a week without a successful people-smuggling venture. Over the same period of 20 weeks there were 135 such successful ventures under the previous government and there were 8,946 illegal arrivals over that period. We know what that cost in terms of lives lost, sadly. We know what the cost was to those who were denied visas, who had to wait because those opposite were handing out visas hand over fist to people arriving illegally by boat. We also know the cost to the budget was a blow-out of $11½ billion, and that was because of their border failures. Tonight's budget will save $2½ billion because of our border protection successes to date. That is what the taxpayer will be saved by getting it right on our borders. That will be achieved in addition to the savings from closing the detention centres that the previous government opened. They went on a 'building the detention centre revolution' when they were in government, and it was fuelled by their border failures. They opened them week after week, bed after bed, centre after centre. Well, we are closing them, and we are closing those centres whether they are in Inverbrackie or Darwin or Curtin—the Curtin centre that they opened and said they would never expand that they expanded to record levels.
I can understand why those opposite are embarrassed by their border failures and dare not speak about them. What I cannot understand is why they hold onto them so tightly. Why do they hold onto the policies that failed under their government and continue to reject the policies of this government, policies that are working? I have a message for them. It comes from the latest Disney movie, Frozen. They are frozen in time. The message is simply this: 'Let it go, Bill—those policies have failed and it is time to let them go.'
Budget
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised the Australian people before the election:
What you will get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.
Will the Prime Minister repeat his promise now? If not, how can the Australian people trust anything this Prime Minister says?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:45): People will see in the budget tonight that this is a government which has kept its commitments. This is a government which has kept its commitments. That is what people will see in the budget tonight. The most fundamental commitment of all was to get the budget back under control—to end the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. It ill becomes members opposite to keep talking about commitments when they are trying to stop us keeping the most fundamental commitment of all, the commitment to abolish the carbon tax and save the families of this country $550 every single year.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: If the Leader of the Opposition takes commitments seriously, what about allowing us to honour our commitment to end the carbon tax and to do the right thing by the people of Australia?
Superclinics
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (14:47): My question is for the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the West Melbourne GP superclinic, which was promised almost four years ago. Will the minister please provide an update to the House on the progress of this clinic?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest in health matters and providing health services to her electorate. There has been an important development in the GP superclinic program. I want to update the House and the Australian people on what is a very important outcome in the GP superclinic program, but I will come to that in just a moment.
This is a program which, along with the creation of 12 great big new bureaucracies in health, will be hanging around the necks of the Labor Party for a generation to come. This program was a complete, outrageous waste of taxpayers' money—$650 million was spent on the GP superclinic program. They only opened half the number they promised. Some of them are still vacant paddocks six or seven years later—not seeing a patient, not even having started construction. They were set up in competition—using money borrowed on behalf of taxpayers—with existing GP practices. That is how bad this policy was. They diverted money away from important health services and put it into this new health bureaucracy.
But let me come back to the major development. During the break, the Leader of the Opposition was with the shadow health minister at the opening of the West Melbourne GP superclinic—four years after it was promised, so in itself not a bad achievement!
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask you to draw the minister back to the question.
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call.
Mr DUTTON: So there was the Leader of the Opposition and there was the shadow health minister. They were at this grand opening of the West Melbourne GP superclinic. It had cost $15 million for that GP superclinic, which was set up to compete with other doctors' practices in the immediate region—not adding to doctor numbers or increasing the number of patient services to be provided. For $15 million, what did you get? For $15 million, surely you got some significant health services? One GP—just one GP for $15 million of borrowed money! This was after the Labor Party had run out of money and was borrowing money to pump into this program, a program which was going to compete with and cannibalise existing GP services.
Let me make this prediction: tonight we will reform the health system to make sure we strengthen Medicare going forward, to make sure we can put health—
Mr Dreyfus: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the minister should be asked to be directly relevant to the question. This has nothing to do with the question.
The SPEAKER: We have already had a point of order on relevance. Has the minister finished his answer?
Mr Dutton: I have.
Child Care
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:50): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. How does the coalition's approach to improving quality childcare outcomes improve upon the former government's Early Years Quality Fund? What steps has the minister taken to repair the legacy of the former government?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:51): I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I look forward to coming to his electorate in Brisbane to open the Mother Duck childcare centre in Wynnum next Monday. Last week I had the pleasure of announcing the largest ever government investment in the professional development of the long day care educators of this country—$200 million allocated to helping long day care services to meet the cost of upskilling to comply with new quality framework rules, to train educators, to backfill, to buy resources and to support our centres and our educators who work so hard.
Where did this money come from, you might ask? This money came from Labor's Early Years Quality Fund.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms LEY: That is right; the Early Years Quality Fund—the fund that was not about the early years, was not about quality but was in fact a slush fund used for union recruitment, something that was shut down after our independent inquiry found that that was exactly what it was. So I am pleased to report on our centres, particularly those in rural and regional areas and particularly when it comes to employing an early childhood teachers. The cost of that is high and we need to train our educators. We need to upskill our educators so that they can do the job they do with children, with the next generation. This is a fund that will help the entire sector, not just Labor's chosen few. Remember the Early Years Quality Fund—15 per cent: just one in six of every single educator across the country could ever have benefited.
This fund will help every single educator in long day care. It will not be first in, first served. It will not be signed off on in a flurry of secret deals with the union behind closed doors before it is announced just before the election. It will be open and transparent. In fact, fact sheets and details are on the website—something the previous minister could never do. She could never say what she was doing. She could never communicate with the Australian people. Most importantly, it will add to the quality of teaching, the quality of child care and the quality of early learning. Centres will be able to choose how they use the money. They will not be told what to do. They will be able to use it in a way that can best provide for their educators and for families and their children.
So I am very proud to be announcing this fund today. Applications open from next Monday, the 19th. I look forward, as the CEO of Mother Duck said, to greatly improving skills, to helping with the implementation of the quality framework and to positive outcomes for children.
Budget
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. In his budget reply last year, the Prime Minister promised the Australian people, 'No-one's personal tax will go up.' Will the Prime Minister repeat that promise now?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:54): As members opposite will discover soon enough tonight, this is a budget which keeps faith with the commitments that we have made to the Australian people, and the most fundamental commitment of all is to get the budget back under control. Let us not for a second—
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: it is a very clear question. It could be answered with a yes or no. It could be answered with a repetition of the promise that 'no-one's personal tax will go up'.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ABBOTT: The situation that this government finds itself in is that we are confronting debt and deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. I can understand why members opposite are upset about the fire brigade—because they are the fire. We did not create this problem, but the people elected us to fix it. That is what the people did, and fix it we will. And we will fix it in ways which are fair and faithful to the pre-election commitments that we made.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Braddon.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On previous occasions when government members have missed the call and we have had two in a row, you have then evened it up during question time. The same thing happened earlier in question time. We presume that the same process you followed for government members will be followed for the opposition.
The SPEAKER: What happened previously is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did miss the call in that she was not standing when the member was. There is a difficulty: the member for Braddon and the member for Ballarat were both standing, I have to be honest. I will give the call to the member for Ballarat.
Budget
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised the Australian people the night before the election: 'no cuts to health'. Now that Australians know that they will be paying a GP tax every time they visit the doctor, how can the Australian people trust anything this Prime Minister has to say?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:57): The important thing is to ensure that government makes the investments that are necessary to ensure that our health system is sustainable and that cures and treatments are better in the future than they have been in the past. I think there are some tough decisions about health in this budget. There certainly are some tough decisions about health in this budget, but what this budget does include is massive investment in better health for all Australians and for people around the world in the years and the decades to come.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: If the shadow minister is looking for good sense when it comes to health policy, she ought to talk to the shadow Assistant Treasurer—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: who certainly did make good sense on this issue in times past.
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will withdraw his comment earlier as unparliamentary.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: I withdraw.
Broadband
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (14:58): My question is to the Minister for Communications. I refer the minister to the recent state of the internet report that shows that Australian broadband is slow and expensive. What is the government doing to turn around the results of the former government's management of the NBN?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:58): I thank the honourable member for his question and note that, in his state of Tasmania, the Labor Party's utterly catastrophic mismanagement of the NBN had reached such a point that, months before the election, construction had completely ceased. Nothing was happening at all. Indeed, $7 billion was spent as at the time of the election and the project was less than three per cent complete.
The reason so many Australians have such inadequate broadband is that nothing was done by Labor other than to spend $7 billion and connect a handful of people in six years—six wasted years, which should have seen real action, real progress and people being upgraded to competitive speeds. Nothing happened while Labor talked about broadband. This was the most wasteful project of the Labor Party in government.
This is what we are doing: we are getting this project back on track. Already, more than twice as many Australians are actively connected to the fibre network today as were at the election. The rollout is accelerating. We have the project back on track in Tasmania.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will desist.
Mr TURNBULL: As far as affordability is concerned—and this is a vital issue because broadband in Australia is expensive relative to other countries; the honourable member's point is absolutely right—if Labor had been allowed to continue the project on their plans, Australians would have had to pay up to 80 per cent more of the already high prices in order to pay for what would have been a $73 billion project—$30 billion more than they told Australians it would cost.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Greenway will desist.
Mr TURNBULL: We will complete this project sooner and at considerably less cost. It will cost $32 billion less and it will be done sooner. The mix of technologies we will use are consistent with the approach being taken by major telcos—Deutsche Telekom, British Telecom, AT&T, Swisscom, Belgacom. The NBN today is being run for the first time by competent telecom professionals—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will desist.
Mr TURNBULL: a board of experienced people, and a chief executive who has actually built and run telecom networks.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: And it is being managed for the first time in a businesslike fashion. We cannot recover all of the years lost by Labor or many of the billions lost by Labor, but we are cleaning up the NBN mess as we are cleaning up the rest of Labor's mess.
Abbott Government
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told the Australian people before the election, 'It just isn't right that people should say one thing before an election to win votes and do the opposite after an election.' Did the Prime Minister deceive the Australian people in order to win votes at the last election?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. There will be silence on my left so that we can hear the answer.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:02): Members opposite, the Labor Party, will know everything that we have done and they will know all of the measures that we have taken to address the debt and deficit disaster that the Labor Party has left to this great nation of ours—they will know it all—at about 7.30 this evening. The Australian people will be able to make a judgement of us and the actions that we have taken to address the debt and deficit disaster that Labor has left us. But the Australian people know this: that no government can go on borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on the borrowings. No government can go on doing that. That is the unsustainable situation that this opposition—formerly the government—left us.
I, every day in the election campaign, was open and upfront with the Australian people. I said exactly what we were going to do. What we are going to do is get the budget back under control. We are going to get the budget back under control; that is what we were elected to do. And we will not let the Australian people down.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister that the carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the Australian economy in its first year of operation, with no meaningful reduction in emissions. Will the minister explain why the carbon tax must be repealed immediately?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I hope the member for Flinders was able to hear the question, because I had difficulty. Did he hear the question?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (15:04): I was able to hear. I would like to thank the member for McPherson, who has come to this place with a tremendously successful career in small business, and brought that to her judgement on these matters. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has today taken an interest in mandates, taxes and the cost of living—because it is a little bit overdue. If the Leader of the Opposition is interested in mandates, taxes and the cost of living, he can get the trifecta in one hit. That one hit is to repeal the carbon tax. You can repeal the carbon tax.
We have had all of this confected indignation today. 'I am terribly concerned,' says the Leader of the Opposition, 'about cost of living. And I am terribly concerned about taxes. And I am terribly concerned about mandates,' except when it comes to the carbon tax. So there is a way forward for the Leader of the Opposition. If he has any semblance of commitment to any of the concepts which he has suddenly discovered today, he can chat to his senators. Instead, what is happening at the moment is that he is telling his senators to stand in the way of a $7.6 billion—
Mr Albanese: I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about his government's policies—not the opposition's. If he wants to speak about the government's policies and taxes on carbon, he can talk about the petrol tax increase that is coming in tonight.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister has the call.
Mr HUNT: Our policy is to abolish the carbon tax; yours is to keep it. That is a pretty significant difference. We have here the confected indignation of 'Mr Mandate'. Now he is telling us that keeping mandates is so important. If it means anything, start with the central point on which this government were elected and allow us to abolish the carbon tax. This tax, as the member for McPherson set out, is a $7.6 billion hit on Australian industry and Australian families. If you are worried about families, worry about the $550 which you, the Leader of the Opposition, could relieve them of each and every year going forward. You could do that right now. Speak to your senators and, if you want to give us the passage to repeal them, we will bring back the carbon tax bills this week. Our policy is to repeal the carbon tax; your policy is to break your election commitment to terminate the carbon tax. Your policy is to stand in the way of our mandate to abolish the carbon tax. We can save Australian firms $7.6 billion. We can save Australian families $550 a year. We can reduce the cost of living. We can improve Australian competitiveness. All we need is for the Leader of the Opposition to give the word.
Abbott Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:08): My question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told the Australian people before the election:
I will keep my commitments. We will do exactly what we say we will do.
I ask again: did the Prime Minister deceive the Australian people at the last election in order to get their votes?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:09): The short answer is, no, of course we did not. We told the Australian people that we would tackle the debt and deficit disaster which the Labor Party created, which the Leader of the Opposition—the kingmaker, queenmaker and manipulator of the former government—created. That is what we said. We told the Australian people that we would tackle the debt and deficit disaster that the Labor Party left this country, that we would tackle the intergenerational theft that the Labor Party practised on the people of this country. That is what we said we would tackle, and we are up for it. We were not elected to make easy decisions; we were elected to make tough decisions. We were not elected to be populist; we were elected to do what is right and necessary for this country.
I will gladly submit the budget that the Treasurer of this country will bring down tonight to the judgement of the people of Australia, because the people of Australia will know that this is a government which is up for the challenges of the day. This is a government which is prepared to confront the big decisions that it faces. This is a government which is prepared to enable the Australian people to be as great as we can be. That means fixing up the debt and deficit disaster because, if you do not fix the budget, you cannot fix the economy. Without a strong economy, we cannot be the strong society that every Australian wants to live in. I am very, very confident that when the Australian people see the budget tonight there will be some things that they like and there will be other things that they do not like. But they will know that the adults are back in charge and that they have a government that is capable of rising to the challenges of these times.
BUSINESS
The SPEAKER (15:11): I would like to deal with some housekeeping arrangements for the budget speech tonight. I would like to remind members that the usual arrangements and courtesies will apply to the budget speech and equally on Thursday to 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. In accordance with precedent, if any action under standing order 94(a) is required it will be by a written note. I ask members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in time to undertake security clearance and be seated in the galleries in a timely way. I trust there will be cooperation from members and their guests in the galleries and that budget night and budget reply night will proceed smoothly for the benefit of the House and those watching and listening to proceedings.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 24 to 31 of 2013-14
The SPEAKER (15:12): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 24 to 31 for 2013-14.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:13): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
National Commission of Audit
The SPEAKER (15:13): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fraser proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's attempt to confect a budget emergency to justify the harsh measures in the Commission of Audit report.
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) (15:13): This morning I received an email from one of my constituents which read in part: 'I am 48 years old and unemployed. The fact that I have not been able to find another job makes life difficult but just manageable because my husband works. He is 52 years old and works for the federal government. He is very good at what he does but unfortunately the program he works with has been cut and he finds out today if his job has been cut.'
My constituent goes on to say that she has two teenage daughters in Catholic schools and has a mortgage on a small, three-bedroom house north of Canberra that has been refinanced a couple of times in the last few years and some credit card debt. All of this is manageable, my constituent writes, if her husband keeps his job. But then she says, 'If he loses his job, we have no option but to sell the house and count on the kindness of relatives and friends, or to live on the streets'. My constituent concludes, 'Cutting 16,000 Public Service jobs will destroy the economy in Canberra and destroy thousands of lives, including those of my family'.
My constituent is a battler, one of millions of battlers across Australia. But recent decades have been a time in which billionaires have made out far better than battlers. Earnings have grown three times as fast for those in the top 10 per cent as for those in the bottom 10 per cent. The income share of the top one per cent of Australians has doubled over the past generation. The income share of the top 0.1 per cent has tripled. It has been a generation that has been good to the cigar-chomping plutocrats and not so good, unfortunately, for low- and middle-income Australians.
And yet what have we seen since this government has come into office? We have seen a government that has ripped away supports for low- and middle-income families: targeted supports such as the schoolkids bonus, the income support bonus, the low incomes superannuation contribution—all taken away by this government. Equity funding from schools ripped away; trades training centres, which aim at keeping low-income students at school, taken away; and the very cleaners who clean the Prime Minister's office are going to likely see a pay cut as a result of decisions made by this government.
In an era in which the earnings of financial dealers and anaesthetists have risen so much more rapidly than the earnings of cleaners and checkout workers, we have a government whose No. 1 business adviser thinks that we have a wages problem—not the wages problem that CEO earnings have risen twice as fast as average earnings while the minimum wage has risen slower, but a wages problem that the minimum wage is too high. And we have a government that is going soft on the top end of town: saying no to modest measures to crack down on profit shifting by multinationals, giving back $700 million of revenue that now has to come out of the pockets of low- and middle-income Australians, giving a mining tax cut that will cost—well, do not take my word on this; let us go to the Treasurer's own budget papers—$1.8 billion in 2016-17. The result of that mining tax cut will see the benefits go to some of the richest people on the planet.
A government member interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: I have just told you, anonymous interjector, of the Treasurer's estimate. If you have a different idea on that, you should take it up with the Treasurer.
We have a government that wants to put in place a parental leave scheme that gives maybe $75,000, maybe $50,000 if they are going to strike a deal with the Greens, to the most affluent families when they have a child. It is a scheme that is at odds with the means-tested system of social supports that has been fundamental to Australia's social state.
Mr Hutchinson: It's not a welfare policy!
Dr LEIGH: I hear an interjector over there: 'It's not a welfare policy'. And that would sit with the government's policy document, which reads as follows:
… paid parental leave is an economic driver and should be a workforce entitlement …
In other words: for the most affluent Australian families it is, 'Welcome to the new age of entitlements.' So much for the government's rhetoric.
We will hear suggestions tonight that the Treasurer has suddenly become Robin Hood. Let us face it: even the Sheriff of Nottingham occasionally got the odd knight or dame offside, but this is not going to be a Robin Hood budget. This will be a budget that will slug the battlers and will help the billionaires. This is a government that wants to strip away financial protections from vulnerable Australians, which will have the effect of boosting earnings in the financial sector, I am sure, but if the government puts FOFA back on the agenda, it is going to hurt low-income Australians. It is going to hurt pensioners, the very victims of the Storm Financial collapse five years ago.
This hit on low- and middle-income Australia is going to reverberate in so many other areas too. The government claims to be committed to closing the gaps. You cannot close the Indigenous-non-Indigenous gap if your policy is to widen the economic gap in Australia. This government says that it is committed to closing the pay gap between men and women, but you cannot close the pay gap between men and women if your industrial policy is to attack unions and to make it impossible for unions to bargain to assist gender equity across the community.
I say to the Prime Minister: enough of the tribalism, enough with the class warfare; it is time to govern in the interests of all Australians. We have heard talk lately that the government wants to engage in means-testing. That would be news to those of us on this side of the House, who sat through six years in which the coalition in opposition opposed means-testing at every turn. We tried to put in modest changes to the baby bonus, and the Treasurer compared it to China's one-child policy. When we put in place modest means-testing to the private health insurance rebate, the now Minister for Health said that it 'represents a betrayal of the 12 million Australians who contribute to their own health care', and many coalition speakers decried means-testing the private health insurance rebate as class warfare. And on page 93 of Battlelines, the Prime Minister has criticised means testing itself.
This is a Prime Minister who has no deep philosophical commitment to means-testing. Let us be honest: he has very little intellectual commitment to anything. This is a Prime Minister who, after all, when talking about carbon pricing some years ago said, 'If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a simple tax?' And yet, in order to win the Liberal Party leadership, he was willing to backflip on that. This is a Prime Minister who promised Peter Reith that he would support him for the Liberal Party leadership and then backflipped and supported Alan Stockdale, with poor Mr Reith afterwards saying:
I honestly do not know, I really don't. But he certainly did ask me, and he did not just ask me, he asked people around him to join my campaign, as it were … I am a bit disappointed.'
Australians will be pretty disappointed by a Prime Minister who has said literally dozens of times, for example, 'What you will get under us are tax cuts without new taxes.' He said that there would be 'no new tax collection without an election'. He said, 'No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity,' and he said, 'Personal income tax will be lower under a coalition government in its first term than it is now.'
This is a Prime Minister who said in his budget reply just last year—the now Prime Minister was standing at this very dispatch box here—'No-one's personal tax will go up.' Let's see whether that holds up tonight. This is a Prime Minister who was pretty willing to have a go at our side of politics any time he thought that there had not been promises kept. In fact the Prime Minister in criticising former Prime Minister said:
I am not a doctor but I think that we are in the presence of a condition, a chronic condition, TDD, truth deficit disorder.
(Time expired)
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (15:23): I have got to say that, after listening to that 10 minutes, there is a little part of me that actually does want the member for Fraser to stay in the chamber. The thought that the member for Fraser might be shaping the minds of young Australians at some tertiary campus somewhere is so horrific that there is a soft spot that would like him to stay in the chamber. No-one takes him seriously, and that is just that side. We are even more dismissive than that side when it comes to the member for Fraser. I have got to say that would have to be one of the most pedestrian examples of an MPI that I have heard, and to think that this was the crescendo for the shadow Assistant Treasurer. Here we are on budget day, a chance to shine, and we had at best what would be considered an understudy's performance when it comes to actually making a contribution to economic debate.
The MPI before the House today was an attempt by the Labor Party to sledge whether or not Australia faces a budget emergency. I thought that there might be some argument from the Labor Party. They usually lead out in this debate talking about how the world's greatest Treasurer—as they like to refer to the member for Lilley—had obtained a AAA credit rating. I thought that might be one of the arguments that Labor would lead with, but they did not even mention it. What I find strange is the argument that Labor put forward, the one example they use to try to claim that Australia was in tiptop, perfect economic shape, which always neglects the starting point when Labor was elected. On any measure, if you look at what it was that the Labor Party inherited a little over six years ago, you will see Australia's financial position was that we had no net debt and that the Labor Party inherited a budget surplus of some $20 billion. In six short years the Australian Labor Party presided over budget deficits to the tune of $190 billion. They left us with a cumulative budget deficit forecast to be some $123 billion and on a pathway to projected debt of $667 billion.
Labor says there is nothing to worry about; there is no concern here; do not worry; things were never better. Unfortunately, that is not the view of anybody who is right in the brain, frankly. It is also not the view of the IMF. The IMF published an interesting publication about a month or so ago and in that publication they revealed that under the Australian Labor Party Australia had the fastest increase in expenditure of any government in the developed world. That was the finding of the IMF. It is entirely consistent with what we have been saying on this side of the chamber and when we were on that side of the chamber in opposition about Labor's performance.
The Labor Party like to say, 'Hang on, we were going to make sure that expenditure only grew at two per cent a year.' Great in theory, but unfortunately not the practice of the Australian Labor Party as they spent money hand over fist. Frankly, the only thing that exceeded Labor's ability to spend money was Labor's ability to borrow money. Today we are left with Labor's legacy—$123 billion of cumulative budget deficits, $667 billion of forecast Labor debt and a financial situation that, if left unchanged, would see the Australian people have deficit after deficit after deficit for 16 years.
So I say to the Australian Labor Party: don't sit there and pat yourselves on the back and claim that you did an outstanding job. You did nothing of the sort. The Australian Labor Party were beneficiaries of an economy that was handed over to them in tiptop shape. What they left were the smouldering ruins, figuratively, in terms of the kinds of decisions that they took in government which saw us have the biggest increase in expenditure by governments in the developed world. So the Australian Labor Party certainly cannot crow about their economic stewardship.
Unfortunately as well, when it comes to Labor's performance they have been left wanting in a number of different areas. It is not only in relation to debt and deficit; it is also in relation to their management when it came to the expenditure. We saw what they did on one occasion—on the back of an envelope, I think it was, in one of the VIP aircraft. The former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the former communications minister, Senator Conroy, were sitting back and on the back of a coaster—as I believe the accounts recall—they came up with a you-beaut idea to develop the NBN. We remember the NBN because originally it was going to be about an $8 billion exercise to provide high-speed broadband. Then that was scaled up to being about $14 billion or $15 billion and then we saw projections of $29 billion. We understand, when you look at the costs of Labor's rollout—how slow it was, how many targets were missed, how many inefficiencies were built into the system, how many disputes there were with contractors—that we saw the actual cost of Labor's NBN rollout forecast to reach over $90 billion. I see in recent media reports that Telstra on their 4G wireless communications network are providing speeds of—you guessed it—100 gigabytes.
Mr Watts: You're rewriting the laws of physics!
A government member: A hundred megabytes.
Mr CIOBO: Up to 100 megabytes, I am corrected.
A government member: Megabits.
Mr CIOBO: Megabits. I have not rewritten the laws of physics at all, actually. The reality is that, when it comes to commercially viable opportunities, there are download speeds the private sector provides on wireless communications today that are comparable with what Labor wanted to do with over $90 billion of taxpayers' funds. So we see forecasts as well that predict under 4G and possibly the 5G network that is currently in the R&D stage download speeds of up to one gigabyte and not at a cost of some $90 billion of taxpayers' funds. This is just another example of the way in which Labor was recklessly spending people's money.
But, of course, in the current climate let's not lose sight of an inquiry that is currently taking place into the pink batts fiasco. If there is one example, one crowning glory of Labor incompetence—and there is a lot to choose from—it is the pink batts scheme. It was Labor's design again, Labor's rollout. In every respect Labor's DNA and fingerprints were all over the pink batts scheme, where we saw billions of dollars wasted to roll them out and then billions of dollars wasted to get them back out of ceilings. Meanwhile, lives were lost, the industry was destroyed and Labor walked away as if nothing ever happened. In that respect, the Australian Labor Party will stand condemned for many years.
It was not just about the fact that they took a strong economy and in many respects left it bruised, bashed and dented. It is not about the fact that Labor inherited $20 billion surpluses and left the Australian people with $50 billion deficits. It is not about the fact in isolation that Labor took a situation where we had no net debt and put us on a pathway to $667 billion worth of debt. It is also not exclusively about the fact that Labor put us on a pathway for 16 years of budget deficits. It is also that Labor, in spending the money, chose to spend it so poorly—so much so that we have today an inquiry taking place as to why, unfortunately, Australians lost their lives under their stewardship and why billions of dollars were wasted.
But the other key example—the other crowning glory of Labor's incompetence—would have to be their approach to Australia's border protection. There is very little that can be said in any way, shape or form that would characterise Labor's decisions around border protection as being positive. Under Labor we saw a situation where over 50,000 people came to Australia on over 700 boats. Over 1,000 lives were lost at sea, and Labor said they were brilliant when it came to economic stewardship and management of policy.
That is just the latest example where in a relatively short eight months the minister responsible, the member for Cook, has done an outstanding job stopping the boats, delivering on our promise and, when it comes to economics, saving Australian taxpayers billions of dollars as a consequence of our ability to have a backbone and make the tough decisions. Tonight will be further evidence that we are a mature, adult government with a methodical approach and that will make the hard decisions.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (15:34): I actually rise to speak on the MPI, which was about a budget emergency. I got waylaid and got to hear the member for Moncrieff for 10 minutes talk about the usual three speeches he makes; however, it was a bit unfortunate, because obviously there is going to be a ministerial vacancy coming up, and I always go for the Queenslander when it comes to any vacancies! With respect to the member for Kooyong, I always want to plump for the Queenslander, but after that speech getting on his CV I just cannot believe the member for Moncrieff let me down like that. But, nevertheless, best of luck: if that is the start of your job application, you've got a lot of work to do. Opportunity rich, I think we say, Steven!
Mr Ciobo: Look where you're sitting!
Mr PERRETT: Good point! But nevertheless, let's go back to the budget emergency. We heard that speech. This is the no-surprises government, remember? The member for Moncrieff is a member of the no-surprises government and the no-new-taxes government. This MPI is important because obviously we need to see it through that prism. There is no budget emergency. There are impediments coming in the future with an ageing Australian community, but that does not mean an emergency. The fact that I will be looking for a retirement home in 20 or 30 years does not mean that I call the ambulance today. There will be issues in the future. There are obviously some challenges, but a prudent, adult government would recognise that rather than confecting this thing called a 'budget emergency'.
I still see that footage—and I have seen it a lot the past couple of days—of the Prime Minister saying they will be the government of no surprises. It is funny, but every time I see him say that I hear the theme music from Jaws because that is what Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, the member for Warringah reminds me of—no surprises like the movie Jaws. That shark is coming, we know; it is coming along tonight. The member for Warringah is really the poor man's political Steven Spielberg with basically the same storyline, and tonight he has created—or tried to create—this budget emergency as if to cloak what they are doing. The member for Moncrieff mentioned things being in a party's DNA in his speech, and we have seen it in the LNP. I have no problem with the member for Moncrieff. He knows sharks very well; he has sharks in his electorate on both sides of the beach. However, sharks do what they do, what they are programmed to do and what is in their DNA, and that is what the LNP are programmed to do as well. They cut health services, they neglect education and they attack pensioners and even people with disabilities. It is sad to say.
I mention this because the member for Moncrieff did mention an IMF report, but he mentioned the most recent one, not the one before that talked about the Howard government, which was basically the front bench opposite repeated. The Howard government was the most profligate government in the history of Australia.
Government members interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: I know you are laughing at the Howard government history, but that is the reality. If we wanted to sell every asset, obviously, we would have been in a much strong position.
Government members interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: You laugh, but look at what actually happened. Let us look at those realities. Under the Rudd-Gillard government we were a lower-taxing government. As a member of the Left, I am a little bit confronted by that, because I think good, responsible governments should be able to tax to provide responsible services. Under the ALP, we taxed at 22.5 per cent, whereas the Howard government taxed across its history at 25 per cent. Many of those opposite on the front bench were part of that drunken sailor collective that did so much damage to Australia.
Admittedly, in hindsight we embraced a lot of tax cuts in 2007 that perhaps we should not have. As a candidate at the time, I thought it was good policy—in hindsight, not so much. The reality is that we have a budget that is manageable and in a good, strong position. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (15:39): A book entitled Disconnected has been described as:
A forensic examination of Australian life, this insightful book suggests that contemporary society has lost touch with its communities and its people.
It was written in 2010 by the author of this matter of public importance, none other than the member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh.
Mr Hartsuyker: I hope you didn't pay for the book!
Mr McCORMACK: I did not pay for the book; I googled it, Member for Cowper, and found it on Google. The subject of that book and the title of that book, Disconnected, is exactly what I am afraid the member for Fraser is with this MPI, which is about:
The Government's attempt to confect a Budget emergency to justify the harsh measures in the Commission of Audit report.
He knows that the Commission of Audit is a report for government, not a report by government. And he knows, being an economist and having spent the last three years in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the absolute fiscal emergency that we have been placed in by that government, of which he was a member.
When they came back to office in 2007, Labor inherited a surplus of $20 billion with no net debt and $45 billion in the bank. It was a good position, but between 2008-09 and 2012-13 Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. Despite all this, not that long ago I heard the member for Fraser say that had things been left to go unchecked by our side—by our government—we would be back in surplus by the year 2016-17. He made that point. How disconnected is the member for Fraser? How disconnected is he from the state of the economy? He knows that Labor left additional projected deficits of $123 billion over the next four years—2013-14 to 2016-17—when he claimed that we would be getting back into surplus. Over six budgets, Labor increased spending by more than 50 per cent—$137,000 million. The International Monetary Fund, as the member for Moncrieff quite correctly pointed out, recently found that Australia's spending is projected to grow faster than any of the 17 advanced economies it profiled.
Labor's waste and mismanagement knew no bounds—a cost blow-out of at least $29 billion with the National Broadband Network. How much would it have cost? Seventy-four billion dollars? Who would know? There was a blow-out of more than $11 billion in border protection costs. When Labor inherited office under Mr Rudd, there were just four adult males in detention centres in Australia. When we regained control of government, 55,000 men, women and children had unfortunately come to these shores in 800 boats, costing more than $11½ billion. That is straight off the bottom line of this country.
There was a $6 billion to $8 billion blow-out in the cost of overpriced school halls. Admittedly, there were some school hall projects in my electorate which have proven to be very good, but they were managed by the independent schools. The ones for the public schools were absolutely ripped off, and public school teachers tell me this. Every time I visit a public school, they point to how they were not allowed to manage their own project and what they could have possibly done with the money had they been able to do so. Stimulus cheques of $900 were sent to around 27,000 Australians living overseas and 21,000 people who had died.
Treasury projects that without policy change the budget would have been in deficit for the next decade. This would mean 16 unbroken years of deficits unless brought under control by the Liberal-National coalition, which is what we are doing, and it starts tonight. The adults are back in charge. As Tony Abbott, the now Prime Minister, promised prior to the election, we would get the economy back on track and the absolute confidence of the people to do that. People have been ringing and telling us, 'Don't squib it.' They want us to get in and make the hard decisions on behalf of the people and on behalf of the taxpayers of this nation, who deserve better. They deserved better over the last six years; they did not get it, but they will certainly get it under the Abbott-Truss Liberal-National government.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:44): It is of course a pleasure to stand here before the parliament to help to debunk the myth that there is a budget emergency. There is no budget emergency despite what those opposite have tried to convince the Australian public to justify their ideological attacks on public services in this country. Despite the rhetoric from the Liberals and Nationals, Australia's economy is the envy of the world. We have a record of continuous economic growth over the last 22 years that is to be acknowledged and celebrated.
During Labor's period of office we moved from being the 15th biggest economy in the world to being the 12th. Our GDP per capita ranking moved from being the 17th best in the world to the eighth best. We have a AAA credit rating from the three main ratings agencies, and we maintained it through the global financial crisis. By the time we left office we were one of only eight countries in the world that had these three AAA credit ratings with a stable outlook. According to Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report, in 2013 Australia was number one in the world for median adult wealth. Our net debt is just 11 per cent of GDP. It is the third lowest net debt in the OECD, and yet the Liberal-National Party carry on as if there is a budget emergency.
Let us talk about the figures in MYEFO—$68 billion added by the Treasurer since the pre-election fiscal outlook. What did the Treasurer do? He looked at the way unemployment was being calculated and forecasted and he changed the way unemployment was being forecasted, even though they were the same forecasting arrangements that had been in place under the Howard government. What did changing the forecasts for unemployment do? It hit revenue and, of course, it hit spending.
What else have we seen from this Treasurer? Removing the two per cent spending cap. After the global financial crisis Labor maintained its spending cap. We kept spending growth to below two per cent after the global financial crisis. As the shadow Treasurer has said, it is a two-card trick—you take away the two per cent spending cap in MYEFO and you put it back on in the budget and claim to have improved the deficit position. People are not going to fall for that.
What else have we seen from this government? The trick they are trying to play on the Australian people in the way that foreign aid was calculated and projected to grow under MYEFO. They have admitted in question time, in this place, that they had no intention of spending that money on foreign aid. Of course people are right to be dubious about MYEFO; people are right to be dubious about the $68 billion that the Treasurer has added to the deficit over the forward estimates. Why should people be sceptical? Because we are being softened up for cuts to services that are ideological.
This mob opposite us have wanted to get rid of Medicare since before its inception. We celebrated 30 years of Medicare this year. If it was not for the Liberals and the Nationals it would have been 40 years of Medicare. They have always hated universal health care. They have always hated spending Australians' money on making sure there is universal access to health care. That is why tonight we will see the shameful end of universal health care in this country with the introduction of a GP tax. When I was running in the Griffith by-election only a matter of months ago I was accused by people opposite of running a scare campaign about the GP tax. We had everybody from the foreign minister to the Prime Minister swanning in to Griffith to say, 'We've got no plans for a GP tax.' Yet here we are, a few short months later, and what are we expecting tonight? What do you think it is? Is it a GP tax? It is a GP tax. It is the end of universal health care in this country.
The people opposite, the Liberals and Nationals, have always hated Medicare and universal health care. People in the electorate of Griffith who I represent and people across Australia love universal health care; they love Medicare because it is one of the defining achievements of our social democracy in Australia. If, as predicted, a GP tax is included in tonight's budget then the Liberals and the Nationals will understand very quickly how people feel about that change to Medicare. They will understand very quickly the backlash to the GP tax, not to mention the petrol tax, the personal tax increase, the failure to fund education as they had promised—the broken promises from a Prime Minister who claimed he would have no excuses. (Time expired)
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (15:49): Here we are again on budget day witnessing more Labor denial. We are all forgiven on this side for thinking we have just heard three speeches much the same. When you analyse them, the member for Fraser was a bit different from the member for Moreton. I think the member for Fraser knows that Labor has a big apology to make to the Australian people and he is not quite comfortable with that fact. He very carefully managed to not mention any of the things he has advocated in a previous life that might reform some of the structure of the budget. With the member for Moreton, on the other hand, I think the Labor brainwashing machine has done a pretty complete job. I think he actually believes everything he said. He said he was confounded by a few things. We would say he is confounded by most things. That is what we say; that is our experience. It falls to the coalition government—here we are again—on the first budget of a coalition government to clean up Labor's mess. Peter Costello stood here in 1996 and began the clean-up: $96 billion of debt, a $10 billion budget black hole—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr TONY SMITH: You might learn something if you listen. You did not learn much with Conroy. You are new, you have got a chance.
There was $96 billion and a $10 billion budget deficit that had been promised as a surplus right through the campaign, and what did we get from Labor? No apologies, no concession and they fought every step of the way to fix the mess they had created. They created the chaos and then they complained about the clean-up. What happened when they won in 2007? No net debt, a $20 billion budget surplus and Wayne Swan came in on budget night six years ago and said the surplus was not big enough. The skyscraper should have had another floor on it. In his budget speech six years ago he said: 'We've honoured our commitment to deliver a budget surplus of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP and gone further to a budget surplus of 1.8 per cent. The previous government forecast a surplus of only 1.2 per cent for 2008 and 2009.' As all of those opposite know, and most of them were complicit in it, they wrecked the budget. I will tell you what the member for Fraser did not mention while speaking for 10 minutes on an MPI—and this is a first for any shadow economic minister on budget day: he failed to mention debt or deficit once, not once. You sat there through that government, complicit in the fiscal mess that was created.
The member for Moreton we give a leave pass to. We accept that he did not know what he was doing. We absolutely accept that. But you knew what you were doing, Member for Fraser—$123 billion of deficit into the future and $667 billion of debt. And what does Labor say today? The member for Moreton says nothing ever happened and the member for Fraser does not mention it. Just keep on keeping on—that is the Labor way. Stay on the debt train. And then you have the member for Griffith, who, unfortunately, has been given some talking points about OECD figures, as if we would aspire to OECD debt figures. How ridiculous! As if we would aspire to OECD debt figures. In other words, you see OECD debt figures as a target. This is an incredible proposition we face on budget day.
What is clear for the people of Australia is that Labor will not apologise and Labor will not do anything to clean up the mess that they have created. It falls to a coalition government; it is our historic duty to clean up Labor's mess. We are going to have to do it again, and we are doing it again so that we can have a stronger economy and a better future for all of our constituents.
For those opposite on budget day, here they are—no mention of debt or deficit. Now the member for Fraser is typing an op-ed on inequality or something.
Dr Leigh: I just got bored, mate!
Mr TONY SMITH: You just got bored, did you? I tell you what, I will finish on this note: maybe it was the shadow Treasurer's idea to keep you out of the lockup as long as he could.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (15:54): I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance raised by the member for Fraser. What we have seen since the last federal election is one of the great con jobs in Australian political history. The coalition's so-called budget emergency is a smoke-and-mirror show to provide political cover for an extreme, ideologically driven attack on the Australian way of life. The 'budget emergency' is the big lie that underpins the coalition's economic strategy. It is the big distortion, the big confection, the big fib, the big falsehood and the big untruth at the core of the coalition's extreme and out-of-touch agenda for Australia.
By any objective measure, the previous Labor government left Australia with a strong and stable fiscal outlook. Our budget position is the envy of the advanced world. Labor left Australia with a triple-A credit rating and a stable outlook from all three ratings agencies. Australia is one of only 10 economies in the world with three triple-A ratings, putting Australia's credit rating in the company of nations like Germany, Canada, Sweden, Singapore and Switzerland. In 2013-14, Australia's net government debt is just $191.5 billion, or just 12.1 per cent of Australian GDP—a level of net debt that is not even one-sixth of the advanced economy average of 74.7 per cent of GDP recorded by the International Monetary Fund. The data just does not support the drama from those on the other side of the House.
What is the real root of the fiscal hysteria that we see from those opposite? It is nothing more than base political opportunism. During the global financial crisis, when millions of jobs were being lost in economies around the world, the coalition put their extreme ideology ahead of the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians. They opposed the job-saving fiscal stimulus introduced by the Labor government in 2008-09—an economic policy described by Nobel prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz as one of the 'best designed' stimulus packages of any advanced economy.
But how does one justify this extreme ideological position to the Australian public? Parroting the words of their conservative allies in the United States and the United Kingdom, the coalition imported a political attack from countries with vastly different fiscal situations than our own. Unfortunately, the facts in Australia never match their imported political rhetoric. While the deficit in Australia grew to $54.5 billion, or 4.2 per cent of GDP, in 2009-10 in the wake of Labor's job-saving fiscal stimulus, it never even reached half the average deficit of advanced economies during this time. Similarly, as the global financial crisis passed, Labor dramatically reined in the deficit, reducing it to just $18.8 billion in our last full year in office, or just 1.2 per cent of GDP—less than one-fourth of the international advanced economy average of 4.9 per cent. Labor continued this budget discipline by deciding on over $180 billion in responsible savings to fund investments in hospitals, schools and the NDIS, which, at the time, those opposite claimed to support. This was fiscal discipline, I might add, that was consistently opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and it also included means testing the private health insurance rebate—a saving that is still not supported by those opposite. A set of long-term structural savings was delivered by Labor that left the budget cumulatively better off by over $300 billion by 2020-21.
Of course, none of these facts suited the coalition's narrative, so after those opposite entered government they needed to start changing the fiscal facts to meet their budget confections. The Treasurer set to work moving the goalposts. In the six months after the federal election, the Treasurer made a series of decisions designed to double the budget deficit. A combination of their own spending decisions and changed economic assumptions, or what a layman might call 'cooking the books', added $68 billion to the budget deficit in this period of time. And now they are trying to frame up the Australian Labor Party as being responsible. If this were just a matter of political game playing, it would be one thing, but the real reason for this fiscal hysteria—
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! Those on my right!
Mr WATTS: The real reason for what has happened is that the Prime Minister is trying fit up the Australian people for a hairshirt. Despite promising no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no changes to the pension before the election, we finally saw Tony Abbott's true agenda when his Commission of Audit report was released. It is no surprise that he held back the release of this report until after the WA Senate election. It is no surprise that he did not tell voters about his extreme ideological agenda before the last federal election.
Mr Whiteley: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like him to provide evidence that he is being framed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order and it is verging on being disorderly.
Mr WATTS: I can understand the sensitivity from those opposite. It is no surprise that they did not tell voters about their real plans for Australia. They knew that the Australian public would not have a bar of it if they knew about it. The Australian people did not vote for this and they do not want it, and at the next election we are going to hold the government to account.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (15:59): The approaching budget has flushed out a whole new breed of politicians and commentators—the debt and deficit deniers. Unflustered by the facts, impervious to any crisis and unwilling to listen to their opponents, their ranks are bolstered by disaffected types who simply want the government to keep spending on their latest cause. In these circles it is completely unfashionable to recognise the need to stop spending. Labor already suffers from this disease and I fear that the crossbenchers in this House and in the other place will soon catch it. Almost two weeks ago I took part in a regular panel on ABC radio with the member for Fraser, the shadow assistant treasurer. I was stunned to hear him argue that we are in fine shape. On ABC's Lateline on the very same day he went on to say that, when you look around the world, Australia's public finances are in extraordinarily good shape. The member for Fraser knows better. As a newly-minted politician I understand the opportunism of his position. When I survey my constituents, which I do constantly, I find that cost of living, health and immigration often trump debt. If I were just looking for votes I would look to the extraordinary precedent set by European politicians‑just keep spending until you are bankrupt.
A day is a long time in politics so why worry about a deep impending crisis which can be hidden from mainstream voters by opportunistic spin merchants? The debt deniers' approach has evolved over time. When in government Wayne Swan gave lip service to fixing the problem. With a hopelessly flawed mining tax as his main weapon he was never going to deliver. Due to the relative freedom of opposition, lip service has now given way to full-blown denial aided and abetted by partisan loyalists in the economics profession. It is always easy to present a couple of facts to whisk the problem away. In the great tradition of our national broadcaster it is time for a more comprehensive fact check. It may be true that we are currently in a better position than many other countries in terms of the ratio of public debt to GDP but we should take no comfort in comparisons with Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and other economic basket cases. With mining investment growing from next to nothing only years earlier to now be topping more than $100 billion, close to 10 per cent of GDP, and the strongest terms of trade for 150 years we should have a strong starting position, but we do not.
The Commission of Audit has made the gravity of the situation clear. Our biggest spending programs, roughly half the budget, are set to grow much faster than GDP for decades to come and Labor has made no attempt to curb the trajectory. Their promises on aged care, education, disability and pensions, particularly those promises made beyond scrutiny of the forward estimates, entrench totally unsustainable spending growth. These expenditures are driven by demographics—and demographics is, of course, destiny. All of this adds up to the fastest rate of growth of expenditure amongst all developed countries recently surveyed by the IMF. Meanwhile, Australians have amongst the highest level of household debt in the developed world, at over $1.5 trillion. Since the early 1990s, our mortgages and credit card debt have grown much faster than the overall economy. This creates a level of vulnerability to rising government debt for Australian families, businesses and workers through upward pressure on interest rates, crowding out of private sector jobs and a reduction in the government's ammunition to deal with a global downturn.
It was irresponsible to run large budget deficits during a mining boom with skyrocketing household debt. However, leaving the problem for another day would be a huge threat to the prosperity of those households with high debt burdens, many of whom are in my electorate, and to the prosperity of all those businesses which rely on those households for their prosperity. We are falling off a fiscal cliff and we still have a long way to fall. The debt and deficit deniers are screaming that it is all okay because we have not yet hit the bottom. I suggest that they look down to see the bodies sprawled below, mostly European. (Time expired)
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:04): This important discussion goes right to the heart of the falsehood that is being peddled by those on the other side of the House. It sits at the heart of the debate about the budget. Over the past weeks we have heard some ridiculous claims made by those on the other side of the House as they go around Australia. You get the feeling that the Treasurer believes if he repeats that we have a budget emergency frequently enough and loudly enough then it will start to come true. There is a problem, though. The facts do not support the statement. Let us turn to some of these facts.
As previous speakers have mentioned, we have a public debt to GDP ratio in Australia of somewhere around 20 per cent, about a fifth of GDP. The member for Casey asked who do we want to compare ourselves to. Is the OECD the right spot to put the bar? Let us take a look at those who have AAA credit ratings. Australia is one of 13 countries around the world which has a AAA credit rating. By my list Australia has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of all countries with a AAA credit rating. I have not worked out the average myself, but by eyeballing this list I would say the average debt to GDP ratio is about 55 per cent, so we are sitting at just under a half of the debt to GDP ratio for all those countries with a AAA credit rating. You do not have to take my word for it because, as is becoming quite apparent, we are struggling to find a serious economist in Australia who will stand behind some of the fatuous claims made by the government. Even Tony Shepherd, who produced the infamous Commission of Audit report, would not state that Australia is in a budget emergency. The only people who are making this claim are those who are sitting on the other side of the House.
Given all this evidence, why do we see all the rhetoric? We have heard some very interesting views from this side of the House speculating on what they are trying to do. I have been thinking about this for a few weeks and I have my own theory. I think what we are seeing on the other side of the House is what economist Paul Krugman has called a very serious person syndrome. This syndrome occurs when right-wing politicians want to get up and create some sort of crisis. They get really serious and really tough on the topic to show off a professional veneer. The problem is, as we have just talked about, the facts just do not support it. I do not like the politics but I think you have to admire the moxie, given how far away from the facts they are.
There is another problem with the rhetoric that is being spun on the other side of the House—that is, the government decisions that are being made simply do not line up with this idea that we are heading into a huge fiscal crisis. What we have seen in the announcements that the Treasurer has made so far are some massive new areas of spending going to some of the wealthiest people in our community. One of the examples that I know we will hear more about is the paid parental leave scheme, which will give somewhere between $50,000 and $75,000 to some of the richest women in the whole of Australia. This scheme is going to cost $5.5 billion a year. That is about as much as the whole amount of federal spending on child care. If you go out and talk to the mothers of Australia about what they would prefer investment in, I think we all know what the answer will be.
Something else I want to talk about is the government's attempt to abolish carbon pricing and in its place create this taxpayer-funded slush fund that will pay the companies which are the biggest polluters in Australia to try to cut down carbon emissions—a scheme which we know is not even going to help Australia meet its carbon goals.
What we see along with these massive areas of spending are some significant areas of cuts. The cuts, as we have come to expect from those on the other side of the House, are affecting the Australians that can least afford to pay. I am talking about a tax on people who are sick. I have been doing mobile offices during the sitting break, and I am sure that you guys have had this experience: constituents have been coming up to me and they have been so afraid; these are people who have illnesses and just cannot afford to pay $6 every time they go to the doctor. I know that those on the other side of the House tend to represent electorates where there may be fewer people in this situation, but I can tell you that the constituents of Hotham are incredibly concerned about things that will tax people who might be sick.
All the while, we have these very serious people on the other side of the House paying $140,000 for a private jet to bring them to Canberra and having a lovely time sitting in the parliamentary courtyard puffing on Cubans. I would just say to those on the other side of the House that it might be time to stop trying to pretend you are so serious and tough, get real with the facts and start listening to those on the other side of the House who actually have some experience and understanding of economics.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:09): The members opposite have accused this government of overdramatising our nation's situation. These allegations seem a little rich coming from the party so famous for drama. Labor's long-running soap opera confused and captivated voters over six long seasons, starring Kevin and Julia, then Julia and Kevin, and finally, back by popular demand, a solo act by Kevin.
For Labor to suggest that a deficit nearing $667 billion is overdramatised shows that clearly they have moved from drama to comedy, but this is no laughing matter. So let us cut the drama. Let us set aside the opposition's rhetoric for a moment and address the facts. Let us revisit Labor's legacy, to examine where we are today. Unfortunately for Labor, the facts are pretty damning. In their first year in government, Labor delivered a budget deficit of $27 billion. In the very next year, the deficit had blown out to $54.5 billion. In five budgets between 2008 and 2013, Labor delivered $191 billion of budget deficits and $123 billion of accumulated deficits over the forward estimates.
The facts are clear: when they came into office, Labor inherited a surplus of $20 billion, with no net debt and $45 billion in the bank. By the end of their six-year spiral of spending, they left Australians with a dizzying legacy of projected debt, the product of structural spending measures which promised to take us on a road into the red to $667 billion by 2023.
So, before the opposition accuse us of overdramatising the very real deficit they have left behind, I would ask them to check the facts. If they really see the numbers as not a big problem, they deserve to stay in opposition for a very long time, because it is going to take a very long time to fix their mess. When they were in office, Labor's best financial minds behaved like rich kids playing with daddy's credit card. They threw money at pink batts and school halls and committed to an NBN spend that, ironically, has blown out into the clouds. Their total disregard for fiscal responsibility has led us to where we are today.
Today's deficit is not of our doing, but it will be our undoing if we fail to respond to it. That is why tonight this government will deliver a budget to put our nation back on track and pay down the debt. This budget represents the first steps towards delivering our promise to the Australian people. Labor may accuse us of confecting a budget emergency but, while they streak through the halls of parliament offering a lot of rhetoric but no plans to address the debt, we on this side of the House have started the difficult task of making the hard decisions they did not have the fortitude to make. We have looked closely at the facts, rolled up our sleeves and come up with a plan to restore the budget to surplus.
Labor have levelled another attack against this government in the lead-up to tonight's budget. They say we have somehow broken our election promise to be a government of lower taxes by promising a levy on high-income earners. So, again, I propose that we take a look at the facts. Tony Abbott has been faithful to his low-tax mandate. Tonight's budget will outline our plans to relieve taxpayers of billions of dollars in tax burden by reducing taxes in many areas across the budget. This government is asking everybody to do their share of the lifting to fix Labor's mess. The levy is an appeal to those who are fortunate enough to earn a high income to get Australia back on track. This levy is about making sure responsibility for the heavy lifting is shared fairly, and it is time that those opposite stopped making mischief on this proposed policy to pay back the debt.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The discussion is now concluded.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (16:14): 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 and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2014-15, and also for leave to present a copy of my statement.
Leave granted.
Dr SOUTHCOTT: As the committee responsible for parliamentary oversight of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the draft budget estimates for each office, with the chair making recommendations to both houses of parliament. Therefore, on budget day each year, the committee makes a statement on whether, in its opinion, these offices have been given sufficient funding to carry out their respective mandates. In support of this process, both the PBO and the ANAO are empowered through their respective legislation to disclose their draft budget estimates to the committee, which the committee then considers in making any representations to government and the two houses.
In accordance with the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, the committee received a copy of the PBO's draft budget estimates in February 2014 and subsequently received an update from the Parliamentary Budget Officer identifying revisions to his estimates. The PBO has had a small level of additional savings allocated to it, due to an increase in the annual efficiency dividend, reducing its appropriation over the budget and forward estimates by $162,000. The PBO's total revenue from government will be $7.263 million in 2014-15.
As a small agency, the PBO has developed an efficient operating model through necessity. The committee will be interested in the outcome of the ANAO review into the operations of the PBO, due to be released in June. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has advised the committee that the cumulative impact of the base-level efficiency dividend will present management challenges to the PBO in the future. Notwithstanding this, the committee endorses the proposed budget for the Parliamentary Budget Office in 2014-15.
Moving to the ANAO, in accordance with the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Auditor-General Act 1997, the committee received a copy of the Australian National Audit Office draft budget estimates in January 2014 and has subsequently received updates from the Auditor-General identifying revisions to his estimates. The committee has been advised that in today's budget an increase in the efficiency dividend from 2.25 per cent to 2.5 per cent will be applied over the next three financial years. This will result in a further $1.67 million reduction to the ANAO's annual appropriation over the budget and forward estimates. The Audit Office's total revenue from government is $73.412 million in 2014-15. The Auditor-General has advised that the outlook over the forward estimates highlights a range of pressures, as he seeks to maintain appropriately resourced financial statement and performance audit programs. The increase in the efficiency dividend and other pressures noted in the ANAO's budget submission are expected to lead to a reduction in the ANAO's performance audit program in the forward years. It is expected that the number of performance audits conducted will be reduced from 49 to 48 in 2015-16 and then down to 47 in 2016-17 and subsequent years.
The committee remains strongly concerned about the level of funding uncertainty for the forward years. Last year, the Auditor-General foreshadowed the need to reduce his work program in the forward years if new funding was not provided in this year's budget. This situation has, unfortunately, come to pass. Nevertheless, noting the continuing tight fiscal environment, the committee endorses the proposed budget for the Audit Office in 2014-15 and recommends its passage. The Auditor-General and his office should be commended for managing to maintain their performance audit program over the last few years, despite budget reductions. The ANAO is unable to reduce its financial statement audit work, because of its mandatory nature and the need to adhere to professional standards.
Further proportional funding increases are also required as new entities are created. The committee notes that the government's commission of audit has identified the ANAO's work in auditing agency key performance indicators as playing an important role in focusing agencies' attention on measuring and improving the effectiveness of programs. The funding of this area remains an area of concern for the committee. The ANAO has moved past the point of doing more with less to actively reducing the amount of scrutiny it provides to parliament and the Australian people. Any further increase in or expansion of duties should be adequately funded by the government. The committee recommends that steps be taken in next year's budget to place the Audit Office on a more financially sustainable footing to ensure that its essential work in scrutinising government processes and expenditure is properly resourced and that funding be provided to ensure that there is no further reduction in the number of performance audits conducted.
In conclusion, the committee remains concerned about the increase in pressures being placed on the PBO and the ANAO. Additional savings measures have been applied that further reduce the available funding and are now at the point where they are having an effect on the scope of the ANAO's work program. As independent authorities, the PBO and the ANAO need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements and adequately support the parliament. The committee appreciates the efforts of both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor-General in maintaining strong working relationships across the parliament and particularly with this committee. They have made themselves available for regular briefings and have been responsive to requests for information on a variety of topics. The committee looks forward to continuing these productive relationships. I present a copy of my statement.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (16:21): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report No. 441, entitled Inquiry into Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 rules development.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Dr SOUTHCOTT: by leave—I present the report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit entitled Inquiry into the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 rules development. The PGPA act and its accompanying rules will establish a new resource management framework for all Commonwealth bodies, replacing the Financial Management And Accountability Act 1997, otherwise known as the FMA Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, otherwise known as the CAC Act. The PGPA rules as disallowable instruments need to be developed and tabled in parliament before the substantive provisions of the PGPA act come into effect on 1 July 2014.
The terms of reference for the committee's inquiry were to consider the process for the development of the rules, and the impact and purpose of the rules, in the context of the broader Public Management Reform Agenda. As set out in the report, the committee believes that stage 1 of the reform agenda, comprising the PGPA Act and the implementation of the first set of PGPA rules, establishes a solid foundation for efficiencies and the framework for cultural change in Commonwealth resource management in future years.
The committee has made several recommendations in its report, to assist implementation of the rules and further progress the Public Management Reform Agenda. Chapter 1 of the committee's report provides an overview of the significance of the PGPA Act and associated rules in the context of the reform agenda. Chapter 2 of the report examines the consultation process for the rules development and the guidance and training being set in place to prepare agencies for the transition on 1 July 2014.
The committee commends the initial consultation process undertaken by Finance for the development of the first set of PGPA rules, and Finance's commitment to continue this process for the rules to be implemented post 1 July. However, the committee has recommended that Finance review the guidance material for the rules, to improve consistency.
In chapter 3 of the report, the committee noted general support from inquiry participants for the majority of draft rules required for 1 July 2014 commencement of the PGPA Act. Some 19 rules were considered by the committee as part of the inquiry.
The committee has made a number of recommendations in response to some specific issues raised by stakeholders. Noting the concerns raised by the Auditor-General regarding the PGPA rule on 'approving commitments of relevant money', the committee has recommended this rule be amended to explicitly place an obligation on all individual officials to consider 'proper use' of public resources before approving commitments of relevant money, with this issue to also be included in the first independent review of the PGPA Act in three years time. The committee further recommended that the draft guidance material supporting this rule be amended to include discussion of the risks involved in officials approving aggregate expenditure proposals.
The committee also noted concerns raised by a number of stakeholders about the draft rule on audit committees—in particular, regarding the exclusion of an organisation's chair from being a member of its audit committee. On balance, the committee did not recommend any change to this rule but rather that Finance amend the draft guidance supporting the rule to emphasise that the chair of a Commonwealth body can attend audit committee meetings as an observer.
In terms of more general issues concerning the PGPA rules development, the committee noted the concerns raised by the Australian Public Service Commission about dual coverage of the PGPA Act and the Public Service Act 1999. In response, the committee has recommended that Finance and the Public Service Commission work together to draft the necessary amendments to the PGPA Act and/or Public Service Act to reduce potential confusion from this dual coverage, with amendment proposals to be put to the parliament as soon as practicable.
In support of a proposal made by the Australian National Audit Office, the committee has also recommended that an additional guiding principle emphasising the parliament's role be applied in developing the remaining elements of the Public Management Reform Agenda. The committee further recommended that Finance work to ensure that any necessary amendments are made to the Auditor-General's Act 1997 to ensure the ANAO retains the audit powers under the new arrangements that the parliament would expect, including the power to audit the full planning, performance and accountability framework under the PGPA Act.
Chapter 4 of the report focuses on post-1 July 2014 issues concerning the rules development for the PGPA Act. The committee has recommended that Finance continue its consultation with stakeholders on the rules required for post-July. It has also recommended that Finance prepare a plan clearly outlining the anticipated dates for development of all future rules, to ensure there is sufficient time for public consultation and a committee inquiry before tabling in parliament and implementation.
In terms of the development of future rules under the PGPA Act and other elements of the reform agenda, the committee has noted in the report that it intends to conduct inquiries into both stages 2 and 3 of these proposed reforms. Key priority areas for stages 2 and 3 include a new risk framework, better facilitation of 'joined-up' government and partnership arrangements, and an improved performance framework, with new PGPA rules for corporate plans, annual performance statements and annual reporting requirements. The rules relating to the performance framework are of particular interest, given the many recommendations of past ANAO audits and committee inquiries concerning performance reporting by Commonwealth agencies.
In conclusion, if the benefits of this new framework are fully captured this will modernise public sector financial management, making Australia once again world leading in this area and positioning us well for the decades ahead. I commend Finance for its leadership in driving this significant reform process. I commend the report to the House.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (16:27): by leave—As Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, I am pleased to join with my colleague the member for Boothby in commending the report into Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 rules development to the House. The report recognises that there has been significant consultation with relevant stakeholders regarding the development of the rules, and this is welcomed by the committee.
I will not go into too much detail on the report as the chair has ably covered this off. However, I do want to cover two recommendations, the first around approving commitments of 'relevant money'. The report analysed the draft rule in relation to approving commitments of relevant money. The Australian National Audit Office noted that the draft rule was a substantive departure from existing obligations that explicitly require an approver to be satisfied, after making reasonable inquiries, that giving effect to the spending proposal would be a proper use of Commonwealth resources. The ANAO concluded that it did not consider the proposed rule would provide the government and the parliament with sufficient confidence that officials, in approving the commitment of relevant money, will be required in all cases to form a judgement that it represents the proper use of such money. Consequently, the committee was of the view that the draft rule should be amended to explicitly place an obligation on all individual officials to consider proper use before approving a commitment of relevant money, and recommendation 5 in chapter 3 addresses this.
The second issue I would like to cover is the dual coverage of PGPA Act and Public Service Act. This was highlighted by several submissions, most notably the Public Service Commission, which stated that the dual coverage of the two acts, with each of them setting out alternative statements seeking to regulate the behaviour and professional standards of public servants in the APS, adds complexity and the potential for confusion for APS employees. To address this potential confusion the committee proposed that the PGPA Act be amended to specify that the provisions of the act relating to the general duties of officials do not apply to those employed under the Public Service Act. In response to these concerns, the Department of Finance has indicated that they will continue to work with the Public Service Commission to ensure clarity around the way in which the two acts interact, and the committee recommended that they come back to parliament with a solution as soon as possible. I will finish by thanking the committee secretariat for their work in preparing the report, and I commend it to the House.
Public Works Committee
Report
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (16:30): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report 3 of 2014, referral made December 2013—Development and construction of housing for Defence at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.
Leave granted.
Mrs ANDREWS: This is the committee's third report of 2014, addressing the referral made in December 2013 for the development and construction of housing for Defence at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory. The referral from Defence Housing Australia initially proposed construction of 50 tropically designed dwellings and associated support and infrastructure at RAAF Base Tindal at a cost of $89.4 million. The committee visited RAAF Base Tindal and held hearings in Katherine in late January. The committee subsequently sought additional information on the project from DHA because it was not satisfied that the project cost represented value for money. The committee's concerns were outlined to DHA, and DHA subsequently submitted an amended proposal for 50 tropically designed houses to be built at RAAF Base Tindal at a cost of $47.15 million. At the second public and in camera hearing held in Canberra in April, the committee examined the amended proposal and was satisfied that the project, as amended, has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that the project proceeds.
The report I am tabling today details how DHA was able to make such substantial savings while still delivering 50 houses of high quality which are appropriate for the location. The committee commends Defence Housing Australia for working with it in a cooperative and timely manner to achieve a satisfactory outcome. I would like to thank members and senators for their work in relation to this inquiry, and on behalf of the committee I would also like to thank the secretariat for their work in relation to this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
Treaties Committee
Report
WYATT ROY (Longman) (16:33): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 139—Treaties, tabled on 11 December 2013, referred on 15 January 2014 and tabled on 11 February 2014, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
WYATT ROY: The report contains the committee's view on six proposed treaties: the air services agreements with Croatia, Serbia and Vanuatu; tax information exchange agreements with Brunei and Guatemala; and a protocol to the 2007 World Wine Trade Group agreement on requirements for wine labelling concerning alcohol tolerance, vintage, variety and wine regions.
I can advise that the committee supports ratification of all of the treaties discussed in this report. While the treaties in this report are largely non-controversial, there are two matters I might explore very briefly here. The first relates to the air services agreements. These are bilateral agreements that allow airlines from each signatory to offer services in the other's market. The agreements are negotiated under the multilateral convention on international civil aviation, under which international safety standards for civil aviation are promulgated. If a state does not meet an international standard it must notify the convention's governing body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
In the bulk of cases these notifications relate to safety standards that are either higher than that required or are to the same standard as that required but are administered differently. In a small number of instances, the notifications relate to a safety standard that has not been met. Negotiators from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development do not check the notifications of states with which Australia is intending to make an air services agreement. The committee considers it imprudent for the department's negotiators to not at least make themselves aware of the differences notified by states with which they are negotiating.
The second matter relates to the tax information exchange agreements discussed in this report, which may be the last considered by the committee. The Australian government will henceforth be relying on the multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, which enables the transfer of more comprehensive information on taxable income between states. The committee has a long history examining tax information exchange agreements and has been impressed by the reduction in tax avoidance achieved through these agreements.
The committee would like to take this opportunity to commend the good work of the staff of the ATO and the Treasury who were involved in negotiating and administering these agreements. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the 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 notes the:
(1) program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation given the poor environmental record of the current Government;
(2) bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation;
(3) Government should clarify why participants do not have employee status even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage;
(4) Government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers;
(5) lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and
(6) importance of supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities."
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (16:36): Before question time, I was extolling the virtues of the Green Army program and speaking about what I believe are the benefits for people in my electorate. The target participants are younger people who are predominantly unemployed. I am already working on projects in my electorate. Participants in the Boggabilla-Toomelah project, in conjunction with the Moree Plains Shire Council, will undertake training as well as mentoring in the work situation. I have also spoken to some employers in that area so that, at the end of the Green Army project, we may be able to offer some part-time employment in the last couple of weeks and convert this into longer-term employment.
There are jobs in my part of the world. At the moment, many of them are being undertaken by short-term backpacker visitors. Much of this work could be undertaken by local people, but we have to break their cycle of poverty and disconnection. I believe the Green Army program is a way of doing that. There are possibilities in other parts of my electorate. I have heard some of the comments from members of the opposition about environmental programs and the like. The environment is not just iconic sites. It is not just the Snowy Mountains, the Great Barrier Reef or the forests of Tasmania. The natural environment is in need of some attention.
There has been some talk that the Green Army program may not have environmental outcomes. I have been in discussions with local land services and councils about the eradication of noxious weeds. One which is certainly in need of drastic attention is Hudson pear. For those of you who do not know about it, Hudson pear is a very nasty little cactus bush. The spikes are so sharp that, when it goes through the lips of animals or onto their legs as they walk through it, more often than not animals end up with an infection which is very detrimental to their wellbeing. Indeed, Hudson pear can lead to the death of kangaroos and domestic livestock like sheep and cattle because of the cruel way in which it attaches itself to them. Not only would a Green Army project give practical environmental outcomes but also it would provide opportunities for many people who now are disconnected from the workforce.
The idea that people can just step up into a job when they come from a household where people do not have a job is incorrect. The Green Army projects in my electorate will come with suitable training and mentoring to help young people come to terms with the concept of turning up to a job every day and the commitment that entails, and also the rewards which genuine, worthwhile work can give to people. Hopefully it will lead to permanent employment.
Another project I have been working on in conjunction with RiverSmart Australia is remedial work in the public areas of the Macquarie Valley. There is an area of about 150 kilometres along the Macquarie River from Wellington down through to Warren and the Macquarie Marshes where a Green Army team could do worthwhile weed control, riverbank stabilisation and build boardwalks to make public areas along the iconic Macquarie River more accessible to the public so that more people can appreciate the beauty of this river. I have been in discussions with Dr Bill Phillips from RiverSmart, who has submitted a very worthwhile proposal for an employment program along the river. That would also include some really worthwhile remedial work in the Tiger Bay Wetlands on the outskirts of Warren along the Macquarie and in the river itself.
I have been a little disappointed by some of the contributions from members of the opposition who see this as some sort of assault on trade unions or some form of cheap, serf labour for young disadvantaged people. The greatest thing we can do to put stability into these young people's lives is give them the opportunity to undertake some form of employment which will be a pathway for them into a future involving work, not disconnectedness, impoverishment and isolation from the mainstream community. Indeed, this program will lead to better outcomes in employment. Also, it will lead to practical environmental outcomes which will benefit the environment, not highfaluting global targets which we may or may not reach but projects that will have a positive effect on the environment in which we live and which sustains us. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 has my full support.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:43): I note the contribution from the member for Parkes on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I share some of his optimism about this program but would like to detail some concerns. I was in the Parkes electorate over Easter, on the Macintyre west of Yetman—a beautiful part of the world. I had a lovely time there. I have a soft spot for the Macintyre, which I assume is the northern border of his part of New South Wales. My mum was a Goondiwindi girl. We scattered my mum's ashes on the Macintyre three years ago. It is three years ago tomorrow, in fact, that she passed away. So I have always had a soft spot for that part of the world. It is beautiful.
Obviously, when young people go to particularly remote parts anywhere—even if they are from Toomelah, Parkes or any other part of his electorate—I have concerns about who these young people will be supervised by because of the cultures that can sometimes develop in work camps, in any work camp. My grandfather came from Goondiwindi and he told me many stories about how tough some of the work camps can be in really remote areas. I will go to some of these concerns in my speech.
This legislation is of particular concern because three Green Army projects were promised in the electorate of Moreton prior to the 2013 federal election. I am assuming—rather naively on budget day, I guess—that the Prime Minister will carry out the promise made by the LNP candidate for Moreton to roll out these three Green Army projects. Interestingly, the LNP candidate promised that there would be a jobs symposium within 100 days of the election. I have written to Minister Abetz and Minister Pyne, and still that jobs forum has not taken place.
But I still live in hope that the three Green Army projects that were promised for the Oxley Creek Common, the Archerfield Wetlands and the Granard Wetlands will take place. They are all in the middle of my electorate. Even though mine is an inner-city electorate, these areas—basically, around what I call the Oxley Creek Common area—are a twitcher's paradise. If you go there at any time, you will find a lot of birdwatchers. You can easily see about 70 different species in one hour, even though my electorate is only 10 or 15 minutes from the middle of Brisbane. If you go along there, you can even see jabirus. I have not seen them there, but you can see a jabiru—almost in the middle of Brisbane. Striped honeyeaters, spotted harriers, juvenile little bronze cuckoos and fairy wrens are just some examples. There have been up to 195 bird species seen in this Oxley Creek Common area.
The Green Army seeks to reinstate the failed Green Corps program that was started by the Howard government. The LNP government claims that Green Corps was undermined by the former Rudd-Gillard government; however, it was a Labor government that first introduced the Landcare and Environment Action Program, which aimed to provide work with opportunities for young people while achieving positive environmental outcomes. This grassroots environmental action is extremely important to any community, whether it be the remote communities mentioned by the member for Parkes or inner-city suburbs that have challenges, like those in the electorate of Moreton.
I support action to address these local issues. However, I am concerned that, with only a few months until the program is due to start, no-one is quite clear about the specific details as to how the Green Army will work. I had a look at the application from and there is still a lot of uncertainty about how it will run. I am particularly concerned about its exemptions from workplace health and safety laws, compensation laws, industrial relations laws and even bullying and harassment laws, because those who will be involved are young and because, generally—as you would find if you have had any dealings with such people in your electorate—many have not been academic successes or have had challenges at home and challenges in their family life, so they are often our most vulnerable. Taking away those protections, particularly health and safety laws and those preventing bullying, will make it a particular challenge.
I believe, and Labor believe, that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. We are the Labor Party. It is in our title; it is in our DNA. Every individual who can work should be given the chance to work, but we know that that can only happen if there is appropriate support and protection. We do not want work at any cost. That is the strategy of the economic 'let 'er rip' society. That is not what Australia is about, not since the Harvester Judgement and even before that, you could argue.
Environmental work and training programs are an effective way—I agree with the member for Parkes—of getting people employment, as well as providing environmental benefits that help the nation. Workplace training programs have the potential, if they are well designed and well implemented, to achieve these twin goals. But there still outstanding questions.
Firstly, I am concerned about wages. We acknowledge that Green Army participants will be paid the equivalent of a training wage, which, while not overly generous, will be more than the income support payments many of them would likely be on. These payments will also be similar to the training wages received by thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training or education. Certainly, that is the case now—before 7.30 tonight. But, unlike trainees or apprentices, participants in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth. Denying them the status of Commonwealth employees leaves them in a no-man's-land in terms of the employer-employee relationship, which affords a range of workplace rights—an area of law I am quite familiar with. They are not considered workers and therefore they would not have the same workplace rights. The ACTU president, Ged Kearney, said:
This is about taking away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs.
Yet, every second day, we have someone from the government talking about the rollout of the insulation program and the concerns that came with that.
Youth unemployment is a significant issue within my electorate, and I do not want the coalition government to think that, if they see unemployment rates for youth improving, it is as a result of these projects, because the Green Army program's wages are not sufficient for our youth to survive on. Our youth need real jobs with real wages, real workplace safety measures in place and a career path.
Those recruited will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting. I have seen similar programs in my electorate already. Yet this government has ensured that Green Army members will be exempt from Commonwealth workplace laws, including the Work Health and Safety Act, the Fair Work Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. One thing that concerns me about the amendments to this bill is that they mean it does not provide adequate protections—namely, in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. Every Australian has the right to work in a safe and comfortable environment without concerns about their physical safety or the threat of emotional abuse. This government has a duty of care to these proposed workers and, if they are not protected under the Fair Work Act, this government needs to expose its plans in more detail so I can explain to my constituents what the protections will be.
On top of this, the 15,000 young people who are intended to be employed under the coalition's Green Army have no guarantee of protection against racial, religious, sex or other forms of discrimination while working in the program, and will not be protected by workplace bullying prevention laws. As I said, people in my inner-city electorate can go home at night, but if they are working out in Woop Woop or beyond the Black Stump—particularly young and vulnerable people—they might be exposed to abuse, I would suggest. The Human Rights Commission's website states under the responsibilities of employers:
Your employer has a legal responsibility under Occupational Health and Safety and anti-discrimination law to provide a safe workplace. Employers have a duty of care for your health and wellbeing whilst at work. An employer that allows bullying to occur in the workplace is not meeting this responsibility.
In this case, they will be employed by private service providers, and therefore they will fall under state and territory workplace health and safety regulations—regulations that are under threat in Queensland at the moment. I do not know the situation in other jurisdictions.
We now know that participants will receive, at a minimum, some training in first aid and work safety. Where appropriate, cultural awareness training will also be provided. Beyond this, there is no explicit obligation on service providers to provide further training, although we understand the assessment process will ensure that additional training will be rated more highly. We also know that some participants may require work-readiness training, including literacy and numeracy. Young people in my electorate need a guarantee that they will be protected against forms of discrimination while working in the program.
This amendment to the Social Security Act, as proposed by the government, neglects to expose details related to workers' rights, benefits and protections, and it cannot be supported blindly. The associated statement of requirements is equally limited on detail. Since this bill was first introduced, further information has been released on how the Green Army will operate, but only piece by piece. At best, it is piecemeal. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the statement of requirements as an optional component of the program, to be negotiated with each participant. This gives me no confidence that participants will actually gain access to useful training.
The federal Liberal-National government boasts about improving waterways and environmental hubs, including the three promised projects within my electorate that I mentioned earlier. However, the LNP government in Queensland is selling off community garden spaces that this bill is trying to promote. Nyanda State High School in my electorate was closed down at the end of 2013. Running through the grounds of the Nyanda State High School is the Nyanda community garden, where the community has been working to rehabilitate the Rocky Waterholes Creek. This is a very important site for the local community and for training. Not far from the site, I am reliably informed, a platypus has been seen. The local community requested that any proposed development of the school site carve out the area where the garden was. I wrote to the Queensland education minister, John-Paul Langbroek, but unfortunately he refused to shave off this bit of land—even though the LNP government owed this community big time because when they were last in government they closed down the Acacia Ridge High School, moved the students to the old Salisbury State High School and turned it into a new school, Nyanda State High School. Now that they are back in government, they have closed down this high school, at a time when we should be investing in education and when the suburb's numbers are growing. There is a boom in the number of young people coming through local state schools, yet they closed down that high school.
So, on the one hand, the Abbott government claims to be addressing the issue of youth unemployment through the Green Army Program; on the other hand, it is removing funding for the Youth Connections program, designed to stop young people who have not completed year 12 from falling between the cracks by working with them and their challenges to help them onto the path to work or education. Last year almost 75,000 young people were given the help they needed through Youth Connections, and by the end of this year it is expected to reach 100,000.
There is overwhelming evidence to show how critical the transition from school into work or study is to reducing the lifetime risk of unemployment and boosting lifetime earnings. We know how important it is to be learning or earning. BoysTown and the Smith Family, which have serviced youth in my electorate, will lose their funding under the LNP government, and so these vital services that look after the youth of Moreton will be lost.
Labor seeks a guarantee from the government that all participants in this Green Army Program who are on income support payments will be better off, regardless of their life situation. We need to ensure that participants are not worse off through any changes in income tax, childcare payments or the potential loss of low-income healthcare cards or associated concessions. I also have serious reservations about preserving existing jobs in areas that overlap with activities to be undertaken by the Green Army. The Green Army simply cannot be an excuse for putting Australians out of work in favour of using low-paid participants. The government needs to stop deceiving the Australian public that this is an environmental program. The coalition's track record on environmental policy, as seen in their disastrous Direct Action policy—a policy which they are embarrassed by and about which no environmentalist or economist can find anything good to say—is shameful, and I urge this government to stop ignoring the signs and start looking at effective climate policy and improved environmental preservation.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (16:58): I rise today to pledge my support for the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The reason for this is very simple: it was a proven winner on a number of fronts when it was introduced as the Howard government's successful Green Corps program. The coalition government is delivering a key election commitment to establish the Green Army, starting from July this year. The Green Army will build on the former Green Corps program that was established in 1996 to employ young people on environmental projects to preserve and restore our natural and cultural environment.
The Green Army will offer young Australians aged from 17 to 24 the opportunity to support local environment and heritage conservation projects while gaining hands-on practical skills and work experience in conservation management. The experience and training received will count towards a qualification in land management, park management, landscaping or horticulture. The Green Army will make a real difference to the environment and to local communities through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers, and restoring cultural heritage places.
This voluntary initiative is both an environmental and a training program. It will help young people increase their skills base, gain practical experience and enhance their job readiness. It also complements the government's Direct Action Plan on climate change. The Direct Action Plan gives the community the ability to address our environmental challenges and to reduce our emissions at the lowest possible cost.
I support this bill because it provides a common-sense pathway of exposure to those still to decide whether they want to pursue further education in environmental disciplines. I am especially looking forward to rolling out this initiative in my electorate, as the community there has a high unemployment rate, particularly amongst our youth. I support this bill because it seeks to help the long-term unemployed to find and keep a job. In my electorate, we have an issue with youth unemployment and this bill focuses on that as an area of concern.
At the start of this year, the Newcastle Herald published a study by the Centre of Full Employment and Equity, a think tank backed by the University of Newcastle. It named 14 Hunter suburbs as 'red alert'—high-risk localities for predicted unemployment rise. One of the report's co-authors, Professor Scott Baum from Griffith University, said parts of the Hunter—including Raymond Terrace, which is in my electorate—had been identified because of a low proportion of skilled workers, high rates of casual labour, low education levels among residents and a high concentration of workers in declining industries. He also said that it would hit particularly hard in areas where there is already high unemployment and a high concentration of employment in industries like mining, retail and manufacturing—the types of jobs they predicted to be more at risk or in decline.
It is true that currently my electorate is experiencing a high rate of youth unemployment. While estimates of the exact figure for youth unemployment in my electorate vary widely, the Brotherhood of St Laurence recently launched a campaign to bring attention to the crisis of youth unemployment in Australia. According to their 'My chance, our future' youth employment campaign, the figure has risen across the country and sits at around 12.2 per cent nationally. That is up from 8.8 per cent in 2008. They include my electorate in the Hunter statistics. They estimate that the unemployment rate among 15- to 24-year-olds sits at around 9.5 per cent. The ABS statistics claim that it sits at 7.1 per cent. Any way you look at it, it is not a figure to be celebrated.
We need to get these young people out of a life of welfare dependency and into the workforce. As I told the Newcastle Herald recently, there is no silver bullet to fix soaring teen unemployment rates in the Hunter. Over the past two to three years, there has been a general downturn in business confidence and people have not yet seen the light at the end of the tunnel. After six years of bad management and spiralling debts, the government have a massive workload ahead of us. We have to get the economy back on track and get people into jobs and out of unemployment queues.
The Hunter is like most regional areas. When business is doing it tough, jobs become scarcer and apprenticeships dry up—and are treated as alternative cheap labour, which in turn affects our national skill base. That is why we are working hard to deliver new policies that encourage job growth and private investment. One of those policies of course is to kill off the carbon tax. Let us be frank about it: the carbon tax killed jobs, not just in my electorate but right across Australia. Businesses in the Hunter have told me that the carbon tax was an added pressure to their operations they could ill afford. It resulted in job losses.
This year, we have seen many industrial companies in my electorate reconfigure their employment structures. In the past fortnight we have seen OneSteel announce plans to shed 100 jobs, Downer EDI announce plans to cut 200 jobs and Chain Valley Colliery confirm plans to cut 73 jobs. Falling commodity prices, lower business confidence and job cuts in mining and car manufacturing have a flow-on effect on youths searching for apprenticeships or indeed full-time jobs. The coalition have introduced legislation to repeal the costly carbon tax and the monstrous mining tax. We know from speaking to our constituents that this will boost business confidence. We will keep working towards cutting red tape for small business to assist the economy to grow.
The Newcastle Herald also reported on a future constituent of mine—when I say 'future constituent', I mean that she has not yet reached voting age—Tabatha Tyne. The 17-year-old Ms Tyne has spent a lot of the last four months on the hunt for a part-time job. A former vice-captain of Raymond Terrace High School, she graduated last year and is a member of the volunteer youth reference group that provides early intervention mental health services to people aged 12 to 25. During her final years at school, Ms Tyne completed a TAFE course in community services and is now studying full-time for a certificate IV in youth work at TAFE. She plans to undertake a further diploma so she can be a youth worker. Ms Tyne travels from her Raymond Terrace home into Newcastle two days a week for her studies. She has been looking for a job in retail since finishing school. She is clearly a determined young woman, a hard worker, motivated and goal driven. However, she also falls into the youth unemployment category. For now she relies on a fortnightly youth allowance payment. She believes this is due to a lack of job experience.
Job experience is what the Green Army Program will offer the young and unemployed. I believe we can, through programs like this, arm young Australians with the skills to get and keep jobs. It will not only actively improve hundreds of sites across the country but allow local young people to get training and learn to work as part of a team. I am hoping that joining the Green Army will become a rite of passage for hundreds of young people in the years ahead. Joining the Green Army will teach many young people about teamwork and local ownership—and about the value of belonging to something greater than themselves.
In the lead-up to the election last year, we had already earmarked a project in the Paterson electorate at Lemon Tree Passage. Nine young people will receive training in environmental rehabilitation at the Tilligerry Peninsula as part of the 170,000 Green Army project. This project consists of the rehabilitation of up to five kilometres of foreshore pathways, boardwalks and walking paths. The work will consist of pathway upgrades, bush regeneration works and the renewal of the seven walking bridges in the area. The benefits of the scheme extend to the community. The existing pathways are extremely popular but are degrading to a point where they are no longer meeting safety requirements. Now the residents will be able to enjoy walking the area as a leisurely Sunday stroll rather than as an intense work-out. This project will also help reduce the burden on the Port Stephens council in fixing and upgrading council infrastructure.
Tilligerry Peninsula has a large population of an endangered species: it is recognised as valuable koala habitat. The bush regeneration will assist in providing safer areas for the koalas to live in and allow better access for visitors to view the koalas. The workers on this project will receive training and experience in pathway construction, carpentry, landscaping and bush regeneration as well as occupational health and safety and first aid training. The participants will also receive a $400-a-week training wage and a TAFE accredited training wage upon completion of the program.
I want to see this program grow and thrive like its previous version, the Green Corps program. Over the life of the Howard government's Green Corps program, its participants produced incredible results and the benefits are still evident today. The participants planted more than 14 million trees, erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared more than 50,000 hectares of weeds and constructed more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track or boardwalks. In my electorate, a Green Corps team removed over a tonne of rubbish from an almost two-kilometre long walkway at the Grahamstown canal. They also reduced the amount of lantana beside the walkway and planted thousands of trees and native grasses.
There are four other sites in my electorate which received Green Corps grants under the Howard government. An example from the second round of the grant scheme was the Hunter Regional Organisation of Councils. This Green Corps project focused on revegetating the roadside corridors adjacent to the New England Highway in towns like Branxton, Lochinvar, Greta and Rutherford. The main focus of the project was to create corridors of green along major road reserves, restoration of native vegetation and habitats and the reversal of land degradation. The third round included a project for the historic Tocal Homestead on the CB Alexander Agricultural College at Paterson. This project involved the regeneration of riverine rainforest and wetlands, construction of post and rail fences and building conservation. In round 6, this college received another project grant when the Green Corps were called in to regenerate more of the riverine rainforest and wetland ecosystems at Tocal in the lower Paterson Valley. Tocal holds a large land mass and its campus spans broadacre land.
Finally, in round 9, the Green Corps were called by the Tilligerry Habitat Association to the restio wetland area. This project was designed to prepare wetlands for public visitation. As such, this job required boardwalk and path construction, mulching, pruning, planting and water management. These projects all led to the participants gaining skills that they would not have attained had they just been claiming the dole.
These projects also led to one of my constituents winning Paterson Corporate Citizen of the Year in 2006. Shane Bailey was a team leader in Green Corps projects. He won the award on the basis of his work mentoring young people. Mr Bailey worked with the Green Corps teams who were undertaking six-month projects in the Port Stephens area. He was an inspiration to these young people by providing career advice and also by acting as a referee for the youths when they had gained the experience and skills and were applying for jobs. To him it was more than a job; it was about the people. So I awarded him the honour due to his enthusiasm for training others in the environmental industry and for his ability to relate to his team members. He is a shining example of what can be achieved through the Green Corps program and, in turn, the revamped Green Army.
When the former, Labor government took office, this important initiative was torn apart and then it was terminated in 2012. Young people no longer had the opportunity to gain practical skills and improve their local environment. The government is strongly committed to kick-starting the economy and offering the community the ability to address our environmental challenges and to reduce our emissions. I call on the Labor Party and all members of the parliament to support the Social Security Legislation (Green Army Programme) Amendment Bill 2014 for the benefit that it will provide to our environment, for the benefit it will provide to our young people and for the positive effect it will have on our community as a whole. I commend this bill to the House without any reservation.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:12): The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 is a poor excuse for an environment policy. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to clarify social security arrangements for participants receiving the Green Army allowance paid under the Green Army Program.
It is my understanding that the coalition's Green Army Program aims to recruit young people to perform environmental tasks across the country and to pay them a training wage to perform environmental tasks that are currently being performed by other employees and businesses throughout the country. There are two arms to the coalition's environment policy, Direct Action. The focus of Direct Action is to pay big-polluting companies a government subsidy in the hope and wish that they shall reduce their carbon emissions over time. It is a complete reversal, the complete antithesis, of the Liberal and conservative philosophy of government subsidies to business to pay big polluters in the hope that they will reduce their emissions over time.
The program that we currently have in place, the carbon price, is one whereby the big polluters pay for the right to pollute in our economy. The money and revenue that is generated from those big polluters paying for the right to pump carbon into our environment is used to commercialise renewable energy. Half of the revenue that is raised from the carbon price is used to promote renewable energy in Australia and throughout our economy. The other half is provided to people on low incomes and pensioners to ensure that they can meet cost-of-living increases as a result of electricity price increases. That is the system we have at the moment. The polluter pays system is going to be replaced by a system where the government pays the polluter, and the coalition calls that progress! That is the first arm of this government's environmental policy, and what a backward step that is.
The second arm of their environmental policy is the one that we are debating here in the chamber tonight, the Green Army Program. This is a program that will see Australians being paid a training wage to perform environmental tasks throughout the country, replacing those who are already performing those tasks—the bush regeneration companies, the landscapers and the local government authorities—who are being paid a normal wage and are getting the protection of occupational health and safety and workers' compensation provisions throughout the country. They are getting paid an award wage for the work they perform. But the government are going to replace those employees and those businesses that are doing that work at the moment with a group of Australians on a training wage. The government are seeking to deceive the Australian public into believing that this is an environmental program. The reason for that is simple—they do not have a coherent environmental policy. In fact, many on that side do not believe earnestly in climate change and our nation taking action on this important issue.
The program we are debating here today is an employment program and as such the participants should be treated as employees. Labor believes that environment based work and training programs can be an effective pathway to work for many job seekers as well as providing environmental benefits. Workplace training programs have potential, if well designed and implemented, to achieve these twin goals; however, there are a number of questions that remain unanswered with respect to the Green Army Program. The bill does not, as is expected by the people whom I represent in Kingsford Smith, lay out the detail required for analysis or discussion. It is also clear that it is a pseudoenvironment policy from a government that could not care less about serious policies to tackle climate change.
In contrast, when Labor were in government we developed policies aimed at conserving Australia's pristine environment. One policy was Caring for our Country. Caring for our Country aimed to achieve an environment that was healthier, better protected, well managed and resilient and that provided essential ecosystem services in a changing climate. Under the first phase of Caring for our Country, from 2008 to 2013, the Labor government invested more than $2 billion to protect and rebuild the resilience of our environment. The second phase of the program was designed to support land managers; community groups, including Indigenous groups; industry; and local environment groups. Caring for our Country target area grants provided funding of between $50,000 and $2 million for projects to maintain ecosystem services, protect our conservation estate and enhance the capacity of Indigenous communities to conserve and protect natural resources across six target areas. The target area grants focused investment in critical areas of our environment, which were selected in recognition of their high levels of vulnerability and importance. Through the target area grants and the second round of the Biodiversity Fund Labor invested in landscape scale restoration of our environment, including some of our most valuable ecosystems.
In addition to Caring for our Country, Labor became the first government to seriously deal with the central challenge of restoring the Murray-Darling Basin to health after chronic neglect by the coalition. After decades of overallocation and disagreement on how to manage the river, Labor began to restore the balance in the system and bring the river back to health. Under the plan 2,750 gigalitres of surface water will be recovered for the environment and used to benefit wetlands, forests and river flows, including the Ramsar listed wetlands in South Australia. Importantly, the plan was designed to achieve the government's target of having the Murray-Darling river mouth open nine years out of 10.
Labor agrees that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. Labor in government had a record of creating jobs in our economy. Close to one million jobs were created over the six years of the last Labor government. We believe that every individual who can work should be given that chance. We know this can only happen with appropriate support. Labor put in place a number of important employment programs—such as Youth Connections, which I understand is facing the axe in tonight's budget—for people in our community living with disabilities, the young, elderly job seekers and the long-term unemployed to ensure that they have the necessary support to get back into the labour movement. Labor believes in helping people to get a job through the right training, work experience and incentives and, most importantly, with the appropriate level of support.
This bill as proposed by the government omits much of the detail related to workers' rights, benefits and protections. The statement of requirements is equally scant on some of the detail. The question that I pose on behalf of many businesses in Kingsford Smith is: what happens to those small businesses that currently work in this space—the bush regeneration businesses and local landscaping businesses that do local government work—businesses that are currently training staff, paying award wages, providing occupational health and safety and workers compensation support? They are providing training and apprenticeships for people to undertake and gain training in landscaping and environmental conservation. They will be forced out by a cheaper government scheme. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the SOR as an optional component of the program to be negotiated with each individual participant. This gives no confidence that participants will actually gain access to training.
Labor is concerned that the bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the scheme, namely in the areas of OH&S, workers compensation and rehabilitation. We have been told that participants will be covered by relevant state legislation and insurance, while work safety will be audited by the department. Although this provides some protection, the price of safety will be constant vigilance.
Australians are right to be suspicious of the motives of this government when it comes to environmental and employment programs. The government has made it clear that protection of the environment is not one of its priorities through its Direct Action program. A further concern of Labor is the crowding-out aspect of this bill. The government must assure those hardworking Australians in local government and other authorities and those small businesses that work in this space that they will not be displaced and that their businesses will not be affected by the Green Army participants coming in and doing their work.
To conclude, I believe that the government needs to answer a number of questions before this bill is given passage through the House and the Senate. Those questions are as follows. Firstly, why are participants not considered workers or employees under the Work Health and Safety Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Fair Work Act? Secondly, exactly what are the implications for participants not being considered workers or employees under these acts? Thirdly, how will the program support people into mainstream employment? That must be the focus of employment and training programs. It is not a quick-fix, quasi-environmental program. It is an employment program. How will people get into long-term employment through these pathways? That question has not been answered by the government in proposing this bill. Will there be minimum training outcomes? If so, what are they? And will there be minimum training hours required for those participating in the program? What protections will there be to ensure that no businesses currently providing and working in this space will lose business or that, indeed, no employees will lose their jobs as a result of the passage of this bill? They are the questions that constituents in Kingsford Smith, in our community, wish the government to answer before this bill is passed.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (17:25): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme Bill) 2014. I do so to support this bill wholeheartedly. Firstly, the practical measures of this bill amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. They clarify the social security arrangements for participants that will be receiving the Green Army allowance. The Green Army is set to become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce. It will deliver work and jobs for 15,000 people, making it the largest standing environmental workforce in our history. It is a program that will provide real and practical solutions for clearing up our riverbeds and creeks, revegetating sand dunes and revegetating mangrove habitats, amongst the many other environmental remediation initiatives.
There are two bonuses for the community in this. Firstly, there are the environmental benefits that we will receive throughout Australia. Secondly, there are the training benefits for 15,000 young Australians who will receive the opportunity to have up to 20 weeks training in an environmental program. So, it is good news on both fronts.
I am very proud of the projects that have already been announced in my electorate, which are all based around the Georges River. The Georges River has a long history with Australia's settlement. It was first explored by Bass and Flinders back in 1795, when they took that famous little boat of theirs, the Tom Thumb, and sailed it all the way around from Port Phillip, around into Botany Bay and up the Georges River. They mapped the area all the way up to Georges Fair. That expedition opened up a lot of the land and farmland around Bankstown.
Another part of the Georges River that is very historically important is the weir at Liverpool. That was constructed in 1836. That was the dividing mark on the river, where on one side was the brackish saltwater and on the other was the freshwater. Everything upstream from the weir was all freshwater, which became the drinking supply for the township of Liverpool. Today, over one million people live in the catchment area of the Georges River. It is one of the most highly urbanised catchment areas in Australia. It has over 200 years of history behind it. It is an area that needs significant environmental remediation in many areas.
I am proud to say that we already have announced for my electorate six separate Green Army programs—one in Kelso Creek, one in Clinches Pond at Moorebank, one at Wattle Grove Lake, one at Yeramba Lagoon, another at Harris Creek in Holsworthy and one on the border of my electorate, under the Liverpool Bridge, at the famous Lighthorse Park. These programs will make a serious and significant improvement to the environment along the Georges River, for the thousands and thousands of people that use the river for recreation. In fact, I was down there late last week and a little fishing boat had pulled up. The guy who was fishing there had caught about a dozen blackfish. So the river is actually not in bad nick now, but a lot more could be done to improve the quality of the river and to bring it closer to what it was when Bass and Flinders first sailed down there in 1795.
While I am talking about the Georges River and the things on our environmental program, I would like to give my congratulations to the Chauvel Park Environmental Group. This is a group of citizens in the local community who are doing work similar to what the Green Army would do but on a volunteer basis. I have been down there and seen them working away on the weekend. They showed me the river banks, and there is that much work and clearing of vegetation to do that it is almost beyond explanation. When the member for Kingsford-Smith talks about how these programs will somehow crowd out what some other community members are doing, it is just absolute and complete nonsense. I would like to congratulate Robert Storey and Ian Bailey and all the other workers in that Chauvel Park Environmental Group for the great work that they do, and I am sure that that can be complementary to all the other things the green army project will be doing.
I have heard during this debate many members from the opposition making sad, sniping remarks complaining about this program and saying how truly wonderful their carbon tax program has been in taking action on climate change. This program provides a true example of the difference between the coalition and the opposition. What we are proposing here provides practical steps to improve the environmental areas of our country. In comparison, things like the carbon tax are purely symbolic and have absolutely no beneficial effect on the environment. This is the difference. The carbon tax actually does do a few things for the environment and that is exactly what I would like to get onto. What we see with Labor's carbon tax is a classic example of the law of leftist unintended consequences. That law simply states, for every leftist government law, hurriedly passed in response to a current or recent crisis, to give greater power to government or to provide for more centralised control over the economy, there will be two or more unintended consequences that will have greater negative effects than the problem it was designed to fix, often harming the very people the legislation is intended to assist. I would like to give an example of how the carbon tax does that and contrast that to the green army program.
One thing the carbon tax does is push up the price of electricity. What is the average person's response to an increase in a price in one particular good or one particular way of producing things? They look for substitutes and alternatives. That is exactly what is happening in Sydney as we speak, today. People are finding that they cannot afford to turn on the heater to warm their house during winter. So what are people doing? They are going out to the bush or to their backyard, cutting down a tree and burning the wood. They are using wood fires as a substitute because of the high electricity prices. They are burning wood to keep themselves warm. What effect does that have? We know that when you burn wood you release into the atmosphere not only carbon dioxide but also particulate matter. In Sydney in winter, between 50 and 60 per cent of the particulate matter in the atmosphere comes about through people using wood fires in their homes to keep themselves warm. This action releases particulate matter, commonly known as PM10 or PM2.5.
Why is there a concern about this particulate matter? I refer to a few recent reports. Firstly, the report of the World Health Organisation states:
PM affects more people than any other pollutant. The major components of PM are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, black carbon, mineral dust and water. It consists of a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles in organic and inorganic substances suspended in the air. The most health-damaging particles are those with a diameter of 10 microns or less, which can penetrate and lodge deep inside the lungs. Chronic exposure to particles contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as lung cancer.
A recent article written by Professor Bin Jalaludin notes:
… the world's leading experts on cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified outdoor air pollution as a carcinogenic to humans. The agency's report, Air Pollution and Cancer, said there's now sufficient evidence that components of outdoor air pollution can cause cancer.
He notes that air pollution is:
… one environmental hazard that everyone is exposed to; we all have to breath the air around us.
Even unborn children are exposed to the potential harm of air pollution, a complex mixture of particles that can be solids or aerosols, and gases.
It was only a few years ago that the New South Wales Chief Health Officer, Denise Robinson, told a public inquiry at New South Wales Parliament House that the deaths of between 600 and 1,400 Sydneysiders every year could be attributed at least partly to air pollution. I will repeat that: between 600 and 1,400 deaths are attributed to air pollution in Western Sydney. The World Health Organisation rightly sets maximum recommend pollution levels. Although they say that there is no safe level, there is no threshold that they have identified at which no damage to health is possible, they do note that guidelines for the particulate matter PM10 is 20 microns per cubic metre as an annual mean. What has happened in Western Sydney since the carbon tax has been introduced? It has turned more people over to burning wood, releasing more particulate matter. We have the measurements of the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage from their monitoring station in Liverpool. Since the carbon tax was introduced in 2010, every single year the particulate pollution in Western Sydney has increased. Last year the particulate pollution in Western Sydney was above World Health Organisation standards for PM10.
For PM10, pollution has increased 25 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced. These levels of air pollution are caused by wood heating, which people converted to to try to keep their home warm in the winter, because of the imposition of the carbon tax. In Western Sydney we now have pollution levels above those the World Health Organisation recommends. The situation is just as bad for the more dangerous particulate, PM2.5. Since the carbon tax has been introduced, it has pushed up the prices of electricity and people have converted to heating their homes with wood. PM2.5 pollution, the most deadly of all the particulate pollutions, has actually increased by 50 per cent since 2010.
These are the unintended consequences of bad policy and symbolic policy which is actually harming the environment and harming the air quality of people in Western Sydney today. That is what we are dealing with here in this parliament. It is not only a matter of the cost burden on the community. Policies like the carbon tax are actually harming the environment and they are harming the health of millions of citizens that live in Western Sydney today. This is what we get from the opposition.
We need to think through the unintended consequences of this bad policy. That is why I am so glad that we on this side of the House are taking practical steps to improve the environment in Western Sydney. We are taking practical steps with our Green Army Program to improve the quality and the health of the Georges River for the benefit of all Sydneysiders. That is what a good government does: take practical steps rather than simply symbolic steps that have these unintended consequences which today are harming the health of residents of Western Sydney, not only in my electorate but throughout the entire Western and South-West Sydney basin.
So I commend this bill to the House. Again, it shows the difference between the coalition and the opposition. We are here taking practical, real steps that will improve the environment in Western Sydney, while the opposition are intent on implementing these symbolic measures that not only have no effect but do the opposite—cause harm to people's health.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (17:40): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. Labor supports training that helps people gain work experience and increase their opportunities to get a job. We agree that there is value in engaging unemployed people and empowering them with skills that they need to get a foot in the door with an employer. We also see merit in targeting environmental, conservation and heritage projects to deliver these practical work experience programs and teach people new skills. That is why Labor has a record of support for programs that share the core aims of the Green Army Program. Indeed, it was the Keating government that established the Landcare and Environment Action Program in 1992, which saw young people between the ages of 15 and 20 years broaden their practical know-how and which equipped them with new skills through various landcare activities.
However, this current incarnation, the Green Army program, contains a number of concerning aspects which deserve proper scrutiny. While this bill goes only to the social security elements of the Green Army, there are much broader issues to be debated, some of which have been the subject of an inquiry in the other place. More predictably, this bill serves to continue the tradition of this Liberal government of engaging in acts of empty symbolism. The government say they want to build a green workforce, but participants are not guaranteed they will be better off than if they were receiving income support payments. They say that this program is about skills and training, but, beyond basic workplace induction, there is no guarantee of further qualifications. They say they want to tackle climate change, but they have shown they are determined to take this country backward in its approach to protecting the environment and reducing dangerous carbon emissions.
In the electorate I represent, there are around 4,000 people receiving income support payments to look for work. In the Hunter region more broadly there are over 25,000 people receiving these payments. Of these, it is young people between the ages of 17 and 24 who will potentially be affected by this legislation. Some of these people may have only just left school, and almost certainly there will be a significant number who have little or no experience in a formal workplace. It is imperative, therefore, that the safety of these young people is guaranteed. Indeed, given that the program will engage volunteers in physical, outdoor tasks—such as landscaping, construction of boardwalks and walking tracks, and the cleaning of waterways and creek banks—ensuring the safety of participants is arguably the most important part of this policy.
The government has said that participants will be covered by relevant state legislation and insurance held by service providers and the Commonwealth. Work safety will also be subject to auditing by the department. Despite this, Labor remains concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the scheme. This is especially concerning for people in New South Wales, where the workers compensation and rehabilitation system has been severely eroded under the state coalition government.
The government predicts that the program will expand rapidly, up from 250 projects and 2,500 participants in the first year to 1,500 projects and 15,000 participants by 2018-19. This paints a scenario where a large number of people are moved out of the social security sector and into the skills and training sector. The change, as reflected in this bill, sees a participant shift from income support payments to a training allowance and provides an exemption from job search requirements throughout the course of the program.
We know that participants will receive first aid and work safety training. Where appropriate, cultural awareness training will also be provided. Beyond this, however, there is no explicit obligation on service providers to provide training. This represents a significant flaw in the program. For starters, we know that some participants may require work-readiness training, including literacy and numeracy if appropriate. Will they receive this training? Furthermore, it is important that young people in the Green Army are rewarded for their time and effort. The program must provide those who go through its ranks with relevant training that is formally recognised, and participants should rightly expect to come out of the program with marketable skills that are in demand by employers.
The equivalent program in the last Labor government, the National Green Jobs Corps, required organisations to provide participants with at least 130 hours of accredited training. That is around five hours per week of accredited training for participants over the six months. We strongly believe that accredited training should be a core element of this program—and it must be accredited training, not some sort of voluntary sham.
While they are a part of the Green Army, participants receive more pay than they would receive on the ordinary income support payment, albeit less than the minimum wage. Nonetheless, the government must guarantee that all participants on income support payments will be better off, regardless of their life situation. Income tax increases, reduction in childcare payments and the potential loss of low-income healthcare cards are important for families trying to make ends meet. We must ensure that this program does not have a negative impact on these concessions and that it will not mean these participants are worse off.
In predicting such a high participation rate, the government must also ensure that the Green Army does not come at the expense of other workers—for example, those in the local government sector. This program is supposed to be about empowering job seekers. It is not, should not and cannot be a vehicle to replace jobs that are already being done for a decent wage and with reasonable conditions, and substitute them with a literal army of low-paid workers. Given the agenda of this government, we are right to be sceptical of its motives. This is a government that does nothing when it comes to people losing their jobs or having their pay cut. Let us not forget that under this government more than 60,000 Australians have lost their job. Under this government the foundations have been laid for a full-blown attack on the penalty rates of the hundreds of thousands of casual, part-time shift workers. This is not a government that cares about jobs or about workers.
In contrast, the Labor Party will always be the party that fights for the rights and conditions of workers. The Labor movement has always fought for decent workplace standards, and safety at work is a fundamental part of this. We on this side ask Mr Abbott: how will you guarantee the safety of young people working for the Green Army? So far, the answer is that it is not their problem; it is not their concern. These young people must look to the state and territory governments for reassurance that they will be taken care of if they are injured at work. In my electorate this will sound a dark and ominous warning, because the workers of New South Wales, particularly those in my electorate, are currently suffering under a state coalition government that has completely dismantled the workers compensation system. Thanks to the New South Wales Liberals, a worker who is injured on the way to work now has no claim to compensation. Injured workers who already receive payments have had their access to the scheme drastically reduced, even if their injury is for life. We have even had suggestions that if you lose a limb—if you have an amputation as a result of a workplace injury—it is not an injury serious enough to demand compensation. All of this has been done with the support of the Prime Minister and the coalition here in Canberra, who at the same time have launched their own brutal attack on the livelihoods of working people.
Close to my home in Newcastle, the Liberals have abandoned funding for the community based Hunterlink Recovery Services, a venture that sees unions and employers working together to support young men and women in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas who are experiencing addiction and mental health issues. As we know, these issues often manifest themselves as problems at work. Labor supported this program; the coalition does not. This is just one example of the coalition's approach to workers' health and safety.
We are also right to expose the empty environmental symbolism contained in this program. Those opposite say that this is all about improving the environment, but this government has no credibility when it comes to supporting Australia's environment. This government's failure on the environment has already attracted international notoriety for some of the most draconian attacks we have seen. Some of these attacks include undoing the management plans for the world's largest marine reserve system; turning back decades of bipartisan support for the Commonwealth's role in protecting matters of national environmental significance; and attempting to delist world heritage areas, making us one of only three nations attempting to delist a World Heritage area, in which we share the esteemed company of Oman and Tanzania. They have also destroyed the Tasmanian forestry agreement which has been worked on for so long by environmental groups, the forestry industry and workers.
However, the two most glaring attacks on the environment, committed by this government, have been its constant undermining of the renewable energy target and their attempts to stop Australia combating climate change. On the RET, they have commissioned a review conducted by climate change sceptics, particularly Dick Warburton. We have seen incredibly stupid remarks by the Treasurer about how he finds offensive the wind turbines he sees when he drives down to Canberra. We have seen them talk about undermining the RET, reducing it and possibly even abolishing it. Certainly, we have seen some very worrying remarks. If they do this we will see $18 billion of current investment in the renewable energy sector stranded. We will also see the jeopardising of another $18 billion in clean energy investment if the MRET policy is lost. This would directly affect the employment of 24,000 people who are employed in the renewable energy industry and would represent a breach by those opposite of a pre-election promise to maintain the renewable energy target. We saw very strong direct commitments by the Minister for the Environment when he was the opposition spokesperson. Any attempt to water down the renewable energy target would be another broken promise by a government that is specialising in broken promises.
On climate change, those on the opposite side are a fraud. They are made up of two different groups: a group that does not accept climate change and a group that, for pure political pragmatism, refuses to take action. We even heard the previous speaker suggest that taking action to combat climate change causes cancer. These people will grasp at any straw to oppose action on climate change. This is despite the fact that the science is well and truly in. Over 97 per cent of published scientific reports by climate change experts conclude that climate change is happening and manmade climate action is the direct driver. Scientists now say that climate change is occurring with a certainty of 95 per cent. To put that in context, that is the same certainty with which they say tobacco causes cancer. Those on the other side reject it, and when they pay lip service to combatting climate change, they have their ridiculous joke of a policy, Direct Action. It is a policy of centralised government control, a policy so woefully inefficient that the Grattan Institute has concluded it will cost over $100 billion to get to the Commonwealth's minimum target of a five per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions, even though a larger target is quite possible. So we see them paying lip service with a program that will cost over $100 billion and that will cost Australian households $1,300 per year. At the same time we see attempts to scrap the rational, efficient way of combating climate change, which the last government put in place: the 20 per cent renewable energy target, which I have already spoken about; the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is filling a vital gap in the finance of new large power stations; and, if the reports are to be believed, the abolition of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a vital agency supporting R&D innovation in renewable energy—another broken promise and another breach of their trust with the electorate. Ultimately, there is the abolition of the fixed price emissions trading scheme that we have now, the carbon price, and the refusal to engage in shifting it to flexible price emissions trading scheme.
We heard the last speaker say that the carbon price is not working. The facts are in; it is working. Since the carbon price began we have seen a 7.6 per cent fall in emissions from the electricity sector alone. That represents a 15-million-tonne reduction in carbon pollution emissions. That is equivalent to taking almost four million cars off the road. Emissions are relatively flat for the broader economy, but the growth in emissions has been in sectors not covered by the carbon price. The carbon price is working. It will be more efficient and effective when we shift to a flexible price emissions trading scheme linked to the rest of the world. But anyone who says it is not working and not reducing emissions is either trying to fool people or lying.
We have to combat climate change. We have to take care of our environment. We heard a lot today in question time about intergenerational equity. One of the most important obligations of this generation of the decision makers in this House is to leave the environment, the planet and Australia in a better position for our children and our grandchildren. I have an 11-month-old daughter and I want her coming of age in an environment that is better than now, where I can look her in the eye and say, 'This parliament, this government, this country took action on climate change as part of an international effort to reduce dangerous carbon emissions.'
To get back to this legislation, the Green Army Program is something the opposition will not oppose. We have serious questions marks about its implementation. I know our spokesperson is in meetings with the minister about it, and hopefully we can resolve the issues. Supporting on-the-ground conservation is important, but it cannot be done by sacrificing the safety of the workers involved, by putting out of work people who are already undertaking this work, or by paying them less than income support payments. We support this program, with appropriate safeguards. It builds on long-term programs run by the Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments. I think we just need to improve the implementation of it and we need to look at moving environmental action beyond empty symbolism to combatting climate change to ensure that our environment is in good hands.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (17:55): I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to clarify participation arrangements for the participants receiving the Green Army allowance paid under the Green Army Program. This is an exciting piece of legislation for the people in my electorate of Swan. It marks the start of a delivery of real environmental action on the ground in my electorate after six years of no action under the Rudd-Gillard Labor experiment.
This legislation, as much as any other, encapsulates the difference between the coalition and the Labor Party in general. Pretty much the Labor Party's only approach to the environment over the last few years has been a tax, the carbon tax—a plan that involves redistributing money, buying permits offshore and the expenditure of taxpayers money on a massive bureaucratic system of paper shuffling and redistributed money-go-rounds, all to produce no result. Despite the $7.6 billion tax, emissions for the first 12 months barely changed—it was by 0.01 per cent. It is a grand internationally focused macro scheme that does not recognise local environmental issues on the ground or trust that local people have the knowledge to improve our environment. Consequently the environment in my electorate of Swan received zero benefit from the previous government's policies. In fact, the Perth NRM received a funding cut of nearly half its budget under the Howard government. That funding cut was $2 million. This was cut from the Perth NRM funding under the previous Labor government.
The coalition's approach is different and it has always been different. It is an approach for real action on the ground to tackle environmental issues and improve our environment through practical measures. Take for example the Howard government's Green Corps program, which achieved results on the ground. The program propagated and planted more than 14 million trees; erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing; and constructed or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks and boardwalks. Under Labor's watch this important initiative was torn apart, rebadged and failed to improve the environment.
The previous speaker, the member for Charlton, spoke about ensuring the safety of the participants in the scheme. I know the member for Charlton was not here at the time under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government, but I see him stand there and talk about ensuring the safety of the participants in this scheme, yet we now have a royal commission looking into the pink batts scheme, where four people died and over 200 houses were burnt down and numerous people had problems with the scheme, which endangered the lives of many people. He stands up there and says he is worried about ensuring the safety of the participants in this scheme, but where was the Labor Party in ensuring the safety of those who died in the pink batts scheme. It is hypocrisy to the maximum by the Labor Party yet again.
The former Labor government transformed the previous program into a program where young long-term unemployed Australians were reclassified and continued to receive an income support payment, but with very little done to actually help the environment. The program failed to engage local communities to ensure that projects met local environmental needs, to motivate the long-term unemployed, to encourage the participation of young people who are passionate about the environment or deliver a program that engaged the participants for the duration of the project. I know that one of the first things I did as a candidate was to go to a site being run by the Green Corps under the Howard government and see a fantastic program employing young Indigenous people in the electorate of Swan. As I said before, I know we are limited for time, and I seek your indulgence to continue my speech at the next opening of parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I thank the member for Swan for considering the convenience of the House. Are you asking for leave to continue?
Mr IRONS: I am asking for leave to continue.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned and resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 18 : 00 to 19 : 30
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hockey.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (19:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Our future depends on what we as a nation do today.
For our families, for our seniors, for individuals, for our disabled and for our frail, for all of us, the government's solemn duty is to build a stronger Australia.
This budget will help build a more prosperous nation.
Every generation before us has contributed to the quality of life that we enjoy today.
Prosperity isn't a matter of luck.
Prosperity is not a gift. It has to be earned.
So now it is our turn to contribute.
Now it is our turn to build.
On the back of five budget deficits in a row we have inherited a further $123 billion of deficits and $667 billion of debt.
This challenge is not of our making, but we, the women and men behind me, accept responsibility to fix it.
Doing nothing is not an option.
Fellow members, the days of borrow and spend must come to an end.
It is time for us, for all of us, to contribute and build.
From this effort, there will be benefits for jobs, for higher education, for health and for those in genuine need.
If we all contribute now, we will truly build a world-class higher education system and a workforce that can meet head on the emerging competition in Asia.
If we all contribute now, we will build a sustainable welfare system that helps the most disadvantaged and supports the most vulnerable.
If we all contribute now, we will build the biggest medical research endowment fund in the world within just six years, a fund that will underpin the health system of the future.
If we all contribute now, we will build a strong defence and security capability, that keeps our nation safe for decades.
And, if we all contribute now, we will build the equivalent of eight Snowy Mountains schemes in new infrastructure over the next decade.
We are a great nation and now is our chance to be even better.
We know that for some in the community this budget will not be easy.
But this budget is not about self-interest. This budget is about the national interest.
The government's Economic Action Strategy is not about undermining a strong social safety net; it is about making it sustainable.
Our Economic Action Strategy is not about weakening government; it is about redefining the role of government in people's lives.
Our Economic Action Strategy is not about cutting government spending; it is about spending less on consumption and more on investment so that we can keep making decent and compassionate choices in the future.
The age of entitlement is over. It has to be replaced, not with an age of austerity, but with an age of opportunity.
This is not the time to talk our country down, but it is the time to face the facts.
We understand that there are people in the community who are doing it tough because the economy is growing at less than its normal speed.
Unemployment is too high with over 700,000 Australians looking for a job.
Without change, the budget would never get to surplus and the debt would never be repaid.
So the time to fix the budget is now.
The time to strengthen the economy is now.
The time for everyone to contribute is now.
I say to the business community we need you to help out.
Rather than corporate welfare, the government's focus will be on strengthening the overall business environment, so that enterprise, large and small, can create more jobs in Australia.
The government will start by abolishing a range of industry assistance programs, saving over $845 million. We will refocus our effort on innovation and self-reliance.
Businesses should stand or fall on their ability to produce the goods and services that people actually want.
To improve business opportunities, we are cutting company tax by 1.5 percentage points for around 800,000 businesses. And we are abolishing the carbon tax and we are abolishing the mining tax.
We are removing $1 billion a year in red tape because regulation means more staff doing paperwork and fewer staff helping customers.
We are also creating new business opportunities and expanding markets for our farmers, miners and service industries in Asia through the new free trade agreements with Korea and Japan.
Tonight we are asking higher income earners to help with the budget repair task.
From 1 July this year and for just three years, we are asking higher income earners to pay a temporary budget repair levy that in effect increases the top marginal tax rate by two percentage points, for people earning more than $180,000 a year.
It is only fair that everyone makes a contribution. This includes members of parliament.
There will be a one-year freeze on MPs and senior public servant salaries. And the gold pass entitlements will be wound back for former and current MPs before the scheme is abolished.
As I said, we all must contribute.
Pensions are a significant source of income for almost four million Australians.
We promised at the last election not to change pensions in this term of government and we won't.
But so that we can make pensions sustainable and affordable for decades to come, from September 2017, increases in pensions will be linked twice a year to inflation.
Currently, an individual with a home and almost $800,000 in assets still qualifies for the age pension; a couple with a home and almost $1.1 million in additional assets also qualify for the age pension.
Asset and associated income test thresholds will be indexed between now and 2017, but then remain at fixed levels for three years.
With these changes, pensions will always increase with the cost of living, and the value of the pension will continue to rise, but the system will be much better placed to meet the challenge of a significant increase in demand as our population ages.
We should celebrate the fact that Australians are living longer, but we must prepare for the adjustments in our society.
Building on the move by the former government to increase the pension age eligibility to 67 by 2023, this government will gradually increase the age of eligibility to 70 by 2035. That is over two decades away.
To ensure more consistent treatment of senior Australians with similar incomes, untaxed superannuation will be included in the income test for new recipients of the Commonwealth seniors health card. And so that we can better target assistance, the annual seniors supplement will be abolished from 1 July this year.
Each year, the government spends more on welfare than we spend on the education of our children, the health of our people or the defence of our nation.
Unlike pensions, which are income replacement payments, family payments are an income supplement to help with some of the costs of raising a family.
Current family assistance rates will be kept at the same level for two years. Thresholds for the private health insurance rebate and most Medicare fees will also be paused.
Surprisingly, around three-quarters of families receiving family assistance receive both part A and part B payments.
The family tax benefit part B income threshold will be reduced to $100,000.
For a typical family receiving the base rate of family tax benefit part A, payments will start to reduce when family income exceeds $94,316 per year.
Families will benefit from the abolition of the carbon tax, saving households, on average, around $550 next year alone. They will also keep all of the associated tax cuts without the carbon tax.
In addition, families will continue to receive the ongoing clean energy supplement to help with power costs.
These changes will build a more sustainable welfare system, with more household income coming from personal effort rather than coming from the government.
We must always remember that when one person receives an entitlement from the government it comes out of the pocket of another Australian.
Since coming to office, we have carefully and methodically looked at all areas of government spending.
The government has decided to reduce the growth in our foreign aid budget to save $7.9 billion over five years.
The government has also decided to abolish over 230 bureaucratic programs.
In addition, we have also methodically reviewed more than 900 government bodies, boards, committees and councils and more than 70 are being abolished to deliver better value for taxpayers.
A smaller, less interfering government won't need as many public servants. 16,500 staff will leave over the next three years without compromising frontline services.
At the moment, duplication and overlap between the Commonwealth and states blur where the buck stops. Over the next eighteen months, we will work with state and territory governments to strengthen the federation and ensure that the overlap between the layers of government is reduced or removed.
I say to the Australian people, to build a workforce for the future, those who can work, should work.
The benefit of work goes far beyond your weekly pay packet.
Work gives people a sense of self, and work helps to build a sense of community.
That is why young people should move into employment before they embark on a life on welfare.
Australians under 30 years of age should be earning or learning.
From next year, unemployed people under 25 will get youth allowance, not Newstart.
People under 30 will wait up to six months before getting unemployment benefits, and then will have to participate in Work for the Dole, to be eligible for income support.
From July this year, the government will also support those learning a trade by providing concessional trade support loans of up to $20,000 over a four-year apprenticeship.
We give young people loans to help them complete a university course, so it is only right that those completing a trade qualification get the same fair go.
As well, people under 35 on the disability support pension, but with some capacity to work, will have engagement plans to help them participate in the workforce.
For those who leave the workforce to have children, we want you to have every opportunity to return to your career. Our Paid Parental Leave Scheme will help keep mothers engaged with the workforce.
This measure will complement the changes to family tax benefit part B, that will no longer be available when a family's youngest child turns six and is at school.
Staying at home should be a parent's choice but there are limits on how much support the taxpayer can give.
For Australians over 50, we also want to give you every opportunity to participate in the workforce. But I know how hard it can be for older Australians to find a job.
There needs to be a change in the culture of many businesses towards older workers.
We will help change that culture by providing a payment of up to $10,000 to a business that employs an Australian over the age of 50 who has been on unemployment benefits or the disability support pension for six months.
Employers can use these funds to assist employees to reskill and play a more active role in the workforce.
Fellow members, we must build an education and training system that becomes the envy of the world.
As a start, and for the first time, the Commonwealth will provide direct financial assistance for all students studying diploma and sub-bachelor degree courses.
This is a watershed.
Along with supporting young people learning a trade, we want to build a country that values all levels of education.
This will deliver the best skills for the task ahead.
Fellow Australians, we should have at least one university in the top 20 in the world, but we do not, and we should have more in the top 100.
The higher education sector is being held back and cannot compete with the best in the world. We need to set our sights higher.
Our changes to higher education will allow universities to set their own tuition fees from 2016. For students already studying, existing arrangements will remain until the end of 2020.
Through these once-in-a-generation reforms, the government will help build a sector that is more diverse, more innovative and more responsive to student needs.
With greater autonomy, universities will be free to compete and improve the quality of the courses they offer.
Some course fees may rise and some may fall. To maintain fair access, students will be eligible for concessional higher education loans.
As is the case at the moment, students will not have to pay a single dollar up-front—not a single dollar. Fees will be repayable when students are in the workforce earning over $50,000 a year.
Importantly, $1 out of every $5 in additional tuition revenue will be used to fund scholarships to those from disadvantaged backgrounds who want to attend university. That is the way we do it—provide help to those most in need.
To build a more prosperous community and a better quality of life we need to build on our strengths.
One of the greatest strengths we have as a nation is our capacity to innovate and invent.
And our medical researchers have led the way, from Howard Florey to Sir Gustav Nossal and from Fiona Stanley to Ian Frazer.
Australians have, through research and innovation, saved millions of lives, not just here but right around the world. Australians make a difference.
Tonight, I announce the government's commitment to build with your contributions, a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund.
This fund will, within six years, be the biggest medical research endowment fund in the world.
Its funding of research will be in addition to existing levels of funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The Medical Research Future Fund will receive all the savings from the introduction of a $7 Medicare co‑contribution, modest changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and other responsible changes in the health budget, until the fund reaches $20 billion.
Health services have never been free to taxpayers so patients are being asked to make a modest contribution towards their cost.
Of course safety nets are important, so we are simplifying the Medicare safety net with lower thresholds for most people, and we have safety net provisions for concessional patients and of course children.
Australians are always prepared to make a reasonable contribution if they know their money is not wasted.
I can think of no more significant benefit from community contributions in health than to invest in cure and discovery research by our people for our people.
From next year, funds will start flowing from the Medical Research Future Fund into new medical research.
As a result, it may be an Australian who discovers better treatments and even cures for dementia, Alzheimer's, heart disease or cancer.
If we start investing now, this new and historic commitment in medical research may well save your life, or that of your parents, or perhaps even the life of your child.
The first duty of a government is to protect our people and strengthen our borders.
The government is committed to building defence spending to two per cent of GDP within a decade and by the middle of next year the government will have a new strategic plan for the defence of our nation.
In the meantime the government has already taken strong and decisive action to restore the integrity of our borders. People smugglers now understand that the door to our nation is closed.
This year not a single people smuggling venture has successfully landed in Australia. This has meant savings of $2.5 billion to the budget, and the closure of nine detention centres.
To better manage services at Australia's borders, immigration and customs operational responsibilities will be consolidated into a single border control agency, to be known as the Australian Border Force.
Everything I have announced tonight helps to build a stronger budget and a stronger economy.
There is no easy way to repair the budget.
We have been at pains to reduce government expenditure without hurting the economy.
Taxpayer spending needs to be reprioritised, where possible, into job-stimulating investment like roads and rail.
We also need to have more stability in taxation policy.
As a result of taxation decisions made since coming to office, decisions designed to boost Australia's economic competitiveness, the government is collecting less taxation than would otherwise have been the case if the previous government had been re-elected.
The changes to the budget I have announced tonight will significantly improve the budget bottom line.
The budget deficit will fall from its current $49.9 billion to $29.8 billion next year. It will then fall to a deficit of $2.8 billion in 2017.
Our decisions have contributed $36 billion towards the improvement in the bottom line.
So I want to emphasise that the budget we announce tonight is the first word and not the last word on budget repair. There is still much work to be done.
Even so, over the next 10 years we will reduce our expected debt by nearly $300 billion from $667 billion to $389 billion. And that is after we prudently have budgeted for future taxation relief.
This significant reduction in debt reduces our interest bill by around $16 billion a year in 10 years time. That is more than the amount of money needed to construct 15 major new teaching hospitals every year.
With a responsible budget we can build more national infrastructure, particularly in partnership with the states and the private sector.
Over the last decade we have been blessed with a mining boom and the highest terms of trade in 140 years.
An amazing 80 per cent of all investment in the recent mining and resources boom has come from new foreign investment in Australia.
As the resources industry moves away from its construction phase into its production phase there is an emerging growth gap in our economy.
Mining and resources represent about 10 per cent of our economy but just two per cent of direct employment. It has, however, unquestionably done much of the heavy lifting over the decade.
So now we need to fire up the rest of the economy.
Tonight, I am announcing a package of measures that will significantly increase investment in infrastructure across Australia.
Over the next six years, the government will help to build new roads, new rail, new ports and airports.
Our growth package will stimulate the construction sector and create thousands of jobs as the economy transitions from resource-led growth to broader based growth.
This new infrastructure will drive and support the next wave of national prosperity.
Our growth package will take the government's total investment to $50 billion by the end of the decade—the largest on record.
The money will drive over $125 billion of spending on new infrastructure right across the continent by the end of the decade.
Over the longer term this is expected to permanently boost the size of the economy by one per cent.
These projects will mean real activity and real jobs in local communities.
Shovels will start moving within a matter of months.
For example, in New South Wales construction on the $11 billion WestConnex project will start within 18 months. This means 10,000 new jobs.
The $18 billion East West Link in Melbourne starts work before Christmas and will create 6,000 new jobs.
And billions of dollars of work will soon start on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing; the Perth freight link; the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania and the north-south corridor project in Adelaide. This will create thousands of new jobs across our nation.
And our $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund, together with $200 million of new Black Spot funding, and $350 million extra for Roads to Recovery will deliver jobs and better roads across regional and rural Australia.
But these projects do more than create construction jobs. They will inject money into communities, lower business costs and reduce congestion.
They will improve—they will lift—living standards right across the country and right across the economy.
And to help pay for this, the government is re-introducing fuel indexation where every dollar raised by the increases will be linked by law to the road-building budget.
This will ensure that there is a stable and growing source of funds to support long-term investment in Australia's roads.
Budget speeches are often about numbers, and appropriately so, but the budget must always be about people.
I say to the Australian people, every dollar we spend in this parliament comes from you.
If we can get on with the job of fixing this budget, then you and your family will benefit.
We will all share in more jobs, greater wealth and greater prosperity.
But unless we fix this budget together, we will leave the next generation with a legacy of debt, not a legacy of opportunity.
As Australians, we must not leave our children worse off.
That is not fair.
That is not our way.
We are a nation of lifters, not leaners.
So tonight, we present you with a budget that delivers a sustainable future for your children, and the generations beyond.
We are a great nation. We are a great people. There is no doubt about that.
By everyone making a contribution now, we will build, together, a better Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Budget Documents 2014-15
Presentation
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:01): For the information of honourable members I present the following documents in connection with the budget of 2014-15:
Budget strategy and outlook,
Budget measures,
Federal Financial Relations, and
Agency resourcing.
Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (20:02): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015,which was introduced earlier, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 are the budget appropriation bills for the 2014-15 financial year.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $8.4 billion.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.
First, the Department of Communications would receive just over $3.2 billion once this bill commences as an act. This is required to provide funding to NBN Co to continue to roll out the National Broadband Network. This is in line with the government's updated Statement of Expectations.
Second, this bill would provide the Department of Defence with just under $2.5 billion in capital funding. This reflects in part the budget measure Defence funding profile,which bringsforward funding from 2017-18 and distributes it over the period 2013-14 to 2016‑17, including $300 million in this bill. This funding will support important capabilities, including in the Approved Major Capital Investment Programme. The remaining $2.2 billion included in this bill provides funding for existing investment commitments.
Third, the bill would provide the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development just over $564 million, reflecting four matters. Those are: to incorporate the government's new Bridges Renewal Programme; the Roads to Recovery programme; funding local councils for non-network road projects; and funding for Latrobe Valley economic diversification.
Fourth, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would be provided with just under $294 million. This reflects a $200 million capital injection to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation as well as $10.3 million in capital expenditure for Australian embassies in Kabul and Baghdad.
The bill would also increase the general drawing rights limit for general purpose financial assistance payments to $5 billion and the general drawing rights limit for national partnership payments to $25 billion. These limits are being increased in prudent anticipation of forward expenditure in priority policy areas such as infrastructure, and will give the Commonwealth capacity to respond to changing circumstances.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (20:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 is to provide funding for the operations of:
the Department of the Senate;
the Department of the House of Representatives;
the Department of Parliamentary Services; and
the Parliamentary Budget Office.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $206 million. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements for the parliamentary departments.
All the appropriations in Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 are for the parliamentary departments. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (20:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, the government introduces the supplementary additional estimates appropriations bills. These bills are:
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014; and
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014.
These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions.
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014 seeks approval for additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $337 million.
I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.
First, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet would receive just over $169 million in funding to enable the department to undertake the functions and activities that were transferred as a result of the machinery of government changes in September and amended in December 2013. The government transferred responsibility for over 150 Indigenous programs and activities to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to enable a consistent approach to Indigenous policy and provide an opportunity to eliminate duplication in these programs. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet now also has responsibility for the offices of Women, Deregulation, and Best Practice Regulation.
Second, this bill would provide the Department of Defence with just over $58 million, reflecting three matters. Those are: supplementation for Operation Southern Indian Ocean; Defence real estate sales, and foreign exchange movements.
On more general matters, this bill reflects the current names of government departments, consistent with the Administrative Arrangements Order of 18 September 2013. For example, the bill proposes appropriations for the Department of Industry, instead of the former Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (20:11): I move:
That this bill be read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014, which I introduced earlier, are the supplementary additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year.
This bill seeks further approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $972 million.
The majority of the amount in the bill relates to the Department of Defence. This bill would provide the department with just over $603 million, reflecting three matters. Those are: expenditure brought forward into 2013-14 from the forward estimates to assist with the purchase of foreign military assets; supplementation for foreign exchange movements; and the re-appropriation of amounts between appropriation acts to better align with Defence's current work programs.
The bill would also provide the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development with just under $295 million for off-network roads projects, where milestones have been reached earlier than anticipated.
Another $40 million relates to amounts for the Department of Agriculture for drought concessional loans under the drought support for farmers package.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:13): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government has introduced a budget that will redirect taxpayers’ dollars from unaffordable consumption today to productive investment for tomorrow. It will do this while supporting the most vulnerable, and taking significant steps toward ensuring that government can live within its means. It will move Australia towards a greater equality of opportunity.
The underlying cash deficit is projected to be $60 billion over the four years to 2017-18, compared to $123 billion over the four years to 2016-17 at the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Instead of the $667 billion of debt by 2023-24, we will now have debt of $389 billion.
This substantial improvement is built off a significant reduction in payments growth. At the 2013-14 Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, average real growth in payments over the four years to 2016-17 was 2.6 per cent. The average over the four years to 2017-18 is now 0.8 per cent.
The 2014-15 budget is the first step in our action plan to return the budget to a more sustainable footing.
We will invest in a stronger economy by redirecting government spending to measures that will boost productivity and workforce participation. This includes the Infrastructure Growth Package, the Asset Recycling Initiative and other new investments in infrastructure—to which we have committed nearly $11.6 billion in this budget. It includes building a new Medical Research Future Fund—the largest of its kind in the world—within the next six years, with a guaranteed stream of support. And in education, we will provide direct financial support to all students studying higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses, as well as those studying bachelor degrees, at all approved higher education institutions.
Through the measures announced in the 2014-15 budget, we are also eliminating waste and targeting government assistance to those who need it most.
This accords with our plan to reduce the government’s share of the economy over time, which in turn will free up resources for private investment. It will see payments as a percentage of GDP fall over time. And it will allow us to pay down public debt. Every generation before us has helped to build the quality of life that we enjoy, and we can do no less for future generations.
We have taken structural reforms to improve the sustainability of the budget in the longer term.
We are making the age pension system more sustainable into the future and targeted to those who need it most with some long-term changes. We are also tightening the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, so that people under the age of 30 are encouraged to earn, or learn or work for the dole.
In the health sphere, we are introducing new patient contributions and increasing medicine co-payments. We are also bringing the excessive growth of public hospitals funding under control while ensuring real funding increases every year.
Alone, these measures are not enough. They will take time to generate the necessary savings over the longer term. That is why we are also introducing a range of temporary savings measures to help with the immediate task of budget repair. We will pause the indexation of certain government payment eligibility thresholds, and will also be keeping the fortnightly payment rates of family tax benefit at current levels for two years.
For the age pension, we are pausing means test thresholds and resetting the deeming thresholds in 2017-18, to ensure our pension system can handle an ageing population. We are asking self-funded retirees to do their bit by ceasing payment of the seniors supplement and including untaxed superannuation in the means test for the Commonwealth seniors health card.
These measures are part of a sensible way forward that balances the need for budget repair with an economic recovery that is still in its early stages—asking those on low and middle incomes to bear the full burden of the consolidation would be unfair and bad for the economy.
All Australians—from households to businesses and the public sector—will contribute to getting the budget back on track.
It is in this context, the context of the immediate task of budget repair, that we are introducing the temporary budget repair levy.
The temporary budget repair levy will start from 1 July 2014, and remain in place until 30 June 2017.
It is progressive and will apply at a rate of two per cent on individuals’ annual personal taxable income above $180,000.
This measure will raise $3.1 billion over the forward estimates period.
It will help to ensure that all Australians—households, businesses and those in the public sector—will contribute to getting the budget back on track.
All of us have to contribute to the heavy lifting required to repair the budget in one form or another, because in the longer term, everyone will benefit from the effort we all put in now.
In the broader scheme of the budget, this is not a large tax increase. It is not a permanent tax increase. And it is not an unprecedented tax increase—governments of both sides have in the past introduced or increased levies as a way of responsibly funding particular public needs. For example, we have had temporary levies in the past to pay for the gun buyback in the late 1990s, and for flood and cyclone reconstruction.
Recently, and also commencing from 1 July 2014, the former government legislated an increase to the Medicare levy to go towards funding DisabilityCare Australia.
The temporary budget repair levy has been designed so that it will not impact directly on the average worker.
In 2014-15, around 400,000 taxpayers—less than four per cent of taxpayers—will directly incur the temporary budget repair levy on their personal taxable income.
This includes members of parliament.
Importantly, the threshold of $180,000 has been chosen so that almost none of the people affected by expenditure cuts to direct assistance, such as pensions and family payments, directly incur the temporary budget repair levy.
It is a simple and reasonable measure that will help to ensure that those on the highest incomes contribute to the budget repair task based on their ability to pay.
Without the temporary budget repair levy, the cost of repairing the budget in the medium term would be borne by low- and middle-income households alone.
The expenditure savings that we have announced in this budget need to be supported by longer term, structural reforms to the tax system. This is the only way to ensure that the government’s call on resources is sustainable.
We are committed to the longer term task of tax reform. We have committed to produce a comprehensive white paper on tax reform which will identify those longer term structural tax reforms that can improve sustainability and reduce the costs to the economy. And we will take any proposals from the white paper to the Australian people.
In the medium term, the temporary budget repair levy is a reasonable and responsible measure that will help to ensure the task of budget repair is shared by all Australians.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014, which is part of a package including fourteen additional supporting bills, will introduce a temporary budget repair levy from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2017.
As I have said, the temporary budget repair levy will apply at a marginal rate of two per cent on individuals’ annual taxable income in excess of $180,000.
In addition to the introduction of the levy itself, the package of supporting bills contains important consequential amendments that will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for taxpayers to avoid the levy during the three years that it is in place.
These consequential amendments will, among other things, amend the rate of fringe benefits tax. Over the same period, we will increase the caps that apply to certain not-for-profit organisations, as well as increasing the fringe benefits rebate rate. This will maintain the cash value of benefits under the cap to employees of those not-for-profit organisations while the higher fringe benefit tax rate is in place.
This package of bills will also make consequential amendments to rates in a number of other acts, to ensure that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
For example, the top marginal tax rate is currently applied as a flat rate to no-tax-file-number withholding, and the taxation of the unearned income of minors, certain trustees and certain non-complying retirement funds. These rates will be increased to reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
In addition, a number of other rates in the tax system are also set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate. These rates are in place to encourage compliance and to limit opportunities for tax minimisation.
These rates will also be amended to reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy. They are rates for family trust distribution tax, income tax (bearer debentures), first-home-saver accounts misuse tax, no-tax-file-number withholding tax for employee share schemes, departing Australia superannuation payments tax, excess non-concessional contributions tax, excess untaxed rollover amounts tax, trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax, interest on non-resident trust distributions, corporate untainting tax, and trust recoupment tax.
I will speak to these consequential amendments when I come to introducing the rest of the bills contained in this package.
For now, I turn to the detail of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014.
Schedule 1 to this bill will amend the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce the temporary budget repair levy on individuals with a personal taxable income exceeding $180,000.
This schedule defines the ‘Temporary Budget Repair Levy years’ as being the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years.
This schedule also sets out the method for determining an individual’s temporary budget repair levy liability.
It clarifies that the amount of temporary budget repair levy that a person must pay cannot be reduced by their eligibility for non-refundable personal income tax offsets, with the exception of the foreign income tax offset.
Schedule 2 to this bill will define the ‘Temporary Budget Repair Levy years’, in relation to the consequential amendments to the fringe benefits tax concessions, as the 2015-16 and 2016-17 FBT years. To minimise the administrative burden on employers, these amendments were aligned with the FBT tax year, which starts on 1 April.
Schedule 2 will further amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to align the fringe benefits rebate rate to the fringe benefits tax rate from 1 April 2015 onward.
Schedule 2 to this bill will further amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to maintain the cash value of benefits under the cap that can be provided to employees of not-for-profit organisations while the higher fringe benefits tax rate is in place. This is done by increasing the annual caps.
Finally, schedule 3 to this bill will amend the Taxation Administration Regulations 1976 to allow the Commissioner of Taxation to increase the highest withholding rate for certain payments, where no TFN or ABN has been quoted, by two percentage points. This will reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy from 1 July 2014.
Together with the other measures announced in our budget, the temporary budget repair levy will begin the task of repairing the fiscal circumstances that we have inherited. Further, it will help to ensure that everybody shares some of the burden of the repair task, and that those on the highest incomes contribute based on their ability to pay.
Without these actions the budget would have been in deficit for at least the next decade—a total of 16 consecutive years of deficits.
This would have left Australia in a vulnerable position, ill-equipped to cope with an ageing population, and increasingly reliant on future generations to pay off our debt. Instead, the totality of measures contained in the budget the Treasurer has announced tonight will reduce the forecast gross debt to $389 billion over the next decade, rather than nearly two-thirds of a trillion dollars in 2023-24 as projected at last Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of the package of measures that will introduce the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill will amend the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to introduce a new schedule of income tax rates and thresholds that will comprise the temporary budget repair levy.
The temporary budget repair levy will be set at a rate of two per cent on individuals’ annual taxable income in excess of $180,000. The temporary budget repair levy will be in place during the ‘Temporary Budget Repair Levy years’, which are the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years.
This bill will also amend certain other income tax rates in the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 that are set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate.
These amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum I have already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Act 1998.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Full details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Act 1971.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Act 2008.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Act 2009.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Act 2007.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:36): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Act 2007.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 is part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Act 2007.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 1) 2007.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that top personal rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 2) 2007 as a result of the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Tax Laws Amendment (Interest on Non-Resident Trust Distributions) (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Interest on Non-resident Trust Distributions) (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Tax Laws Amendment (Untainting Tax) (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:41): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Untainting Tax) (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
Trust Recoupment Tax Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:43): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Trust Recoupment Tax Amendment (Temporary Budget Repair Levy) Bill 2014 forms part of a package of bills that ensures that tax rates set by reference to the top personal marginal tax rate, or by calculations comprising that rate, also reflect the introduction of the temporary budget repair levy.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Trust Recoupment Tax Act 1985.
These consequential amendments will maintain the integrity and fairness of the tax system, and minimise the opportunities for avoiding the levy.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum already tabled.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at 20:44
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes.
Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes.
Mr Nikolic to move:
That this House congratulates the Government for its continuation of Defence reform, specifically in respect of strategic force modernisation, enhanced national security, and regional stability, including:
(1) the acquisition of:
(a) an additional 58 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and
(b) the eight P-8 Maritime Surveillance aircraft and commitment to the Triton Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; and
(2) a commitment to:
(a) enhancing Australia's overall Defence capability, close cooperation, and interoperability with regional partners; and
(b) provide certainty for Defence planning, capability and doctrine development.
Ms Gambaro to move:
That this House:
(1) notes Australia’s condemnation of the group responsible for the abduction of more than 200 school girls from Chibok in Borno State, Nigeria, and deep concern at reports of further abductions in north-eastern Nigeria; and
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the Australian Government has made contact with the Nigerian High Commission in Canberra and the Nigerian Government in Abuja to express concern;
(b) Australia:
(i) is working with Nigeria on counter-terrorism to prevent attacks including the recent bombings that took place in Abuja and these abductions;
(ii) has joined other members of the United Nations Security Council in condemning in the strongest terms the recent attacks committed by Boko Haram; and
(iii) is strongly committed to empowering women and girls socially, politically and economically, by ending violence against women and girls, and improving access to health care and education; and
(c) the Australian Government continues to advise Australians to reconsider their need to travel to Nigeria given the high threat of terrorist attack and kidnapping.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australia Charities and Not-for Profits Commission
(Question No. 41)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 11 February 2014:
(1) Is he aware that it was the Productivity Commission's recommendation to establish an Australian Charities and Not-for Profits Commission (ACNC) to regulate the charity sector and support its effectiveness.
(2) Why does the Government plan to abolish the ACNC.
(3) Has the Government (a) sought, or (b) received, advice on the impact of removing the ACNC on the productivity of charitable organisations; if so, can he disclose the advice.
(4) Would the Government consider providing assistance to the charity sector in order to offset the loss of productivity that will result from the abolition of the ACNC; if not, why not.
Mr Andrews: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The 2010 Productivity Commission ' s research report Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector did not recommend the establishment of the ACNC to regulate the charity sector and support its effectiveness.
Instead, Recommendation 6.5 of the report states:
The Australian Government should establish a one-stop-shop for Commonwealth regulation by consolidating various regulatory functions into a new national Registrar for Community and Charitable Purpose Organisations. While ultimately the Registrar could be an independent statutory body, initially it should be established as a statutory body corporate or organ in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
(2) The role of charities and not-for-profit (NFP) organisations in our society is important and the Australian Government believes that supporting the sector ' s ability to self-manage allows organisations to focus more on their work in the community.
The Government is implementing a broad deregulation agenda to boost productivity by removing any excessive, unnecessary and overly complex red and green tape imposed on business, community organisations and individuals by at least $1 billion a year.
As part of this, the Government has committed to remove the ACNC and provide further support to charities and the NFP sector through a new National Centre for Excellence (NCE). The NCE will foster innovation, provide education and represent the interest of charities and NFP agencies to government.
(3) (a) and (b) I have, and will continue to seek advice on the impact of removing the ACNC. The outcome of this advice is a decision for Government.
(4) The department is working across government to ensure transition arrangements with the abolition of the ACNC run smoothly. I will continue to seek advice on the impact of removing the ACNC and the outcomes of this advice is a decision for Government.
Environment: Kings Forest Residential Development
(Question No. 52)
Mrs Elliot asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 12 February 2014:
Given that the most recent estimates of the koala population on the Tweed Coast are no more than 150; (a) when considering the Kings Forest development in the Tweed Shire pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 guidelines, will he commit to taking into account: (i) the cumulative adverse effects on koala habitats from multiple clearing proposal; and (ii) that the 150 koalas living on the Tweed Coast are an important population of koalas. (b) will he consider a dog ban in the Kings Forest housing development to protect the largest Koala colony in the Tweed.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in making a decision on whether to approve the Kings Forest Residential Development, I must consider all matters relevant to threatened species and ecological communities. The koala is one of the threatened species being considered under this controlling provision.
(b) In making the decision on whether to approve the Kings Forest Residential Development, and in determining conditions attached to such an approval, the potential impacts to threatened species and ecological communities as a result of the proposed development, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, will be considered.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 54)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 13 February 2014:
Further to his answer to question in writing No. 12 (House Hansard , 11 February 2014, page 97), (a) what was the (i) date, and (ii) destination, of the voyage, and (iii) extent of the overloading, (b) who was the exporter, (c) how many animals and of what type were involved, (d) was the overloading associated with the exporter making a false statement to his department concerning the number of animals to be loaded, (e) was the number of animals exported greater than the number of animals authorised to be exported by the export permit; if so, what action was taken against the exporter for making a false declaration and exporting animals without authorisation; and (f) what was the additional condition imposed on the approvals for the exporter.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Further information relating to a relevant incident that included overloading of a livestock vessel and the application of additional conditions to an exporters licence can be found on the departments website: 'Consignment 24'investigation report at www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-mortalities
Education
(Question No. 55)
Ms MacTiernan asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 13 February 2014:
Further to his answer to question in writing No. 2 (House Hansard, 9 December 2013, page 2124), (a) can he explain how 'proficient' standards would be different to current NAPLAN standards, and (b) who makes up the advisory, reference and working groups, and on what basis have they been selected.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) How would 'proficient' standards be different to current NAPLAN standards?
For NAPLAN, the 'national minimum standards' represent minimum performance in literacy and numeracy for a given year level, below which students will have difficulty progressing satisfactorily at school.
Within the National Assessment Program, proficient standards are not the same as national minimum standards because the latter refers to the basic level needed to function at that year level whereas the proficient standard refers to what is expected of a student at that year level. Proficient standards represent a reasonably challenging level of performance with students needing to demonstrate more than minimal or basic skills to be regarded as reaching it.
The identification of 'proficient' NAPLAN standards, in addition to 'minimum' standards will strengthen the focus on reporting student achievement across multiple levels.
(b) Who makes up the advisory, reference and working groups, and on what basis have they been selected?
ACARA's advisory, reference and working groups comprise State and Territory and Australian Government representatives, school sector representatives, measurement experts, and representatives from other organisations as required. Depending on the nature of the group, members may be selected in the following ways:
direct request from ACARA based on specific expertise
nomination by Commonwealth, state and territory government and non-government stakeholders
An overview of ACARA's working and advisory groups can be found at:
http://www.acara.edu.au/about_us/about_us.html
Infrastructure and Regional Development
(Question No. 57)
Ms MacTiernan asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 13 February 2014:
(1) Has any Minister from the Western Australian Government approached him requesting funding for the Perth Airport Rail Link or the Perth Light Rail Project?
(2) Is he prepared to allow Infrastructure Australia to undertake the cost-benefit analysis of these projects, which have been lodged by Western Australia, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's opposition to funding urban rail?
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) No.
(2) The Perth Airport Rail Link and the Perth Light Rail projects are currently listed as 'early stage' on Infrastructure Australia's National Infrastructure Priority List following their submission in 2012-13. Based on Infrastructure Australia's criteria, a cost benefit analysis is not required for submissions listed as 'early stage'. The Perth Light Rail Project has been deferred by the Western Australian Government, however, should the Western Australian Government submit a 'Threshold' business case for either project, Infrastructure Australia will evaluate the cost benefit analysis submitted.
Antarctica: Mining
(Question No. 58)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 24 February 2014:
(1) What steps is the Government taking to honour its commitment to protect the Antarctic from mining.
(2) Will the Government make a positive recommendation for World Heritage listing nomination of Antarctica in the report on the development of a 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan; if no recommendation will be made, will the Government ensure that either it is included in the final strategic plan or is dealt with as a distinct separate matter of policy.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) All nations active in Antarctica are party to the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Australia is one of the leading proponents of environmental protection under this system. Under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty there is an unambiguous and indefinite ban on mining throughout the Antarctic Treaty area, which comprises the entire area south of 60 degrees South. It says "Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited". Consistent with the position held by successive Australian Governments, the Government advances Australia's Antarctic interests, including the protection of Antarctica from mining, by actively engaging in the institutions and forums of the Antarctic Treaty system.
(2) I have requested that issues relating to the question of World Heritage listing of Antarctica be considered in the development of the 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan. The Government will consider the Plan when its author, Dr Tony Press, reports on it in July 2014.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 63)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014:
(1) Are all holders of live export licences from his department required to comply with the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System.
(2) Does Livestock Shipping Services (LSS) currently hold a licence from his department for live export; if so, how many export permits has LSS been granted under this licence to export sheep to countries in the Middle East.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Holders of live-stock export licences are required to meet Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System requirements when exporting feeder and slaughter livestock.
(2) Yes. Information about consignments exported by LSS is publicly available in the Livestock Mortality reports to Parliament (http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/export-trade/mortalities).
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 64)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014.
(1) Was Livestock Shipping Services (LSS) granted an export permit to export sheep on BadenIII in September 2013.
(2) What temperatures were animals on BadenIII subjected to during this journey, and did these temperatures comply with the standards required by the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS).
(3) Did the animals suffer from heat stress during this journey.
(4) What was the mortality rate for the animals on this trip, and did this rate comply with ESCAS standards.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Information about the consignment in question is publicly available in the report into a reportable mortality event on the Bader III
(http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-mortalities/report-46).
(2) See answer to question 1 above. There are no ESCAS requirements that relate to the temperatures on board livestock vessels.
(3) See answer to question 1 above.
(4) See answer to question 1 above. There are no reportable mortality rates for livestock export voyages in ESCAS standards. Reportable mortality rates for livestock export voyages are contained in the Australian standards for the export of livestock. Exporters are required to report to the department when deaths during an export journey exceed the relevant reportable mortality rate.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 65)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014.
(1) When did his department become aware of allegations that Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) standards were breached on the BadenIII in September 2013.
(2) Has his department undertaken an investigation into why these ESCAS standards were allegedly breached; if so, have the results of the investigation been released.
(3) Is his department aware of other allegations of breaches of ESCAS standards on live exports ships sailing under the export licence held by Livestock Shipping Services (LSS).
(4) Was LSS investigated for alleged breaches of ESCAS standards occurring in:
(a) June 2013
(b) October 2013
(c) November 2013
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Information about the reportable mortalities on the Bader III in September 2013 is publicly available at http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-mortalities/report-46.
(2) See answer to question 1.
(3) No.
(4) (a) Yes. The completed report is publicly available at www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-regulatory-compliance/jordan-june-2013.
(b) Yes. The investigation is in progress.
(c) Yes. The investigation is in progress.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 66)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014:
(1) Did Livestock Shipping Services (LSS) intend to export sheep on the Dareen in December 2013.
(2) Was 29 December the date of departure for this export, and did this departure occur from Fremantle, Western Australia.
(3) Was the temperature in Fremantle on that day 43°C; if so, was his department aware that this extreme heat could cause increased rates of livestock mortality, as it did on the BadenIII in September 2013.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) No. The department received a notice of intention to export cattle on the Dareen departing in December 2013.
(2) The ship sailed from Fremantle on 28 December 2013.
(3) Weather information and data is publicly available on the Bureau of Meteorology website (http://www.bom.gov.au/)
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 67)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014:
(1) Did a department official visit the Dareen on 29 December 2013 to determine whether an export permit should be granted to Livestock Shipping Services (LSS).
(2) Was an export permit granted; if so, on what grounds, and was the following first considered:
(a) the extreme temperatures
(b) the increased risk of livestock mortality
(c) potential breaches of Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) guidelines
(d) LSS's history of alleged breaches of ESCAS conditions.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) No.
(2) No.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 68)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014:
(1) Has Livestock Shipping Services (LSS) applied for any further export permits since 1 January 2014; if so, how many have been granted.
(2) Does his department have the power to;
(a) suspend export permits or export licences while investigations into breaches of Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) provisions are being undertaken
(b) suspend or cancel export permits or export licences as a result of proven breaches of ESCAS conditions.
(3) Why has his department issued LSS with new export permits given its;
(a) history
(b) ongoing investigations into its activities, and in respect of part b;
(i) have any additional licence conditions been imposed on LSS, and
(ii) has LSS been subject to any additional oversight or compliance monitoring from his department.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Yes. The department has issued export permits for five consignments of livestock.
(2) Information about powers available to the department is publicly available on the departments website - www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/non-compliance and www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/compliance-measures-sanctions-livestock-exports.
(3) Under the legislation, the department is required to consider all applications to export livestock submitted by licensed exporters. This includes considering details of the proposed consignment, the ESCAS arrangements, the
Question: 68 (continued)
exporter's performance history and other relevant information such as actions taken by the exporter to address previous non-compliance and subsequent performance of the supply chain. Applications are not approved unless the department is satisfied that the ESCAS arrangements meet the requirements for approval and the department may approve applications subject to additional conditions.
(b) (i) Yes.
(b) (ii) Yes.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 69)
Mr Watts asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 February 2014:
(1) When examining whether to issue export permits, have his department officials been given any additional instructions to consider for exporters that are under investigation; if so, have these instructions been followed in respect of Livestock Shipping Services (LSS).
(2) Has his department taken any action in respect of LSS's current export activities that reflect its status as an exporter currently under investigation.
(3) How many letters, emails or phone calls has he received from Australian voters since the last election regarding live exports, and what proportion of this correspondence concern the conduct of LSS.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) No. See answer to QoN 68, No 3.
(2) Yes.
(3) To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(Question No. 70)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 25 February 2014:
In respect of the employment freeze on public service recruitment, how will the Civil Aviation Safety Authority oversee implementation of Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I am advised that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will continue to undertake external recruitment activity to fill vacant critical and high priority roles which require aviation expertise. The implementation of Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 is a high priority for CASA and will be resourced on that basis.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 74)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 17 March 2014:
(1) How many days were originally estimated for the voyage of Wellard's livestock carrier MV Ocean Drover from Fremantle, Western Australia, to Aqaba, Jordan, in January 2014.
(2) Did MV Ocean Drover have the required additional seven day's worth of food on board at the time of departure; if so, why were extra rations loaded on board at Djibouti; if not, why not.
(3) Was the high mortality rate of livestock on board MV Ocean Drover prior to extra rations being loaded at Djibouti because of (a) insufficient food, or (b) mechanical failures that impacted on the animals (ie, poor ventilation); if neither (a) nor (b), what was the reason.
(4) In respect of the change in ration at Djibouti resulting in Ruminal Acidosis in both cattle and sheep on board MV Ocean Drover , did the ration conform to Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock version 2.3 namely;
(a) acid detergent fibre as a percentage of dry matter of 18-35 per cent for sheep, and
(b) at least 1 per cent of the required feed as chaff and/or hay for cattle exported from an Australian port south of latitude 26 degrees south.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Department of Agriculture is investigating the above consignment. Once the investigation is complete a report will be made public on the department website at www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/ compliance-investigations/investigations-mortalities
Automotive industry
(Question No. 75)
Mr Zappia asked the Minister for Industry, in writing, on 17 March 2014:
In respect of the Government's announcement on 18 December 2013 that $60 million of assistance would be provided to the car industry, (a) have guidelines been established for accessing the funds; if so, will he provide them, (b) have any applications for assistance from the fund been received; if so, by whom, and (c) have any applications been approved; if so, (i) from whom, and (ii) for what sum of funding.
Mr Ian Macfarlane: The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows:
(a) As at 31 March 2014, the guidelines and administration of the growth fund are currently under development.
(b) No.
(c) No.
Urban Policy Forum
(Question No. 85)
Mr Giles asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in writing, on 18 March 2014:
Has he had any interaction with members of the Urban Policy Forum since the federal election in September 2013; if so, what was the nature of this interaction?
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I have not interacted with any member of the Urban Policy Forum in their capacity as a member since September 2013.
Youth Unemployment
(Question No. 89)
Mr Perrett asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 19 March 2014:
(1) How does the Government plan to tackle the extreme levels of youth unemployment for the people in the electoral division of Moreton where figures for the Brisbane south region, according to Brotherhood of St Laurence, currently stand at 14.9 per cent.
(2) As reminded by me in a letter to the Minister dated 27 September 2013, when will the Government uphold its election promise made on 29 August 2013 to conduct a jobs summit in the electoral division of Moreton within 100 days of being elected.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Government agrees that after five years of Labor at a federal level that people in the Moreton electorate are suffering higher levels of unemployment and finding it more difficult to make ends meet.
The best thing that the Coalition Government can do to create jobs in Moreton is to abolish the job-destroying Carbon Tax and Mining Tax and to build a stronger and more prosperous economy.
It is disappointing that the Member for Moreton voted against these job creating measures when given the opportunity in the Parliament.
I was strongly supportive of the Liberal National Party candidate for Moreton, Malcolm Cole's, plan for local jobs including hosting a jobs forum. If the honourable Member would like to demonstrate the same level of proactivity, he is very welcome to host a jobs forum as Mr Cole intended.
Shortland Electorate: Pensions
(Question No. 90)
Ms Hall asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 20 March 2014.
As at 20 March 2014, how many families in the electoral division of Shortland received the War Widow(er)'s Pension and Orphan's Pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.
Mr Robert: The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question:
As at 3 January 2014 (last update of electorate data), there were 676 War Widow pensioners and 4 Orphan pensioners residing in the electorate of Shortland, New South Wales.
Further DVA client information for Shortland is available in the Electorate Reports which DVA publishes each quarter:
http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/Statistics/Documents/Electorates_Dec2013.pdf
Shortland Electorate: Schoolkids Bonus
(Question No. 91)
Ms Hall asked the Minister for Social Services, writing, on 20 March 2014:
As at 20 March 2014, how many families in the electoral division of Shortland received the Schoolkids Bonus, and of these, how many payments were made for: (a) secondary school students; and (b) primary school students.
Mr Andrews: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
As at 31 January 2014, there were 7,239 families in the electoral division of Shortland who had received the January instalment of the Schoolkids Bonus for:
(a) 7,232 primary school students; and
(b) 5,438 secondary school students.
Note: 31 January 2014 is the latest available data for Schoolkids Bonus.
Australian Trucking Association
(Question No. 93)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 25 March 2014:
Has the Minister met with the Australian Trucking Association and/or Mr Stuart St Clair; if so, on (a) how many occasions, and (b) what dates
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
I do not disclose with whom I have or have not met.
Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal
(Question No. 94)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 25 March 2014:
In respect of the current review of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (RSRT), (a) what is its estimated cost, including specifically, any estimate of money likely to be paid to Jaguar Consulting or Mr Rex Deighton-Smith, and details of any expenses, wages or other remuneration already paid, and (b) is the review of the RSRT expected to be handed down on 31 March 2014; if not, when will it be handed down.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) The estimated cost to be paid to Mr Rex Deighton-Smith of Jaguar Consulting is $44,550 (including GST).
A Deed of Variation to the contract with Mr Deighton-Smith was executed on 14 March 2014. Under the Deed of Variation the Review will now be provided to the Government by 11 April 2014.
As at 7 April 2014, no money had been paid to Mr Deighton-Smith.
(b) The reviewer sought a two week extension to the initial reporting date. The report was provided to Government within that timeframe.
Employment
(Question No. 95)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 25 March 2014:
What analysis has the Minister's department provided on the likely impact on employment that the removal of the foreign ownership restriction would have on the Australian aviation industry.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question:
The Department of Employment has not undertaken any analysis of the possible employment implications that may arise from the removal of foreign ownership restrictions in the Australian aviation industry.
Fair Work Act Review Panel
(Question No. 96)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 25 March 2014:
(1) In respect of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 (the Bill), is the Minister aware of the perception that without key protections recommended by the Fair Work Act Review Panel (the Panel), Individual Flexibility Agreements could be used to reduce penalty rates across the country.
(2) Can the Minister explain why a low-paid non-English-speaking cleaner working a night shift on the award safety net, should have less access to union support than a nurse, a construction worker, or an academic covered by a collective agreement.
(3) Is it a fact that the Panel
(a) recommended that the text of the Bill be clarified to ensure that 'non-monetary' trade-off only occurs when the income lost is 'relatively insignificant' and the non-monetary benefit is 'proportionate', and
(b) suggested that a written record be required which contains an estimate of the monetary benefits foregone, and why have these two employee protections been removed as a consequence of the Bill.
(4) Is the Minister aware of polling by Essential Research indicating that 80 per cent of Australians believe that people who work nights and weekends should be paid more.
(5) Did the Panel (a) specifically reject the idea that people on the Award safety net should have lesser access to union information and support, and (b) reject the idea that employee 'invitations' must be issued before unions can provide information and support, and why does the Bill implement these rejected proposals.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 (the Bill) implements the very clear election commitments outlined in the Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws.
The Bill does not in any way change the existing situation with regards to penalty rates from Labor's regime. To suggest otherwise is completely incorrect. There will be no "Individual Flexibility Agreements". They are Individual Flexibility Arrangements (IFAs) to which the employee must agree and be better off overall. Labor's approach on IFAs is outlined in the Fair Work Bill's 2008 Explanatory Memorandum.
As well as keeping the current safeguards as introduced by the then Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, the Bill provides an additional protection to ensure that an individual flexibility arrangement (IFA) includes a genuine needs statement setting out why the employee believes that the arrangement meets their genuine needs and leaves them better off overall than they would have been if no IFA was in place.
To be clear, an IFA can only be entered into if:
the employee is left better off overall than they otherwise would have been on their underpinning employment instrument;
an IFA cannot be a condition of employment;
an employer cannot force an employee to sign an IFA; and
an IFA must include a statement which sets out in writing why the employee believes the IFA meets their genuine needs and how they consider themselves better off overall.
If an IFA is found to be deficient, it can be terminated with 28 days' notice from either party and the employee falls back onto their underpinning instrument – be it, the modern award or enterprise agreement.
As to "perceptions", reference is made to what Labor promised in its 2007 election policy and for which the member campaigned and voted:
" Under Labor ' s new system, awards will provide the parameters within which flexibility arrangements can be made under an award flexibility clause. This may include matters such as:
rostering and hours of work;
all up rates of pay;
provisions that certain award conditions may not apply where an employee is paid above a fixed percentage as set out in the award; and
an arrangement to allow the employee to start and finish work early to allow them to collect their children from school without the employer paying additional penalty rates for the early start . " (emphasis added)
(ALP "Forward with Fairness Policy Implementation Plan", August 2007, page 11)
(2) The question relating to the cleaner in the hypothetical example provides no context and therefore cannot be answered.
(3) Yes, the recommendations of the Panel as set out in the question are correct. The Labor government did not take up these recommendations, so to suggest that this Bill 'removes' them is incorrect. The Bill strengthens protections for employees on the issue of IFAs by requiring an IFA to include a written 'genuine needs statement' setting out why the employee believes the arrangement meets their genuine needs and results in the employee being better off overall. All existing protections for employees remain in place and unchanged. All this was clearly set out in the Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws released 5 months before the last election.
(4) Yes, I am aware of the Essential Research polling commissioned by the ACTU in 2013.
(5) The 2012 Fair Work Act Review Panel did not deal with the issues raised at (a) or (b) of the question in any detailed manner or make specific recommendations for or against such proposals.
The Review Panel did however, note at page 189 of its report that the previous Labor Government undertook to 'maintain the existing right of entry rules' that existed previously when introducing the Fair Work regime.
The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 implements not only the Government's right of entry election commitments, but also the commitments made by the Australian Labor Party ahead of the 2007 election in Forward with Fairness, which include modelling right of entry rules on the arrangements in place prior to the commencement of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Department of Employment
(Question No. 97)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 27 March 2014:
In respect of a recent media report 'Coalition urged department to 'massage' jobs data' by David Crowe (The Australian, 24 March 2014) claiming the Department of Employment was asked by his office to 'massage' upwards employment figures, and as a result, applied a higher growth rate to projections, (a) can the Minister confirm the accuracy of this report, (b) will the Minister now publicly release all documents between his office and the departmental officials on this matter, and (c) what is the Government's plan for quality, high-wage jobs for Australians.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question:
(a) Allegations made in The Australian on 24 March 2014 by David Crowe that the Government sought to "massage" employment figures are false. At no stage did staff in my office request that figures be "scaled up", replaced with alternative figures, or "massaged". The Department of Employment has confirmed that the allegations made to The Australian are not correct: www.employment.gov.au/news/departmental-statement.
(b) The Government has received two requests for access to the documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). These requests are now being considered according to standard guidelines.
(c) The Coalition's Policy to Create Jobs by Boosting Productivity sets out the Government's plan to drive investment, job creation, higher real wage growth and better standards of living for all Australians. The policy prioritises 17 initiatives, including abolishing unnecessary taxes (like the carbon and mining taxes), cutting the cost of red tape by $1 billion a year, encouraging more workforce participation, delivering the economic infrastructure our nation needs, and introducing a genuine paid parental leave scheme. The Government believes these policy initiatives will result in a stronger economy capable of delivering higher real wage growth and job creation.